ACORN

Voter Registration Drive Fuels Voter Suppression Attempts in Wisconsin

Bumped. -Craig

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog Voting Matters

By Nathan Henderson-James

Just yesterday we noted the right way to report on charges of voter fraud and the wrong way to go about it. We explained how the news media had been gamed by people with a partisan interest in the outcome of elections to gin up hysteria to engage in voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement efforts.

Well, the partisans are back at it in Wisconsin, but this time the press is following the lead of Virginia journalists and scrutinizing the claims rather than simply reprinting the press release.

Here’s the backstory. The community organization ACORN has recently completed a voter registration drive in Milwaukee aimed at historically disenfranchised populations like low-income folks and African-Americans. The drive assisted voters complete some 35,000 cards. So far so good.

However, some of ACORN’s canvassers were caught forging cards in order to get paid for not doing the work. Under Wisconsin law all cards filled out, completely or incompletely, fraudulently or not, are required to be turned in. Out of the 35,000 cards, ACORN and Board of Elections officials estimate that about 1500-2000 of them had problems. The bulk of those were simple incompletes, but about 200 or so were clearly attempts by canvassers to defraud both ACORN and the state of Wisconsin by submitting false cards.

The traditional media has actually done a fairly good job reporting the story, going into great detail on how the cards were caught, the quality control procedures used by ACORN, and the context of the numbers involved versus the total number of cards submitted. This reportage has been ably supplemented by bloggers like Cory Liebmann at One Wisconsin Now and Capper at Cognitive Dissonance.

But, of course, this situation has served as an opportunity for conservative partisans to immediately pick up their calls for voter disenfranchisement policies such as voter ID. Such a policy would ironically, or perhaps not so ironically, actually push down the voter participation rates among those folks who most rely on voter registration drives to bring them into the civic participation process.

Here’s choice quote from Pete DiGaudio who writes as The Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger,

Well, yes, I actually do support voter suppression. I am in favor of suppressing the vote of dead people, nonexistent people, convicted felons, illegal aliens, people voting more than once, et al. Every time one of these people votes, it cancels out my legitimate vote.

A simple thing like photo ID for voting would eliminate these fraudulent voters when they showed up at the polls.”

Project Vote’s report The Politics of Voter Fraud (PDF) has consistently pointed out that there simply isn’t widespread voter fraud in the United States and any fraudulent voting has never been tied to voter registration fraud, which is what has partisans so breathless and hyperbolic.

But the rush to point to a solution like voter ID seems not to be bothered by facts. Like the fact that the so-called fraud every partisan points to is always centered on voter registration cards. Well, voter ID isn’t going to stop canvassers from wanting to get paid for not doing the work and it isn’t going to stop states like Wisconsin from requiring that every card be turned in regardless of its accuracy, completeness, or legitimacy and it’s definitely not going to help elections officials catch bad cards.

The truth is that the laws as written and enforced catch such problems. The mere fact of this story in the media means the system in Milwaukee works the way it is supposed to, catching problem cards. Voter ID, on the other hand stops something called “voter impersonation”, which just doesn’t happen in the Untied States. Of the 24 convictions won by the US Department of Justice between 2002 and 2005 for voter fraud, most of them were for problems with submitting false or illegal absentee ballots. Voter ID laws do nothing to fix this problem. But what they are great at is stopping otherwise eligible voters from casting ballots.

And that’s how it works – raise loud cries of outrage over an illegal act that was caught using the safeguards that were put in place for just that situation, raise questions about the integrity of the entire elections system, and offer a solution that would not stop the identified problem and would, in fact, stop significant numbers of specific groups, generally groups who are already the most disenfranchised, from participating in elections.

Live Blogging ACORN's Presidential Candidate Forum

This afternoon I'll be live blogging from ACORN's presidential forum, which is being held in the best city in America-- Philadelphia (hey, stop laughing, before I show you what we mean by "Brotherly Love"- think older brothers and noogies). Only three of the candidates--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich-- are attending, but it still should be an interesting time.

The forum will be webcast on ACORN's site, and there will be a number of other bloggers there as well, including a few from some of the bigger liberal political blogs. For a full list of bloggers check ACORN's Candidate's Forum blog.

Update: there's no wireless here, and typing too much on my blackberry kills my thumbs, so I won't be able to really write much. It's packed here, and after a long wait and lots of call and answers/chants, Hillary just came on.didn't take long for the first screaming nut to start, and nobody is stopping him. This is really weird. Now they're trying to talk to him. And now, after two or three awkward minutes, he's leaving, screaming and singing all the way.

Update 2: I just left the Forum, after listening to Hillary's speech and the Q&A session. The Senetor from New York gave a really impassioned speech which was met by loud cheers, though I have to say that every time I hear Hillary talk about health care or a living wage or predatory lending (hello bankruptcy bill!). The more I see, the less I like, though I still think she'd be a formidable Democratic candidate, and she definitely shares her husband's ability to work a crowd

Either way, there was just no way I was going to wait around for Kucinich and then stand for an hour while he speaks, and I heard Edwards speak two weeks ago.

Update 3: Edwards just finished, and as usual I really like what he has to say about issues effecting the poor and working class in America. He didn't seem to get the same amount of cheering and applause as Hillary, though it could have been some combination of the fact that he went on over 3 hours after the event began and the cheering could be a lot less audible over the interwebs, but I was really surprised that ACORN member aren't going gaga over a guy who seems to be running mainly on their issues. I did think that Edwards statement that "I don't need to read your position papers... Because they're already my positions!" was a bit clumsily worded, and in general his orating abilities aren't at the same level as Clinton or Obama, but I definitely think he has more substance than either of them.

Syndicate content