No cite, but I learned in college polysci of studies showing that some people, generally the better educated, function as “sociological stars” at election time – others who know them ask their opinion, follow their lead, and influence others in turn. Beyond that, of course, they are probably in a better position than others to influence the process through campaign contributions. And for most elected offices, you need at least a college education and preferably graduate education to even get taken seriously as a candidate. How many high-school dropouts are there in Congress? It’s not a constitutional or statutory requirement, but it’s real.
The disproportionate political influence of the rich is even more unmistakeable.
As I understand the issue, a private contractor was hired to identify ineligible voters. They produced a list that ended up having numerous errors, and Florida elections officials relied on the list without ever verifying its accuracy.
Now, again as I understand it, the initial Hispanic problem arose because of a difference between the “potential felon” database and the voter database. The “felon” database had no category for race being Hispanic; the voter database did. When the comparison between the two was used to create the challenge list, this error resulted in a “no match” for many Hispanics. In fact, when the Associated Press reviewed the challenge list, they found voters with Hispanic surnames present; what they had in common was that they had not identified themselves as Hispanic on the voter database.
Now, if, upon being informed of this error, officials decided not to take the time to correct it, because it’s an error that ran to their advantage, they were simply exercising the same sort of selective enforcement that you regard with, at best, faint dismay when the Democrats did it.
Moreover, the entire episode shows nothing more than error – no “knowing” disenfranchisement of legal voters.
I’m only familiar with CA election procedures, but I imagine many states run their elections similarly.
Some amount of time before the election, you register by obtaining a piece of paper, filling it out, and then mailing it to the registrar of voters for your county.
A few weeks before the election, they send out voting information, including a sample ballot, information packet, absentee ballot (if you vote absentee), etc.
If you vote absentee, you just fill out the ballot and mail it in.
If you vote at the polling station, then you go to the polling station, bring your packet, and vote.
Absentee ballots don’t require any more security than the post office provides. Why should in-person voting require more?
At the moment, the voting machines are made (and the proprietary software kept secret with astonishing ferocity) by Diebold, known to be a definitely and vocally pro-Republican corporation. But it need not necessarily always be so, the contracts being let by whichever party is in control at the moment.
Of course, I’m sure you have no trouble trusting the Dems with that kind of power.
I have to say, I don’t entirely understand why the failure to include ethnicity on the felon list meant that these names wouldn’t show up when they cross-checked the lists. But I was basing my opinion on the fact that some people on the ineligible list were not, in fact, ineligible–they had received clemency and were eligible to vote under FL law.
We can interpret that mistake in one of two ways. It was a good faith error on the part of the this group, or it was a knowing error to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters. I agree that we’ve no conclusive evidence either way, but I think the circumstantial evidence suggests a knowing decision.
I don’t follow. Why isn’t selectively disenfranchising the legally disenfranchisable different from selectively disenfranchised those with legal rights to vote? They are both selective, but one seems far worse than the other.
It is important to recall that the officials in question fought tooth and nail not to reveal the list. They had to lose in court before deciding to make it public, after which it was revealed as erroneous.
What is acceptable photo ID will have to be determined. When this was launched a couple years ago ,some were suggesting a passport . That would be a real problem for the poor. Then Indiana votes next week ,how many could be turned away?
For some people the cost of a state ID is a problem. Then transportation can be vexing. Some live in rural areas and state offices are not that close.
My mother died a couple years ago. For her to obtain a new birth certificate and then get to a state office would have been difficult. I think the problem is being understated.
The purpose of the provisional ballot is to mitigate potential problems. No voting system in the universe is without any flaws. The provisional ballot is the backup plan.
I would also note that the complaints in your link seem a bit overblown. I have no real problem telling a voter that if he’s showed up at the wrong place, he can’t vote at all. In my opinion, it’s reasonable to expect voters to have a minimum level of responsibility.
Still, what I think is reasonable - or Constitutional - is of no import. What matters is what the Supreme Court thinks. And they have spoken.
I’d be interested in a more detailed analysis of the decision. As I understand it, it was split exactly in three – 3-3-3. Three justices said “no voter ID, ever”. Three said “voter ID is always fine”. And three, the deciding three, said, “voter ID may be OK in some circumstances, including the specific ones presented in this case”.
What I’m interested in is if the middle three (Stevens, Kennedy, and Roberts) gave any indication of when they thought voter ID would NOT be OK.
Are you saying that a voter going to the wrong table can’t be directed to the right table in the same location or who could go home and come back with the proper ID (these two transgressions are mentioned in the link) can’t be given this information by an election day volunteer who could, no, who has a responsiblity to do so?
Also, how does the provisional ballot mitigate potential problems is there is simply no followup (or provisional in the law for that followup)? That I consider to be a major flaw, not just to bea accepted as is.
Since I know you’re not going to respond to me, would anyone else like to take this one?
From what I gather, the three key justices said that they only agreed it was OK in Indiana’s case becasue the ID card was free. Charging for the ID card, as I believe California does, would make the ID card not pass muster.
I would like to know how often someone is offered a provisional ballot because they are standing at the wrong table in the right room. That is, the link would have you believe that a pervasive problem is: multiple precincts vote in the same place, at different tables; voter stands at Table A, and is told his name does not appear and therefore he can only cast a provisional ballot rather than being told to step over to Table B. I contend that if such an event has happened, it’s a vanishingly tiny percentage of provisional ballots cast. It’s so insignificant that it cannot drive a policy discussion about how to handle voting.
Now, if it’s truly a more serious problem than I’m picturing, I would like to see some evidence of that.
What do you mean by “followup?”
That knowledge is as solid as the rest of your conclusions.
I suspect that if California doesn’t offer a free card to those who qualify, based on income, then their scheme would fail. They’re certainly able to charge Jay Leno for his card.