Thank you for the reply. I believe your statement was: “There is no constitutional right to vote” While I accept your assertion of extensive law school study on this subject, your argument is still not persuasive.

There is clearly a difference between a right to vote and a mandate to vote. The right to vote does not come into play until the opportunity arises. As to your potato sack race example. If a legislature chooses that as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue, but when they direct voting as the method of selection, the right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution. Also, I would hope that your law school taught that when an amendment is properly approved, it becomes part of the Constitution. When I cited Amendment 17, that was indeed germane to the issue.

I am sure you put some thought into your argument and I appreciate that effort. I just disagree with your conclusion.

Thank you for the reply. I believe your statement was: “There is no constitutional right to vote” While I accept your assertion of extensive law school study on this subject, your argument is still not persuasive.

There is clearly a difference between a right to vote and a mandate to vote. The right to vote does not come into play until the opportunity arises. As to your potato sack race example. Iif a legislature chose that as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue, but when they direct voting as the method of selection, the right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution. Also, I would hope that your law school taught that when an amendment is properly approved, it becomes part of the Constitution. When I cited Amendment 17, that was indeed germane to the issue.

I am sure you put some thought into your argument and I appreciate that effort. I just disagree with your conclusion.