Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question: Is Early Voting Unconstitutional?
US Constitution ^ | 11/2/08 | Me

Posted on 11/02/2008 4:30:48 AM PST by careyb

Here is what the Constitution says:

"The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Note the last several words. The election has to be on the same day throughout the United States.

In my opinion, early voting violates this principle in two ways:

1. It says "day" not "days". Which means the election should be held on a singular day, not over multiple days.

2. It says "the same throughout the United States." Early voting laws vary from state to state. It is certainly not "the same throughout the United States."

Is this just me?

(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electionstealing; voterfraud; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
What do y'all think?
1 posted on 11/02/2008 4:30:48 AM PST by careyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: careyb

I’ve been sayin’ that for a while...no one seems to listen or care...sigh


2 posted on 11/02/2008 4:32:12 AM PST by SC_Republican (Has it really been THAT long??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

To take this a step further, would that also make absentee ballots unconstitutional?


3 posted on 11/02/2008 4:33:06 AM PST by GOP_Raider (Retirement is wasted on old people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC_Republican

but...this is specfically talking about the Electoral College...it DOES meet on the same day for all states.


4 posted on 11/02/2008 4:33:22 AM PST by SC_Republican (Has it really been THAT long??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: careyb

I think the “Electors” bit is what makes it legal.

However, I’m a dumbass. Hopefully some of the brains here can figure it out.

Interesting, tho. :)


5 posted on 11/02/2008 4:33:35 AM PST by CE2949BB (I voted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

The electoral college day !!!


6 posted on 11/02/2008 4:33:38 AM PST by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

I completely agree. No amendment has been made to change this. Early voting, IMO, is bad for the election process. It allows room for so much hanky-panky, and it is being exploited by the Obamunists.


7 posted on 11/02/2008 4:34:28 AM PST by Jackknife ( "The Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms should be a department store, not a gov't agency.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC_Republican
I agree with you totally...It's very specific....and would require a constitutional amendment.

Was there early voting for either of the Bush elections?? I don't recall.

8 posted on 11/02/2008 4:35:35 AM PST by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Read more carefully:

The time of choosing the electors—that’s “election day.”

The day on which the electors vote—that’s the day the Electoral College votes—the electors voting on the same day in every state.

The requirement regarding the “same day” refers to the day the electors vote, not the day the citizens vote.


9 posted on 11/02/2008 4:36:04 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC_Republican
Hmmm... you have a point there.

Let's look at the text again: "The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

IMHO, it looks like "the Time of choosing the Electors" (what we know as election day) could be covered by the last clause. And not just "the Day on which they [the electors] shall give their votes."

I honestly don't know.

10 posted on 11/02/2008 4:36:16 AM PST by careyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: careyb
"The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

The first time I ever heard of "early voting" that came to my mind. Early voting is clearly unconstitutional, and should have been challenged in federal court the first time a state did it. The constitution clearly states that election day is to be on the same day throughout the country. Only the most liberal of judges could see it any other way.

11 posted on 11/02/2008 4:36:38 AM PST by KoRn (Barack Obama Must Be Stopped!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb
Does our Congress and State legislatures really care about the Constitution? Based on the results of their hog-wild rule, the answer is: NO.
12 posted on 11/02/2008 4:36:59 AM PST by pray4liberty (Watch, pray, and work. This election will separate the sheep from the goats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

But without early voting, it would be much harder for the rats to cheat. They wouldn’t have as much time to find out how many votes they need to manufacture!


13 posted on 11/02/2008 4:37:31 AM PST by Slump Tester (What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh -Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham
Ah....I have to take what I said back...This pertains to the Electoral college.

However, I though I remembered: "The first Tuesday after the First Monday" as a specific day for popular voting and that's obviously not the day the electoral college votes".

14 posted on 11/02/2008 4:38:43 AM PST by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: careyb

I don’t know if it’s constitutional or not but I sure don’t like it. It’s awfully messy and opens the door for all kinds of fraud.

With Obama’s numbers falling, I wonder how many early voters voted for him and now wish they hadn’t.


15 posted on 11/02/2008 4:38:55 AM PST by cripplecreek (Paying taxes for bank bailouts is apparently the patriotic thing to do. [/sarc])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Yes I think you have a point.

It says "the Time of choosing the Electors" but "the Day" of the electors voting.

I guess the Constitution would be more specific if it wanted election day to be on only one day.

So the electors have to vote on the same day but the voters have to vote within the same "time".

Thanks for the feedback all.

16 posted on 11/02/2008 4:39:30 AM PST by careyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pray4liberty

When the Supreme Court ruled on Florida...it was the Federal laws that Florida violated. Local elections can be anything a state wants as guided by their state constitution.


17 posted on 11/02/2008 4:41:51 AM PST by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: careyb
"What do y'all think?"

This y'all thinks that we ought to wake up.

We haven't been a nation of constitutional law for quite some time.


We have been like a rusting hulk in the junk yard.

Should you want to restore it, it will take a bit of time,effort, and sacrifice.

Perhaps it would be better to recycle it.

18 posted on 11/02/2008 4:43:35 AM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

The Constitution is referring to the Electoral College electors. And they do meet on the same day throughout the land, December 15th.


19 posted on 11/02/2008 4:46:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Election Day should be a 24 hour period Saturday-Sunday before April 15, after withholding is abolished, and run 7:00AM Eastern to 7:00 AM Eastern. All polls open and close simultaneously on eastern time.


20 posted on 11/02/2008 4:48:35 AM PST by Crazieman (If CON is the opposite of PRO, what is the opposite of PROGRESS?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
1845...Election Day...The first Tuesday after the First Monday.

This does not pertain to the Electoral College. The day was chosen because the crops were in, people had to travel to get to the polls, Nov. 1 was both a Holy Day and a "bookeeping day".

I do believe this will make this a Constitutional matter in the end...

21 posted on 11/02/2008 4:48:37 AM PST by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: careyb

All someone needs to do is file a lawsuit and change it.

The dems have the ACLU we have nothing.


22 posted on 11/02/2008 4:50:48 AM PST by stockpirate (Vote for the hero not the zerO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

As to the absentee ballot question, I’d say no. The ballots are considered to be cast on election day when they are counted after the polls are closed. The same argument could, I suppose, be used in support of “early” voting. I would counter the difference is that the voter records their vote while present, so it isn’t the same.


23 posted on 11/02/2008 4:52:53 AM PST by bitterohiogunclinger (Never argue with an idiot, they always wear you down and beat you with experience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

..was there early voting for the Bush elections?..etc..
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Yes..
I believe the absentee ballot was originated so that those in the Military could have a say in who governed them, even though I am also sure that the original intent was for the registrars to be able to look the voter in the eye and KNOW who it was as everything was basically local and people ‘knew’ each other.
I am not sure what year it started but the absentee ballot became ‘hip’ to travelers and people who would not be at home on election day....
This again opens to fraud as I remember an ‘old’ joke that had the semi-retirees (Canada refers to them as ‘snow birds’) mailing in an absentee vote for their home in the Northeast while voting in person at their home in Florida (or vice versa)...what was once considered a ‘joke’ may have been, for the most part, true....
The purple digit isn’t really a bad idea......but when your ATM card can be used in a store in Va and within seconds your account is charged with the purchase, no matter where it is located, there has to be a way to control this electronically......


24 posted on 11/02/2008 4:57:39 AM PST by xrmusn ("Time for a thorough HOUSE (and Senate) cleaning")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: careyb
It also says that Congress chooses the time for voting for the electors.

It would have to be the same in every state however the determine it.

25 posted on 11/02/2008 5:06:27 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
The Constitution does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for President at all. The constitution specifies the Electors, which were originally appointed by State Legislators. They are talking strictly about the Electoral College. States are really not required by the Constitution to even hold popular elections for President, but it has evolved that way through practice. There is also no Constitutional requirement that the Electors have to follow their States desires when they meet to cast their vote. It is possible that and appointed Elector could cast his or her vote for either candidate, but I've never heard that has ever happened.
26 posted on 11/02/2008 5:06:31 AM PST by bitterohiogunclinger (Never argue with an idiot, they always wear you down and beat you with experience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Well, it doesn’t do any good to argue or discuss it. You know the drill. Somebody has to take it to court. I’d be surprised if nobody has tried.


27 posted on 11/02/2008 5:09:51 AM PST by stranger and pilgrim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb
If you think the courts and the politicians disegard the Constitution now,watch what happens when HUSSEIN and the socialist Congress start naming Supreme Court judges.

HUSSEIN might be POTUS indefinitely before its all over.

28 posted on 11/02/2008 5:11:08 AM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

How did it so quickly and quietly get put in place? What is ACORNs role in getting it in? It clearly enhances voter fraud opportunites.


29 posted on 11/02/2008 5:13:52 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (NOBAMA - it is for our future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb
90% of recent election law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... all it takes is a ‘toon appointee or two to say that it is legal.

LLS

30 posted on 11/02/2008 5:14:54 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (GOD, Country, Family... except when it comes to dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb
Look.. it probably IS illegal. I will easily give you that.

Having said that, I must say I really enjoy the fact that we have early polling here in Texas. My wife and I voted in peace last week and it only took us like 3 minutes total. There were no lines. It was a smooth process. Also, having voted for Ms. Palin and Cindy's husband early gave me that good feeling that I have done my part for the Republic.

Early Voting is good in my opinion. If it is illegal then it is a crying shame
31 posted on 11/02/2008 5:17:19 AM PST by SoftwareEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Yeah,, it is illegal,, because the constitution says election day is Nov 4! but,, they’re getting away with it.


32 posted on 11/02/2008 5:20:14 AM PST by freemike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
The day was chosen because the crops were in, people had to travel to get to the polls

You're absolutely right. There was narrow window in which to act, after the labors of the harvest and before snow made travel impossible for much of the country. The day chosen had to be sensible for both the Georgia planter and the Maine farmer.

33 posted on 11/02/2008 5:20:46 AM PST by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Read more carefully:

The time of choosing the electors—that’s “election day.”

The day on which the electors vote—that’s the day the Electoral College votes—the electors voting on the same day in every state.

The requirement regarding the “same day” refers to the day the electors vote, not the day the citizens vote.

Ding, ding, ding, ding .... we have a winner.

But, Arthur, if you follow this thread ... or others like it that have been posted before ... you'll find that there aren't a lot of folks willing to, as you say,

"Read more carefully".

Ignorance is bliss

34 posted on 11/02/2008 5:22:53 AM PST by tx_eggman ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule" - Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Yes.


35 posted on 11/02/2008 5:25:19 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

“The time of choosing the electors”

It does not say the “day” of choosing the electors. It says the “time” of choosing the electors.

In 2008 “time” has been defined as up to one month prior to November 4, depending upon the state.


36 posted on 11/02/2008 5:26:41 AM PST by Presbyterian Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freemike; Arthur McGowan
Yeah,, it is illegal,, because the constitution says election dounay is Nov 4! but,, they’re getting away with it.

You're kidding right?

If not, your education is sorely lacking.

Everyone with a brain knows that it's the Declaration of Independence that sets November 4 as Election Day ... [/sarcasm off

Arthur, this is one of those people I was referring to.

37 posted on 11/02/2008 5:27:49 AM PST by tx_eggman ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule" - Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Constitution? We don’ need no stinkin’ Constitution!


38 posted on 11/02/2008 5:32:01 AM PST by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb

The “electors” referred to in the Constitution are the members of the Electoral College and they adhere to the Constitutional terms in their voting. The popular vote is merely an adopted convention that is not Constitutionally necessary and is not described in the Constitution so it can be done any way the states choose to do it, if they choose to do it.


39 posted on 11/02/2008 5:33:25 AM PST by arthurus (Old age and guile beats youth and enthusiasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger
"It is possible that and appointed Elector could cast his or her vote for either candidate, but I've never heard that has ever happened."

One of Gore's Electors in 2000 from Washington DC didn't vote for him. I don't recall her name, but I do remember that she declined to vote.

40 posted on 11/02/2008 5:33:37 AM PST by KoRn (Barack Obama Must Be Stopped!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

I think the franchise should be limited to people who do not get their living or a portion of it from the government. Such people are a natural constituency for ever increasing spending.


41 posted on 11/02/2008 5:35:07 AM PST by arthurus (Old age and guile beats youth and enthusiasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Let’s take this case to the Supreme Court NOW and cancel this election. We can reschedule it about 6-8 more months.


42 posted on 11/02/2008 5:45:57 AM PST by WilliamReading
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
This is talking about the Presidential electors. Those are the people we're voting for now, and will vote for next Tuesday. They will cast their ballots on one day in the middle of December.

The manner of choosing Presidential electors is left up to the states. In fact, a state's governor could appoint all of its Presidential electors, and that would be completely constitutional.

43 posted on 11/02/2008 5:51:22 AM PST by Campion (Vote for Obama and Get Nuclear War for Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Isn’t it somewhere in the Constitution that the election will be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November?


44 posted on 11/02/2008 6:14:03 AM PST by murron (Proud Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: careyb

They are referring to electors, not voters. All electors must meet on the same day, not voters. If what you claim is true, absentee ballots would be illegal.


45 posted on 11/02/2008 6:32:57 AM PST by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
When the Supreme Court ruled on Florida...it was the Federal laws that Florida violated.

It was also the State laws, and how they attempted to comply with Federal Laws...such as by the standards being the same before the election as after; and complying with the Safe Harbour law.

46 posted on 11/02/2008 7:49:45 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: careyb
"The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

To me, the "their votes" clearly refers to the electors, not the People. The Founding Fathers did not see the electors being chosen by popular vote. They thought Governors would appoint them.

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The Congress may determine the Time but most of the responsibility is on the States. Has Congress determined the Time? I suppose states could say the ballots are "collected" during the prior month and actually "cast" on 11/4, a la absentee ballots.

47 posted on 11/02/2008 7:51:03 AM PST by Dilbert56 (Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger
It is possible that and appointed Elector could cast his or her vote for either candidate, but I've never heard that has ever happened.

It has happened a smattering of times over the years, including one of the more recent examples of an Elector deliberately swapping the President and Vice Presidential candidates names.

48 posted on 11/02/2008 7:55:43 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: careyb

“What do y’all think?”

I’m with you.

EVERYthing that has been done to “improve” voting has done little more than subvert and corrupt the process, and tilt the results towards liberals and their efforts to tamper with the integrity of the vote.

We should go back to the “old way”: that is to say, register IN ADVANCE, then show up and vote on the first Tuesday in November (with absentee ballots for a select and justified few who otherwise could not make it to the polls).

No “early voting”
No “mail-in ballots”
No “Motor Voter”
No “Provisional ballots”
No “Same day registration/voting”
Restricted absentee balloting

In effect, we should make it HARDER to cast your vote, not easier. This filters out the fraud by default, in that voting takes effort and dedication.

In my state (Connecticut) there is even a ballot provision this year to “extend” the voting age downward to age 17, in state primary elections! Absolute nonsense, though it will probably pass.

I guess I’m a curmudgeon, but proud of being one. I’ll go so far as to say that I think the voting age should be raised back up to age 21 nationally. There was a reason the founding fathers selected this age - and that was in a time when young men often had to begin “making it on their own” earlier in life.

Just some thoughts,
- John


49 posted on 11/02/2008 8:13:46 AM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider
To take this a step further, would that also make absentee ballots unconstitutional?

Another "yes", unless a mechanism is created to make sure votes are not duplicated, amd not opened or counted until the prescribed "official" day.

Additionally, the reason for absentee voting should be narrowly defined, and not trivial, as simply for "convenience."

Civic duty doesn't tolerate "convenience."

50 posted on 11/02/2008 3:18:45 PM PST by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson