DO NOT MISTAKE INSTABILITY FOR UNWORTHINESS

DO NOT MISTAKE INSTABILITY FOR UNWORTHINESS

There is a distinction every society must learn to preserve: the stability of a person's circumstances is not the measure of the person's dignity, belonging, or citizenship.

A citizen with a permanent home may move easily through the systems surrounding everyday life. There is a stable address for government records, a dependable place to receive mail, transportation may be readily available, identification documents remain connected to current information, and election notices reliably arrive where expected.

There is nothing wrong with such stability. It is something we should hope more people can enjoy.

The problem begins when institutions are designed so completely around that stable life that people living differently encounter greater difficulty exercising the very same rights.

Consider another citizen.

The apartment was lost after the rent increased. Mail now arrives irregularly. The person moves between relatives, shelters, temporary rooms, or a vehicle. Another citizen is a student moving between school and home. Another works unpredictable hours and cannot easily reach a polling place. An elderly or disabled voter may depend upon absentee voting because transportation has become difficult.

These people are not necessarily less responsible, less engaged, or less deserving of political participation.

Their circumstances are simply different.
This is the contrast we must understand:

One citizen's life fits easily into the administrative system.
Another citizen's life requires the administrative system to make room.

The difference between them may be housing, income, mobility, age, disability, employment, or access to transportation.

But the difference is not citizenship.

The person with a permanent address and the person without one may stand in radically different economic circumstances while possessing the same fundamental political dignity.

Therefore, the democratic question is not whether stable citizens should have easy access to voting. Of course they should.

The deeper question is:

Can we make voting reasonably accessible to citizens whose lives are not equally stable—without sacrificing legitimate election safeguards?

That is where democratic design matters.

The goal should not be to weaken verification or abandon election integrity. It should be to construct secure procedures capable of recognizing the diversity of circumstances in which citizens actually live.

Because a democracy should never allow an accidental equation to develop: greater stability = greater practical access to citizenship
and greater instability = greater practical distance from citizenship.

A permanent address may simplify administration.
It must never become a measure of human worth.

A dependable mailbox may simplify communication.
It must never become a measure of belonging.

Economic stability may make participation easier.
It must never become an unofficial qualification for political voice.

Do not mistake instability for unworthiness.
The democratic task is not to make the stable citizen less secure.

It is to ensure that the unstable citizen does not become less visible.

Pastor Steven G. Lee
Street GMC Corps
September 5, 2026