Democracy Under Fire

I was watching John Oliver on the Daily Show recently, and his mocking words suggested that just as some nations were seeking greater legitimacy in election results by mandating voting in local and national elections, too many American states are finding ways to make sure clearly identified demographics are kept away from the polls. He went over Australian enforcement efforts for their elections and contrasted that push with American state efforts with a contrary goal. But Australia is hardly the only nation with a requirement that citizens vote.

“Countries that have compulsory voting systems are Austria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, France (senate only), Gabon, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nauru, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland (province of Schaffhausen), Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay.

“A study of the World Fact Book of the American Central Investigation Agency (CIA) and the July 4, 2005 edition of the prestigious British daily ‘The Guardian’ reveals that of the 31 countries with compulsory voting system, around a dozen nations (and Schaffhausen, a province/canton of Switzerland) actually enforce it.

“If an eligible voter does not attend polling in many of these countries, he or she may be subject to punitive measures by law.But again, people are only penalised practically in countries like Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Congo, Ecuador, Peru, Luxembourg, Singapore, Uruguay and the world’s smallest republic of Nauru.” The News.com.pk, February 4^th.

Back in the United States, poll taxes have been found to be unconstitutional. But the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – a statute that addressed specified states that clearly used voter ID requirements to keep people with statistically liberal voting proclivities (poor or at least urban folks who didn’t drive and hence didn’t have driver’s licenses) from voting – was eviscerated in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby County vs. Holder. Almost instantly, most of those “specified states” resurrected those discriminatory “government-issued photo ID” statutes as a condition to voting.

“Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation. Some of the states that were pursuing new photo identification requirements were legally bound to apply for Federal Preclearance prior to enacting any new election laws.” Wikipedia. Few non-drivers apply for government-issued alternative photo IDs, which have limited value except in the voting booth. It is estimated, for example, that a quarter of voting age African-Americans – who are not exactly known as a bastion of Republican votes – don’t have driver’s licenses. Almost none of that group has alternative, government-issued photo IDs.

The rational for such laws is to prevent voter fraud, despite convincing findings to the contrary: “In 2007, a report prepared by the staff of the federal Election Assistance Commission found that, among experts, ‘there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud.’” Wikipedia.

Former Senator, Secretary of State and probable presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton sees precipitous danger in this anti-democratic trend. Addressing the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco, she condemned the ruling inShelby County: “‘Anyone who says racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention,’ Mrs. Clinton told the lawyers gathered at the Moscone Center in San Francisco. She urged them to fight voter identification laws in their communities, but she also pleaded with the members of a ‘gridlocked Congress’ to quickly enact legislation that would make it easier to vote… ‘Our government cannot fully represent the people unless it has been fairly elected by them,’ Mrs. Clinton said…

“Mrs. Clinton, like many Democrats and voting rights groups, argued that the court’s ruling would limit voters’ participation, particularly among minorities, the poor and younger voters who disproportionately cast their ballots for Democrats. Texas, Mississippi and Alabama all announced that they would move ahead with strict voter identification requirements, and on [August 12^th], Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina signed a similar measure.” New York Times, August 12^th.  Hey Hillary, what do you think the odds of getting new revised standards passed by the current Congress? Too many are smiling all the way back to their cushy offices with spectacular benefits.

I’m Peter Dekom, and we are all cheapened by a government that specifically and intentionally keeps minorities from voting.