hands holding sparkler in front of flag in dim space

Image, Unsplash

The world looks to us to lead.​

Let’s make America the country where government must actively enforce the right to vote, not just 
refrain from denying or abridging it.


Mandatory Voting vs

Enforcing Voting Rights

Mandatory voting, fining nonsuffrage, tends to result in suffrage over 95%. Countries with mandatory voting include Australia, Brazil, Luxembourg, Peru, Singapore and (surprise!) North Korea. The problem is that it can punish people who couldn’t vote because of abridgment or denial without doing anything about either. Mandatory voting uses the courts to assess medical or other inability and fine nonvoting, and doesn't prevent denial or abridgement if it's possible to claim they didn’t cause the nonsuffrage. Nonvoters are fined, possibly violating popular sovereignty, and nothing else necessarily happens.

The United States government has no authority to force people to exercise the inalienable right of continuing to ordain and establish government by exercising the right to vote.

It may neither stop us from exercising,

nor force us to exercise any inalienable right.

The Right to Vote clause details the Guarantee clause to require the United States and the states to actively enforce the right to vote, not just refrain from denying or abridging it.

Its requirement to protect the ballot makes abridgment or denial easier to police. Monitoring protects against onsite versions and auditing against postsuffrage abridgment.

Amendment XXVIII, (proposed), Section 2: "The United States and every State will enforce the right of a citizen eighteen years of age or older to vote, not to vote, or to abstain regarding any office or proposal, in United States or State elections."

These directives also give the public the ability to use the civil courts more effectively to replace abridging electoral practices with simplicity, convenience, and organization.
Without making voting mandatory or fining nonvoting this section protects the ballot.