A conservative commentator is proposing a dramatic overhaul of American voting that would make casting a ballot harder and strip voting rights from millions of citizens based on their income, government assistance, and even intelligence.
Writing in American Thinker, J. Kevin Jenkins argues that the United States has abandoned the principle of “consent of the governed” and needs sweeping election reforms—including restrictions that would be considered radical departures from current voting rights law.
Turn Back the Clock on Voting Convenience
Jenkins’ first proposal tackles what he sees as a fundamental problem: voting has become too easy. According to Jenkins, convenience in voting creates opportunities for “backroom manipulations,” and Americans should sacrifice ease of access for what he considers a more trustworthy system.
The solution? A return to paper ballots counted by hand. Jenkins fondly recalls waking up the morning after elections knowing who won, with counters from both parties tallying votes with “a $0.35 Bic” pen. He contrasts this with today’s computer-based systems that can take days or weeks to produce results.
“How could you trust a computer screen or the resultant printout?” Jenkins asks, questioning whether anyone actually trusts electronic voting. He admits having “almost no knowledge of how computers work” but insists he could count paper ballots himself.
Jenkins wants voting to be entirely in-person, with valid citizenship ID checked against lists of disqualified persons including convicted felons and—in his phrasing—those “deficient in the area of such things as a pulse and brain waves.”
Who Should Be Allowed to Vote?
The more controversial proposals come when Jenkins addresses who should have voting rights at all. He acknowledges wading into “shoaling water” but insists “someone has to say it.”
First on his list: anyone who receives more government benefits in a year than they pay in taxes should lose their right to vote. Jenkins argues that people dependent on government assistance shouldn’t be able to vote for representatives who might offer them more benefits. He defines government benefits as money and services not available to the general public, excluding things like roads, police, fire services, and public schools.
Then comes what Jenkins himself calls “a really politically incorrect position”: people with low intelligence shouldn’t be allowed to vote. He frames it as a matter of competency, questioning why society would consult someone “with an I.Q. of 80” on complex matters involving political theory, economics, and morality.
Jenkins even takes a shot at former President Joe Biden, suggesting that “no sane society” would have allowed him to vote, much less serve as president.
Crushing Penalties for Voter Fraud
To enforce these reforms, Jenkins proposes making any form of vote fraud a felony carrying “crushing fines” and “decades in prison.” He wants Congress to mandate harsh sentences, removing judicial discretion that he associates with “leftist judges.”
According to Jenkins, fraudulent voting amounts to “an aggressive act of sabotage against a society” that undermines America “at the most basic level.” Those considering accepting what he calls “‘walking around money’ from the local Open Society representative” should be “terrified” of the consequences.
Ban Betting on Elections
Jenkins concludes with one more proposal: making gambling on elections a felony in all states. He admits uncertainty about whether any gambling is morally permissible—a philosophical question he associates with C.S. Lewis—but argues that the “lure of easy money” and the profits earned by gambling operators “must necessarily lead to corruption.”
He calls permitting election gambling and published odds “an abomination to a free society seeking to govern with the consent of her citizens.”
The Broader Argument
Throughout the piece, Jenkins frames his proposals as necessary to restore what he sees as the original American principle: government exists to serve citizens and operates only with their consent. He argues that the federal government has violated the powers enumerated in the Constitution and that “untrustworthy elections” facilitate this violation of trust.
Without reforms, Jenkins contends, elected representatives are not legitimate but rather “a cabal of self-satisfied, money-grubbing, power-hungry thugs.”
The proposals outlined in Jenkins’ piece would face significant constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld voting rights protections, and any attempt to restrict the franchise based on income, tax contributions, or intelligence would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as various federal voting rights laws.
Poll taxes and literacy tests—restrictions that disproportionately affected poor and minority voters—were banned by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Jenkins’ proposed restrictions bear resemblance to these historical barriers that the civil rights movement fought to eliminate.
Nevertheless, Jenkins’ piece reflects ongoing debates within conservative circles about election integrity, voter fraud concerns, and the tension between voting access and voting security—debates that continue to shape election policy discussions across the country.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/11/fixing-our-broken-elections/