The New York Times reports, in today's editorial, "Sorry, I Can’t Find Your Name," that
Republicans have been pressing for sweeping voter purges in many states. They have also fought to make it harder to enroll new voters. Voting experts say there could be serious problems at the polls on Nov. 4.The editorial warns us to be prepared to fight for our right to cast a ballot and recommends that voters vote early if their state permits it. "Any voter who finds that their [sic] name has disappeared from the rolls will then have time to challenge mistakes."
When voters die or move to a new address, or when duplicate registrations are found, a purge is necessary to uphold the integrity of the rolls. New registrations must also be properly screened so only eligible voters get added. The trouble is that these tasks generally occur in secret, with no chance for voters or their advocates to observe or protest when mistakes are made.
A number of states — including the battleground state of Florida — have adopted no match, no vote rules. Voters can be removed from the rolls if their names do not match a second list, such as a Social Security or driver’s license database. But (like the U.S. mail) lists of this kind are notoriously mistake-filled, and one typo can cause a no match. In Ohio, Republicans recently sued the secretary of state, demanding that she provide local officials with a dubious match list. As many as 200,000 new voters could have been blocked from casting ballots. The Supreme Court rejected the suit, but Republicans are still looking for ways to use the list on Election Day.
The editorial concludes [emphasis mine] that
If voters find on Election Day that their names are not on the rolls, they should contact a voters’ rights group like Election Protection, at 1-866-OUR-VOTE, or a political campaign, which can advocate for them. They should not, except as a last resort, cast a provisional ballot, since it is less likely to be counted.I plan to vote early myself, as many, many Americans are doing—they're that angry1 and that concerned. I'm hearing that the lines for voting early are getting pretty long, but they're surely a good deal shorter than what we'd experience on November 4 if we haven't voted (or attempted to vote) before then.
There is a desperate need for reform of the way voting rolls are kept. Until then, election officials, voting rights advocates and voters must do everything they can to ensure that all eligible voters are allowed to vote.
By the way, the comments from Times readers on today's editorial are extremely moving.
______________
- A friend tells me that some white people in her neck of the Pennsylvania woods who still use the n-word are so mad they're going to ignore Mr. Obama's skin color and vote Democratic...if they're not prevented by one or another dirty trick.
One wonders why both the Democrats and the Republicans assume that illegal votes will skew Democratic? One would expect that, under a neutral system, Republicans would be just as likely to receive illegal votes as Democrats, so any accurate rendering of the polls would not hurt either party.
ReplyDeleteDo you suppose that both parties have some knowledge about their own demographics regarding the likelihood of such criminal electoral behavior?
Like some of the commenters on the NYT, I'd like to see a unique national voter ID. In addition, I'd like to see unique genetic codes on all the voters, except registered twins.
"Both the Democrats and the Republicans assume that illegal votes will skew Democratic" is a bit loaded. First, the two sides don't agree that the votes in question—if they're actually talking about the same votes—are illegal. As I understand it, the Republicans are mainly interested in keeping certain groups from voting because of the likelihood that they will mainly vote Democratic (although the Republicans don't describe them that way, but rather as social deviants or criminals). That is, to the Republicans these people will vote illegally, but to the Democrats, they are ordinary citizens who should be allowed to vote (and will do so legally and, probably, Democratically).
ReplyDelete