Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HeiressofBickworth

HeiressofBickworth's Journal
HeiressofBickworth's Journal
October 14, 2014

No, it's not only democratic voters

however, it's known that the higher the voter turn-out, the more likely the Democrats will win. So, in order to keep the turn-out as low as possible, the repubs are willing to sacrifice their own. And, I suspect, a bit of repub snobbery - if you cant afford to register or get to the polling place, they don't want your vote anyway. And as far as "cant possibly be so may people", the exercise of democracy requires that voting be accessible to all citizens.

Yes, there would be pro-bono attorneys, but the bottom line is the same. Every document necessary for voter registration costs money, some more than others. When the choice is $50 worth of groceries for the kids or $50 for a certified birth certificate, it is more likely that the groceries will be top priority. That's why the 24th amendment to the constitution banned the poll tax, and any document that requires a fee for purpose of registration is de facto a poll tax.

Not everyone has a SS#. The requirement for a SS# changed over time and it was not required for children to obtain one (for tax identification purposes on parent's returns) until 1986. And the real killer was the Real ID Act of 2005 which "Establishes State driver’s license and identification security standards which requires States to confirm with Social Security a SSN for issuance of a drivers license or identity card". (P.L. 109-13) Prior to 2005, a drivers license or identity card was sufficient ID for any purpose, including voter registration.

These voter ID laws contain other voter-suppression tricks besides specific ID documentation. For example, by reducing Sunday early voting, it hampers inner-city people who have, for years, gone to their local church on Sunday and the church taking them by bus to their polling place. This was particularly important for people who work all week and not able to take time off for voting, for those without cars for transportation to the polling place and for the elderly and/or handicapped people who have mobility difficulties.

Another trick used is the relocation of the polling place without adequate notification. When it is difficult enough to get to a local polling station, the problems are prohibitive in locating and getting to a new station. I saw a news item on MSNBC a couple of months back where they interviewed a woman (it was Detroit, if I recall correctly) who said that her polling place was previously just a couple of blocks from her home, but since its been relocated it takes two bus transfers just to get to the new place. The time involved and the bus cost is a sure deterrent to voting.

Some of the voter suppression laws have required re-registration, even when people have been voting for decades. This is the most hard-hit demographic as they are the least likely to have any of the documentation required.

Fortunately (for me anyway), I live in Washington State. We have on-line registration; when my granddaughter turned 18 I helped her register to vote on-line. We have mail-in ballots. Those of use who have been registered to vote since dirt was young have not been required to re-register or provide any additional ID documents.

In my opinion, the answer to the voter suppression laws is to expand registration availability, require fee-less documentation and vote by mail, with no postage required. Naw -- that would be too simple.

October 5, 2014

While you may be right about gains in the States

I think that more pressing is keeping the Senate out of the hands of the Republicans. If they control both the House and the Senate, I believe we would see more and more effort by Repubs to cancel/repeal/re-write any national gains that have been made since Obama took office. It will be a two-year battle between the President's veto and a Senate over-ride of the veto. For example, Ted Kruz has said a priority would be to repeal every word of Obamacare. Impeachment is a foregone conclusion if they have both houses, regardless of the fact that there are no impeachable charges, just their general wish to change the outcome of the last two elections.

So, no, there is no consolation in winning governorships.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Current location: Snohomish County, WA
Member since: Wed May 18, 2011, 02:12 AM
Number of posts: 2,682

About HeiressofBickworth

Retired corporate paralegal.
Latest Discussions»HeiressofBickworth's Journal