HR-1, the Democrats’ massive bill, is being framed as a “voting rights bill,” even though the bill has nothing to do with voting rights, which we already have. So let’s think about what the Democrats mean when they and their media cohorts call their bill a “voting rights bill.”
Here are some exempts from the New York Times Morning Report of 3/2/21 {see saved email}
The court will hear a case from Arizona in which Democratic officials are challenging two state provisions. One requires the disposal of any ballots cast at the wrong precinct, and another forbids people — like church leaders or party organizers — to collect absentee ballots for submission. The Democrats argue that these provisions especially affect minority voters and thus violate the Voting Rights Act. (Adam Liptak, The Times’s Supreme Court reporter, explains in more depth here.)
The Arizona lawsuit is an example of a main way that advocates have tried to protect voting rights over the past few decades: through the courts. Along the way, they have won some victories, including in a recent case from North Carolina.
Republican candidates will probably benefit from any changes that disproportionately affect Black and Latino voters, like the elimination of automatic registration. “The restrictions we’re seeing are going to have a greater impact on the communities that have been most traditionally disadvantaged,” says the Times.
[My emphasis]
Notice the framing. We see this a lot. The pros and cons of automatic registration are, at best, secondary. What matters? Statistical racial group disparities. The implication is that if you oppose automatic registration, you are intent on discouraging--suppressing, in Leftist jargon--votes of black and latino people. But why are people who believe individuals should choose to register and then proactively follow some simple registration procedure be branded as anti-voting rights? How is that against voting rights for Blacks and Latinos? Are we to assume that these people are less capable than others of following simple registration and identification procedures because of their skin color or genetics? Or is it perhaps that not everyone wants to register and vote.
The point of pigeon-holing voter laws into a frame of racial discrimination, in fact, is to suppress debate on the merits of automatic registration and other proposals. That debate suppression starts with a totally unproven correlation--that statistical disparities necessarily “prove” some devious motive, such as racial discrimination.
Look at any voting law in any state, and you will find the Left framing the issue, at least in large part, in this way. There’s more. Consider this insidious paragraph:
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has generally ruled against voting-rights advocates, and most court observers expect the justices to allow Arizona’s restrictions to stand.
Notice the implication. If you oppose any of these voter laws, you are an advocate of voting rights. If you support any of these voter ID laws, you are against the right to vote. In other words, only the Left is for voting rights. Note that in all of these voter law cases, the laws are either not considered on the merits, or the merits are at best minimally worthy of discussion. Voter ID laws are only, or primarily, considered based on how it "affects" Black and Latino voters as per statistics, as if these people can act only on random forces rather than their own volition and initiative.
Now, automatic registration, what to do about ballots cast at the wrong precincts, and people collecting absentee ballots for submission (known as vote harvesting) are legitimate issues for debate. But random effects on groups tells you nothing about the merits of the law. Statistics are not evidence for or against. Statistics can only point you to an area that may need investigation. Evidence, to be evidence, applies only to real life; that is, real people. If a law is objective and fair on its merits, how the statistical chips fall is irrelevant. If there is hard evidence that a law is discriminatory—that is, is targeted only at some ethic group by making it harder for them than others—that discrimination should be eliminated. But the so-called “voting rights advocates” never do that, at least not that I can see according to press accounts. That’s why they trot out statistics: They have no actual evidence.
Now let’s consider another piece from the Leftist press. In The GOP playbook for New Jersey: Attack voting rights, the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial board [SLEB] opines:
Jack Ciattarelli, the clubhouse favorite for the GOP [2021 gubernatorial] nomination, . . . proposes “reforms” on his campaign website that actually Stop the Turnout, just like the red states do it: He supports a photo ID requirement at the polls, including a state ID for those who don’t drive, plus an ID-certification requirement for mail-in voters; and he wants to purge voters from the election rolls if they haven’t voted in four consecutive years, and mandate that they contact a county clerk if they want to restore their most cherished civil right.
Also, the ACLU found that voter ID laws are enforced in 34 states with Republican Legislatures for a reason: It is inherently discriminatory. Nearly 25 percent of Blacks of voting age don’t have a government-issued ID, compared with just 8 percent of white voters. Does that work? The Government Accountability Office says that photo ID laws reduce turnout by as much as 3 percent.
So unless your aim is to depress turnout, voter IDs serves no purpose. [sic]
My emphasis.
Of course voter ID laws are "inherently discriminatory." Any rule discriminates against those who don’t follow it. The very necessity of filling out and delivering a mail-in ballot, or going to a polling place and waiting in line for your turn to enter the voting booth, could be said to depress turnout. Are those requirements discriminatory? Of course. Speed limits discriminate against drivers with a heavy foot. But are these rules racially discriminatory? Where's the evidence? The Star-Ledger provides none, beyond an un-attributed ACLU assertion, and statistical disparities, which prove nothing. What is inherently racist in the requirement for a government-issued ID? What's to stop any one of the 25% of blacks (if you can believe those stats)--or the 8% of whites, for that matter--from getting an ID provided by the government? A NJ Star-Ledger letter writer put it well,
The editorial stated, that according to the ACLU, 34 other states with GOP-majority legislatures enforce voter ID laws, and the reason is that they are “inherently discriminatory.”
Does this mean that these states are also discriminating when they require people to produce an ID to get a driver’s license, or to show proof of age when buying alcohol or cigarettes? You must show ID to get on an airplane and even for some doctor’s visits. Does that mean that the government, airlines and doctors are being discriminatory?
The editorial states that 25% of Black people of voting age (compared with 8 percent of white people) do not have a government-issued ID. Seemingly, this means that 25% of Black Americans cannot legally buy cigarettes or alcohol, get on an airplane or drive a car. This is difficult to believe. (sic)
The Star-Ledger, which opposes every one of Ciattarelli proposals, does at least attempt to analyze each of Ciattarelli's proposed requirements. But it doesn’t really address any demerits of the proposals. The SLEB simply concludes that each requirement "depresses turnout." But, again, any rule that requires any effort can be said to depress turnout. Will some people not want to bother registering to vote because they’ve decided that the minimal effort to get the required ID is not worth their effort? Possibly. But so what? If that counts as "depressing turnout," then so be it. If a person really wanted to vote, he’d make the effort to comply with the rules (assuming the application of the law is not objectively determined to be rigged in some way against them).
But then, registering one’s vehicle and complying with state-mandated safety/environmental vehicle inspections could be said to depress vehicle ownership. But it doesn’t, does it? Maybe some people value vehicle ownership more than voting. Surely, many people simply don't want to bother exerting any effort to vote, or have a conscientious objection to voting. If rules depress someone’s action, as any rule necessarily does, does this mean we should have no rules whatsoever? Who would trust an election result then?
The government's job is not to depress or maximize voter turnout. It's job is to ensure secure, safe, trustworthy elections through objectively fair rules. Some form of procedure is vital, and they should be as simple, easily understandable, easily accessible, and as demonstrably necessary as possible within the principles of ensuring secure, safe, trustworthy elections. At a glance, I'm uncomfortable with Ciattarelli's requirement to re-register after only four years. That seems too short. But even the Star-Ledger acknowledges that "the state clearly must keep records current by cancelling registrations of people who died, moved on, or are in prison." How do you do that without systematically imposing on voters to periodically re register? So I guess the Star-Ledger is OK with depressing voter turnout, as long as it is on its terms.
But no, none of these voter ID proposals are inherently discriminatory based on race, and to my knowledge no one has produced a shred of evidence to back up that assertion, or the assertion that objective voter ID laws in any way violate voting rights. That’s why people who see racial discrimination in every voter ID law they don’t like fall back on the last refuge of every damned liar, statistics.
Once again, the issue is disingenuously framed: “Voting rights” apply only to the Left’s agenda.
My view is that no intelligent discussion about voter laws can take place based on collectivist or racist considerations. The object of election laws should not be to maximize voter turnout. It should be to maximize ease of registering within the context of ensuring the maximum integrity of the election process. The rest is personal responsibility of each of us as individuals. Every individual has her own mind and free will. The only question is whether the law or procedure is fair, objective, equally enforced, and as equally accessible to all as possible. If it can be objectively shown that some voters face unreasonable hurdles to registering or voting, fix it. But stop race-baiting voter rights.
Related Reading:
The Vote: Get Off Your Butt and Register—But Keep the Nanny State Out of It
Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right
16 Year Old Voters? How About 21?
Memo to John D. Atlas: How About Let's Not Suppress Anybody's Vote, or Voice
Freedom Is Not About the Right to Vote, So I’m Voting Anti-Democrat Across the Board
HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy
No comments:
Post a Comment