Compulsory Voting Arrives in the Land of the Free: One Bill’s Potential to Revitalize American Democracy
In early February 2023, the Washington State Senate’s Government & Elections Committee approved the advancement of Senate Bill 5209, a bill mandating universal civic duty voting, for consideration by the Senate Rules Committee. As a result, this all-powerful group of lawmakers has been entrusted with the fate of the most viable compulsory voting measure America has seen in its modern era. If the bill is approved for a vote by the entire Senate, SB 5209 could go on to increase voter turnout and heighten democratic representation across Washington, all while lending new momentum to compulsory voting proposals elsewhere in America. SB 5209’s historic progress through the Washington state legislature indicates that compulsory voting may finally be on the brink of becoming a normalized fixture of American election law.
Washington’s SB 5209 would mandate universal civic duty voting for all Washington citizens who are eligible to vote under the State Constitution. The bill includes a host of provisions, chief among them the requirement that every eligible voter either cast a vote or obtain a waiver from their obligation. It goes on to detail that each registered voter will be issued a mail-in ballot for every statewide election. SB 5209 ends with an underlined statement currently nonexistent in U.S. state and federal election law: “Each registered voter must return a ballot for each primary and general election.”
SB 5209’s mere introduction to the State Government & Elections Committee has inspired strong reactions from supporters and opponents alike. A tweet by the Washington State GOP on January 31st denounced the proposal, suggesting that under the bill’s provisions, failure to vote would lead to imprisonment. The claim was patently false, and proponents pushed back. A local Washington news network ran a segment disproving the state GOP’s tweet. The segment cites HB 1220—a House version of the compulsory voting bill that contains similar provisions to SB 5209—and provides voters with alternative options to casting a ballot on election day. In response to the false claims, one co-author of the bill tweeted a statement praising the local news network for “confirming the falsity of [the GOP’s] claims that [people] would be thrown in jail for not voting…”
But opponents of the bill remain undeterred. GOP state legislators and other critics continue to publicly express their disapproval of SB 5209, claiming that the bill violates Constitutional protections related to freedom of speech and the right to vote. In speaking of SB 5209 at a public hearing on January 31, election policy expert Andy Craig argued, “Compulsory voting... is not an idea whose time has come. It's unpractical, unpopular, and unconstitutional.” But much like the Washington GOP’s false “jail” tweet, Mr. Craig is sorely mistaken.
As for the bill’s practicality, Mr. Craig and other skeptics need only to revisit SB 5209’s full scope of provisions for reassurance. In Section 10, the bill calls for the Washington Secretary of State to “implement a plan for expanded voter registration in the state” prior to the 2026 primary election. For those who do not wish to participate in the electoral process, Section 2 of the bill gives citizens the right to obtain a waiver from registering to vote, with no justification required. SB 5209 does not impose an impractical burden on Washingtonians. It codifies into law a system that would increase voter registration and remove barriers to access by automatically sending mail-in ballots to every voter. It does all of this while simultaneously providing politically apathetic citizens a simple way to opt out of performing their civic duty.
In addition to critiques about the policy’s practicality, some opponents of compulsory voting (and SB 5209 in particular) have argued that the policy imposes an undue restriction on their liberty to not vote. Opposition to government mandates on the basis of constitutionally-guaranteed “freedoms” has been a recurring trend in American political culture, especially in recent years. Citizens’ aversion to government-issued mandates has been evidenced as recently as 2020, when public outrage ensued in many states over COVID-era lockdowns. But the compulsory voting measures outlined in SB 5209 are not a government’s attempt to constrain the liberties of its citizens. On the contrary, the Washington bill is designed to reduce underrepresentation in state government and put power back in the hands of the people.
In the face of such pointed criticism, the potential of SB 5209 to increase voter turnout in Washington has been largely overlooked. Countries around the world have seen a dramatic rise in voter turnout following the enactment of compulsory voting policies. Australia has maintained a compulsory voting law for nearly a century, and today the nation imposes only a relatively small fine on registered voters who fail to vote without a valid excuse. Since legislators enacted the law in 1924, Australia has had consistently high voter turnout, with more than 90% of eligible voters regularly participating in parliamentary elections and national referendums. Though inclusive of a score of other provisions found in the Australian law, SB 5209 currently lacks an enforcement mechanism that would empower state officials to penalize Washingtonians for not fulfilling their civic duty. The small penalty Australian citizens incur for not exercising their civic duty signifies an important difference between many foreign compulsory voting laws, and the bill currently under consideration in the Evergreen State.
Some research indicates that the absence of a penalty clause in SB 5209 may weaken its effectiveness. Researchers studying compulsory voting laws abroad have found that a means of enforcement is often key to boosting turnout numbers. After analyzing data from more than 1,400 elections in 116 countries, researchers at the University of Georgia concluded that compulsory voting laws are nearly twice as effective when enforced through sanctions, with even the threat of small fines often leading to a boost in voter turnout. The study goes on to explain that compulsory voting laws can improve turnout without enforcement, but UGA researcher Shane Singh makes clear that, “if the goal is to elevate turnout and sustain high turnout over time, you need to have credible enforcement behind it.”
SB 5209 currently lacks an enforcement mechanism, but its passage would nevertheless mark a significant breakthrough in the effort to increase flagging voter turnout in the United States. The bill is a palatable introduction to an idea that has proven effective in nations around the world. One state’s implementation of compulsory voting could extend the policy’s political viability far beyond the Pacific Northwest, as has been seen with countless other policies enacted throughout America’s history. Prior to action by the federal government, the state of Wyoming granted women the right to vote in 1890, followed by Colorado in 1893, Utah and Idaho in 1896, and Washington itself in 1910. Minimum wage laws, abortion rights, seatbelt mandates, and even the legalization of same-sex marriage were all codified into law at the state level years before the federal government issued its stamp of approval.
SB 5209 may seem insignificant in present-day American policy discourse, but as has been evidenced numerous times before, one state legislature’s actions have the power to trigger a more sweeping legislative movement. Once a bill like SB 5209 normalizes compulsory voting in American political culture, compulsory voting policies can be amended to increase their effectiveness. In America, there’s clear and recent precedent for adjusting election laws to fit the times. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, absentee and mail-in voting policies were dramatically expanded in states across the nation. If compulsory voting laws do prove ineffective without penalties, voters and legislators can reevaluate and amend the specific provisions of an already-enacted bill, tweaking those sections which would increase the bill’s effectiveness.
Far from being a drawback, SB 5209’s lack of a punishment clause increases compulsory voting’s viability in the face of skeptical state legislatures. Moreover, if the bill does not ultimately produce significant increases in voter turnout, the law would remain an established framework for building out compulsory voting policies in Washington state and beyond.
In the past, compulsory voting has had difficulty gaining traction among state and federal lawmakers. In 2022, Connecticut Representative John Larson (D) introduced a compulsory voting bill to the 117th US Congress to no avail. As of March 2023, a compulsory voting bill similar to SB 5209 is in its very early stages of consideration in the Connecticut state legislature. Like Representative Larson’s bill in the U.S. Congress, though, the measure has yet to advance beyond its initial introduction to the State House. SB 5209 distinguishes itself from these other proposals by its rapid passage out of the Washington State Senate Committee on Government and Elections and its advancement to the Senate Rules Committee. Its approval by the Washington state government would give lawmakers throughout the United States a real, American example to reference in their future efforts to enact universal civic duty voting.
SB 5209 does not currently carry the weight of law, but Washington’s serious consideration of the bill is exactly what former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis had in mind when he lauded American federalism, appreciating the manner in which “a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” If passed, SB 5209 has the potential to change the electoral politics of Washington state by heightening democratic representation, boosting the legitimacy of elected representatives, and catalyzing the passage of compulsory voting legislation beyond the state’s borders. Whether or not the bill ever realizes its potential will come down to the courage of lawmakers in the Evergreen State.
Garrett Spirnock is a sophomore in Columbia College studying Political Science and Computer Science.