The voting rights foo-fa
Published August 20, 2013
By Carter Wrenn, Talking About Politics, August 19, 2013.
This isn’t a story of sin begetting sin but of foolishness begetting foolishness.
Years ago, somewhere, some Democratic political guru sat in a room with reams of demographics of people who never had voted and when he finished studying those pages of statistics one fact was clear as a bell: If those folks started voting more Democrats would be elected.
Next, over in the state legislature, the Democratic politicians went to work and passed motor-voter laws to register people when they applied for a driver’s license.
Of course, the Democrats didn’t say they passed those laws to elect more Democrats – they dressed them up in fine sounding rhetoric about the importance to Democracy of more people voting.
Voter registration soared – but the new voters didn’t vote.
So the Democratic legislators went back to work passing laws to increase voter turnout – like allowing early voting, same day registration, and Sunday voting.
But that didn’t make much difference either.
Then, in 2008, Barack Obama ran for President.
Now, some Democrats will argue that election was when all their years of labor finally paid off – and that Barack Obama running for President was a coincidence. Turnout soared. But, for instance, did African-American turnout rise in 2008 because voters suddenly discovered early voting – or because the first African-American in history was on the ballot.
Two years later, in the 2010 election, when President Obama was not on the ballot African-American turnout dropped again. Then, in 2012, when he was on the ballot it went back up. All that seems to indicate Barack Obama, himself, was the prime impetus behind turnout rising and falling – not early voting.
Then Republicans came to power.
Now, let’s concede, for arguments sake, that when Republicans took office they looked at all those Democratic election laws and reached the exact same conclusion Democrats had years ago – that they’d helped elect Democrats. And they figured turnabout – and repealing those laws – was fair play.
Of course, like Democrats years before, Republicans couldn’t very well say they were changing the laws so fewer Democrats would be elected – so, dressed their new laws up in a lot of fine-sounding rhetoric about stopping voter fraud.
The new Republican laws elicited a howl from Democrats, led by the formidable Reverend William Barber, so fierce that by the time the Republican plan passed it was all but neutered – there would be seven less early voting days but the number of early voting hours per day would increase so in the end the total number of hours would remain exactly the same.
There was a new voter ID requirement but, in the age when a campaign (a Democratic friend actually told me this story about the Obama campaign) can text message three female Obama supporters in North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama, and ask them each to call an undecided female voter in Colorado, how long can getting a voter ID slow a campaign down?
Governor McCrory signed the new legislation into law and put out a YouTube video saying how, now, elections would to be clean and safe – but before the ink was dry on the page Reverend Barber sued him, held a press conference, and landed on TV with a 53 minute video of his own.
The Governor, the Reverend explained, had landed NC right back in days of Jim Crow. He had trampled on the blood of Civil Rights martyrs, and the combination of the new laws and the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Voting Rights Act made for the worst day in North Carolina history since the union troops left the state after Reconstruction.
There is the kind of irony here that can only happen in politics: The Democrats pass laws to elect Democrats – that don’t work. Then Republicans undo the Democratic foolishness that didn’t work – to elect Republicans. None of which – on either side – will make a tootles worth of difference when it comes to electing anyone but has led to a political howl so earthshaking you’d think the greatest threat to North Carolina today is whether a precinct has 100 hours of early voting over 17 days or 100 hours of early voting over 10 days.
August 20, 2013 at 8:15 am
George Doctoroe says:
Very eloquent as always, but Carter conveniently overlooks two of the egregious parts of the voting suppression act... making it much harder for college students to vote (they're already doing away with college area polling places) - note Boone and Winston Salem, and the Voter I-D requirement which will discourage many elderly folks who do not have easy access to their birth certificate information. Also- why shouldn't we make it easier for people to vote? Voter participation in America is an embarrassment. The GOP will pay for this sooner or later.
August 27, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Why shouldn't it be harder for college students to vote?
Let me explain before all you bleeding hearts toss lunch.
Students who attend college and are residents of NC, pay in-state tuition rates, have a valid address in the state, and can therefore get a valid picture ID to be able to vote. Except, they may not be residents where they attend college. So they either need to travel home to vote (on 1 of 11 days) or they vote absentee. Simple. Done.
Students who attend college in NC but are residents of another state pay out-of-state tuition. By definition, then, they are NOT residents of NC. Therefore, they do NOT have a valid picture ID to vote. Cuz they ain't residents so they ain't allowed to vote!(plain enough for liberals to read?) Seems like an easy enough to understand and very thorough explanation.
Let's say that a non-resident college student is allowed to vote, for some idiotic reason, in a NC election at a polling place near where they attend college. But they are actually a resident of where they live, where their parent(s) are located(?), where they claim residence that they pay out-of-state tuition rates. They have the opportunity to absentee vote, most likely, in their home state. Are liberals saying this SHOULD be allowed? If it is NOT what you are saying, then please explain, cuz it obviously makes no sense to the rest of us. Because of this, college IDs should never be accepted as valid ID for voting purposes. College IDs are only valid on a college campus, for college related activities. (unless some private business wants to accept they ID for whatever special deal they are running. it's their choice.)
August 20, 2013 at 8:38 am
Richard Bunce says:
Carter Wrenn shoots and scores!
August 20, 2013 at 10:05 am
Norm Kelly says:
So, the take-away from this is that turn-about isn't actually fair play.
When Democrats do something, it's either "for the children" or for the common good. When Republicans do something, it's racist or hate-mongering.
And how do too many in the press react. Promoting the hate-mongering and promoting the feel-goodness of Democrat plans.
How is the average person supposed to know what's real?
I also find it hard to believe that the Rev Buffet Slayer is so highly charged over 10 days vs 17 days, even though the total hours remain the same. This is completely idiotic.
Well written & thoughtful.
August 20, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Jacob Jacobs says:
When Democrats made changes to help win elections they were encouraging more people to vote, rather than making changes for the purpose of suppressing votes like Republicans are currently doing. There is a big difference; one is constitutional while the other is not. Why aren't Republicans making changes that will encourage more Republicans to vote, rather than changes designed to suppress Democrats' votes? I think we all know the answer to that question.
August 21, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Norm Kelly says:
No, I don't believe we all know the answer to that question. Please inform us.
Having to prove who you are is suppressing Democrat voters? So it seems that liberals, including yourself, are admitting that eliminating just this 1 opportunity for voter fraud is going to take votes away from Democrats. This means that you are all saying that people who commit voter fraud are typically/mostly Democrat voters? And you are surprised that Republicans want to change this?
Is it possible that Republicans are trying to assure voters, as much as possible, that the voting process is as free of games/fraud as possible so those of us who know what's going on can once again have confidence in the voting process? Are you & liberals content with NOT having confidence in the voting process? When Republican voters have more confidence in the process, it's just possible that more of us actually WILL get out & vote.
When true voter suppression is on display by liberals, and accepted by liberals, did you have anything to say about it? Did the major media follow the story and wonder what happened, or did they just accept the result? When Black Panther members, in camo, with night sticks, stood outside a polling place & intimidated white voters, did the justice department prosecute anyone? Nope! So, you see, Republicans can look at this and justifiably conclude that election games played by liberals/Democrats are just fine, but trying to fix issues by Republicans is discrimination, racism, and hatred of the poor.
Can you spell d-o-u-b-l-e s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d? (go back & read it. a libertarian spelled it out for you!)
And, just to point out, you mention "one is constitutional", but you don't point out what the reference is to the constitution that is being violated by the new law passed by the NC General Assembly. Care to be more specific?
August 20, 2013 at 11:16 pm
dj anderson says:
Sounds fine if making voting more convenient doesn't increase the likelihood of someone voting, or that giving politicos hustling to get turnout don't benefit from having more time to do it.