We the People Means More of Us

The Constitution’s enduring promise is an expanding democracy, not a shrinking one.

There is something remarkable about the American Constitution that we rarely stop to consider. Across more than two centuries, Americans have repeatedly amended our founding document to expand the right to vote. Each generation inherited a democracy that excluded too many people, and successive generations worked to open its doors wider.

The original Constitution did not guarantee universal suffrage. It left most voting qualifications to the states. But the story that followed reveals a consistent direction in our constitutional development. When Americans have amended the Constitution to expand participation in elections, they have brought more people into the democratic process, not pushed them out.

The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited denying citizens the vote because of race, color, or previous enslavement. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave Americans the right to elect their United States senators directly. The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, prohibited denying the vote on account of sex. The 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, gave residents of Washington, D.C., a voice in presidential elections. The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibited poll taxes in federal elections. And the 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, protected the voting rights of citizens 18 and older.

These changes did not come easily. They took courage, organization, sacrifice, and often generations of persistence. Even after Americans adopted constitutional protections, they continued struggling to make those guarantees meaningful.

But the trend was clear. More Americans could vote. More people took part. The government became more accountable to everyone.

That history makes the current administration’s conduct and rhetoric particularly troubling.

In January, the FBI seized hundreds of boxes of ballots and other election records from Fulton County, Georgia, related to the certified 2020 presidential election, which had already been settled. After that, President Donald Trump called for Republicans to “nationalize” voting and take control of election administration in at least 15 places, though he did not say which ones.

Trump has also refused to say he will not send federal agents to polling places. His administration says there are no plans for large ICE deployments, but officials have not ruled out sending federal agents. At the same time, voting-rights groups warn that even the chance of armed immigration agents near polling places can make eligible Americans afraid to vote.

This is not just a debate about election rules. Having federal law enforcement at polling places raises real concerns about intimidation, constitutional authority, and citizens’ freedom to cast ballots without fear.

Election integrity is important. Fraud should be investigated, laws should be followed, and every legal vote should be counted correctly. But protecting election integrity should never be used as a reason to scare eligible voters or take away the duties of state and local election officials.

An equally disturbing contradiction appears in the public discussion of women’s voting rights.

In February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth invited pastor Doug Wilson to lead a religious service at the Pentagon. Wilson has publicly advocated repealing the 19th Amendment, which protects women’s right to vote.

Think about that. Over a hundred years after American women gained constitutional protection for their right to vote, someone who wants to take away that protection was invited to preach at the headquarters of our nation’s military.

Wilson has the right to his religious beliefs and to speak his mind. But his view needs a clear answer: The Constitution decided women’s voting rights in 1920. The 19th Amendment remains the law of the land.

Our constitutional history also establishes an important distinction between protecting elections and controlling them.

The Constitution assigns states primary responsibility for administering elections, subject to congressional authority and constitutional guarantees. The federal government has an essential responsibility to protect voting rights, prevent discrimination, and enforce election laws. But the president has no general constitutional authority to seize control of elections merely because he dislikes how particular states conduct them or the outcome of an election.

Our system is not designed to let people in power decide who gets to vote for their replacements. It is meant to keep the government answerable to the people. That idea is bigger than any president, political party, or election cycle.

The right to vote belongs to Republicans, Democrats, independents, and Americans who do not want any political label. It belongs to people who support the president and those who do not. It belongs to people whose political, religious, and personal beliefs differ greatly from ours.

History also shows us that these protections exist precisely because political power has not always been exercised fairly. The Constitution’s voting amendments represent promises Americans made to one another, promises that government cannot withdraw simply because a particular group of voters becomes inconvenient.

As another national election approaches, we should look back at history with confidence, not fear or resignation, because we know what earlier generations accomplished.

The American experiment has never been perfect. But time after time, Americans have worked to make our democratic republic more representative of the people it serves. That is a part of our Constitution we should celebrate, protect, and pass on. 

The late Congressman Barney Frank said government is what we choose together. That “together” means everyone.

If our constitutional history teaches us anything, it is that American democracy becomes stronger when more people have a voice in it.

Sources

The essay’s current-events passages draw on these verified reports:

Series Navigation

<< Birds of a Feather-A New Arrival