Holding free and fair elections is the basic premise of democracy. The principle of ballot secrecy is a core value of constitutional democracy. In essence, statutes and state constitutions guarantee the secrecy of ballots. Voters have the privilege of maintaining confidentiality about their choice. Secrecy in elections guard voter against coercion and is essential to upholding the electoral process integrity. Previously, political parties printed ballots and listed their candidates and voters would take a ballot of their choice, and cast their vote (Kortum et al., 2021, p. 244). However, this process resulted in voter intimidation and buying. Given the unique challenges of conducting public elections, it becomes challenging to separate voters’ identities from their votes.
The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal laws, constitutions, and regulations take precedence over state laws. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…and…anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” (Diedrich, 2021, p. 23). Under the clause, government scales balance when the Constitution and state laws conflict. Thus, the proposed amendment to the state constitution does not violate the Supremacy Clause. A basic tenant of the clause is democracy and voting secrecy remains a key aspect of free and fair elections.
In summary, the secret ballot is of great significance across states aimed to protect democratic societies against any form of undue influence. Further, it is democratically and constitutionally permissible for voters to secretly cast their votes. Moreover, the absence of direct elections of some officials does not negate voters’ accountability. Secret ballots along with other constitutional reforms reduce voter intimation and fraud. State election law protects voters’ rights to keep who they voted for private. The distinct possibility that an individual can be forced to disclose their choice of vote would serve as a constraint to exercise their rights.
References
Diedrich, J. S. (2021). Separation, supremacy, and the unconstitutional rational basis test. Villanova Law Review, 66, 249.
Kortum, P., Byrne, M. D., & Whitmore, J. (2021). Voter verification of ballot marking device ballots is a two-part question: Can they? Mostly, they can. Do they? Mostly, they don’t. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 20(3), 243-253.