- by New Deal democrat
Rep. John A. Bingham, Republican of Ohio, among the most ardent reconstructionists, wanted a more broadly inclusive amendment:
I concur with my colleague ... [regarding] the objectionable features of the amendment as presented .... [T]he only limitation that the amendment imposes upon the original powers now in the several States of this Union is the limitation that they shall not restrict the elective franchise in the persons of citizens by reason of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.... [H]ence it is manifestly clear that this power remaining in the States, in no other manner fettered by the proposed amendment, may be exercised to the end that an aristocracy of property may be established, an aristocracy of intellect may be established, an aristocracy of sect may be established .... [T]he amendment presented to the people for their approval will inform them that upon its adoption these abuses by States will hereafter be impossible. To that end I have proposed an amendment [as follows:]
‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge or deny to any male citizen of the United States of sound mind and twenty-one years of age or upward the equal exercise of the elective franchise, subject to such registration laws as the State may establish, at all elections in the State wherein he shall have actually resided for a period of one year next preceding such election, except such of said citizens as shall hereafter have engaged in rebellion or insurrection, or who may have been or shall be duly convicted of treason or other infamous crime.’
——
Congressional Globe, 40th Congress, 3rd Session, p. 723.
Note that even this broad formulation included a right to vote for women; and more to the point for our current situation, would not prohibit the identification laws that are presently being used for voter suppression. States most likely would also attempt to define as many crimes as possible that might be disproportionately committed by poor blacks, as “infamous.”
