The Case for Mandatory Voting Is Getting Stronger

I haven’t yet read the new book from E.J. Dionne Jr. and Miles Rapoport arguing for universal — “mandatory” — voting in the U.S., but based on how Mark Z. Barabak at the Los Angeles Times describes the proposal, I’m a bit more swayed than I usually have been.

Let’s get the obvious objections out of the way. I thoroughly agree with the authors, and the scholars they consulted, that mandatory voting is constitutional. Especially since they call for several options for those who would prefer to opt out: A “none of the above” line on the ballot for those who don’t like any candidate; some sort of accommodation for those who feel compelled to abstain based on religious practices; and, for those who still wouldn’t comply, minimal fines. Feel free to argue that compulsory voting under those conditions is an unjustified infringement on one’s liberties, but there’s simply no strong case that it’s unconstitutional.