Right to a Fraud-Free Counted Vote

It's NOT in the constitution?!

sponsored by aGREATER.US • Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Election Law
secondary topics:

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
89%
BIPARTISAN RATING

While voting is a key part of our republic, it is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution; the closest it comes is "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In Luther v Borden, an 1840 case in which reformers in Rhode Island were arrested for trying to organize a state constitutional convention [!], this clause was held to be outside the purview of the courts — which puts it directly under the purview of the legislative branch. This interpretation was upheld during Reconstruction and after.

Congress should therefore pass a law saying...

"Each citizen has a right to vote, to have that vote counted, to have the voting process be free of fraud; and that the public has a right to verify these rights are upheld. Voting rules which circumscribe one of these rights are acceptable only if they proportionally increase another of them."

So where the rubber actually meets the road on this, is that it gives citizens whose voting rights are abridged, and "the public" when its verification rights are abridged, standing to take their state governments to court.

Op-eds

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here