Republican Voter Suppression Efforts

Memo to GOP re: Rigging elections

Memorandum​

To: Republican Party leadership, state and national
re: A nickel's worth of free advice​
​

While Republicans often complain of broad, condemning statements that overlook individuals, they also often seem confused by the question of why people would say such things. Steve Benen's commentary regarding recent developments in North Carolina is, perhaps, instructive toward sorting out that confusion:

Shortly before adjourning, Republicans in North Carolina's state legislature approved the most sweeping voting restrictions seen in the United States in decades. Any hopes that Gov. Pat McCrory (R) might save the day with a veto were quickly dashed—on Friday, he praised the legislation and announced his intention to sign it.

Whether McCrory understands the bill he's poised to sign into law is another matter entirely.

An Associated Press reporter asked the Republican governor how three particular provisions of the bill would help prevent voter fraud—ending same-day voter registration, trimming the period for early voting by a week and eliminating a program that encourages high school students to register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.

McCrory talked about two other sections of the legislation ....​

Asked again about seemingly unnecessary voter-registration restrictions, the Republican governor told the AP, "There is plenty of opportunity for voter registration—online, offline, through many methods."

Unfortunately, this didn't make any sense—online voter registration is not permitted in North Carolina. That's true now, and it will remain true under the changes the governor is poised to approve.

Pressed further on why eliminating pre-registration for North Carolinians under 18 would prevent fraud, McCrory finally acknowledged his ignorance. "I don't know enough, I'm sorry, I haven't seen that part of the bill," he replied.

I'm afraid this the-dog-ate-my-homework answer just won't do.

McCrory is ready to sign the most dramatic voter-suppression scheme Americans have seen in decades—a scheme filled with provisions that have literally nothing to do with a voter-fraud scourge that does not exist—and he hasn't even bothered to read the bill he intends to codify into law?

If McCrory hasn't read up on this anti-voting measure, why did he take the time to praise it?​

See, there are so many problems here. Republicans are inherently dishonest? Well, yes, that's a nasty charge, but what about the eleventh-hour legislative flurry in North Carolina demonstrated any honesty on the part of the state's GOP lawmakers?

And while many have condemened these vote-rigging schemes in conservative states as ruses to fix elections—and, yes, it's obvious why Republicans might resent such a charge—what is anyone supposed to say about a legislature that passes draconian legislation aiming to fix a nonexistent problem with the (ahem!) "accidental" result of partisan disenfranchisement, and a governor who praises and intends to sign the bill he hasn't even read?

This is the chapter my Republican neighbors are writing. You cannot simultaneously demonstrate the validity of an accusation while complaining the accusation is unfair and unfounded.

People are getting tired of this complete disconnection between advocated policy and policy outcome. They're getting tired of liars like McCrory. We know politicians are a dubious lot to begin with, but there is a difference between acknowledging this point and aiming to exploit it.

Governor McRory and his GOP allies in the North Carolina legislature are just another example of why conservatives and Republicans ought not be trusted at all. This complete lack of dignity and integrity is emblematic of why people loathe politicians in genral, and, more and more, Republicans in particular.

There is no excuse. This law isn't about protecting electoral integrity, but rigging the vote. Governor McRory has effectively proven this argument.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "NC's McCrory lauds voter-suppression bill he hasn't read". The Maddow Blog. July 29, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. July 29, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...ry-lauds-voter-suppression-bill-he-hasnt-read
 
I think it is time to resurrect Martin Luther King. Where are you Martin, your nation needs you again! Seriously, I think people again need to take to the streets to defend our voting rights and our democracy.
 
(Insert Title Here)

Just One of Those Things ....

Look, the reason you don't see something like this coming is because when the idea occurs, you wisely restrain yourself from being the first paranoiac in the room to say it.

The state's new voter ID law is meant to prevent voter fraud, but it may be causing some delays at your neighborhood polling place, especially if the name on your driver's license differs from the name on your voter registration card, even a little bit.

Nueces County election officials say it is often a problem for women who use maiden names or hyphenated names.

The problem came to light Monday, when a local district judge had trouble casting a ballot.

"What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote," 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said.

Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The name on her driver's license has remained the same for 52 years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver's license hasn't changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a "voters affidavit" affirming she was who she said she was.

"Someone looked at that and said, 'Well, they're not the same,'" Watts said.

The difference? On the driver's license, Judge Watts' maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it's her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag.

"This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting," Watts said.

Nueces County elections official Diana Barrera said to be prepared.

"Yes, it will impact the elections. It will slow the process down, I would imagine, because they will have to fill out a little bit more information on the provisional vote envelope, so it can affect it," Barrera said. "So it's real important to get the word out."

The alternative to signing a voter affidavit would have been to vote a provisional ballot. Many voters may not know that those ballots aren't counted until seven-10 days after an election, after voters verification of that voter's eligibility.

Judge Watts believes these extra measures to prevent voter fraud will be an even bigger issue in the more popular elections.

"I don't think most women know that this is going to create a problem," Watts said. That their maiden name is on their driver's license, which was mandated in 1964 when I got married, and this. And so why would I want to use a provisional ballot when I've been voting regular ballot for the last 49 years?"

(KIII)​

I mean, it was easy enough to say they were after poor people, or blacks, or Hispanics, but the idea that the GOP war on voting is coming after women?

Sure, hindsight says, "Well, duh." But come on. Really?

Does low get any lower just because it's Texas?
____________________

Notes:

KIII. "Voter ID Law May Cause Problems for Women Using Maiden Names". October 22, 2013. KIIItv.com. October 23, 2013. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23761660/voter-id-law-may-cause-problems-for-women-using-maiden-names
 
Tiassa said:
the idea that the GOP war on voting is coming after women?
Click to expand...
I fail to appreciate your astonishment here. The GOP (or more precisely the fanatics within) are attempting to suppress anyone that doesn't fit the socio-psycho-graphics of those likely to support "whacko-birds". Don't you think?

Segments of the Republican party have completely lost their minds - true wherever you might fall on the ideological spectrum. What is really disturbing is that Joe Citizen thinks this is a good thing. Apparently. Go figure...
 
How Strange, This Strangeness?

Randwolf said:

I fail to appreciate your astonishment here. The GOP (or more precisely the fanatics within) are attempting to suppress anyone that doesn't fit the socio-psycho-graphics of those likely to support "whacko-birds". Don't you think?
Click to expand...

Well pointed, but for me ....

Okay, comparatively: Ren & Stimpy, "Space Madness" was the first time I was really shaken out of my television complacency by which M*A*S*H is the best show ever; The Simpsons "Cape Feare" episode. Over the years, various new contenderes have evolved, vying for the title of the funniest thing I've seen on television. Go back and compare the Ice Cream soliloquy, or the thirteen rakes, with the "comedy" of a Cosby Show or Family Ties; even Cheers and Night Court lost their risqué glamor.

And, you know, that's the thing. Night Court? Risqué? Surely I jest?

Beavis and Butthead actually held the title once; the first B&B I ever saw was "Frog Baseball" on Liquid Television, which is also where I saw the astounding short, "Putting the Cat Out".

Peter Griffin chucking his wife down the stairs; hell, in its first three seasons, Family Guy really was transcending, using The Simpsons as a launch valence the way Springfield's First Family rose above situation comedy and other such programming.

This entire digression is a setup. That is to say, we keep crashing through these unbelievable barriers. I always joke that if I had accurately described the second Bush administration during Poppy's term, the stupidity I suggested would be insulting. But now, well, here we are, and ... well, yeah, here we are. Maybe it's not completely astonishment; it strikes me, though, that the idea of conservatives going after minority voting rights was arguable before the fact in a way that the idea of going after women's voting rights wasn't. Of course, now that woman suffrage is back on the table, well, duh, really. Who couldn't see it coming?

But it is problematic to look at so many of my neighbors who simply happen to hold certain outlooks that I disagree with and think they would contribute to this sort of evil. I keep thinking there is only so far this can go.

We have to remember, too, these disproportionately-affecitng vote laws? They were previously held back by the Voting Rights Act. And then the Roberts Court got hold of the VRA, and, well, yeah. Here we are.
 
Texas Success

Texas Success

In the state of Texas, advocates of restrictive voting laws scored a win this week when a man without proper identification was prevented from obtaining his voter identification. Terry Evans and Anna M. Tinsley explain for the Star-Telegram:

Former House Speaker Jim Wright was denied a voter ID card Saturday at a Texas Department of Public Safety office.

“Nobody was ugly to us, but they insisted that they wouldn’t give me an ID,” Wright said.

The legendary Texas political figure says that he has worked things out with DPS and that he will get a state-issued personal identification card in time for him to vote Tuesday in the state and local elections.

But after the difficulty he had this weekend getting a proper ID card, Wright, 90, expressed concern that such problems could deter others from voting and stifle turnout. After spending much of his life fighting to make it easier to vote, the Democratic Party icon said he is troubled by what he’s seeing happen under the state’s new voter ID law.

“I earnestly hope these unduly stringent requirements on voters won’t dramatically reduce the number of people who vote,” Wright told the Star-Telegram. “I think they will reduce the number to some extent.”

Wright and his assistant, Norma Ritchson, went to the DPS office on Woodway Drive to get a State of Texas Election Identification Certificate. Wright said he realized earlier in the week that the photo identifications he had — a Texas driver’s license that expired in 2010 and a TCU faculty ID — do not satisfy requirements of the voter ID law, enacted in 2011 by the Legislature. DPS officials concurred.

But Wright and Ritchson will return to the office Monday with a certified copy of Wright’s birth certificate, which the DPS employees assured them would be good enough for the Texas personal identification card, designed specifically for people who do not drive.

“It can be used for anything, not just voting,” Ritchson said.

While Wright will be able to vote, Ritchson worried that others of his age may find the obstacles and inconvenience she and Wright encountered so off-putting that they just don’t vote.

“I’ve been thinking about the people who are in retirement homes,” Ritchson said. “I’ve read that this is the lowest early voter turnout in a long time and I wonder if this [ID requirement] is the cause. We’ve tried so hard to make voting easy, and now the Texas Legislature has made it harder by making you have a photo ID.”​

Really, though, he ought not complain, right? After all, it's his own fault for not being prepared, at age ninety, for the younger generations to change the rules of the game.

You know, just like those pesky Texas women:

Texas judges are accustomed to a certain level of respect, even deference as they go about their daily business in the Lone Star State. So imagine Judge Sandra Watts' surprise when she went to cast her vote last week and was told there was a problem.

"What I have used for voter registration and identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote," Watts says.

Why? Because Watts' name on her driver's license lists her maiden name as her middle name. But on the state voting rolls, her given middle name is there, and that's difference enough to cause a problem.

"This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting," she says. "And so why would I want to vote provisional ballot when I've been voting regular ballot for the last 49 years?"

Watts stomped out of her polling place and called the local Corpus Christi TV station KIII. Her voting problems became the lead story that night.

The original Justice Department concern with Texas' voter ID law involved its discriminatory effect on the state's poor and minority voters. In 2012 a federal court ruled it unconstitutional on that basis, but that ruling was itself invalidated last year when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. And with that, Texas' voter ID law was back from the dead. So it's come as a surprise how, in practice, the law has also been a problem for Texas women.

Soon after Watts went public, the Democratic candidate for governor, state Sen. Wendy Davis, also was forced to sign an affidavit before she could vote. Married women, divorced women, anything that involves changing or adjusting your name could be a problem.

"What the law says is in two parts," says Toni Pippins-Poole, the elections administrator for the city of Dallas. "You must have a photo ID and that photo ID has to be one of the listed categories."

For example, it is fine to use a concealed handgun carry permit to vote, but a student can't use his or her university photo ID as he could before. Texas Democrats complain that's because those who carry concealed tend to vote Republican while university students tend to vote Democratic.

"The second part of the photo ID bill is that the name on the ID that you are presenting has to be identical; exactly match what we have on the official list of registered voters," Pippins-Poole says. She knows the real test is next year's congressional elections, and she's concerned about elderly voters.

"People come from the nursing homes, they come in buses, and they typically are the ones who bring just their voter registration card," she says. "They don't drive anymore [so] there's no need for an ID, [and some] don't have a birth certificate."

These voters will either be turned away or allowed to vote provisionally and their ballot set aside. They have a week to return to the registrar's office with a passport or birth certificate. If not, their vote is cast out.​

We must remember that these new voting laws are intended to address a problem that does not really exist; the potential problems facing voters like former Speaker Wright, state Sen. Davis, Judge Watts, and thousands of other voters like them are the trade-off in order to make sure that voter fraud doesn't spontaneously become the sort of problem it never has been before.

Ah, Texas. Only in the Lone Star Republic could you call this success.
____________________

Notes:

Evans, Terry and Anna M. Tinsley. "Voter ID law snags former House Speaker Jim Wright". Star-Telegram. November 2, 2013. Star-Telegram.com. November 3, 2013. http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/02/5300503/voter-id-law-snags-former-house.html

Goodwin, Wade. "Texas' Voter ID Law Creates A Problem For Some Women". All Things Considered. October 30, 2013. NPR.org. November 3, 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/10/30/241891800/texas-voter-id-law-creates-a-problem-for-some-women
 
Women are, of course, among the groups the Republican Party would prefer voting in lower numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top