The Right To Vote The Contested History Of Democracy In The United States

by Alexander Keyssar

Most Americans take for granted their right to vote, whether they choose to exercise it or not. But the history of suffrage in the U.S. is, in fact,the story of a struggle to achieve this right by our society's marginalized groups. In The Right to Vote, Duke historian Alexander Keyssar explores the evolution of suffrage over the course of the nation's history. Examining the many features of the history of the right to vote in the U.S.—class, ethnicity, race, gender, religion, and age—the book explores the conditions under which American democracy has expanded and contracted over the years.Keyssar presents convincing evidence that the history of the right to vote has not been one of a steady history of expansion and increasing inclusion, noting that voting rights contracted substantially in the U.S. between 1850 and 1920. Keyssar also presents a controversial thesis: that the primary factor promoting the expansion of the suffrage has been war and the primary factors promoting contraction or delaying expansion have been class tension and class conflict.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Political Science, Law, Academic

512 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Alexander Keyssar is an American historian, and the Matthew W. Stirling Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard University.

Reviews

[Frank Stein · Rating 4 out of 5]

When Alexander Keyssar of Harvard University started to research voting in America, he was shocked to find that nobody had done a comprehensive history of the subject. So he set out to do it himself, and he did so marvelously.

Keyssar shows that the expansion of the right to vote was by no means unilinear. Although in the years after the American Revolution, real and personal property requirements on voting were abandoned, they were often replaced by tax-paying requirements which lasted for decades. Many states in this period also began placing explicit race-based requirements on voting, which hadn't existed before, and added restrictions on "paupers," or people receiving government relief, and felons. States also added lengthened "residency" requirements, demanding people live 1 to 2 years in a state before voting. After the surge in 1850s "Know Nothing" anti-immigrant attacks, some states instituted new complicated "registration" systems for voters and the first literacy requirements.

Although the Civil War temporarily enfranchised blacks in the South, allowed for the first absentee voting (by soldiers), and also led some states to pass "declarant alien" laws allowing even some noncitizens to vote, it was followed by increasing residency requirements for local areas (including preventing students from voting in their college towns), and increasing property requirements for voting in some local or municipal elections, and of course a violent repression and increasing level of poll taxes, literacy requirements and residency requirements in the South.

After the 19th Amendment in 1919 gave women the right to vote, the last poll taxes were gradually dismantled, and soldiers increasingly got the right to vote wherever and by absentee ballots. But the real revolution was in the 1960s. Besides the Voting Rights Act in 1965 which finally opened voting in the South to blacks, the US Supreme Court went on a tear, striking down just about every requirement on voting, often with little historical or constitutional analysis behind their rulings. In Dunn v. Blumstein (1965) the court said that there was no "compelling state interest" in residency requirements longer than about 30 days (which was later added to the Voting Rights Act of 1970). In Harper v. Virginia Board of Election (1966) the court declared state and local poll taxes an abridgement of equal protection. In Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969) they struck down property or parentage requirements for voting in school districts and declared all voting restrictions would have to meet "strict scrutiny" standards. In Allen v. State Board of Election (1969) they said just about every Southern state voting change had to ask for the government's "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act. In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) they agreed with the Nixon administration's and the 1970 Voting Rights Act ban on literacy requirements anywhere in the nation. In the 1970s the court, under a "totality of the circumstances" test, struck down multi-member voting districts, at-large elections, annexations, and a host of other government voting regulations as race-based and unconstitutional . The results was a series of judicial and national voting standards, where voting had once been entirely up to the states. The nationalization of voting was made more so by the "Motor Voter Act" of 1993, which expanded absentee registration and voting.

Although the weeds can get thick, Keyssar largely chops a clear path through them. This is a valuable and necessary addition to the scholarship on American democracy.

[Mehrsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a hard book to get through, but it's worthwhile. It shows that the right to vote was actually never a constitutional guarantee and though the Arc of the right to vote does eventually bend toward full suffrage, it went through some back alleys first. The arguments against womens suffrage were the most hilarious. And of course the constant efforts at black disenfranchisement were unbelievable and totally unsurprising. For better treatment of that, read Give us the Ballot, which is much more focused and interesting.

[Roxy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written comprehensive account of voting rights in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, the American electoral system is and has historically been woefully undemocratic since the nations founding. American elections have always been intended to protect the interests of the wealthy elites. The history books in school won’t teach this information but this book is a must read for anyone with even a small interest in American voting rights and politics.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The history of voting rights written in this book is long, broad and comprehensive.

Most of us are aware of the Major elements in the right to vote being the achievement of African American’s gaining the right to vote after the Civil War, and the Women’s Suffrage achievement in 1919 and the Voting Rights act of 1965. But, there are many small incremental changes which both expanded and contracted the franchise pertaining to literacy tests, poll taxes, non-citizens voting, time-in-residence, disabled persons right to vote and how, and a felon’s right to vote. And of course there is a back and forth on the arguments in favor of government issued I.D. cards and it oppositional arguments about voter suppression which is usually based on partisan arguments. Some changes in access to the ballot seem minor or long ago changed. We tend to forget that being able to vote, was originally based on how much property the voter owned. In our modern-day multicultural world we have forgotten that non-English speaking citizens were unable to vote in their own language. Many of us may have never known that Native Americans were not allowed to vote for a long time. And even though it happened in my lifetime, I had forgotten that people between the ages of 18 and 21 could not vote until 1972.

This history is well documented, and a sound basis for much further reading for those who are interested.

I’m guessing that most of us, who are vaguely aware of this history, are to a greater degree than others, will also find surprises herein. There is was right to vote explicitly expressed in the U.S. Constitution until 1868 in the Fourteenth Amendment. And, there is still no right within the U.S. Constitution to have that vote counted after it is cast. There has been very little interest in Congress to fix those shortfalls with a new Constitutional Amendment.

One thing that is not a surprise to any of us, is the manipulative and antidemocratic effect that purposefully gerrymandered voting districts have on elections. Nor is it a surprise that we have not yet devised an effective solution to this difficult situation.

So, even as we are closer to Universal Suffrage than we have ever been, we are still not completely there. Undoubtedly, there is more history to be written on this topic.

[Barbara · Rating 5 out of 5]

This comprehensive history of the franchise is a solid, well-written analysis of who has the right to vote in free, regular elections, which is an integral component of our democratic republic, who is allowed to excercise this privilege and under what circumstances; and how and by whom the votes are counted. Keyssar explores these issues of political philosophy, social theory, power, and public policy in an engaging manner, although it is clear he has a progressive leanings. Keyssar seems to agree with Marx that politics is about class struggle, and the utopian visions of representative democracy collapse in this struggle. I read part of this book years ago, but in this most contentious political season of my lifetime, it was worth reading the whole book.

[Thomas Stevenson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2012 the right to vote is being contested again. Republican state legislatures have passed laws requiring prospective voters have IDs. The aim is to prevent voter fraud, a crime even some Republicans acknowledge rarely happens. A look at the history of voting in the U.S. reveals that this is nothing new. In a comprehensive yet highly readable study, Keyssar lays out U.S. voting and the close relationship between those who get to vote and social class. A fascinating read.

[Anthony Schein · Rating 3 out of 5]

i got this book for free at a conference here i totally pissed off the keynote. the book was okay. the conference was lame.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alexander Keyssar delivers a detailed account of how the franchise to vote has changed from the first days of the nation to the election of 2000. It is not a simple, straightforward journey. In the beginning, when only white men who owned property could vote, it was described as a "privilege," certainly not one of the "inalienable rights" of the Declaration of Independence. One of the biggest triggers for change was military service, repeated again and again throughout our history. Property-less men who fought in the Revolution argued that they should not be left out of the political process. Same for Black men who fought against the Confederacy in the Civil War. After WWI, it was one of many arguments put forward by women who served in medical corps and other positions overseas, as well as in munitions factories. During the Vietnam War, military service was a key argument to lower the voting age to 18.

This is just one issue that affected the changing laws related to suffrage. Keyssar covers many more, both at the state and federal levels such as pauper laws, limitations on felons, etc. You can sometimes feel a bit overwhelmed with all of the factors that influenced voting laws, but it is worth taking your time to understand how we got to near universal suffrage by 2000.

I will be curious to see how historians , say, 25 years from now will look at the last 25 years of changes since this book was published. We are certainly not back to Jim Crow laws, but we have lost ground and it is going to take some serious work to get back to where we were.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a concise history of the “right” to vote in the United States. (Spoiler alert: that right is contained nowhere in the Constitution.) The short version is, there’s always a powerful in-group that doesn’t want a less powerful out-group to vote. Over time, the out-group makes incremental progress at politics and eventually pressures the in-group into granting them the right to vote, usually as a corollary to a war recently fought. Rinse, repeat. This has been the case time and again in American history, with non-property owning white males, non-tax paying white males, black men, women, southern African Americans and the 18 to 21 crowd. For a longer version, read this book.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-researched piece capable of conveying the deep and sordid complexity inherent to U.S. voting. As Justice Scalia pointed out, "legal process is guaranteed by the constitution, not legal result".

As a strength and weakness, this book reads like an academic paper. It's great for those who enjoy reading fact-books but lacking in any compelling nature. This gives is significant strength if using it for research text, but it can be a slog.

[Adam Gutschenritter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read on the history of the right to vote. I was unaware of how many battles around suffrage and enfranchisement have happened in our country. I can see how this ballooned from a small chapter of a larger book into a large book in it's own right. I am curious how the book would deal with the 2020s since it halts in 2009, but much of what we are seeing he addresses as the beginning of a new battle on suffrage in the last chapter.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book, very informative. Well written, and reasonably engaging for a book dealing with such a huge amount of academic research, if more than a bit dry.

it was definitely eye opening how much the right to vote went back and forth in fits and starts. Intellectually I knew going in that it wouldn't all be straightforward progress towards universal suffrage, but I had no idea how mixed the record would be.

[Raja · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is timely to learn how recently voting rights became universal, all of the tumult that preceded that, and how easily the trend might turn in a different direction. It is yet another thing none of us should take for granted as we move forward in uncertain times

[Aloysius · Rating 4 out of 5]

The history of voting rights in this country.

[Ben Fabian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding book, thoroughly researched and we'll written.

[Nick Beek · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you have a strong academic interest in the history of voting in the United States, go for it. This book is rewarding but dense.

[Timothy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Still useful survey of the struggle for the vote

[Denny Troncoso · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well researched of voting history in America. Would be great to see an edition updated to annually.

[Bobbi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great historical account of major voting rights trends in the US from its founding to 2008 (in the revised edition).

[Paul Salazar · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dry but informative account of the voting rights struggles of various different minority groups.

[Eliante · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting work on the topic, quite exhaustive research (although the perspective of Black women could have been included more)

[Pinko Palest · Rating 1 out of 5]

very dry legal history. Quite repetitive. Not much in the way of political history, and yet again, no psephology whatsoever

[webslog · Rating 5 out of 5]

Deeply deeply researched, so not a light read.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

While a bit dry because gradual changes in laws can only be so dynamic, this book was still an interesting overview of the very nonlinear march towards near universal suffrage between the founding of the country and the book's publication in the late nineties. It ends before another round of contraction (unnecessarily stringent voter ID laws, Shelby County, closing of registration and polling locations), so it ends on a bit of a stale up note. But I plan on reading Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America by Ari Berman to bring me to today's current trough. It was amazing how a lot of the fights we're having today have happened many times in the past and for many of the same reasons.

[Patrick Sprunger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Americans who never take the time to learn about the history of suffrage grow up assuming the vote was expanded systematically, steadily, and with near universal support. We assume the opponents to universal suffrage were Archie Bunker types, recalcitrant members of an insecure old guard. We do not immediately picture mainstream, legitimate political parties and their supporters as tangible enemies of democracy. The real narrative of the history of American liberty takes a surprising form, with clearly delineated pickets and factions alligned in favor of or opposition to democracy itself.

Alexander Keyssar demonstrates how the conservative band of the first American political spectrum opposed challenging the colonial status quo of limiting to vote to property rich, adult, white males. When this social order became controversial, with the democratizing element often being war, certain factions sought to minimize extension as much as possible, relenting only to specific sensitivites of the times. The impetus continued. Proponents of a selective polity always found plausible positions to base their arguments upon. It is wise to explore those positions, to explain how otherwise virtuous citizens could take an attitude that our contemporary sensibility finds contemptuous. But it is of greater importance to demonstrate how this attitude was consitently proven false in hindsight.

The overall impression a reader will take from The Right to Vote is that every freedom we feel is inviolable today was once hard fought for. That the promise of a democratic republic was not alone sufficient to deliver its vaunted freedoms to all citizens of the realm. If this is truly the case, it should make one question whether citizens continue to face concerted threats to their liberty and if monumental wrongs can be righted and potential damage can be averted by wise use of the vote that was once a colossal struggle to secure.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

This must be the definitive history of voting in America. I hold back from giving it five stars because it was a little more than what I was looking for, but this is as thorough as I have ever come across. Also, I love charts and graphs, and he has a great array of tables at the end. Interesting tidbit was the role war played throughout American history in expanding the right to vote. Also, though we all know how the right to vote gradually expanded, but what many of us didn't realize was how the right to vote actually shrunk at various points in American history. That is, some people who had the right to vote had it taken away at various moments in American history. When all is said and done, this is a great book.

[Kirsten · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great account of the long and twisty history of the right to vote in the U.S. so far. I learned a lot that surprised me, and a few things that made me very sad. Most striking is that the language justifying exclusion in terms of unworthiness to participate or the risk of fraud has been the same for so long. So much her is applicable to current voter suppression efforts and other debates about how and when we vote. It is at least reassuring that it is usually two steps forward and one step back, not the other way around.

[Michelle Mayfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an amazing book to learn about the history of voting rights in our country. As recently as the 1950's there were states that allowed non-citizens to vote. There were so many interesting details that I learned about how our nation went from allowing only white, male, land owners to vote to today when almost every citizen now has the right to vote. I was also surprised by the groups that are still not allowed to vote. In some states anyone who has been in prison can never vote again. If you find any of these details interesting, you should read this book.

[Matthew Rohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book does what it's trying to do very well - a comprehensive history of political movements and policy changes around voting rights in the US, well written and cleanly tracing the links between suffrage movements for different groups and the similarities\differences between the political incentives involved. The chapter about conditions after the 2000 election reads more like an Atlantic article than a history text but still provides good info

[Dominic · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was a pendulum of suffrage expansion and contraction. Got kind of droll after 200 pages. The man knows his stuff but really, how long can you keep reading up on the same thing over and over again. The only surprise in the book is that people actually want the vote, after all that i would have just quit and moved up to Canada.