Ain’t No Suppression Like Voter Suppression

Florida legislators just passed Georgia-style restrictions on voting. The usual stuff: Barriers to mail-in voting, reductions in the availability of drop-boxes, penalties for distributing food and water to people on line to vote. 

By the way, what is the Republican obsession with preventing the distribution of food and water to voters? Snacks are not a partisan issue. I have it on good authority that even MAGAts like cookies.

The only hope for the country is a huge backlash to this kind of Republican thuggery. In my fantasy, this becomes a highly effective campaign issue for Democrats, and, like, Stacey Abrams rides this indignation to a landslide victory in Georgia’s next gubernatorial election. I’m not really optimistic, but that would certainly be delicious.

*****

NBC is promoting the Tokyo Olympics as “An Olympics like no other.” Apparently they think that’s a good thing.

Petition Edition

In the wake of last Tuesday's debacle, a couple of petitions are making their way around the internet.  One calls on President Obama to immediately appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.  Assuming he has the power to do this, he absolutely should.  The Senate had ample time to perform its constitutional duties, and, out of pure partisan spite, chose not to.  Garland is an eminently qualified, slightly left-of-center judge, and there is no reason for him not to have received due consideration--and presumably approval--by the Senate.  President Obama should use whatever authority he has to get that man seated immediately.

The second petition, however, is far more dangerous: It calls on voters in the Electoral College who have pledged to vote for Trump to go rogue and cast their votes for Clinton.  The petition itself is purely symbolic: Electors can already vote for whomever they want.  If they are currently "bound" to Trump, they can vote for him--or Clinton or Gary Johnson or whomever.  The same holds true for those pledged to Clinton.  And this is true regardless of a state's popular vote totals--and regardless of any petition.  But here's the thing: Even if enough "faithless electors" could "do the right thing" and hand the presidency to Clinton, doing so would be an absolute disaster--a bigger disaster even than a Trump presidency, and that's saying a lot.  Bear with me.

First, the disclaimers: I am terrified about the prospect of Trump in the White House.  The man has shown himself to be a willfully ignorant, race-baiting bully with absolutely no qualifications for the office he is about to enter.  Even more frightening are the people he inspires--racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, and assorted other members of the alt-right.  In a sane world, Trump would not be elected dogcatcher, much less President of the United States.

I also agree that the Electoral College should be abolished.  It is an arcane remnant of the early days of this country, which no longer serves any purpose--assuming it ever did.  It gives vastly disproportionate power to small states and can override the will of the majority of US citizens.  Indeed, a major reason this petition has gained steam is the fact that Hillary Clinton actually "won" (yes, in quotes--I'll get to that) the popular vote, and people feel that the will of the majority must be honored.  They're not wrong, but this is not the way to do it.

Throughout much of the endgame of his campaign, Trump--no doubt seeing polls that suggested he was heading to a massive defeat--would rally his troops with cries that the election was rigged--that the powers that be were simply going to thwart the will of the people and hand the White House to Hillary Clinton.  He was wrong about that (and of course I would say that even if Hillary had prevailed).  But what happens if 40 or so faithless electors switch their votes to Hillary next month?  Of course, as mentioned above, this is their right.  And if, say, in the next month or so, some new scandal erupts that proves Trump even more unfit to be President (the man does have a couple of court dates coming up), then maybe they should switch their votes.  But imagine what will happen in the country immediately afterwards?  Every Trump supporter would cry that Trump was right, that the system WAS rigged, that there was no way they--his voters--were ever going to have their voices heard.

And. They. Would. Be. Right.

Many of us were terrified at the prospect of armed militias taking to the streets in the face of a Trump loss, spurred on by his delusional (or tactical) claims of election rigging.  Those fears were probably overblown, but NOT if the election results are "overturned" by a small handful of unelected elites (electors are chosen by state political parties).  Even if the country doesn't descend into violent revolution, how much legitimacy would President Clinton have?  You think people resisted Obama?  We would see a level of obstructionism that would make the last eight years look like the Summer of Love.

But, you say, Hillary won the popular vote!  More Americans want her than want Trump!  The will of the people SHOULD be honored!  It should--and going forward, if we get rid of the Electoral College, it will be.  But the fact remains: You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game simply because you hate the outcome--and, again, I cannot stress this enough, I HATE the outcome. 

Furthermore, this is not--I sincerely hope--the last US presidential election.  Once we validate the idea of mass defections by electors, we have effectively eliminated any kind of certainty in the political process.  Best case scenario, this adds momentum to the calls for election by national popular vote; worst case scenario, this leads to anarchy.

And about that national popular vote: Yes, Hillary received more votes than Trump nationwide.  However, the last time I checked, her lead was about 200,000 votes. . .out of well over 100 million cast.  In other words, her margin is less than 0.2%.  A win is a win, you will say--and, again, you're not wrong.  But a margin of 200,000 out of a pool of 100 million-plus is not exactly a "win"--it's a statistical tie.

If the popular vote did decide the winner, we would right now have a massive recount going on: People across the country looking for the 2016 equivalent of dangling chads--Florida 2000 writ large.  This is, of course, not a reason NOT to choose the president by popular vote--but it is a caution: A relative handful of votes recounted differently could very easily hand Trump the presidency that way, too.

Those of us who loathe the thought of a Trump presidency should do everything we can to temper its worst effects.  We should also advocate for changes to our voting systems before the next election.  But like it or not, under the system we have now, Trump won the election.  We don't have to like it--but we do have to accept its reality.

I Hate When They Seem Reasonable

The only thing I hate more than reading about Republican-driven machinations to suppress voter turnout is reading about Republican-driven machinations to suppress voter turnout--and agreeing with it.  Well, kinda.  Sorta.  In principle.

Over the last few years, a number of state legislatures have introduced bills that require voters to show photo identification when they come to the polls, ostensibly to prevent voter fraud.  The fact that there is exactly no evidence to suggest that voter fraud is a widespread problem--or, for that matter, a problem period--has proven no deterrent to these zealous guardians of the public weal.  And the fact that these laws pose disproportionate obstacles to minority voters--voters who are far more likely to vote Democratic than Republican--is pointed out by only the most churlish and cynical of pundits and bloggers.

Color me churlish.

So it was with no small sense of unease that I found myself less troubled by an article about Kansas and Arizona, which have introduced "two-tiered" voting systems to allow them to impose extra requirements on voters in state elections--specifically, in this case, a requirement that prospective voters show proof of citizenship.  And while I am fully aware that this, like the various proposals to require photo identification, is primarily an attempt to disenfranchise as many low-income and/or minority voters as possible, I find myself unable to muster a good argument against it.  After all, if voting is a privilege of citizenship--and it is--then why shouldn't states be able to demand proof of citizenship before extending the privilege.

What's even more troubling about this is that proving citizenship is arguably more difficult than merely proving identity.  While I am aware that many low-income or minority citizens may not have photo IDs, I also think that, in the main, the vast majority of people do carry identification: I've carried a driver's license since I was 18--and I didn't even start driving until I was over 30!  In other words, photo identification is fairly common. On the other hand, how many people carry around proof of citizenship?  Not everyone carries around a social security card, and even fewer carry passports, much less birth certificates.  Sort of makes me nostalgic for the good old days of voter-suppression through photo ID requirements.

Gay Marriage: Bread and Circuses

As I scrolled through my Facebook news feed this morning, I saw post after euphoric post celebrating the Supreme Court's decisions in two cases involving same-sex marriage.  Thanks were being offered!  Tears were being shed!  (I have a substantial number of friends in the musical theater industry.)  I'm happy that so many of my friends are happy, but, at the risk of being a massive wet blanket, I must admit to feeling less than overjoyed.

Don't get me wrong.  SCOTUS got the decision right.  As I have said repeatedly, insofar as the government should be involved in legislating romance at all, gays and lesbians should have the same inherent rights to marriage as heterosexuals. It's really a no-brainer--and, appropriately enough, those who oppose such rights are substantively lacking in brains (Bachmann)--or at least in hearts and souls (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito).  But at the same time, how much did today's decision actually accomplish?

By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and declining to decide a case involving California's Proposition 8 (which outlawed same-sex marriage and was subsequently declared unconstitutional by a California court), the Supremes ensured federal recognition of gay marriage and in effect made California the thirteenth state to legalize same-sex marriage.  All well and good.  But they issued no sweeping statement on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage; individual states can still choose to outlaw or condone such unions as they see fit. But virtually every Democratic lawmaker--and even some moderate Republicans--has come out in favor of same-sex marriage.  The arc of history is indeed bending towards justice, and even if SCOTUS had done nothing, more and more states are likely to pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage in the near future.

Still, you might say, this decision likely expedites the eventual universal acceptance of same-sex marriage, and it certainly comes as a welcome relief to thousands of gay couples whose marriages no longer languish in some sort of legislative-judicial purgatory.  Isn't that worth celebrating?  Maybe.  I can't help but think, though, that what we are really celebrating is the fact that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy apparently is more sympathetic to the personal, symbolic rights of gay people than he is to the actual, political rights of black people.

How cynical was it for the Court to release its decision on gay marriage the day after its decision effectively revoking the Voting Rights Act of 1965?  People upset about the potential disenfranchisement of minority voters?  Let them eat gay wedding cake!  (That is, cake at gay weddings--not a homosexual pastry.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

And while Tea Partiers and other assorted troglodytes will scream that today's decision represents a major milestone on America's inevitable journey down the road to Hell, they will soon come to realize--as supporters of gay marriage have long argued--that same-sex marriage affects exactly no one other than the happy couples and their families.  On the other hand, the fact that retrograde state legislatures in southern backwaters can now happily experiment with ways to strip blacks and other undesirables of basic rights of citizenship affects us all.

Sticker Shock

Forget in-person voter fraud!  There's absolutely no evidence that it's happening, and to whatever extent it IS happening, it's highly unlikely that a sufficient number of people in any one state or congressional district are engaging in such activity to make any difference whatsoever in any race's outcome.  I DID, however, personally witness a case of in-person voter-sticker fraud, and I think this poses a significant threat to the Republic!

At my polling place this morning, what I assumed to be a father and son stood on line, waiting to sign in.  The son was about six years old.  As the pair approached the sign-in table, one of the elderly volunteers asked the boy if he would like a sticker. . . .AND THEN SHE GAVE HIM ONE!!!

Now, I am mildly concerned at the thought of what a savvy Republican operative could do with optics implying that a clearly underaged young man was allowed to vote at a polling place in a heavily Democratic precinct, in flagrant violation of any number of election laws.  But I am MORE concerned by the fact that the child was given the sticker before his father voted!  After all, if faced with the prospect of standing in an hours-long line, how many people would just give up and go home if someone offered them an "I Voted" sticker: They'd get all the warm approbation for having done their civic duty without actually having to wait around to vote!!! 

Now, THIS is a job for the ACLU!

FWP

A bill under consideration in the Pennsylvania legislature would reduce food-stamp benefits for women who become pregnant while on public assistance.  Not that these legislators are completely heartless: They would allow for exceptions if the woman in question became pregnant as a result of rape.  Sounds suspiciously liberal to me! But I guess if you carry your rapist's baby to term, you've earned that extra $150 a month!

Let's set aside for the moment the more disturbing rape-related aspects of this proposed legislation.  I would like to address those members of the benighted right who presumably consider this bill a good idea.

You there?  OK.  Ahem.

Why?

Look, as a taxpayer, I get it.  I understand your indignation.  If I heard of a woman intentionally getting pregnant in order to game the system, I, too, would be incensed: How dare she!  But here's the thing: I've heard of no such woman.

Oh, I'm sure women do become pregnant while receiving public assistance. But I doubt they become strategically pregnant to suck more money from the public teat.  And in this case, we're not even talking about "real" money; we're talking about food stamps. Not much of a "net benefit" to have more children in order to get more food stamps: Those additional kids'll eat all the profits.  At any rate, unless some significant number of women IS getting knocked up for the privilege of more food stamps, then this legislation is ONLY a mean-spirited cost-cutting measure that will not save much money but that WILL cause women and children to go hungry.

Ultimately, I suspect this legislation is just so much red meat that arch conservatives want to toss to their base, much like the seemingly ubiquitous laws that have cropped up recently to combat the supposed epidemic of voter fraud.  While legislators (for some inexplicable reason almost exclusively Republicans) claim voter fraud to be a veritable cancer on the body politic, statistics suggest that less than one ten-thousandth of one percent of votes are cast fraudulently.  I suspect a similar percentage of women get pregnant as part of a nefarious scheme to drain public coffers.

Don't legislators have better things to do than to criminalize Fucking While Poor?

Thursday Trendwatch--Sunday Edition

10. HORMONE THERAPY
Why it's trending: Well, when has hormone therapy been anything other than trendy?  All the Melky's are doing it!  (Too soon?)  Specifically, though, researchers have found that a short course of hormone therapy poses little risk for menopausal women and may, indeed, alleviate some of the more troubling symptoms of "the change," including hot flashes, increased sweating, and husband slaughter.

9. CHRIS MATTHEWS HOST
Why it's trending: After watching President Obama's lackluster debate performance against Mitt Romney, the host of "Hardball" suffered a not-so-mini meltdown, which--as much as I agree with his overall points--was kind of hilarious to watch.  Anyway, Matthews is still mad.  When last seen, he was running down the shoulder of I-95 in nothing but a pair of boxer shorts, screaming "47%!  47%!"

An interesting sidenote: "The Chris Matthews Host" was the original name of "The Dave Matthews Band."  Dave and the guys ultimately decided that didn't make much sense.  True story.

8. BREAST CANCER AWARENESS
Why it's trending: October, is "Breast Cancer Awareness Month."  In the past, women-folk have observed BCAM by posting enigmatic Facebook status updates about the colors of their bras or the preferred resting places of their purses.  While this may or may not have raised awareness of breast cancer, it DID make me aware of which of my female Facebook friends like to "go commando," so it wasn't a total loss.

7. HOMS, SYRIA
Why It's Trending: Homs, a rebel-held Syrian town on the Turkish border, has come under massive aerial attack by government forces.  Turkey has returned cross-border fire.  Syrian human rights groups, as well as international humanitarian organizations, have condemned the government's heavy-handed and indiscriminate attacks against a largely defenseless population.  As developments unfold, the world watches with trepidation.

Meanwhile, in Homs, North Dakota, Zeke overslept, so he didn't open the bait and tackle shop until 6:15.  "Might as well've not opened at all," said Big Merle, who had come by Zeke's at its normal 5:00 AM opening time to stock up on nightcrawlers, "'tain't gwineta be any fishes awake now."  As developments unfold, the world watches with trepidation.

(Because Big Merle moved to North Dakota from Maine! OK, Anonymous?!?)

6. RUBEM ROBIERB
Why He's Trending: He's the fiance of Good Morning America weatherman Sam (not short for "Samantha") Champion (not short for "Championship Mud Wrestling Live from Reno").  Anyway, they're getting married.  I hope they'll be happy, but I can't say I approve.  Not because of the whole gay marriage thing; I just have a major problem with names that look like typos.

5. SAMSUNG GALAXY CAMERA
Why It's Trending: I guess it's a camera that's linked directly to the interwebs, thus enabling people to share pictures of their genitalia even faster and easier.  As developments unfold, the world watches with trepidation.
4. STEVE JOBS TRIBUTE LAPTOPS
Why It's Trending: As the one-year anniversary of his death approaches, Steve Jobs is being memorialized by Uncover, a laser-cutting business.  The company is engraving Jobs' image on three laptop computers that will be auctioned off for charity.  While highly stylish, the computers' pancreases are extremely unreliable.  (Too soon? It's been a year!)

3. COLLEGE FOOTBALL
Why It's Trending: Frankly, I'm surprised any time college football is NOT trending on a Sunday, given that the new rankings are released after Saturday's games.  Making today extra special, though, is the fact that, in the last week, no major college programs have been fined, sanctioned, or otherwise penalized for financial improprieties or child molestation.
2. EARLY VOTING
Why It's Trending: An Ohio law that would have ended in-person early voting on the Friday before Election Day has been overturned by a federal appeals court.  This is seen as a victory for President Obama, who received a substantial portion of the early votes in Ohio in 2008.  While the Romney campaign sees this as a setback, spokesmen expressed confidence that voter suppression efforts in other states would prove more successful.

And the NUMBER-ONE TRENDIEST TOPIC AT THIS MOMENT ON THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM IS. . .

TALLADEGA RACE
Why It's Trending: You know, I've always suspected that NASCAR fans were a separate race.  If not a whole different species!  Good to know.

A Solution in Search of a Problem

You've got to love the Republican Party--and by "love," I mean "roll your eyes at the cynical political machinations of."  Unwilling to propose policy addressing the actual problems of our society--foreclosures, mass unemployment, obscene levels of income inequality--the GOP instead goes out of its way to propound solutions to the non-existent problem of "rampant" voter fraud.  Since the 2010 elections, "more than a dozen states have passed laws requiring voters to show photo identification at polls, cutting back early voting periods or imposing new restrictions on voter registration drives" ("New State Rules Raising Hurdles at Voting Booth").  Yesterday, the Justice Department announced that it would challenge one such rule in South Carolina.

In theory, voter-identification laws sound reasonable: In order to safeguard our democracy, we should embrace legislation that seeks to ensure that only those eligible to vote are allowed to vote.  Voter ID laws, therefore, make sure that fraudulent voters cannot sway an election.  But, as many have pointed out, there is no evidence that this has happened.  Indeed, we could frame the issue differently and say that, in order to safeguard democracy, we should embrace legislation that seeks to ensure that anyone eligible to vote CAN vote.  Such legislation would give voters the benefit of the doubt and allow them to cast a ballot at least provisionally.  Either type of legislation has merits.

The fact, though, is that Republicans largely support the first type of legislation, which suggests that they feel confident that the vast majority of those who would be found ineligible under such legislation would be unlikely to support Republican candidates or causes.  Indeed, one of the more. . .amusing provisions, from Texas, would allow concealed-handgun licenses to be used for identification but not student ID cards.  Seriously, why not just say that a Republican Party membership card meets the ID requirements, while a Democratic one will not only prevent one from voting but lead to temporary detention?

"Republicans, who have passed almost all of the new election laws, say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, and question why photo identification should be routinely required at airports but not at polling sites."  Well, probably because the threat of hijacking an airplane is literal, while the hijacking of our democracy is at most a metaphorical--and most likely an illusory--threat.

If Republicans are so concerned about threats to democracy, why are they not more incensed at the disproportionate electoral clout wielded by the wealthy and corporations?  Or are logos considered an acceptable form of voter identification?