Yes. Some might argue that a requirement for universal participation in elections represents government-compelled speech and would therefore violate the First Amendment. But the 2020 report “Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting,” sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Ash Center of the Harvard Kennedy School, concluded that so long as there is no requirement to vote for or against any specific candidate or measure, there is no “compelled speech” and no constitutional prohibition.

It is important to stress that our proposal is for mandatory participation in elections, not mandatory voting. Universal voting doesn’t compel voters to choose a particular candidate, or even to fill out a ballot; it only compels them to engage in an act of participation during the election. Voters are free to check in as having participated (in person or by mail) and walk away without casting a vote.

Requiring eligible voters to participate in elections would, in fact, enhance individual freedom of expression because it would require governments to facilitate registration for all eligible citizens, eliminate laws that actively suppress voters, and ensure that citizens have non-burdensome paths to exercise their franchise.

Many Americans are predisposed to push back against anything that smacks of government coercion. But our government already mandates many things that we readily accept: serving jury duty, paying taxes, educating children, getting car inspections, and buying auto insurance, for instance.

And civic duty voting would have options for someone who genuinely objects to voting: Citizens could mark their ballot “none of the above;” they could submit a blank ballot; or they could provide an explanation, such as conscientious objection, for why they cannot or will not vote.

Just as our nation has accepted the universal obligation to, say, serve on juries as the only way to guarantee fair trials, we believe that the electorate can accept the very limited amount of coercion involved in universal civic duty voting—since it compels participation but not the actual casting of a vote—to ensure that the decisions we make as a democracy are made by everyone. Decisions on important public policies, and the election of the people who will make them, should be made with the consent of all the governed.

Given that it is also the surest way to guarantee that the right to vote is protected, we believe that the benefits of universal voting far outweigh the very limited burden imposed by a voting requirement.

Politics will always involve clashes of interests and battles between deeply held, competing worldviews. This is a welcome aspect of a healthy democracy. But having everyone vote as a matter of civic duty would by necessity alter the tone of our political campaigns—reducing acrimony and placing greater emphasis on dialogue, empathy, and the common good.

Low turnout both aggravates and is aggravated by political polarization. With universal voting, the very nature of political campaigns would change. Candidates and parties would have to craft messages with broad appeal. Inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes opponents would be counterproductive. The current strategy of mobilizing only your own base, or attempting to discourage your opponent’s supporters from turning out to vote, would be pointless if everyone were required to come to the polls. Furthermore, parties and candidates would have to look beyond their bases and make their case to those previously labeled “low propensity voters,” the added benefit of which could be that those new voters, empowered by their votes, would have more confidence in their representatives and be drawn to participate in other aspects of civic life. Ultimately, the people who represent us would have to speak to all of us, and that is in everyone’s best interest.

Universal voting is in effect in democratic countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and, notably, in Australia. When mandatory voting was adopted nationwide in Australia in 1924, the participation rate immediately jumped from 60% to 90% and has stayed there in almost every election since. The penalty for not voting and not providing a valid reason is a small fine (about $15 US), and blank ballots are acceptable. Election Day is a festive celebration of democracy and its capacity to draw a nation together in saluting self-rule.

The basics of the Australian system are straightforward. It is compulsory for Australians over the age of 18 to register to vote. Federal elections always occur on a Saturday. Early voting and vote-by-mail are available for those who are unable to cast a ballot on Election Day. And citizens voting on Election Day can vote at any polling place in their home state or territory.

Australia is far from alone among nations in seeing the advantages of universal voting. More than two dozen countries have some form of civic duty voting: Argentina, Belgium (since 1892), Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Greece, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nauru, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, and Uruguay.

It is clear from this list that universal voting does not, in and of itself, guarantee an excellent democracy. However, the evidence from around the world is that civic duty voting increases participation levels significantly, and has helped many countries achieve a more representative democracy.

Universal civic duty voting can begin at any level of government. To reach the goal of having it be the norm for general elections, individual states or municipalities could take the lead as “laboratories of democracy,” incrementally introducing the idea of universal voting into the national mainstream. Other reforms, like same day registration and ranked choice voting, have gained increased acceptance in this way.

The first steps may involve local experiments with municipal elections, or statewide experiments in gubernatorial elections. In any state or municipality adopting universal civic duty voting, an official or agency—such as the secretary of state or local board of elections—would be designated to design and implement the program. States could pass legislation requiring voting for all general state elections. States could also pass legislation—and, if necessary, constitutional amendments—enabling all counties and municipalities to enact universal civic duty voting for local elections. Municipalities can advocate for their state to adopt proper enabling legislation.

The goal should be to have citizens take on this basic civic responsibility at every level of government, and to enact election laws and shape approaches to election administration that both require participation and make voting as simple and easy as possible

Universal voting is a pro-democracy idea, not a pro-Democrat idea. It is not at all clear, in any given election, whether universal voting would help Republicans or Democrats, and that is fine with us.

Historically, in Australia, the practice of universal voting was promoted by the Conservative Party, concerned that the labor unions and their mobilizing power would lead to Labor Party domination. And indeed, universal voting has resulted in significant successes for conservatives, winning seven of the eleven Australian national contests held since 1990.

Two recent elections in the United States provide further evidence that the increases in turnout by constituencies who vote less frequently can benefit either party. In the 2020 election, while Joe Biden was winning the popular vote by seven million votes, Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives. This was largely because white rural voters, who mainly supported the Republicans, came out in far larger numbers than in 2018. A second example is Virginia, where Democrats who controlled the legislature after the 2019 elections enacted reforms to increase turnout, and that larger turnout in 2021 saw the election of a Republican Governor and the return of one house of the legislature to Republican control.

Universal voting would create a system in which all political parties would need to craft messages to appeal to all voters. The practice would push all parties to find common ground with a majority of a full electorate, and it is by no means certain that one or another party would be better equipped to do that.

It is certainly true that even a small fine can be a real hardship for some people. This is a serious issue that the original Universal Voting Working Group discussed in depth, internally and with leading voting rights organizations. Three points are important in response.

First, full participation is the most important source of power for every community. The responsiveness of government to constituencies with higher voting rates has been shown in study after study, and universal voting guarantees that responsiveness.

Second, any legislation or municipal ordinance should be drafted to ensure that any fines imposed are minimal, will not accrue any interest or penalties, and cannot be the basis for a criminal warrant. Community service should also be an alternative, and the possibility of phase-ins and waivers can be considered as well.

Third, it is important to remember that in the 1960s, one of the key demands the civil rights movement fought for was the right for Black Americans to serve on juries. That meant that Black Americans should be compelled, equally, to serve on juries, because as Professor Charles Ogletree has written, “Juries give extraordinary power to ordinary citizens,” and the same applies to voting. The NAACP supports universal voting as one of the planks of its voting rights program.

In sum, the power derived from full enfranchisement will benefit every community. If properly designed—light enforcement, small fines, no interest or penalties—the incurred costs would be minimal. And as with jury duty, the benefits of significantly increased empowerment through universal participation would outweigh the modest challenges it presents.