re: Elon and Gracias- the number of noncitizens with SS#s and benefits

quote:

---

mmigrants with a permanent resident card, known as a green card Refugees People granted asylum

---

quote:

---

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the "right to vote" in several landmark cases, though the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant a positive right to vote in the same way it enumerates rights like free speech or bearing arms. Instead, the Court's rulings have often focused on protecting voting rights from discrimination, undue restriction, or denial, interpreting them through various constitutional amendments and principles.

One of the earliest significant cases is Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), where the Court struck down a San Francisco ordinance that disproportionately disenfranchised Chinese-American voters, implying a protection of equal voting rights under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Court ruled that state legislative districts must be roughly equal in population ("one person, one vote"), grounding this in the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that "the right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society." This decision reinforced voting as a fundamental right, though still not an absolute one.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prompted further rulings. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), the Court upheld the Act’s constitutionality, affirming Congress’s power to enforce the 15th Amendment, which prohibits denying the right to vote based on race. Later, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court struck down a key provision of the Act requiring certain states to get federal approval for voting law changes, arguing it outdated, though it didn’t deny the underlying right.

Bush v. Gore (2000) is another pivotal case. The Court halted a Florida recount in the presidential election, citing equal protection concerns over inconsistent vote-counting standards. The decision effectively emphasized that voting rights, once granted by states, must be administered fairly.
The Court has also clarified limits. In Minor v. Happersett (1875), it ruled that suffrage isn’t an inherent right of citizenship, upholding a state’s denial of women’s voting (pre-19th Amendment). Similarly, felon disenfranchisement has been upheld, as in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), where the Court found states could deny voting rights to convicted felons under the 14th Amendment’s Section 2.

So, while the Supreme Court has consistently treated voting as a fundamental right tied to democratic participation—protected against discrimination (15th Amendment), dilution (14th Amendment), or arbitrary barriers—it’s not an unlimited or inherent right of citizenship. States retain significant authority to regulate it, subject to constitutional guardrails.

---