Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
GOP Voter ID Laws Would Disenfranchise Millions Of Blacks and Hispanics
By: Guest ContributorApr. 20th, 2011more from Guest Contributor
After their historic defeat in 2008 was fueled by surging minority turnout, Republicans nationwide are backing Voter ID laws that would cost taxpayers millions of dollars and disenfranchise millions of African-American and Hispanic voters.
In the aftermath of 2008, Republicans in states across the country have used the boogeyman of voter fraud to pass Voter ID measures, but as the Brennan Center for Justice noted, voters are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud. The Bush Justice Department spent 5 years on a voter fraud investigation, and came up with 86 convictions out of 196 million votes cast. These new laws don’t come cheap. Depending on the size of the state, tens of millions tax payer dollars must be spent to implement them.
Rachel Maddow has focused on the attack on new voters and the state of Kansas, but just as much as young people, seniors, the poor, and the disabled, there are two particular groups that these laws are targeting. These laws are specifically going after Hispanic and African-American voters. The 2008 electorate was the most diverse in American history, and the GOP is out to put a stop to that.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center’s 2009 report:
In 2008, Latino eligible voters accounted for 9.5% of all eligible voters, up from 8.2% in 2004. Similarly, the share of eligible voters who were black increased from 11.6% in 2004 to 11.8% in 2008. The share of eligible voters who were Asian also increased, from 3.3% in 2004 to 3.4% in 2008. In contrast, the share of eligible voters who were white fell from 75.2% in 2004 to 73.4% in 2008.
With population growth and increased voter participation among blacks, Latinos and Asians, members of all three groups cast more votes in 2008 than in 2004. Two million more blacks and 2 million more Latinos reported voting in 2008 than said the same in 2004. Among Asians, 338,000 more votes were reported cast in 2008 than in 2004. The number of white voters in 2008 was also up, but only slightly-increasing from 99.6 million in 2004 to 100 million in 2008.
The demographics of the American electorate are changing:
In 2008 Obama crushed McCain with Hispanics, (67%-31%), and African-Americans, (95%-4%). Instead of trying to solve their problem by appealing to these voters based on the issues, Republicans have decided instead to make it as difficult as possible for them to vote.
2004 studies conducted at Rutgers and Ohio State universities found that voter ID laws decrease Hispanic turnout by 10%, and African-American turnout by 5.7%. Since the Hispanic and African-American turnout was a point higher in 2008 than in 2004, these numbers are underestimating the true level of voter disenfranchisement.
The 2010 Census found that the US Hispanic population grew by 56% over the last decade to 50.5 million, and these Americans heavily lean Democratic. According to a survey done by Latino Decisions, 92% of eligible Latinos registered to vote in 2008. Of those 92%, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 3 to 1 (61%-17%).
When Republicans decided to sell out to white male conservative voters and go hardline on immigration, they lost much of their support with Hispanics. Instead of trying to woo those voters back into their fold, spiteful Republicans have decided to disenfranchise them.
New voters and young people are two of the targets of these proposed voter ID laws, but just a big a threat to the GOP is the growth of America’s Hispanic population, and the energized force of African-Americans.
What this means in practical terms for 2012 can be found by looking at North Carolina. Obama carried the state by only 14,177 votes in 2008. The Obama campaign accomplished this with a large grassroots effort to register new voters and get those voters to vote. (28% of the early voters in the state were African-Americans).
These laws are being considered in 37 states across the country, and their passage would disenfranchise millions of minority voters.
The Republican response to this defeat has been to propose a change in the law so that voters would have to show an official ID before they could vote. The State Board of Elections found that this could cause a problem for 556,000 North Carolina residents who have no photo ID. African-Americans make up 20% of the state’s electorate, but 27% of them lack an ID. The disenfranchisement of a 1% of these people could swing the state Republican in 2012.
This is a big, big issue, and with the exception of Rachel Maddow, it is not being discussed. Republicans have decided that they can’t win a fair fight, so they are reshaping the electorate into one that they can carry.
If Republicans can’t beat the grassroots, then they’ll kill the grass.
Before we get to Election Day in 2012, we must first eliminate a plague of disenfranchisement that if unchecked will leave Lady Liberty frail, stricken, and disabled.
The right to vote is the bedrock of our collective American values . When disenfranchisement occurs it not only hurts the voter but dims the beacon of freedom that shines though out this land in the name of our great republic.
Image: KOK Edit: Katharine O’Moore-Klopf
The early voting numbers in North Carolina are trickling in, and they don't look good for Romney. Democr ...
Bill Maher has the guts to say what the mainstream media won't: Voter ID laws are nothing more than a ra ...
For decades Republicans have been using voter intimidation tactics to prevent minorities from showing up ...
In a conference call with reporters Obama campaign manager Jim Messina dropped some devastating numbers ...
Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster is blaming his party's defeat on hundreds of black voters who showed ...
Reynardine
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Such laws are about to be enacted in Florida, under (P)rick Scott. Early voting is also being sharply curtailed, despite the fact that with our current time period, the early voter lines are vast and slow-moving. I don’t doubt that many of the ill and elderly will be discouraged from voting at all, and in Florida, the retired are frequently from the Northeast and presumed to be “too” enlightened. I understand that there are going to be harsher restrictions on students, as well. We already require picture ID, but since an ID has been cheap and easy to get, I suppose it wasn’t burdensome enough.
Jtl
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Duh…that was the point along with the union busting …to disenfranchise the Democratic voters or future voters!
Maddow had a whole segment on this last night! NOW THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE BLOCK THEM>>>IT MUST BE DONE STATE BY STATE!
Jason Easley
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Maddow has focused on new voters and places like Kansas. What has not been talked about is how the disenfranchisement of minorities could swing the election in 2012.
Sarah Jones
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Along with what they are doing to break minorities down, such as in Michigan – disenfranchisement through gentrification, forcing moves (and people who move can’t prove new address as easily), general poverty and lack of morale, etc.
Sean Corwynn
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Why are so many people seemingly against curtailing illegal aliens and other ineligibles from voting?
If an individual needs a picture I.D. and they are Americans eligible to vote, there are multiple potential sources (e.g. our transit agency has them for free, the State offers an ID card in lieu of a driver’s license, local colleges, libraries…) As part of the (fill-in-the-blank)Party’s community outreach, there’s time to get this done well B4 Election Day to help “Get Out The Vote.”
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Would you let illegal aliens vote?
Sean Corwynn
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
No. They’re illegal, and by definition, ineligible to vote. If Congress were to change the law (a saparate conversation)they might be able to vote, although that would tend to invalidate the concept of sovereignty.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Maybe I misunderstood you. You post looked like you were advocating letting illegals vote. My bad
billMcstevens
Apr. 21st, 2011 at 12:18 am
The problem is this is not aimed at stopping illegal aliens. Voter fraud had barely ever been the case. This is aimed at scaring people into not voting and it is the opposite of what the civil rights movement fought for.
drsolo
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 11:39 am
There IS NO WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD. “The Bush Justice Department spent 5 years on a voter fraud investigation, and came up with 86 convictions out of 196 million votes cast.”
The problem in the US is getting LEGALS to vote. I think voting ranks a few points ahead of going to the dentist in “how much fun is it”.
The fact that it is ONLY a Republican issue amply points out that is has nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with voter suppression.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
there are a great many people who live in our big cities who do not have a photo ID simply because they have never driven. many of the people live in a city take buses or taxis wherever they go. I have quite a few friends on the Internet who are ladies who have never driven an do not have a photo ID of any kind.
I guess what this means is the Republicans are admitting defeat and resorting to cheating, or making up requirements that many people cannot fulfill.
and if the Republicans win, you can bet your right to dissent will be the first thing to go
drsolo
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Exactly right. And who lives in cities and how are they likely to vote? Democratic.
This is just a ginned up rerun of “poll taxes”. The Rs have been running these and other scams and disenfranchising routines for years and years.
irving peenwiddle
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I have to show I.D. proving who I am in order to cast my vote. This does not in any way “dis-enfranchise” me. The only potential voters it would dis-enfranchise would be those who could not prove citizenship. If these potential laws would target anyone it would be those with no RIGHT to vote.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
You have a drivers license. Many people, including seniors do not have that Id. It dis-enfranchise’s them. Its not all about you. You already have the ID
nk007
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
So you point is if some one is a citizen but can not prove it using a picture I.D. then that citizen should be denied the right to vote? Are you assuming that all U.S. Citizens have picture I.D.’s? I might accept your concern for ensuring that only citizens vote if the laws were calling for Birth Certificates, Naturalization Papers, or possession of U.S. Passports. I’ve been told that some immigrants can obtain SS numbers, and even driver’s license with a photo, are you assuming that requiring a pictured I.D. will discourage a non-citizen who is determined to vote from voting if the only requirement is a picture I.D.? By the way, why can’t Republicans produce credible evidence that non-citizens are voting in U.S. elections? I am sorry, Irving, but you not fooling not fooling any one. These I.D. laws have absolutely nothing to do with non-citizens voting because no one has produced any evidence that non-citizens are voting. They are strictly aimed at the poor, the elderly in the non-white communities who do not own cars, and who pay cash for everything and have no need to have a picture I.D. These of course are the people who tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Having a picture I.D. does not prove citizenship; but neither does not having a picture I.D. prove non-citizenship.
drsolo
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 11:46 am
DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS? There are millions of people who dont know where they were born so have no idea where to apply for a certificate.
Why not just use a social security number? I suppose that is not going to disenfranchise enough people because nearly everyone has one of those, they are memorized, they dont change like a persons “looks” change over time.
I can just see the voting line as those poll workers look at the person with blue hair and the person on the ID with black hair trying to decide if this person and that ID are the same.
Reynardine
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Exactly what are these “other ineligibles”? Poor people? The unemployed? those whose homes are in forclosure? Students in dorms? Soldiers in transit? Battered wives in shelters? Eighteen-year-olds newly on their own? The recently divorced, or homeless citizens, or those whose age or illness or disability makes it unfeasible for those people to spend hours in line? Those whose bosses keep them working overtime, maybe heedlessly, maybe deliberately? Those whose (extremely common) names just happen to match that of some felon they never heard of? Far more such people are kept from voting by voter suppression tactics than there are noncitizens or (in some states) felons who vote when they should not. I should know. I live in the state hereto known as Florida, but more properly called Chad.
Sean Corwynn
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Convicted felons and non-citizens are indeed the two specific catgegories of ‘ineligibles’ that come to mind. The other situations mentioned above are clear violations of the law, and should be fully prosecuted by the Department of Justice and/or the respective State’s Office of the Secretary State, which normally is assigned responsibilty for enforcing voters’ rights.
Reynardine
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
By the time such a prosecution can go forward, the election is likely to have already been lost to the violators, who will kill any further investigation. Such has been our experience in “Chad”.
Sean Corwynn
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
States such as California have a “We Assume You’re Eligible to Vote,
however we WILL verify your status, before the election results
are Certified.” This is done through Provisional Ballots, which
are individually hand-screened in a secure section, where registration
signatures are matched (or not) DMV records are compared, and other
additional steps are performed. If it was a paperwork/documentation
‘issue’ at the polling location, and is favorably resolved in the audit,
their vote is certified and included. Records are also updated to prevent a similar
concern next election.
If there are suspicious indications/apparent fraud, these are referred
to the District Attorney’s Office for investigation.
Maureen
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Felons are allowed to drive. How would a Drivers License prove I am not a felon?
nk007
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
How does a possession of a picture I.D. prevent “felons and non-citizens” from voting? Why are you equating citizenship with state issued I.D’s like a Driver’s license? If the Secretary of State determines that citizens were denied the right to vote/ or discouraged from voting because of I.D. requirements, what should be the remedy? Would you go for nullifying any elections that were based on denying the citizens their right to vote? Would you have favored throwing out the election of George W. Bush after substantial evidence was uncovered showing that many African American eligible CITIZENS were denied the right to vote? If I.D. must be required, then the laws should also require that if evidence is uncovered that shows that citizens were denied the right to vote then those elections must be declared null and void. Just as you want to make sure that no one is elected as a result of “ineligible” voters, I also want to make sure that no one is elected as a result of denying eligible voters the right to vote.
drsolo
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 11:49 am
In most states ex-felons are allowed to vote. Not letting ex-felons vote is yet another example of Republican disenfranchisement since ex-felons are more likely to be poor and this vote Democratic.
novenator
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Conservatives are trying to ram through anti-democratic, anti-voter laws not only against minorities, but against students and new voters, who typically reject far right corporatist dogma. This is nothing more than a blind power grab by the part of the past.
Venita Peyton
Apr. 21st, 2011 at 7:56 am
Think. How many students on a campus don’t have an ID? None. How many seniors opened a bank account to get their Social Security checks auto deposited? None. Fraud undetected does not mean it hasn’t occurred. Raleigh NC
drsolo
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 am
Campus IDs are specifically not going to be good enough.
Heather
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
A campus ID won’t get you served in a bar, either. At least not if the barkeep wants to stay out of jail and in business. Thus, college students have plenty of incentive to obtain valid ID. Non-drivers’ license ID’s are usually cheaper to obtain than drivers’ licenses are, and, of course, are quicker as they don’t require eye tests and driving tests. Sorry, but even in the post 9/11 age, ID’s are easy enough to get that this argument really does not hold water. Before the 2008 election, the necessary state gov’t people were even going around to nursing homes to make sure seniors DID have opportunity to obtain valid ID.
Anne
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
So, has anyone suggested a strategy to counter this attempt at vote rigging?
Reynardine
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
There are two strategies that need to be used together: a. Loud and noisy publicity; b. Litigation, seeking to enjoin implementation.
Reynardine
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
In many jurisdictions, the presumption is that the provisional voter’s ballot is ineligible, and if the voter does not come up with the required documentation in a very short time, the vote is thrown out. There are quite a few voters who cannot come up with duplicate documents at that time for the same reason they can’t produce the originals. If a voter can produce a voter’s registration and any good evidence (driver’s license, SS card, title documents, rent/student housing documents) indicating that s/he is the registered voter, the presumption must be that the vote is valid. As for felons, it is the state that provides lists of them to the registrar. If a voter is identified as purgeable, justice requires that s/he be given enough advance notice to rebut mistakes of identity or status. That doesn’t happen in “Chad”.
For citizens in their majority, voting is a right, not a privilege. It is not something a voter should be required to prove again and again. If someone votes unlawfully, that is a crime which can be prosecuted. Preventative infringement of rights against large groups of people in a democracy is not a way to deter crime. As a nation, we accepted, since our inception, that the price of freedom is leaving open the possibility that some will abuse it, not “preserving liberty” by destroying it.
drsolo
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 11:58 am
Well said.
Cassandra Vert
Apr. 20th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Please, please, frame this discussion the right way.
These restrictions are attempts to disenfranchise left-leaning cohorts under the guise of preventing voter fraud. This is is correct. In fact, this is no more about voter fraud than cutting education and busting unions has been about budgets.
BUT do not fall into the trap of busting out data showing low voter fraud. The more we say that, the more we convince the public that voter fraud is a nonissue.
WHY? Because sure as you’re born, there will be TONS of voter fraud on the right in the next election. When we complain, people will not believe there is any voter fraud because we convinced them now that voter fraud was a nonissue.
So be specific. While throughout history, voter fraud has been attempted and sometimes successfully, this isn’t the way they did it. Registration is where liberals increase their numbers legally. Ballot intimidation and post-election sleight of hand is where criminals increase their vote counts illegally.
sherriww
Apr. 21st, 2011 at 12:05 am
Why are Democrats,and voters in general,not raising a huge fuss all over the country,about this,and put together ways to stop Republicans from trying to set this up so they can win unfairly,against Pres.Obama,because they almost know for sure that they cannot win fairly,especially now that they have tipped their hand,for all to see,that they will put all poor and middle class down for good-if we let them!?
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 21st, 2011 at 12:14 am
there are a lot of protests going on, the news is getting out
Bob H
Apr. 21st, 2011 at 12:44 am
If only there was some other group out there to counter the repubs and fight these issues when elections came around. I think what we need in this country is a second political party. I know, it’s just crazy talk. But still.
drsolo
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
How about we draft Bill Clinton to run with this issue?
sherriww
Apr. 21st, 2011 at 1:08 am
I really think we just need to make the Democratic Party stand up and make everyone understand that they are the only party that will do one single thing for regular Americans who are not rich. I also think we need to educate our younger folks,under 50,as to what all this really means.I know I did not know years ago either,and now this mess the Republicans an Tea Party is making,endangers all our families,from the newborn baby to grandparents.I know that even my own children did not understand,for instance,that if medicaid were done away with,about 90% of all patients in nursing homes,no matter their status,would have to go home to live with their kids or grandkids,because once folks have only ss left,someone has to pay the diff between the ss check and what the nursing home charges per month,and that is what medicaid does in large part.Most do not know that,or that grandpa,who cant get out of bed,would be living with you!And,how would you manage or work?
Reynardine
Apr. 22nd, 2011 at 12:25 pm
By turning “proof” of eligibility into a negative pregnant, any person or group can be substantially disenfranchised. Never mind the pre-1965 stuff, like demanding a prospective voter respond “correctly” to a question about how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap. Just look at the negative pregnant “questions” of the “birthers”. When all else fails, they then say, “Prove the President didn’t swear an oath of allegience to a foreign sovereign”. Some people know I lost it to one of those and said something dirty. So far, such people are only specious, malicious little annoyances, but if they get to write our voter qualification laws, they’ll become instruments of tyranny. Cavete viperam!