Blessed are those that think they do not have to do something about it
They ignored them, laughed at them, then they fought them
By D. Lindley Young, The Modern Tribune
We are spending our blood and treasure to spread democracy in other countries, yet, our own house is not in order. There is substantial evidence that something is wrong with the US election process. Many do not have confidence in it. Thousands of people from Ohio, Tennessee and across the country have drawn so much attention to flaws in the voting system, the equipment we use, the counting of the vote, verification of that count, methods of voter suppression, misallocation of resources, the
potential for election fraud and the role of the Federal government in national elections, that the "right to vote" and the need for Federal protection of that right are clearly issues that must be addressed.
The importance of public trust in government elections cannot be minimized. Congressional hearings recently made clear that under our current system there is a grave potential for election fraud. That potential alone could be a bleeding wound that weakens America and destroys the example to the world she so proudly strives to be. Lack of confidence alone is enough to require Congressional action, even if it is only the concerns of a minority of Americans. In some countries lack of confidence has led to demonstrations, civil disobedience, acts of violence and even to revolution. The issue must be examined.
As Sinclair Lewis said in his 1938 book "It can't happen here," "Blessed are those that think they do not have to do something about it."
Despite the 2000 Florida election fiasco our government has not yet sufficiently acted to protect the "right to vote" in this country while Americans are dying to give the right to vote to other countries. While billions and billions of dollar are spent on war and there was more pork in the recent Omnibus Spending Bill, recently rushed through Congress, than there is on a pig farm, our government has not spent the time nor the money to even protect and insure the "right to vote."
Although, the issue of election fraud and election reform has not gained much mainstream media attention, a strong undying effort from numerous groups in Ohio and Tennessee and internet bloggers are dulling the laughs and smirks of some about voter fraud in the 2004 Presidential election.
Most, scuffed off the issues in the 2004 Presidential election as the folly of "sore democratic losers," "conspiracy theorists," without "solid evidence," or, accepted cheating as just being part of the political game and that victory is victory. Accepting the potential for cheating as just being part of the political game, is not acceptable to many.
Slowly, the persistence of some bent on revealing what they see as the truth is building credible concerns. Issues like the Constitutional "right to vote," Federal oversight of national elections, fair distribution of election resources and "credibility" of the election results have nothing to do with who won. They are issues that go beyond party. They go to the very essence of democracy.
Some democrats are taking on the issues. A recent letter from Rep. John Conyers, and others to J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State, set forth some of the reasons for concern. The letter states in part: "Collectively, we are concerned that ... complaints [from Ohio and elsewhere] constitute a troubled portrait of a one-two punch that may well have altered and suppressed votes, particularly minority and Democratic votes. [I]t appears there were substantial irregularities in vote tallies. It is unclear whether these apparent errors were the result of machine malfunctions or fraud.""[I]t appears that a series of actions of government and non-government officials may have worked to frustrate minority voters. Consistent and widespread reports indicate a lack of voting machines in urban, minority and Democratic areas, and a surplus of such machines in Republican, white and rural areas. As a result, minority voters were discouraged from voting by lines that were in excess of eight hours long. Many of these voters were also apparently victims of a campaign of deception, where flyers and calls would direct them to the wrong polling place. Once at that polling place, after waiting for hours in line, many of these voters were provided provisional ballots after learning they were at the wrong location."
See original letter for more details.
These are issues that go to the very heart of democracy: the will of the people and the right to vote It is a matter of a fair, transparent election process that has national consistency and a means of verifying the results. It is a matter of confidence and trust.The Constitutional "right to vote," may not even be recognized. Although America is based upon the will of the people, the "right to vote" is neither guaranteed or protected under the US Constitution.
According to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D- Ill), “Voting is not only a democratic right, it is a human right. That human right is not in our Constitution.”This week, during Congressional hearings led by Rep. Conyers and other democrats, to investigate allegations of vote fraud and irregularities in Ohio, attorneys challenging election irregularities in Ohio, said that a court in Ohio ruled that there was no jurisdiction to challenge the "right to vote" under the US Constitution.Similarly, in Bush v Gove, (2000) the US Supreme Court stated: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." (Emphasis added.) The Bush case continued: "The state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself."
In other words, there is no Federal protection for the right to vote for President. For this reason Rep. Jackson called for a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the "right to vote" to the people and to provide Federal protection for the "right to vote."Jackson noted that other Constitutional Amendments such as the 15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, and the 26th Amendment, prevent discrimination for reasons like race, sex, or age, but, do not provide a Constitutional "right to vote" under the protection of the United States government.
The matter of national elections is considered a State matter. Consider: the 15th Amendment ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude), 19th Amendment ("vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex") and 26th Amendment (The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of age"). If the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, free press, religious worship, to bare arms, to a fair trial, to an attorney, to due process, against self-incrimination and other rights which are clearly within Federal jurisdiction, should not the "right to vote" have equal standing, if not equal protection.If our government can create laws requiring national uniformity for traffic signs, surely it can create a uniform national system for voting.
If our government can spend billions of dollars for everything under the sun, why can't it spend money to assure national consistency in the voting process with uniform trustworthy voting machines, a paper trail and a receipt for each voter, and more than one way to verify the vote? With our logistical capabilities and years of planning, why can't we make sure there are enough voting machines in Democratic and minority areas and and not to many in other areas?Regardless of who really won the 2004 Presidential election, the issues presented go to the very essence of democracy and possibly its survival.The cornerstone of the "will of the people" is the vote.
The issue of credible fair elections under Federal supervision must be addressed if voters are to feel their vote means anything and to have confidence that their vote once cast actually elects the person who is eventually declared the winner. Jackson argued that the credibility and stability of democracy requires consistency and Federal protection. Surely, the credibility of our elections is an issue of concern to all who truly support democracy, and, especially to the country that is supposed to be the example for the world.The democrats have taken the initiative on this issue.
However, without Republican involvement the "hearing" may technically be no more than a "forum." According to William Pitt Rivers, "The term ‘hearing’ is technically not accurate in this matter, as Conyers and his fellow Representatives will be holding this forum without the blessing of the Republican Majority leader of the Judiciary Committee. Staffers from the Minority office at the Judiciary Committee describe the event as a ‘Members Briefing.’"
Without Republican support, the right to vote will not be properly protected. The American public deserves to see the protection of the right to vote as a bi-partisan issue.We will now see what values our government has, on both sides of the isle, when it comes to the most important of all pillars of democracy: the "right to vote."The alleged voter suppression, miscounts, and other irregularities have not been avoided or corrected despite the 2000 Florida debacle.It seems that the problem consistently occurs in the state or states that make the difference in who wins the Presidency. What does it take to get a fair, credible, transparent election? Ukrainians. Well, their spirit may be alive in America through the efforts of many in Ohio.
Writer Francis Fox Piven recently pointed out that America has "a history of competing through voter suppression." Our history is being created now. It is vital that the words of Francis Fox Piven not be true for future generations. We can only hope that the analogy made by one of the advocates from Ohio at the hearing before Congressional Democrats proves to be true. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi.
