2025-2026 Social Justice Debates

Resolved: “The U.S. should constitutionalize the right to vote."

The Debate

“Securing the right to vote to all persons through a constitutional amendment would allow greater access to the franchise and embolden the idea that the right to vote is indeed fundamental.”

Gilda R. Daniels,cVoting Realism, 104 Ky. L.J. 583, 603 (2016)

Introduction

The United States Constitution contains more amendments related to voting than any other right, yet it has never affirmatively guaranteed the right to vote. Instead, it prohibits certain forms of discrimination—such as those based on race, sex, age, or poll taxes—while leaving states with wide discretion over eligibility and access. This omission has become more significant in recent decades. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many states have enacted new restrictions on voting through voter identification requirements, mail-in ballot limitations, and voter roll purges. On the very day of the Shelby ruling, Texas implemented one of the nation’s strictest voter ID laws, and more than two dozen other states soon followed with similar measures.

These developments have disproportionately burdened marginalized groups, including voters of color, low-income individuals, and voters with disabilities. At the same time, structural features such as partisan gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and the disenfranchisement of ex-felons, immigrants, residents of U.S. territories, and those in the District of Columbia continue to raise questions about whether American democracy ensures equal and meaningful participation. Against this backdrop, the motion asks whether the United States should constitutionalize a Right to Vote (RTV)—elevating voting to the same constitutional status as free speech or religious freedom—or whether other reforms and approaches are more desirable.

Clarifying the Debate

To “constitutionalize” means to establish and protect a right through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For purposes of this debate, students should assume that such an amendment could be ratified. The focus is not on the political feasibility of adoption but on whether constitutionalization is desirable and what its consequences would be. A “Right to Vote” refers to an affirmative guarantee of voting access and protections. The content of such a right—its scope, provisions, and enforcement mechanisms—must be articulated by the Affirmative team in its first speech. Who the right to vote is guaranteed for (e.g., all citizens 18 and above) should be addressed as well the scope and specific provisions of the amendment. The legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius shall apply, which means "the expression of one is the exclusion of another." In other words, what is not included in the Affirmative’s model may be challenged by the Negative.

Affirmative

The Affirmative will argue that the best way to combat voter suppression and disenfranchisement is to adopt a constitutional amendment ensuring the Right to Vote (RTV) in the United States. Without such an enumerated right it can be argued States have proven that they will continue to deny the “privilege” of voting to millions. By “constitutionalizing” the RTV, alongside the right to free speech or freedom of religion, the burden would be shifted to States to justify any restrictions, and advocates would have a stronger legal footing to challenge them. Many scholars have observed that courts are not effectively safeguarding the right to vote through enforcement of existing law. Although the Supreme Court has called voting “fundamental,” it has not consistently applied the highest level of scrutiny to voting rights cases, allowing restrictive laws to remain in place. A constitutional amendment, Affirmatives may argue, would close this gap by preempting restrictive practices and strengthening legal protections.

Affirmative teams are responsible for defending the consequences of passing an RTV amendment. Affirmatives are not required to defend the mechanics of amendment ratification, but they cannot assume immediate implementation or uncontested judicial interpretation. They should instead focus on the consequences of an RTV amendment and explain why constitutionalization offers unique benefits compared to alternatives.

Affirmative teams need to be explicit in enumerating a RTV in a constitutional amendment, and should take care in how they phrase their proposition. An affirmative has any number of ways it might codify the right to vote by amendment from simply guaranteeing the right to any persons over the age of 18, to protecting persons with felony convictions, to granting U.S. territories the vote in presidential elections, to eliminating the electoral college in presidential elections. Any ground not explicitly laid out by the affirmative team might be challenged by the negative by proposing an alternative. For example, an affirmative case that does not explicitly provide ex-felons the right to vote might be negated with a case that provides for felon enfranchisement. Affirmative teams may not simply co-opt such a counteradvocacy because they chose to exclude protection for ex-felon’s right to vote in their first speech.

While affirmative teams do not need to argue over the practicality or mechanisms of an amendment passing they also cannot assume that it would be implemented immediately and the ways in which case law would be interpreted is up for debate. Negative teams may argue that the implementation process would take time and that there might be other faster options. Affirmative teams can and should discuss the potential impacts of their amendment. The core challenge for the Affirmative is to explain how constitutionalization uniquely enhances electoral justice compared to the reforms advocated by the Negative.

Negative

The Negative has ample ground to argue that constitutionalizing voting rights is ineffective, undesirable, unnecessary, or counterproductive. One common line of argument concerns the risks of enumeration. By specifying who holds the right to vote in constitutional text, an amendment might inadvertently exclude those not named, such as undocumented immigrants or permanent residents, thereby entrenching their marginalization. Moreover, constitutional language is subject to judicial interpretation, and courts may narrow or restrict the application of an RTV in ways that undermine its intended protections. The Negative can make arguments surrounding the implementation of an amendment, success rate it will be enforced, potential lack of further voting rights efforts, backlash, and potential alternatives. Implementation of amendments often varies across local political contexts, see different states gun laws, meaning the scope and strength of enforcement is not a guarantee and is up for debate.

The Negative can also argue that more effective reforms are available outside the constitutional process. Legislative measures, local initiatives, and grassroots campaigns have historically expanded access to the ballot without requiring constitutional change, as seen in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prior to its weakening. Negatives may contend that reforms such as expanding early voting, creating independent redistricting commissions, compulsory voting, anti-gerrymandering legislation, declaring Election Day a holiday, or reauthorizing stronger federal oversight can deliver results more flexibly and with fewer risks of unintended consequences. They might argue that these statutory or administrative reforms are better suited to address urgent democratic needs than embedding a right in the Constitution. These examples are meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.

While the affirmative has to argue for voting rights, negative teams are not limited to solutions that specifically endorse electoralism and electoral justice. From this perspective, focusing on constitutionalizing the right to vote reinforces a narrow conception of democracy that overlooks deeper structural inequalities. Scholars and activists have long questioned whether electoral politics can, by itself, remedy injustices tied to race, class, gender, or economic power. Negative teams may therefore argue that a constitutional amendment is merely symbolic at best, or even harmful at worst, because it gives the appearance of reform while leaving underlying inequalities intact. These critiques open the door to alternative visions of democracy rooted in grassroots organizing, direct action, or non-electoral forms of participation. If negatives want to make broader systemic criticisms they should be free to do so. Whatever alternative to the Affirmative they offer, the Negative is responsible for defending its importance and efficacy to the judges of the debate.

Conclusion

This motion invites a fundamental debate about democracy in the United States. The Affirmative must defend the value of elevating voting to the level of a constitutional right, while the Negative can argue that constitutionalization is flawed, exclusionary, or inferior to alternative reforms. The clash will turn on whether constitutionalization uniquely advances equity and access to the ballot, or whether it is unnecessary, counterproductive, or a distraction from more effective strategies.

The central question in this debate is whether enshrining the right to vote in the Constitution provides unique and necessary benefits, or whether other reforms—legislative, local, or structural—better protect and expand democratic participation.

About Our Topic Scholar

Gilda R. Daniels is an Associate Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a nationally recognized expert on voting rights and election law. She previously served as a Deputy Chief in the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Professor Daniels’s scholarship examines the intersections of race, law, and democracy, with her work appearing in leading journals such as the George Washington Law Review, Cardozo Law Review, Indiana University Law Review, Denver Law Review, and the New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy. She has also written for broader audiences in outlets like the Huffington Post and the Baltimore Sun. In 2020, she published Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America, a widely acclaimed book that explores systemic barriers to the ballot and offers strategies for advancing democratic participation. Beyond her academic writing, Daniels promotes public engagement with her website (www.gildadaniels.com) and her blog (civilrightstoday.org), which seeks to foster partnerships between advocacy groups, civic organizations, and scholars in the pursuit of voting rights and voter education.