Show of hands
On the restorations of 1991, women's suffrage, and the problem with over-regulating elections from far away
The free world celebrated a great victory in 1991 when Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were restored to independence after half a century of hostile occupation (mainly by the Soviet Union). It was a symbolic victory for democracy to see that the people of three small countries were once again able to govern themselves, reasserting their legitimate right to decide matters free of coercive control.
■ Those three Baltic countries are small, each no larger than 3 million in population. Estonia, the smallest, has a bit shy of 1.4 million people. And yet, despite its small size, it is highly rated by Freedom House and was ranked #21 in the Economist Democracy Index in 2024. Small size doesn’t hold it back from delivering on high expectations for democracy.
■ If ranked among the 50 states, Estonia would fit between Maine and Montana, easily in the bottom quintile for population. Even though it is no more than a modest lake and river apart from Russia, its delivers successfully on the promise of free elections.
■ Elections do not need to be managed by big government from faraway locations. Mandates do not need to be handed down as though from on high to boss around states like vassals. If a requirement or restriction truly makes sense, then its advocates should make the case and wait for states and local jurisdictions to adopt it independently.
■ Elections are locally managed in the United States, reflecting a clear Constitutional choice with a long historical track record. If Estonia can handle elections on its own, without the ham-fisted interference of a larger government entity, then so can any American state.
■ Uniformity isn’t a necessity in a Federal electoral system; it is partly because individual states had the freedom to expand the franchise locally that women successfully secured the right to vote. A due respect for the history of the right to vote, for the security-by-design of the Federal system, and for the Tenth Amendment itself ought to caution anyone against trying to impose control on the strictly state and local administration of elections.
