GOP Already at Work to Keep Obama Voters From the Polls

[White Eagle]

http://www.alternet.org/stories/72748/

Nothing surprises me anymore.

AlterNet
GOP Already at Work to Keep Obama Voters From the Polls
By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet
Posted on January 5, 2008, Printed on January 6, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/72748/

Barack Obama's winning coalition in Iowa drew on new voters, students, minorities and poor people, according to polls and other snapshots of Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses.

The new voters, particularly college students, defied former President Bill Clinton, his candidate wife Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, all who decried their efforts to vote because, while legal, they apparently were not Iowan enough. Needless to say, these Obama supporters did not take heed.

But if Obama -- or any Democrat -- is going to repeat his higher-than-expected turnout in other states, their supporters may have to surmount significant new voting rights barriers as the campaign moves through the primaries and into the fall election.

That is because the new voters, young people, minorities and the poor who turned out for Obama in Iowa are the very voters targeted by numerous Republican-led "ballot security" laws that have been adopted across the country since 2004. While some of these laws have been overturned, they include tough new voter ID requirements, restrictions on registering voters and even penalties for helping people with absentee ballots.

"Any mobile population are the ones that are most affected by election laws," said David Rosenfeld, national program director for Student Public Interest Research Groups, which tracks student voting. "The most mobile populations are young people and poor people."

Student voting is a good example. The real barrier to student voting in 2008 is not admonitions from the Clintons. It is a patchwork of state laws, according to Rosenfeld, that discourage student voting. Arizona, for instance, rejects out-of-state driver's licenses as an acceptable voter ID. The same is true in Indiana. New Hampshire requires students to register at local government offices. Virginia allows local election officials to decide if a dormitory qualifies as a "domicile." Some do, Rosenfeld said, and some do not. New Mexico restricts the number of voter registration forms one person may carry at a time. And Texas has new penalties for "improperly" helping people with absentee ballots.

Many of these laws -- particularly the voter ID laws and restrictions on registration drives -- have come into effect since the last presidential election. State legislatures, usually with Republican majorities, adopted the measures to combat "voter fraud," or what the GOP has said is people impersonating other voters for partisan benefit. What's notable about these laws is they affect an entire state electorate, while the problems provoking their adoption almost always concern a handful of individuals. That disparity has led many voting rights advocates to say these laws are meant to discourage Democratic voters.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to one of the most strident of these laws, Indiana's photo ID requirement for voters. The case is seen as being the most important election law case since the court's decision awarding the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, because it either will codify a new generation of restrictive election laws or open up the voting process.

The stakes in the Indiana case are enormous for 2008. Voter registration groups like Project Vote, which seeks to register low-income people and will be working in 20 states this year, cite academic studies finding that if minorities voted as frequently as whites, 7.5 million more people would be voting for president next November.

Whether it is harder or easier for those people to vote, just as whether or not there is a candidate who motivates them, will be a major factor in selecting the next president. Indeed, as Obama's Iowa caucuses victory showed, a relatively open process and an inspirational candidate defied expectations with both turnout and the makeup of the electorate.

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/1595580697

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/72748/

 

[LaloGS]

Election reform is needed desperately. Federal elections need to be overseen by non partisan groups possibly provided by the UN. The process is getting worse in the US than it is here in Colombia, a 3rd world country. The election process here is not marred by dirty tricks, and attempts to keep people from voting. Some South American democracies REQUIRE every eligible voter to vote in every election. There are fines if they don't.

The fact that the majority of eligible American voters don't, is telling, and to have either party doing anything to prevent anyone who is eligible from voting is and should be criminal. I suggest at least a 5 year prison term for anyone caught trying to subvert any state level election, and a10 year prison term for anyone caught doing anything similar in a federal election.

And Vanman, what are you afraid of? The voice of the people?

 

[smelter]

There should be a simple voter registration test for everyone. In order to make it fair for Christians, boil it down to a simple oral question.

For Registering Democrats:

Spell the name of the 4th writer of the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and _________

For Registering Republicans:

Spell Thessolonians backwards.

 

[White Eagle]

^^

They probably can't spell it forwards.
No voting restrictions should ever be made. Getting people out, regardless of sides, should be fore front for all involved.
I think laloGS is right, overseers should come and watch the process.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

Vanman is absolutely correct, yet the OP doesn't address that there are no facts provided, or that the title of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the "article". Why not post from reputable sources? If it's such a story I'm sure they would have it.

 

[LaloGS]

^^

They probably can't spell it forwards.
No voting restrictions should ever be made. Getting people out, regardless of sides, should be fore front for all involved.
I think laloGS is right, overseers should come and watch the process.

3rd world democracies generally have outsider oversight of their elections, and it's the outsiders who determine if they are fair and square. Since the parties in the US can't seem to keep it honest anymore, we are looking more and more like a 3rd world country in need of outsider oversight.

 

[LaloGS]

Vanman is absolutely correct, yet the OP doesn't address that there are no facts provided, or that the title of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the "article". Why not post from reputable sources? If it's such a story I'm sure they would have it.

Semantics and misdirection again TTA? Just because you don't see the sins of this administration, and don't apparently read newspapers or watch TV you don't already agree with doesn't mean this shit isn't happening. I think you know it is and does happen, but don't want to believe the party you've hitched your unthinking wagon to would stoop so low as to practice treason against our way of life.

Lie down with dogs and get up with fleas.