Democratic California Assemblyman Marc Levine has introduced a clearly unconstitutional bill which mandates that anyone registered to vote must attend a voting booth and file a response.
Levine says his intended law is justified and necessary because “democracy is not a spectator sport — it requires the active participation of all its citizens … Those rights come with a responsibility by registered voters to cast their ballot and make sure that their voice is heard by their government.”
While registered voters would not have to select a candidate in order to conform with Levine’s desired law, they would have to file a ballot return, even if unmarked.
But as I say, this bill is patently unconstitutional.
The key here is that the government cannot compel citizens to enter a voting center or file a vote. To do so would be to compel their conformity with a specific political act. Consider the so-called “sovereign citizen” movement. While those individuals are obliged to observe civil and criminal law to protect others and the land/government, they are otherwise given wide latitude to express their disdain for government. They are not compelled to show deference to government in their conduct of normal political activity.
But for many of these individuals, even if they left their ballots unmarked, the very act of attending a voting booth would be tantamount to a compelled endorsement of the state. And that’s why Levine’s bill breaches First Amendment rights. It wouldn’t simply compel speech — it would undermine the right to a particular choice of speech. After all, those forced to attend a voting booth would no longer be able to protest the political class by staying away from the booth. I would suggest that the right to protest against the political class is an intrinsic element of any functioning democracy. Let alone the greatest on Earth.
In this sense, filing a voting ballot is an act of inherent political intercourse. And one that, were its action forced by government, would break the First Amendment’s ultimate guardianship against compelled speech.
Levine’s law deserves overwhelming repudiation. But should it ever progress, it is a dead-on-federal-judiciary-arrival joke.
