Calling a Crow a Crow: ysabetwordsmith

Calling a Crow a Crow

I've got a reputation for calling a spade a spade. I've also been pointing out that recent changes in voting laws are basically just Jim Crow laws in a fancy new jacket.

When you see things like this, ask yourself: "Who benefits? Who suffers?" When voting requires a driver's license, it crowds out people who don't have, don't need, or can't afford a car. That is unfairly biased against poor people, who are disproportionately people of color. (Also remember the other boobytrap affecting them: criminal disenfranchisement. More people of color are convicted of crimes than white people are, so many of them are disenfranchised that way.) Why? Because it's not in their interest to vote Republican; the Democrats are likely to take better care of them. But the Republican party is pushing for all kinds of "voting reform" that would block out large groups of people who tend to vote Democrat. They are not, however, in favor of genuinely honest voting reform such as ensuring enough votiing equipment or accurate records. This bothers me, because without fair elections, democracy is a mockery.

Here's an article looking into Jim Crow electioneering:

GOP Working to Keep Poor African-Americans From Voting in Many States
Jonathan Alter, Newsweek: "It was a mainstay of Jim Crow segregation: for 100 years after the Civil War, Southern white Democrats kept eligible blacks from voting with poll taxes, literacy tests and property requirements. Starting in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court declared these assaults on the heart of American democracy unconstitutional. Now, with the help of a 2008 Supreme Court decision, Crawford vs. Marion County (Indiana) Election Board, white Republicans in some areas will keep eligible blacks from voting by requiring driver's licenses. Not only is this new-fangled discrimination constitutional, it's spreading."

And no, it isn't really constitutional, any more than the original Jim Crow laws were -- but those stood for a century before people struck them down.

More articles on negative motion in voting reform:
"Politics Stymies Voting Reform"
"PA Primary Will Be Unauditable; GOP Blocks E-Voting Reform"

Do you hate this? Research positive options for voting reform.
Center for Voting and Democracy
Reform Elections
"VotePair for Voting Reform"

wyld_dandelyon

September 12 2008, 16:38:22 UTC 12 years ago

New comment

In Michigan, Republicans are mobilizing to use foreclosure records to challenge poor voters' right to vote. Per

filkertom and others.

It is, of course, just another way to cause delays and intimidate or otherwise prevent "the wrong sort of people" from voting.

Deleted comment

September 12 2008, 19:21:08 UTC 12 years ago

You know, people who have foreclosures filed on them don't always lose their homes. And some may not yet, as of election day, had the foreclosures finalized, even if they can't work out a way to permanently keep their homes.

There's no requirement that someone be actually proved to have moved out of their house before they can have their right to vote challenged, from the articles I've seen thus far. I even saw one article that said the pollworker can't even ask the basis of the challenge, which I imagine would mean someone could go in with a list, challenge anyone they think might be on the list, and the pollworker would have to do whatever extra paperwork or provisional ballot Michigan law requires, thus delaying everyone in line behind the challenged person. And the next challenged person. Etc. And you can bet that if they challenge dozens of people, there won't be enough provisional ballots, causing more delays...

Given the long history of intimidation, sending out inaccurate information about voting times and places, and other underhanded efforts to keep poor people from voting; given the national push to require picture ID (which must be paid for by the voter, and thus amounts to a poll tax), and (in contrast) the tiny, tiny number of cases of actual voter fraud, I think there is lip service to "protecting us from voter fraud" covering up an actual concern for "protecting our power base" in most or all of the people organizing this effort.

The individuals volunteering may believe the "prevent voter fraud" line, of course.

But it's still scrutinizing the pennies carefully, for counterfeits in a way that creates a wind that blows away dollar bills...focusing on preventing voter fraud, in a way that discourages or prevents valid voters from voting, makes the process less fair, not more fair.

September 15 2008, 17:03:31 UTC 12 years ago

*snicker*

sageautumn

September 12 2008, 17:13:16 UTC 12 years ago

Hmm. Maybe sooner or later we'll go back to having to own property to vote---your tax record being, of course, proof of residency.

My husband and I jointly own our home. Wonder if we'll both get a vote... I mean, after all, he is black.

dulcinbradbury

September 12 2008, 17:22:45 UTC 12 years ago

You mean like this? http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

:p Bastards.

ysabetwordsmith

September 12 2008, 21:13:15 UTC 12 years ago

Maybe he'll get 3/5 of a vote then. 0_o

Hmm...

September 12 2008, 21:25:53 UTC 12 years ago

>>Far as I know, the Obama presidency moves a token black from the legislature to the nominally executive branch, where he can be undermined or compromised more effectively.<<

That raises the question of whether Obama is a token, or real representation. The Presidency has a lot of power -- especially after Bush is through gutting the rest of the government. A token is traditionally placed in a position of low power and influence but high visibility, to make it look like success is more possible than it really is. Real representation gives someone a chance to make a real difference. I'm inclined to consider Obama more as representation than token, but I'll leave the real call to other black folks; they've got more practice parsing that stuff.

>> In my opinion, the McCain/Palin ticket is a virtual admission of defeat, a placeholder as disgraced republicans try to position themselves for the 2010 contest and beyond. <<

I hope you're right.

glitteringlynx

September 12 2008, 20:01:27 UTC 12 years ago

When voting requires a driver's license, it crowds out people who don't have, don't need, or can't afford a car

Not always. I mean the cost to get the training and get the license (easier in the US than here in Ontario) is still much cheaper than getting a car, and once you have it you always have it as long as you renew it every 5 years or whatever. It's one of the best types of photo id to have Esp since for things like alcohol and tobacco, there are maybe 5 forms of ID that are acceptable.. which fucks over anyone visiting Canada who didn't bring a passport. :/

A driver's license, I would argue, is the easiest form of acceptable photo id to acquire.

September 12 2008, 21:22:25 UTC 12 years ago

It still costs money, though -- and you have to have access to a car and to the training. If you're poor, $50 is a huge amount. As someone else pointed out, if photo ID is required and is not free, then it amounts to a poll tax, and that's illegal. But it's a very clever ploy, and it's working alarmingly well.

Aside from the fact that disenfranchisement is wrong, it's also dangerous -- because if you shut people out of the system, they have no incentive to go along with it, and no reason not to beat on it with baseball bats. I'd rather not have that happen.

September 15 2008, 17:25:19 UTC 12 years ago

And when you're older, in many states, you have to not only renew the license, but take a driver's test, eventually yearly, to prove you still have the physical capacity and skills to drive safely. For someone who has the money to own a car, this isn't a big deal until age does steal away their reflexes or eye sight. For someone on a fixed income, who has no car, no money for gas, and no chance to drive regularly or even to practice before the test, even if they could borrow a car to take the test, the chance of keeping their license is slim.

As to visiting Canada without a passport, all too soon getting back into the US will require a passport anyway, but all of that is moot unless one has the money to get to Canada.

As to the baseball bat image, while, in the abstract, the thought of beating upon "the system" with one is kinda satisfying, the actuality wouldn't be abstract. If people have no voice in things without having to get out implements of destruction, it's not "the system" but people (and their cars, homes, and personal treasures) that will actually be battered--and it's mostly the poor who will be in the line of fire. Sadly, the rich will then use the violence to try to scare the people into shoring up the system...that's how they've used "the drug war" and "the war on terrorism" and other pet political scare-tactics the whole time I've been watching.

Gosh, how'd I get so cynical?

September 15 2008, 17:32:10 UTC 12 years ago

>> the actuality wouldn't be abstract. If people have no voice in things without having to get out implements of destruction, it's not "the system" but people (and their cars, homes, and personal treasures) that will actually be battered--and it's mostly the poor who will be in the line of fire.<<

To some extent that's true, but the more class-inspired the riot, the more likely that poor people will target property and persons who are perceived to be middle-class or higher. It's entirely possible for an uprising to destroy a large portion of an aristocracy, whether genetic or financial. Historical examples abound. I'd rather not see another one.

>> Sadly, the rich will then use the violence to try to scare the people into shoring up the system...that's how they've used "the drug war" and "the war on terrorism" and other pet political scare-tactics the whole time I've been watching.<<

And that works for a while, encouraging the rich to believe that they're in control, right up to the point of total meltdown. You could ask the French how that goes in the end.

September 15 2008, 17:43:19 UTC 12 years ago

I REALLY don't want to live through the kind of country-wide sustained uprising that gets past the hired guards to the rich folk and topples governments.

I'd far rather see our country changed by votes than meltdown!