Senseless changes

Published July 25, 2013

Editorial in Greensboro News and Record, July 25, 2013.

The legislative debate this week about sweeping changes to our voting system had an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. Every serious question posed by an opponent was given a surreal or even ridiculous answer.

The overall impact will make it harder to vote and preserve integrity. Oh, no, sponsors insist. Everything will be better.

A Tuesday afternoon hearing in a Senate committee captured all the twisted logic. Under questioning by Democratic Sens. Martin Nesbitt and Josh Stein, Republican Sen. Bob Rucho explained that reducing early voting by a week could help more people vote — if counties open more early voting sites during the shorter period. He said eliminating same-day registration will ease a burden on counties and make sure the system is “aboveboard.” Preregistration that allows high school students to register, but not vote, before they turn 18 must be eliminated because it’s too confusing to those young people. UNC system IDs aren’t acceptable for voting because they’re inconsistent. Eliminating straight-party voting is good for voters because they’ll have to take the time to select all the down-ballot candidates.

Rucho dodged the question of whether Republicans had done an analysis of the impact on Election Day if voters have less time to vote early and take more time to mark individual candidates all the way down a long ballot without the option of a straight-party vote. He did assert that, “We used to vote on one day before early voting. We survived it.”

Those were the days of longer lines and lower voter turnout, however. There was no acknowledgment of the fact that in 1996, only 46 percent of voting-age North Carolinians voted in the presidential election — 43rd best in the country. In 2012, it was 65 percent — 11th best. What’s wrong with that trend?

What evidence could Rucho cite to show a significant amount of voter impersonation, the problem the voter ID requirement is meant to address? Everyone knows of such cases, he said, although strangely they “never seem to get recorded or reported.” Even with a Republican judge manning every polling place in the state? But to proponents, this lack of evidence is evidence that something’s wrong.

Rucho also said repealing a law requiring the sponsors of print media campaign advertising to disclose their largest donors was merely “clarifying and simplifying.” Also, there is no need for the state to compensate counties for the cost of holding separate, earlier presidential primaries in 2016 because they will “generate enough activity to pay for it.” Does he mean the presidential campaigns will pay taxes in all 100 counties?

There are a few positive changes in the bill, such as getting rid of the “instant runoff” system for some special elections. But the overall effect is to take away popular features and add incumbrances that many observers can’t help but notice seem designed to burden likely Democratic voters a little more than likely Republican voters.

Yet, everyone will have reasons to hate the changes. When they’re waiting in long lines at the polls on a future Election Day, they should remember who tried to tell them that it’s all for the better.