Citizens should not have to vote for every office

We clearly need one more amendment to the state constitution: Re: "Federal judge orders recount of 2014 abortion ballot vote," April 22.

“An amendment to this Constitution shall be enacted when the number of votes in favor of such amendment exceeds the number of votes against it.”

Tying the passage of an amendment to votes for governor has several flaws, as the current case shows.

If the opponents’ position holds, in order to vote for a proposed amendment, the vote also requires a vote for governor. This forces a citizen who wants to vote on an amendment proposal to vote for governor, even if he does not wish to express a choice in that race. Can a citizen be forced to vote? Or to cast a vote on every office or issue on the ballot?

If the current method of counting amendment votes dilutes the number required for passage when the number of votes for governor is reduced, then going the other way concentrates the votes of those on the other side.

If the proponents encouraged supporters to vote for the amendment alone, then the opponents had the same opportunity to encourage their supporters to increase the vote for governor.

As an election official in Davidson County for nearly every election since 2004, the most frequent question I get from voters is, “Do I have to vote for every office?” Up to now, the answer has been no.

Dave West, Nashville 37204

Judge’s ruling favors political agenda

In the 2014 general elections, I did not cast a vote for governor because there was not a candidate who spoke to my concerns. I did, however, cast a vote on the various proposed constitutional amendments and was proud to do so.

Now I learn that a federal judge has determined that my votes on the amendments are to be thrown out because I was unwilling to cast a vote in support of a gubernatorial candidate? Whatever your political leanings, this should be of serious concern. A judge is threatening to substitute his political agenda for that of the people.

Are you willing to have your voice and vote silenced simply because it represents a view held to be less than politically correct?

Speak up now or risk losing the right to be heard in the future.

Susan Allen, White House 37188

Votes should count regardless

I am a "Yes on One" voter who did not vote in the uncontested gubernatorial race. My Amendment 1 vote should count.

In the history of the United States and the state of Tennessee, there has never been a requirement to vote in any particular election, only a right to vote. Anyone eligible has the freedom to walk into the voting booth and vote on none, one, few, most or all of the candidates or ballot issues listed of their choice.

However, if I had been instructed on Election Day that I was required to vote in another election to be eligible to vote on Amendment 1, I would have gladly done so. But I did not, because no such requirement was set forth on Election Day, because no such requirement exists.

The state constitution refers to the number of votes counted as a requirement to pass an amendment, not who cast them. All previous amendments to the constitution have been counted thusly. "No on 1" voters should have expressed any concerns about amendment voting before the election. Instead, they duly voted in the election, as did I. Both votes should count. Otherwise, they and Judge Kevin Sharp have disenfranchised me.

You should not be able to change the counting rules of an election solely because you do not like the outcome.

Lynn Chaffin, Nashville 37205