>>When campaigning for Kerry/Edwards, for instance, it would be much
>>more efficient for rank-and-file Democrats to make sure that all
>>Black voters are registered and actually vote, rather than wasting
>>much time on Nader/Camejo supporters.
>
>In the real world, of course, this is exactly what is happening.
>That is why voter registration offices are brimming with new
>registrations (collected mostly by 527s rather than the Democratic
>Party proper), why new Democratic registrations outpace Republican
>ones considerably, and why Republicans like Ohio Secretary of State
>Kenneth Blackwell have been trying to find ever-more-nefarious ways
>to disenfranchise black and other voters of color. (Blackwell's
>scheme to reject new voter registrations that were not printed on
>cardstock was turned back after an outcry -- no thanks to people
>like Yoshie.)
The Democratic and Republican Parties bear equal responsibilities for restrictive ballot access laws (which make it extraordinarily difficult for any party or candidate that is not pre-approved by the ruling class to get on ballots) and burdensome voter registration procedures (which make voter registration the responsibility of an individual rather than the government and include such absurdities as Ohio's paper-weight requirement), both of which radically differ from one state to another in a confusion fashion, so much so that only election lawyers and professors of election laws may be expected to know most of them. The Democratic and Republican parties also bear equal responsibilities for the anti-working class war on drugs and crimes and accompanying felon disenfranchisement.
The Democrats and Republicans have not only left the core of voter registration obstacles untouched, but the bipartisan Help America Vote Act of 2002 that they did enact after the fiasco of 2000 has new anti-working-class measures built into it:
<blockquote>Help America Vote Act of 2002. . . .
Ballot Security Measures
Provisions in the law addressing voter fraud are among the Act's most controversial elements. The "ballot security" requirements affect you in the following ways:
* When registering to vote, you must provide a valid driver's license or, if you do not have a license, the last four digits of your Social Security number. If you do not have either forms of ID, you can request that a registration number be assigned to you by elections officials. Many states currently rely on an honor system or require minimal evidence that you live in the neighborhood in order to register and vote, such as showing a utility bill with your name on it. This law places additional proof-of-residence requirements on potential voters and has been sharply criticized by civil rights advocates for treading upon privacy rights and for imposing ID burdens that are likely to affect certain classes of citizens more than others. * First time voters who register by mail will be required to show identification at the polls. No longer can you simply sign-in at the polls. * The computerized voter registration rolls may impose additional complications for you as a voter. If your name has changed by some circumstance, or if you have an unusual name that is entered incorrectly into the database, your right to vote may be impinged. This may be particularly problematic for divorced women who change their last names as well as ethnic minorities with non-Anglo last names.
<http://www.citizen.org/congress/govt_reform/election/articles.cfm?ID=8510></blockquote>
<blockquote>At the time HAVA was passed, it was generally portrayed as a compromise between voter access and voting integrity: Democrats got more money for the states to invest in modern voting technology, and Republicans won new and tighter restrictions on fraud. . . . HAVA authorized the government to spend up to $3.9 billion over three years on new registration systems and voting machines, but states have received less than half of the original amount. The law requires each state to create a computerized list of all registered voters, but forty states have been granted waivers of this obligation until 2006. The antifraud provisions, however, are expected to take effect in time for the November elections. . . . HAVA also requires states to allow people who claim they are wrongly denied the right to vote at the polls the chance to cast "provisional" ballots. The recent history of provisional ballots is not promising, though. For example, in Chicago during this year's primary, 5,498 of 5,914 provisional ballots were ultimately disqualified. The question of how and whether provisional votes will be counted in 2004 is unsettled in many states and could delay the posting of results on Election Night. (Jeffrey Toobin, "Poll Position," <em>The New Yorker</em>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040920fa_fact">September 20, 2004</a>)</blockquote>
Which would be in the interests of working-class Americans? The Democrats and Republicans spending half a billion dollars together to register only the constituencies they wish to cherry-pick respectively and bombard them with demagogic TV ads? Or universal voter registration that makes the government, not an individual, responsible for registering voters, abolition of felon disenfranchisement, and other measures that enable political participation of the working class?
As for the money spent by the Democratic Party and 527s, it is overwhelmingly concentrated in a small number of battleground states, as if the only race that mattered were the presidential election: "Anti-Bush forces have raised tens of millions to mobilize voters -- but only for competitive states. People of color are poised for a historically high vote against the President -- but mostly where a white conservative majority will trump their votes. With a battle for the House occurring in a couple dozen white-majority, mostly suburban districts, the Congressional Black Caucus is largely a spectator in any effort to gain real Congressional clout. Voter turnout rates once again will be wildly unequal between low-income and high-income voters. It will be a struggle for women to win even 15 percent of House seats" (Lani Guinier, "A People's Democratic Platform," <em>The Nation</em>, <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/articles/nationpplsdempltfm.htm"> August 2, 2004</a>). Both the Democrats and Republicans must be counting on gerrymandering, so they can concentrate on only the presidential election and a small number of competitive elections down the ticket: "The new, more frequent gerrymandering is carving up our nation's electoral districts so that there is not even a semblance of two-party competition. Liberals have stood idly by and allowed our country to be turned into one in which incumbent-dominated districts account for 95 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives. Similar patterns attach to many state legislative elections. Where there is no practical choice, there is no real election, just a coronation" (Ralph Nader, "Complacency Is Not Democracy," <em>The Washington Post</em>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18869-2004Oct8.html">Saturday, October 9, 2004</a>, p. A31). That may benefit both the Democratic and Republican Parties, but it means that the majority of working-class Americans -- most of whom do not live in the battleground states -- are denied meaningful political participation. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>