Maslow's Peak: Reports From the Left
  • home
  • blog
  • about/contact

Indefensible election law changes.   

9/8/2012

1 Comment

 
Picture
The average middle-class voter can be forgiven for not getting why election-year changes in voting laws are such a big deal.  The average middle-class voter can take time off work for appointments.  She uses a driver's license frequently to cash checks, drink, fly,
or rent a car.  This voter probably has a passport, or keeps a folder of vital records in a home filing cabinet.  He can quickly locate a current mortgage, lease, or bank statement.  This voter can read, speak English, and plug-in to current events through TV and internet.  She is able to find support when coping with her own or a loved-one's disability.  This voter can get around town.  He uses a phone daily, and has the ordinary skills needed to navigate the maze of mainstream American life. 

Those who live squarely within societal infrastructure may puzzle at the outcry over every decision made by officials in various states regarding when and how its citizens vote.  If these changes in law don't affect you, or the people around you, it's hard to fathom the critical impact they can have on those with more tenuous connections.  Don't these changes simply ask for a reasonable adjustment on the part of the voter?  Will cutting back on early-voting hours really take such a toll?  Does a change in the rules for identification procedures really make voting suddenly forbidding for some?  For the greater number of voters, these concerns might seem like a stretch.

But while the casual observer can be excused for not immediately anticipating the severity of hardship placed on some voters by voting law changes, government officials cannot be extended the same allowances.  It is a fair expectation of elected officials that they take responsibility for ensuring equal access to the ballot for all of their constituents.  It is up to those who serve the public to guarantee that its members not encounter unnecessary barriers to a right as fundamental as voting.  Public officials have extraordinary access to the fundamental systems of democracy, and thus an extraordinary obligation to justify any actions taken that may have an impact on voter participation.

The first duty of those who officiate elections is to ensure that no voter encounters an unfair obstacle to casting a vote.  Procedural changes, especially those that potentially increase barriers, should never be made without clear and compelling evidence that they are necessary.  If an accelerated pace is proposed, the evidence should indicate some  urgency.  Otherwise, even when new procedures are indicated, they should be phased in with community input, assessment of impact on turnout, and consultations with other states to gather best practices for success. 

If officials want to decrease voting hours, they need to to explain what was wrong with the hours they had.  If officials want to tighten ID requirements, they need to say why the previous procedures for identification weren't working.  If officials want to make fast-paced, wholesale decisions about the integrity of their voter rolls, they'd better explain why their list of eligible voters wasn't better maintained between elections.

Without accusing officials of partisan motivations, we can still place the onus on them for justifying policy decisions that threaten access to the ballot for eligible voters.  In the absence of any credible rationale, and without an abundance of level-headed preparation, no changes in election law should ever be made in an election year.




1 Comment
John Locklear
9/11/2012 07:02:58 am

Nicely written piece, Julie. I must admit I was on the other side of the argument when I first learned of voter ID laws. I very much thought how hard is it to produce the documentation. I have since changed my mind. Just while sitting here I realized that because everything at my current residence is in my roommate's name, I would have difficulty providing supporting evidence beyond a passport or driver's license, if it were to be required.
The onus should be on the officials to explain why the changes, especially if the changes will lead to the disenfranchisement of any number of voters. It should not and cannot make sense that rules to "protect" voting would decrease the number of legitimate voters due to hardship or intimidation incredibly MORE than the decrease of votes due to fraud (evidence please). As you pointed out, making the changes so close to the election (but after the primaries) is particularly unfair.
This election is incredibly crucial and both sides know it. I hope that everyone is prepared and ready to exercise their right to vote, this election, and just as importantly, in next very first one that can remove the politicians trying to create barriers to the most fundamental of right of our democracy. That is not why they were elected, but I am more than glad to have it be a reason for their fall from elected grace.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Politics & Policy
    all posts by Julie Boler

    Categories

    All
    2012 Election
    2016 Election
    Better Angels Journal
    Capitalism
    Church/state
    Conservatism
    Crime & Justice
    Democracy
    Election Law
    Gun Regulation
    Lgbt Policy
    Liberal Theory
    Media
    Obama
    Poverty
    Race
    Reproductive Law
    Voting Rights
    World Affairs

    Archives

    February 2019
    January 2018
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    October 2014
    May 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from nathanrussell