|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 12, 2005 / 3 Nisan, 5765 Does increasing turnout invite fraud? By Peter A. Brown
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Some issues, especially those that even tangentially involve race, become so one-sided there is no respectable opposition. But sometimes shifting political sands make it acceptable in polite company to oppose what was once a motherhood cause.
It happened with affirmative action, and we may be approaching that same point regarding the current truism that increasing voter turnout is good, regardless of whether doing so encourages, or at least tolerates, fraud.
Obviously, we will never return to the days when people could be prevented or pressured from voting based on their race.
But cases in Orlando and in Wisconsin and state legislative fights nationally indicate that efforts to increase turnout have become a two-sided issue.
Remember when no one respectable would criticize anything labeled affirmative action — it was what politicians call a one-sided issue — for fear of being labeled a racist?
In a shifting political environment, courts have narrowed the permissible scope of such efforts in the belief that, in some applications, such as college admission, they discriminate against whites. California and Washington voters banned racial-preference programs enacted in the name of affirmative action. Florida is among states to follow through legislation or executive order.
We may be seeing the initial signs of the same metamorphosis regarding voting. Since the disputed 2000 election, increased turnout, especially among minorities, has been deemed so desirable that suggestions that some tools to increase access might also make it easier to vote illegally have been dismissed as politically incorrect.
The 2000 Florida fiasco led to charges, never proved, that black voting was suppressed. There were also calls nationally for legal changes to increase turnout, especially among minorities.
Among the ideas proposed have been requiring nationally what exists in a limited number of states: allowing unregistered voters to show up on Election Day and cast a ballot with proof of residence, such as an electric bill, even without photo identification; making it easier for felons to vote; and making it easier to cast absentee ballots.
Because Democrats see measures that increase voting as in their interest, the issue has a partisan twinge. Yet the massive turnout last November, when President Bush won re-election and the Republicans increased their congressional majorities, is contrary evidence.
Nevertheless, congressional Democrats are pushing federal legislation that would require states to allow same-day registration and voting. That would make it easier to vote, but also make it tougher for election officials to prevent fraud.
Wisconsin has same-day registration. In 2004, there were apparent voter irregularities that might have fraudulently swung the White House to John Kerry had the national race been a tad closer.
Federal prosecutors began investigating after the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel found 7,000 more ballots tabulated in that city than people counted as voting, and an additional 1,200 votes from invalid addresses.
Officially, Kerry carried Wisconsin by only 11,000 votes, and Milwaukee has less than 10 percent of the state's voters. The same rules were in effect statewide, but no other jurisdiction's numbers were reviewed by the news media.
It is quite possible President Bush actually won Wisconsin. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have become president, but not if Bush won Wisconsin.
Wisconsin's Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed legislation in 2003 that would have required same-day registrants to show photo identification, which would seem to be common sense. Opponents claim that requiring a photo ID would be unfair to minorities who are, some claim, less likely to have such identification. The bill has been resubmitted in light of the Milwaukee situation.
In Georgia, Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue is expected to sign just-passed legislation that would require a photo ID to register to vote, joining seven other states, including Florida, that already do so.
The indictment of suspended Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer for allegedly violating the laws by paying someone to collect absentee ballots, primarily from elderly blacks, highlights another problem now that more and more states are relaxing rules to allow people to vote before Election Day. There is a concern that such efforts allow a person to influence, or even fill out, a ballot for a voter.
The furor after the 2000 election made it difficult for those in public life to be against anything that might bring more people to the polls.
Perhaps these recent events signal that we may have re-entered an environment in which thoughtful people can evaluate the overall effect — both positive and negative — of changing the electoral playing field.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here. © 2005, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
