Throughout the fall, Republicans claimed that nation’s election process was being compromised by coordinated, large-scale voter registration fraud campaigns. In Lake County, Illinois, the story of Princess the Goldfish prompted Republican County Clerk Willard Helander to file a lawsuit asking for 5,000 early voting ballots to go through background checks because of a mishap by D.C.-based group attempting to boost voter registration. At one point, she even suggested that the county might institute a de facto voter ID law in certain precincts. North Shore Rep. Mark joined the chorus, claiming that “massive voter fraud” would occur on Election Day.
Across the border, a Republican member of the Lake County, Indiana Board of Elections raised similar concerns, identifying errors in 5,000 registrations submitted by individual canvassers for the community organizing group ACORN. In both cases, misinformed media reports elevated the critiques. The furor was capped off when John McCain called ACORN “a threat to our democracy” during one of the presidential debates.
As it turns out, absolutely no voter fraud was detected in either county. That’s because voter fraud is a largely nonexistent issue. The real problem isn’t that ineligible individuals are making it into the voting booth—it’s that too many perfectly legitimate voters still face roadblocks to actually casting a ballot. A new study by the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey presents the sobering data:
Four million to five million voters did not cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election because they encountered registration problems or failed to receive absentee ballots, which is roughly the same number of voters who encountered such problems in the 2000 election, according to an academic study to be presented to the Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday.
An additional two million to four million registered voters — or 1 percent to 2 percent of the eligible electorate — were “discouraged” from voting due to administrative hassles, like long lines and voter identification requirements, the study found.
The problems are well-known. Voter registration lists are not kept current because enough resources aren’t allocated to local election offices. Clerical errors during the registration process are common. Some election officials erect high barriers to participation, whether inadvertently or on purpose.
By and large, Republicans have little interest in addressing these problems. Instead, they like to stoke fears that left-of-center organizations are out to subvert the electoral process for partisan gain. But systemic solutions, such as same-day voter registration, are needed to extend the franchise.
Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user Big Dubya.
Comments
Travis (not verified) on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 08:42
Besides the hype, it feels like no one’s really talking this week about Michael Quigley’s win in the 5th Congressional District primary. But more needs to be said here. Since last Tuesday, certain media saturation has washed over us that Quigley is a reformer and that is the reason he won. Let’s be real. Quigley is not the change agent the Tribune and other media outlets have painted him to be. He deserves the victory, yes, but this rush to crown him a crusader is absurd.
In an editorial last Thursday, the Tribune called Quigley “a genuine agent of change, an independent operator, a reliable opponent of tax increases and patronage-bloated public payrolls and inefficient government.” And like the Sun-Times, they endorsed him, so it wasn’t something truly surprising to read. But by naming him some valiant independent operator, so many people simply ignore what contributed to his win.
Like Lynn Sweet in the Sun-Times, a lot of people got this hype rolling by relying on the money his campaign spent. On Election Day, estimates said Quigley was outspent 5-1 by his challengers. The Sun-Times said the total spending of Quigley’s opponents was approximately $3 million, whereas he spent an approximate $550,000. But think about it. A collective $3 million versus $550,000 isn’t that significant. Quigley just spent one-sixth of all the money in a 12-person field. He played his equal part. It was one-sixth. And good for him. He was a major player who figured out a way to win. Just don’t twist the language to make it seem like he won it all on a shoestring budget.
Sweet inflated the hype by saying most of Quigley’s fundraising—$350,000 of $400,000—came three weeks before the election. But she failed to mention that the money came at a time when Quigley began receiving assistance from Bill Brandt.
Brandt may not be a big player in city machine politics, but he’s a Democratic activist with some huge national fundraising connections. He’s raised money for the Clintons and other key Democrats. He also sits as the Chairman of the Illinois Finance Authority, was a member of the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee in 2000 and served as an Illinois delegate at the DNC last year. Frankly, Brandt is a man who knows who to call when a check needs to be written at the eleventh hour. And by their association in this win, Quigley has emerged as the national Democratic establishment’s candidate.
I voted for Quigley. I did it because—conceding a little to the argument of reformation—he has occasionally stood up against machine politics and that does matter. So Quigley is technically my guy. But he’s not the little guy. And this idea that he is some outside populist or underdog or come-from-behind candidate is silly. He was simply the best person out of the field we were given.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.