CNN today is carrying a column by the head of the NAACP and the co-director of a "next generation civil rights organization" (whatever that is). These two luminaries argue at length that the Supreme Court should not strike down as unconstitutional even a comma in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Here is the heart of what they have to say:
The case comes on the heels of a federal election last fall in which our nation witnessed the greatest assault on voting rights in more than a half century. Drastic cuts to early voting hours, restrictive photo ID laws, tens of thousands of registered voters being dropped from poll books due to illegitimate purges were only a few of the tactics used to keep people from voting. Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old Miami resident who was invited to join first lady Michelle Obama at the recent State of the Union address, stood in line for more than three hours to cast a ballot. Sadly, thousands of voters had to endure waiting times up to eight hours, prompting President Barack Obama to call for the nation to "fix it."
So let's look at this terrible "assault" on voting rights.
1) Early voting hours were cut in some states. Oh, the horror! Let's be clear what this means. On election day, all of the polls were open as usual. Anyone who wanted to vote by absentee ballot could do so as usual. In some states, though, one can vote for a few weeks before election day at a few selected locations. This gives people the added convenience of being able to vote on a different day than election day. In a few of these states, the hours when the special locations were open were changed; hours or days were cut to save money. These cuts reduced early voting in some place from two weeks to only ten days. But remember, many states do not have early voting. For example, my state of Connecticut does not allow anyone to vote early. So, when a few states limit the EXTRA voting opportunities but in no way change regular voting, it is hardly an assault on voting rights. Anyone of any race, creed, religion or sex could still vote on election day without any sort of restriction.
2) The so called restrictive photo ID laws have already been reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court. The authors may not like photo ID laws, but again, such laws which are passed to prevent fraud in voting, are hardly an assault on voting rights. And before you decide that there is no voting fraud, just remember that within the last two weeks news came of Democrat poll workers in Ohio who voted multiple times in November.
3) Voters dropped from the rolls do to purges are hardly "illegitimate". The authors just ignore the fact that people move, die or go off to college. Unless the voter rolls are reviewed to purge names of folks who are no longer voting, there will be a clear temptation for fraud. Here is an example: my daughter last voted at my address in Connecticut ten years ago. That's right, she has not lived here for a decade. Nevertheless, each time I go to vote, her name appears on the rolls right below mine. I have told the poll watchers that she is no long living in Connecticut; it does not matter. Were her name removed from the voting rolls, it would hardly be an assault on voting rights.
4) Then we have the woman who waited three hour to vote and the others who supposedly waited eight hours in line to vote. This is total nonsense. These are not people who came to vote on election day. On that day, the wait in most places was less than ten minutes. Even at the worst locations, almost no one waited an hour, and there is absolutely no correlation between the areas covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the places which had waits for voting. Keep in mind that the long waits that the authors speak of came when people tried to vote early on the first day when such voting was allowed. If there was one polling place for early voting in a county, it is no wonder that there were times when that polling place got crowded. Again, this is hardly an assault on voting rights.
So essentially everything that the CNN article says is phony, but that is not the key point. Rather, the key here is that none, absolutely none of the items raised by these folks at CNN has anything in particular to do with the few states that are covered by the section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. If Pennsylvania implements a photo ID system for voting or Ohio restricts early voting to only 14 days rather than 16 as previously, it has nothing to do with voting in Alabama. Even the folks at CNN cannot think that problems in one state allow the federal government to place restrictions on another state.
The case comes on the heels of a federal election last fall in which our nation witnessed the greatest assault on voting rights in more than a half century. Drastic cuts to early voting hours, restrictive photo ID laws, tens of thousands of registered voters being dropped from poll books due to illegitimate purges were only a few of the tactics used to keep people from voting. Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old Miami resident who was invited to join first lady Michelle Obama at the recent State of the Union address, stood in line for more than three hours to cast a ballot. Sadly, thousands of voters had to endure waiting times up to eight hours, prompting President Barack Obama to call for the nation to "fix it."
So let's look at this terrible "assault" on voting rights.
1) Early voting hours were cut in some states. Oh, the horror! Let's be clear what this means. On election day, all of the polls were open as usual. Anyone who wanted to vote by absentee ballot could do so as usual. In some states, though, one can vote for a few weeks before election day at a few selected locations. This gives people the added convenience of being able to vote on a different day than election day. In a few of these states, the hours when the special locations were open were changed; hours or days were cut to save money. These cuts reduced early voting in some place from two weeks to only ten days. But remember, many states do not have early voting. For example, my state of Connecticut does not allow anyone to vote early. So, when a few states limit the EXTRA voting opportunities but in no way change regular voting, it is hardly an assault on voting rights. Anyone of any race, creed, religion or sex could still vote on election day without any sort of restriction.
2) The so called restrictive photo ID laws have already been reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court. The authors may not like photo ID laws, but again, such laws which are passed to prevent fraud in voting, are hardly an assault on voting rights. And before you decide that there is no voting fraud, just remember that within the last two weeks news came of Democrat poll workers in Ohio who voted multiple times in November.
3) Voters dropped from the rolls do to purges are hardly "illegitimate". The authors just ignore the fact that people move, die or go off to college. Unless the voter rolls are reviewed to purge names of folks who are no longer voting, there will be a clear temptation for fraud. Here is an example: my daughter last voted at my address in Connecticut ten years ago. That's right, she has not lived here for a decade. Nevertheless, each time I go to vote, her name appears on the rolls right below mine. I have told the poll watchers that she is no long living in Connecticut; it does not matter. Were her name removed from the voting rolls, it would hardly be an assault on voting rights.
4) Then we have the woman who waited three hour to vote and the others who supposedly waited eight hours in line to vote. This is total nonsense. These are not people who came to vote on election day. On that day, the wait in most places was less than ten minutes. Even at the worst locations, almost no one waited an hour, and there is absolutely no correlation between the areas covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the places which had waits for voting. Keep in mind that the long waits that the authors speak of came when people tried to vote early on the first day when such voting was allowed. If there was one polling place for early voting in a county, it is no wonder that there were times when that polling place got crowded. Again, this is hardly an assault on voting rights.
So essentially everything that the CNN article says is phony, but that is not the key point. Rather, the key here is that none, absolutely none of the items raised by these folks at CNN has anything in particular to do with the few states that are covered by the section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. If Pennsylvania implements a photo ID system for voting or Ohio restricts early voting to only 14 days rather than 16 as previously, it has nothing to do with voting in Alabama. Even the folks at CNN cannot think that problems in one state allow the federal government to place restrictions on another state.
No comments:
Post a Comment