A couple voting stories with little attention
September 8
There are couple voting rights and elections related stories recently that haven't gotten much attention. One is about the flouting of the law genreally known as the "moter-voter" law, which required some government agencies, drivers license bureaus being the best known, to offer voter registration to people seeking their services. The requirement also includes social service agenices. According to Stephen Rosenfeld in Alternet, most states are ignoring this part ofthe law. How many people might be registered this way?
"Another indication of how many poor people could register is Tennessee, whose elections are federally supervised. From 2005-2006, Tennessee registered 120,992 people at public assistance offices -- nearly a quarter of the national total, the EAC reported. Tennessee registered more voters than the combined totals of welfare office registrations from California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington."Tennessee is just a medium-sized state. Perhaps millions of people might be registered if the law was observed. Why isn't it? Easy: these are the poor we're talking about, the economic group least likekly to vote, and not coincidentally least likey to have thier interests considered, which I suggest are two mutually reinforcing facts. If they did start voting, a lot of election results could change. Of course, if those who do vote could be removed frmo the registration rolls, that could change election results too (Did I say "could"? Don't forget Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, where they poor were far more likely to find they had been purged when they showed up at the polls). That explains why the DOJ has been working to make states purge their voter rolls.
The other hidden but potentially big story is the initiative in California to award Electoral College votes by congressional district instead of one package. The initiave is coming from an astroturf (fake grassroots) group made up just for the occasion called Californians for Equal Representation, which is really a GOP front group. The effect of the initiative would be to greak off a bunch of California's votes for the GOP. Funny thing --- they aren't trying this in any other state, like a state where the GOP runs the state government and could pass it. It might sound fair, as it did when I first heard the idea suggested after the 2000 election gave us the current acting president even though he lost the election. Awarding votes by district would appear to break up the unfairness of the winner take all system, and get a little closer to actually representing the popular will, even if it's still a far cry from a direct popular vote --- you know, the way almost every other democracy elects its presidents. This is in fact how votes are apportioned in Maine and Nebraska, where there a vote for each district, and the two votes the states get for their senators are awarded by the statewide vote. However, these are small states and they've never split their votes. The initiative in California is intended to break up a big Democratic block of votes.
You might if you want argue for the general fairness of the concept, and since the states decide how their votes are awarded, California could do this as well as anyone else. The problem with the concept, which I didn't know back in 2000 when I thought it sounded fairer, is how badly congressional districts are gerrymandered. If you think the current system makes most votes meaningless since most of us don't live in a swing state, wait until the election is decided not by 10 or 15 states, but by maybe 35 districts. Not even a tenth of all voters will really have anything to say about who gets elected. Even in big California, only a few districts will be competitive. If you think the barrage of ads in swing states is bad now, imagine living in one of those 35 districts.
Even if you still like the concept, consider that doing this just in California amounts to unilateral disarmament for the Democrats. At least doing it nationally would affect both sides. Asking Democrats to go along with it on principle is like saying that because we don't like political TV ads, the Democrats should stop, even though the Republicans will still be using them.
The best hope for defeating this initiative is that California voters might have caught on to problems with elections as indicated by the tests run by Secretary of State Debra Bowen which showed the touchscreen machines failed. She required manual recounts, and banned links to outside computers. Then again, this increased awareness might be what the initiative backers are hoping to exploit. I hope Californians will take a close look at it.
Getting back to Ohio, taking a close look should have preserved the 2004 ballots from destruction, since in response to lawsuits from groups still seeking access to the ballots to investigate the fraudulent election, a federal judge ordered the ballots preserved. Lo and behold, when the Democratic secretary of state took office this year, she discovered most counties had violated the court order and destroyed many or all ballots. Once we cut through the "dog ate my homework" excuses, what becomes clear is that much of the evidence of election fraud has been destroyed.




