What’s Next Poll Taxes Again?

In what I can only call absurd the Supreme Court appears primed to uphold the Indiana Voter ID law recently enacted by a Republican majority in the State Legislature to disenfranchise the poor and the minority voters of Indiana. As I have written before, this is a red herring cooked up by Republicans in states where they hold a majority to suppress voter turnout of primarily Democratic voters. The simple fact that these legislatures are able to do this crap should be a reminder to all of us that we can never take our civil liberties for granted. There are constant challenges to our citizenship and our ability to exercise our rights. There are currently three states that require all voters to present photo ID’s to vote they are Florida, Georgia, and Indiana.

The Bush administration has raised the suspicions of Democrats by making what they call “voter fraud” a priority for Justice Department enforcement. No prosecution for impersonating a registered voter, the type of fraud that would be prevented by a photo requirement, has ever been brought, however. “No one has been punished for this kind of fraud in living memory in this country,” Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer arguing for the Democrats, told the justices.[1]

The technicality that the Supreme Court is going to use is devious if not immoral. The “deciders” are going to say that because this is a facial challenge it should not even be argued at this point before the Court. According to their logic the case should not be argued until after there has been damage or in other words after the election has been held. Where did this strategy come from? The Indiana Solicitor General who is arguing the case on behalf of Indiana? No. The strategy was the brain-child of none other than the Bush Administration in their brief filed before the Court in support of upholding not only the Indiana law, but all voter ID laws.

It is way past time that we acknowledge that voting is not a privilege like driving which can be revoked by the state, but a right; a fundamental right on which this nation was founded. Somehow in recent years we have lost sight of the many struggles involved in allowing all Americans the opportunity to vote. It began with a tea party in Boston, then it went to New York, and finally it made its way to Selma. It is amazing to me that in 2008, I have to write an essay in support of the right of all Americans to have unimpeded access to voting. This is indicative of the policies of Karl Rove and his Neo-Con clowns, they don’t care about what is best for America. There only concern is what is best for them and their wealthy friends. How can anyone call themselves a patriot and not support the right for all Americans to participate in our democracy?

These charlatans began with removing the voting rights of felons and no one complained, after all they’re criminals. As if to say that criminals would band together and elect who? The Joker or some other arch fiend! And once they were able to marginalize the criminals then they went after the handicapped and now due to their success they have become so brazen that now the poor and minorities that have not committed any crimes are being attacked. Let’s be honest here, this is voter disenfranchisement pure and simple. The fact that they have been able to achieve getting it state law should be a disgrace to all Americans who believe in democracy and the right of all citizens to enjoy that right.

If the Supreme Court chooses to use the argument that no one has been discriminated against yet, then they will de facto condone election piracy and voter suppression. You cannot take a pass with democracy. You can’t allow millions of votes to be suppressed and then say, “oops, my bad”, we should have looked at this sooner. Have we become so complacent in America to the point where the lost of the right to vote for our fellow citizens is no longer important? Will we not complain until it is just white male property owners who can vote again? The Supreme Court is trying to pull a fast one and is showing just how politicized the Court has become under Bush and his legal hacks.

For those who are waiting for that one defining moment, it won’t happen. Loss of freedom is done in drips and drops, a slow erosion of our morals, our democracy, and finally our resistance. Once we are locked in our goose-stepping then we are capable of anything. We must protect the homeland from undesirables and inferiors. Some will ask what’s so wrong with making everyone show a picture ID, you have to use them anyway in today’s world, right. Wrong there are many people who don’t have a picture ID. There are those who cannot afford them, there is a segment of the population who don’t want them, and there are those who are physically unable to get them. It is just another case of using a nuclear weapon to kill a mosquito.

There is no proof of wide spread voter fraud in America. Even with our porous borders no one has demonstrated that millions of illegal’s are crossing the border to affect our elections. There has been no proof of any voter fraud conspiracies anywhere in America, except that one in 2000 down in Florida or that one in 2004 in Ohio. Why are we creating new laws to protect us from a non-existent threat? The reason for the need is of course to marginalize and disenfranchise millions of voters the majority of who would support the Democrats. Rather than making voting more difficult, maybe we should try making it easier for all Americans to join our democratic process. Instead of trying to narrow the voting pool to support their narrow policies, maybe the Republicans should consider broadening their policies to gain broader support with the American electorate. Every year the pool of eligible voters that actually vote grows smaller, do we really want to return to the opinions of a view to dictate the direction of the country?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/washington/10scotus.html

Read more!

Justitia omnibus*

It is amazing to me and should be an embarrassment to us all that the residents of Washington, DC do not have representation. Why should those who live and work in the seat of democracy for the world give up their rights to representation? Every citizen in Iraq was eligible to vote in their elections for their representatives, but not so in Washington, DC. It is time that we as a nation finally right this grave injustice.

"To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."[1]

This paragraph was taken from the federalist papers written by James Madison, detailing how our federal government shall operate. So that no state would have superseding rights over the federal government, it was decided that the land surrounding the Capital not be part of any state but would be federal land under federal authority. This meant that the citizens of this city would be a people without a country, with no voting rights. The city was basically run by the Congress and a caretaker mayor. Over the years this status has remained for the residents of DC, because many of the residents were black it didn’t become an issue until the civil rights activities of the 60’s.

It took the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, for the residents to be able to vote for the President. While this allowed the residents some representation, it did not provide the full representation they deserve. Do the residents of the capital have any less citizenship than the rest of us? The answer should be no, but unfortunately it has continually been a resounding yes.

I think that one of the reasons it has taken so long to make the District residents full-fledged citizens has to do with the racial makeup of the city. The District population is over 580,000 and over 60% black. Nowhere in the country are there this many white citizens denied representation. It is shameful that we have Americans fighting and dying so that all Iraqis can have representation, yet in our country we will not allow these Americans to have representation. If this is about federal jurisdiction then no federal employees should be allowed to vote. For some reason this is a block of voters no one wants represented. Where are all those voices for liberation of foreign lands and exporters of democracy? I guess democracy is ok for them, but not for a bunch of black folks who are the working backbone of government.

These are the folks who toil everyday in low level federal government jobs or menial labor to ensure that our government and politicians are able to function. These are the people you don’t see on the news or on C-Span, they just quietly go about their business and they deserve to be represented as well. How can we continue to deny these black folks the opportunity to fully enjoy the freedoms so many of us take for granted? This issue should be a priority for the Democratic Party and all those who say they value democracy. There should not be anyplace in this country where those able to vote cannot.

Another reason for the delay is that the voters of the District vote overwhelmingly Democratic. This would provide the Dems with another two Senators and another Representative, which the Republicans have continued to block. This issue should not be allowed to be politicized, but should be debated on its merits. Does every American have the right to representation or will we continue to have taxation without representation for the residents of DC? The political affiliation of the voters should not in any way prevent that voter from expressing their right as a citizen. Here it is we allow corporations and special interest groups’ access to our system, but we refuse a group of citizens because they are black and Democratic? This should be an affront to all freedom loving people everywhere.

Let’s grant the full right of citizenship to the residents of DC and end one of the last vestiges of tyranny left in America. Let’s have “Justice for All”.

* Justice For All
[1] http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/federlist/federa43.htm

Read more!

Insane Enough to Vote?

Unfortunately there appears to be an effort on the part of some in state government to curtail or limit the voting rights of those who they deem mentally unfit to vote. The main focus of these arguments is that people under guardianship for mental illness do not possess the capacity to vote. If there were some voting competency test, I know quite a few people that would not be voting or holding office for that matter. Should people who have been found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity be allowed to vote? How about people with Alzheimer’s or dementia, should they be allowed to vote?

This summer, recommendations for national standards will be released by a group of psychiatrists, lawyers and others led by the American Bar Association, suggesting that people be prevented from voting only if they cannot indicate, with or without help, “a specific desire to participate in the voting process.”[1]

I find this standard to be a fair criterion for accessing one’s ability to vote. I think that if a person has a real desire to take part in the voting process and can without help indicate that desire, they should be allowed to vote. The problem occurs when voting standards are set up to determine if a person is competent to vote. Any voter competency test will be fraught with danger and sure to be misused by those wanting to limit the access of these people to vote. To go any further would require that we use the same set of standards for all voters or it could be used in a discriminatory fashion.

CRANSTON, R.I. — Behind the barbed wire and thick walls of the state mental hospital here are two patients who have not been allowed to live in the outside world for 20 years. Both were found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.
Still, they have voted in elections nearly every two years, casting ballots by mail. Now, however, election officials are taking steps that could ban them from voting, arguing that state law denies the vote to people with such serious psychiatric impairments.
“I just think if you are declared insane you should not be allowed to vote, period,” said Joseph DeLorenzo, chairman of the Cranston Board of Canvassers. “Some people are taking these two clowns and calling them disabled persons. Is insanity a disability? I have an answer to that: no. You’re insane; you’re nuts.”[2]

How will we determine who is competent? Shall we have them discuss the candidate’s platform or positions on various issues? Shall we have a voter IQ test administered at the polls? How many of us could pass such test for every election we vote in? I don’t advocate that anyone be allowed to vote, I believe to maintain the integrity of elections there has to be some criteria. However, how many severely mentally ill people even want to vote? Most of my experience with the people who suffer from extreme mental illness they have no desire to vote or to participate in the political process. Anyone that has a capacity and a desire to want to vote should be given atleast the opportunity to vote, if possible.

I am a firm believer and advocate for the expansion of voting, not the shrinking of it. With all the voter apathy we have today, we should be developing ways to bring more people into the political process, not fewer. If someone is astute enough to consider voting as their right and they can do it, I say why not. They can’t do any worse than the rest of us. I mean, who is going to determine a voter’s competency?

State laws vary and are inconsistently applied, said Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director for the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an advocacy group in Washington. Ms. Mathis said most states fell into one of two categories. About 18 bar voting by people under guardianship or who are “non compos mentis” (“not master of one’s own mind”), a determination that is often not clearly defined. Another 18 prevent voting if there is a specific determination that people lack voting competence.[3]

For the most part the criteria used today by states are vague and could be used to prevent almost anyone from voting. As our population ages and more of us are dealing with age specific mental illness, these vague voting statues could be used to prevent thousands of seniors from voting. There are many seniors that are under guardianship, but still maintain their faculties. We must be very careful in a democracy anytime we talk about limited the rights of anyone to vote. Today, it may be the ex-cons, the mentally challenged, and the handicapped; who will it be tomorrow?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html?hp
[2] Ibid
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html?hp

Read more!