I keep reading on here the repeated thought about a right to vote - and comparing it to our right to bear arms, etc.
Sorry, but there is no right to vote.
If there were, then why would the democrats be trying to amend the constitution to require it?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... isconsin-/
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28 ... t-to-vote/
In fact, though the Constitution offers some relatively detailed instructions on voting for president through the Electoral College, the document has far less to say about the right of Americans to cast a ballot in their own democracy. There are amendments extending voting rights to freed slaves, women, and 18-year-olds, and poll taxes are prohibited, but there’s no additional clarity in the text about Americans’ franchise.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... nstitution
Last week, a Missouri judge reminded the state Legislature that citizens of the state have a right to vote. And because it is a right, not a privilege granted by the powerful, Missourians can cast their ballots this November without having to meet identification requirements that seemed designed to make it harder for certain people — the poor, the elderly, minorities and women — to exercise that right.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that this right comes from the Missouri state Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote, and our federal courts currently read the document not to include it.
The Missouri case should spark some national discussion about why it is that our country, almost alone among advanced democratic nations, does not find this right worth including in its Constitution. It should also inspire closer scrutiny of a kind of a electoral gamesmanship that is going on around the country, as Republicans seek to exploit this gap in our democratic guarantees.
http://www.salon.com/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/
The Bush v. Gore majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876.
The very fact that a state could completely deny its citizens a chance to vote in presidential races underscores the range of other ways our right to vote can be diluted and weakened by federal, state, and local laws without recourse.
http://www.fairvote.org/the-constitutio ... ears-later
In light of the recent election, I thought I would write a quick quiz for all you lawyer-types out there: Which constitutional amendment guarantees American citizens the right to vote? Don’t look ahead, just guess. If you said any number at all, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. In fact, there is no clause in the Constitution granting the right to vote. As with driving a car or staying up late on school nights, voting in the United States is a privilege, not a right. If you don’t believe me, look it up. Americans have the right to own a gun, but they do not possess the right to vote. This isn’t good; there needs to be a new constitutional amendment that explicitly enfranchises citizens.
But, you might argue, what about the 15th Amendment, giving people of all races the right to vote? Or the 26th Amendment, granting 18-year-olds the right to go to the polls? Well, the actual texts of each amendment do not give anyone the right to vote, but instead are non-discrimination clauses: They state that the right to vote “shall not be abridged or denied” on account of gender, age, race or previous condition of servitude.
Only states can grant citizens the privilege of voting. Of course, it’s easy to call me fussy for differentiating between having a right and not being denied a right. The Supreme Court, however, would disagree. Justice Antonin Scalia, in Bush v. Gore, continuously reminded lawyers that there is no explicit right to vote in the United States Constitution. The majority opinion agreed: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 [2000]).
According to federal law, citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest. Most recently, in the 2004 election, an anonymous Minnesota elector voted for John Edwards, though most Minnesota voters cast their ballots for John Kerry, and Edwards wasn’t even running. Such “faithless” electors are not uncommon. Over the past two centuries, 156 electors have chosen not to vote for their party’s designated candidate. (To be fair, 71 of them changed their votes after the original candidate had died.) It is implausible, yet possible, that a future faithless elector will determine an election.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/11/1 ... t-to-vote/