( CNN ) -- That did n't take long . Just two weeks since the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act , state legislatures are moving quickly on voter suppression measures . Already , six of the nine states that were previously covered by the requirement that changes in voting procedures be pre-cleared have started to bring up restrictive voter ID laws . If there is a glimmer of hope for voting rights advocates , however , it 's that the court merely ruled that the formula was outdated , and that Congress `` may draft another formula based on current conditions . '' I agree with the court that indeed , the previous formula included in the Voting Rights Act does not address today 's attempts to restrict the right to vote . In fact , I think it underestimates them . Under the former formula used by the Voting Rights Act , nine entire states and certain counties and municipalities in six additional states were required to obtain federal preclearance before passing new voting laws . But according to the Brennan Center for Justice , already in 2013 more than 30 states , including my home state of Wisconsin , have introduced more than 80 bills that would restrict the right to vote . These bills would do everything from requiring photo identification at the polls , to limiting early voting opportunities , to creating burdensome registration requirements . Although these efforts are not as blatant as previous voter suppression techniques such as literacy tests and violent intimidation , they are still discriminatory . The victims of these voter suppression efforts are usually the same , no matter the state : minority and low-income voters , the elderly and students . In a country built on the foundation of civic participation , voting should be our most fundamental right , the right that ensures all other rights we possess . But the right to vote is , contrary to popular belief , not explicitly guaranteed by our Constitution . Although the right is inherent or implied throughout our founding document , and amendments prohibit discrimination based on race , gender , and age , we possess no affirmative right to vote . If we did , state lawmakers would n't continue to pass , and courts would not continue to uphold , these various restrictive voting laws . So Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and I have proposed a solution that we believe accurately reflects the current voting rights landscape ; a solution that applies to all 50 states and protects the voting rights of all who call this country home . This spring we introduced a `` Right to Vote '' amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would guarantee an affirmative right to vote for all Americans , no matter where they live . Our amendment is both simple and absolutely necessary : It ensures that every American citizen possesses the fundamental right to vote in any public election where he or she resides , and empowers Congress with the authority to protect this right . The consequences of this amendment would be profound for the rights of voters everywhere . Now , it is the voter who has to demonstrate that his or her right to vote has been impeded by the state . With the ratification of our amendment , the burden of proof would switch to the states , which would have to demonstrate that they possess a compelling interest to restrict a voter 's rights . This would mean that all of the states who believe that we need voter ID laws to protect against a `` crisis '' of voter fraud would actually need to demonstrate that such a crisis existed . Predictably , when an investigation into voter fraud was launched in Wisconsin in conjunction with proposed voter ID legislation , barely a case was found when someone had voted in place of someone else . Other studies have found the same thing . Voter ID laws to counter voter fraud represent little more than a cure in search of a disease , and states must be stopped from implementing these discriminatory measures . While the recent dismantling of the Voting Rights Act is certainly disheartening , we have a chance to strengthen our fundamental right to vote . As President Lyndon B. Johnson declared in 1965 to a joint session of Congress to encourage passage of the landmark legislation , `` There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right . '' And there is no way that we can better protect that right than through a right to vote amendment to our Constitution . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Pocan .
Lyndon B. Johnson : States are moving on voter suppression measures after Constitution ruling . Pocan : A `` Right to Vote '' amendment would guarantee voting for all Pocan . Despite popular belief , he says , Voting Rights Act does not guarantee right to vote . Pocan : Voter fraud nonexistent ; states would have to prove a reason to restrict rights .