Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Weekly Address: Reaffirming Our Commitment to Protecting the Right to Vote
Source: White House
In this week's address, the President celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act by underscoring the importance of one of the most fundamental rights of our democracy – that all of us are created equal and that each of us deserves a voice. The enactment of the Voting Rights Act wasn’t easy – it was the product of sacrifice from countless men and women who risked so much to protect every person’s right to vote. The President reminded us about their struggle and that while our country is a better place because of it, there is still work to be done. He promised to continue to push Congress for new legislation to protect everyone’s right to the polls, and asked that all Americans regardless of party use every opportunity possible to exercise the fundamental right to vote.
Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/08/weekly-address-reaffirming-our-commitment-protecting-right-vote
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights of any democracy. Yet for too long, too many of our fellow citizens were denied that right, simply because of the color of their skin.
Fifty years ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson signed a law to change that. The Voting Rights Act broke down legal barriers that stood between millions of African Americans and their constitutional right to cast ballot. It was, and still is, one of the greatest victories in our country’s struggle for civil rights.
But it didn’t happen overnight. Countless men and women marched and organized, sat in and stood up, for our most basic rights. For this they were called agitators and un-American, they were jailed and beaten. Some were even killed. But in the end, they reaffirmed the idea at the very heart of America: that people who love this country can change it.
Our country is a better place because of all those heroes did for us. But as one of those heroes, Congressman John Lewis, reminded us in Selma this past March, “There’s still work to be done.” Fifty years after the Voting Rights Act, there are still too many barriers to vote, and too many people trying to erect new ones. We’ve seen laws that roll back early voting, force people to jump through hoops to cast a ballot, or lead to legitimate voters being improperly purged from the rolls. Over the years, we have seen provisions specifically designed to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote. In a democracy like ours, with a history like ours, that’s a disgrace.
That’s why, as we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, I’m calling on Congress to pass new legislation to make sure every American has equal access to the polls. It’s why I support the organizers getting folks registered in their communities. And it’s why, no matter what party you support, my message to every American is simple: get out there and vote – not just every four years, but every chance you get. Because your elected officials will only heed your voice if you make your voice heard.
The promise that all of us are created equal is written into our founding documents – but it’s up to us to make that promise real. Together, let’s do what Americans have always done: let’s keep marching forward, keep perfecting our union, and keep building a better country for our kids.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/08/weekly-address-reaffirming-our-commitment-protecting-right-vote
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Controversial-Texas-voter-ID-law-kept-registered-v-6431414.php
5.8% said they didn't vote because they lacked ID.
2.7% actually didn't have the necessary ID.
I'm going to guess that one of the reasons for 12.8% who gave several reasons was ID related. And that part of the "discouraged" was ID related. In all the PR about how difficult it was to get ID, I had students who said they lacked proper ID. They had drivers licenses. But since it was to hard to get ID, the news was, they assumed they'd never be able to secure the necessary document.
Note that it's very probable many (most?) of the 2.7% without the necessary ID probably could have gotten it. Most of the steps can be done by mail--but you have to plan.
Still, ID is low on the ladder for reasons not to vote. As we've removed poll taxes and literacy laws, as we've added early voting and absentee voting and mail voting and extended hours, as we've added register by mail and motor-voter and mobile registration stations, the participation rate's decreased. Because people think their vote doesn't make a different, they need perfect candidates, or they are "too busy" (and with mail voting and extended hours and early voting "too busy" means precious little). Many probably think it would take hours to vote, given the huge lines and cumbersome process.
Where do they get the ideas that their vote doesn't count?
"The polls are rigged."
"The elections are bought."
"The politicians are all corrupt corporatists" (or "socialists"
.
"There are huge lines at the polls."
"It's so difficult to get the necessary ID."
"They don't want your kind voting."
"You don't ever really hear the truth."
"Look at all these people purged from the rolls. They'll go to vote and not be registered!"
And that's what (D) tell (D) voters to "encourage" them. Perhaps the "your kind" blip makes people mad--but "mad" to "discouraged" is a short walk. We discourage people for years and then when they don't turn out we really need to look elsewhere.
Even the "so difficult to get the ID", in spite of activists trying to backfill and explain, led to a lot of people in West Texas not knowing they had the right ID--the assumption was that they did not. The default assumption should have been, "If there's a photo or it's issued by the federal government, it's good." The default assumption instead was, "They've kept me from the polls." Now, the reason for all the hyperbole was political: We want this law scrapped, let's make it sound as bad as possible.
But remember the #s at the beginning? This West Texas district 23 had 5.8% believing they lacked ID when only 2.7% of those interviewed actually lacked ID? In other words, 3.1% of the voters had ID and could have voted, and gave lack of ID as the reason they didn't. Well, Mr. Hurd (R) won that majority Latino district. He won that district by 2.1%. Those who were misinformed by the anti-ID campaign, plus those who just didn't get the word outnumbered the margin of victory. That doesn't include those who included "lacked ID" as one of several reasons for not voting.
Hyperbole is misinformation. In West Texas, it produced blowback.
Look at election rhetoric on DU. Most of the time it's cynical, discouraging, off-putting. As soon as we need votes, suddenly it's all upbeat and "your vote makes a difference," usually with "if you vote for my candidate," and sometimes with "let's discourage others from voting."
Then there are actual impediments that affect a lot of people, not just a small symbolic fraction:
*If you move, you have to re-register. Some demographic groups move more frequently than others.
*Registering requires knowledge of the system. Some groups have greater knowledge of the system than others.
*You need to know the issues and the candidates. That requires time and effort, and can't be done in 142-character tweets or 6-second video bites.
*You need to know the technology. Low income areas always have a greater ballot spoilage rate than higher SES areas. This gets billed as racism. It's knowledge of the system and how to vote.
I'll leave aside things like students voting. I've lived in districts where students voted: They approve a bond for 20 years, but in 2 years the students are gone and don't need to be responsible for the consequences of their vote. They vote for state reps but the state rep represents the students more than the locals--not a good thing when the locals are mostly rural and the students urban. Or the students turn out to vote for national candidates and local measures fail because they needed a certain proportion of the voters to vote and didn't meet what amounts to quorum requirements. With mail-in ballots and easy absentee it's no longer an issue ... Except for those who are too busy to think a few weeks ahead, or make time from their busy schedule when visiting home to vote.
5.8% said they didn't vote because they lacked ID.
2.7% actually didn't have the necessary ID.
I'm going to guess that one of the reasons for 12.8% who gave several reasons was ID related. And that part of the "discouraged" was ID related. In all the PR about how difficult it was to get ID, I had students who said they lacked proper ID. They had drivers licenses. But since it was to hard to get ID, the news was, they assumed they'd never be able to secure the necessary document.
Note that it's very probable many (most?) of the 2.7% without the necessary ID probably could have gotten it. Most of the steps can be done by mail--but you have to plan.
Still, ID is low on the ladder for reasons not to vote. As we've removed poll taxes and literacy laws, as we've added early voting and absentee voting and mail voting and extended hours, as we've added register by mail and motor-voter and mobile registration stations, the participation rate's decreased. Because people think their vote doesn't make a different, they need perfect candidates, or they are "too busy" (and with mail voting and extended hours and early voting "too busy" means precious little). Many probably think it would take hours to vote, given the huge lines and cumbersome process.
Where do they get the ideas that their vote doesn't count?
"The polls are rigged."
"The elections are bought."
"The politicians are all corrupt corporatists" (or "socialists"
.
"There are huge lines at the polls."
"It's so difficult to get the necessary ID."
"They don't want your kind voting."
"You don't ever really hear the truth."
"Look at all these people purged from the rolls. They'll go to vote and not be registered!"
And that's what (D) tell (D) voters to "encourage" them. Perhaps the "your kind" blip makes people mad--but "mad" to "discouraged" is a short walk. We discourage people for years and then when they don't turn out we really need to look elsewhere.
Even the "so difficult to get the ID", in spite of activists trying to backfill and explain, led to a lot of people in West Texas not knowing they had the right ID--the assumption was that they did not. The default assumption should have been, "If there's a photo or it's issued by the federal government, it's good." The default assumption instead was, "They've kept me from the polls." Now, the reason for all the hyperbole was political: We want this law scrapped, let's make it sound as bad as possible.
But remember the #s at the beginning? This West Texas district 23 had 5.8% believing they lacked ID when only 2.7% of those interviewed actually lacked ID? In other words, 3.1% of the voters had ID and could have voted, and gave lack of ID as the reason they didn't. Well, Mr. Hurd (R) won that majority Latino district. He won that district by 2.1%. Those who were misinformed by the anti-ID campaign, plus those who just didn't get the word outnumbered the margin of victory. That doesn't include those who included "lacked ID" as one of several reasons for not voting.
Hyperbole is misinformation. In West Texas, it produced blowback.
Look at election rhetoric on DU. Most of the time it's cynical, discouraging, off-putting. As soon as we need votes, suddenly it's all upbeat and "your vote makes a difference," usually with "if you vote for my candidate," and sometimes with "let's discourage others from voting."
Then there are actual impediments that affect a lot of people, not just a small symbolic fraction:
*If you move, you have to re-register. Some demographic groups move more frequently than others.
*Registering requires knowledge of the system. Some groups have greater knowledge of the system than others.
*You need to know the issues and the candidates. That requires time and effort, and can't be done in 142-character tweets or 6-second video bites.
*You need to know the technology. Low income areas always have a greater ballot spoilage rate than higher SES areas. This gets billed as racism. It's knowledge of the system and how to vote.
I'll leave aside things like students voting. I've lived in districts where students voted: They approve a bond for 20 years, but in 2 years the students are gone and don't need to be responsible for the consequences of their vote. They vote for state reps but the state rep represents the students more than the locals--not a good thing when the locals are mostly rural and the students urban. Or the students turn out to vote for national candidates and local measures fail because they needed a certain proportion of the voters to vote and didn't meet what amounts to quorum requirements. With mail-in ballots and easy absentee it's no longer an issue ... Except for those who are too busy to think a few weeks ahead, or make time from their busy schedule when visiting home to vote.
After 4 Constitutional Amendments explicitly dealing with voting, we still struggle with voting and the games played to restrict it. I am hoping that one day, there will be the one amendment that basically says -
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be questioned, denied or abridged by the United States or by any State, for any reason or by any means.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
thank you
