New Assembly Bill’s Proposal Sparks Controversy over Philosophies of Voting
On Feb. 4, California Assemblyman Marc Levine proposed Assembly Bill 2070 (AB 2070) that would require all registered voters in California to vote in all upcoming elections. To enforce this law, voters’ failure to submit a ballot will result in a penalty that is to be determined by the Secretary of State. Levine proposed this bill in order to increase voter turnout in California elections. However, while a greater number of registered voters may seem beneficial to election participation, AB 2070 impedes the right to the freedom of speech and expression. In addition, it is possible that compulsory voting could have the opposite effect on Californians and decrease the amount of voters who register in the first place.
The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to free speech, which is needed to ensure the full freedom of expression. Furthermore, voting is an important way for people to express themselves politically; therefore, this bill is partially limiting one’s freedom to make decisions. Although blank ballots can be submitted, forcing the submission of the ballot itself is unjust. The United States is founded on the ideas of democracy, including freedom of speech, and guarantees Americans individual rights — rights that are not fully supported by a bill that mandates a ballot to be entered.
“It would make sense why this was proposed, considering the low voter turnout in the U.S.,” senior Abigail Robinson said. “However, choosing not to vote can be seen as just as much of a political choice to some people as voting is. Therefore, removing that choice is removing an essential part of what it means to vote in the first place.”
According to Yolanda Bellisimo, political science professor at the College of Marin, compulsory voting is not democratic and is only a short-term solution to low voter turnouts. In a Cable News Network interview, Bellisimo explained that forcing Californians to vote could cause less people to register in the first place, since involving punishments creates a negative connotation around voting itself. While other countries such as Australia and Brazil have compulsory voting and, thus, receive high voter turnouts, their methods do not align with American ideology. For instance, in Australia, refusing to pay fines for not submitting a ballot can lead to imprisonment, and in Brazil, failure to vote can lead to the loss of one’s passport and other restrictions. In the U.S., such punishments for not voting would be frowned upon because voting in the U.S. is a choice, and it is one that does not warrant punishments.
“I do believe that voting is an important responsibility,” senior Suraj Anand said. “However, inflicting punishments for not voting will have the opposite effects — [in other words,] less people will want to register.”
Forced voting is not a constitutional way to address voting issues. Thus, to increase the number of registered voters, California should instead make voting more easily accessible. Machines can be modernized, and mail-in ballots can be made easier to fill out and submit. However, the decision to cast the ballot itself ultimately resides with the American citizen, and taking away that choice could mean revoking an aspect of democracy from the country.
“The U.S. is unique because of its individual freedom,” junior Rachel Yu said. “There are other methods available to greater voter turnout that do not involve the infringement of our rights.”
