Let's talk about Republicans rejecting democracy....

Sad.

 

That phrasing...

White privilege doesn't exist, but voting privilege does?

 

The fact that it only applies to citizens in itself indicates it is a privilege and not a fundamental right, doesn’t it? Similarly, the incarcerated can’t vote, children can’t vote.

According to this description in Wikipedia, voting would apparently count as a privilege:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship

A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are pronounced examples of transferable privilege. These can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth. Various examples of old common law privilege still exist, to title deeds, for example.[1]Etymologically, a privilege (privilegium) means a "private law", or rule relating to a specific individual or institution.​

 

Ask the same conservatives who believe voting is a privilege whether gun ownership is a privilege rather than a right even though voting rights are mentioned multiple times in the constitution and gun rights once.

And that's the biggest problem with minder conservatism. Absolutely zero introspective abilities.

 

I know it's technically accurate. Can still comment on the whole "principle" of it.

One is legitimized by easily changeable laws, while the other is an accusation observed by plenty over several generations.

 

yes, that's a problem with THE question and interpretation (and many polling in general). I cannot think of a single "right" that doesn't have some limitation and so strictly speaking, there is no fundamental right. However, as a whole, it's likely people answering this question understand the differences, but it's still messy as it's up to each person's interpretation.

 

Wouldn't this apply to every right is essentially a privilege? Because every fundamental right has stipulations and exceptions.

 

The Constitution does explicitly refer to the "right to vote" for citizens of 18 years and asserts that those rights may not be abridged on account of various explicitly specified criteria (e.g., race, sex, age). That amendments are needed to explicitly specify criteria on account of which the right may not be abridged would, seemingly, tacitly allow for the right to be abridged on account of other criteria.

So while the Constitution talks about the "right to vote" in the abstract, the protection it provides for that right appears to be heavily qualified.

Does the Constitution provide protection against the right to vote being abridged according to, say, the month in which one is born or some other ridiculous, made-up criterion? And if that protection is implied, then why did we need amendments to specifically protect voting rights for women, racial minorities, etc.?

 

I suppose you're right. I'm trying to think of a way to define these two things where they are clearly different and it's not a false distinction like "half-full versus half-empty".

A "right" is something that cannot be arbitrarily abridged, while a "privilege" is something that is granted by an authority based on criteria set according to the discretion of that authority.

Does that sound right?

 

b/c as a society, we decided that it should no longer be a privilege for the few, and should be a right for all us citizens of a certain age

But back to a fundamental right - there is no such thing. No one is born with any right. Society (culture) and laws define that. And as we have seen, society and laws change with time.

The poll question itself is again, up to interpretation but most people understand what it means as related to today's society and laws. What we are witnessing is that it is changing with recent voter suppression laws and support for those laws. That a segment of the population now like to roll back to when it was more of a privilege than a right. To what level? The poll provides a suggestion but it's a bit messy for me to take it without question.

 

Then why isn't the amendment more universal? Like: 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.

No further qualifications like "on account of age" or "on account of sex". By adding such qualifications, the Constitution is allowing for the right to be denied/abridged on account of other criteria, isn't it?

 

A 'dire' situation: Report finds Arizona hit hard by turnover of election officials
Sasha Hupka
Arizona Republic
9/26/23

Arizona has been hit hardest among Western states by election official turnover since 2020, according to a new report from Issue One.

About 98% of Arizona voters will see their elections run by someone new next year, the research shows. Twelve of the state's 15 counties have seen at least one of its chief election officials — its county recorder or elections director — change since 2020, according to Issue One.

Issue One is a nonpartisan reform group that aims to bolster election operations, increase government transparency and strengthen governmental ethics and accountability.

Of Arizona's six most populous counties, four — Pima, Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma — have welcomed both a new recorder and a new elections director.

The exodus of Arizona election officials isn't new news. A wave of election staffers across the state called it quits in response to harassment over the results of the 2020 presidential election — especially in heavily Republican counties where Donald Trump won the popular vote, like Yuma and Yavapai counties.

But the situation is becoming increasingly "dire," said Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who is also part of an Issue One campaign to win federal funding for locally-administered elections and increase trust in the electoral system.

"How many canaries need to die in this coal mine before people start paying attention to the fact that the election denialism is destroying our democracy?" Fontes wondered. "It's these MAGA fascists who continue on with the lies that are driving good people away from the jobs that we need them to do."

The stark numbers of the report lay bare that Arizona counties need help, Fontes said. And some other elected officials aren't stepping up with needed aid, according to Fontes, who has said since the state budget was approved in May that lawmakers are underfunding his office and, in doing so, risking democracy.

"If our country falls to authoritarianism or we have an election that we can't administer, there is no second chance," he said. "There is no make-up."

Read more...

 

No. It applies to all citizens when the reach the age of majority and can only be abridged after due process of law. Sounds like a right.

If you abridged the voting right by the month of your birth, I expect the USSC to toss it as unequal treatment under the law. And, I think that we have had to have specific amendments to protect voting rights of blacks and women because they were historically subjected to unjust-but-precedent-setting unequal treatment under the law and we couldn't afford to be less-than-explicit that that wasn't okay. That's an historical scar, not a philosophical differentiation.