QUORA: 'I haven't heard any valid reason to restrict [Voting] other than felony crimes. Why are so many state legislatures trying to put restrictions?'

 QUORA: 'The constitution gives the right to vote. I haven't heard any valid reason to restrict other than felony crimes. Why are so many state legislatures trying to put restrictions?'

I posted this answer:

Let me first state that I do not like the use of the words “restrict” and “restrictions” in the question. First of all, laws do not “restrict” felony crimes. They forbid them. The term “restrict” means “to confine within bounds.” Well, any rule does that. And any right, properly understood, implies boundaries--the boundary being that no one can exercise their rights in a way that violates the rights of others. 

So when the question states “I haven't heard any valid reason to restrict voting, the questioner implies that elections should have no boundaries--i.e. no rules. Then should elections be chaotic free-for-alls in which anyone can vote without registration or identity, as many times as they want, on behalf of anyone they please, dead or alive, whether one month old or 100,  under as many different names as they feel like, with votes counted in any way anyone feels like counting them? Who would trust the outcome of such an election?

All voter laws are restrictive, because they set boundaries, or rules. And these rules, like any rule, takes effort on the part of citizens. So the question “Why are so many state legislatures trying to put restrictions” on voting begs the question, Why should there be any election laws at all? The answer is obvious. The question should be, are the rules easy enough for any reasonable adult with the legal right to vote to comply with, while maintaining fair and trustworthy elections and minimizing the potential for voter fraud? 

As to why so many states are revising their election laws, it probably has a lot to do with the chaotic 2020 elections, when COVID-19 compelled states to change election procedures “on the fly” in order to have the elections. Many of the changes have proved to be popular, like early and mail-in voting, so legislatures are trying to incorporate some of the emergency changes into their general election laws. Former HHS Secretary Ben Carson made this point on CNBC in regard to early voting, which has proved very popular. My home state of New Jersey just instituted in-person early voting into its election laws for the first time, allowing for up to nine days to vote early. Georgia’s new election law codifies a minimum of 17 days for early in-person voting.

Almost all states are in the process of revising their election laws. Partisans in the press spin these proposed laws as “restrictive” if proposed by Republican legislatures and “expansive” if proposed by Democratic ones. But in fact all of these laws are restrictive in the sense of instituting or revising rules for elections. We can debate any particular election rule on the merits. But I have seen no evidence as of yet to suggest that any feature of these new election laws prevent any reasonable person, willing to make minimal effort to comply, from voting, or are intended to do so.

Of course, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t “give the right to vote.” The right to vote is a derivative of our inalienable rights, which are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and which predate the government, as per the Declaration. The phrase “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” obviously implies some method for the people to give their consent -- i.e., the right to vote. I skipped explaining why the Constitution doesn’t “give” rights because that issue was handled reasonably well by Galen Barnaby here, although his answer goes off the rails near the end when he peddles the vast voter fraud theory.

Related Reading:

Voting laws: How Georgia compares to other states -- By David Wickert forThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Statistical Disparities Don’t Proof Discrimination in Voter ID Laws

The Vote: Get Off Your Butt and Register—But Keep the Nanny State Out of It

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

16 Year Old Voters? How About 21?

Memo to John D. Atlas: How About Let's Not Suppress Anybody's Vote, or Voice

Freedom Is Not About the Right to Vote, So I’m Voting Anti-Democrat Across the Board

HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy

Democracy Doesn’t ‘Win’ When Free Speech is Suppressed, Voting Rights of No Voting Rights.