Did 70% of Wisconsin voters just delete their own constitutional guarantee to be eligible to vote?
Did 70% of Wisconsin voters just delete their own constitutional guarantee to be eligible to vote?
Wisconsin voters have passed a constitutional amendment that explicitly bars noncitizens from voting.
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?
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.
"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.
Yeah it pretty shitty. Will probably be used to disenfranchise students
I voted against it
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?
no. you didn't miss anything.
wisconsin gonna wisconsin. voted in a diaper, twice, too. i wish i could afford to leave this state.
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!
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.
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.
With everything else, yeah, that tracks
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He can do whatever the fuck he wants now. Half the country wants to make him king. Fucking idiots.
Oof this might be above Lemmy's pay grade.