heisel.org

Anonymous March 26th, 2007 | Link to this comment |

I am no Con­sti­tu­tional scholar either. How­ever, your inter­pre­ta­tion of the above men­tioned amend­ments is incor­rect. At least inso­far as it per­tains to Pres­i­den­tial elec­tions. The Con­sti­tu­tion itself does not guar­an­tee a “right to vote.” This deci­sion is left up to the indi­vid­ual states. What these Amend­ments do is to pro­vide para­me­ters to the states by which they may not limit the voting fran­chise IF that state does decide to pro­vide a right to vote in its state constitution.

Michael Dorf, a law pro­fes­sor at Colum­bia Law, sum­ma­rizes this well in a column enti­tled “WE NEED A CON­STI­TU­TIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN PRES­I­DEN­TIAL ELECTIONS:”

“A close read­ing of the deci­sion in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Can­vass­ing Board, reveals a clear con­sen­sus for what will strike many Amer­i­cans as an out­ra­geous propo­si­tion: there is no con­sti­tu­tional right to vote in a Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. The fact that the state in which you reside even per­mits you to vote for elec­tors is purely a matter of leg­isla­tive grace. That needs to change. The Con­sti­tu­tion should be amended to ensure that voting in Pres­i­den­tial elec­tions is a matter of right…”

http://​writ.​news.​find​law.​com/​d​o​r​f​/​2​0​0​0​1​2​1​3​.html