How is it, that when a problem that does not exist, it must obviously require legislation. Or when placed in a separate context, when a potential problem may exist, but that problem is constitutionally protected, no legislation outside of the founding documents need exist as the origin legislation is deemed sufficient.
I’m obviously referring to gun control laws. Disclaimer, I’m a fan of the right to own handguns, rifles, etc… However, what is very confusing to me is how when one problem does exist, as in gun-related violent crimes, and one problem doesn’t exist, as in overwhelming voter fraud in national political elections (let alone voter fraud in elections that Americans don’t even care about). It’s not that we need more gun control, it’s that we also don’t need more voter control. The problem? The Republican party receives a metric crap-load of money from the NRA.
Both the privilege to vote (remember folks it isn’t a constitutional right), and the constitutional right to own a gun are only issues when elected officials make them so. The problem with any voting access related law, is that if it restricts voter access (which is, sadly, completely legal unless it is specifically on the basis of sex or race), if passed into legislation, how will the affected voter have a chance at due process? The court system is certainly a method, but as the law is neither unconstitutional nor illegal (per referenced guidelines), one would be hard-pressed to prove in the court of law actual demonstrable proof that voter suppression was occurring.
No, my main problem with this is the centralization of the argument base. Why is it, that a crime such as vote fraud, with all of its national and local implications, is only being pressed by one political party, and only the states in which that party is in the majority within the state legislature.
Like many of the problems that face this great nation, over-complication of the laws and regulations allows specific groups of people to manipulate the playing field (this applies to non-specific groups, agendas, political organizations, etc). The simpler the rule, the harder to manipulate it.
On that premise, this is how I would approach this issue:
A) The privilege to vote, should become the right to vote in order to ensure the will of the people.
B) The right to vote is ensured to everyone of military age
C) The registration for selective service and the registration to vote are the same act, and neither requires declaration of political organization preference
D) Registering for selective service occurs at the DMV, who issues you a photo ID
E) You must present a photo ID to exercise your new right to vote
F) Voting locations are to be devised per school district, with the voting occurring at the most central public building
G) All voting, for all elections, occurs over a seven day span for twelve hours a day within that span, including absentee balloting
That’s my list; however, I feel that F requires some context. This will ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to vote. In the digital age, all those that may be impacted by absentee balloting will have advanced notice of election and be able to source their absentee ballot. All absentee ballots must be presented with a color photo of the registered voter who is supplying the ballot (photo ID for everyone). Members of the military, who choose to cast an absentee ballot, shall be provided ample opportunity to do so.
There, nice and simple, no room for manipulation. Seven rules that ensure an ample, and equal, opportunity for those who want to cast a vote, to cast a vote.