This Note takes the position, counter to established jurisprudence, that the prevention of voter fraud is not a compelling state interest that can independently justify restrictions on the right to vote. It will seek to do so through two mechanisms. First, it will argue that the right to vote is unjustifiably treated differently than other rights by courts, using a comparison to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Second, it will argue that current jurisprudence holding the prevention of voter fraud to be a compelling interest misunderstands the inherent means-ends distinction in voting rights standards. The prevention of voter fraud is not an end in itself, rather it is a means designed to serve the overarching end of election integrity. Finally, the Note will account for electoral policy solutions that can help address election integrity without overburdening citizens’ voting rights.
This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.