If we can get 'penumbras' that create a privacy that protects things like birth control, abortion, and sodomy, I think we can get a penumbra to give a more rigorous protection for voting out of the 4 amendments that already provide protections for the right to vote. This is just an issue of getting the right Justices up in the court which is significantly easier to do than to change the US Constitution.

Amendment XV

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIV

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVI

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Jamie Raskin was not elected to the Maryland State Senate last week. He was nominated by the Democratic Party voters in their primary election to run for the position in the November election. The fact that the Republicans are not running a credable candidate, and in his part of Maryland nomination usually means election does not put him in the Senate yet. He will have to wait until after the November General Election.

If this were presented as a High School paper I'd fail it for lack of research.

Your main point is irrelevent, because you have a Constitutional right to vote, it's even supported by Court Cases.

What you don't have is the specific right to vote for Electors. That's because in this case the Constitution specfically grants to States the ability to chose how the Electors are chosen. The State can have a vote, a lottery, have their Governor pick, it doesn't matter.

In all cases outside Presidential elections you have a Constitutional right to vote for Federal offices and have for a hundred years. Voting for the Senate used to not be a Constitutional right.

Xanthro, thanks for all the research. quite helpful. And in fact those "penumbras" are pretty questionable, one could even say "shady"

Exu, you cite amendments that protect against particular limitations. It suggests that this has, historically, been an ongoing battle, with the anti-voting forces finding various ways to limit voting and the pro-voting people getting around to stopping them through the difficult process of Constitutional Amendment (ok, age and gender don't fit that model, but the point is still there.)

This is hardcore GOP strategy, and it is important that it be confronted if we want to continue to claim to be a democracy. I believe the Hugo Chavez said something today about America being a "democracy of elites" which is what the neo-cons need and want.

Are the readers this poorly versed in Contitutional history that they lack even basic knowledge that should have been mastered in High School civics?

"Xanthro, thanks for all the research. quite helpful. And in fact those 'penumbras' are pretty questionable, one could even say 'shady'"

If we skipped civics perhaps we should at least learn to Google.

Article 1 Section II

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

Article 2 Section I

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

So, yes you have the Constitutional Right to vote for Representatives, but you do not for President. The State legislature can chose how the Electors are selected.

Law upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Reese.

The reason why amendments address the issue of voting is because the Constitutional right to vote has been expanded, from only white males, to all males, to all adults, to all persons 18 or older.

I am a big proponent of voter rights. Like many, I am alarmed when I hear stories of voter intimidation or unverifiable voting machine results. But is requiring an ID card really that big of a deal? Isn't the benefit of ensuring that everyone only gets to vote once and that noone can usurp my vote before I get there worth the hassle of getting an ID card? How difficult is it to get an ID card? How difficult would it be to start an education initiative to make sure that everyone gets this done in time? This just seems like ideological hairsplitting that gives pundits something to argue about instead of concentrating on the practical problem at hand, how to ensure that every citizen gets an ID card in time to vote.

1) yes you do have a constitutional right to vote, however the constitutional is silent on the qualifications necessary to vote. This means that a state CAN'T say that you can't vote, but they CAN say that you need to fill these 15 forms out and get three doctors to verify that you have a heart rate greater than 45. i know, it sounds ridiculous, but nothing in the constitution prevents it.

2) the ID requirement sounds minor, but the fact that it primarily effects a specific type of person makes it a big deal. Ask yourself who is unlikely to have IDs. the poor (if you can't afford a car, why do you need a driver's license?) and the disadvantaged (if you're working 2 jobs to single-handedly support your 3 kids, how are you going to find time to get an ID?). It is easy for middle class people to go to their safe/lockbox, get their birth certificate/SS card and drive down to the nearest DMV and get an ID. However, it is unlikely that a 19 year old whose mother sold off everything to support a crack addiction could even find her birth certificate, if it even still exists. This just adds another hurdle that she must overcome and makes it even less likely that she will actually vote. yet, she has the right to vote just as much as that middle class person does. Adding more and more requirements to vote, just means less and less disadvantaged people will vote.

the fact that republicans are championing this cause is mainly because the people who are most likely not to vote as a result of additional requirements are also most likely to vote democrat and in tightly contested races even a single vote can make a difference. don't get me wrong, if the tables were turned and the primary beneficiaries were democrats, i'm pretty sure they would be doing everything they could to prevent people from voting. and i'll be just as unhappy about it.

the citizenship checks and whatnot that provides the "basis" of the republican arguments can be just as easily done by the election committee without hassling the prospective voter. and a little post voting error checking can weed out most of what little fruad actually occurs.

to the person that suggested an education campaign would prevent all this: such an educational campaign is highly unlikely to get done. unless a strict, well-thought out campaign is written into the legislation (which it isn't) it won't get done for two reasons: money (the "official" reason) and becuase the election committee doesn't want these people to vote (the most like "true" reason). even then an educational campaign won't solve the time problem and I can't possible imagine the state going door to door to hand out IDs. the amount of time, people, money, and equipment that would require is just too great.