Article III Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution currently reads, “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”
After Tuesday’s vote, the article will now read, “Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”
Doesn’t this change the meaning of the statement so much that it’s no longer true that every citizen of age who is a resident is eligible to vote? Can this new language be interpreted by courts and lawmakers such that anyone can be disenfranchised if such malicious laws can be passed in the state?
A qualified elector is a different thing than a voter. Electors are those that are selected by the parties to travel and participate in the Electoral College. The voters determine which set of electors get selected.
In the context of these definitions, I think “qualified elector” just means a voter.
Interesting, if that’s what it means in this context it would be a big relief. But that isn’t what any of the reporting from either side is indicating.
No. These laws are meant to deny noncitizens from voting because they have been legally allowed to vote in local elections in California, DC, Maryland, New York, and Vermont.
To be clear, I know what we’re told the amendment is meant to do. I’m concerned about an unwanted gap in the choice of language it created.
If the new wording was appended to the statement instead of replacing it, I would agree with you.
But the word “every” is a guaranteed inclusion (while not explicitly excluding anyone), while “only” is a guaranteed exclusion (while not explicitly including anyone).
For a dumb example, my chili recipe says “every type of bean may be used”, I can put black beans and pinto beans in it, and no one can tell me otherwise. But if I change it to “only beans may be used”, that is more open to further restrictions by later stipulations.
“Do not use pinto beans” is in direct contradiction with “every type of bean may be used”.
“Do not use pinto beans” is actually not a contradiction with “only beans may be used”.
What I’m seeing with the new language is that a new law saying something like “Students who continue to live with their parents are not permitted to participate in elections” is actually permissible and not in contradiction with the statement "Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”
At least according to the constitution. Prior to Nov 5, it would be unconstitutional in WI to pass such a law, that’s no longer the case.
I see what you’re saying but it is hard to worry about a hypothetical misinterpretation. If you see this happening then you’ll have to vote but until then there’s nothing there.
Closing loopholes is worthwhile, even if they’re not being abused yet. You say “if you see this happening, then you’ll have to vote”, but that thing that may happen is people being denied the right to vote. So if this starts to happen, it may be impossible to undo with voting.
It makes perfect sense to allow non-citizens to vote in state and local elections where the outcome of those elections will impact those people.
What this does is disenfranchise legal non-citizens, and prevent those people who live in those places from having a say in how those places are run.
Which is fine, if the state wants to do it that way. It just feels like kind of a dick move.
Does this also block US citizens living abroad because by definition they don’t reside in the electoral district.
I added the bold highlight to the text from the article.Here’s the exact wording of the yes/no question:
“Eligibility to vote. Shall section 1 of article III of the constitution, which deals with suffrage, be amended to provide that only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?”
If it does now, it also did before.
It would seem to do that, yes. You don’t even have to be abroad, as you could easily be stationed in a different state from your “home” residence.
This has no effect on federal elections of course, and so I think it’s not that unreasonable to say that you only get to vote on local issues if you are living locally.
Yeah it pretty shitty. Will probably be used to disenfranchise students
I voted against it
Ohhhh I see now.
“Every” says “Every member of this group has this right.”
“Only” says “Anyone who has this right must be a member of this group,” but it doesn’t say “Every member of this group has this right.” Which means that “Some members of this group might not have this right.”
Nice catch.
Yep.
It would mean that a law that passes that just appends ‘and you are male’ or ‘and you are white’ now is legally valid without requiring judicial review.
Throw in land owner and it’s just as the founding fathers intended.
Charging the last terrified rapscallion
I am pretty sure those voting rights are also guaranteed by the federal constitution, so probably not
Unfortunately SCOTUS gutted the power of the federal government to enforce those guarantees based on the old provisions + republicans filibustered the democrat bill that was meant to address that. It’s as if the republicans have a plan.
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/
“The ability of the federal government to protect voting rights, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities, has been jeopardized both by recent Supreme Court rulings and the failure of Congress to enact new voting rights legislation.”
“With the federal government and the Supreme Court unlikely to protect voting rights in a substantial way in the near future, it’s up to the states to take action to protect voting.”
And now there’s a state changing the law so that they can more easily disenfranchise voters of their chosing. Imo this is no coincidence.
Hm, worrying. I wonder what the gap might be, like what could make an adult citizen not a ‘qualified elector’
They don’t have to prove that someone is not a qualified elector to disenfranchise them, throwing up barriers to make it very hard / impossible to vote is enough. In the past the federal government could intervene if something like that happened, but that’s not really possible anymore thanks to the current scotus, so it’s up to the states.
And this state is now laying the legal groundwork: If “every” persons with xxx qualifications has the right the vote by law and new measures get implemented that make it practically impossible to vote for certain people that fit those qualifications, then those people had a right withheld from them.
If “only” persons with xxx qualifications have the right to vote by law and new measures get implemented that make it impossible to vote for certain people that fit those qualifications, then … nothing. That’s the difference between “every” and “only”. Changing the wording to “only” allows the state to legally pile on extra requirements and barriers.
Examples of groups of people that I’ve seen disenfranchised by state actions: Prisoners, felons who have done their time, college students, minorities, inner city people, military abroad. Some of these news articles will have been attempts that were not (yet) successful.
I haven’t read the full wiki article, but I expect those examples to be in here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
“Doesn’t this change the meaning of the statement so much that it’s no longer true that every citizen of age who is a resident is eligible to vote?”
yep, especially in a country like the US where gerrymandering is still legal.
“Can this new language be interpreted by courts and lawmakers such that anyone can be disenfranchised if such malicious laws can be passed in the state?”
oh yeah, this can handily accelerate voter suppression.
Logically, yeah—it went from “all X are Y” to “no non-X are Y” (or equivalently, “all Y are X”).
Voting in the United States has always been primarily a way to protect the power of already powerful people, and secondarily a way to ensure incremental social progress continues at a pace that doesn’t make powerful people too uncomfortable.
A lot of things about the way things are structured in US democracy make more sense with that context, including this, I think.
Specifically, 70% of people both eligible and motivated to vote, voted to ensure eligibility to vote is not extended. This has happened many times throughout history, and only seems odd if we accept the fib that everyone is represented.
In the context of gerrandering, first-past-the-poll “representation”, and various other forms of disenfranchisement; it makes sense that 70% of the people allowed to actually vote, votes in favor of continuing to restrict the vote (to themselves).
The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.
The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?
The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?
Yeah. I’m not saying it was wise, by any means!
no. you didn’t miss anything.
wisconsin gonna wisconsin. voted in a diaper, twice, too. i wish i could afford to leave this state.
With everything else, yeah, that tracks
Doesn’t this change the meaning of the statement so much that it’s no longer true that every citizen of age who is a resident is eligible to vote?
I don’t see how it would, but maybe I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. The eligibility of the people in the article did not change. “Only” vs “Every” still includes the same group of people.
What did change was the explicit exclusion of people outside of those qualifiers. This could potentially make challenging votes of “questionable” voters that much more impactful or difficult to defend against, and maybe make adjusting the existing qualifiers harder (the only one I can really think of is age), but that depends on WI’s amendment process, which I don’t know.
I think op is right. A new law that says you have to own real estate to vote would have been unconstitutional before and is not now.
Ah, ok. I see that now. That sucks.
What did change was the explicit exclusion of people outside of those qualifiers.
That’s not the point. Don’t focus on the logical conditions, because they have not changed.
As far as I understand it, the important change is the missing “Every”.
Before, the “every” had made this a guaranteed right. Now that is gone, and only conditions are left.
The right to vote could be taken away from some people by creating further conditions in the future.
Oof this might be above Lemmy’s pay grade.
