Dear Mr. Vice President;
Congratulations on your recent speech in Detroit to the Netroots Nation where you forcefully and effectively argued for equality and equal protection under the law for women and the LGBT community. I share your values and commitment. I write to you today in regard to equality and equal protection under the law with respect to voting and voting rights!
The Senate has tried to move forward on a legislative “fix” after the damage done by Shelby in declaring the preclearance triggering formula of Section 4 in the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. The House has not moved forward on similar legislation and, from my perspective, it appears unlikely to do so in the 113th Congress. There are small numbers of co-sponsors on this legislation in both Houses. Even if Congress passes a bill, inevitably it will be a compromise and, therefore, the 1965 Voting Rights Act will clearly be weaker and less effective than before Shelby. I would rather have a compromised and weak fix than no fix, but legally I know what I would have.
This conservative activist Supreme Court has also set us back in other critical areas of voting. Citizens United and McCutcheon have also done tremendous damage. I noticed that there are fully 43 Democratic Senate co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 19, a constitutional amendment to correct the damage done by these two decisions. The parallel legislation in the House (H.J. Res. 20) has a disappointing 36 co-sponsors. While I fully support this legislation as necessary and positive, it only directly affects politicians, political parties and those who contribute large sums of money to campaigns – which is not the average voter. The voters will only be indirectly and eventually affected by this amendment because of who could get elected, what their agenda is likely to be, and the policies and programs they would surely pass into law or undo. It’s an important amendment, which I support, but one that doesn’t have the broadest possible political appeal.
On the other hand, there are only 21 Democratic House co-sponsors of H.J. Res. 44 (and not even a bill in the Senate), for an amendment that would add an explicit fundamental individual right to vote to the Constitution that would directly affect every American voter and have a much broader political appeal, especially in light of Republican efforts at voter obstruction and suppression.
Contrasting the two amendments, it does not look good that members of Congress, the Democratic Party generally and the DNC specifically seem more concerned and responsive to an amendment that affects their money and their campaigns than they are for legislation that affects democracy and individual American voters.
Because most people that we know vote – or could vote – in virtually every election, and because they have been brought up to believe in voting in our representative democracy, they think or assume that the fundamental individual right to vote is already in the U.S. Constitution - but it’s not. In that regard, please consider the following four arguments:
(1) The American people do have a right to vote, but it’s a state right, not a citizenship or American right. We have a “states’ rights” and “local control” voting system comprised of 50 states (plus DC), 3,143 counties and 13,000 election jurisdictions that administer 186,000 precincts - all “separate and unequal.” But if separate and unequal was unacceptable as a legal principle for education in 1954, it’s an equally unacceptable legal principle for voting in 2014. H.J. Res. 44 would directly affect the average voter and the average election. Eight-six percent (86%) of the preclearance cases sustained under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act involved local not state or federal elections.
(2) The right to vote may be in the Constitution implicitly, but it’s not there explicitly. Wouldn’t voters and voting rights lawyers be in a stronger position if it were there explicitly? It would seem illogical and ridiculous to argue that it’s better to have the right to vote in the Constitution implicitly rather than to have it there explicitly. And in light of Shelby and all the partisan voter suppression efforts going on in the states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures, to borrow a phrase from former half-Governor Sarah Palin, couldn’t one ask, “How’s that implicit right to vote thing working out for ya?”
(3) The ease or difficulty of adding constitutional amendments depends on the political climate surrounding them. Contrast the time required for the 27th and 26th Amendments. The only thing needed here is correct information and a simple civics lesson. Let me be clear, fighting for a voting rights amendment would be controversial, but any Democrat who cannot defend democracy and strongly advocate for a right to vote amendment shouldn’t be in public office. Unlike the struggle over the Equal Rights Amendment for women, adding a voting rights amendment does not require any deep psychological adjustment by the American people. In fact, it would fulfill and make whole what the American people think they already have.
(4) Social Security, which is a universal program, is considered a third rail of American politics because it has a vast political base of support. Democrats generally support more progressive legislation, so we need a broad base of political support in order to enact progressive legislation and sustain it. Passing a non-partisan right to vote amendment would, nevertheless, add a minimum of 50 million new voters to the voter rolls, the vast majority of whom would support voting to pass and sustain more progressive legislation based on the needs of those 50+ million new voters.
I believe most Americans – even most members of Congress – think we already have the right to vote in the Constitution. But if the American people were educated with the truth – i.e., we have a state right to vote but not an American right to vote - I believe they would demand that a citizenship right to vote be added to the Constitution. Voting and democracy in America is like the flag, motherhood and apple pie with vanilla ice cream on it. It’s very popular!
Therefore, in my judgment, Democrats should take a serious and careful look at fighting for a right to vote constitutional amendment. I obviously believe programs and policies are important, but people power is even more important, and the vote is how the American people exercise their power. Democrats win with more voters! Every Democrat knows the difference between 2008 and 2012, and 2010 - and worries about 2014.
In 2012 African Americans felt Republicans were trying to suppress their vote and they responded by standing in line for 6, 7 and 8 hours to cast their ballot and they voted in even greater numbers than in 2008 – even though the long lines did discourage some voters who left before casting their ballot. Since then Republicans have continued to put obstacles in the way of voters and are passing more voter suppression laws that negatively affect minorities, young people, seniors, workers, poor people and the disabled – i.e., mostly our voters. Don’t we have a moral and a political obligation to defend and protect our voters? Relying on the courts to strike down these laws is difficult, after-the-fact, time consuming, expensive and, even if we win, it is sustaining but not advancing democracy or adding new voters.
North Carolina passed the most regressive voting laws since before the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I believe if Sen. Kay Hagan were strongly and clearly advocating for a right to vote amendment that her base voters would respond by voting in record numbers for her in 2014. The reality is, there are no off-year elections! I also believe they would vote for Democrats generally in greater numbers in 2014 and 2016 nationally if they saw us aggressively fighting to defend their vote and fighting to put their right to vote in the Constitution.
We can quickly change the political climate around this amendment by contrasting the strong and aggressive Republican support for the constitutional right to a gun with the absence of a constitutional right to vote. This is what I don’t understand. How is it that Republicans can openly and strongly defend the NRA and the Second Amendment and aggressively advocate for the right to a gun – indeed pass a law in Georgia that they want guns everywhere even as guns are killing 30,000 Americans every year through homicide, fratricide and suicide - but Democrats can’t defend democracy and advocate for the right to vote? How lacking in conviction do Democrats have to be not to be able to fight for democracy and the right to vote? If the Republican strategy is partisan voter disenfranchisement and suppression, what’s the Democratic counter-strategy? I’m suggesting we fight for non-partisan voter enfranchisement, voter expansion and inclusion through a right to vote amendment!
President Barack Obama already knows this. Professor Barack Obama, as a teacher of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, opened all of his constitutional law classes by informing his students that the fundamental individual right to vote is not explicitly in the Constitution. He said it always surprised his students. His involvement and use of the bully pulpit to educate on this issue would dramatically change the political climate around this issue.
I repeat. Republicans are conducting a partisan voter suppression campaign against Democratic voters. Republican use of the filibuster in the Senate, and their “do nothing” majority in the House, are deliberately thwarting the democratic will of the majority of the American people as expressed in two national elections – including Democrats receiving a million more cumulative votes than Republicans in the House in 2012. It is just another indication that many Republicans don’t really believe in democracy and they’re willing to pervert the law to protect their power. In my judgment Democrats could and should respond and fight them with a non-partisan “right to vote amendment” campaign for all Americans. How can any senator or representative vote against democracy and the right to vote without Democrats making them pay a political price that has political consequences favorable to Democrats?
So I’m urging that just as you spoke out strongly on behalf of equality and equal protection under the law for women and the LGBT community that you also speak out with equal clarity, force and commitment with respect to equality and equal protection under the law for voting, voting rights and on behalf of all American voters.
I hope you will consider politically supporting a right to vote amendment to the U.S. Constitution by personally endorsing it and by helping to persuade President Barack Obama, your Democratic colleagues in the Senate and House to do the same. In this regard, I’m ready to help in any way you think would be beneficial. Who knows, maybe there’s even a Republican somewhere who might even support democracy and the right to vote.
Thank you in advance for your serious and thoughtful consideration of this idea and proposal.
Sincerely,
Congratulations on your recent speech in Detroit to the Netroots Nation where you forcefully and effectively argued for equality and equal protection under the law for women and the LGBT community. I share your values and commitment. I write to you today in regard to equality and equal protection under the law with respect to voting and voting rights!
The Senate has tried to move forward on a legislative “fix” after the damage done by Shelby in declaring the preclearance triggering formula of Section 4 in the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. The House has not moved forward on similar legislation and, from my perspective, it appears unlikely to do so in the 113th Congress. There are small numbers of co-sponsors on this legislation in both Houses. Even if Congress passes a bill, inevitably it will be a compromise and, therefore, the 1965 Voting Rights Act will clearly be weaker and less effective than before Shelby. I would rather have a compromised and weak fix than no fix, but legally I know what I would have.
This conservative activist Supreme Court has also set us back in other critical areas of voting. Citizens United and McCutcheon have also done tremendous damage. I noticed that there are fully 43 Democratic Senate co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 19, a constitutional amendment to correct the damage done by these two decisions. The parallel legislation in the House (H.J. Res. 20) has a disappointing 36 co-sponsors. While I fully support this legislation as necessary and positive, it only directly affects politicians, political parties and those who contribute large sums of money to campaigns – which is not the average voter. The voters will only be indirectly and eventually affected by this amendment because of who could get elected, what their agenda is likely to be, and the policies and programs they would surely pass into law or undo. It’s an important amendment, which I support, but one that doesn’t have the broadest possible political appeal.
On the other hand, there are only 21 Democratic House co-sponsors of H.J. Res. 44 (and not even a bill in the Senate), for an amendment that would add an explicit fundamental individual right to vote to the Constitution that would directly affect every American voter and have a much broader political appeal, especially in light of Republican efforts at voter obstruction and suppression.
Contrasting the two amendments, it does not look good that members of Congress, the Democratic Party generally and the DNC specifically seem more concerned and responsive to an amendment that affects their money and their campaigns than they are for legislation that affects democracy and individual American voters.
Because most people that we know vote – or could vote – in virtually every election, and because they have been brought up to believe in voting in our representative democracy, they think or assume that the fundamental individual right to vote is already in the U.S. Constitution - but it’s not. In that regard, please consider the following four arguments:
(1) The American people do have a right to vote, but it’s a state right, not a citizenship or American right. We have a “states’ rights” and “local control” voting system comprised of 50 states (plus DC), 3,143 counties and 13,000 election jurisdictions that administer 186,000 precincts - all “separate and unequal.” But if separate and unequal was unacceptable as a legal principle for education in 1954, it’s an equally unacceptable legal principle for voting in 2014. H.J. Res. 44 would directly affect the average voter and the average election. Eight-six percent (86%) of the preclearance cases sustained under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act involved local not state or federal elections.
(2) The right to vote may be in the Constitution implicitly, but it’s not there explicitly. Wouldn’t voters and voting rights lawyers be in a stronger position if it were there explicitly? It would seem illogical and ridiculous to argue that it’s better to have the right to vote in the Constitution implicitly rather than to have it there explicitly. And in light of Shelby and all the partisan voter suppression efforts going on in the states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures, to borrow a phrase from former half-Governor Sarah Palin, couldn’t one ask, “How’s that implicit right to vote thing working out for ya?”
(3) The ease or difficulty of adding constitutional amendments depends on the political climate surrounding them. Contrast the time required for the 27th and 26th Amendments. The only thing needed here is correct information and a simple civics lesson. Let me be clear, fighting for a voting rights amendment would be controversial, but any Democrat who cannot defend democracy and strongly advocate for a right to vote amendment shouldn’t be in public office. Unlike the struggle over the Equal Rights Amendment for women, adding a voting rights amendment does not require any deep psychological adjustment by the American people. In fact, it would fulfill and make whole what the American people think they already have.
(4) Social Security, which is a universal program, is considered a third rail of American politics because it has a vast political base of support. Democrats generally support more progressive legislation, so we need a broad base of political support in order to enact progressive legislation and sustain it. Passing a non-partisan right to vote amendment would, nevertheless, add a minimum of 50 million new voters to the voter rolls, the vast majority of whom would support voting to pass and sustain more progressive legislation based on the needs of those 50+ million new voters.
I believe most Americans – even most members of Congress – think we already have the right to vote in the Constitution. But if the American people were educated with the truth – i.e., we have a state right to vote but not an American right to vote - I believe they would demand that a citizenship right to vote be added to the Constitution. Voting and democracy in America is like the flag, motherhood and apple pie with vanilla ice cream on it. It’s very popular!
Therefore, in my judgment, Democrats should take a serious and careful look at fighting for a right to vote constitutional amendment. I obviously believe programs and policies are important, but people power is even more important, and the vote is how the American people exercise their power. Democrats win with more voters! Every Democrat knows the difference between 2008 and 2012, and 2010 - and worries about 2014.
In 2012 African Americans felt Republicans were trying to suppress their vote and they responded by standing in line for 6, 7 and 8 hours to cast their ballot and they voted in even greater numbers than in 2008 – even though the long lines did discourage some voters who left before casting their ballot. Since then Republicans have continued to put obstacles in the way of voters and are passing more voter suppression laws that negatively affect minorities, young people, seniors, workers, poor people and the disabled – i.e., mostly our voters. Don’t we have a moral and a political obligation to defend and protect our voters? Relying on the courts to strike down these laws is difficult, after-the-fact, time consuming, expensive and, even if we win, it is sustaining but not advancing democracy or adding new voters.
North Carolina passed the most regressive voting laws since before the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I believe if Sen. Kay Hagan were strongly and clearly advocating for a right to vote amendment that her base voters would respond by voting in record numbers for her in 2014. The reality is, there are no off-year elections! I also believe they would vote for Democrats generally in greater numbers in 2014 and 2016 nationally if they saw us aggressively fighting to defend their vote and fighting to put their right to vote in the Constitution.
We can quickly change the political climate around this amendment by contrasting the strong and aggressive Republican support for the constitutional right to a gun with the absence of a constitutional right to vote. This is what I don’t understand. How is it that Republicans can openly and strongly defend the NRA and the Second Amendment and aggressively advocate for the right to a gun – indeed pass a law in Georgia that they want guns everywhere even as guns are killing 30,000 Americans every year through homicide, fratricide and suicide - but Democrats can’t defend democracy and advocate for the right to vote? How lacking in conviction do Democrats have to be not to be able to fight for democracy and the right to vote? If the Republican strategy is partisan voter disenfranchisement and suppression, what’s the Democratic counter-strategy? I’m suggesting we fight for non-partisan voter enfranchisement, voter expansion and inclusion through a right to vote amendment!
President Barack Obama already knows this. Professor Barack Obama, as a teacher of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, opened all of his constitutional law classes by informing his students that the fundamental individual right to vote is not explicitly in the Constitution. He said it always surprised his students. His involvement and use of the bully pulpit to educate on this issue would dramatically change the political climate around this issue.
I repeat. Republicans are conducting a partisan voter suppression campaign against Democratic voters. Republican use of the filibuster in the Senate, and their “do nothing” majority in the House, are deliberately thwarting the democratic will of the majority of the American people as expressed in two national elections – including Democrats receiving a million more cumulative votes than Republicans in the House in 2012. It is just another indication that many Republicans don’t really believe in democracy and they’re willing to pervert the law to protect their power. In my judgment Democrats could and should respond and fight them with a non-partisan “right to vote amendment” campaign for all Americans. How can any senator or representative vote against democracy and the right to vote without Democrats making them pay a political price that has political consequences favorable to Democrats?
So I’m urging that just as you spoke out strongly on behalf of equality and equal protection under the law for women and the LGBT community that you also speak out with equal clarity, force and commitment with respect to equality and equal protection under the law for voting, voting rights and on behalf of all American voters.
I hope you will consider politically supporting a right to vote amendment to the U.S. Constitution by personally endorsing it and by helping to persuade President Barack Obama, your Democratic colleagues in the Senate and House to do the same. In this regard, I’m ready to help in any way you think would be beneficial. Who knows, maybe there’s even a Republican somewhere who might even support democracy and the right to vote.
Thank you in advance for your serious and thoughtful consideration of this idea and proposal.
Sincerely,
