Question about Voting Rights and the 14th Amendment.

[Solon]

Let me start off by quoting the relevent portion of the 14th amendment:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now as mentioned in one of my previous thread, this portion of the Amendment would make it unconstitutional to restrict marriage to heterosexuals only, as it violates equal protection and privileges or immunities, for homosexuals.
However, I wanted to bring up a point that just occured to me. In many states, ex-felons are denied the right (or privilege as some think it is) to vote. There is no explicit right for any citizen to vote in the Constitution or its various amendments. Only that it cannot be denied due to race, sex, or to anyone over the age of 18. However, one could argue that the 14th amendment could be used to say that equal protection of the law is violated when a citizen is denied the right to vote for any reason whatsoever. And if voting is considered a privilege then it would be unconstitutional to deny to one group and grant it to another. Are there any holes in my logic?

[eyesroll]

1. "without due process of law"

I suspect one could say that the criminal trial that finds someone guilty of a felony is enough "due process" to keep them from voting.

HOWEVER -- Some states (Florida used to be one, but changed the law after 2000) will not allow anyone convicted of a felony ANYWHERE to vote -- even if the state in which they were convicted allows felons to vote (perhaps after serving their time). I think one could argue that the sentence they received did not include losing their voting rights, and thus this type of prohibition is unconstitutional.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/floridafelonvote_010321.html

[Solon]

2. Life, Liberty or Property

First, the Privileges and Immunities clause is mentioned in a different sentence. Second only Life, Liberty, or Property may be restricted through due process of law. Also the last phrase: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Even if convicted, felons still cannot be denied the equal protection of the laws.

[goddess40]

5. No constitutional right to vote

According to an article by Jesse Jackson there is no constitutional right to vote. There is no federal right to vote for president. This has been delegated to the states. State legislators can appoint the electors who vote for president in the Electoral College (EC) any way they want. States do not have to mandate that their EC delegations be chosen on the basis of the popular vote. In fact, Jeb Bush in 2000 said the FL State Legislature would select the state's EC delegation if the outcome of the popular vote was not decided by Dec. 12. So here is yet another way to rig the election.

[theboss]

6. That's not exactly true

The states are given the power to idenitfy eligible voters. But that definition has to fall within certain guidelines within the Constitution. And the Constitution is explicit that certain types of criminals may be excluded.

[Solon]

7. There is no federal right to vote at all

Not for Senators or Congressmen, states are free to restrict the franchise on anyone they want, as long as it is not in regards to Race, Sex, Previous Servitude, or Age. BTW: Thanks for shooting down my logic everybody, should do a more careful reading of the Amendment. Trying to see if there was an implicit rather than explicit right to vote in the Constitution. Back on track, states could, for example, restrict voting rights to landowners, that is perfectly constitutional, or based on wages/salary (NOT poll taxes, that violates Federal Law).

[theboss]

8. No, that is an equal protection issue

States cannot restrict the right to vote to landowners. The state must show a compelling argument to restrict a fundamental right such as voting. No compelling argument can be made to restrict the vote to landowners.

Notice that the states don't have to show a compelling right to restrict voting on felons because the Constitution is explicit that this is acceptable.

[theboss]

9. The Constitution is not an easy document

There is tension in the document between various competing rights and you really need to read some case law to grasp exactly what is going on. And it also helps to know the history behind the passage of the amendments in order to grasp the intent of them.

There originally was no fundamental right to vote in the Constitution, because voting was fully a state decision and the states could set their own guidelines. There was also no fundamental right to anything listed in the Bill of Rights. The federal government was viewed as restricted by those guidelines, but not the states. In other words, the state of Massachusetss could have a more restrictive libel law than the state of Rhode Island. What the 14th Amendment was did was officially say, no, what is in the Constitution applies to everyone and that includes that right to vote (as proscribed in the Amendment. Notice that this still does not apply to women.

[sangh0]

3. You could argue that, but you'd be wrong

However, one could argue that the 14th amendment could be used to say that equal protection of the law is violated when a citizen is denied the right to vote for any reason whatsoever.

You could argue that, or you could argue that the moon is made of green cheese. In either case, you'd be wrong. WRT the voting argument, it is wrong for the reason the first responder points out - the privilege has been limited in a way that respects "due process"

And if voting is considered a privilege then it would be unconstitutional to deny to one group and grant it to another. Are there any holes in my logic?

Yes, the Constitution explicitly allows state govts to limit the privilege EXCEPT in a limited number of cases (ie race, sex, or to anyone over the age of 18....) IOW, as long as the reason for limiting the right/privilege is not one of the specific reasons that have been prohibited, and the limit was implemented in a way that satisfies the "due process" requirement, then the Constitution has not been abrogated.

[theboss]

4. Read the rest of the amendment

It says that the states shall not restrict voting except "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The debate would be what that "other crime" is, but the Amendment is clear that certain criminals can be prohibited from voting.