The Nineteenth, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments

XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


XXIII
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


If you are shocked by my putting these together, as if underplaying the 19th Amendment, I understand. There are a few reasons.

One is the reminder that Votes for Women really only meant White Women at the time. There are many interesting things that happened with that, and it was historically important, but there were still issues. We went over that somewhat in the post on the 15th Amendment:

http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-fifteenth-amendment.html

That post also referenced 23 and 26, which are less well-known.

For the 23rd Amendment, it did seem reasonable at the country's founding to have the capitol be a neutral zone, not bound up in the interests of any particular state. Lawmakers who worked there had home states, but that did not allow for the permanent residents, often poorer people waiting on the lawmakers. Not only could they not have a say in the presidential elections, even home rule where they could have a mayor and city counsel was not allowed until 1974. (That greatly simplifies a fairly complicated history, but you can learn more by researching the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.)

The rise of student activism in conjunction with the Vietnam War pushed for the lowering of the Voting Age from 21 to 18. After all, if you can be drafted and sent to die for your country, surely you should get a say in who makes the decision to send you.

Since the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, there has only been one other amendment, and no other constitutional changes to who can vote. There are still strong efforts to take away the voting rights of others, and there is always some justification. The justification may even sound plausible, but the root is always that some people don't want other people to get in their way, despite the constitutional protection.

https://thinkprogress.org/voter-suppression-battles-to-watch-in-2016-429c6a53eaa8#.g9mxcf45h 

Some governors are working hard to protect the franchise; others to take it away:

https://thinkprogress.org/virginia-governor-bypasses-court-ruling-to-help-200-000-ex-felons-vote-7b17c78453c0#.nc8g8jovu

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-felon-without-voting-rights-08142016-20160813-story.html 

(This may be a good time to note that "felon" means nothing more than marijuana user far more often than it should.)

There are many other challenges to voting rights. Ari Berman is a good one to watch for that:

http://ari-berman.com/ 
 
If there is one consistent message through all of my blogs, it is that people matter. To try and remove their voices from the democratic process flies in the face of my most cherished belief. With all of the efforts to silence various votes, this is a good time to remember that. 

In considering the 23rd Amendment, some of the perils of not being protected by statehood became clear. That made it heartening to see the attention paid to the U.S. Territories by Hillary Clinton. The last time I recall seeing attention paid was when maintaining free license to abuse in the Marianas Islands became a Republican party platform:

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-plank-enters-platform.html

Sometimes people will make jokes about letting Texas secede, or getting rid of the South, because of bone-headed things that happen there, but any place that frustrates us is full of people who rely on federal protection, and who would be cut off with the state.

Remember that there are many individuals whose lives are affected by your vote. That may be a reason for you to vote responsibly, but it is also a reason to respect and protect their rights to vote.

Related post:
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2016/05/things-i-dont-like-about-bernie-sanders.html