California Proposes Mandatory Voting–Vote or Be Fined?

If the liberals have their way, the government will control virtually every aspect of your life from where and how you receive education to the house you live in and the healthcare you are offered. But in the state of California, residents will also be required to vote.

Yes, California lawmakers have recently proposed a bill that would make it mandatory for all registered voters within the state to vote. If you don’t, there will be consequences…

Just what those punishments will be hasn’t entirely been determined yet, but they will likely be similar to the results of not reporting for jury duty, which are fines and even some jail time.

The author of the bill, Assemblymen Marc Levine, has worked for years on expanding the state’s efforts to make voting more possible for all Californians. In 2015, he was one who helped to bring the motor voter program to the state. This system allows who is at least 18 years old and qualified to vote to automatically be registered as a voter when they apply for state driver’s license.

As kinks in that system have been somewhat resolved over time, voter registration in California has risen to about 64% in 2018, the highest it has been in several decades.

However, that must not be high enough for Levine, who insists that “Democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires the active participation of all its citizens.”

The bill reads, “This bill would instead require a person who qualifies and is registered to vote to cast a ballot, marked or unmarked in whole or in part, at every election held within the territory within which the person resides and the election is held.”

This doesn’t just mean presidential elections such as the one coming up this year in November. No, it includes every little local election from mayor and city council members to who becomes sheriff and referendum proposals.

As the LA Times reports, “The proposal, introduced in the state Assembly on Tuesday, would be unprecedented and probably challenged in court should it ultimately become law. It would place the burden for determining the civil penalty and the ultimate punishment on the secretary of state, California’s chief elections officer…”

The Times notes that’s this type of legislation is not really new. In fact, similar proposals have been the subject of several academic studies over the years. The main argument is that one party or another could possibly benefit more than the other. For example, in a state such as California, which has been a Democratic stronghold for the last few decades, it is assumed that those who are more left-leaning would benefit.

However, supporters of the bill, such as Levine, counter that making the voting process mandatory would allow the state to hear from a wider variety of people and therefore, its representatives would vary more as well.

As the Times says, “Opponents, on the other hand, have said that mandatory voting could be in conflict with the right to free speech guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.”

It would be different if we lived in a nation like Australia, where free speech is not a constitutional right by voting is required. But we don’t. Instead, our founding fathers built a government that sought the will of the people, where we have the right to speak up when we feel the need but also to keep quiet when we want to.

This makes voting a form of that free speech. It is the ability to express how we feel on certain matters, such as who should lead our nation. But it is also the right to remain silent when maybe you don’t like any of the candidates or laws in question.

The point is that it’s your choice and it should be. That is what makes us free.

Furthermore, what happens when California’s motor voter program accidentally permits illegal aliens to vote on state or national issues? It’s happened before, and this bill being passed would only make it that much more likely.

We can only hope that enough people in California realize the absurdity of this and how much it violates our rights to freedom. Besides, who proposes a law without deciding what the penalties will be?