The wonderful thing about the English language is that it is so rich with implications. Ask yourself this question: How can a government make a law abridging or denying a right that its citizens do not have? Consider the tenth amendment in concert with the fifteenth and nineteenth. The tenth establishes that those powers not granted to the federal government, such as holding elections, are given to the states. Then the others say that the states cannot deny anyone their right to vote on the basis of the reasons enumerated. Remember also the ninth amendment:hitssquad said:Nothing in the United States Constitution grants any citizen the right to vote.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
"It may be surprising that in the US citizens technically lack a constitutional right to vote."
Just because a right isn't expressly given in the constitution doesn't mean that the citizenry doesn't have it. Taking all of this together in context, we can see that the constitution is more than just the sum of its parts. In fact, in dealing with constitutional law, we must also remember that US Supreme Court precedent sets this law in addition to the constitution as written. Whenever any law was passed that abridged any group its right to vote (aside from minors and felons), that law was stricken by the Court. Chances are, they would do the same if ballots were to only be printed in English and no translation service provided for those who could not read or speak the language.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.