Newsflash:
Issues End Corporate Rule Voter Access 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'
Thursday, 02 January 2014 01:00

'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

Written by  Andrew Cohen | The Atlantic

I spent hundreds of hours talking about the law on the radio this year but one question, one exchange, especially sticks out. It was this summer, a few weeks after the five conservative justices of the United States Supreme Court extinguished the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. The station's host had with him a local lawmaker who supported voter identification efforts underway in her state. "If I need to show identification at a pharmacy to get cold medicine" she asked me on the air, "why shouldn't I have to show identification to vote?"

It's a question loaded with import as we begin what promises to be yet another year of voter suppression in America. For it's a question that Republican officials and other supporters of voting restrictions have been asking all over the country over the past few years, in countless iterations, as they relentlessly push ahead with measures that purport to ensure "fairness" and "accuracy" in voting but that are designed instead to disenfranchise the poor and the elderly, the ill and the young, and, most of all, people of color.

They ask that question in Florida and in Texas and in North Carolina and in Virginia, in virtually every state that was, until last June, encumbered by Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. And they ask that question in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Ohio. They ask that question wherever partisan efforts are underway to further cleave the electorate into haves and have-nots. It's a question as simple as it is flawed, one that polls well even though it is based upon a series of self-perpetuating myths.

The challenge for those who oppose these new restrictions, for those who believe the current generation of voter suppression laws are a pernicious assault on core democratic values, is to find an answer to that question that creates traction among the American people. That answer must make it clear why—as a matter of law, politics, history, and morality—going into a pharmacy (or boarding an airplane, or buying liquor) is (and ought to remain) a different American experience from going into a voting booth to cast a ballot.

You know who had a good answer for this variety of question? Richard Nixon. In 1957,  after the Senate passed an amendment that watered down that year's already-diluted civil rights legislation, Eisenhower's vice president said, "This is one of the saddest days in the history of the Senate. It was a vote against the right to vote." And so are votes today for these new ID laws. They are votes against the ability of fellow citizens to cast a ballot or to have that ballot counted. They are votes that are hostile to the least powerful, the most vulnerable, among us.

What did I do when confronted with that question on the radio? I told my host and his guest, the elected official, that most Americans have a constitutional right to vote but no constitutional right to cold medicine. Alas, there wasn't nearly enough time, and it certainly wasn't the proper venue, to respond as fully as I would have liked.  That time now has come. There are many good answers to the dubious question at the heart of the voter suppression fight. Here are a few of them. 

Registered voters already have to show identification.

If I need to show identification to get cold medicine, why shouldn't I have to show identification to vote? First of all, the premise of the question is false. Registered voters today do have to identify themselves in order to vote—and they always have. They have to provide proof of who they are and have that identification checked against registration records. For centuries, the vast majority of American citizens have done this accurately and honestly, using a variety of documents that establish their citizenry and/or their place of residence.

The central question surrounding the new voter identification laws instead is what type of identification registered voters now must show to cast a ballot or to have that ballot counted in our elections. In the name of combating "voter fraud," or preserving what we now euphemistically call "ballot integrity," this argument posits that some of the old forms of identification—like a receipt from the electric company—are insufficient. So lawmakers now seek to require voters to get new forms of ID—like state-issued photo cards akin to driver's licenses.

Now, if you can afford to drive and already have a driver's license, the idea of obtaining such a government-issued photo identification is no big deal because it was no big deal to you when you first got your license. You drove (or were driven by family or friends) to a licensing office, you waited in a line, and you got your card. The whole episode took a few hours—and then you largely forget about the process for the next five years or so, until you lost your license or had to renew your old one.

But if you cannot afford to drive, and thus don't need a driver's license, the idea of getting a photo identification is much more daunting. Since you don't drive, it's difficult to get to and from a government office to get your new photo identification. Maybe most of your friends and family don't drive, either. Or maybe you are too old or too ill to get behind the wheel. Or maybe you cannot get time off from your hourly job. Or maybe the cost of getting there, in terms of transportation fees and lost work hours, is prohibitive. Here's how the ACLU puts it:

Research shows that more than 21 million Americans do not have government-issued photo identification; a disproportionate number of these Americans are low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, and elderly. Voter ID laws have the potential to deny the right to vote to thousands of registered voters who do not have, and, in many instances, cannot obtain the limited identification states accept for voting. Many of these Americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to secure a government-issued photo ID.

Which is why the partisan marketing effort surrounding these new measures is as cynical as it is shrewd. It divides and conquers, relying either on the self-satisfaction or the indifference many Americans feel about the progress that has been made toward ending racial discrimination in voting. More than that, the pitch tugs on some of the most ancient inequalities that were built into our legal system. In 1790, don't forget, only monied, male property holders were permitted to vote in 10 of the 13 original states.

The new voter identification laws divide rich from poor and, in so doing, further separate whites from people of color. To upper- and middle-class citizens who drive, new voting rules don't seem like a big deal. And if they are a very big deal to low-income citizens, so what? The poor have no lobbyists in Washington; they contribute to no PACs. From the Republican perspective, the genius of these laws is that they mask great racial inequality—which is unconstitutional and poor political optics—with great economic inequality—which sadly is neither.

Voter fraud is even more of a myth today than it was in 2012.

Implicit in the cold medicine question is the idea that new voting restrictions are necessary to solve the growing problem of voter impersonation or other kinds of "voter fraud"—that it should be at least as difficult to exercise the right to vote as it is to buy cold medicine. In the same way we don't want teenagers to so easily get the ingredients they need to make methamphetamine, we don't want people who shouldn't be voting casting a ballot that dilutes the votes of citizens who are dutifully registered to vote. It should be harder to vote, goes this theory.

But the assumption behind that theory is demonstrably false. Surely we can all agree that government restrictions on the ability of citizens to vote should be only broad enough to protect all voters from legitimate inaccuracies in our voting systems. Exercising the right to vote should be only so hard as is necessary to protect everyone's right to cast an accurate ballot. But if 2013 proved anything, it proved that the core partisan justification for voter ID laws—voter fraud—is virtually non-existent where it has been invoked to disenfranchise citizens.

In Iowa, for example, a Republican search for "voter fraud" in 2013 cost about $150,000 and revealed just a handful of cases statewide. As the year ended, those officials responsible for the probe were under investigation for misusing the money. In Ohio, Ari Berman reported last month, ".00023 percent of votes in 2012 were referred for prosecution, none have resulted in a conviction so far, and none would have been stopped the legislature’s proposed voting restrictions."

In South Carolina, the news on "voter fraud" in 2013 came in July when the AP reported that "no one intentionally cast a ballot in South Carolina using the names of dead people in recent elections, despite allegations to the contrary." In September, a Tampa Bay Times editorial described "voter fraud" as a "phantom." In Texas, the Attorney General who is running for governor on the state's new ID law has, since 2004, prosecuted 66 people statewide for any kind of voting fraud—and only four of those cases would have been blocked by the new identification law.

The false cry of "voter fraud" must be answered as resolutely as was the "birther" cry, or any other half-crocked conspiracy theory unsupported by facts. And this mandate ought to extend to journalists covering this front in the partisan war. It is no longer acceptable, if it ever was, to let stand unchallenged the assertions of officials that new voter identification laws are necessary to prevent "voter fraud." The manifest lack of proof of such fraud, despite earnest efforts to find it, is today as much a part of the story as anything else.

The new voting measures are discriminatory in both intent and effect.

In the same way that the myth of voter fraud may no longer be tolerated, the myth that new voting restrictions are racially neutral must also now be exposed at every turn. Two weeks ago, in a Washington Post story that was largely ignored by other media outlets, two university researchers made public their findings about the extent of the link between voter suppression efforts and minority voting. The headline of the story says it all: "States with  higher black turnout are more likely to restrict voting." Here's a sample from the piece:

In a new article, we examined the dominant explanations (and accusations) advanced by both the right and left, as well as the factors political scientists know are important for understanding state legislative activity.  We began with no assumptions about the veracity of any claim.  What we found was that restrictions on voting derived from both race and class.  The more that minorities and lower-income individuals in a state voted, the more likely such restrictions were to be proposed. Where minorities turned out at the polls at higher rates the legislation was more likely enacted.

More specifically, restrictive proposals were more likely to be introduced in states with larger African-American and non-citizen populations and with higher minority turnout in the previous presidential election.  These proposals were also more likely to be introduced in states where both minority and low-income turnout had increased in recent elections.  A similar picture emerged for the actual passage of these proposals. States in which minority turnout had increased since the previous presidential election were more likely to pass restrictive legislation.

It's not as though these conclusions could have come as a surprise. For years now candid Republican lawmakers have been supporting new voter identification measures in either explicit or implied racial terms. In 2012, for example, a year before the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights act, a University of Delaware poll revealed that "support for voter identification laws is strongest among Americans who harbor negative sentiments toward African Americans."

This is the ugly reality that the conservatives on the Supreme Court ignored in Shelby County when they declared that the Voting Rights Act's impositions were no longer justified by racial conditions in the South. We have here the joining of opportunity (state legislatures gerrymandered into Republican majorities) and motive (fear of the coming racial upheaval in the nation's demographics) to produce laws that deprive poor and/or minority citizens of the equal application of laws. We should not be afraid to say this.

Just stop for a minute and ponder what's really happening here. Our economic policies have already widened the gulf between rich and poor, and devastated communities of color. And now these new identification laws aim to undermine the only real power these people have left to combat their dire condition: their right to vote. The only thing subtle about this class warfare is the ability of the American people to delude themselves into the smug belief that it is necessary to ensure "accuracy" and "fairness" in voting.

I believe that same-sex marriage bans are teetering not just because they are constitutionally unsustainable but because enough white, straight, well-off Americans finally came to realize the countless ties that bind them to gay and lesbian Americans. But at precisely the same moment  in our history, voter suppression efforts prove that those same white, well-off Americans are losing sight of the countless ties that once bound them to poor and minority citizens. We celebrate burgeoning equality—and then we ignore sprawling inequality.

Just as the nation is awakening to the new concept of equal rights for gay citizens, it is nodding off to the old concepts that animated the civil rights movement and led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The rise of these new voter suppression laws, and the tacit embrace of them by otherwise well-meaning people, means we are moving again toward an America in which your right to vote depends upon the color of your skin or the size of your wallet. That was unjust and unfair at the dawning of the Republic, it was so half a century ago when the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed, and it is so today.

Link to original article from The Atlantic

Read 3726 times Last modified on Thursday, 02 January 2014 01:05

End Corporate Rule

  • Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia
    Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia

    On Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers proposed a law to establish a Code of Conduct  for the Supreme Court.

    It’s surely to have Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia quaking in their Tea Party boots because it would mean they would actually have to be independent of political and other influences. They would also have to have the appearance of independence.  They would have to stay away from political activity. That part would be really hard.

    Written on Sunday, 06 July 2014 14:47 Read more...
  • California makes an official call for a U.S. Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United
    California makes an official call for a U.S. Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United

    On June 23rd the State Senate passed AJR 1, making California the second state in the union to officially call for an Article V constitutional convention for the sole purpose of passing a United States constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn Citizens United v. FEC and limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process.

    Written on Thursday, 26 June 2014 13:29 Read more...
  • New Organization Hangs Sign: 'Whistleblowers Welcome'
    New Organization Hangs Sign: 'Whistleblowers Welcome'

    A new organization called ExposeFacts—backed by well-known source of The Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg—is debuting itself in Washington, DC on Wednesday as a new place where government and corporate employees aware of wrongdoing can more safely and securely report their concerns.

    Written on Sunday, 08 June 2014 13:54 Read more...
  • 'Astroturf' Groups Leading Drive to Kill Open Internet
    'Astroturf' Groups Leading Drive to Kill Open Internet

    The telecommunications industry is creating and funding front groups which pose as consumer organizations and aggressively lobby to kill net neutrality, journalist Lee Fang revealed in an article published in Vice on Friday.

    Written on Sunday, 08 June 2014 13:39 Read more...
  • John Oliver Calls on Angry Internet Trolls to Save Net Neutrality (video)
    John Oliver Calls on Angry Internet Trolls to Save Net Neutrality (video)

    It’s a sad state of affairs when a country that touts freedom of the press depends upon cable TV comedy shows to hear the real news.

    Written on Friday, 06 June 2014 04:19 Read more...
  • Oligarchy Enshrined
    Oligarchy Enshrined

    Why the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon ruling is good news for the super-rich and bad news for progressive Democrats.

    At the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, a conservative election lawyer and a baby-faced electrical engineer from Alabama with a made-for-TV Southern drawl began plotting how to unravel federal campaign finance regulations.

    Written on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 01:21 Read more...
  • Lincoln Didn't Fight the Civil War to Free the Corporations - Video
    Lincoln Didn't Fight the Civil War to Free the Corporations - Video

    This is an idea worth spreading - so - please watch & share with 5 or 10 friends. It’s important to get money out of politics and the average person back in. Also - leave a message on the YouTube and let TED know - this is one of the most important issues of the day."

    Written on Thursday, 15 May 2014 17:16 Read more...
  • Out of the Shadows: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    Out of the Shadows: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is, as they boast on its website, the world's largest business organization, as well as the nation's largest corporate lobbying group. It is also a recipient of some of the largest amounts of so-called "dark" money in the country, refusing to disclose to the public its donors or even the amounts it receives. 

    Written on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 15:56 Read more...
  • Bernie Sanders Raises Battle Cry Against Citizens United: "I Vote for Democracy!"
    Bernie Sanders Raises Battle Cry Against Citizens United: "I Vote for Democracy!"

    Citizens United is not just the default reference for US Supreme Court decisions—including the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling—that have ushered in a new era of corporate dominance of American elections. It’s the name of the conservative group that encouraged Chief Justice John Roberts and the most activist Court majority in American history to tear the heart out of what were already weak campaign finance laws.

    Written on Sunday, 13 April 2014 04:24 Read more...
  • Local protests held in response to Supreme Court donation ruling
    Local protests held in response to Supreme Court donation ruling

    PITTSFIELD -- Their signs read "Get Big Money Out of Politics," "Democracy Is Not For Sale" and "This Is What Plutocracy Looks Like." About a dozen of them stood in Park Square on Wednesday evening, one of 130 "rapid response events" coordinated nationwide to protest that morning's Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC.    

    Written on Friday, 04 April 2014 14:38 Read more...
  • With McCutcheon Ruling, An Activist Court Opts for Full-On Plutocracy
    With McCutcheon Ruling, An Activist Court Opts for Full-On Plutocracy

    Any doubts about the determination of an activist United States Supreme Court to rewrite election rules so that the dollar matters more than the vote were removed Wednesday, when McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was decided in favor of the dollar.

    Written on Wednesday, 02 April 2014 22:24 Read more...
  • TPM Interview: The Brown Grad Student Who Chased The NRA Out Of Rhode Island
    TPM Interview: The Brown Grad Student Who Chased The NRA Out Of Rhode Island

    Sam Bell is in the third year of a PhD program in geology at Brown University. Geology as in rocks. But Bell also moonlights as the the state coordinator of The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, the state affiliate of the 10-year-old Progressive Democrats of America. And in his work with The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, Bell was instrumental to the investigation that ultimately led to the National Rifle Association paying the second largest campaign finance fine in the state's history.

    Written on Thursday, 27 February 2014 22:13 Read more...
  • Thank a Postal Worker This Holiday Season
    Thank a Postal Worker This Holiday Season

    Postal workers are giving it their all this holiday season, as cards and packages and returns must be collected and delivered amidst ice storms, snowstorms and wild temperature drops.

    They deserve our thanks in 2013.

    And our support in 2014.

    Written on Thursday, 26 December 2013 23:49 Read more...
  • Fast Food Giants Gorge on Subsidies
    Fast Food Giants Gorge on Subsidies

    Thanks to a loophole that subsidizes CEO pay, McDonald's, Yum Brands, Wendy's, Burger King, Domino's, and Dunkin' Brands trimmed $64 million from their tax bills in 2011 and 2012.

    The fast food industry is notorious for handing out lean paychecks to their burger flippers and fat ones to their CEOs. What’s less well-known is that taxpayers are actually subsidizing fast food incomes at both the bottom — and top — of the industry.

    Written on Monday, 02 December 2013 23:07 Read more...
  • This Thanksgiving, Let's Celebrate AgriCULTURE, Not AgriBUSINESS
    This Thanksgiving, Let's Celebrate AgriCULTURE, Not AgriBUSINESS

    In December 1972, I was part of a nationwide campaign that came tantalizingly close to getting the U.S. Senate to reject Earl Butz, Richard Nixon's choice for secretary of agriculture. A coalition of grass-roots farmers, consumers and scrappy public interest organizations (like the Agribusiness Accountability Project that Susan DeMarco and I then headed) teamed up with some gutsy, unabashedly progressive senators to undertake the almost impossible challenge of defeating the cabinet nominee of a president who'd just been elected in a landslide.

    Written on Friday, 29 November 2013 00:06 Read more...
  • Arizona Democratic Party Shows Its Progressive Side at State Committee Meeting
    Arizona Democratic Party Shows Its Progressive Side at State Committee Meeting

    Progressive voices were heard loud and clear at Saturday’s Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) State Committee Meeting in Maricopa, Arizona.

    Unlike some past ADP meetings where progressives were ignored or where progressive resolutions were tabled and not heard by the full ADP membership, the Maricopa meeting was dominated by progressives.

    Written on Monday, 18 November 2013 20:09 Read more...
  • Can Public Banking Spur Economic Growth in Southern Arizona?
    Can Public Banking Spur Economic Growth in Southern Arizona?

    Tucson is one of the most impoverished cities in the country—for many reasons. The Arizona Legislature—driven by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and short-sighted, “small government” ideology—has routinely swept funds earmarked for counties and cities to “balance” the state’s budget or fund pet projects like lower corporate taxes. Beyond the Legislature’s negative impact on Baja Arizona, the Tucson economy is not diversified enough. Manufacturing is nearly non-existent in Southern Arizona. There is an over-reliance on defense spending, University of Arizona spin-offs, tourism, low-wage service jobs, and growth/development. 

    Written on Friday, 15 November 2013 15:56 Read more...

Sign the TPP Fast Track Petitions

MoveOn.org Petition - Congress Don't Renew Fast Track

Public Citizen Petition - Congress Must Reject Fast Track Authority

MoveOn.org Petition - Stop the Trans Pacific Partnership

CREDO Petition - Stop the Massive Corporate Power Grab

 

Find Your Elected Officials for Issues

Enter your zip+4 and find your elected officials. This link provides name, address and phone number

ButtonFindElectedOfficials

 

Progressive Central Panel on Ending Corporate Rule

Ask Bill Moyers How to Overturn Citizens United