How California Could Boost Voter Turnout By Millions - ThinkProgress

[WillyT]

How California Could Boost Voter Turnout By Millions
by Alice Ollstein - ThinkProgress
Posted on March 25, 2015 at 12:42 pm Updated: March 25, 2015 at 2:23


CREDIT: Shutterstock

<snip>

Just a week after Oregon became the first state in the nation to automatically register residents to vote using DMV records, California announced it may follow suit.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said this week that he was inspired by Oregon’s landmark law, which automatically registers every eligible resident who goes to a DMV to get a license or renew one, with the option to opt out.

“While many states are making it more difficult for citizens to vote, our neighbor to the north offers a better path,” he wrote. “One of the biggest barriers to citizen participation is the voter registration process. A new, enhanced Motor Voter law would strengthen our democracy. It would be a game changer.”

One early supporter is California Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village), who told ThinkProgress, “Any measure that would make it easier for American citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote is a good thing for our democracy. We need to ensure that the viewpoints and values of all Americans are represented in government.”

While Oregon’s law is expected to reach 300,000 eligible residents right away, and nearly 900,000 eventually, such a move in California could sweep millions into the political process. Padilla’s proposal could help the nearly 7 million eligible but unregistered voters in the state, many of them low-income, people of color, and younger Californians — whose participation rates are in the single digits.

“In California, an 18- or 19-year-old was more likely to be arrested than actually vote in one of the statewide elections,” California data analyst David Mitchell told KQED.

Overall, California has one of the worst rates of election participation in the country, with just over 42 percent of eligible voters turning out in last fall’s election. In Los Angeles County, just 31 percent of registered voters cast a ballot.

Those who do vote tend to be...

<snip>

More: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/25/3638636/california-boost-voter-turnout-millions/

[BlueCaliDem]

1. This should be done across the country. How is it that being selected for jury duty is mandatory but

being registered to vote isn't?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. Because it's not right to force people to exercise a right n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Then change the wording. Make it a civil DUTY. You know? Just like being forced to sit on a jury. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. Change the wording of the Constitution?

i don't see that happening, but if that's what people want they can certainly push for it.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Where in the Constitution does it mandate jury duty? That's right. It doesn't. Yet the moment you

register to vote, you're automatically registered for jury duty despite the 13th Amendment. So if the Federal government can *mandate jury duty, why can't that same principle be applied to automatic registration to vote?

Edited to add word *

[BlueCaliDem]

11. Addendum...

Yes, once upon a time, juror names were pulled from voter registration lists, but perhaps through the fact that many didn't register to vote in order to avoid jury duty, the authorities have expanded their search for potential jurors to include anyone who's filed taxes, gotten a State I.D. or driver's license, or bought a home. In short, if you're an active citizen, you can be expected to be called.

They can just as easily procure those names from those very sources for voter registration - as an active U.S. citizen - right?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. Voting is a Constitutional right

and no one should be forced to exercise a right.

Owning a gun is also a Constitutional right - would you want to be forced to own a gun?

[BlueCaliDem]

14. Can you point out to me where in the Constitution it states that voting is a Constitutional Right?

Thanks in advance!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. I don't think you want to go down the road of only acknowledging enumerated rights

since doing so would mean that abortion is not a Constitutional right.

However, behold the 15th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. This may surprise you, but there is no right to vote enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

According to Jonathan Soros and Mark Schmitt at Democracy:

"There is NO constitutional guarantee of the right to vote."

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: “What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?” The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, “The right to vote.” But that “right” has always been on shaky ground.

Just as the Constitution once countenanced slavery, it also allowed voting to be restricted to property-holding white men. The Thirteenth Amendment expunged the stain of slavery from our basic law, but the Constitution has never fulfilled the democratic promise we associate with it.

Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “(t)he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”
http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote.php?page=all

Those restrictions have disenfranchised ex-convicts, poor people, minorities, poor non-landowning White men, and women.

So, I'm sorry, but a "right" with restrictions is not a right...it's a privilege. So you got that wrong.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. OK, playing your game, are you saying that unless a right is written in the Constitution

It's not really a right?

Good-bye right to abortion and right to privacy.

Is that really the path you want to follow?

And sorry, but IMO, an amendment that actually mentions the right to vote trumps a wannabe internet Constitutional lawyer.

[BlueCaliDem]

18. The U.S. Supreme Court is a "wannabe internet Constitional lawyer"? Um, no.

Every single Constitutional lawyer/attorney will tell you exactly the same thing - that the U.S. Constitution does not provide an explicit right to vote.

Who am I going to believe? Constitutional attorneys, Supreme Court Justices, or a poster on Democratic Underground who hides behind a screenname and waving emogies?

As you should know - and it's sad that you don't - the 15th Amendment to the Constitution had granted Black American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." And although the 15th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment wouldn't be fully realized for almost a century. Poll taxes, literacy tests and other disenfranchising tactics that Southern states wielded were able to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans for another hundred years. Not until the passage of the 1965 VRA were Blacks in the South allowed to register to vote. So if voting is an explicit right in the U.S. Constitution, why again did Black Americans have to wait another 100 years in order to even register to vote?

Again, you are wrong. It's time you swallow your pride, stop flopping like a fish on land in defending your erroneous assumption, read how it really stands here at FairVote.org, educate yourself and admit you are wrong.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. Sorry, I think you're wrong

So why don't you swallow your pride, stop flopping like a fish and defending your erroneous assumption?

And while you're at it, since you continue to skirt the issue, do you believe there is a Constitutional right to abortion? Is there a Constitutional right to privacy?

Can't wait to see you try to worm your way out of this.

[BlueCaliDem]

22. Nope. But you are.

I have constitutional lawyers and U.S. Supreme Court precedence backing me. You have rolling emogies and a faceless avatar. Anyone with more than half a working brain knows who's won this debate...and it ain't you.

But keep trying, SOTOP. You just might get it someday...someday.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. And again, you avoid the question

But if it bolsters your ego to call people names when you have no facts to back you up, have at it. I guess that's better than admitting that you've painted yourself into a corner regarding abortion and privacy rights.

[BlueCaliDem]

25. I've presented the facts. You haven't. And I didn't know it was a requirement that we answer

any and all questions that deviate from the original subject. Sorry, but I don't play those games especially with those who consider themselves too proud to admit WHEN THEY ARE WRONG - meaning you, just in case that hasn't sunk in yet.

But please proceed.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. You're right, you don't have to answer any questions

But when you've said that only rights that are explicitly written into the Constitution are actually rights, then you've admitted that you don't believe abortion and privacy are actually rights.

That's an odd stance for someone on a Democratic discussion board.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. I've never said such a thing. That's what YOU make of it, and that's why I've ignored your

attempts to divert from the painful conclusion that you're wrong on whether or not a U.S. Citizen's right to vote is guaranteed in the Constitution. As it has been pointed out to you, it isn't.

Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “(t)he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

States decide the rules for Federal elections, therefore, States can implement rules requiring citizens to be registered to vote in Federal elections and, unlike your erroneous contention, it's perfectly right to do so and constitutional as well.

[CreekDog]

19. automatically registering people to vote is an awesome idea and not unconstitutional

Oregon has an option to opt-out if one so chooses.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. According to SOTOP, it's totally unconstitional. He knows he's wrong. He's

just too proud to admit it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. It's not unconstitutional to force someone to register

although I'm against it.

It is certainly unconstitutional to try to force someone to vote.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. Yeah. I know. You didn't appear to know, judging from your response to my

original comment.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. 2014 midterms, CA turnout 42%. Oregon turnout 69.3% and we thought that was low....

We vote entirely by mail and many impediments faced by voters in other States simply do not exist. Oregon encourages voting.
CA, my home State where I have most voted, should follow suit.

[Old Codger]

4. Oregon

That is low for Oregon, Cal. and all of the other states need to go with DMV voter registration and add vote by mail....When I lived in Cal. I just went with absentee ballots every year, when I moved to Oregon I was pretty pleased when they went to vote by mail here. Washington and Colorado now have it also..

[Retrograde]

8. That high? It was less than 30% in my county

California makes it relatively easy to vote. One can pick up an application in many places, including libraries and post offices. One can sign up for mail voting, no questions asked. No mandatory hard-to-get ID requirements at the polling places. Expanded advance voting hours and locations in my county. And still most people can't be bothered to actually get off their rear ends and vote. And this is the heart of Silicon Valley.

[angryvet]

5. You still have to get them to the polls

In Oregon the ballot is mailed to the house. You don't have to go anywhere, stand in lines...etc. Unless California institutes vote by mail it will probably not have that much of an effect.

[WillyT]

6. Knock Down One Obstacle At A Time...

Mail-In Ballots will probably be next.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. California *does* have permanent vote by mail in every county, but not exclusively so. It's still

elective.

[CreekDog]

20. California does have vote by mail

You sign up once and you're forever a vote by mail voter. I have been since 2003.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Me, too. eom

[Retrograde]

23. Vote by mail is available to all California voters

and has been for over a decade. No questions asked, no reasons needed - just fill in the handy back page of the sample ballot that is sent to every registered voter for every election, send it back to the registrar whose address is on it and BAM! you too can be a permanent mail voter, and get a ballot mailed to you four weeks before election day. I love it.

And yet we still have low voter participation.

[ripcord]

30. I don't see this as being a big help

Voter apathy is a huge problem in California, people just don't give a damn. Having said that I don't see how it hurts anything just as long as people don't get their hopes up.

[Bandit]

33. Ifd they were truly serious about adding more voters they would

go with "Vote By Mail".. The State(s) that have that have highest turnout in the entire nation. Democrats better wake up on this issue or become obsolete.