In an article I wrote this past April, I expressed my praise for the theory of constitutional originalism, an approach to constitutional interpretation and a set of principles currently adopted and espoused by the conservative majority of Supreme Court justices. In that article, I argued that it was this very theory, as opposed to the “living Constitution” theory espoused by many liberals, that truly understands what rights American citizens have, what rights they don’t have, the bounds of federal power, and how it maintains the integrity of such a sacred institution by significantly decreasing the likelihood of decisions being politically motivated (thus curbing the judicial activism that plagues our entire court system).But most importantly, it understands the often understated importance of the Tenth Amendment in our Constitution. I am a Democrat, but I am absolutely horrified that the modern Democratic Party has decided to disavow this integral amendment that establishes a clear separation between federal and state powers that so many people take for granted. Democratic legislators, with a few notable exceptions, have chosen to put their party over their country and their constituents by viewing this amendment as nothing but expendable nonsense, as, granted, it does have the potential to interfere with an ambitious and progressive legislative agenda that is becoming increasingly accepted within the growing far-left faction of the Democratic Party, just as long as Democrats control both chambers of Congress. Republicans are currently projected to take back control of the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections, so it’s understandable why Democrats are anxious to push through landmark legislation in the meantime, whether it be major gun control legislation, filibuster reform, voting rights legislation, or a major economic stimulus package to aid COVID-19 financial plight (which passed Congress in March). 

As much as federal Democratic lawmakers should take some action while they have total, albeit slim, control of Congress, they can absolutely not lose sight of the limits of their power established by the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment, which states that all rights and liberties that are never explicitly addressed in a constitutional amendment are reserved to the states, allows each state to enact laws and address rights and liberties that are generally considered necessary and fundamental according to their own respective moral doctrines, which are set in place by their citizens and the politicians they elect to office. More importantly, it limits the federal government’s ability and any federal court’s ability to impose any certain policies and ideologies (that have not been voted on) that may conflict with the moral codes of certain states, thus preventing an abuse of power that would otherwise undermine confidence in the federal government and Congress itself. When the Tenth Amendment is respected and observed, each state has the ability to maintain its own individuality in terms of what morals and principles they espouse, and what liberties, restrictions, and regulations they prescribe to their citizens (aside from the rights granted to all citizens by the Constitution), rather than having to conform to any certain policy impositions prescribed by a federal court or by the majority political party in Congress that has abused the powers granted to them by the Constitution.

But while states must certainly be able to legislate according to their own respective moral doctrines and their constituents’ varying stances on contentious societal issues, that does not mean they should legislate that way. That is very much not the case at all. Some states, their legislators, and their constituents, unsurprisingly, believe in some extremely terrible and immoral things. Even in a reliably liberal state such as California, the fact that voters just thirteen years ago decided by a margin of 600,000 votes to strip gay and lesbian couples of their right to marry is morally reprehensible, and it’s a great example of the Tenth Amendment being used to implement a policy that’s extremely harmful. Going farther back in history to the nineteen-sixties, states in the Deep South used the Tenth Amendment as a constitutionally valid way to enact racist, segregationist policies and get away with it; again, another example of the Tenth Amendment being used to justify something truly abhorrent. But while a judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban in 2013, issues such as racial desegregation, which had growing national support at the time, warranted the attention of federal lawmakers, and in 1964 and 1965, two of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in American history were passed by Congress, eliminating laws that were inherently racist and policies that were segregationist. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are both excellent examples of how while the Tenth Amendment allows states to legislate according to their own respective perceptions of morality, the drafters realized that societal change would inevitably occur over time and issues of large national importance had to be addressed, and they created processes to address such change; one being to pass a law at the federal level, and the other being to ratify a constitutional amendment with a two-thirds majority of the states. And this brings us to the ever-growing issue of voting restrictions: America’s hottest, and most unpatriotic, political trend.

It is safe to say that after the 2020 federal elections, American elections will never be conducted or viewed the same way ever again. The Republican Party, still caught under the spell of former President Donald Trump, has continued to push the Big Lie that the election was stolen and that Democrats were responsible, when considering how much the election process was scrutinized, no widespread fraud or vote tampering would’ve been remotely possible. But Republicans remain unconvinced. They can’t seem to come to terms with the reality that their principles are resonating with even less of the American population than ever before, and instead of adjusting their platform to make themselves more appealing, they decide to cry foul play and retaliate against their political rivals with investigations, audits, and new voting restrictions, the strictest of which have been enacted in Arizona and Georgia, both of which are reliably conservative states which Joe Biden won by the slimmest of margins. Republicans in the Arizona Senate have been conducting a bizarre audit of their own election to investigate irregularities, which has only served as a breeding ground for new and existing conspiracy theories, using a company called Cyber Ninjas which has absolutely zero experience in election integrity and security. In Georgia, Rep. Park Cannon (D-Atlanta) was arrested for knocking on Gov. Brian Kemp’s door as he was signing his state’s voting restrictions into law. And most recently, 60 Texas Democrats fled to Washington D.C. so a voting restrictions package, which Gov. Greg Abbott had called a special session to address, could not be voted on. Other states, with mostly conservative political track records with some surprising liberal exceptions, have enacted similar restrictions, which generally make voting in-person more inconvenient and uncomfortable and restrict voting by-mail and drive-through voting, and they all have one common goal: to suppress the voting abilities of registered Democrats, and specifically minorities, as demographic changes disadvantage Republicans. In the world of the Republican Party, a Democrat can never win an election fairly again, which is simply untrue, so they turn to use their majorities in an overwhelming number of state legislatures to enact restrictions that will keep them in power well into the foreseeable future. While the right of citizens to vote is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment allows states to get away with passing these new immoral voting restrictions because the actual text of the restrictions themselves don’t explicitly state that their intention is to prevent people of color from voting, even though they essentially have the same effect; another example of the Amendment being implemented correctly to do something terrible.

When President Biden describes the issue of voting restrictions as a “moral reckoning,” he’s not wrong. While I remain an incredibly staunch Tenth Amendment defender, and I believe in the right of states to legislate according to the will of their citizens and the legislators who represent their interests and values, some issues are simply too important to not have Congress address and instead leave to state legislatures, and the ability of every American citizen to vote, regardless of race or political affiliation, is one of them. The solution is clear: Congress needs to do whatever it can to pass a landmark voting rights bill as soon as possible, because the future of our country truly depends on it. If Republicans use their power unethically and continue to suppress the votes of certain demographics in order to keep themselves in power, then what does that say about our country? That our corruption comes from within? That a political party that’s desperate for power will do anything to maintain it in the face of change, even perhaps in a Machiavellian way? Or is it that the United States, often considered by many as the leader of the free world, is beginning to abandon the core principles of democracy, which has shaped our government, our Constitution, and our entire history as a nation?