Voter fraud, voter suppression: pick your poison (op-ed)
In 2014 the outcome of a tight midterm race in
Colorado was going to determine which party controlled the U.S. Senate.
But the national spotlight wasn’t on the senatorial candidates.
It was on a controversial election law passed the previous year by the new Democratic majority in the state legislator. The new election law was promoted as a way to modernize elections and increase voter turnout. Those that opposed the changes said the law was fixing a system that wasn’t broke, inviting voter fraud.
But the national spotlight wasn’t on the senatorial candidates.
It was on a controversial election law passed the previous year by the new Democratic majority in the state legislator. The new election law was promoted as a way to modernize elections and increase voter turnout. Those that opposed the changes said the law was fixing a system that wasn’t broke, inviting voter fraud.
The
National Review reported, the law made Colorado the only state in the union to
combine two radical changes: 1) It required clerks to mail ballots to all
registered voters and switched from precinct voting locations to county-wide
collection points. 2) It established same-day registration, which allowed a
person to appear at a government office and register and vote on the same day
without showing a photo ID or any other verifiable evidence that established
identity. (Other jurisdictions with
same-day registrations treated the vote as a provisional ballot pending
verification, Colorado immediately counted the vote.)
Colorado’s
Secretary of State, a Republican, and the “liberal” Denver Post opposed the
passage of the new election law. Their
concern was, mail-in-ballots would be ripe for abuse because “ballot
harvesters” are allowed to go door-to-door and collect up to ten ballots with
no effective enforcement if they collect more, alter, or deliver them. The Secretary of State stated he hoped his
fears would be unwarranted, and concluded, “Colorado didn’t need these
changes. We had one of the highest of
all voter turnouts, and people could register everywhere, from online sites to
the DMV. We can make it easy to vote and
tough to cheat, but the law here now makes it impossible to maintain a healthy
balance in both areas.”
Two
years later, 2016, President-Elect Donald Trump claimed he lost the popular
vote because of rampant voter fraud.
Democrats, media pundits, and fact-checkers said Trump’s accusations
were unsubstantiated. The Denver Post
ran this headline: Voter fraud in Colorado is extremely rare. The Denver Post reported, “Between Jan. 2012
and Nov. 2016 there were 32 charges of various voting offenses. These resulted in four convictions.” (Here rarity is based on low numbers
convicted, but would you say police shootings are rare because of low conviction
rates of officers?)
Recently,
in Georgia, a federal lawsuit was filed by a coalition of civil rights groups. The coalition claimed a new law implemented
by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is also the GOP’s gubernatorial
candidate, put 53, 000 new voter registration applications on hold, because the
registration forms didn’t exactly match data on file with government
agencies. (For example, under this law a
missed hyphen, if Wells-Barnett was written Wells Barnett, it will be placed on
hold.)
The
civil rights groups called the law discriminatory, 80 percent of the applicants
pending were from African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans, and only 9.8
percent were from whites.
Georgia’s
Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams, who could become the
nation’s first black female governor, insisted that her opponent resign from
his position as Secretary of State to avoid this conflict of interest, but now
Abrams is accusing the Secretary of State’s office of voter suppression.
Kemp’s
spokesperson said, “They are faking outrage to drive voters to the polls. The 53,000 pending voters can cast a ballot
just like any other Georgia voter.” They
just won’t be able to cast a ballot by mail and they must show up at the polls
with a voter ID.
In
America’s two-party-system every voter picks their poison and every election
law has side-effects. The problem is
partisans can spot the infection of their rivals, but deny the spreading of
their own virus.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 10/24/18
Comments
Post a Comment