by Chris L. Kenny

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." –The Declaration of Independence

Many understand the Right to Vote to be a quintessential American right. Under a Representative Democracy, we use voting to have a say in how our government behaves and operates. It gives us the ability to have a check on the country’s political powers. 

Though it may be a surprise to some that no right to vote is formally stated in the Constitution itself, the framers knew the critical importance of both voting and ensuring that the government acts only according to the will of its people. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton explained in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, “A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.” 

The topic of voting in recent news, current events and national media paints the image that voting has become some newly contentious issue, fraught with modern drama and political disagreement on how to properly balance freely accessible voting with maintaining the legitimacy and security of our elections. While debate on voting rights and access may seem fresh in the modern political landscape, this is a discussion that has been going on longer than the age of America itself. 

While critics of election process monitoring continue to cherry-pick case examples to attack the freedom of our municipals and localities to run their own elections, it should prove a valuable exercise exploring our Founding Father’s thoughts on the election process. What were the framer’s intent when it came to voting? Did they envision a uniform system across all states with the same rigid rules and regulations? Or did they want to let states decide how to operate their own elections freely and fairly? You may be surprised to know the extent to which our Founding Father’s wanted to protect the sovereignty of American states to oversee their electoral processes.

In Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution, the framers famously left the details of how voting should proceed to the states themselves:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. (Constitution, Article 1 Section 4)

The right of states to manage themselves, including their elections, is an important instrument to American Democracy. It is truly what makes the United States of America the “Great Experiment”. With the freedom to uniquely tailor election parameters to its constituent’s needs, the state power in the voting process is one that should not be abused. 

If an individual state does happen to enact an illegal voting law, requirement or regulation, we see how in the above Constitution passage that Congress can act as a regulator, stepping in to address any unjust or illegal state voting practices. We have historical examples of incremental voting rights improvements at the Federal level. At a time when only land owners could vote, President Andrew Jackson famously led the charge for frontiersmen to help advance the political rights of Americans who did not own property. In 1919 the Women’s Suffrage movement led congress to enact the 19th Amendment, expanding voting right to all women. In 1965 the Voting Rights Act ensured against election racial discrimination. Over time America evolved from having only white, male land owner voters to all Americans 18 or older. Thankfully, the tried-and-true system of American progress through continuous checks and balances and protecting states’ rights works. 

However, modern partisan attempts at election control are worrisome. The recent election bill H.R. 1 that just passed in the Democrat-controlled House on party lines is a sprawling bill intended to address electoral concerns in the areas of voting, campaign finance and ethics. The bill’s entirely heavy-handed and potentially unconstitutional approach would assert undue federal authority over dozens of areas that should be under the control of the state, not Congress. Not only does the bill attempt to usurp power from the states, but it also places untenable burdens on local election officials and even Democrats have questioned its practicality and unintended consequences.

So while our political leaders continue to attempt to dictate Voting Rights at the Federal level, remember that our system of checks and balances should offer the freedom of individual states to manage their own elections in order to ensure that all American citizens can fairly vote. We live in the world’s greatest Democracy, so let us keep it that way. 

“The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1903

by Chris L. Kenny

Chris L. Kenny is the Founder of Delaware Live, and this is Founder’s Folio: Chris’s editorial blog for Delaware Live

Thinking over the start of this holiday season about the oft-reported polarizing nature of modern media, politics and American ideology as a whole, I looked back at our country’s history for hopeful guidance on how our forefathers handled the divisive conditions of their own times. It is true PEW research into American ideology came to the conclusion that the country is more divided along ideological lines than any point in the last two decades, but other research argues that we as a nation may not be as divided as we think: it is instead perhaps we just don’t love talking politics all the time.

Our own news and political climate notwithstanding I wanted to know: what did our leaders think about the inherent divisive and polarizing conditions natural to disagreement, varied opinions, ideologies and politics in America? 

One way to look at the question is to consider what our forefathers would think about our own times, which provides a proxy for what their political climate was like. Many writers, journalists, historians and pundits have considered the question this way and many have come to the same conclusion: our competing politics and ideas are not only essential but might be what also make us uniquely American. In journalist and political analyst Juan Williams’ We The People he seeks not to judge contemporary political times but rather describe our nation’s essential characteristics throughout the history of the country. Similarly, the nation’s founders viewed different political parties as a necessary evil. The Founding Fathers all held varying beliefs and ideas that varied across the political spectrum. 

If you think modern times are polarizing in America, we can look back at similar periods of contention in our nation’s history for comparison. Take for example Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaigns and tenure as President. The election of 1828 was so brutal, there were ad hominin attacks and dirty tricks that you might expect to see only come from modern political dogfights. Jackson as president did perhaps more than any other president to solidify American Federalism, but he was also responsible for acts like the Trail of Tears. A Truly polarizing President indeed.

Other Founding Fathers like Benjamin Franklin held various political beliefs themselves ranging across the political spectrum: Franklin steadfastly supported capitalistic systems and warned against the growth of the welfare state, while also supporting focused, effective policies of taxation with true representation. 

James Madison in The Federalist Papers explained why America’s unique system of governance allows for not only a powerfully centralized government with proper checks and balances but one that was made up of competing values, states and groups of people, making the whole that much stronger: “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests… [Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens,” he wrote.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.

Allowing competing ideas and considerations to flow freely in our nation’s discourse is a foundational principle of what makes our system so unique and equitable: all voices should be heard, no matter how small or quiet it is. Yet while much of the mainstream media is so often focused on stoking political divides, my goal as a local media owner with Delaware Live is to simply service all of our community. That means providing news, journalism and community updates for everyone across the state.

Our goal is to bring all of Delaware the news you want to hear about, read about and watch. So how are we doing? Are we covering the issues and topics that matter most to you? What do you think our forefathers would say? 

Until next time, thanks for reading,

Chris L. Kenny