Posted: May 16, 2011 at 6:48 am

GOP Nationwide Voter Suppression Campaign

Montana knows all about GOP leadership’s voter suppression campaigns.  Former GOP Executive Director and current GOP political consultant Jake Eaton was forced to resign over the scandal to make it more difficult for 6,000 Montanans to vote.

After what we saw this legislative session, it should be no surprise that Republicans in state legislatures around the country are rewriting voting laws to make it harder for some of us to vote.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Republican legislators have introduced bills that would diminish access to the voting booth in over 40 states. All of these Republican proposals focus on one apparent goal: restrict ballot access and shrink the electorate—often in ways that would decrease Democratic votes.

Many of the proposals are in the form of voter ID legislation,  which would require potential voters to present specified forms of identification in order to cast a ballot. This is the kind we saw in Montana.  Republicans supporting these measures claim they’re necessary to prevent “voter fraud.”

As Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch explained, this bill went far beyond the voting restrictions passed under George Bush.

“Montana is a fiercely independent state, and it is rare to see a measure that increases burdens beyond those that have been imposed by the federal government.”

GOP legislators are going around invoking a specter of supposed “fraud” to make voting more difficult for constituencies not known for voting for Republicans.  (In Montana, Native Americans would no doubt be targeted.)The Advancement Project just released study results, with some very telling facts about groups included in the 11 percent of Americans without a current government-issued photo ID:

• 25 percentof African American voting age citizens

• 15 percent of those earning less than $35,000 a year

• 18 percent of those age 65 and above

• 20 percent of young voters 18-29

The Democratic State Legislative Campaign Committee has been tracking what’s going on across the U.S.

34 comments

  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

    Why do these rightwing extremist no good fascist bastards hate democracy? Oops! Did I just answer my own question? Actually, the fascist Pubbies can barely conceal and contain their hatred and disdain for democracy. And in fact, in more and more instances, they’re not even trying any longer, including here in Montana. The wacks in the last Lege said as much when they implied that folks who registered at the last moment should not be allowed to vote because they were not “informed enough”, as if THESE folks were somehow less informed than your average inbred, christiofundiwackmentalist, inbred, nullifying, birth denying, spears-a-flying teawagger? Too funny.

    And if you look at the origins of the English only movement, it originated in the southwest in an attempt to disenfranchise Native Americans living on the reservations who spoke only their native languages. Hard to beleive that folks who’ve been here for ten thousand years or so would NOT be considered Americans!

    These bastards are unscrupulous AND un-American! They should be held accountable and made to explain just WHY they hate democracy so. Maybe loyalty oaths before voting, huh? I pledge allegaince, to the Kocks, and to the oligarchy for which they stand, one nation, under the Big Kock, for profit, and greeddom, for all the billionaires!

  6. RP

    Let everyone vote – ONCE. Dip your finger in the indelible ink like 3rd world countries do. Does it really matter WHERE you vote? NO absentee voting. You want to exercise your most important right, you go in person to vote.

    I don’t care if you are a felon – there are WAY to many crimes today that should not be felonies and who cares anyways – you still have a right and a duty to vote.

  8. johnson

    our fundamental rights are being snatched from us…
    not in the gloom of darkness…
    but in blazing sunlight…
    by those of US who will/do profit from the corporate state…
    the wingnuts of the right smirk and cheer…
    the left…
    sleeps…
    soon they will all shower together.

  9. Publius II

    Tea (Koch) Party Taliban in full-swing here, where goats will be better cared for than women, we can put our ‘people of color’ back to 3/5 of a person status, and finally, ONLY men of property
    can vote….if you have over a certain number of acres perhaps…..

  11. ladybug

    The much larger problem is registration and turnout. Flathead Memo reports 12% turnout of those eligible for the recent community college election. The ID/”fraud” issue is a party vs. party duel. Both parties engage in voter (and candidate) suppression. Effective democracy requires a higher level of participation.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      Sorry, I can’t believe that. Both parties do NOT engage in voter suppression. Please cite your evidence of Dems doing that. It is ONLY a Pubbie method of attempting to win. And no, voter turnout is indeed a problem, but it is NOT a much worse problem than suppressing. Your logic is flawed.

      For the last thirty years or so, beginning with Raygun and the advent of talk/hate radio, the fascists have been branding and attacking the government as the enemy. This is a carefully calculated and purposely cultivated attempted to create cynicism. And it works! And it works greatly to their advantage. When the government is viewed as the enemy, many folks simply give up or vote against their own best interests. And many just choose to stay home on election day believing incorrectly that it just doesn’t matter.

      But the fascists don’t! Their voting block of christiofundiwacmentalists, fascists, inbreds, Randians and racists ALWAYS vote come hell or high water! This was always the plan. And it works! So, while your average Joe Sixpack listens to Flush Blimpo and cusses the gubmint, the wacks are headed to the polls!

      You see, the REAL problem with the cyncism that they’ve created is that people have forgotten that the ONLY defense possible against corporate fascism and its attendant abuses is a strong government. Our govenment is designed to prevent the powerful from ravaging the powerless, NOT the other way around as we now have. Hopefully, some day folks will figure this out. It better happen soon, or there won’t be anything left to save! Third world here we come!

      I guess it’s true. You get the government that you deserve. But unfortunately, it’s NOT the government that we all deserve!

      • Mark Tokarski

        Ever heard of the Green Party? Ever try to get a third party on a ballot? The dual-party monopoly deliberately makes it so hard to run against them that most don’t even try.

        • Rob Kailey

          Running candidates no one votes for doesn’t equal voter suppression, Mark. See, for voter suppression to be voter suppression, it kinda has to be directed at, you know, voters. It is not so terribly difficult to get alternative candidates on the ballot. Ask Poppa Smurf Stan Jones, who’s been on every statewide balloting for the last decade. Nader was on the ballot in 44 states in 2000. He had a great GOTV effort, and garnered all of 2.7 percent of the popular vote, and not one single electoral vote in an election that was decided by a final vote of 5 to 4. Nor is it true that alternative candidates never win. I remind you of Rick Jore. You consistently forget that people vote for candidates, not for illusory ideals.

          You seem to be confused by the great Green fantasy. If only voters knew how cool we are, then … The only way Greens will ever get elected is by poaching the Democratic base. In case you didn’t read the above post, Republicant voter suppression efforts are being aimed at those very people. Yet you still blame Democrats for your woes, no doubts hoping to disenchant even more of the voters you need. Let me clue you in here, cuz. If those voters are debilitatingly disappointed in Democrats, many won’t vote at all. The Republicant efforts are trying to make certain of that very thing. So, on a charitable reading of your blather, you’re hoping that Republican efforts at voter suppression will steer folk to your desires, and you’re just clueless that those efforts are counter-productive. I don’t really think you’re clueless, just delusional. On a less charitable reading, it seems that you really want Republican efforts to succeed such that they take control and kill off the party which keeps you from the treasured voters you seek. And after we all get screwed enough, we’ll come running to the Greens.

          Hate to be the one to point out the obvious, Tokarski, but telling people how much you hope they hurt until they agree with you is not a way to win friends and influence people.

  13. ladybug

    Larry:
    Rs and Ds don’t have to bother with any of (13-10-601, MCA) this, both support the current law. If not suppression, what then? People won’t vote if nobody on the ballot represents their interests. You really don’t think both parties are corporate? Really?

    13-10-601, MCA. Parties eligible for primary election — petitions by minor parties. (1) Each political party that had a candidate for a statewide office in either of the last two general elections who received a total vote that was 5% or more of the total votes cast for the most recent successful candidate for governor shall nominate its candidates for public office, except for presidential electors, by a primary election as provided in this chapter.
    (2) (a) A political party that does not qualify to hold a primary election under subsection (1) may qualify to nominate its candidates by primary election by presenting a petition, in a form prescribed by the secretary of state, requesting the primary election.
    (b) The petition must be signed by a number of registered voters equal to 5% or more of the total votes cast for the successful candidate for governor at the last general election or 5,000 electors, whichever is less. The number must include the registered voters in more than one-third of the legislative districts equal to 5% or more of the total votes cast for the successful candidate for governor at the last general election in those districts or 150 electors in those districts, whichever is less.
    (c) At least 1 week before the deadline provided in subsection (2)(d), the petition and the affidavits of circulation required by 13-27-302 must be presented to the election administrator of the county in which the signatures were gathered to be verified under the procedures provided in 13-27-303 through 13-27-306.
    (d) The election administrator shall forward the verified petition to the secretary of state at least 85 days before the date of the primary.

  14. Rob Kailey

    If not suppression, what then?

    Lack of interest? Alternate party whining? Apathy towards your cause? Keeping nutjob parties off the ticket?

    Are you seriously telling us that the (Christian) Constitutional party can not only get a candidate on the ballot, but have that candidate win, and yet the poor liberals are being suppressed? Is this what you are arguing as “voter suppression”? That’s not voter suppression. For pity’s sake, a National Alliance candidate got enough signatures to run for the Bozeman school-board, and liberals are whining that they’re being “suppressed”. That doesn’t sound like “suppression”. It sounds like you’re being lazy.

  15. ladybug

    I realize how offensive it must seem to the establilshment to enter the Pepsi, or Coke, bottling plant drinking a can of Hansons, or Sierra Mist. It is, however, not the issue. When institutions are erected in defense of Party, any party, the democratic process is diminished. Of those eligible voters registered, it’s split pretty evenly between Coke and Pepsi. Take whatever comfort you will in your “popular” label, your “market share,” but it does nothing to overcome the simple fact that a majority of eligible voters just don’t care anymore. Some perceive this as victory. I do not.

    • Jack Ruby

      So whats your suggestion? Is it your position that there should be no barriers to any candidate for any election…so if all 975,000 or so people in Montana want to run for Governor on their own made up party they should be able to with no hurdles?

      Or do you just think the current state statute is too restrictive? How would you amend it to make it easier for small parties to get on the ballot? Or do you think a parliament is the way to go? Let every small party come in and then the government is paralyzed because to hold a coalition together whoever is in charge has to pander to the most extremist element among them?(see Israeli parliament as example)

      I actually think it would be kind of cool if a State tried a parliamentery system on an experimental basis but I don’t think it would end up working any better then what we have.

    • Rob Kailey

      I realize how offensive it must seem to the establilshment to enter the Pepsi, or Coke, bottling plant drinking a can of Hansons, or Sierra Mist. It is, however, not the issue.

      Quite apparently, to you, it is the issue. It is however completely beside the point.

      It is, however, not the issue. When institutions are erected in defense of Party, any party, the democratic process is diminished.

      The Constitution is an inherently un-democratic document. But you’re confusing democratic process (voting) for representative ideal (getting what you want from your representation). With a few notable exceptions, the process is working just fine. We could improve the democratic process by having government by referendum. In which case California has already shown the result. Popular demand for more government service, and consistent voter rejection of paying for those services.

      Of those eligible voters registered, it’s split pretty evenly between Coke Republicants and Pepsi Democrats.

      That’s about the most factual thing you’ve written, even if, as you say, it is not the issue. It is actually the issue, just as I pointed out to Mark. If you want to run a “hansons” candidate, feel free. But don’t be blaming the polity when they reject your offering as if they were ‘suppressed’. You knew going in that most of the electorate favors X or Y. If Z loses, it sure as hell isn’t because SATAN a PARTY suppressed votes. The voters made that choice; so you’re really just blaming your fellow voters, and a process that works, because you ain’t getting what you think you want. All the smug condescension about ‘popularity’ and “market share” won’t change the fact that folks didn’t choose what you offered. Your candidate’s fail is truly not their problem, or mine. It’s yours.

      the simple fact that a majority of eligible voters just don’t care anymore.

      How very Republicant of you. A blatant assertion with absolutely no basis in fact. I’m older than you might think. I remember back to the 1970′s when all newspapers and magazines were woeful and wailing about voter apathy, and how voter turnout was falling precipitously. It was the talk of the decade, especially leading up to the election of 1980 (when there was a (then) record turnout.) That record has been broken several times since then, most recently in 2008. But here we have an anonymous blog commenter telling us so sagely what the majority of voters feel. Did you pull that “fact” from Facebook, or have it spoon fed you from FireBagLake?

      Here’s a fact you might want to look up, ’cause it’s actually based on polling and research. The majority of voters aren’t apathetic as you claim. It isn’t that they don’t like the voting process or participation. They are often unhappy with the choice of candidates and very pessimistic about the dysfunction of our government. Here’s the part you really ought to pay attention to. The demographic most unhappy with our government (white folk 45 and over) had the highest turnout in 2010. That hardly sounds like ‘voters don’t care’. It sounds like one election you’re basing a mythology on.

      And most certainly, don’t get me wrong, Ladybug. It’s very clear to most rational folk that disagreeing with those who hold foolish ideas only makes them grip those ideas tighter. I’ve no interest in convincing you, and I don’t need to. I don’t care if you vote for my brand of soda pop. See, I have this little affectation of humanity called a choice. I can choose another soda whenever I wish, and my favored brand will still be available, or I might find a new favored one. You do need me to favor your brand of soda, far more than I need you. Blaming me because your brand of soda ain’t popular is not the way to win my favor. All you’re doing is showing me how your brand of soda tastes like ass.

  16. ladybug

    I do like proportional representation over winner take all. Instant runoff might be easier to institute than parlementary procedures. Neither party is receptive to either.

    I think 1,000 or less signatures should qualify a party, or individual with no party affiliation for the statewide general election ballot. It might generate some more interest in elections.

    The filing fees for statewide office are also pretty steep in a state with a median income of around $30,000 per year.

    The post-election 5% vote qualification threshold seems to me a reasonable tool to regulate the number of lines on the ballot. If creativity and new ideas are to be encouraged, the front end of the process is not where the gate should be erected. Plant lots of seeds and see what grow. Heresy.

  17. Jami Barrett

    I think that if enough people wanted a third party then they would set one up rather than whining about how no one else is doing it.

    • Rob Kailey

      Or worse, whining about how the 2 party system prevents what others have obviously and clearly done.

      Did we really need to put up with Rick Jore to convince us of this simple fact?

      • jed

        The two party system has led to some pretty exhaustive theological exchanges for a lot of years–by a lot of people; but not to much improvement in governance.

    • Mark Tokarski

      Jami – the two-party structure, which is the natural product of private financing of campaigns, and winner-take-all, suppresses any movement towards minority voices in government. To say that it exists because there is no interest in third parties is unsupportable. We are not allowed to experiment.

      In Canada the Liberal Party, which somewhat resembles our Democrats, was recently virtual voted out of existence. That dis democratic governance at it’s best, and is also what our two parties fear most.

      • Jami Barrett

        I didn’t say that the two party structure exists because there is no interest in third parties. I think there is a lot of interest in whining about third parties on the internets, just no interest in actually doing the hard work it would take to actually build one.

        • Mark Tokarski

          If it were merely effort that was lacking, you’d have a point. Obviously you’re not involved in any organizing activity. It’s all over the place, but draws little publicity.

          In 2000 I spent weeks going door-to-door for Nader, and along with many others, met the qualifications to get the Green Party on the ballot in 2002. We ahve caught nothing but grief form the Democrats for that – how dare we! The Democratic Party owns our votes, and we are not to steal them.

          In order to qualify on ballots in 2004 and 2008, Nader had to do more than on-the-ground organizing. He also had to file scores of lawsuits. Montana is workable, but other state requirements for third parties are onerous, and deliberately so. The two parties do not want third party ballot access, and so put artificial barriers up – petition signatures, filing dates far in advance of elections, and then the need to defend the signatures. It takes time and money.

          If it were effort, there is no shortage, and better yet, if the two parties did not seek to impede and discourage effort, we’d have even more. For myself, I’ve concluded that the only way to undermine two-party tyranny is new methods of voting, allowing fusion, preference candidates and runoffs. Of course, the two parties are fighting that all the way down too.

          • Rob Kailey

            Ownership. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. The Democratic party does not “own” anyone’s vote. You voted for Nader, twice. I don’t remember you being litigated for violating property right. You’ve faced no more “grief” for voting Nader than Democrats did for voting Gore or Kerry. You still suffer the delusion that Democratic voters would go Green if only they knew … Greens are not Democratic allies, anymore than Libertarians are allies of progressives. (See Hamsher, Jane the Idiot.) You’re right about elections being ‘winner take all’. I’d sincerely like you to explain, as I’ve asked you before, how someone running against my chosen candidate is any more a ‘friend’ than another running against my chosen candidate. Greens face no more grief from Democrats then Democrats do from Republicans. They just deal with it more poorly.

            Funny, I don’t remember Nader running for anything in 2002. But assuming a typo on your part, your pronunciations about 2000 just support what I’ve already written. Nader was on most ballots, and had a great get out the vote effort. For that, he got exactly jack-squat. His supporters got exactly jack-squat. Democrats didn’t do that. Voters did. I explain, again, what you seem incapable of understanding, Mark. Gore didn’t just get a plurality of the vote, like Clinton in 1992. He got a majority of the vote (even in Florida.) What pissed off Democratic voters was not that some teeny tiny number of people voted for Nader. What pissed us off was the pompous pronouncements from Nader voters that they made a difference in the political landscape. If they did, that difference was bad, in whole and complete. You will use whatever justification and delusion you must to miss the obvious. Taking credit for saddling the nation with the the horror of Chimpy deserves a hearty f-u from anyone who voted Democratic in 2000, and anyone who feels that the 8 years following screwed our nation beyond belief. We don’t believe you’re that important. You’re just acting like jackasses, and blaming us for allowing you to act like jackasses.

            If you think I’m wrong, and you do, then let’s take a look at your ‘evidence’ that a Party is screwing your chosen savior over. You and I remember very different things about 2004. (Nader’s non-presence in 2008 was laughable, and not worth even dealing with. You didn’t even vote for him, unless you lied earlier.) In 2004, Nader did sue to many states to get on the ballot. Most of those suits were dismissed, one can only hope with judicial laughter. Since Nader posted such a poor showing in 2000 as a representative of the Green party, he was not afforded automatic ballot access in 2004. Signatures again had to be acquired. In many of the states Nader sued to be on the ballot, signatures were garnered from Green party voters when the Green party rejected Nader as their candidate, often because Nader was soliciting Republican money to run as a spoiler against the Democrats. Ultimately, Nader was running as an independent, but submitted ballot petitions reflecting his selection as a Green. Hehe. That’s kind of a no-no. It wasn’t the Democrats who ‘spoiled’ Nader’s spoilage. It was the justice system and the voters spoiling Nader’s attempt to be an asshole. He got, what was that again, .38% of the vote? All kinds of unproven claims were made that the Democrats tried to bribe Nader, and force him not to run. If you believe that, (and being a conspiracy theorist as you are, I’m certain you do, Mark), then you completely undercut your own wild theory of party power. The Democrats, with all their awesome might, couldn’t keep Nader off the ballot. And still, all he could get were fewer votes than half the population of Montana.

            Eventually, Tokarski, you’re going to have to admit that the problem liberals face in electoral politics is not the monolithic two party system, but rather the fact that too many people just don’t agree with your candidates. You can work inside the Democratic party (Feinstein -gone) or you can work outside the Democratic party (Nader – asshole). It won’t really matter. People will vote for liberals when they choose to (Sanders -still in.) Blaming a party or those who vote for a particular party just makes you look like an ass. It doesn’t help your electoral chances.

  18. Rob Kailey

    First, it’s “too”, not “to”. Second, you offer less than Ladybug, far less. Third, what is ‘theological’ about policy choices which you weakly and incorrectly allude to? You use the word and haven’t the first clue what it means. Fourth, what is “improvement” in governance according to you? You clarify nothing.

    Write plainly.

  20. Pingback: 2012 Leg Race Preview « Montana Cowgirl Blog