American elections and their run up are a free for all in a manner unique in a Western democracy. The campaigning lasts for years. The money spent is akin to the budget of a small nation state and has become out of control as a result of the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited anonymous moneys to be donated. This has lead to cynics to argue that we get the best Government money can buy. The advertising is outrageous by international standards. In fact anything goes and rivals will do "what ever it takes".
But the proud boast has always been that at the end of the day everyone has the right to vote and the result is the will of the people. In the recent past this latter assertion has been challenged as a result of State Legislature Acts, Administrative decisions and judicial interventions. The most famous or infamous judicial intervention being the Supreme Court ruling to refuse to allow The Florida Supreme Court's decision to allow a recount of the vote in the Presidential Election of 2000. To jurists amazement the Supreme Court interfered in a matter that was constitutionally a State prerogative. But as that strict constitutionalist, in all other matters, Supreme Court Justice Scalia, has said time and again, "Get over it".
ONE MAN, (sic), ONE VOTE
Universal Franchise in the US, with the rest of the word, has been a long and hard struggle. In 1870, the 15th Amendment stated that no State can deny a vote on account on the basis of "race, color or previous condition or status". It took till 1920 for women to gain voting rights in every State in America although some states had granted this right several years earlier. By the 1960's several States were still successfully thwarting African American voting. They used every possible stratagem to effect this - poll taxes, literary tests and other means. In 1965 the major Civil Rights breakthrough legislation put a stop to all of these roadblocks and provided some oversight. Ironically, it provided oversight in the Southern States and not where the current controversies are now taking place.
VOTING RIGHTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
Now as many as 10 States with Republican legislative majorities, several in swing states, have introduced legislation that makes it "more difficult" to vote. (See Blog CAN ROMNEY'S BAIN PAIN GO AWAY?). These States are all controlled by Republican legislatures and it is common cause that the voters that are most likely to be disenfranchised as a result will be Democrats. The demographics of the newly ineligible are African Americans, the elderly and students. It is said that for this election as many as 5,000,000, who were eligible to vote in the last Presidential election, will be excluded.
By far the most devastating legislative intervention is the demand for some type of Government ID with a photograph needed on election day. The most celebrated example of this State intervention is the Pennsylvania legislature's recent decision to deprive 750,000 former voters the right to vote. The ostensible reason for this legislation, given by the Republican legislative protagonists, is voter fraud but no proof of this assertion has been provided anywhere.
All manner of administrative techniques have also been introduced for 2012 that will have an impact on the turnout. These include fewer voting days for absentee ballot voting. Then there is the removal of after hour voting or weekend absentee ballot voting as another example. The most egregious example of administrative tampering is in Ohio.
All of the methods employed whether they are legislative or administrative have one theme in common - the studies show that Democratic voters far more than Republicans will be impacted.
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. In the most conservative of assessments it is "leaning" towards Obama. Many other pundits place the State firmly in Obama's column. Recent polls put him up to 8% points ahead of Romney. This is a state that Obama won in 2008 by 10% points.
However, the number of newly disenfranchised would exceed Obama's 2008 majority. This is as a result of the Republican legislature changing the eligibility of registered voters to vote. These eligibility criteria had been in practice for over 60 years. Briefly, the legislature have changed the documentation needed to vote, on the day, to a government issued ID photo document. On the face of it that is not an unreasonable demand but many of the elderly and African American voters would have great hardship and cost in putting together the paperwork that is required to obtain this.
COURT REVIEW.
Needless to say the constitutionality of the Pennsylvanian Republican Legislature was challenged in Court. The Republican defendants admitted that they had no evidence of fraud, the ostensible reason for the legislation. In fact the political rationale for this legislation had no legal basis as no prosecutions of fraud were on record. In spite of the fact that several Civil and Voters' Rights groups were contesting this retrogressive legislation, as well as individuals that walked with Martin Luther King and had been able to vote in Pennsylvania since the 1965 legislation, Judge Simpson ruled against the Plaintiffs. Judge Simpson, a former Democrat and now a Republican, ruled in favor of the Republican Legislature.
The judge recognized that the Republican Leader of the Pennsylvanian Congress, Mike Turzei, had unashamedly stated to a Republican Group, that his action was designed to put Pennsylvania into Romney's column. The Judge opined that this was irrelevant to the issues before the court.
The voters' counsel reflected that it was difficult to comprehend that Judge Simpson had used the lowest possible standard to rule on the issue. Judge Simpson had merely ruled on the fact that the legislature was entitled to legislate on whatever they liked and had not been responsible for gross misconduct. Judge Simpson had not considered whether the State had a compelling interest to protect established voters. Nor had taken into account the rights of the voters.
The saddest commentary on this mess is the voters' legal counsel comment on their chances of reversing of the Simpson Court decision. They argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats and if the vote is tied then Simpson's decision stands. One would hope that the Judges in this instance would consider the case in it's broadest context taking into regard the rights of individual voters.
OHIO
This swing state has been allegedly subject to administrative manipulation by the Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted. Again, although Ohio is recognized as Obama leaning, with it's big reliance on the auto industry that Obama bailed out. (Obama won it by close on 5% in 2008). Initially, Husted had ruled that in counties that just happened to vote Republican absentee ballot voting could take place after hours and on the weekend while, counties that just happened to vote Democrat would only be able to vote during the week office hours. All hell broke loose at this unashamed bias. Husted responded by saying all counties would just have absentee voting in office hours. Again pandemonium ensued as 47% of the African American vote in Ohio had been in the after hours and weekend slot that had been available to them and everyone else for election after election.
JIMMY CARTER AND "FREE AND FAIR"
Jimmy Carter, with much pomp and circumstance runs, around the world declaring elections "free and fair" or not. He could well spend some of his time in the USA. The "irregularities" span from legislation, to administrative matters such as "early voting", mechanical problems such as machine glitches, influence of money and so on.... .
Ironically, he need not worry about voter fraud - this being the rationale for all the retrogressive legislature that removes voters from the rolls as apparently no-one can prove voter fraud. In fact over 5 years there are less than 40 cases per year of voter fraud throughout the whole country. That is 0. 7 cases per state per year. A number hardy likely to impact an election result. Certainly far less than 5,000,000 voters in the United States that risk disenfranchisement in 2012 by the current sheninagins.
No comments:
Post a Comment