Over the past several days there have been many stories about attempts by State Republican Parties to use every available option available, and some whose viability is in question.
Foreclosing the Vote
On Wednesday, an article in the Michigan Messenger detailed one such plan. The Michigan Republican Party in Macomb Co. is using foreclosure lists to challenge voter registrations. There is some question as to whether this method is legal, there’s no question it is unsavory.
Different states have different laws governing how up to date voter registrations have to be. However, as the article points out, a foreclosure notice is not necessarily an indication that a person has moved to another location. Foreclosures can be resolved before the foreclosed buyer has to leave the property.
This “insult to injury” tactic smacks of class warfare. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the weeks to come.
Indiana ID Imbroglio
As pointed out in this article by Jonathan Alter (h/t LWC), State Republican Parties all over the country are gearing up to contest voters based on the Supreme Court ruling Crawford vs. Marion County. The ruling affirms Indiana voter ID laws that require a valid state issued photo ID or US Passport.
Read the entire article, it lays out the strategies and efforts of State Republican Parties in many key states to disenfranchise voters, including…wait for it…Florida.
Florida has some of the most ridiculous election policies in the US. Alter points out
Even after the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and worldwide attention, the Florida software is still flawed. It requires only an 80 percent match to the name of a convicted felon. “So if there’s a murderous John Peterson, the software disenfranchises everyone named John Peters,” Andrew Hacker writes in a recent New York Review of Books.
Voting is a fundamental right that segments of the population have tried to take away from other segments of the population since the beginning of our nation. First, you had to be a white male landowner. Over the years, it’s become less and less restrictive, opening up the process to all citizens. Still, there are those who wish to disenfranchise some for political gain.
Alter asserts that this effort is “…political, not racial…”. In one respect, he’s right. These efforts may just be outwardly motivated for a desired political outcome. Regardless of the intent, the effect in elections past has been to disenfranchise more African-American voters than those of other ethnicities. You can call that what you want, but if it looks and smells like a racist, it probably is.