As an aside: once documentation is required, we enter a position where we do not have our rights until proven otherwise.

According to whom exactly?

As others have pointed out in this discussion, that's not how the US system was designed. There is no inalienable right to vote.

As a society, we decided that tenants, people of non-white races, women, and 18-20 year olds should be allowed to vote. We also eliminated odious standards like counting then-slaves as 60% human.

- The 15th amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on certain grounds (race, color) but doesn't go beyond that. - The 19th prohibits denying the right to vote based on sex. - The 24th prohibits denying the right to vote (in certain federal elections) based on outstanding tax bills. - The 26th prohibits denying citizens over 18 the right to vote based on age.

But this seems like a weirdly specific list. If the reason isn't on the list, is it still fair game? For instance, AFAIK some states don't let convicted felons vote.

We have a second amendment that talks about well-regulated militia broadly interpreted to mean all sorts of things, some I agree with, some I do not.

Likewise, we have multiple, progressive amendments to the constitution with a clear goal of enabling voting to the broadest possible scope.

I live in a state that requires that you be a citizen, age 18, and not be in prison or on parole. I think that’s a fair compromise over disqualification of felons, as you create 2nd tier of citizen by denying that right.

The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.

In fact, that's the whole purpose of the now-awkward electoral college: state legislatures choosing knowledgeable electors to vote for president/VP.

---

This an unpopular opinion, but I honestly think there's something to that.

My state political party operates on a caucus system, where I don't directly vote for local, state, or federal candidates in the primary (ironically, president is the exception to this); rather I elect a district representative to attend the convention, speak with the candidates, and vote the best one. I don't have time/choose not to have time to do this same level of diligence, and like in many other areas, I am happy to delegate it to one of my known, trusted neighbors. I believe it produces a better, more intelligent, less hysterical media outcome.

This is also why I'm not necessarily against non-pathological obstacles in voting. In 2018, my county did a (inexpensive) mail-only election. I wouldn't be surprised is the deadlines, etc. proved to be an obstacle. But....is it really that bad to have that small hoop for people to participate? I don't think so.

---

P.S. You know poll taxes aren't taxes at polling stations, right? It just means "flat (non-proportional) tax".