So much time has passed since the 2000 elections, it can be easy to forget the great upset to American democracy which gripped the nation's attention not so long ago. But one person I suspect has not forgotten is Sen. Bill Nelson. If Gov. Rick Scott ends up signing the election anti-reforms passed out of the Legislature this year, we can count on Nelson pushing for a full investigation in the courts.
Nelson, of course, sent out an email to supporters today promising as much, including a reprint of a New York Times story documenting the vicious bill.
From Nelson's letter:
---
I have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether this bill will result in voter suppression.
Meantime, the bill is on its way to Gov. Rick Scott. Send him a message: Please veto CS/CS/HB 1355.
---
I must say, I don't really understand the upswing for this bill unless Republicans really want to suppress the vote. It reduced the time allowed for early voting, something which has dramatically increased voter participation. It also cracks down on that long-time straw man: voter fraud. You may recall this is that heinous thing that we executing ACORN for, even though there is no evidence it ever has been enough of a problem to turn an election. Sadly, Florida has a long history of the opposite happening, with so many legitimate votes lost and legal voters dropped from voter rolls. And of course, many of the times when fraud has been suspected, it was conservative voters who were the possible culprits. (Ann Coulter, I'm looking at you.)
The truth is, Florida went out of its way after the 2000 election to make sure voting was as accessible a process as possible. New rules were put in for provisional ballots, early voting and absentee voting. It has had such a major effect on elections that they are waged in new ways. Some projections expect half of votes for president next year to be cast before Election Day. I realize that has its own consequences, but the truth of the matter is that it allows far people the chance to participate in democracy than ever before.
The GOP thinks that is a bad thing.
:et's think about that for a second. Republicans figure the greatest threat to their electoral prospects is having too many people vote.
GOPers this year have suggested such draconian measures as fining people $1,000 for turning their voter registration cards in late. Why? State Sen. Miguel de la Portilla says it's because he doesn't want people "gaming the system." Is that what they call voting these days? Gaming the system?
The truth is that Republicans don't want a system that encourages participation. They wnat to discourage voting. They figure it is easier for them to get their energized crazies to the polls and to suppress middle-of-the-road voters because if there was a fair fight, Democrats would win the day. It's that simple.
If I'm wrong, Gov. Scott can prove it. Veto this bill and have a fair fight in the marketplace of ideas. Let everyone vote who wants to vote. It's that easy.
And understand, this is a state that knows something about disenfranchisement. We know what it means to question if the results an election were reached fairly. We know the need for trust in the final tallies. And we don't want any doubt over whether some voters were turned away unfairly or some ballots thrown out for the wrong reasons.
And we will never forget.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Talk about a load of malarky - the purpose of the bills is to cut down on voter fraud. The Democrats have been voting the cemetaries and following the "vote early and vote often" mantra dating back to the Daley and Pendergast machines and earlier (remember - this "long periood of election fraud" is about 85% the period in which Democrats had complete control of the state so don't sound so pious)
ReplyDeleteThe bills we are getting this session are the ones formulated by those duly elected by the people of Florida. If you don't like the bills then elect representatives who will formulate bills that you and your cronies like (preferably that will also pass contiututional muster), but don't ask the governor to veto them. Let everyone vote who wants to voteand , who is a registered voter and a citizen - exclude everyone else from the process
There is long history of voter fraud on both sides of the aisle. I would never suggest otherwise. But this bill is intended to do one thing - stop people from voting. Why do we need fines for people who don't turn in their registration cards on time? Isn't, you know, not be being allowed to vote in that election enough? No, this is intentionally to scare people who might want to join the democratic process from taking part, plain and simple. You say we should let everyone vote who wants to vote. Then why put up barriers to that process? It is clear people in Tallahassee don't want every citizen in the state to take part in the electoral process. If they did, maybe different representatives would get elected.
ReplyDeleteAnd my 'cronies' are everybody who just wants clear access to the polls. What a frightening special interest - voters.
I'm okay with reducing the number of days for early voting. The bill would keep the same number of hours (96), so by reducing the number of days from 14 to 8, you increase the hours per day from just under 7 to 12. I would think that would actually *increase* the number of people who could vote early, particularly the ones working long hours at jobs they can't take time off from. I suspect those people would tend to vote Democrat, by the way.
ReplyDeleteAs for the $1000 fine, you make it sound as if individuals would be penalized for submitting a registration after some deadline. In fact, only an organization registering voters, who failed to turn in a completed registration form to the state within 48 hours after it had been filled out, would be subject to the fine.
Regarding Bennett's quote, "I wouldn’t have any problem making it harder. I would want them to vote as badly as I want to vote. I want the people of the state of Florida to want to vote as bad as that person in Africa who’s willing to walk 200 miles... This should not be easy." My gut reaction is that this is incredibly un-American. But on second thought, I've long felt that the biggest problem we face, and the root of most of the other problems, is an uninformed electorate and the politicians they vote for. And what can you do to address this issue, short of putting up hurdles to screen out the people that are swayed by "Drill Baby Drill" or Daily Kos blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting? Although I admit, it's not clear that this is what Bennett has in mind.
Personally, I see a world of difference between a vice presidential candidate saying something stupid and contributors to a blog suggesting something stupid. For the record, I do not think Palin was at all responsible for the Giffords shooting, but do feel the discourse in this country had something to do with it. Maybe that makes me stupid.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there lies the biggest issue here. If the biggest problem is dumb voters, who decides what is dumb? I recall a conversation I had with then-state Rep. Randy Johnson during the 2000 recount, and he started talking about whether voters with ballots in question were intelligent enough to participate in the electoral process. By the end of the conversation, I was waiting for the suggestion that if voters were smart, they would have voted for Bush anyway (It was a tough interview for me to do, one that sticks with me now, and I had a pretty good working relationship with Johnson). Who is to say who is smart enough to participate in democracy?
As for early voting, I might be able to accept this, as I have always had some problems with people casting votes so many weeks before an election anyway. I can't shake that its part of an effort to reduce voting, but maybe that's me.
The fine, on the other hand, is straight up suppression. This is done in the name of attacking that old ACORN straw man, claiming it will stop cards getting turned in for Mickey Mouse, never mind that Mickey Mouse is never going to vote. This is meant to scare voters, and to scare the people trying to get voters registered. I am not certain, BTW, that this cannot be applied to more than just organizations. The intent, regardless, is to frighten people from the polls. That is straight-up un-American.
Tom, if you get the chance, ask Mark Kelly what he thinks contributed to the Giffords shooting. I don't ask sarcastically or sardonically. I genuinely would like to know.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it's more troubling that a vice presidential candidate says stupid things than that a blogger says stupid things, but regardless of the source, there are people who hear those things, and are swayed by them. And politicians and the media know that, and are only too happy to discuss rumors that Obama is a foreigner or that Palin's son is actually her grandson (I hate that I keep coming back to her), rather than having a substantive discussion.
ReplyDeleteClearly, I decide who and what is dumb. But really, I think we ought to have a citizenship test, with a standardized set of short answer questions about American and state history and government, and a few questions regarding current political issues. It would require critical thinking and the ability to make connections between concepts, and there wouldn't necessarily be right and wrong answers, but you would be required to demonstrate awareness and understanding of events and their antecedents and consequences. For example, if you were asked, "What caused the Civil War?" and you said "Slavery," you don't get credit. But if you respond, "The southern states were under pressure to give up slavery, which would have put them at an economic disadvantage relative to the more industrial North," congratulations, here's your ballot. You take the test in a high school civics class, you're required to pass to graduate, and then you repeat it every 10 or 12 years.
I tend to agree that the fine is targeting a straw man, but I think people are more likely to be scared when partisan sources present misleading information, like "GOPers this year have suggested such draconian measures as fining people $1,000 for turning their voter registration cards in late." I actually don't particularly like the idea of political organizations registering people to vote, anyway. When you put up a sign that says "College Republicans/AFL-CIO/Whoever, Register To Vote Here," that seems kind of sketchy to me. It's not that far from them watching you in the ballot box.
And I don't think I'll get a chance to talk to Mark Kelly. Even if I did, I wouldn't ask him about the shooting, although I would genuinely like to know, too. I doubt he'd answer, anyway, and he'd be right not to.
I suppose you are right about Kelly. I am just way too comfortable asking nosy questions of public figures.
ReplyDeleteGotta say, your example with what caused the Civil War is to me a pretty good example of how education tests can be used to cut certain populations out of the polls. I believe quite a few scholars would argue "slavery" is a perfectly good explanation of what caused the Civil War. And your acceptable answer is one I think a lot of people would take issue with. But are you suggesting people need to write an essay for every answer?
I pay closer attention to civic affairs than most. Only because of my chosen line of work, I know much more about what is happening in Congress than 95 percent of the population. But does the fact I know more of the fine details about cap and trade proposals mean my vote should mean more in the democratic process than the environmentalist that just wants to save the earth or the oil rig worker who just wants to make sure his job is there a year from now? I don't think so.
Saying the citizenry should have a more nuanced understanding of issues is fine and wonderful, but we do have a representative government for a reason. We have well-paid representatives who hopefully are looking at the complexity of matters before they vote. While I wish many of them looked a little closer, I believe every member of Congress understands the issues better than the average voter.
Democracy directs our elected officials in broad strokes. It's 'Get out of Afghanistan' as opposed to proposals of detailed timetables for military withdrawal. Or it's 'Keep your hands off my guns' rather than a detailed debate about who should be allowed a concealed weapons permit and when it is appropriate to use deadly force. The most educated citizens have more detailed views than that, but still send the clearest message to Washington with a ballot where you fill in a bubble multiple-choice.
I really hate Blogger. Suffice it to say that:
ReplyDelete1) It's not whether "Slavery" is the right answer or the wrong answer. "Slavery", or "States' rights" are buzzword answers, and don't demonstrate any understanding.
2) Yes, your vote should count more than other people's. Not necessarily the single issue voter, but the person who doesn't understand what he's voting for. Those people are easy to fool, and there are a lot of them, so politicians get a big return on investment. And that's the problem we need to solve. Also, I don't think it's necessary to get into "Jake got 100% on the test, and Tom got 50%, so Jake's vote counts twice as much." Simple pass/fail.
I'm going to nit-pick your claim that politicians are well-paid. Certainly not at the state and local levels. A Florida state senator's salary is $30k. Assuming it's a full time job, that severely limits the people who can afford to take that position.
Try this one more time...
ReplyDelete"Slavery", "States' rights", or what have you, would not be acceptable. They're buzzword answers, and they don't show any level of comprehension. If you can make an argument for them being right or wrong, then by all means make that argument in your response, which ought to be at least a sentence. (This goes back to our discussion of multiple choice standardized tests.)
Yes, your vote ought to count more, not necessarily more than a single issue voter, but more than someone who doesn't even understand what the job is that they're electing someone to. I don't think we ought to get into weighting a vote based on how you score on the test, a simple pass-fail is fine.
I'm going to nitpick your assertion that we have well-paid representatives, at least at the local and state level. A Florida state senator makes $30,000 a year. Assuming it's a full time job, that's a pretty big barrier for most people. I know I couldn't afford to take that pay cut. Now, if I were getting bribes and kickbacks ....
How about, "If you are a citizen of the United States you get a vote."
ReplyDeleteTom, I fear government too much to trust your proposal. It is too easy for it to turn into the old literacy tests used to keep Blacks from voting not too many years ago. I would prefer a system that required people to vote, as exists in some European countries, to one that keeps citizens from voting.
Anyway, I tried to respond to this before an excellent debate between J and T got going, but managed to lose my comment. I'm at least as concerned about the lose of democracy by other means- the lack of worthwhile choices for various elected positions thru failures in the two party system being at the top of the list these days. How is it possible that we have state delegates who have never had to run for office after several terms, or who's names never appear on a competitive ballot because the opposing party doesn't run anyone for a post? Maybe we are all failing a test on representative government?
Anonymous, I'm not saying there aren't drawbacks to my approach, nor do I have any hope that anything like it would ever be implemented. Some of that could be avoided by requiring people graduating high school to pass the test, although not everybody in this country finishes high school. And I suspect that most illiterate people fall among those easily swayed by the drivel that we accept from our politicians, although that is certainly not uniformly the case.
ReplyDeleteBut to me, it's a simple matter of cost versus benefit. We currently have a crop of politicians who are more interested in spouting talking points than engaging in honest discussions about serious issues, and most voters simply apparently aren't smart enough to understand or demand anything more complex. It's particularly glaring right now among Republicans - which is embarrassing for me - where 40% of people questioned whether Obama was born in America before he released his long form birth certificate. (I'm honestly surprised the numbers have gone down somewhat since then.)
There are huge benefits to ensuring that we have people who are at least passingly familiar with the issues that have shaped our country and the issues we face today voting for our leaders. Those outweigh the costs of denying the vote to people who have that understanding but are unable to pass a test (because of illiteracy or any other reason).