Numbers
Game: Turnout or Turn Away?
With
the election looming, it is time for all people who are secret quants to turn
to numbers. I am going to start with
two: 24 and 31. 24 is the number of people fatally stricken by lightening since
January 1 of this year. 31 is the number
of documented voter identification fraud cases—since the year 2000.
What
does this tell us, besides being sure we get under cover when we hear thunder? Let me add another 24. 24 is also the number of states that have
enacted more restrictive voting rules in the last three years, presumably to combat a dread of those (civic) lightening strikes. Then there is the number One. That’s the number that Wisconsin Governor and
2016 GOP Presidential aspirant Scott Walker says keeps him awake at night. One shattering moment of voting fraud—just
one moment--would destroy a virtuous Walker supporter rights to choose his or
her man at the ballot box.
I am
not the kind of person who wants even Scott Walker to reach for the Ambien
bottle. I feel his pain. I understand the anxiety he must be
experiencing in actually having to accept the judgment of an electorate that is
anything other than handpicked.
So,
what does an ambitious pol do, especially one with a ruthless streak? How can you make all those numbers sing?
There
is always the tried and true. When you
are pulling all the strings, it’s not all that hard impede people who want to
pull the wrong lever: fewer voting machines, in fewer polling places, staffed
by fewer number of hopefully hostile poll workers, lead to longer and longer lines. And, when time’s up, it’s up. If that’s not good enough, there’s always the
dump-the-ballot box in the swamp technique.
There is virtually no limit to the type of low cunning a person or party
on the make won’t demonstrate, and we have a rich and bipartisan history to
demonstrate that.
Still,
in this world of infinite media coverage, a little more sophistication might
also be called for. That is where data
mining comes in. Once you have
identified who is likely to vote and when, you can tailor things to reduce the
probability that “wrong-minded” voters will actually cast those “low
information” ballots. Let’s say your numbers show that a disproportionate number
of the “wrong” voters are shift, hourly, or per diem workers. If they don’t show up for work, or work fewer
hours, they don’t get paid. Cutting back
on early and weekend voting is the perfect way to discourage them. Or, you
find that church communities pray together and then vote, as a congregation,
after services. Eliminate or restrict
Sunday voting, and gain the added bonus of disenfranchising parishioners who are otherwise
too elderly to drive. Concerned about college students voting in the states
they attend school in? Tighten residency
requirements and threaten them with prosecution.
Of
course, while all those techniques bear fruit, the ripest and most delectable
are the voter identification rules. These allow you to feel virtuous (“if I
have to show ID to buy a beer, why shouldn’t I have to show one to vote”) while
knowing very well that there are a surprising number of people who don’t necessarily
have the government-issued ID required.
Are all those folk evil ballot stuffers and fraudsters? Not exactly.
Only about a third of us have passports.
In rural areas, older folk were often born at home and don’t have a
hospital-administered birth certificate, even if they have been voting for
decades. In urban areas, a surprising
number don’t have driver’s licenses, because cities with good mass-transit
infrastructure don’t demand it.
Before
my conservative readers jump all over me and assume I am against voter
identification laws, I am not. But it’s
not so simple, regardless of whether you like the result. Is there any serious argument that one could
make against the proposition that when government choses to put in place a
series of new rules that have a chilling effect on such a seminal right as voting,
it also has a duty to show wide latitude in accepting valid forms of
identification, and in enabling those who do not have documentation to obtain
it at no cost?
Sadly,
those in the rule-making game don't see it that way. And, ever since the Supreme Court decision in "Shelby" eviscerated the Voting Right Act of 1965, it's been open season for legislation that is clearly targeted at certain groups, hiding behind a veneer of facially non-discriminatory language. That has led to a lot of litigation, and the forces of voter
suppression seem to have built a strong early lead. SCOTUS is back in the middle of critical and highly controversial cases in three states:
North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas.
In
North Carolina, SCOTUS permitted, pending their final rulings, the imposition
of voter ID laws, and also the ending of same-day registration and out of precinct
voting. Minorities complained that the
laws were aimed at them, since they often used same day registration. And, who votes out of precinct? North Carolina
State residents who just happen to college students at one of the sixteen
state-sponsored universities, including Chapel Hill, or some of the illustrious
private ones, such as Duke and Wake Forest. Think about that for a moment. A North Carolina resident cannot vote in
statewide elections because he or she is taking classes in a different
precinct—in North Carolina.
In
Wisconsin, “Act 23” not only introduced demands for specific types of voter ID,
but also included a provision that disallowed any otherwise proper form of
government issued identification if there were any variant spellings (such as a
missing “Jr.” a middle name or a maiden name.) The Federal District Judge assigned
to the case overturned it on the grounds it showed pervasive discriminatory
intent, but he was reversed at the Circuit level. SCOTUS, interestingly enough, vacated the
appeals court ruling in large part because the reversal came so close to the
election and might lead to confusion. Among other reasons, Wisconsin
had neglected to mention to absentee ballot users that their vote would be
rejected unless they included a copy of their ID when they returned the ballot. fascinating omission, wouldn't you say?
Texas,
as always, is the big kahuna, and here SCOTUS permitted their new voting law to
take effect, even though the trial court found that it could disenfranchise as
many as 600,000 (mostly minority) voters. The ruling is seen as a huge win for Texas’
Attorney General, Greg Abbott, who, purely by coincidence, happens to be
running for Governor this year.
So,
what’s next? Short term, we are going to have an election in which new rules
will be in effect in many states. I would expect that even in this likely
Republican wave year, there could be several elections that might be close, and
it would not shock if the new rules were decisive in some. Then, in this term, the Supreme Court will
hear the arguments on the voter’s rights cases.
They should render their decisions by next June.
Resent
the idea that your vote is fraudulent simply because you picked the boys and girls in the
wrong uniforms? Here is my suggestion to those organizations who believe their
right to vote was taken from them. Document every last bit of it—every voter
who was denied access as a result of the new rules. Then, take that evidence, if you have it, and
get it before the Supreme Court.
Why? Because we need certitude. If SCOTUS legitimizes these little tricks of
the trade, then the losers are just going to have to be better and smarter for
2016. That means a better ground game,
more early registration, and help with obtaining necessary documents.
Will
they? There are a lot people who believe
that going to SCOTUS has become just another place for partisanship, regardless
of the law. I acknowledge that there are
Justices who have clear ideological preferences and want to pick winners and
losers. But, as an institution, I don’t
buy it. The legitimacy of the Court
rests on its reputation for calling them as it sees them, with balance and fairness. The ultimate disposition of the North
Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas cases are a profound test of that.
One
last number for you: Four. Four
Constitutional Amendments that include the words “The right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…”
Let’s
find out if SCOTUS is in favor of turnout….or turn-away.
October
23, 2014
Michael
Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please
join us on Twitter @SyncPol
