“A faith that makes losing a sin will make cheating a sacrament.” — Michael Gergen
Case in point: The incredibly petty assault on the election of state Senator Joyce Woodhouse by sore losers among the Clark County Republicans who think a ‘recall’ election on a trumped up issue will allow them to overturn election results. And, this single sentence is about all the publicity the recall effort deserves.
Case in point: The trumped up (literally) claims of vote fraud in the 2016 election, for which there is NO evidence whatsoever. The vote suppression efforts rely on conflation and obfuscation. First and foremost, it requires that we conflate issues of voter registration with actual incidents of voter impersonation fraud. No one is arguing that periodically cleaning up voter registration lists to remove names of those deceased or moved from the precinct is necessarily a bad thing. If done in a rational and professional manner such removal makes the lives of poll workers on election day a bit easier, and I, for one, am all for making their lives as easy as possible. However, there are voices asserting that because there remain names un-removed, there is therefore the potential for fraud, therefore there must be evidence of fraudulent voting. This is fear-mongering of the first water. Please review the 3 instances of voting fraud in Nevada since 2012. (More discussion here) An additional objection to this assertion is that the vote suppression advocates are personalizing the issue — “If there is One instance of fraudulent voting, then the vote thus cancelled out must be ‘yours.'” Please. “But! What happens in close elections?” One instance repeatedly hauled out by the vote suppressors as an example of a close loss blamed on illegal voting, the Rizzo case, has been thoroughly debunked. It’s become an article of faith among the right wing that because Democrats might cheat, then “election integrity” requires that they be closely monitored to prevent “those people” from winning elections. Election integrity should mean that every eligible voter in this country is treated equally as the ballots are cast. However, this brings us to yet another sacrament of the vote suppressors.
Case in point: The following report comes from the Indianapolis Star: (August 10, 2017)
“State and local Republicans have expanded early voting in GOP-dominated areas and restricted it in Democratic areas, an IndyStar investigation has found, prompting a significant change in Central Indiana voting patterns. From 2008 to 2016, GOP officials expanded early voting stations in Republican dominated Hamilton County, IndyStar’s analysis found, and decreased them in the state’s biggest Democratic hotbed, Marion County. That made voting more convenient in GOP areas for people with transportation issues or busy schedules. And the results were immediate.”
Yes, how convenient, for Republican voters only. This becomes yet another example of those for whom winning is an article of faith, and one’s sacramental duty is to cheat to gain an advantage.
Case in point: North Carolina Republicans became the poster children for vote suppression tactics, such as curtailing early voting, strict ID requirements, reduced polling hours, to such as extent that they’ve not managed to pass muster in the courts. In short, the battle’s not over by a long shot. States that manage to restrict voting hours, reduce voting sites, curtail early voting, and otherwise strive to make voting as difficult as possible are engaged in nothing less that organized disenfranchisement. Nothing could argue more forcefully for the importance of state elections than these kinds of patently suppressive legislation.
Case in point: We should focus for a moment on the closing of polling stations as an example of vote suppression. Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and (you guessed it) North Carolina all closed polling places in 2016 that were in predominantly Democratic areas. [Reuters]
Unreasonably strict voter ID laws, the closing of polling stations, the restrictions on early voting, the selective purging of voter rolls (Remember Florida in 2000?), the arbitrary lengthening or contracting voting precinct schedules, and the other schemes to restrict voting fly in the face of Madison’s observation in his Federalist 52:
“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. “
This, not the modern Republican version of disenfranchisement, ought to be the statement of faith that makes cheating so egregious.