2008 ElectionsSystem of Bringing Parties to Power Blocking Democracy Voting Laws Mean Millions More Blocked from Voting Voter ID by the Numbers Voting Rights Advocates Say America Is Unprepared for Big Turnout for November Election
Elections 2008
Battle over Superdelegates, Michigan and Florida Show:
System of Bringing Parties to Power
Blocking Democracy
The end of the presidential primaries brought attention to the reality that the Democratic Party and its top leadership make the final decisions concerning their presidential candidate — not the voters, not their votes, not even the state parties. The Democratic Party top brass are the ones that put in place the superdelegate system, which allows the party to override the popular vote. Indeed, the whole system of using delegates serves this purpose, with the superdelegates being an extra weapon in the hands of the party against the voters.
Decisions made this year were so arbitrary and confusing that there are several different calculations for what the actual popular vote was, depending in part on how Michigan and Florida were, or were not, counted. Again, the top party brass are the ones that decide whether a state delegation can be seated at the convention or not. For 2008, they decided that both the Michigan and Florida delegates would be seated, but only given ½ a vote. And given that Obama’s name was removed from the Michigan ballot, there is no real way to even count the popular vote for that state. The votes cast as “undecided” could be for Obama or not. In both cases, voters followed the law of their states and then were penalized by the Democratic Party top brass.
So we are contending with a complex system that puts the Democratic Party above the people and above the law. This is true of both parties but it is mainly the Democrats that have to contend more openly with this reality.
In a modern democracy, required by our times, it is the people themselves that must be empowered — they must have the right to govern and decide. The role for political parties is not to come to power, but to politically mobilize and inform the public so that the people themselves come to power. Modernizing a democratic process involves putting in place institutions that can facilitate the empowerment of the people. Instead, Americans are saddled with layer upon layer of rules and laws that are designed to put the Democrats or Republicans in power. They are designed to make certain they are the only parties allowed to govern and that the people are kept out of power.
For 2008 in particular, the Democrats, face the reality that voters are serious about change and serious about democracy. Given repeated experience with the Democrats, it is important to prepare for the likelihood that the Democrats will not deliver, and organize to carry forward the fight for change within that circumstance. One part of this is examining the existing institutions and what is needed to change them.
The superdelegates are one part of the election set-up that keeps voters from deciding the outcome of U.S. elections. The superdelegates are career Democrats — elected officials, party functionaries and various other people dependent on the Democrats for backing, such as trade union officials. The Democrats openly admit that the role of the superdelegates is to make sure the best candidate for the Party is selected, whether or not that candidate has secured the most popular votes. A brutal fight took place inside the Democratic Party as to the role for the superdelegates. Can the Democrats get away with using the superdelegates to overturn the popular vote? Justification was given that the Democrats had the right to decide their candidate and the superdelegates served to guarantee this. One could see this argument, if the Democrats organized as a party to select their delegates. But they do not. They use primaries instead. The voters are supposed to be making the decision. Clearly, the Democrats want to have voters play a role, giving the appearance that they decide, while in fact the delegate system, with its superdelegates, plays a more decisive role.
For many, the question is certainly why any delegates at all, super or not? Delegates are clearly a buffer that favors the parties and blocks the role of voters. Given the Democrats are supposedly all about change this year, why not even a whisper of changing this old and outdated delegate system? Modern democracy demands institutions that make it possible for the people themselves to elect their representatives and themselves be elected. Institutions that block political parties from coming to power are needed.
It is in part because the Democratic primary battle was so close that the issue of Florida and Michigan present themselves. The Republicans also sanctioned Michigan and Florida for the same reason — moving their primaries to an earlier date. They too discounted the votes, and sanctioned the states by seating half of their delegations. But because the selection of McCain was not close, this discounting of popular votes and sanctioning of the delegates has essentially gone by unnoticed.
The Democrats anticipated the same thing occurring, with the anticipation of Clinton winning by February. But as the race dragged on and remained close, Michigan and Florida came into play. The Democrats had to contend with their blatant denial of the role of the voters.
What is commonly left out is that the first denial came when the top party brass insisted that the primaries in the two states were not valid and called on the candidates not to campaign. The candidates agreed — why? Why would candidates agree to have voters from two of the larger states excluded? Clearly, loyalty lies with the party, not the voters and not with democracy. And why does the Democratic Party get to make the decision and make it directly against the laws of each state? Then one actually needs to go further, which is why state legislatures are making the decisions about presidential primaries in the first place. If a vote is to be equal across the country, how can the rules in each state be different? Why not one common standard for all and a straight popular vote? A national standard that guarantees that all eligible voters have a vote and that their votes determine the outcome is needed.
Senator Hillary Clinton said that all the delegates from Michigan and Florida should be seated, in the name of “having votes count.” Senator Barack Obama, for his part, said the vote was not valid, particularly in Michigan where, consistent with party demands, he removed his name from the ballot. Neither questioned a process that puts decision making in the hands of the Democratic Party. Instead, what comes to the fore again is loyalty to the party and the self-serving positions of both Clinton and Obama. Why are neither denouncing the party for excluding Michigan and Florida in the first place? Why no defense of the principle that each voter everywhere should have an equal vote — which means an equal ability to register, vote and have the vote counted, as well as an equal ability to have candidates and parties of their choice on the ballot. Voters are being faced with growing efforts to use registration requirements as a means to block millions from voting, and the candidates are silent.
The fight over Michigan and Florida are not a defense of democracy on their part, but a defense of a system that brings the Democrats or Republicans to power, and then self-serving positions that benefit them, not the voters. There are no proposals for change of the electoral set-up — for change on the vital front of democracy and political power.
It is the lack of democracy and votes that actually count that stands out for most people across the country. There is great doubt about the Democrats, who with their majority have guaranteed the Iraq war continues, that Guantánamo and its torture continue, that laws against the rights of the people are passed — including threatening now to pass the “Homegrown Terrorism” bill, which is an openly fascist law. It is already known as the “thought crime bill” as it will make simply having radical thoughts a crime.
The battles over Michigan and Florida and superdelegates are serving to further discredit the Democrats. They are also bringing to the fore the need to change the existing set up itself, beginning with blocking the parties from coming to power and instead designing a system that empowers the people.
[TOP]
Voting Laws Mean Millions More Blocked from Voting
The current presidential primaries have brought more people, including many young voters, to the polls. While still averaging about 20 percent of eligible voters, this is above the usual 10 percent for primaries. Many of those coming out are holding onto a small grain of hope that somehow Senator Barack Obama will be able to buck the Democratic Party and actually bring about change. But few are holding their breath on this matter. Most people have enough experience to know the Democrats, like the Republicans, stand directly against the will of the people. Many are preparing for a fight at the Democratic Party convention and after, to change the current election process so that the will of the people prevails. Many also think that change requires not only a different candidate, but also different parties to play a role in the elections.
This concern is being born out in the current efforts by states to greatly restrict voter participation, especially of workers and national minorities. Twenty-five states now require government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license, at the time of voting. To register, a certified birth certificate or passport is being required — a driver’s license is not sufficient. It is estimated that 20 million eligible voters do not have a driver’s license and another 13 million, and probably more, cannot secure a birth certificate or passport. National minorities are among the ones most impacted. About 25 percent of African Americans do not have government-issued ID, for example.
The U.S. has long used voter registration as a mechanism to exclude whole sections of voters. The brutal state terrorism against African Americans simply for trying to register is one example. Now, as Americans in general are rejecting the existing set-up as undemocratic and the government is increasingly striving to control and repress the population, voting laws are becoming even more restrictive. Every effort is being made to prevent more people from voting by imposing these identification requirements.
These voting requirements are also consistent with the current trend for the federal government to put in place arrangements where it can decide who does and does not work and who does and does not vote.
It is the Democrats and Republicans at the state and federal level that are organizing to keep yet more eligible voters from voting. And these laws are but one part of a set-up that systematically ensures that more people cannot vote and that the will of the people is blocked. This reality is a sign of decay and degeneration of the existing set-up — a sign that democratic renewal is an urgent necessity.[TOP]
Voter ID by the Numbers
Missouri’s state legislature may well vote to put an amendment to the state constitution on the ballot requiring proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. The proposal is even more restrictive and threatening to the right to vote than Indiana’s law, which requires a government-issued photo ID and was recently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Showing ID has become commonplace for many Americans: It is required to board an airplane, open a bank account, or enter a government facility. But even as showing ID becomes more widespread, the ID divide grows wider between those who have IDs and those who do not, including 20 million voting age Americans who do not have driver’s licenses.
The costs of proving citizenship, or even obtaining ID, are anything but free. And the benefits of requiring an ID to vote — ostensibly as a means to prevent voter fraud—are anything but proven. The evidence of widespread voter fraud is nonexistent, and the effects of fraud are insignificant. Yet laws meant to prevent this non-problem are proliferating — preventing thousands of American citizens from exercising their right to vote.
The “By the Numbers” below shows the impact and cost these requirements will impose:
How do proof-of-citizenship requirements affect voters?
• 13 million: U.S. citizens who lack documentary proof of citizenship (a passport or birth certificate).
• 38,000: Number of voter registration applications that Arizona has thrown out since the state adopted a proof-of-citizenship requirement in 2004. More than 70 percent of those reportedly came from people who stated under oath that they were born in the United States.
• 240,000: Number of registered Missouri voters who stand to be disenfranchised by the proposed citizenship requirement, as estimated by Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.
Despite claims to the contrary, voter fraud is nonexistent.
• 40: Number of voters indicted – not prosecuted and convicted – by the Justice Department for registration fraud or illegal voting between October 2002 and September 2005. Only 21 of the indicted were not citizens.
In addition voter ID requirements affect:
• 12: Nuns, all in their 80s and 90s, who were turned away from an Indiana polling place on May 6 during that state’s presidential primary because they did not have government-issued photo ID.
• 20 million: Voting-age Americans who currently lack a valid driver’s license, including roughly 10 percent of eligible voters.
• 25 percent: Voting-age African Americans nationwide who have no government-issued photo ID. In addition, 8 percent of white Americans lack state or federal photo ID.
• 36 percent: Of seniors over the age of 75, in Georgia, who have no driver’s license, according to the state’s AARP. [This is one example, with other states likely to have similar percentages.]
How much does it cost to get a driver’s license or prove citizenship?
• $45: Fee for a six-year driver’s license in Missouri. An identification card that is not a driver’s license costs $11.
• $15: Cost of a birth certificate, the document most commonly required to obtain a driver’s license, in Missouri.
• $100: Cost of a passport, as of February 1, 2008. Obtaining other forms of citizenship documentation can cost even more (up to $460 for a citizenship application). Any form of documentation can take months to process. [And for many, especially elderly and victims of hurricanes and fires it is not possible to secure a birth certificate.]
• 25: Number of states, including Missouri, that require some form of identification be presented at the polls. Seven of those, including Indiana, require or can request photo ID.
Missouri’s state legislature is not alone in falling for false propaganda peddled by the government seeking to further confuse the electoral process and to suppress voting. Other states are following the lead of conservative legislatures in Georgia and Indiana in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding voter ID requirements. Progressives need to inform voters across the nation of the costs and the consequences of these policies to our citizens and to our democracy.[TOP
Voting Rights Advocates Say America Is Unprepared for Big Turnout for November Election
Record turnouts at polling places across the nation during the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle for the Democratic nomination have revealed a continuation of serious flaws in America’s electoral process that could cause a fiasco November 4, according to a non-partisan report.
“The report demonstrates that most of the state and county and local election machinery was unprepared for a real heavy turnout,” says Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, a primary partner in the Election Protection Coalition that has manned voter protection hotlines since January. “It really demonstrates that our democracy has deep fault lines and is not being administered well...We are not prepared. We actively count on a low voter turnout and count on voter apathy.”
The 15-page “Election Protection 2008 Primary Report”, jointly compiled and distributed by the Lawyers Committee and the National Campaign for Fair Elections, says lawyers and other volunteers who manned voter question and complaint hotlines over the past five months fielded more than 5,000 calls that include complaints and charges revealing everything from serious mechanical flaws to apparent intentional shenanigans and voter intimidation at the polls.
Few problems have occurred in affluent areas; they are mainly happening in low income, Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Because Black voters typically cast 90 percent of their ballots for Democrats, mishaps at the polls could cause another Election 2000-styled fiasco in the event of a close race between the Democratic nominee and Republican John McCain.
“Unfortunately, the encouraging story of record turnout has been tempered by voters in each primary reporting they were underserved by the infrastructure that supports the election process,” the report states. “While each state had a unique set of issues at the polls, there are some common obstacles that voters across the country faced.”
Among the worse states was Pennsylvania, where more than 1,000 calls flooded the 1-866-Ourvote hotlines April 22.
Among the complaints:
• In Pennsylvania’s Delaware County, one voter was told the voting machines at her precinct were set for Republicans only. The voter was not able to cast a vote. • Another Pennsylvania voter took her child with her, but a poll worker refused to allow the child into the voting area with her, claiming that her child “can read.” • Yet, another Pennsylvania caller said building materials were being thrown off the roof of the polling place to prevent voters from entering. • Finally, in Pennsylvania, a caller reported a polling location with only three voting machines and no printers working. Voters were leaving without being offered emergency ballots. • In the Georgia primary February 5, a man allegedly from the secretary of state’s office walked around in uniform, carrying a gun, asking people if they belonged there. He left within 10 minutes after a call to the secretary of state’s office, Arnwine says. • In Denton County, Texas, March 4, disabled voters were directed to the back of the building where there was no assistance for them to go up the stairs to the voting area. • Untrained poll workers, ballot shortages, registration roll problems and confusion over voter identification requirements. Also, some 57 percent of Super Tuesday complaints had to do with equipment failures.
Arnwine credits the massive increase in voter turnout for revealing the flaws in the system. “The irony is that pundits and columnists and people are constantly criticizing the American electorate for not engaging in the election process and not actually coming and casting their votes,” she says. “Yet, when you get even a 40 percent turnout verses the historical 15 percent turnout, the electoral machinery just crashes, it just implodes, it can’t take that amount of voting. What if 80 percent turned out?”
According to David Bositis, a senior analyst at the Joint Center for political and economic studies, voting in presidential primaries has been as low as 10 percent in past years, but has gone up and down, depending on the candidates, the issues and the excitement of the race. “Twenty percent would be considered a really outstanding turnout,” he says.
Arnwine says the hotlines will remain alive until the final primary June 3. Then they will reopen in August through November 4 to advise people through the registration process as well as on general election day.
A team of lawyers and other volunteers that make up Election Protection Legal Committees will be meeting with heads of electoral boards, secretaries of state as well as the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in order to report problems and work out solutions, she says.
Meanwhile, the report recommends: Improving poll worker training; ensuring proper protocols for dealing with election machinery breakdowns; guaranteeing that all eligible registrants make it on to the registration rolls; and widely publicizing correct requirements and restrictions about voter identification and other procedures.
“We’re very, very on top of this,” Arnwine says. She adds that they have not ruled out court action if necessary.
“If we can tell in advance that a jurisdiction is not properly prepared and has not set up the amount of voting sites that are needed, does not have or has not set up [appropriate] election equipment, or enough poll workers in advance, absolutely, we will take whatever action is necessary.”[TOP]