The real goal of Amendment 7 is to prevent the use of a complicated voting scheme called “rank choice voting,” but there is some collateral damage that makes Amendment 7 a clear no vote for me.
Amendment 7 changes the constitution from “ALL” citizens are entitled to vote to “ONLY” citizens are entitled to vote. By doing so, the explicit right of universal suffrage would be eliminated from the Missouri Constitution. Although the right of women or various ethnic groups would *probably* be protected by other “equal protection” provisions (e.g. 14th Amendment), that may not be true for other less popular classes of citizens.
For instance: If you take the “ALL” out, someone with a low “SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE” might be prohibited from voting by state statute or local ordinance.
This is complicated and requires the application of some logic, so bear with me…
At first blush, the “all” and “only” might seem to mean the same thing, but the following analogy illustrates the difference.
If a rule said “ALL dogs are allowed in this place,” that would mean large dogs, small dogs, dogs that shed, hairless dogs, etc. would ALL be allowed in. But that rule would NOT prevent CATS from entering.
That’s why “all citizens” needs to be *supplemented* (but not removed) in our Constitution if you want to ensure that noncitizens are constitutionally forbidden from voting.
If, on the other hand, there is no “ALL dogs” clause and instead it says, “ONLY dogs are allowed in this place,” such a rule would NOT prevent a prohibition of certain types of dogs, like large ones or shedding dogs, even though it would preclude cats from entering.
THUS, “only citizens” still leaves room for a law that says something like, “No citizen whose Social Credit Score is below 150 shall be entitled to vote.”
The fact that Amendment 7 would also constitutionally outlaw RUNOFF elections in primaries is also a deal breaker for me, but that’s another letter.
Ron Calzone is a director of the public policy think tank, Missouri First, Inc.