The New York Times, echoing the views of most liberals, says the Supreme Court is dismantling democracy piece by piece:
The latest blow came Thursday, when all six conservative justices voted to uphold two Arizona voting laws despite lower federal courts finding clear evidence that the laws make voting harder for voters of color — whether Black, Latino or Native American. One law requires election officials to throw out ballots that were cast in the wrong precinct; the other bars most people and groups from collecting voters’ absentee ballots and dropping them off at polling places.
This is starting to piss me off. Maybe the Supreme Court is bound and determined to take apart our voting laws no matter what, but the truth is that yesterday's ruling can be laid directly at the feet of liberals. This was just a stupid case to bring. You can't make a serious argument that there's anything really wrong with either a ban on ballot harvesting or with requiring voters to cast ballots in the right precinct.
More generally, this kind of stuff, along with voter ID laws, is popular with the public, and this has nothing to do with the alleged existence of voter fraud. Even if there's no fraud, the average Joe and Jane think ID laws make sense and are untroubled by common sense rules like being required to vote in the right precinct. Liberals will get nowhere by going after this stuff.
What's more, none of it matters. The actual effect of these rules on Black and Hispanic voter turnout turns out to be minuscule. It is a waste of time—maybe worse than just a waste of time—to yell and scream about these kinds of laws.
What really is bad are provisions of these laws that allow Republican legislatures to replace election officials they deem insufficiently loyal to the Republican cause. If you talk to moderate voters, they'll be shocked if you tell them about this. They'll agree that these provisions are outrageous.
So why do we spend so much time protesting the stuff that doesn't matter (and is popular) and so little time protesting the stuff that does matter (and is unpopular)? It is a vast mystery. And like I said, it's really starting to piss me off. If democracy is truly at stake here, wouldn't it make sense to be at least a little smart about trying to save it?
[quote]You can't make a serious argument that there's anything really wrong with either ballot harvesting or with requiring voters to cast ballots in the right precinct.[/quote]
I imagine you meant to wrote something like "...banning ballot harvesting..."?
There is nothing wrong with ballot harvesting. Nobody would object if I gave you a ride to your local voting place so you could vote in person. I can't see the objection to giving your ballot a ride to the local collection point so you can vote absentee.
You don't see any potential shenanigans from some private party collecting, say, 1,000 ballots to *supposedly* deliver to the right place?
This has happened where now?
It was a GQP House candidate in North Carolina.
https://www.gq.com/story/north-carolina-ninth-district-fraud
Im a lifelong resident of NC and this story is my only knowledge of ballot harvesting. So I was quite surprised when Dems spoke in favor of this practice.
I can certainly see why it would be an offence to "harvest" ballots and then fail to deliver them to the proper place. Remember that the ballot envelopes have names on them, which are checked off the voters' list. That makes it easy to figure out if ballots have gone missing, which would make it easy to track down and prosecute anyone who committed shenanigans with ballots.
There may be nothing wrong with ballot harvesting, but it’s hardy clear that the constitution of the United States requires states to maintain such policies. Not everything that is bad for the political fortunes of the Democratic Party is forbidden by the constitution.
This.
That misses the point. The Voting Rights Act prohibits states from passing laws which have a discriminatory impact. Banning ballot harvesting has such an impact.
Because even progressives must have their bread and circuses.
You can't make a serious argument that there's anything really wrong with... requiring voters to cast ballots in the right precinct.
Sure. Unless you continually redraw precinct lines in precincts with predominantly thosepeople to the extent that they're never quite sure, from one year to the next, where they should vote. I live in a nice white Republican district. My precinct lines have never been redrawn.
Exactly! New Mexico, many years ago, came up with a solution, which not all counties have implemented, but they could. Voting is done at "Vote Centers", and you can cast your valid, counted ballot in ANY VOTE CENTER IN YOUR COUNTY.
The County Clerk (and SoS) being Democrats, have situated these places at convenient locations throughout Bernalillo County, making sure that they are on routes for public transit, because we don't all drive cars. You identify yourself (state your name; they ask a few details for confirmation) and your personalized paper ballot is generated and printed on the spot. When you finish, you place it in the tabulator, watch the number increment to see that it was counted, get your "I Voted!" sticker and go.
The old preinct-based voting system is SO 18th century.
Kind of like the caucus system, but Bernie & the Boyz seem to be just fine with that. & even want more of it!
... Maybe if fauxgressives weren't wired exactly the same as reichwingers, they wouldn't be hellbent on only looking at voting thru the prism of which side does a policy advantage.
ah yes, the horseshoe theory. tHey’RE alL SaME, amirite?
Exhibit a, your honor.
thank you...
You wouldn't think it would be a problem, until you hear the stories. Bizarrely shaped districts requiring people to drive across town to vote, passing by other voting locations. Combine that with the usual shenanigans, e.g. mailers showing the wrong polling location, then this really is a voter suppression problem.
Yes, but here in California, we get at least two or three pieces of mail each election cycle -- sample ballots, mail-in ballots, voter information pamphlets -- that have the location where we are supposed to vote identified. For years, the location was at different houses in our neighborhood. It typically didn't stay the same from cycle to cycle, but we had the information in our hands to figure it out. Now, it's always at a church at the entrance to our neighborhood.
I'm assuming it's the same in other states. If not, let me know. But if I'm correct, I don't think "I didn't know where to vote is a legitimate excuse."
Sadly in states and counties controlled by the GOP they do make game of moving around where folks vote every election and try to make it as far away from the "wrong voters" as possible, ever since the Supremes did away with pre-clearance. This happens a lot in Texas and Ohio.
Florida is controlled by the GOP and that’s certainly not the case here. In my 20 years of living in FL the polling spots in my area have not changed that I’m aware of.
That’s how it is here in FL. We get multiple mailings listing our polling place. (And it’s alway the same. Which I understand may not be the case in other states.) not knowing where you go to bite is not a valid excuse.
I had this same thought reading E.J. Dionne's column today decrying the Court's decision as a step towards the end of democracy. This constant crying wolf and expressing maximum outrage over this kind of stuff makes it difficult to point out the truly dangerous stuff, such as the replacement of election officials and the laws making it easier for state legislatures to intervene on slates of electors. It's like car alarms; when they go off all the time, you just ignore them assuming nothing is really wrong.
Constantly crying wolf and expressing maximum outrage over grievances both real and imagined is what has given the Republicans control over the national government for nearly all of the last 40 years.
Remember that if you are a person who follows politics closely, almost none of the messaging is intended for you.
Constantly crying wolf and expressing maximum outrage is also a major contributor to Republicans' total inability to govern over the last two decades. If your goal is to attain power, and then do something productive with it, then it's a bad idea.
I remember Biden telling a group of black people that Mitt Romney would put them back in chains. No crying wolf or hyperbole there.
Right on the money. Look at the stupid reax to Georgia's new voting laws.
Yes, for example when Democrats declare Trump really was and is a danger to democracy, there needs to be some moral authority behind the claims. Crying wolf over far lesser matters undermines this.
Old man yells at clouds, film at 11.
If you want a political coalition that can act cohesively, I would like to introduce you to the GQP. Will Rogers said something about this a long time ago that just as true now as it was then, I'm sure Kevin remembers the line.
"If democracy is truly at stake here, wouldn't it make sense to be at least a little smart about trying to save it?"
Tragedy of the Commons.
For the INDIVIDUAL voter, almost all of the value of their political activity is in the performative aspects, not in the actual outcomes...
https://meaningness.com/virtue-court
Banning ballot 'harvesting' and discarding ballots for people who vote in the wrong precinct might not be a big deal everywhere, but it is in Arizona where there is a fairly large number of Native American (more than 5%). People on reservations have a few problems with voting: where they vote is often hours from where they live (which is why ballot collection is so important for them); most households don't have street addresses which makes voting by mail difficult; rules for where they vote is different for different counties (on the same reservation) and, since there are few street addresses, officials sometimes have to guess at where they're supposed to vote, which is why they often vote at the wrong precinct.
This matters to Native Americans.
Exactly. The vast majority do not have personal mailboxes (addresses).
Apparently Kevin does not give a flying fuck about winning statewide elections in Arizona where it's Maricopa+Indians to get Dem wins.
For all the pro-post office rhetoric of Democrats, one would think someone would call for getting mailboxes and carriers out all over Indian country to ensure they can vote.
Ballot harvesting is not a good solution to that, given the dangers.
Since he left Mother Jones, has Kevin been watching FOX all day?
Back when I lived in Ohio, the voting locations were the same schools & church basements every year. When I moved to Los Angeles, my precinct's voting location changed every election. Sometimes in a public building, sometimes in someone's garage on a street with no available parking (which is every street in West LA).
If a person is eligible to vote, the vote should be counted no matter where it is cast.
I decry the demise of the volunteer neighborhood voting places. It somehow felt more civic-minded-community. And since those have vanished the location has jumped around. The location however was always printed on the voting materials you would receive well before the election.
As a loyal NorCal resident I’d be predisposed to believe LA was fubar but I doubt it was any different down there with regard to informing as to polling place.
In any large group there will likely be a small to not so small number of people who get things like that confused. If you are running for office and it appears that it will be a close race small changes in where people vote or the layout of a ballot might end up making a significant difference. If one party/candidate has the ability to make a small change that will work out in their favor it could swing an election and change history. I know a lot of people sneered at the old Jewish people who were confused by the Florida ballot and voted for Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore, but if they had voted as intended lots of our recent history might be very different.
If you can do something to avoid that happening I would think that would be a good thing. If one party is working hard to make that happen, I think those who sneer at voters who make such mistakes are making a mistake of their own.
"In any large group there will likely be a small to not so small number of people who get things like that confused."
The Republican response is F those people and their confusion.
Democrats want to make voting simple, easy & convenient.
Republicans want to make complex & difficult.
Is ranked choice voting “simple?”
“ Democrats want to make voting simple, easy & convenient”
Like they did in New York?
Yes, the location may have changed, but every cycle you also received multiple mailings that told you where your location was.
These laws are enacted to game the system. Photo id - close/limit hours hours in the "right" areas for issuing agencies. CCW as an id - just fine, state university photo id - NSM.
Who needs drop boxes and extended hours - unless you work two or three jobs and election day is just another workday.
Wrong precinct? Hard to understand if you've lived in the same place for years and precinct boundaries/voting locations are never changed.
The reservation thing is real - recall that South Dakota passed a law requiring street addresses. Sounds reasonable except reservations often don't have those.
Would Keven have seen no problem with grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and jelly bean jars back in the day?
Since leaving MoJo, KD has become as the bubble in a bar of soap.
The actual effect of these rules on Black and Hispanic voter turnout turns out to be minuscule.
Depends on how you look at it. The Ninth Circuit thought the impact was substantial (“minority voters in Arizona cast [out-of-precinct] ballots at twice the rate of white voters”). The Supreme Court ruled it was insignificant (1.0% of minority votes vs. 0.5% of white votes). Those calculations leaves out the actual impact on the election. In a razor-thin election like Arizona's in 2020 (a 10K-vote difference), even a small change (esp. when combined with other restrictions) could have flipped the state to Trump.
It is a waste of time—maybe worse than just a waste of time—to yell and scream about these kinds of laws.
I don't know about that. If the yelling and screaming can motivate voters to turn out in greater numbers next time, it may well be worth it.
Politics is not the same as political analysis. Joe Biden was crowing about today's jobs numbers, a validation of his economic plan. Was that entirely fair? Maybe not. But for him not to brag about it would have been political malpractice.
Speaking purely from a mathematical standpoint, the rate of wrong precinct could be twice of a different group’s and still be epsilon relative to that group’s overall vote count.
Right.
I have no idea what that means.
But math: based on a quick-and-dirty look at the AZ numbers for 2020, and the effects stated in the court decision, had the new law been in effect:
-Tossed white votes: a net loss for Trump of about 800 votes
-Tossed minority votes: a net loss for Biden of about 1800 votes
Not enough to swing the state alone, but advantage Republicans ... which is exactly why they passed the law in the first place.
I really hope Sandra Day O'Connor lives long enough to have her Arizona ballot spoiled because of these shenanigans.
It means than 500 whites did something and 1000 latinos did it as well... but the group of all whites was 5000 and the group of all latinos was four thousand.... that's one in four latinos and one in ten of whites but latinos only did it twice as many times!
Don’t really disagree with you, but it’s not as if the Supreme Court is forbidding states from implementing policies that make it easier to vote. Here they’re simply saying such policies aren’t required by the constitution. I would’ve preferred a different outcome on this decision because I’m a rabidly partisan supporter of the Democratic Party, but it’s not clear to me my preferences in terms of outcome are mandated by the constitution.
The court ruling that something is 'insignificant' when it (or the collection of disparate 'insignificant' factors) would have changed the outcome is what shows how corrupt the court has become.
I still think one of the smartest things liberals could do would be to push for a national ID card, which is customarily issued to all adult citizens in several other countries. Doing this would be a way to triangulate the right-wing push for requiring a photo ID to vote and the left-wing push for fewer barriers to voter registration, with a result that all eligible citizens would be automatically registered to vote. Hell, the idea could also be sold as a way to battle illegal immigration.
Yes, there would bound to be a good deal of resistance from both the left and the right to such an idea, but I think Democrats in general need to embrace the legitimacy of some right-wing concerns and then answer them with policy proposals which both further the liberal interest in more equitable government representation while assuaging at least some of the other side's interests.
My goodness. A simple, yet effective post. Why didn't the Democrats do that in March?? That is right, the black activists were trying to force their vote and repress other voters. Biden also stripped out a bunch of "black stuff" from the infrastructure bill they were trying to push through(and no, it won't be on the recon bill either).
I almost thought I knew what you were talking about for a second there, but nope.
Any chance you could share who and what these "black activists" are and were doing? And what "black stuff" are you referring to?
Lets note, most of these laws have nothing to do with "black or hispanic" voters in general, but Republicans controlling their voters(which are not all white) in the primaries. The Florida law absolutely was that intent, in generals, it may hurt the Republicans a tad.
Democrats obsession with "minorities" simply must end. The party comes off looking like a bunch of morons. If it takes the 2024 convention looking like 1968 with black activists(mostly) leaving the party, so be it. They are toxic. Anybody that follows 3 lesbian negresses who follow that Trotskyist junk into "Black Lives Matters" have major mental issues.
Three Lesbian Nigresses would be a killer AEW tagteam.
We get it.
You're a shitbag.
Carry on, shitbag.
Voting rights are rights of the individual. It does not matter in the least if any of those measures influence the totals. Keeping someone from voting deprives that person of a basic right--which is unacceptable. Obviously some rules must be established and followed when exercising the right. But any rules that end up selectively disenfranchising a subgroup violate individual rights and are not acceptable, regardless of intent (and if there is intent to disenfranchise even a rule that does not succeed in this is unacceptable).
And how does Kevin know what average Jane and Joe think about this? I have no knowledge about this but trust me on this: If average J. ends up being refused at the "wrong" location they'll change their opinion on the spot and loudly too.
Ballot harvesting: Please define: Is taking a ballot for a neighbor who is a single Mom with 3 kids and 2 jobs ballot harvesting? Or for your wife and adult children? In order for ballot harvesting to be a useful tool for Jan-sixers the "harvest" must be at lest several hundred ballots. Putting a limit on the number of ballots one person may bring in would solve the "voter fraud" problem--if it even existed in the first place. One could even ask for a signature from voters who do not vote in person for added security.
Generally speaking though: "What is wrong with requiring voting at the right precinct?" is the wrong question. The right question is: Is there any danger of voter fraud if ballots are accepted at the "wrong" location? If you ask the right question there is no debate : the Supreme Court's decision is wrong.
To be fair I think he means the voter ID thing, which a strong majority of black and latino voters support.
Kimberly Guilfoyle bragged to Trump donors she dressed up as a 'sexy cheerleader' for 'naughty boy' Don Jr,
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/02/kimberly-guilfoyle-told-donors-she-dressed-up-as-sexy-cheerleader-for-trump-jr-new-book-reports/
Hot tub streams are their own category on twitch
& more cocaine was involved than the 1995 Dallas Cowboys season.
A few weeks ago Trump made some remark to the effect that it should be Don, jr who goes to prison rather than Ivanka because 'he can take it',
and I thought, wow guy, that's the nicest thing your dad ever said about you.
Ever since these new laws started passing this year and the liberal outcry has grown, I started taking a look at the new laws. I've looked at a few, not all of them, and I agree with you, Kevin. What I've seen is nowhere near the catastrophe they are presented to be.
And anybody who doesn't support the need for ID to vote is kind of missing the point. That said, I'd only support voter ID if it is a national ID provided to every eligible citizen at no cost.
If Democrats began to support a national ID Republicans would turn on a dime and stage massive freak outs and 'resistance movements'.
Because of the tracking chips embedded in them, and it's like the government wants to know where you live.
And the tracking chips all have the number 666 in them.
And only that number. So they steal your identity and then you're just like everyone else and they give you a card to prove it. The New World Order.
Wait a second.
Isn't part of the argument, that I believe I've read from Kevin, that these types of Voter ID laws don't matter/increase turnout is because Democrats DO complain about them, thereby drawing attention to the fact that voting is being made more difficult, thereby giving the people who are being targeted notice/warning that they need to be more vigilant in getting out there vote?
Let's be real clear here. No one who is going to bitch and moan about Democrats wanting illegals to vote because Democrats don't care about illegal voting is going to vote for the Democrats anyway. And if there is a Democratic voter who can objectively observe reality, are they really going totaken offense, and say the Democrats are yelling about the sky falling and then what, stay home or vote for the Space Jesus/Zombie Washington ticket, or more effectively, vote for the fascist running under the (R) ticket?
Yes, it is democratic negligence to allow Republicans to pass legislation that allows Republicans to change election results if the results are not favorable to Republicans. And at this point, it does seem like the Democratic Party is being democratically negligent in not screaming this out loud at every opportunity. BUT. If the Democrats aren't going to fight for "just" 1% of voters, or more, who are being targeted, then why would those people being targeted continue voting for the Democrats?
Fight for every god damn vote. Each one matters.
What you call democratic negligence I call not having sufficient numbers in state legislatures. In other words, not winning enough elections.
When I lived in Jackson, Mississippi, the republican dominated election board had a habit of changing black precinct voting location frequently. The law allowed them to delay announcing the changes until the day of the election. So, people, including me, would go to vote at their previous spot, but it would suddenly have changed. And, they would have no way to look up your correct location at the voting site. Happened to me personally. Was a real pain and I'm sure prevented a lot of votes being cast.
Come election day in Australia, I can vote wherever is convenient in the entire country. The howls of protest would be deafening if some politician tried to tell Australians they could only vote in their electorate, let alone their "precinct", whatever that is.
The last election was decided by a few hundred thousand votes. To read someone dismissing changes 'because they'll only affect a few hundred thousand votes' defies comprehension.
Quite. The idea that there's something dodgy about voting outside of your precinct is quite bizarre. Plus of course we vote on a Saturday in Australia - all part of making things as easy as possible .
Play the game. If conservatives want to play these voting restriction games, beat them at the game in order to make this a problem of SCOTUS' own making.
Restrict absentee/mail-in ballots to counties with a minimum density that aligns to the more urban, larger counties. Lower density counties may only use in-person ballots, no exceptions.
Then, follow the conservative playbook and severely slash early-voting and voting hours, and cut off anyone in line past the time of voting. Cap the number of voting precincts and county election administration spending based on per-capita.
One great thing about suppressing the vote in rural areas is that policies unpopular with conservatives can now be passed easily in ballot measures.
The case we just lost is the last line of defense on the last battle, the last defense of the old Voting Rights Act. It is now, for all intents and purposes, dead.
You're complaining that we're not active enough on the new battle lines, and you're not wrong, but don't berate the last guard of the last battle as they die under the final onslaught.
I’ve always been registered to vote even though I’ve lived in 10 different states over the years. I know… white privilege.
I’ve had an ID / drivers license since I was 16. 40 years now. I know… white privilege.
Why are we infantilizing black folks? Are they really this fragile? Are they really this stupid?
Why are you racist?
Most people haven't lived in the same place ten years.
Most IDs don't last ten years.
Most people have to go out and work, which keeps them from their appropriate precinct.
And these things are even more true of black, latinx, and Native American people, who tend to have to commute even further.
How is it infantilizing to notice that you have privilege to not have your damn ID challenged?
Never underestimate the ability of progressives to shoot themselves in the head.
SCOTUS being Republican controlled ......................
It's because the Millennials hate "process" arguments. They think that both parties are equally corrupt. It's a repeat of us in the 60's when we said "Don't trust anybody over 29!" But they passionately care that their brown and sexually ambiguous friends be included at the table. And that is a major change in America, where the only times that tawny people had access was immediately after a war in which they participated and showed their bravery and skill to the Redneck yahoos.
So to attract them, Democrats twist themselves into pretzels trying to make everything a racial issue.
Pretzels?
Your ignorance that these laws specifically block Native American and latinx communities from voting doesn't mean they don't specifically target these communities.
The idea is simple: increase the complexity of the system until participation drops off and the system is manipulated to maintain the stairs quo. Very much like the taxing system.
The ban on pickup locations? Or dropoff at the wrong precinct? These locations could be next door but on the other side of a mountain.
The ban on allowing people to authorize someone to carry their ballot? Not every community has USPS, Kevin, especially not Native American or Mexican-American communities. They're underserved, and that seems sort of intentional...
Ballot caging is also pretty suspect. Just challenge ballots repeatedly so the voter can't cure them or vote!
The only time I didn't vote was when I had to work - and Washington State didn't yet allow early/mail voting without a doctor's note. I left before the polls opened and came home after they closed. But these AZ laws are designed to stop people with jobs like that from voting.
Can we stop calling it "ballot harvesting" and call it "ballot delivery" because that's all it is. And what difference does it make what precinct you vote in for federal offices as long as you vote in the right district? It's a little extra effort to tabulate the ballots, but that's all. It's astonishing to me that in a country where the Presidency can be decided by 10,000-20,000 votes in the right states that we should be concerned that 2% of the legal votes aren't counted. Nor do I understand why we should only challenge ballot restrictions that aren't popular. If popularity was the deciding factor, black people in the south still wouldn't be able to vote at all.
Look, we all know that actual voter fraud is close to non-existent, and what little has been caught over the past couple of years mostly consists of smart-ass RWNJs trying to vote twice or something to show "how easy it is". Republicans wouldn't be doing this stuff if they didn't think it would give them an edge in really close races by making it harder for poorer and more marginalized people to vote. I don't think Democrats can be faulted for not wanting to let them get away with it, despite the fact that, yes, the stuff they were suing over appears inconsequential at first. Republican states now have a green light to basically disenfranchise certain groups via a thousand cuts.
Pingback: Is the Supreme Court nullifying the Voting Rights Act bad? - Lawyers, Guns & Money