Re: Overblown Fears of Disenfranchisement?

I disagree with Jamelle’s assertion that surely whistleblowers would say something if a voter disenfranchisement scheme were afoot. Granted, Robert Kennedy’s conspiracy theory about Ohio in 2004 has largely been debunked (with a response from him). But voting isn’t really an exact science. Some voters will be disenfranchised this election season. The question is how many.

We’re basically talking about a lot of new information that has to be entered very quickly. (Ultimately, I agree with Brian Beutler that we should have some kind of automatic registration rather than a voluntary system.) The people that do this are paid a low hourly wage or are even volunteers in many voting precincts. With all the new voters registered this year, there are bound to be some mistakes. Whether or not this is a concerted, systematic effort or just some sloppy incompetence is hard to say, but I wouldn’t necessarily count on whistleblowers to sound the alarm, since so many potential whistleblowers are ad hoc volunteers and temporary employees on the lowest levels.

Part of the problem is the state-level Secretary of State, responsible for each state’s entire voting operation, is always a partisan position. The person in each of those offices has been endorsed by one party or another, but ultimately can impact who gets into an office. Even though it’s possible to conduct your job in a non-partisan manner even if you have larger political ambitions, it doesn’t really seem that the Secretary of State should be a partisan position.

To me, this is a highly bureaucratic position that should be reserved for, well, bureaucrats. Instead of electing people to this position every four years we should make sure we keep people in these positions who are experts on the complicated nature of voting machines, paper ballots, coordinating thousands of one-day volunteers, and keeping voter rolls updated. It’s a complex, logistical job that only gets one shot–Election Day. It’s understandable that people are worried that this job might be conducted improperly.

Cross posted at Pushback.

Voting For Students

This story from Inside Higher Ed about students asking for university-wide holidays from classes on Election Day is interesting. I agree with the professors that student's shouldn't necessarily get special privileges that other working adults don't -- often students have far more flexible schedules than hourly employees do -- but why shouldn't election day be on a weekend or why shouldn't Congress make it a national holiday? Rather than encouraging voting, we're actually discouraging people by not giving flexibility to those that need it to exercise voting rights. It almost seems silly that someone can get fired for exercising the right to vote -- especially given the long lines we might be seeing on Election Day.

Ohio Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Sec. of State Brunner on Voting Rights

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner about the status of newly registered voters in Ohio. The state has more than half a million newly registered or updated voter registration records on file. The Ohio Republican party filed a suit that requested newly registered voters, some of whom the party suspects of being ineligible to vote, to request that the new voters fill out provisional ballots rather than regular ones. When the circuit court ruled in the Republican Party’s favor, Brunner took it to the Supreme Court, and it ruled in her favor.

What this means is that the thousands of newly registered voters, many of whom are young voters or members of traditionally disenfranchised (urban poor and new citizens), will be treated just like every other voter. Rather than questioning the vote first, it seems that voters should be assumed innocent until proven otherwise. Allowing them to fill out regular ballots like everyone else seems to be a step in the right direction.

Cross posted at Pushback.

Youth and Super Tuesday

Event this morning that CP hosted, in case you missed it.

Giving Up Taxes?

Matt points to Heritage's proposal to end federal taxes in DC as an alternative to not getting the vote. I think this is a good way to force people to give DC residents a vote in Congress, but not actually a good policy. A lot of federal dollars are used to maintain the city (especially the tourist destinations near the mall). It's not hard to convince me that people in DC need representation in Congress. I live here. Many people have lived here for generations. It's hard to justify withholding a right to vote just because the founding fathers didn't foresee this becoming an actual city.