Given the scale and scope of the issues facing our state and nation, and the depth and breadth of distrust in government, it is essential that the fundamental act of democratic participation be safeguarded against all anti-democratic threats.
By Kevin Frazier
Kevin Frazier is a student at the UC Berkeley School of Law and the founder of No One Left Offline, kfraz@berkeley.edu.
Ann Ravel, Special to CalMatters
Ann Ravel, former chair of the Federal Election Commission and the California Fair Political Practices Commission, is a member of an international Comitê Scientifico working on solutions to strengthen electoral justice, Ann.ravel@gmail.com.
At a time when our democracy is on the defensive, the people of California should enact universal voting to ensure that all citizens can make their voices heard.
The current fights over access to the ballot are important. All voters should have ample time to vote, the means to register to vote and enough locations to conveniently vote. An even bigger issue, though, is making voting an expectation, rather than an exceptional act that has to be continuously fought over.
In Peru, Brazil and other South American countries, the issues we debate here in the U.S. rarely arise. In these places, universal voting guarantees the chance for all voters to make their voices heard. Ecuador goes as far as to drive ballot boxes to residences of elder individuals as part of the Voto en Casaprogram.
Israel and Taiwan both have mandatory national service programs, in which the “job description” of “citizen” is expansive. All citizens are expected to fulfill “duties to their community,” voting among them, as described in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Given the scale and scope of the issues facing our state and nation, and the depth and breadth of distrust in government, it is essential that the fundamental act of democratic participation be safeguarded against all anti-democratic threats.
Historically, when our nation has confronted democratic headwinds, our answer has been to demand vastly greater participation. The 14th Amendment, which addressed citizens rights and equal protection under the law, followed the Civil War. The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, passed in the wake of World War I. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 emerged when the nation seemed to be tearing itself apart.
Today, our democratic progress is being stymied by gale-force winds. Misinformation and disinformation confuse voters. Big donors silence them. Parties in closed-primary states lock them out. Systemic racism stifles them. Some elected officials, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee, have gone so far as to question whether democracy is still our main objective.
Combating these forces and driving our democracy forward requires an even larger force: All of us must increase our stake in the fate of our democracy.
In countries where universal voting is in place, there’s a much greater potential for a deliberative and honest relationship between voters and their government.
Rather than worry about how and when they will be able to vote, Americans under a universal voting system could focus on the caliber of the candidates and the quality of the legislative proposals on the ballot.
But voting isn’t just a one-time act. Voters have much more skin in the game than those on the sidelines. They want to see their candidate stay true to their campaign promises. And they want to know that the policies they supported are actually working. In short, universal voting can create a cycle of participation and monitoring that makes voters more informed and officials more responsive.
California can and should adopt universal voting. The state’s approach should incorporate the right balance of the carrots and sticks featured in other jurisdictions around the world. On one end of the spectrum is Mexico, which has a universal voting system but does not enforce it. Ecuador insists on universal voting for those ages 18 to 65 (with exceptions for individuals with disabilities or lack of literacy) and fines those who don’t vote. At the other end of the spectrum is Brazil, where voters who fail to participate not only face a fine, but loss of access to passports and government opportunities, such as government jobs.
Where California would land on this spectrum should be based on voter engagement and robust study. The most important thing is that the state bucks the growing trend of building barriers to the ballot seen in other parts of the country and proactively empowers all voters to make their voices heard.
California should lead the way on universal voting
Share this:
In summary
Given the scale and scope of the issues facing our state and nation, and the depth and breadth of distrust in government, it is essential that the fundamental act of democratic participation be safeguarded against all anti-democratic threats.
By Kevin Frazier
Kevin Frazier is a student at the UC Berkeley School of Law and the founder of No One Left Offline, kfraz@berkeley.edu.
Ann Ravel, Special to CalMatters
Ann Ravel, former chair of the Federal Election Commission and the California Fair Political Practices Commission, is a member of an international Comitê Scientifico working on solutions to strengthen electoral justice, Ann.ravel@gmail.com.
At a time when our democracy is on the defensive, the people of California should enact universal voting to ensure that all citizens can make their voices heard.
The current fights over access to the ballot are important. All voters should have ample time to vote, the means to register to vote and enough locations to conveniently vote. An even bigger issue, though, is making voting an expectation, rather than an exceptional act that has to be continuously fought over.
In Peru, Brazil and other South American countries, the issues we debate here in the U.S. rarely arise. In these places, universal voting guarantees the chance for all voters to make their voices heard. Ecuador goes as far as to drive ballot boxes to residences of elder individuals as part of the Voto en Casa program.
Israel and Taiwan both have mandatory national service programs, in which the “job description” of “citizen” is expansive. All citizens are expected to fulfill “duties to their community,” voting among them, as described in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Given the scale and scope of the issues facing our state and nation, and the depth and breadth of distrust in government, it is essential that the fundamental act of democratic participation be safeguarded against all anti-democratic threats.
Historically, when our nation has confronted democratic headwinds, our answer has been to demand vastly greater participation. The 14th Amendment, which addressed citizens rights and equal protection under the law, followed the Civil War. The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, passed in the wake of World War I. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 emerged when the nation seemed to be tearing itself apart.
Today, our democratic progress is being stymied by gale-force winds. Misinformation and disinformation confuse voters. Big donors silence them. Parties in closed-primary states lock them out. Systemic racism stifles them. Some elected officials, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee, have gone so far as to question whether democracy is still our main objective.
Combating these forces and driving our democracy forward requires an even larger force: All of us must increase our stake in the fate of our democracy.
In countries where universal voting is in place, there’s a much greater potential for a deliberative and honest relationship between voters and their government.
Rather than worry about how and when they will be able to vote, Americans under a universal voting system could focus on the caliber of the candidates and the quality of the legislative proposals on the ballot.
But voting isn’t just a one-time act. Voters have much more skin in the game than those on the sidelines. They want to see their candidate stay true to their campaign promises. And they want to know that the policies they supported are actually working. In short, universal voting can create a cycle of participation and monitoring that makes voters more informed and officials more responsive.
California can and should adopt universal voting. The state’s approach should incorporate the right balance of the carrots and sticks featured in other jurisdictions around the world. On one end of the spectrum is Mexico, which has a universal voting system but does not enforce it. Ecuador insists on universal voting for those ages 18 to 65 (with exceptions for individuals with disabilities or lack of literacy) and fines those who don’t vote. At the other end of the spectrum is Brazil, where voters who fail to participate not only face a fine, but loss of access to passports and government opportunities, such as government jobs.
Where California would land on this spectrum should be based on voter engagement and robust study. The most important thing is that the state bucks the growing trend of building barriers to the ballot seen in other parts of the country and proactively empowers all voters to make their voices heard.
_____
Kevin Frazier has previously written about alternatives to Big Law and accessible legal aid for Californians.
We want to hear from you
Want to submit a guest commentary or reaction to an article we wrote? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact CalMatters with any commentary questions: commentary@calmatters.org