Democracy thrives on maximum participation. Republicans know this. They also know that their message appeals to such a small proportion of the population that they can never hope to win elections in which the maximum number of people vote.
That's the real rationale behind a 1996 state law requiring voters to produce a photo ID at the polls, recently upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court. It's not about preventing fraud. It's about preventing people from voting.
The law wins the approval of the Livingston Press & Argus in an editorial Wednesday (July 25, 2007), which considers producing a driver's license no big deal.
It's probably not in Livingston County, but what about in Detroit, where many people don't own cars. If you don't own a car, would you spend the money for a driver's license? The editorial claims voters only need to fill out an affidavit attesting to his or her name, address, and birth date. But how many voters will know that's an option?
I wouldn't put it past Republican operatives to stand outside polling places "reminding" people that they need a driver's license to vote, without mentioning that they can sign an affidavit if they don't have one.
Nor would I put it past Republican workers to challenge every single ballot cast by someone who fills out an affidavit, hoping to find someone who moved from one apartment to another within the past year (even within the same precinct), who signs the form without their middle name, or other such nonsense.
The editorial claims that if the law is used to intimidate voters, "the solution is to prosecute vigorously." If the intimidation succeeds in suppressing voter turnout and tipping an election, prosecution is cold comfort. We don't get do-overs in elections. Ask Al Gore.
As the editorial notes, elections can be decided by a thin margin. If that's true, GOP workers only need to discourage or disqualify a few legitimate voters to affect the outcome.
The newspaper is concerned about "phantom voters," but the law may leave us with a phantom democracy.
1 comment:
This is pretty ironic, given that the GOP complains about "activist judges" on a regular basis. Even the P&A was "most troubled by the apparent partisanship" of the decision, and noted that
The law has never been enacted because attorney general opinions called it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruling — produced because of a state House resolution introduced by State Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton — trumps those decisions.
Doesn't Mr. Ward have anything better to do? Like, oh, maybe BALANCE THE BUDGET?
Post a Comment