Soccer Dad

Vote early and often from the cemetery

Prior to the 2002 General Election in Maryland, the Democrats were concerned enough about the gubernatorial race to suggest that the Fraternal Order of Police would be used to intimidate voters. In between these unsubstantiated charges, Democratic politicians brought up a substantiated "dirty trick":

Cummings also held up a flier that Democratic campaign volunteers said they found posted in some Northwest Baltimore neighborhoods, including on the doors of Pimlico Middle School.

The unsigned flier read: "URGENT NOTICE. Come out to vote on November 6th. Before you come to vote make sure you pay your parking tickets, motor vehicle tickets, overdue rent and most important any warrants."

"Of course all of us know this is an effort to stop people from coming out to vote," said Cummings, who noted the election is Nov. 5. "We don't know exactly who put this out, but you must agree it is an interesting combination. We are very clear we will not allow this to happen."

Democratic party officials said they intend to pass out fliers in city neighborhoods with a toll-free phone number for voters to call to report any suspected intimidation. The line is to be staffed by 100 lawyers.

Immediately, Timoth Noah of Slate declared:

Chatterbox can't prove that this leaflet was distributed by Republicans, but since Baltimore's black population is overwhelmingly Democratic, that seems a safe assumption. If there's an uglier example of dirty tricks from this election season, Chatterbox hasn't seen it.

To his credit Noah linked to Joel Mowbray who dismissed these charges:

As cynical political calculations go, posting a few fliers and then crying foul might be exactly what the Democrats need to rally the troops in a gubernatorial race that appears headed to the Republican column for the first time in over 30 years. Republican denials of involvement would — and did — all have the flavor of "No, I didn't hit my wife." Anchors on one cable-news channel, for example, debated whether the flier was the product of a Republican organization or just an individual Republican, overlooking the distinct possibility that Democrats orchestrated the whole affair.

(Noah rejects Mowbray's interpretation, arguing that if Mowbray were correct the Democrats would have had to have been a lot more organized about it. I don't buy Noah's scenario. Democrats knew that they needed only to make the charge and an uncurious media would broadcast the charge regardless of the their credibility.)

But no matter how dubious the charge, it remains, even now nearly 3 1/2 years later, an article of faith in Democratic circles that Republicans tried to suppress the black vote in Maryland. How do I know this? Because of an e-mail I received last week from my Delegate, Samuel I. Rosenberg, boasting about the Democratic effort to override Governor Ehrlich's veto of Maryland's Voter's Right Protection Act:

Yesterday's veto override got little attention in today's newspapers. So Lisa Gladden and I sent a letter to the editor of several papers. Whether or not they publish it, I can.

Dear Editors:

The Voters Rights Protection Act enhances citizens' access to the voting booth by preventing voter intimidation and suppression. By overriding Governor Ehrlich's veto, the General Assembly takes another step forward on the path trod 41 years ago by those who marched across the Edmund Pettis Bridge near Selma, Alabama.

We were the lead sponsors of this legislation. It adopts language from the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 that prohibits the use of force, threat, menace, intimidation, bribery, deception, or reward to influence a voter's decision whether to go to the polls. Conduct that results in or has the intent to result in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or disability is prohibited as well.

Such ugly acts are not historic relics of the Deep South. Four years ago, leaflets urging people to vote - but on the day after the election, were distributed in minority neighborhoods in Baltimore City and Prince George's County. In addition, these flyers wrongly implied that you couldn't vote if you owed child support or parking tickets. Our bill makes this deception a crime.

Provisional ballots are one of the reforms passed by the Congress after the Florida election debacle in 2000. If your name is not on the voters' list at the precinct where you go to vote, you cast a provisional ballot. It's counted after the polls close - only if you're registered at another precinct.

But it counts only for federal offices, not state and local ones. Our bill changes that. Your vote counts for all offices for which you voted that were on the ballot in the precinct where you're registered.

Republicans across the country are seeking to depress turnout among minorities by making it more difficult to vote, writes John B. Judis in The New Republic. They have supported legislation in seven states, such as Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona, that requires voters to present state-issued photo IDs at the polls.

People who do not have a driver's license must get an ID card from the state in order to vote. As we learned after Hurricane Katrina, many low-income blacks and Hispanics do not have driver's licenses. One federal judge compared this requirement to a poll tax.

In the wake of the Bloody Sunday police beatings of civil rights demonstrators on the Edmund Pettis bridge, President Lyndon Johnson said to a joint session of Congress, "The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country, in large measure, is the history of the expansion of that right to all of our people." The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted five months later.

Forty years later, systematic denial of the franchise has ended, but ingenious efforts to thwart this fundamental right, such as those in Florida in 2000 and Maryland in 2002, still mar our electoral process. With the passage of the Voters' Rights Protection Act of 2005, all Marylanders can be confident that their fundamental right to vote shall not be abridged.
Senator Lisa Gladden and Delegate Samuel I. "Sandy" Rosenberg

Looking, especially at the last paragraph, you realize the point of the Democratic effort. It isn't to ensure fairness, but rather to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Governor Ehrlich's election.

Take a step for a moment and consider the difference between the 2002 election that a Republican won and the 1994 election that a Democrat won.

In 1994 Ellen Sauerbrey led most of the night until the final votes from Baltimore City rolled in. And, miracle of miracles, when the counting was done there were 6000 more votes - less than 1% of the totatl - for Glendening. Just enough to put him over the top and into the Governor's mansion.

In 2002 Robert Ehrlich was leading most of the night in returns and held on to win by more than 60000 votes of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

Despite the Democratic charges there has not been a single person that has been reported to have come forward to say he or she was intimidated or misled into not voting. Certainly not enough to change the outcome of the election. Despite Del. Rosenberg's boast in his e-mail that "good policy makes good politics" this voting rights bill is nothing but politics.

There was, however, a travesty in 2002 that denied me (and, I suspect, others) my right to vote. In the summer the Maryland Court of Special Appeals threw out Govenor Glendening's redistricting plan and instituted one of its own.

The problem is that the court ordered redistricting made my district competitive between two Democratic candidates. But because the change was made within 90 days of the primary I could not change my registration to Demcorat (to register the first time the deadline is only 30 days prior to the election) in time to participate in the vote. Thus I was denied my right to vote in the election. Del Rosenberg and Senator Gladden didn't see fit to address that injustice. (They could have included a provision for open primaries, for example, to show that they were committed to giving everyone an opportunity to vote, even in districts dominated by a single party.)

Nor did they address the problem with the 1994 election. As noted above, the vote total from Baltimore City was just enough to put Parris Glendening over the top. Despite the suspicious appearance, Ellen Saurbrey was unable to challenge the results successfully. Maryland, you see, has no recount law. She had to bring a lawsuit to challenge the results and suffered all manner of insults from Democrats and the media for not simply conceding. The effectiveness of her lawsuit was constrained by the cost involved. A recount law would have allowed for a fuller accounting of questionable votes.

However one of her charges, that dead people were voting, was certainly true. Hopkins students studying the voter registration rolls discovered a number of dead people who voted in recent elections. From what the Hopkins students found, the dead voters wouldn't have been enough to reverse the election. But their persistence did show a problem with the voter rolls and suggested fraud. But these issues of fair voting didn't bother Rosenberg and Gladden either.

For one thing, they affected a Republican and, in Maryland, it seems that Republican rights don't matter. Also they are against photo ID's, which, if used would certainly reduce fraud. It could be an impediment to some voters; but it would ensure that the person voting was a valid voter. Instead of weighing the possible pros and cons of requiring photo id's Rosenberg and Gladden simply dismiss it, comparing it to a "poll tax."

There were solid reasons for the governor to veto the Voters Rights Protection Act. Instead of addressing those issues, Rosenberg and Gladden simply framed the veto as affront to minority voters. Like the probably phony complaints of voter misdirection in 2002, the Voter Rights Protection Act is an attempt to paint modern Republicans as latter day George Wallaces. It is an attempt to stir black outrage against Republicans to vote Democratic. And it isn't good policy at all, it is simple cynical politics.

Posted by SoccerDad at January 24, 2006 1:47 AM