What can a state lose if it denies citizens the right to vote?

Question

What can a state lose if it denies citizens the right to vote?

Answer 1

representation in Congress per the 14th Amendment

However, like most of the Constitution, the Federal Government has never followed this.

Answer 2

If it happens repeatedly, I can see a federalisation of the state and an overthrow of the government.

Answer 3

First, let's discuss where in the voting process one can be denied the right to vote. Second, let's establish that states do deny the right to vote, both leally and overtly and ilegally and covertly. Third, let's explore what the Federal Government can do to right those wrongs. Fourth, I propose an alternative to state-by-state election law reform to protect the voting process.

The voting process ensures that (1) qualified citizens are allowed to register in a timely and uncomplicated fashion without unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, or biased barriers;   (2) the registrations are not challenged without cause, adequate notice, and due process; (3) the registered voter is allowed to vote; (4) the vote is recorded and counted accurately; and (5) recounts occur as required by law without interference and the recounted votes are recorded and counted accurately.

Denying a qualified citizen the right to register is the least subtle way to deny a citizen the right to vote and the way that is most likely to draw official fire. But there are other points in the process that are just as effective but much harder to prove. For example, Republican operatives in some states participated in voter registration drives in predominantly Democratic precincts and wards to ostensibly regsiter Democrats, then tossed the registration forms in the trash. People who thought they were registered went to the polls only to learn that they were not.  Or you can just underfund the purchase and maintenance of voting machines, causing long lines that tend to discourage working-class voters who tend to vote Democrat.

Several states do not automatically restore the right to vote to convicts who have served their time, as is the case in Florida, but there is a process for petitioning for reinstatement. Then Gov. Jeb Bush made the process burdensome and slow, while Charlie Crist is going to make it virtually automatic.

Prior to the 2000 election, Florida used a Texas-based contractor to flag questionable voter registrations.  The criteria provided to the contractor by the Florida Department of State were arbitrary.  There was no public review and comment on the criteria. There was no due process provided to flagged voters.  Nobody on the flagged list was provided any notice in advance of the election so that they could provide supporting evidence and documentation to lift the challenge.  In some cases, flagged voters were not allowed to cast a ballot. In other cases, the ballot was cast but the vote was not registered until the required supporting documentation was provided by the flagged voter after the fact of the election.  

During the 2000 recount, when the protesters broke in and stopped it in Miami-Dade County, and the police failed to restore order and arrest those who were interfering with the voting process, the police were guilty of nonfeasance and dereliction of duty and should have been ordered by their superiors to remove the protesters from the recount room and retsore order by making the required arrests or be suspended.  Failing that, the state police should have been called in to restore order and protect the recount process. Failing that, Federal marshalls should have been called in.  That did not happen, and the recount was never completed.

In 2000, Katharine Harris, who was also the chairwoman for the Committee to Elect Jeb Bush, allowed her State Department office to be used during the election by Republican partisans as a staging ground for partisan communications. That is a misuse of public resources and a conflict of interest. She should have been impeached. Instead, she was lauded as a hero to election-stealing thugs everywhere and an inspiration to her counterpart in Ohio, who pulled a similar stunt in the 2004 presidential election.

So Florida did deny the right to vote to thousands, many of whom would have voted for Al Gore and not G.W. Bush, the Texas Twit.  Unfortunately, the Dems botched the challenge to the 2000 Florida vote on so many levels that it was pathetic. The Repubs, in contrast, had a pre-prepared game plan and a well-oiled execution that should be the envy of election-stealers world-wide.

So what can the Federal Government do to ensure that qualified citizens are allowed to register, the registartions are not challenged without cause, adequate notice, and due process; the registered voter is allowed to vote; the vote is counted and recorded accurately; and recounts occur as required by law without interference?  If no pattern can be established, then it is hard to justify Federal intervention. If a pattern can be established, the Federal Government can deny Federal funding, e.g., Federal highway funds, take over the voting process using Federal officials, and protect the right to register to vote, cast a vote, and have the vote properly counted and recounted with Federal marshalls, or, in the extreme, Federalized national guard troops, because the posse comitatus laws preclude the use of the Federal army to enforce federal laws.

New laws passed by Republican-dominated state legislatures, which were ostensibly intended to protect the integrity of the voting process, were, in fact, written to scare off those involved in legitimate voter registration activities by shifting the burden of proof to the registrars that they are acting lawfully rather than on the state to prove they are acting unlawfully, and requiring unreasonable documentation to meet that shifted burden of proof. This illustrates the problem of leaving election reform in the hands of those who benefit most by tainted elections.

To cut to the chase, what we need now is a Constitutional amendment making it a capital offense equivalent to treason to intefere with or conspire to interfere with the right to vote at any stage in the process, and a capital offense equivalent to sedetion to solicit such interference, because a Democracy is only viable if the integrity of the voting process is inviolate and untainted. However, based on recent past experience, especially here in Florida, that is no longer the case. This is all the more important as the switch to electronic voting increases the ease with which the vote record and count can be tampered. Maybe that will get the attention of the election-stealing conspirators, eh, Jeb?

Answer 4

I will lose good Karma, and tornadoes will come.

Answer 5

It gets the alleged president's brother as governor.

Answer 6

residents...respect...federal funding.