October 27, 2004
Voter Disenfranchisement
There's been some news and comments about voter disenfranchisement on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans trying to disenfranchise minorities and old women either by intimidating or confusing them, or using the rules to depress their vote (guaranteeing long lines at the polls, etc). And, Democrats trying to discourage the evangelical part of the Republican base, and keeping Nader off the ballot.First, I'm not an expert on ballot rules from state to state, but I don't think there's anything that keeps anyone from voting for Nader as a write-in candidate, and having that vote counted. Is there? I'm actually a bit confused on this point because Nader's ballot drive mentions things like "certifying him as a write-in candidate". Isn't anyone certified as a write-in candidate by default?
If having Nader off the ballot means that a vote for Nader won't even be counted, then I'm inclined to think that's unfair to the people voting for Nader. But, right now I really don't think that happens - please correct me if I'm wrong.
Aside from that, having a candidate on the ballot is just a marketing benefit. There's limited physical space on the ballot, and a candidate has to exhibit a certain level of support in order to get the visibility. There's not really a catch-22 there, because if a candidate is reliant on the ballot placement in order to get exposure, then there's obviously no chance of them winning.
I do think it's a shame that ballot access rules are so different from state to state. You'd expect different numerical requirements, but the percentages should probably be more in line.
That said, in many of these states, Nader hasn't been even close to meeting the requirements. And whining about disenfranchisement in those cases is disingenuous. When you compare Nader's fraudulent signatures to the Dem's legal efforts to challenge those signatures, I think it's clear who it is that is trying to game the system.
And really, it's beside the point. The Democrats are not trying to disenfranchise any Nader voters. They gain nothing by keeping them from going to the polls. They gain a lot by convincing them to vote for Kerry instead, but they'd actually rather Nader voters go to the polls, because if they were to switch their votes to one of the other two candidates, they'd be more likely to choose Kerry.
So it isn't comparable to Republican efforts to keep people from voting.
Some things that Democrats point out do sometimes have an effect of keeping religious fundamentalist evangelicals from voting enthusiastically. But this is because the Republicans are hypocritical when you compare their actions and convictions. Pointing out that Bush has been arrested multiple times, or has a drug past, or a drunken driving past, can be relevant. If it honestly didn't matter to the conservative voters, then their vote patterns wouldn't change. But the fact that it depresses their turnout proves that Bush's history matters to them, and that they were first under the impression that Bush was more moral than he claimed to be. Finally, these exposures are truthful - just because it has a pro-Kerry benefit doesn't mean that they're not relevant.
And again, Democrats are doing nothing to actually keep these people from the polls - they're not putting polling places in strip bars or pagan temples. They're not shutting down polling places in rich areas, or passing laws to not accept ballots from precincts that were within 1000 yards of a church. They're not setting up highway checkpoints staffed by atheists and devil-worshippers to intimidate the good Christian folks.
The Republicans are, however, making large lists of minority voters to personally challenge them at polling places. They are still sponsoring lists that falsely note minorities as being felons. They are still trying to keep ex-felons from voting when they are allowed to vote. They are setting up highway checkpoints staffed by white cops to intimidate black voters. They are limiting the number of polling places in minority-rich neighborhoods. They are making phone calls to tell people that their voting precinct has been changed. They are forcing challenged voters to fill out provisional ballots instead of real ballots. They've passed laws saying that voters who cast provisional ballots at the wrong precincts (many of whom will show up at the wrong precincts at the instruction of pro-GOP groups) will have their ballots thrown away. There are tens of thousands of missing and late absentee ballots in states run by Republican secretaries of states.
I don't know how to make it clearer. There is no even-handed comparison between what the Democrats have done, and what the Republicans are doing. None.