Right/Voting Rights and Suffrage/Culture and Politics

Voting Rights and Suffrage

History | Legal Codification | Philosophical Origins | Culture and Politics | Conflicts with other Rights | Limitations / Restrictions | Utilitarian / Fairness Assessments | Looking Ahead | Policy Recommendations

Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)? 🖉 edit

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 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."

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).

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). 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.

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).

References:

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

Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries? 🖉 edit

Electoral Rights and Europe

Being a part of the European Union, a citizen of a European country has electoral power in European, national, regional, and municipal levels, though that can bring confusion as to whether or not a European citizen can participate in all of the elections of a particular EU country. EU citizens can vote for European Parliament and municipal elections in any EU country that they live in, though they cannot vote in elections for national parliament nor in regional elections ('Flash Eurobarometer 485 - European Union Citizenship and Democracy', 2020, p. 3).

According to the Flash Eurobarometer 485 of July 2020, 71% European citizens were aware that a citizen of the EU that lives in their country has the right to vote for European Parliament (p. 5). 53% correctly stated that it is false that EU citizens living in their country can vote for national elections. A similar fifty percent split was found with European citizen’s belief of whether other EU citizens not from their country could vote for municipal and regional elections (p. 5).

This data implies that most Europeans recognize their own and others’ right to vote, and that their voting is done in conjunction with European voters from different countries and cultures. This creates an experience of voting that is decidedly international, both in the power that a European has with their vote and also the effects they feel from the votes of others. Voting power is much more expansive than just their own locality, and is instead affecting a much larger trans-national federation.

Later in the report, it shows that 63% of Europeans believe that a citizen of the US is justified in having the right to vote in the national elections of the country that the foreign citizen resides in (p. 6). The countries with the highest number of citizens who thought it justified was Ireland with 77% and Portugal with 74%. The lowest was Denmark with 40% and Sweden with 35%.

With the countries with more citizens that believe it is justified like Portugal and Ireland, the data implies that the right to vote should be expansive and farther reaching, with less importance placed on nationality and more on where someone lives. Moreover, the citizen’s desire for a wider net of participation implies an experience of voting that is too restricted, and far away from being universal.

With countries on the lower end with citizens that believe it to not be justified like Denmark and Sweden, the data implies that their conception of the right to vote is one that should be kept close with the ethnic and cultural natives of the country. The electoral net is too wide, and there would be a greater benefit if voting access were to be restrained and more controlled. This is further supported by the report later on which states that 49% of Danes and 56% of Swedes (the highest percentage) believe that European citizens should only vote in their country of origin (p. 21).

References:

Flash Eurobarometer 485: EU Citizenship and Democracy: https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2260_485_eng?locale=en

Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)? 🖉 edit

The type of regime governing a state often influences the level of voting rights people have and the way in which those rights are exercised. According to the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), most countries regardless of regime type legally have universal suffrage, and most have an age requirement of over eighteen years old or a similar age (CIA). Some other common notes on suffrage statuses included a citizenship or residency year requirement and the exclusion of military and police force members from voting. These voting requirements and restrictions are not exclusive to democratic versus autocratic regimes. France, Mali, Thailand, and Afghanistan (countries encompassing a wide range of democracy levels) have universal suffrage for all citizens, but one must reside in the country for five years in order to become a citizen. However, countries leaning more autocratic commonly have longer or unknown residency requirements to become naturalized and therefore able to vote, such as Bhutan (ten years), Cambodia (seven years), China (unspecified residency and extremely difficult naturalization process), Oman (unknown), Kuwait (twenty years), and Venezuela (ten years except for applicants from a specified set of countries) (CIA). Additionally, more than half of all countries and territories have compulsory voting (Shumacher and Connaughton, 2020). There is no visible trend, however, about regime types that employ compulsory voting, as both democratic and autocratic states require it, including but not limited to Belgium, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Greece, North Korea, and Luxembourg (CIA).

There is much scholarship on the status of voting rights for non-resident citizens in stable democracies, violent democracies, and autocracies. According to a study by Frontiers in Political Science, the more democratized a regime is, the more likely it will grant non-resident citizens’ enfranchisement (along with enfranchisement of other marginalized groups), and the more autocratic a regime is, the less likely it will do so (Umpierrez de Reguero, Yener-Roderburg, and Cartagena, 2021, 2). Additionally, they found that “when the diaspora favors (or is perceived to favor) the incumbency, then external voting rights are extended; otherwise, third, they are withheld or limited for nonresident citizens” (1). Nyblade cites Umpierrez de Reguero and builds on the discussion of emigrant voting rights as determined by regime type, contributing research on violent democracies specifically. Using Pérez-Armendáriz’s definition that violent democracies are states in which “manifold political actors regularly use violence to compete for power and make demands within established democratic institutional frameworks,” Nyblade argues that “domestic political actors that rely on violence may be particularly resistant to adopting extraterritorial voting rights, as emigrant voters are more difficult to target with violence (and indeed, may have become emigrants in order to flee violence)” (Nyblade, Iams Wellman, and Allen, 2022, 2). violent democracies When violent democracies do grant external voting rights, they may prevent them from exercising the right by neglecting to put into place actual systems to register and count their votes from abroad (15). A regime’s status as a violent democracy contributes to distinct voting dynamics and practices in the state.

Rather than outright restricting the right to vote, violent democracies and autocracies will grant the right legally and then employ other tactics to ensure their desired electoral outcome. For instance, “elections may allow dictators to co-opt rivals, gain legitimacy, deter opposition, and learn about regime/opposition strength and standing in the broader population” (Knutsen, Mokleiv Nygard, and Wig, 2017, 98). Holding elections does garner the risk of defeat, even with vote-buying and election-rigging, but “many autocratic leaders, at least those who are not too myopic, accept the increased short-term risk of being ousted in exchange for an improved grip on power in the long run” (136).

Attitudes towards voting by citizens also differ depending on regime type: “scholars have long argued that where political institutions encompass broad views and interests in policymaking processes, citizens are more likely to engage in the political process, because they signal the openness of the political system to citizens, thus altering their belief about their influence” (Hyun Kim, 2019, 597). Theoretically in democracies, citizens vote because they trust that elections will be fair and reflect the will of the people; democracies make room for diverse citizen opinions to be heard. In contrast, citizens in autocracies understand the electoral corruption, and therefore may not have faith in their vote. Scholarly accounts conclude that this lack of trust in the regime does not stop people from voting. In Cameroon, “despite the fact that 70% of respondents believed the ruling party will win elections, when asked whether their vote makes a difference in elections, 65% of Cameroonians said it did” (Wenzell Letsa, 2019, 440). Though the people polled by Wenzell Letsa expressed various opinions of the ruling party, the party won 148 out of 180 seats in the 2013 legislative election and 71.28% of votes in the 2018 presidential election (443). In a study on voting in Russia, Reuter suggests that “the duty to vote under autocracy is rooted not in norms of democratic participation but rather in reverence for the state” (Reuter, 2021). Similarly, while Chinese political participation voting (in local/village elections) is tightly controlled, “Chinese citizens are often insistently ingenious in organizing protests or engaging in public discussions in ways that work around official controls, while leveraging official rules and promises” (He and Warren, 2011, 274).

References:

Central Intelligence Agency. “Field Listing- Suffrage.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 12, 2024. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/suffrage/

He, Baogang, and Mark Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics, 9 no. 2 269-289. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41479652

Hyun Kim, Jeong. 2019. “Direct Democracy and Women’s Political Engagement.” American Journal of Political Science, 63 no. 3. 549-610. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45132499

Knutsen, Carl, Havard Mokleiv Nygard, and Tore Wig. 2017. “Autocratic Elections: Stabilizing Tool or Force for Change?” World Politics, 69 no. 1 98-143. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26347385

Nyblade, Benjamin, Elizabeth Iams Wellman, and Nathan Allen. 2022. “Transnational voting rights and policies in violent democracies: a global comparison.” Comparative Migration Studies 10 no. 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-022-00299-9

Reuter, Ora John. 2021. “Civic Duty and Voting Under Autocracy.” The Journal of Politics, 83 no. 4. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/711718

Shumacher, Shannon and Aidan Connaughton. 2020. “From voter registration to mail-in ballots, how do countries around the world run their elections?” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/30/from-voter-registration-to-mail-in-ballots-how-do-countries-around-the-world-run-their-elections/

Umpierrez de Reguero, Sebastian, Inci Oyku Yener-Roderburg, and Vivian Cartagena. 2021. “Political Regimes and External Voting Rights: A Cross-National Comparison.” Frontiers in Political Science 3, Sec. Elections and Representation. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.636734

Wenzell Letsa, Natalie. 2019. “Expressive Voting in Autocracies: A Theory of Non-Economic Participation with Evidence from Cameroon.” Perspectives on Politics, 18 no. 2 439-453. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719001002

Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively 🖉 edit

Voting culture, practices, and attitudes vary from state to state; cultural and political factors provide for distinct voting practices. Over half of all countries and territories require citizens to register to vote (Shumacher and Connaughton, 2020). Currently, twenty-one countries have compulsory voting. (Central Intelligence Agency). The first country to introduce compulsory voting (for men) was Belgium in 1892 in an amendment to Article 48 of its Constitution (“Compulsory Voting,” “Constitution of Belgium”). Each state that has compulsory voting implements it differently; some states write it into law and impose legal punishments for those who do not vote, while others may not write it into law but still impose sanctions on non-voters (Birch, 2009). Birch reports notable examples:

“Singapore operates an unusual system that combines the removal of voting rights with a fine. Non-voters have their names automatically removed from the electoral register and must pay a fee to have them reinstated unless they can produce a ‘valid and sufficient’ reason for not having participated” (8);

“Bolivians without a ‘suffrage certificate’ are forbidden from carrying out banking transactions or obtaining passports for 90 days following the election, and in Brazil such electors are in addition deprived by law of the right to state education. Until recently, non-voters in Greece were in theory unable to obtain driver’s licenses or passports” (9);

“in Iran where ‘though voting is not compulsory, citizens may have to show the stamp impressed on voters’ identity cards in polling stations when applying for passports’” (Kauz qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5);

in North Korea “‘although voting is not compulsory by law, the political prescriptions laid down in the party catechism prescribe it as the correct behaviour of every citizen. A simple negligence, let alone denial [sic] to take part in the polls, would be followed by harsh discrimination in the living and working sphere of the person concerned’” (Suh qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5).

Birch additionally comments on the aspects of language that engender different interpretations of the right to vote in terms of compulsory voting. The specific term, “compulsory voting” in the English language has a somewhat negative connotation to it (in American English; Australians use the term happily) because compulsion implies being forced to do something one does not want to do. In other languages, specifically other European languages, the terms to describe compulsory voting imply that the practice is more of an obligation and duty than a coercion. Further, the Dutch language has a word, opkomstplicht, translating to “compulsory (or obligatory) attendance at the polls,” not compulsory (or obligatory) voting because once the voter is in the privacy of the voting booth, the state cannot do anything to stop them from casting a blank or invalid ballot (Birch, 2009, 2-3).

Scholars have long disagreed over whether compulsory voting can be justified or not. Proponents of compulsory voting often argue that it increases voter turnout, therefore addressing issues of low and unequal voter turnout (Lever, 2010, 898). Additionally, supporters suggest it does not violate any rights in places where the ballot is secret (902). Opponents of compulsory voting argue that forcing people to exercise their rights is immoral; even if it is in one’s self interest to vote, people may disagree on what is in their self interest (906).

There are also many unique methods of voting in different states around the world. In The Gambia, voters drop glass marbles into drums corresponding to each political party, a system designed in 1965 so citizens who could not read were still able to vote (Boylston, 2023). In certain areas in Switzerland, citizens will assemble once a year in the town square to vote on different issues by raising their hands for a simple majority, a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages when alpine communities were isolated from one another (Boylston, 2023). These types of practices are official and important to the political process, but they also serve to honor the history of the polity and celebrate their culture and community.

Local elections are important in many places, but for some, especially those in autocratic and authoritarian regimes, local elections are the only way in which citizens can make their voices heard. Saudi Arabia does not hold national elections, so citizens must utilize municipal elections to contribute to the political system. Additionally, women were only granted the right to vote in these elections in 2015, and still face a multitude of barriers actually getting to the polls (Human Rights Watch, 2015). Despite the challenges, Saudi women are not giving up on fighting for their right to vote. In China, “two decades ago, leaders introduced village-level elections. Other innovations have followed, including approval and recall voting at the local level, public hearings, deliberative polls” (He and Warren, 2011, 269), though the regime seems to have no interest in democratizing at the national level. Chinese leaders have realized that allowing a controlled level of citizen participation provides them more legitimacy and allows them to maintain a social order while deflecting blame for tough decisions on to the electoral process (281). Nevertheless, “Chinese citizens are often insistently ingenious in organizing protests or engaging in public discussions in ways that work around official controls, while leveraging official rules and promises” (274).

References:

Birch, Sarah. 2009. Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting. United Nations University Press. https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/sample-chapters/full_participation_web.pdf

Boylston, Alex. 2023. “Five Unique Voting Practices Around the World.” Assembly Voting. https://assemblyvoting.com/blog/five-unique-voting-practices-around-the-world/

Central Intelligence Agency. “Field Listing- Suffrage.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 12, 2024. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/suffrage/

“Compulsory Voting.” International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/compulsory-voting

“Constitution of Belgium Amended to 1893.” World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzbe0041&i=8

He, Baogang, and Mark Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics, 9 no. 2 269-289. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41479652

Human Rights Watch. 2015. “Saudi Arabia: Landmark Elections for Women.” https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/11/saudi-arabia-landmark-elections-women?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkdO0BhDxARIsANkNcrcATEB-bUAv5AImLQlVXX8ealDKtpwSsB2BpnGeHHi5sMKwScnw64AaAsbzEALw_wcB

Lever, Annabelle. 2010. “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science, 40 no. 4 897-915. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40930591

Shumacher, Shannon and Aidan Connaughton. 2020. “From voter registration to mail-in ballots, how do countries around the world run their elections?” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/30/from-voter-registration-to-mail-in-ballots-how-do-countries-around-the-world-run-their-elections/