Cool. Elections are administered by the states though, and my state guarantees mail-in ballots in the constitution. Sooooo, good luck with that, I suppose?
If the Save act goes through I don’t see how they couldn’t do similar with this. I imagine the argument would be the same, that they are not taking the administration of the voting away from the states, just setting a standardized required method. I don’t think he’d be able to do it via executive order legally, but I dont know who would stop it. He could just have the house/Senate pass it like the save act if they so wanted. Your state constitution doesn’t matter at that point. We like to say it’s a free country but it took us 4 amendments just to get to a point that still basically says our people don’t have the right to vote.
The constitution didn’t have a right to vote.
The bill of rights didn’t have a right to vote.
The 15th amendment (1870) said we can’t restrict voting based off Race.
The 19th amendment (1920) said we can’t restrict voting for women.
The 24th Amendment (1964) said we can’t restrict the voting by taxing polls.
The 26th Amendment (1971) said we can’t restrict voters over 18 (previously 21).
Most people think this means all those people have a right to vote, but it is really the government doesn’t have the ability to explicitly restrict those people from voting.
If U.S. citizens had the right to vote none of those amendments would have been necessary and we would be free to vote and our arguments would hold up in court easier. But the U.S. has long perpetuated the lie that we are free. We are a “democratic Republic” where the government can, has, and will try to restrict our freedom at every turn if it benefits those in power.
Tldr; If U.S. citizens had a right to vote, we wouldn’t have had amendments, the Supreme Court would have ruled a long time ago that any act restricting U.S. citizens from voting was illegal.
The ‘if’ in ‘if the SAVE Act goes through’ is doing a lot of work. The recent bill that was passed was only able to be done through budget reconciliation, because you only need 50 votes plus the VP to break the tie. But for bills outside of budget reconciliation, you need 60 votes to end the filibuster. Barring anything unforeseen (recognizing that breaking norms is the norm for this administration), there’s no way I could see it getting through the Senate.
Cool. Elections are administered by the states though, and my state guarantees mail-in ballots in the constitution. Sooooo, good luck with that, I suppose?
If the Save act goes through I don’t see how they couldn’t do similar with this. I imagine the argument would be the same, that they are not taking the administration of the voting away from the states, just setting a standardized required method. I don’t think he’d be able to do it via executive order legally, but I dont know who would stop it. He could just have the house/Senate pass it like the save act if they so wanted. Your state constitution doesn’t matter at that point. We like to say it’s a free country but it took us 4 amendments just to get to a point that still basically says our people don’t have the right to vote.
The constitution didn’t have a right to vote.
The bill of rights didn’t have a right to vote.
The 15th amendment (1870) said we can’t restrict voting based off Race.
The 19th amendment (1920) said we can’t restrict voting for women.
The 24th Amendment (1964) said we can’t restrict the voting by taxing polls.
The 26th Amendment (1971) said we can’t restrict voters over 18 (previously 21).
Most people think this means all those people have a right to vote, but it is really the government doesn’t have the ability to explicitly restrict those people from voting.
If U.S. citizens had the right to vote none of those amendments would have been necessary and we would be free to vote and our arguments would hold up in court easier. But the U.S. has long perpetuated the lie that we are free. We are a “democratic Republic” where the government can, has, and will try to restrict our freedom at every turn if it benefits those in power.
Tldr; If U.S. citizens had a right to vote, we wouldn’t have had amendments, the Supreme Court would have ruled a long time ago that any act restricting U.S. citizens from voting was illegal.
The ‘if’ in ‘if the SAVE Act goes through’ is doing a lot of work. The recent bill that was passed was only able to be done through budget reconciliation, because you only need 50 votes plus the VP to break the tie. But for bills outside of budget reconciliation, you need 60 votes to end the filibuster. Barring anything unforeseen (recognizing that breaking norms is the norm for this administration), there’s no way I could see it getting through the Senate.