Who Votes
While our attention was turned to the events in Singapore, the US Supreme Court released a decision that upheld Ohio’s law to remove and update the state’s voter registration list. The Supreme Court split five to four for the decision, with the conservative five lining up against the more progressive four.
The Ohio Law is one of several state election laws brought into question in the courts. Each of these laws has a process for automatically removing voters from the registration lists if over a period of time those voters either don’t vote, or don’t respond to communications from the elections department. The avowed claim is that this is simply a “housekeeping” chore, removing those from the voting rolls who have moved, or died. Ohio’s law is one of the more reasonable versions.
If a voter fails to vote for two years, the Board of Elections sends a card in the mail asking them to respond. If the voter fails to respond, it triggers a series of mailings over the next four years. If the voter neither responds nor votes during that time, the voter’s name is stricken from the voting list.
It seems reasonable. Voting is tied to residency; if a voter is no longer living at the residence given on the election registration, then the voter is no longer eligible to vote in that precinct. Election officials point to voting lists filled with the moved and the dead; and warned that such lists are inviting voting fraud. They claim that in order to prevent fraud, the lists need to be purged.
So if the law seems reasonable, then why was it brought to court, and why was the Supreme Court so split on its response?
The Ohio law was passed by the Republican dominated legislature, as part of a nationwide effort by Republicans to maintain power by limiting voting. This has three principal strategies: gerrymander districts to maximize Republican representation; restrict voting access by limiting days, times and places to vote; and restricting voter registration by requiring voter identification and constant registration monitoring. All of this is legal, and much of it has been done in the name of “safe and secure” elections.
But the reality is that our elections are more than safe and secure. Every non-partisan study of voting shows that are incredibly few incidents of illegal voting in the United States (Time: The Actual True and Provable Facts about Non-Citizen Voting.) And while the President has claimed that as many as five million votes cast (all for Hillary Clinton, of course) in the 2016 election were illegal, the organization of Secretaries of State (the state officials in charge of elections) completely disagrees.
So the Ohio law and others like it are fixing a problem that doesn’t exist. So how does a registration list law like Ohio’s influence elections?
Statistically (and sadly) Democratic voters are less likely to vote than Republican voters. This is why partisan results are often so different in Presidential election years, when there are a lot more votes, than in off-years. For example, while Ohio is consistently a “purple” state, closely balanced between Republican and Democrat during Presidential elections, all but one statewide office is held by Republicans, most elected in off-years. A law that removes folks for not voting is more likely to remove Democrats than Republicans.
Lower income voters are more likely to change addresses, and are more likely to have difficulty getting “land mail.” This is common sense, as lower income voters are more likely to live in rental situations. While voting registration is tied to residency at an address, changing address does not necessarily disqualify a voter. In Ohio, an address change should trigger a “provisional ballot.” And, as lower income voters are more likely to be Democrats, the law is going to effect them.
Finally, when this is combined with a strict voter identification law (requiring state issued ID) and with restricted voting days, locations and times; the overall effect is to reduce the number of Democrats that can vote.
The Ohio law is one of the more “moderate” versions. Other states go so far as to scour the lists, looking for duplicate registrations. Somehow, thousands of “John Smiths” remain, will multiple “Juan Gonzales” get removed. It is all part of a legal scheme to retain Republican control.
Ohio’s law has been upheld by the Supreme Court, but even their decision represents a partisan act. The refusal of the Republican US Senate to consider President Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, then filling the vacancy with Neil Gorsuch after the Trump election, in all likelihood determined the outcome of yesterday’s decision.
And unfortunately, the battle over the “legal” restrictions ignores the real threat to our voting system: outside “hacking” into registration to prevent legal voting. The facts are that Russian intelligence attacked at least twenty-one state voter registration databases before the 2016 election: we still haven’t determined what damage was done. Last week in the California primary, over 100,000 voters disappeared from the Los Angeles County voting rolls. While those effected were allowed to cast “provisional” ballots, there still has been no clear explanation of what happened. (For more information on possible voting “hacks” check out unhackthevote.com.)
The United States is a Republic and the foundation of our nation is free elections, not only free from outside interference, but also free from partisan lawmaking that restricts voter access. Our goal should be for every citizen to vote: Ohio and the Supreme Court have raised one more barrier prevent that. But it can all be overcome by citizens, Democrat and Republicans, voting; even if it’s hard, even if means checking to make sure you’re still registered, even if it requires waiting in line at the polls. Because in a Republic based on the will of the majority, when the majority shows up, they will prevail.
People move and people die, even Republicans and Democrats. When they move they rarely think of advising their Board of Elections. When they die a similar deficiency can be expected. It is difficult for Boards of Elections to track the movement and death of voters.
Therefore, regardless of the motives behind it, the Ohio law is a logical method to clean up voter lists.
The fact that little voter fraud exists now, is not a reason to avoid practical preventative measures to prevent it.