It's Simply Wrong to Restrict Access to the Voting Booths
- Print print this page
- Discuss 20 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
We all remember the Colonial rallying cry "no taxation without representation." It wasn't about taxes per se: The Colonists believed - since they were not represented in England's Parliament - that they were not obliged to follow English laws.
A democracy exists when citizens combine to agree to follow the laws established by a government that they collectively vote into office.
The system is very imperfect, and there is often vehement opposition by those who have to abide by decisions they personally do not agree with. At the end of the day, however, disappointed citizens comply with unpopular laws while holding out the hope of changing these laws in the future. Witness the rallying cry of electing Mitt Romney to kill Obamacare.
It naturally follows that a democratic government would ensure that as many citizens as possible are eligible to vote. Indeed, America has been defined by a continual broadening of the electoral base, providing more and more citizens with access to the voting booth.
First, the burden of being a property owner was relaxed in most states early in the 19th century, allowing for the election of Andrew Jackson, the "people's president."
Constitutional amendments were subsequently passed ensuring, in order, the voting rights of black men, women and all individuals over 18. Pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the federal government monitors state actions that could unfairly restrict the right to vote.
Today, felons constitute the largest class of citizens who are often denied the right to vote by their respective states. Currently, almost 6 million individuals have thusly lost the right to vote. (The Supreme Court has upheld the rights of states to exclude their felons as long as the practice is not found to be racially discriminating.)
One can make a reasonable, albeit debatable, case for keeping felons out of the voting booth, but the spate of laws passed by states to tighten voting requirements are another story altogether.
By cutting back on early voting, making voter registration more difficult, and insisting upon official photographic identifications, many state governments have recently sought to limit the participation of certain segments of society, segments that just happen to have a tradition of voting for Democratic candidates.
It is not coincidental that these restrictions have been put in place in states controlled by Republican legislatures and governors. For example, Florida's 2011 law made it next to impossible for longstanding voter registration efforts - such as those by the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote - to continue. The law also called for a purging of voter lists using data proved to be dated and erroneous.
In Pennsylvania, roughly 9 percent of registered voters currently lack the appropriate identifications that - due to a March 2012 law - will now be required in order to vote in this fall's elections. Most of these individuals, it is believed, are traditionally Democratic voters who live in the city of Philadelphia.
The expressed rationale behind such moves has been to cut down on voter fraud. Importantly, however, there is no evidence that voter fraud takes place even at the minutest level. Let's be clear on this. A movement to tighten up voting restrictions is based on a totally false premise.
These restrictions could well make a difference in this fall's presidential election. Indeed, that is their intent.
"Last month, the state's House Republican leader, Mike Turzai, included it in a checklist of conservative legislative accomplishments," The Washington Post recently reported. "As he >told >an audience to resounding applause: 'Voter ID, which is going to allow Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.'"
But what does this say about the commitment of the Republican Party to a democratic government? Are they willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
What is the commitment of almost 6 million felons to federal and state laws when they have no say in the process? Should Gov. Romney win the election by just carrying states where voters were excluded from the polls, what will be the commitment of the disenfranchised voters to state laws enacted by legislatures that were voted into office without their participation?
Your political leaning should not matter on this one. Democracies are legitimized by the participation of their citizens in the electoral process. Cutting off the political participation of your political opponents is simply wrong. It weakens our democracy.
At the end of the day, individuals prohibited from having a say in the making of laws have far less "ownership" of the laws that are enacted and far less of a moral obligation to obey them.
Just ask our Colonial forefathers.
Paul Ericson is a retired social studies teacher at Pinecrest High School. He previously served with the U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
fatboy 9 months, 4 weeks ago
No one is trying to restrict legal, registered voters from voting, whether it be for a Democrat or Republican. Most just want LEGAL voters to be able to vote, and not a repeat of what happened in 2008 with voter fraud like what happened with ACORN.
LSM 9 months, 4 weeks ago
"What is the commitment of almost 6 million felons to federal and state laws when they have no say in the process? "
And there was commitment to these laws when they were not yet felons? Anyway, I believe there is a process to acquire back their rights to vote,
rhf 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Mr. Ericson, I for one don’t want the Fox voting on the governance of the Hen House and I suspect the hens agree with me. I am sorry they feel disenfranchised. That, they did to themselves when they committed a felony. I would also be glad if my taxes went for FREE voter Id’s and would be happy to volunteer to drive those needing one to get one. I’m sure those that volunteer to drive the voters on Election Day would also give up a day during the year to get them registered.
Thatcher 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Despite the Second Amendment, I hear most states also prohibit convicted felons from owning guns. Interesting dilemna (I suppose) for those who are concerned that felons are not permitted to vote.
CNMT 9 months, 4 weeks ago
While I agree we should not prohibit people from voting to advance one political party over another, I do think requiring ID to vote is a good thing. One needs to show ID to cash a check, use a credit card, fly on an airplane, receive medical treatment at hospitals and doctors offices. I find it hard to believe that there is a large number of potential voters without some form of photo ID.
I do not believe convicted felons should have the right to vote. They gave up that right when they willingly broke the law and were convicted. I don't believe their behavior will change if we give them a say so in what laws are passed. They already showed they are not law abiding citizens to begin with. I do believe there is a way for them to get back the right to vote if they have a clean record after a certain time period. I do not know what that involves but if a convicted felon really wanted to vote, one would think they would look into their options!
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 4 weeks ago
@rhf @CNMT
As to your point of views on convicted felons....your views are appaling, I am speaking as a convicted felon, I have my right to vote which was restored to me upon my release from the North Carolina Department of Corrections.
People commit crimes. They pay their dues. After they pay there debt everything should be returned. However now we are labeled as felons which we are required to disclose when interviewing for jobs and housing or loans. The current system adds more people to the welfare rolls then the recession.
As to the Voter ID act, again this is a moronic argument, showing a photo ID does not disenfranchise anyone when all it takes to get an ID is to prove you are a CITIZEN of America.
fugitiveguy 9 months, 4 weeks ago
"As to the Voter ID act, again this is a moronic argument, showing a photo ID does not disenfranchise anyone when all it takes to get an ID is to prove you are a CITIZEN of America."
I agree. When this first came up I thought, at last, an issue that we can all support. But, true to form, the liberals will never pass on an opportunity to divide the country and pit us against each other. The most important thing is to win, regardless of the cost or regardless of the legitimacy of the result. I kept waiting for one of the local lefties to call bs on it, I'm still waiting. They rarely if ever diverge from the party line.
krl10 9 months, 4 weeks ago
I guess when people discuss issues concerning "convicted felons", the redundant nature of the term stems from a conscious effort to distinguish between people who have been caught doing something illegal and those who got away with something illegal. Smoking a joint is probably a felony someplace in the USA.
JimRussell44 9 months, 4 weeks ago
I cannot believe that there has been no discussion by the Democrats to take the voter ID idea and turn it into a positive for their cause. Democrats should start a nationwide program to get all potential voters who lack the photo ID identified and offer them assistance in acquiring the necessary document. Form neighborhood organizations and offer to take them to the government office. Take up a collection or have fund raisers to fund the cost for those who cannot aford it. If there is, indeed, a large number of people who fall into this catagory, to the point that an election could tip on the issue, then doing this would actually turn the situation around in their favor.
As to felons and their right to vote: I believe they should have the right restored upon completion of their sentence.
Thatcher 9 months, 4 weeks ago
JimRussell44-- This is a splendid idea. However, it appears that ACORN beat you to it. And they do a great and honest job. OK, maybe not: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/09/acorn-bankruptcy-filing-raises-new-questions-group/. This is sad.
fugitiveguy 9 months, 4 weeks ago
some guy was standing outside WalMart today asking those entering if they wanted to register to vote.
Bentpan 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Mr Russell On this we wholeheartedly agree.
cooldaddy 9 months, 4 weeks ago
good point kr
AFCHIEF 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Something wrong with this picture LMAO
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak
JimRussell44 9 months, 4 weeks ago
I'm well aware of ACORN, Thatcher. I'm talking about a grassroots campaign to help the elderly, handicapped, poor or anyone who does not have a photo ID an easy way to get theirs. It seems that the photo ID is the key in determining if a person has the right to vote, so I'm just trying to find a way for everyone to get their "paperwork". If these people decide to register to vote while they are at it, all the better for everyone. The only way you could be opposed to this idea would be if you thought that 100% of all people without proper ID are poor, minorities and all Democrats. The ONLY case I have heard about thus far was of an elderly Republican couple (don't recall which state) who were turned away from casting their ballots because they lacked photo ID.
teufelhunden 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Yeah tell that to the New Black Panther Party...
nothingspecial 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Mr. Ericson, have you heard about how the voter ID law is doing in Georgia? Seen the most recent polls about how many Americans actually agree with you? Give it up already, your argument is dishonest and we all know it.
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/09/new-state-voting-laws-barriers-to-the-ballot
MikeNC 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Think I got it: Romney is Damned by the Democrats for not revealing 10 years of taxes, (Which he DOES not have to do). And, he'll be Damned by the Democrats if he does reveal ten years of taxes, (Which DIDN'T have to do.)
BUT, it's PERFECTLY OKAY, for Obama not to have his college transcripts released. And it's PERFECTLY OKAY, to believe that Obama Never, Ever Once, heard any of Rev. Wrights hate sermons for 20+years. AND IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY, for Obama to kick off his political career in the midst of Bill and Bernadine. AND IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY, Michelle didn't care for America, until her husband ran for office. Think I got that one, too. Diane.
MikeNC 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Just wanted to correct my previous post. It was a response to Dusty's column and couldn't edit it in time. Diane
Bentpan 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Mr. Ericson just want to make sure I understand the gist of your letter, Basicly a large segment of Democrat voters are either too criminal to vote or too stupid (or lazy) to get a photo ID, is that about right? The real reason is simple those that vote illegaly, overwhelmingly vote Democrat and whether it's 1/100ths of a 1% or 1%, it is an illgotten advantage the Democrats don't want to lose. You sanctimonious hypocrits. This is all about illegitimate votes for Democrats, ala ACORN and I'm sure a slew of other sources, cemeteries, illegals etc.
teufelhunden 9 months, 4 weeks ago
Bentpan-your post made me chuckle because you hit the nail squarely on its head!!! The truth hurts ;)