Most rights have restrictions imposed by the courts, but they are narrow. It likely would follow. That's what I am saying. Not sure why you would argue that though. You are talking about imposing a duty in conflict with a right. That's fairly rare, like in the case of the draft. The burden is meaningless because if it's in conflict with a right, it's subject to a higher level of scrutiny. What compelling interest does the government have in everyone voting? Is making the remaining 40% of eligible voters that don't vote come to the polls or force them to positively opt out narrowly construed? Why would I have to get permission from the government to exercise my political speech rights by not showing up at the polls? What if I don't go and don't opt out in protest, can the government fine me? It doesn't matter how easy it is to vote, the question is more what compelling reason is there to force people who don't want to vote to do it or to have to ask permission not to?