Opinion: GOP's voter suppression
By HERMAN SCHWARTZA massive Republican campaign likely to suppress minority and low-income voting is under way. If it works, the GOP may be able to prevent many millions of Americans, largely Democrats, from voting — potentially affecting 171 electoral votes.
To counteract these new state restrictions, President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign has announced wide-ranging “voter protection” efforts.
Though right-wing efforts to suppress low-income and minority voting have a long history, the current GOP campaign seems unprecedented in scope, organization and ambition.
Public attention has focused on the new state photo ID requirements. But many other new and not-so-new devices have been instituted across the nation. These include: cutbacks in the days available for pre-Election Day voting, making it harder to assist voters with registration, eliminating Election Day registration and requiring proof of citizenship to either register or vote.Not all these measures will likely survive court challenges. The 14th and 15th amendments and the 1965 Voting Rights Act bar discrimination and other interference with voting in all elections. In addition, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance for nondiscrimination by either the Justice Department or a federal court before certain states — including South Carolina, Alabama, Texas and parts of Florida and North Carolina — can change any voting procedures.
Nonetheless, perhaps most of these voter-suppression devices will survive. Here are some details of what we can expect to see:
Early voting: U.S. elections are traditionally held on Tuesdays — an obstacle for many low-income working people, few of whom are given time off to vote. So 33 states and the District of Columbia now allow early voting — including on Saturday and Sunday. Many Americans, particularly minorities, have taken advantage of this.
In 2008, for example, black voters accounted for 13 percent of the total turnout but for 22 percent of the early votes and 31 percent of Sunday voters. Latinos were 7.4 percent overall — but 22 percent of the final-Sunday voters.
In North Carolina, which Obama won narrowly in 2008, more than half of the African-American vote was cast early, compared with 40 percent of the white vote. This pattern was repeated in 2010.
But it won’t be in 2012. GOP state legislatures in Florida, Wisconsin, Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia have cut the number of early voting days. Florida, under Gov. Rick Scott, who has been a leader in the voter-suppression effort, reduced early voting from 14 days to eight. In Ohio, it went from 35 days to 16.
Florida and other states have also eliminated voting on the Sunday before election — when so much minority voting takes place. Ohio ended all Sunday voting.
Registration assistance: Complicated registration laws are regularly cited as a major reason for the low voter turnout in the United States. Groups like the League of Women Voters of the U.S., the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Democracia USA have long helped voters register. In some states, however, this help will no longer be available. Florida and five other states have adopted onerous filing and other requirements for groups providing this assistance. Florida’s new law imposes such heavy fines for any misstep or delay that the League of Women Voters of the U.S. and Democracia USA have been forced to shut down their assistance operations.
Voting for convicted felons: Today, there are about 5.3 million Americans, a large proportion of whom are nonviolent drug offenders, who cannot vote — a group that is largely made up of minorities.
But in March, Scott overturned the Crist rules — and added a five-year waiting period before they can even apply to vote. In Iowa that same month, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad also reinstated the former system.
Photo IDs: Thirty-four states have introduced bills with today’s suppression tactic of choice. The ostensible purpose of these measures is to prevent fraud at the polls, though official and academic studies have consistently shown that the chances of being hit by lightning are greater than the likely incidence of such fraud.
Voter fraud does exist — but not at the polls. It appears in absentee voting, election machine tampering or ballot box stuffing — none of which are affected by in-person photo ID laws.
There is also nothing inherently objectionable in requiring personal identification at the polls — but these new laws accept few forms of ID. In South Carolina, for example, a voter must present a state-issued driver’s license, some other South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles photo ID, a South Carolina voter registration card, valid U.S. military photo ID or a passport. Nothing else is acceptable. Texas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have similar laws.
Even before these laws were passed, an estimated 21 million otherwise eligible voters could not get the required IDs without a substantial expenditure of time, money or both — which many can’t afford. That figure is probably far higher now with the new legislation.
Some people will be unable to obtain a photo ID because the necessary supporting papers — like a birth certificate — may not be available or there have been name changes.
Young people: Students and other young people tend to vote Democratic. In South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, no student IDs are acceptable. In Kansas and Alabama, only in-state college IDs qualify, and in Wisconsin, only new Wisconsin college IDs with a two-year expiration date — which no current student IDs have — qualify. Voting for convicted felons: Today, there are about 5.3 million Americans, a large proportion of whom are nonviolent drug offenders, who cannot vote — a group that is largely made up of minorities.
Most states restore voting rights when a sentence is completed, sometimes after a waiting period of a few years. But not in Iowa and Florida, where the disenfranchisement is for life — unless the governor restores the right.
To temper these harsh laws, in 2007, then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist adopted rules that automatically restored voting rights when nonviolent offenders complete their sentence. In 2005, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack took similar action. But in March, Scott overturned the Crist rules — and added a five-year waiting period before they can even apply to vote. In Iowa that same month, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad also reinstated the former system.
Photo IDs: Thirty-four states have introduced bills with today’s suppression tactic of choice. The ostensible purpose of these measures is to prevent fraud at the polls, though official and academic studies have consistently shown that the chances of being hit by lightning are greater than the likely incidence of such fraud.
Voter fraud does exist — but not at the polls. It appears in absentee voting, election machine tampering or ballot box stuffing — none of which are affected by in-person photo ID laws.
There is also nothing inherently objectionable in requiring personal identification at the polls — but these new laws accept few forms of ID. In South Carolina, for example, a voter must present a state-issued driver’s license, some other South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles photo ID, a South Carolina voter registration card, valid U.S. military photo ID or a passport. Nothing else is acceptable. Texas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have similar laws.
Even before these laws were passed, an estimated 21 million otherwise eligible voters could not get the required IDs without a substantial expenditure of time, money or both — which many can’t afford. That figure is probably far higher now with the new legislation.
Some people will be unable to obtain a photo ID because the necessary supporting papers — like a birth certificate — may not be available or there have been name changes.
Students who vote with their college address are a particular target. In 2008, the Montgomery County, Va., election director announced that students who registered at their college addresses would no longer be claimed as dependents on their parents’ tax returns.
Another tactic is to circulate fliers, use robocalls or send postcards to minority voters, falsely advising them to vote on Wednesdays. In 2010, many minority voters in Louisiana, Maryland and New Hampshire received robocalls telling them they could vote by telephone or email. In 2002 in Baltimore and 2003 in Georgia, black voters received fliers warning them that if they had failed to pay utility bills, had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent, they would be arrested if they tried to vote. In 2006, voters with Latino surnames in Orange County, Calif., were given fliers suggesting that naturalized citizens were not entitled to vote.
These are not new tactics. In North Carolina’s 1990 Senate race, Jesse Helms supporters mailed 125,000 postcards to predominantly black voting precincts, misleading voters about residency requirements and threatening that misstatements to voting officials could mean five years in prison. In 2004, Native American voters in South Dakota were turned away from the polls because they failed to present identification papers, though they were not legally required to do so.
Republican-controlled states have also made absentee voting more difficult, and Election Day registration has been eliminated in Maine. Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee now require a proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate to either register or vote.
Partisan gerrymandering is also involved. The Justice Department has concluded that two new Texas districts violate the Voting Rights Act by deliberately “diminishing the ability” of Latinos to elect their preferred candidate to Congress.
The framers bequeathed us a Constitution intended to create “a more perfect Union.” Every time an eligible voter is denied the right to vote, we are left that much farther from achieving that goal.
Herman Schwartz is a constitutional law professor at the American University Washington College of Law.
Other tactics include providing an inadequate number of voting machines on college campuses. In 2000, Tennessee State University, a black college, was the only university in the state that did not get a satellite voting place. At Kenyon College in Ohio, students had to wait more than eight hours to vote because there were so few machines.
Intimidation and deception: Intimidation and deception have consistently been used by the GOP against African-Americans, immigrants, Latinos and students. One common tactic has been to station off-duty police officers at the polls — usually in uniform and sometimes with weapons — which can be threatening to minority voters. Some officers have actually challenged voters. Another tactic is to circulate fliers, use robocalls or send postcards to minority voters, falsely advising them to vote on Wednesdays. In 2010, many minority voters in Louisiana, Maryland and New Hampshire received robocalls telling them they could vote by telephone or email. In 2002 in Baltimore and 2003 in Georgia, black voters received fliers warning them that if they had failed to pay utility bills, had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent, they would be arrested if they tried to vote. In 2006, voters with Latino surnames in Orange County, Calif., were given fliers suggesting that naturalized citizens were not entitled to vote.
These are not new tactics. In North Carolina’s 1990 Senate race, Jesse Helms supporters mailed 125,000 postcards to predominantly black voting precincts, misleading voters about residency requirements and threatening that misstatements to voting officials could mean five years in prison. In 2004, Native American voters in South Dakota were turned away from the polls because they failed to present identification papers, though they were not legally required to do so.
Republican-controlled states have also made absentee voting more difficult, and Election Day registration has been eliminated in Maine. Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee now require a proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate to either register or vote.
Partisan gerrymandering is also involved. The Justice Department has concluded that two new Texas districts violate the Voting Rights Act by deliberately “diminishing the ability” of Latinos to elect their preferred candidate to Congress.
The framers bequeathed us a Constitution intended to create “a more perfect Union.” Every time an eligible voter is denied the right to vote, we are left that much farther from achieving that goal.
Herman Schwartz is a constitutional law professor at the American University Washington College of Law.
Opinion: Opinion: GOP's voter suppression - Herman Schwartz - POLITICO.com
No comments:
Post a Comment