Debate on if voting should be a constitutional right

On November 3, 2014, The New York Times published an opinion editorial titled "Should Voting in an Election be a Constitutional Right." The opinion article presents this debate after the Supreme Court ruling Shelby County vs. Holder allowed laws towards voter registration that caused some already registered voters to lose there registration and hindered minority, and poor citizens from voting. There were about 5 debaters on this topic, one of the arguments came from House Representatives Keith Ellison and Mark Pocan. They discussed how politicians are basically discriminating indirectly because they don't restrict voters because of race or gender but rather do it indirectly by making voting harder. So in essence they are weeding out the poor, and focusing on the votes they want which takes away tons of votes. They propose that congress propose and amendment which "give Americans an affirmative right to vote and empower Congress to protect that right." The points they make are valid because it shows the corruption in our government. Because politicians are able to create policies on the local level to make voting harder it really effects the poor and middle class. By putting more restrictions on when to register and what you need to register like a photo ID which many citizens don't have. This is very important because especially during the midterm elections the state legislatures are being deeply affected. Many state governments are efficient and get a lot done but when many votes aren't counted due to voter ID laws and such it directly effects who is in office. Ilya Shapiro has similar comments when he essentially said that voter rights are fought by the rich to scare the poor from voting. Which brings up another point, where are the votes from these people? American citizens should have the "Guaranteed right" to vote. Which is what most of the debaters say. Some however, don't agree with pushing reform by amending the constitution, but rather have the supreme court be more tedious when it comes to reviewing cases dealing with voter rights. By rereading the constitution some of the debaters believe our guaranteed right to vote is embedded in the constitution its just the supreme court needs to do a better job of enforcing it. This argument is also exceedingly valid. The constitution does state that representatives be chosen by the people, and discusses how citizens vote for a president through the electoral college. Our constitution states this however many willing voters aren't able to vote. Some say that this wont work because it isn't specific enough especially for state legislatures to back off from their strict voting laws because some debaters feel because of the conservative nature of the supreme court nothing will get done. But to get an amendment passed which is like moving mountains in itself some of the debaters feel it would give this issue the specificity it deserves when it comes to voter ID laws.