Constitutional Right to Vote

Summary#

This joint resolution proposes a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says every citizen of legal voting age has a fundamental right to vote where they live. It says the government (federal, state, or local) may only limit that right to serve a compelling interest and only by the least restrictive means. It also removes the phrase "or other crime" from a portion of the 14th Amendment and gives Congress power to pass laws to enforce the new amendment.

  • Main change: Creates a constitutional right to vote protected by strict scrutiny (compelling interest + least restrictive means).
  • Repeal: Removes the phrase "or other crime" from a part of the 14th Amendment.
  • Enforcement: Gives Congress the power to pass laws to protect the right to vote.
  • Scope: Applies to every U.S. citizen of legal voting age in the jurisdiction where they reside.
  • Status: Introduced in the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

What it means for you#

  • Voters (general): The amendment would say you have a constitutional right to vote in public elections where you live. This could make some state voting rules easier to challenge in court.
  • People convicted of crimes: The repeal of the phrase "or other crime" in the 14th Amendment could affect laws that limit voting because of criminal convictions. The bill itself does not explain exactly how that change would be applied. This could mean fewer or more limits depending on later court decisions and laws.
  • State and local election officials: Rules such as registration, voter ID, residency requirements, or other limits would face the higher legal test set by the amendment. The bill does not list which local rules would need to change.
  • Congress: The amendment authorizes Congress to pass laws to enforce the right. That means future federal legislation could set standards or penalties related to voting rights.
  • Non-citizens: The amendment applies to citizens only; it does not create a right to vote for non-citizens.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text does not include a fiscal note or estimate of costs.
  • Possible future costs (not stated in the bill) could include federal spending to enforce the amendment, legal costs from new litigation, and administrative changes for states. The bill does not say who would pay these costs or how much they would be.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to make the right to vote a clear, fundamental constitutional right for all citizens of voting age.
  • The strict scrutiny requirement (compelling interest and least restrictive means) could be seen as strengthening protection against laws that unduly limit voting.
  • Repealing the phrase from the 14th Amendment could be seen as addressing limits on voting tied to criminal convictions.
  • Giving Congress enforcement power could allow federal laws to protect voting rights across states and create uniform standards.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the amendment would invite a lot of new litigation about many ordinary election rules, because courts would apply the strict scrutiny test.
  • The bill does not clearly explain how the repeal of the 14th Amendment phrase would work in practice. It is unclear which existing state restrictions on voting (for example, for people convicted of crimes) would remain allowed.
  • This could shift authority over election rules from states to federal courts and Congress, raising questions about federalism and state control of elections.
  • The amendment gives no estimate of enforcement costs or who would bear the expenses of changing procedures or defending new lawsuits.