Voter Fraud Wheels A’ Spinning

Avatar

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

40 Responses

  1. Avatar Dennis Sanders
    Ignored
    says:

    I think all the talk of “protecting the vote” on both sides is a sign of the polarization of society. Most of these ideas are based on the idea that we don’t trust the other guy to be fair and honest.Report

    • Avatar Kimsie in reply to Dennis Sanders
      Ignored
      says:

      I thought it was a fundamental misunderstanding of game theory, myself, to be honest.
      And a real diversion from actual problems, like hacking the votes after they are cast.Report

    • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to Dennis Sanders
      Ignored
      says:

      That’s mostly because one side ISN’T fair and honest, at least in terms of modern/recent voting.Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to Dennis Sanders
      Ignored
      says:

      Yes to the issue of trust. But it was also hard not to notice a lot of talk and heated emotion from those on the Right about Obama, ACORN, millions of illegal votes etc etc stealing the last two prez elections. There was a fair amount of froth whipped up that turned out to be bs.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Dennis Sanders
      Ignored
      says:

      I think it’s a sign of one side telling lies about voter fraud being large and frequent enough to decide elections, and using those lies to justify making it difficult or impossible for people unlikely to support it to vote. Honestly, without that there would be little or no talk.Report

    • Avatar Barry in reply to Dennis Sanders
      Ignored
      says:

      “I think all the talk of “protecting the vote” on both sides is a sign of the polarization of society. Most of these ideas are based on the idea that we don’t trust the other guy to be fair and honest.”

      No, because one side – the right – is trying to keep people from voting, and the other – the Democrats – are trying to protect the right of people to vote.

      ‘Both sides do it’ is a lie. And I don’t trust the wh*resons; those Republican voter suppression campaigns are not secret, and the politicians sometimes don’t bother to hide their motivations.Report

  2. Avatar Jonathan McLeod
    Ignored
    says:

    So Americans don’t have a constitutionally-protected right to vote, or at least not one that’s explicitly stated? Huh. We do, though I don’t know how much of a difference it makes to have it explicitly stated.

    In general, however, it is important to have these things stated explicitly in the constitution/charter*. In the 1960s, Canada passed the Bill of Rights. It was a nice piece of legislation that said… well, exactly what you think it would say. Unfortunately, because it was merely legislation, it didn’t have much teeth. Courts did not defer to it the way Parliament had hoped. This failure of the Bill of Rights is one of the reasons we now have the Charter of Rights.

    So, maybe this proposed constitutional amendment is a meaningless endeavour, or maybe by having it stated explicitly will mean that any future attempts to suppress voters will have a higher bar to clear when there’s a legal challenge.

    Having not seen this issue until now, I’m completely on the fence about the proposed amendment. If it is such a completely useless endeavour – as I think you’re suggesting – I’d like a little more info as to why. (eg court cases the confirm the right to vote, existing legal tests that any “voter suppression” legislation would have to pass, etc.)

    *Yes, I know, one can have an unwritten constitution, but that’s not really the case here.Report

    • Avatar ThatPirateGuy in reply to Jonathan McLeod
      Ignored
      says:

      It makes a huge difference when it comes to court cases.

      A defined right to vote means no hair splitting, no “originalism” can be used to deny a voter who was wronged their day in court. It creates a viable response to attempts to suppress voting.Report

      • Avatar Dan Miller in reply to ThatPirateGuy
        Ignored
        says:

        This this this. +1. Having the explicit standing to sue is a huge part of actually enforcing people’s right to vote. It’s also of note that this would get rid of restrictions on felons voting, which IMHO is a terrific idea.Report

        • Avatar ThatPirateGuy in reply to Dan Miller
          Ignored
          says:

          So this conversation aroused my curiosity about felonies and what being a felon means for a person.

          Holy cow I had no idea the level of post prison punishment raining down on felons. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

          God help an 18 who gets caught selling weed. What the hell are we doing?Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Dan Miller
          Ignored
          says:

          I never really understood the logic behind denying felons and/or criminals the opportunity to vote. How do we expect them to reintegrate themselves into society if we deny them basic rights inherent to being a member of that society?

          I believe deeply that people rise, or sink, to the level of expectations we hold for them. Is it any wonder that our recidivism rate is so high when we treat people who’ve broken the law once like they are law breakers forever?Report

          • Avatar ThatPirateGuy in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            “”Between 1890 and 1910 many states adopted new laws or reconfigured preexisting laws to handicap newly enfranchised black citizens whose rights had been expanded by both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments…
            The purpose of these various measures, as the President of Alabama’s all-white 1901 constitutional convention explained, was ‘within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution to establish white supremacy.'”
            The 1901 Constitution stated the following: “The following persons shall be disqualified both from registering, and from voting, namely:
            All idiots and insane persons; those who shall by reason of conviction of crime be disqualified from voting at the time of the ratification of this Constitution; those who shall be convicted of treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crime involving moral turpitude; also, any person who shall be convicted as a vagrant or tramp, or of selling or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of buying or offering to buy the vote of another, or of making or offering to make a false return in any election by the people or in any primary election to procure the nomination or election of any person to any office, or of suborning any witness or registrar to secure the registration of any person as an elector.”

            Elizabeth Hull, PhD The Disenfranchisement of Ex-Felons, 2006
            “Constitution of Alabama 1901; Section 182,” (6 KB) , 1901

            http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/Alabama_SECTION182.pdfReport

          • Avatar Miss Mary in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            Don’t even get me started on all the fun stuff that felons get to do after prison. Try helping a felon find a job. It’s like society doesn’t want them to go back to work. It’s crazy.Report

  3. Avatar Sam Wilkinson
    Ignored
    says:

    Tod,

    Isn’t guaranteeing the right to vote a means to strengthen individual voter claims that they’re being disenfranchised? Isn’t the idea to increase the costs upon those who wish to restrict voting?Report

  4. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankly, I view “allow early voting and expanded voting hours in those counties that were heavily Republican, and extremely restricted voting hours and dates in those heavily Democratic” the same as gerrymandering. Those in power try to game the system to their advantage / their opponents disadvantage. This seems to be in the same vein.

    Sure, I’d like for it to stop, but it’s not going to, and neither is gerrymandering. That’s not to say that REAL voter fraud should not be taken seriously. People should have the confidence that their vote counts, they how they voted was recorded correctly, counted correctly, and that no one voted in their name, etc.Report

    • Avatar Russell M in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      so trying to rig the actual vote is on the same level as drawing favorable districts?

      seems there is a lot of space between trying to change the rules for everyone(redistricting) and deciding that your opponents deserve less time and opportunity to vote.Report

      • Avatar Jonathan McLeod in reply to Russell M
        Ignored
        says:

        Ya know, that was my first thought. However, on further reflection, Damon’s kind of on to something, I think.

        I would say the two things fall in the same category, but there’s a huge difference in degree.

        So, I guess I agree with both of you.Report

      • Avatar j@m3z Aitch. in reply to Russell M
        Ignored
        says:

        so trying to rig the actual vote is on the same level as drawing favorable districts?

        Yes. At least the difference is in degree, not in kind. If I may, you slide a bit from “drawing favorable districts” to “redistricting.” Redistricting does not presuppose favorable districts–given a population divided into equal size partisan camps, it potentially could be done with perfect equity without proving favorable to any party or candidate.

        Drawing favorable districts smacks of gerrymandering, which is an attempt to rig the rules of the game every bit as much as giving your opponents less time and opportunity to vote. It’s arguably even worse, because with enough effort and coordination your opponents could overcome the obstacles of less time/opportunity and still get their votes cast so they have effect. With effective gerrymandering you can ensure that your opponents have no effective vote, even if they can cast it without any obstacles (and what need is there to create obstacles to their voting if their votes have no effect?).

        Or shorter J@m3z, I agree with Damon.Report

  5. Avatar NewDealer
    Ignored
    says:

    I disagree. I think it is important to have the franchise be a Constitutional Right and to have it incorporated to the States via the 14th Amendment.

    A right to vote should be explicit in any healthy representative democracy. It should belong to all citizens as soon as they hit majority and the only time it should be taken away is if said person voluntarily renounces their citizenship.

    I agree with you that an Amendment would not fully remove the corruption and disenfranchisement attempts completely. What it will do though is give citizens a cause of action against government officials who attempt such actions. The First Amendment does not prevent people from trying to censor speech or restrict religious freedom but it does allow people to go to court and claim their rights were violated. Often they win.

    This kind of protection is very important. I think an explicit right to vote would at least cause people to pause on the worst and most blatant attempts at disenfranchisement. Also a Constitutional right to vote can prevent abuses like allowing early filing in Republican areas but not allowing it in Democratic areas.Report

  6. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    Though generally a fan of localism, voting is not an area where I think it ideal.

    If we are talking about federal elections, there should be a national standard with the federal government helps states and other localities make possible. Everyone should have the same opportunity and mechanism for voting for the president and their congress men and women. For state elections, such as governor or state senator, each state should come up with a standard that is applied universally within that state. So NJ and NY might have different standards, but people in Albany should vote the same way people in Manhattan do. And on down the line.

    I realize their are practical issues that might make this difficult in certain areas, but those will just have to be overcome. Insuring the integrity of our voting system is too important.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      We almsot got Federal control over elections during the 1890s in Benjamin Harrison’s administration. It was defeated because of GOP infighting. Basically, Rep. Henry Cabot Lodge of Mass., latter famous foe of the League of Nations, introduced a Federal Election Bill in order to prevent the disenfranchisement of African-Americans, who were basically all Republican at the time.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_BillReport

  7. Avatar Pierre Corneille
    Ignored
    says:

    Would the proposed amendment allow convicted felons to vote? Or prisoners? If so, I’m not sure it’d be a bad idea.Report

  8. Avatar James Vonder Haar
    Ignored
    says:

    This post seems to take the primary benefit of constitutional amendment as its effect on public opinion. I don’t think this is correct, and to be honest, I’m kind of surprised you’ve completely glossed over the main impact of constitutional amendments, which are federal court decisions. Few proponents of the amendment believe that it will sway public opinion against the voter fraud panickers. What it will do is increase the likelihood of various voter ID schemes of being declared unconstitutional.

    In other words, you write: “The methods employed to curb this supposed fraud weren’t pitched as ways to eliminate legal votes; they were pitched as methods to eliminate illegal ones.” Sure. But the courts aren’t simply at the mercy of how people have pitched those laws, but can also determine for themselves what their primary effects are going to be. It’d depend on how the jurisprudence shakes out, but I would be shocked if laws like Pennsylvania’s weren’t struck down within an election cycle of passing the amendment.Report

  9. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    There are so many insidious ways of disenfranchising voters.

    Our justice system is one. Voter role purges of people with names similar to names of felons (not just in FL, but in several other nearby states) meant an estimated 12,000 people who tried to vote could not in the 2000 election; mostly African-Americans in the poorer rural counties.

    Here’s a nice look at the pros/cons of presuming those voter-role purges actually gave the election to Bush:
    http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000660

    An estimated 5.8 million Americans have lost their right to vote due to felony convictions; in some states it’s a staggering percentage of the black-male population.
    http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000667

    So voter-roll purges and the racisim of industrial-prison complex are also a part of this game.Report

  10. Avatar b-psycho
    Ignored
    says:

    Anyone else think proportion of stories about voter fraud vs proportion of stories about how easy it is to hack the machines that count the votes is ridiculously out of whack?Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *