The question of who gets to vote in America is not just a matter of policy but a profound reflection of our constitutional heritage. To understand voting rights, we must return to the foundational documents—the U.S. and state constitutions—and interpret them through the lens of their original intent, as the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed in landmark decisions like Heller and Bruen.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Bill of Rights must be understood in the context of the “first constitutional period” when these documents were crafted. This principle, echoed in New Hampshire’s 1784 Constitution (Part I, Article 38), calls for a “frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution.” It’s a standard I apply rigorously and one I urge others to embrace.
Let’s start with citizenship. In the early days of the Republic, citizenship was primarily a state matter. New Hampshire’s legislature, for instance, granted citizenship to a French immigrant family in 1785, illustrating the states’ original authority to define their citizens. The U.S. Constitution, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, delegated the power of naturalization to the federal government, leading to the 1790 Naturalization Act.
This law established a uniform rule for naturalizing foreign-born individuals but preserved states’ rights to define their own citizens, as seen in the act’s requirement for an oath of allegiance to a state. To become a citizen, one had to meet residency requirements, prove good character, and swear allegiance—a process rooted in the idea that citizenship carries duties like paying taxes or serving in the militia, and Jury duty.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, addressed a dark chapter in our history by overturning the infamous Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans. It declared that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of both the nation and their state of residence. Yet, even this amendment didn’t erase state citizenship; it created a dual framework where state citizenship remained primary, and federal citizenship applied to those in federal territories like Washington, D.C. States retained concurrent jurisdiction over citizenship, as seen in New Hampshire’s 1809 law, which mirrored federal naturalization standards for American citizens moving from other states.
Voting rights, however, are distinct from citizenship. The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 4) reserves to states the authority to regulate the “times, places, and manner” of elections. In New Hampshire’s 1784 Constitution, voting was tied to being an “inhabitant” with specific qualifications: male, 21 or older, a poll tax payer, and domiciled in the town where one voted. The term “inhabitant” appears repeatedly in foundational documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the Articles of Confederation, and is defined in New Hampshire’s Constitution (Part II, Article 30) as someone qualified to vote or hold office in their place of domicile.
Notably, the 1784 Constitution didn’t use “resident” in its Bill of Rights—only “citizen” and “inhabitant. “Historical cases like United States v. Susan B. Anthony (1873) and Ellen R. Van Valkenburg v. Albert Brown (1872) underscore that voting rights were not automatically tied to citizenship. Both women argued that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause granted them voting rights, but courts ruled that states could set their own voting qualifications, including restrictions based on sex. As the Supreme Court in Anthony stated, “The right or privilege of voting… arises under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States.”
These rulings affirmed states’ authority to define voter eligibility, a principle that persists today. In New Hampshire, the modern Constitution (Part I, Article 11) grants voting rights to every inhabitant 18 and older, domiciled in their town or ward. But the erosion of original citizenship requirements has raised concerns. Federal laws in the 1970s banned durational residency requirements for voting, and New Hampshire’s attempt to clarify voter qualifications through SB 3 was struck down by the state Supreme Court for impeding access to the polls.
Under current state law this creates a system where someone can arrive in New Hampshire and vote on the same day, potentially undermining the state’s ability to ensure voters are true stakeholders in the community. The tension between accessibility and accountability lies at the heart of this issue. Citizenship, historically, implied duties—taxes, jury service, militia duty—tied to a commitment to the state.
Voting was a privilege for those who met strict qualifications, ensuring only those invested in the community shaped its future. Today’s laws prioritize broad access, but at what cost? Without a clear tie to state citizenship, we risk diluting the responsibilities that come with the right to vote. To resolve this, we must return to first principles. Reread the constitutions—state and federal—and ask: what did the framers intend?
Voting is not a universal right but a carefully guarded privilege, tied to the duties of citizenship and the sovereignty of states. New Hampshire, like all states, should reclaim its authority to define voter qualifications within constitutional bounds, ensuring that those who vote are truly part of the community they seek to govern. Only by grounding ourselves in the original intent of our founding documents can we preserve the integrity of our democratic process.
Daniel Richard is a constitutional scholar dedicated to studying the original intent of America’s founding documents.
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
