Political Pistachio

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Constitution makes it clear: to vote in the United States, you must be a citizen. The 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments each begin with the same powerful phrase: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”  They then prohibit states from denying that right based on race, sex, or age.  This is not a coincidence; it is an affirmation of a self-evident truth.

These amendments were not creating a new requirement.  They were protecting a pre-existing, fundamental right of national membership.  The framers did not need to state “only citizens may vote” because it was a universally accepted truth of the American political order.  The purpose of the amendments mentioned was to stop states from discriminating against a specific, universally understood portion of the electorate: citizens.  To argue otherwise is to reject the entire philosophical context in which the Constitution was written, from the Saxon and Lockean foundations of natural rights to the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which Justice Bushrod Washington recognized as protecting the core privileges of citizenship.

A natural right, like the right to keep and bear arms, is understood to be exercised within the context of one’s own political community.  I could not go to another country and demand to own a firearm or vote in their elections.  That right is a privilege of my own citizenship.  The same is true for voting here in the United States.  It is the ultimate expression of political membership in “We the People of the United States,” a right reserved for citizens within their own country.

If this is the constitutional reality, why would anyone oppose a logical measure like the Save America Act, which simply seeks to enforce it?  The answer lies not in principle, but in a calculated political strategy.

Opponents of voter ID laws operate from a different set of premises, claiming they are protecting voting rights from undue burdens.  They argue that requiring ID to vote is different from needing it to fly, buy alcohol, or open a bank account because voting is a fundamental right, not a commercial transaction.  They claim that even if the process of getting an ID is simple for most, it creates an insurmountable hurdle for a marginal few; the elderly without birth certificates, the poor who can’t take time off work, or the homeless without documents.

This argument is not only growing more outdated by the day in our highly documented society, but it also collapses under the weight of its own hypocrisy.

Consider the Second Amendment.  The right to keep and bear arms is unequivocally a right “of the people.”  Yet, the very same politicians and activists who argue that a simple ID is an unconstitutional burden on voting champion a vast and complex web of barriers to exercising that right.  They support waiting periods, extensive background checks, permit-to-purchase requirements, licensing, “red flag” laws, and prohibitive taxes.  If a free ID is an unconstitutional poll tax on the right to vote, what are all these other costs, delays, and hurdles?  By their own logic, they should be fighting to make acquiring a firearm as frictionless as possible.  The fact that they don’t reveals their opposition is not a principled stand on rights, but a selective, politically motivated stance.  They are fine with barriers for rights they dislike, but not for rights that benefit their political coalition.

Furthermore, their definition of a “right” is inconsistent.  Voting, in practice, functions far more like a privilege.  It has built-in qualifications: you must be 18, a resident, and not a felon.  An inalienable right, like free speech, has no such prerequisites.  If voting were a pure right with no obstacles, the logical conclusion would be that “anyone should be able to vote,” a position almost no one entertains.

The most damning evidence of their hypocrisy, however, is their own behavior.  These are the same people who require ID to enter their town halls, proof of party membership to attend their functions, and ID to vote in their labor union meetings.  During the COVID pandemic, they demanded proof of vaccine or a mask to participate in society, often with no exceptions for those with legitimate medical issues.

They understand perfectly well that it is reasonable, necessary, and wise to require proof of identity and eligibility to protect the integrity of an institution – whether it’s a political party, a union, or a hospital. They just don’t want to apply that same common-sense security to the country’s ballot box.

When you put these observations together, you are left with a stark conclusion.  The arguments against the Save America Act are not based on a consistent principle of rights, a genuine concern for the disenfranchised, or a sincere belief in a frictionless society.  They are a calculated political position.

The only remaining explanation is that these opponents of election integrity have concluded that a less secure system, one in which it is easier for ineligible votes to be cast, is in their political best interest.  They fight to secure their own private institutions with ID, but they fight to keep the public ballot box as insecure as possible.  The contradiction is so glaring that it can only be explained by a desire to exploit that insecurity for electoral gain.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary