Skip to comments.Question: Is Early Voting Unconstitutional?
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 ...
I’ve been sayin’ that for a while...no one seems to listen or care...sigh
To take this a step further, would that also make absentee ballots unconstitutional?
but...this is specfically talking about the Electoral College...it DOES meet on the same day for all states.
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. :)
The electoral college day !!!
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.
Was there early voting for either of the Bush elections?? I don't recall.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Constitution is referring to the Electoral College electors. And they do meet on the same day throughout the land, December 15th.
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.
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...
All someone needs to do is file a lawsuit and change it.
The dems have the ACLU we have nothing.
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.
..was there early voting for the Bush elections?..etc..
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
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......
It would have to be the same in every state however the determine it.
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.
HUSSEIN might be POTUS indefinitely before its all over.
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.
Yeah,, it is illegal,, because the constitution says election day is Nov 4! but,, they’re getting away with it.
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.
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
“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.
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.
Constitution? We don’ need no stinkin’ Constitution!
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.
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.
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.
Let’s take this case to the Supreme Court NOW and cancel this election. We can reschedule it about 6-8 more months.
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.
Isn’t it somewhere in the Constitution that the election will be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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,
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."
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.