Voter Suppression in 2014

NJDC Intern — November 3, 2014 – 11:42 am | 2014 Election | Civil Liberties | Democrats | Republicans Comments (0) Add a comment

Redistricting, or redrawing the lines for congressional and legislative districts, to meet the needs of changing populations, has long been a bone of contention between the political parties.  The U.S. Constitution mandates population levels for Congressional districts and calls for them to be redrawn every 10 years based on the U.S. Census.  Most state legislatures follow the same procedures.  That said, in recent years one political party, the Republicans, has concentrated on winning down ballot races in the states to be in a position to influence the process.  By the time of the mid-term election of 2010, with no presidential race and hence less voter turn-out, the Republicans had gerrymandered, or redrawn legislative districts, in enough cases to control a majority of the state legislatures and gain control of the House of Representatives.  Now the GOP wants to gain control of the Senate, a harder proposition because States cannot be redrawn.  So they are turning to another tactic, voter suppression.

Voter suppression has a long history back to the Jim Crow era. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to stop suppression of votes of minorities, especially African Americans. The Supreme Court ruling in 2013, Shelby County vs. Holder, opened the door for southern states to suppress the votes based on a false fear of voter fraud.

But in the 2012 election, voter suppression was harder because President Obama was on the ballot. Presidential elections attract more voters. Not only did Obama win, but Democratic House candidates won more votes than Republican candidates.  But because Republicans had won big in 2010, (the year of the census) and because they had been working for years to gain control of the down-ballot positions that have a role in redistricting, they were able to redraw congressional districts to favor Republican candidates and retain control of the House.

Both parties have abused the practice of gerrymandering throughout American history. But in Senate elections, which are statewide, there are no districts to draw. Senators are elected to six year terms, and each state has two, so approximately one third of Senators are up for reelection each election cycle. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures, but in modern times they are elected by the people of the state. This statewide voting makes gerrymandering impossible, and so Democrats won an even bigger Senate majority than they had already in 2012.

As we look toward the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans are looking for creative new ways to practice voter suppression. This issue has become widespread across the country after the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County V. Holder in June of 2013 that struck down some of the protections in the Voting Rights Act. And Republicans, in states where they control the legislatures and governorships, have jumped in to take advantage of this.

The new law in Texas is a disturbing example of voter suppression. The law now requires photo ID to vote. While this may seem like no big deal, this new rule can have very real consequences. For example, there was a ninety-three year old veteran who wasn’t allowed to vote even though he was a registered voter, because his driver’s license was expired as he didn’t drive anymore. In Texas, ID can be expired, but not for more than 60 days. He had other picture IDs, but Texas law didn’t allow any of them. The identification they recognize can be a Texas-issued driver’s license, a federally-issued veteran’s ID card, or a gun registration card, among other forms. The election judges told him to go to the Department of Public Safety, and so he wasn’t able to vote in that election.

In her Supreme Court dissenting opinion after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, “The notion that because the Voting Rights Act has been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn’t make any sense to me.” Justice Ginsburg went on to say voter fraud was not a real problem in Texas, and the real motive of stricter voting requirements was to make it harder for lower income and minority voters. Indeed, it’s been estimated that up to 600,000 people, mostly minorities, may not be able to vote because of Texas law, which is among the strictest in the nation.

Voter suppression is also especially bad in North Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed several policies that are aimed at voter suppression in the state. Among these are a ban on same-day registration and the counting of out-of-precinct ballots. North Carolina has also reduced the early voting period from 17 days to 10, banned extended hours at polling places even in the case of long lines, eliminated preregistration for 16 and 17 year olds and eliminated provisional voting if someone goes to the wrong precinct.

This year, it looks like voter suppression is a greater threat than voter fraud. Democrats must fight to make sure that the voter protections we worked for in the VRA are still enforced to make sure that all citizens can exercise their right to vote.

 

 

 

 

Comments

There are no comments for this entry