Article III Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution currently reads, “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”

After Tuesday’s vote, the article will now read, “Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”

Doesn’t this change the meaning of the statement so much that it’s no longer true that every citizen of age who is a resident is eligible to vote? Can this new language be interpreted by courts and lawmakers such that anyone can be disenfranchised if such malicious laws can be passed in the state?

  • MajorHavoc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    Voting in the United States has always been primarily a way to protect the power of already powerful people, and secondarily a way to ensure incremental social progress continues at a pace that doesn’t make powerful people too uncomfortable.

    A lot of things about the way things are structured in US democracy make more sense with that context, including this, I think.

    Specifically, 70% of people both eligible and motivated to vote, voted to ensure eligibility to vote is not extended. This has happened many times throughout history, and only seems odd if we accept the fib that everyone is represented.

    In the context of gerrandering, first-past-the-poll “representation”, and various other forms of disenfranchisement; it makes sense that 70% of the people allowed to actually vote, votes in favor of continuing to restrict the vote (to themselves).

    • andyortlieb@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      15 days ago

      The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.

      The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?

      • adarza@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 days ago

        no. you didn’t miss anything.

        wisconsin gonna wisconsin. voted in a diaper, twice, too. i wish i could afford to leave this state.

      • MajorHavoc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?

        Yeah. I’m not saying it was wise, by any means!