Voting Rights and Suffrage/Culture and Politics/Fundamental and protected - Revision history

Jkochan1 at 23:56, 14 May 2023

2023-05-14T23:56:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:56, 14 May 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?		\|questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=For several decades, the right to vote has been widely recognized as fundamental to fair, participatory government by a wide variety of international organizations and individual nations. The most prominent example comes from the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1966]], which recognized that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors” (UN General Assembly ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1966]]) . Regional organizations such as the OAS, OSCE, EU, and African Union also hold provisions emphasizing the importance of maintaining equal access to voting among their member nations (University of Minnesota, [[Probable year:: 2003]]) . In addition to international decrees and declarations identifying the importance of suffrage, international election monitoring and observation bodies exist around the world to protect citizens’ ability to vote and analyze countries’ electoral processes. There is strong global consensus that voting rights ought to be protected and are an essential element of successful representative democracies.		\|contents=For several decades, the right to vote has been widely recognized as fundamental to fair, participatory government by a wide variety of international organizations and individual nations. The most prominent example comes from the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, which recognized that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors” (UN General Assembly 1966). In addition to international decrees and declarations identifying the importance of suffrage, international election monitoring and observation bodies exist around the world to protect citizens’ ability to vote and analyze countries’ electoral processes. There is strong global consensus that voting rights ought to be protected and are an essential element of successful representative democracies.

	In an American context, the United States Constitution explicitly protects citizens’ right to vote in Section II of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, Nineteenth Amendment, and Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1965]] and its subsequent amendments also describe the right to vote as an “inherent constitutional right” (H.R. 4249, 91st Congress ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1970]]) . Additionally, prominent Supreme Court cases concerning voting rights such as, Reynolds v. Sims (~~[[Probable year::~~ 1964]]) , Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (~~[[Probable year::~~ 1966]]) , and Kramer v. Union Free School District (~~[[Probable year::~~ 1969]]) convey the fundamental nature of suffrage, pushing back against previous interpretations by the Court in Minor v. Happersett (~~[[Probable year::~~ 1875]]) that “the Constitution...does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” (Supreme Court of the US ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1875]]) and even older perceptions of voting as a privilege that had to be earned through societal metrics such as property ownership (Behrens ~~[[Probable year::~~ 2004]], 232). In Reynolds, the Court established that:		In an American context, the United States Constitution explicitly protects citizens’ right to vote in Section II of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, Nineteenth Amendment, and Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent amendments also describe the right to vote as an “inherent constitutional right” (H.R. 4249, 91st Congress 1970). Additionally, prominent Supreme Court cases concerning voting rights such as, Reynolds v. Sims (1964) , Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) , and Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969) convey the fundamental nature of suffrage, pushing back against previous interpretations by the Court in Minor v. Happersett ( 1875) that “the Constitution...does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” (Supreme Court of the US 1875) and even older perceptions of voting as a privilege that had to be earned through societal metrics such as property ownership (Behrens 2004, 232). In Reynolds, the Court established that: "Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

	~~"Undoubtedly~~, the right ~~of suffrage~~ is a fundamental ~~matter~~ in a ~~free and democratic~~ society.		Harper concerned the constitutionality of poll taxes, and the Court reasoned that “wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned” (Supreme Court of the US 1966). Kramer similarly outlined that “any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government” (Supreme Court of the US 1969). Both majority opinions in Reynolds and Harper also relied upon previous rationale established in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) that “though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless [the right to vote] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” (Supreme Court of the US 1886).
	~~Especially since~~ the right to ~~exercise the franchise in~~ a ~~free and unimpaired manner is~~ preservative of ~~other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement~~ of the ~~right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized~~."

	~~Harper concerned the constitutionality~~ of ~~poll taxes~~, ~~and the Court reasoned~~ that ~~“wealth or fee paying has~~, in ~~our view~~, ~~no relation~~ to voting ~~qualifications;~~ the right to vote ~~is too precious, too~~ fundamental to ~~be so burdened or conditioned” (Supreme Court~~ of the ~~US [[Probable year:: 1966]])~~ . ~~Kramer similarly outlined~~ that ~~“any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in~~ the ~~selection~~ of ~~public officials undermines~~ the ~~legitimacy of representative government” (~~Supreme Court ~~of the US [[Probable year:: 1969]]) .~~		In spite of these general beliefs legal precedent, certain members of society are still excluded from this fundamental right for reasons that are widely debated. Citizenship, for example, is often a requirement for suffrage. However, some countries, including certain local governments in the United States, allow noncitizens to vote in local elections after they have met certain residency requirements (Earnest). Felons are also often restricted from voting. In most countries with restrictions on felon voting, these penalties only take place when individuals are serving their prison sentence. In the United States, however, felon voting policy, like nearly all electoral policy, is a state decision. Restrictive felon voting policies are indicative to some experts that the United States has “failed to give the right to vote its true status as a fundamental right” (Behrens 275).
	~~Both majority opinions in Reynolds and Harper also relied upon previous rationale established~~ in ~~Yick Wo~~ v. ~~Hopkins~~ (~~[[Probable year:: 1886]]~~) ~~that “though not regarded strictly as a natural right~~, ~~but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under~~ certain ~~conditions~~, ~~nevertheless [the right~~ to ~~vote] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year:: 1886]])~~ .		In addition to the explicit prohibition of certain individuals from voting, unequal access to voting precincts and absentee drop-off locations as well as reduced voting hours and early voting periods also undermine the extent to which voting rights are protected around the world. Beyond restrictions of where citizens can vote, more explicit voter intimidation and election-related violence are employed even in countries that have signed on to international agreements outlining the importance of voting rights. Partisan gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has defined as federally “nonjusticiable” in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), also dilutes the impact of certain citizens’ votes, undermining their ability to meaningfully exercise suffrage.

	~~In spite of these general beliefs legal precedent~~, certain members of society are still excluded from this fundamental right for reasons that are widely debated. Citizenship, for example, is often a requirement for suffrage. However, some countries, including certain local governments in the United States, allow noncitizens to ~~vote in local elections after they have met certain residency requirements (Earnest). Felons are~~ also ~~often restricted from~~ voting. ~~In most countries with restrictions~~ on ~~felon voting, these penalties only take place when individuals~~ are ~~serving their prison sentence. In the United States, however, felon voting policy, like nearly all electoral policy, is~~ a ~~state decision, and half of all states prohibit felons from voting until the completion~~ of parole and probation, including nine states that prohibit it even after parole and probation (ProCon). Restrictive felon voting policies are indicative to some experts that the United States has “failed to give the right to vote its true status as a ~~fundamental right”~~ (~~Behrens 275~~).		Additionally, policies implemented to address voter fraud such as voter identification can also limit overall voting access. Critics of voter identification argue that requiring an often-times narrow list of permissible forms of identification puts an undue burden on citizens who are less likely to possess valid identification and constitute a modern form of a “poll tax” (Reeves).

	In addition to the explicit prohibition of certain individuals from voting, unequal access to voting precincts and absentee drop-off locations as well as reduced voting hours and early voting periods also undermine the extent to which voting rights are protected around the world. Beyond restrictions of where citizens can vote, more explicit voter intimidation and election-related violence are employed even in countries that have signed on to international agreements outlining the importance of voting rights. Partisan gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has defined as federally “nonjusticiable” in Rucho v. Common Cause ([[Probable year:~~: 2019]]) , also dilutes the impact of certain citizens’ votes, undermining their ability to meaningfully exercise suffrage (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year:: 2019]]) .~~		References:

	~~Additionally~~, ~~policies implemented to address voter fraud such as voter identification can also limit overall voting access~~. ~~Critics of voter identification argue that requiring an often~~-~~times narrow list of permissible forms of identification puts an undue burden on citizens who are less likely~~ to ~~possess valid identification and constitute a more discrete form of a “poll tax” (Nackenoff)~~. ~~Voter ID cases are often analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as outlined in Crawford v~~. ~~Marion County~~ (~~[[Probable year:~~: 2008]]) , with states’ individual histories of voting discrimination, prevalence of voter fraud–or in many cases “perceptions” of fraud or a lack of “voter confidence”–and evidence indicating deliberate discriminatory intent all playing a role in determining whether or not voter identification satisfies a legitimate government interest (Tokaji).		Behrens, Angela. "Voting-Not Quite a Fundamantal Right-A Look at Legal and Legislative Challenges to Felon Disfranchisement Laws." Minn. L. Rev. 89 (2004): 231.

			David C. Earnest, “Noncitizen Voting Rights: A Survey of an Emerging Democratic Norm,” 2003: http://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Earnest_APSA_non-citizen-voting_2003.pdf

			Celina De León, “Political Scientist Keith Reeves '88 Reacts to Latest Ruling on Pa. Voter ID Law,” October 2nd, 2012:
			https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/political-scientist-keith-reeves-88-reacts-to-latest-ruling-pa-voter-id-law

			United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966:
			https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf
	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:22:50Z

transformed

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 28 December 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?		\|questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=For several decades, the right to vote has been widely recognized as fundamental to fair, participatory government by a wide variety of international organizations and individual nations. The most prominent example comes from the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of [[Probable year::1966]], which recognized that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors” (UN General Assembly [[Probable year::1966]]) . Regional organizations such as the OAS, OSCE, EU, and African Union also hold provisions emphasizing the importance of maintaining equal access to voting among their member nations (University of Minnesota, [[Probable year::2003]]) . In addition to international decrees and declarations identifying the importance of suffrage, international election monitoring and observation bodies exist around the world to protect citizens’ ability to vote and analyze countries’ electoral processes. There is strong global consensus that voting rights ought to be protected and are an essential element of successful representative democracies.		\|contents=For several decades, the right to vote has been widely recognized as fundamental to fair, participatory government by a wide variety of international organizations and individual nations. The most prominent example comes from the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of [[Probable year:: 1966]], which recognized that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors” (UN General Assembly [[Probable year:: 1966]]) . Regional organizations such as the OAS, OSCE, EU, and African Union also hold provisions emphasizing the importance of maintaining equal access to voting among their member nations (University of Minnesota, [[Probable year:: 2003]]) . In addition to international decrees and declarations identifying the importance of suffrage, international election monitoring and observation bodies exist around the world to protect citizens’ ability to vote and analyze countries’ electoral processes. There is strong global consensus that voting rights ought to be protected and are an essential element of successful representative democracies.

	In an American context, the United States Constitution explicitly protects citizens’ right to vote in Section II of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, Nineteenth Amendment, and Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of [[Probable year::1965]] and its subsequent amendments also describe the right to vote as an “inherent constitutional right” (H.R. 4249, 91st Congress [[Probable year::1970]]) . Additionally, prominent Supreme Court cases concerning voting rights such as, Reynolds v. Sims ([[Probable year::1964]]) , Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections ([[Probable year::1966]]) , and Kramer v. Union Free School District ([[Probable year::1969]]) convey the fundamental nature of suffrage, pushing back against previous interpretations by the Court in Minor v. Happersett ([[Probable year::1875]]) that “the Constitution...does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1875]]) and even older perceptions of voting as a privilege that had to be earned through societal metrics such as property ownership (Behrens [[Probable year::2004]], 232). In Reynolds, the Court established that:		In an American context, the United States Constitution explicitly protects citizens’ right to vote in Section II of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, Nineteenth Amendment, and Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of [[Probable year:: 1965]] and its subsequent amendments also describe the right to vote as an “inherent constitutional right” (H.R. 4249, 91st Congress [[Probable year:: 1970]]) . Additionally, prominent Supreme Court cases concerning voting rights such as, Reynolds v. Sims ([[Probable year:: 1964]]) , Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections ([[Probable year:: 1966]]) , and Kramer v. Union Free School District ([[Probable year:: 1969]]) convey the fundamental nature of suffrage, pushing back against previous interpretations by the Court in Minor v. Happersett ([[Probable year:: 1875]]) that “the Constitution...does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year:: 1875]]) and even older perceptions of voting as a privilege that had to be earned through societal metrics such as property ownership (Behrens [[Probable year:: 2004]], 232). In Reynolds, the Court established that:

	"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.		"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.
	Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."		Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

	Harper concerned the constitutionality of poll taxes, and the Court reasoned that “wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1966]]) . Kramer similarly outlined that “any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1969]]) .		Harper concerned the constitutionality of poll taxes, and the Court reasoned that “wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year:: 1966]]) . Kramer similarly outlined that “any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year:: 1969]]) .
	Both majority opinions in Reynolds and Harper also relied upon previous rationale established in Yick Wo v. Hopkins ([[Probable year::1886]]) that “though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless [the right to vote] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1886]]) .		Both majority opinions in Reynolds and Harper also relied upon previous rationale established in Yick Wo v. Hopkins ([[Probable year:: 1886]]) that “though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless [the right to vote] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year:: 1886]]) .

	In spite of these general beliefs legal precedent, certain members of society are still excluded from this fundamental right for reasons that are widely debated. Citizenship, for example, is often a requirement for suffrage. However, some countries, including certain local governments in the United States, allow noncitizens to vote in local elections after they have met certain residency requirements (Earnest). Felons are also often restricted from voting. In most countries with restrictions on felon voting, these penalties only take place when individuals are serving their prison sentence. In the United States, however, felon voting policy, like nearly all electoral policy, is a state decision, and half of all states prohibit felons from voting until the completion of parole and probation, including nine states that prohibit it even after parole and probation (ProCon). Restrictive felon voting policies are indicative to some experts that the United States has “failed to give the right to vote its true status as a fundamental right” (Behrens 275).		In spite of these general beliefs legal precedent, certain members of society are still excluded from this fundamental right for reasons that are widely debated. Citizenship, for example, is often a requirement for suffrage. However, some countries, including certain local governments in the United States, allow noncitizens to vote in local elections after they have met certain residency requirements (Earnest). Felons are also often restricted from voting. In most countries with restrictions on felon voting, these penalties only take place when individuals are serving their prison sentence. In the United States, however, felon voting policy, like nearly all electoral policy, is a state decision, and half of all states prohibit felons from voting until the completion of parole and probation, including nine states that prohibit it even after parole and probation (ProCon). Restrictive felon voting policies are indicative to some experts that the United States has “failed to give the right to vote its true status as a fundamental right” (Behrens 275).

	In addition to the explicit prohibition of certain individuals from voting, unequal access to voting precincts and absentee drop-off locations as well as reduced voting hours and early voting periods also undermine the extent to which voting rights are protected around the world. Beyond restrictions of where citizens can vote, more explicit voter intimidation and election-related violence are employed even in countries that have signed on to international agreements outlining the importance of voting rights. Partisan gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has defined as federally “nonjusticiable” in Rucho v. Common Cause ([[Probable year::2019]]) , also dilutes the impact of certain citizens’ votes, undermining their ability to meaningfully exercise suffrage (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::2019]]) .		In addition to the explicit prohibition of certain individuals from voting, unequal access to voting precincts and absentee drop-off locations as well as reduced voting hours and early voting periods also undermine the extent to which voting rights are protected around the world. Beyond restrictions of where citizens can vote, more explicit voter intimidation and election-related violence are employed even in countries that have signed on to international agreements outlining the importance of voting rights. Partisan gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has defined as federally “nonjusticiable” in Rucho v. Common Cause ([[Probable year:: 2019]]) , also dilutes the impact of certain citizens’ votes, undermining their ability to meaningfully exercise suffrage (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year:: 2019]]) .

	Additionally, policies implemented to address voter fraud such as voter identification can also limit overall voting access. Critics of voter identification argue that requiring an often-times narrow list of permissible forms of identification puts an undue burden on citizens who are less likely to possess valid identification and constitute a more discrete form of a “poll tax” (Nackenoff). Voter ID cases are often analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as outlined in Crawford v. Marion County ([[Probable year::2008]]) , with states’ individual histories of voting discrimination, prevalence of voter fraud–or in many cases “perceptions” of fraud or a lack of “voter confidence”–and evidence indicating deliberate discriminatory intent all playing a role in determining whether or not voter identification satisfies a legitimate government interest (Tokaji).		Additionally, policies implemented to address voter fraud such as voter identification can also limit overall voting access. Critics of voter identification argue that requiring an often-times narrow list of permissible forms of identification puts an undue burden on citizens who are less likely to possess valid identification and constitute a more discrete form of a “poll tax” (Nackenoff). Voter ID cases are often analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as outlined in Crawford v. Marion County ([[Probable year:: 2008]]) , with states’ individual histories of voting discrimination, prevalence of voter fraud–or in many cases “perceptions” of fraud or a lack of “voter confidence”–and evidence indicating deliberate discriminatory intent all playing a role in determining whether or not voter identification satisfies a legitimate government interest (Tokaji).


	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-11-25T19:52:35Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Voting Rights and Suffrage
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Fundamental and protected
|questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=For several decades, the right to vote has been widely recognized as fundamental to fair, participatory government by a wide variety of international organizations and individual nations. The most prominent example comes from the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of [[Probable year::1966]], which recognized that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors” (UN General Assembly [[Probable year::1966]]) . Regional organizations such as the OAS, OSCE, EU, and African Union also hold provisions emphasizing the importance of maintaining equal access to voting among their member nations (University of Minnesota, [[Probable year::2003]]) . In addition to international decrees and declarations identifying the importance of suffrage, international election monitoring and observation bodies exist around the world to protect citizens’ ability to vote and analyze countries’ electoral processes. There is strong global consensus that voting rights ought to be protected and are an essential element of successful representative democracies.

In an American context, the United States Constitution explicitly protects citizens’ right to vote in Section II of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, Nineteenth Amendment, and Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of [[Probable year::1965]] and its subsequent amendments also describe the right to vote as an “inherent constitutional right” (H.R. 4249, 91st Congress [[Probable year::1970]]) . Additionally, prominent Supreme Court cases concerning voting rights such as, Reynolds v. Sims ([[Probable year::1964]]) , Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections ([[Probable year::1966]]) , and Kramer v. Union Free School District ([[Probable year::1969]]) convey the fundamental nature of suffrage, pushing back against previous interpretations by the Court in Minor v. Happersett ([[Probable year::1875]]) that “the Constitution...does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1875]]) and even older perceptions of voting as a privilege that had to be earned through societal metrics such as property ownership (Behrens [[Probable year::2004]], 232). In Reynolds, the Court established that:

"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.
Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

Harper concerned the constitutionality of poll taxes, and the Court reasoned that “wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1966]]) . Kramer similarly outlined that “any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1969]]) .
Both majority opinions in Reynolds and Harper also relied upon previous rationale established in Yick Wo v. Hopkins ([[Probable year::1886]]) that “though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless [the right to vote] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::1886]]) .

In spite of these general beliefs legal precedent, certain members of society are still excluded from this fundamental right for reasons that are widely debated. Citizenship, for example, is often a requirement for suffrage. However, some countries, including certain local governments in the United States, allow noncitizens to vote in local elections after they have met certain residency requirements (Earnest). Felons are also often restricted from voting. In most countries with restrictions on felon voting, these penalties only take place when individuals are serving their prison sentence. In the United States, however, felon voting policy, like nearly all electoral policy, is a state decision, and half of all states prohibit felons from voting until the completion of parole and probation, including nine states that prohibit it even after parole and probation (ProCon). Restrictive felon voting policies are indicative to some experts that the United States has “failed to give the right to vote its true status as a fundamental right” (Behrens 275).

In addition to the explicit prohibition of certain individuals from voting, unequal access to voting precincts and absentee drop-off locations as well as reduced voting hours and early voting periods also undermine the extent to which voting rights are protected around the world. Beyond restrictions of where citizens can vote, more explicit voter intimidation and election-related violence are employed even in countries that have signed on to international agreements outlining the importance of voting rights. Partisan gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has defined as federally “nonjusticiable” in Rucho v. Common Cause ([[Probable year::2019]]) , also dilutes the impact of certain citizens’ votes, undermining their ability to meaningfully exercise suffrage (Supreme Court of the US [[Probable year::2019]]) .

Additionally, policies implemented to address voter fraud such as voter identification can also limit overall voting access. Critics of voter identification argue that requiring an often-times narrow list of permissible forms of identification puts an undue burden on citizens who are less likely to possess valid identification and constitute a more discrete form of a “poll tax” (Nackenoff). Voter ID cases are often analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as outlined in Crawford v. Marion County ([[Probable year::2008]]) , with states’ individual histories of voting discrimination, prevalence of voter fraud–or in many cases “perceptions” of fraud or a lack of “voter confidence”–and evidence indicating deliberate discriminatory intent all playing a role in determining whether or not voter identification satisfies a legitimate government interest (Tokaji).

}}