The issue of voter ID once again is brought up, with many categories of fraud enumerated, only one among them having catalyzed the voter ID requirement, the possibility, rarer than being struck by lightening (according to the Brennan Center for Justice) of one voter impersonating another at the polls on Election Day or in the processes of in-person absentee voting or early voting, sometimes overlapping categories.
A broad mythology exists about voter fraud being rampant when it has repeatedly been studied and proven otherwise (at the federal level, according to the Department of Justice, 0.000003 percent of voters). The author delves into this proliferating non-issue that has disenfranchised so many and concludes, "[H]ow do we prove the existence of something that we cannot detect?" The evidence offered is totally unscientific, anecdotal, "unsubstantiated and of the lowest quality." Most supporters of it are Republicans. In the radioactive state of Florida, two election officials admitted that they were motivated to initiate the ID regulation in order to prevent Democrats from voting (the author cites the Palm Beach Post, November 25, 2012).
Studies of the outcome of imposition of the voter ID requirement reveal that, for example, according to political scientists, "[A]s the costs of voting increase, so registration and turnout decrease," taking their toll on groups such as poor people, those lacking government-issued IDs, and people of color."
The proliferating requirement of voter ID, among other repressive measures, forms part of what experts refer to as the "revival of Jim Crow" in twenty-first-century garb, but wait: the assumption is that most voting occurs in person. See above for the counter-trend of Internet voting (IV). Three states--Oregon, Washington, and Colorado vote by mail as do parts of California. Writes Schultz, "[T]echnology and changing social structures are forcing a rethinking of what the American democracy should be." Early and absentee voting, along with anticipated developments like IV, guarantee that Election Day will be a very different sort of event in the future--quaint, attracting luddites and traditionalists and, inevitably, those who can't afford to join the Age of Technology because of various societal stigmas and handicaps. There is hardly a guarantee that things in the realm of voting and elections will improve. The issues will relocate to other forms of corruption and injustice. The Golden Age is hardly upon us, though our conceptions of it are constantly in battle.
One legacy of the Progressive era (the period between the advent of Jim Crow and World War I) was new features of direct democracy--ballot initiatives, referendums, and recalls but, the author quickly qualifies, before we become too exultant, they have largely been taken over by big money and the rest of us suffer as a result. Direct democracy had its demise back in the days when the people's town meetings, forums for live disputes among citizenry, outgrew their village-sized spaces and turned into cities, counties, and municipalities that required representation--I call this the evolution from democracy to republicanism, with no bad reflection on those conscientious representatives who during their furloughs hold such meetings among as many constituent groups as possible. US Rep. Gabby Giffords (formerly D-AZ) was nearly killed during one of them.
The author does list successful instances of ballot initiatives and referenda--people making laws for themselves, restoring representative democracy: medical marijuana if not more, physician-initiated suicide, and other political reform initiatives including gay rights. Power to the people! But referendums, for example, usually occupy such small spaces on the ballot and use language inaccessible to many semi-literate and non-native English speakers--read: usually among the underprivileged classes--that even if they do work on behalf of such minorities, so what for several reasons. More outreach would be needed than is available.
But larger than specifics, these innovations gave rise to majoritarianism. The lower classes lose out as the prototypical white property owner prevailed. Oops. "[M]inority rights are often targets of initiatives and referenda." Between 1898 and 1978, only 33 percent of ballot measures were supported by the voters. Civil rights protection fell by the wayside according to a study conducted between 1960 and 1998. One in six such measures prevailed. "Majorities voted to repeal, limit, or prevent any minority gains in . . . civil rights over eighty percent of the time."
In the realm of minority politics, Progressivism generally failed, writes Schultz. "As Justice Jackson so eloquently stated, certain rights should not be decided at the ballot box and going forward, initiative and referendum should exclude votes on any propositions that deal with minority rights."
On the subject of reapportionment, which often translates into gerrymandering despite or in line with the crucial SCOTUS "one person, one vote" ruling (United States v Classic, 1941), the author is critical of the legality of partisan gerrymandering, which, he writes, should be unconstitutional. It has been ruled justiciable but beyond that the Supreme Court can't decide effectively or conclusively. The issue is still muddled and in need of strict regulation--"The current election law representation jurisprudence is flawed or incomplete, necessitating a significant rethinking." A Texas politician in a recent scenario [including his state's Republican majority, which is numerically shrinking] jokingly admitted to political motivation for reapportionment, careful to distinguish it from racial prejudice--how much overlap there is between the two!
[Most recently, I read on August 23, 2015 that the Maryland, Virginia, and Florida state legislatures were so deadlocked in reapportionment disputes that they handed over the decisions to the courts to decide--ed. Then on August 24, 2015, I read that the issue is still gridlocking the Virginia legislature. At least the issue is on rather than under the table.]
Gerrymandering, as we all know, is nearly as old as the United States. These days, writes the author, "serious party competition has almost disappeared." There are fewer and fewer competitive races. One method of gerrymandering, "cracking," means to scatter minorities throughout several districts so as to avoid their carrying the vote in any one of them. "Packing" is the opposite, cramming minorities into as few districts as possible so that, where they constitute majorities, their vote will prevail in fewer districts than those in cracked or [dare I say it? ] Republican-dominated districts. There are exceptions. Maryland has been gerrymandered by Democrats. According to Christopher Ingraham, writing for the Washington Post in May 2014, " the Democrats are under-represented by about 18 seats in the House, relative to their vote share in the 2012 election. The way Republicans pulled that off was to draw some really, really funky-looking Congressional districts." And "Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably."
Problems with political parties feed into these issues. As mentioned above, the authority on the relevant issues is laws passed subsequently to the Constitution as well as SCOTUS decisions (and reference to the First and Fourteenth Amendments). The rise of parties was disadvantageous as well as productive, as argued above. There is no coherent theory about parties even within the broad realm of democratic theory, which the author does point out is not the font of every answer: " . . . there is perhaps no definitive, coherent theory of American democracy in the same way that there is no definitive version of what democracy is." Another excellent question then asked: what is to be done? What should be [parties'] role within theory and practice? The author enumerates their enormous value within the system, and ultimately, "If stability is one goal of democracy, then maintenance of competitive structures is important."
Another problem, as yet unsolved, relates to the role of parties versus that of other interest groups participating in democracy, from gargantuan to small NGOs. "The lines between governmental and non-governmental entities is become more blurred also," as is the line needed between accountability to the government and autonomy. A further issue is the blurred distinction between parties as private entities versus parties as active participants in who gets to run the state and smaller government units. Despite SCOTUS debate over the issue, "judicial confusion" is still evident. Exclusivity is involved: when can parties discriminate as private actors and when are they relevant participants in government at the state and local levels and therefore when are they subject to government regulation, specifying, for example, "when the government can regulate to protect a right to vote." Numerous Supreme Court decisions enter the discussion, but again "case law is not clear." Three cases aver that "internal party affairs generally need to be left free from government regulation." Democratic theory condones this perspective: "parties generally need to be free to operate." SCOTUS decisions aver that a clear line is needed between external and internal party affairs, but ultimately "the Court seems confused in its treatment of parties."
So is democratic theory in defining exactly what a political party is, the author notes. The either/or of parties as public or private entities may be the wrong way to attempt to define parties. Neither democratic theory nor election law has kept up with this transferal of some people's affiliations away from parties to other entities.
*****
The floundering question "What is money?--the foundation of the plutocracy our government has become?" has been troubling me, to say the least, since I explored the ramifications of the Citizens United decision and its predecessor (1975) Buckley v Valeo which, writes Schultz, doesn't go quite as far as to specify that money is speech. Citizens United does and to add salt to injury, further decisions since early 2010 only solidify this principle. The author states briefly that money is actually property. An earlier version of the Declaration of Independence specified it as one of our fundamental rights, but it was later edited to "pursuit of happiness." Yes, money can bring forms of happiness. As my sardonic father used to say, "I'd rather be rich and miserable than poor and miserable."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
