"With so much at stake, and where a few hundred votes can decide even national elections, ensuring strong civic participation in communities that are targeted for disenfranchisement has never been more important."Yes, I take offense; no, I won't be parting with my hard-earned money; perhaps, I should remove my name from their annoying email list.
I know that my motive in "working" in the area of election law is not to keep anyone from voting. I just respect the rule of law and want to make sure that if/when I lose an election it was done fairly.
There is definitely a fine line between ensuring fair elections and making it too difficult to vote (I included the adverb "too" because some think that actually requiring a vote is overkill when they could just vote for those not smart enough to know what's best for them).
However, some on the Left cannot fathom that there is any tension between fair elections and ease of participation. They won't even allow us to pay for and provide photo identification (and expect a voter to remember to bring it with them to the polls); they balk at minimal "barriers" like residency requirements and voter qualifying deadlines. Why? Beats me . . . but without the bogeyman of Republicans "targeting" folks for disenfranchisement, they would have even more trouble winning elections seeing as voter participation is up, voter registration is up, yet Democrat electoral success is down.
No comments:
Post a Comment