April 9: Democrats Have a Clear National Position on Voting Rights. Republicans? Not So Much.
Some of the contradictions in Republican talking points on election law and voting rights are becoming clear to me, so I wrote about it at New York:
During the intense controversy raised by Georgia’s new election law, which included a negative reaction from Major League Baseball and a number of corporations, many defenders of the law have played a game of whataboutism. What about voting laws in Colorado, the state to which the MLB’s all-star game has been shifted? What about liberal New York? A lot of these comparisons have been factually challenged, or have zeroed in on one benign feature of the Georgia law while ignoring others. But it does raise a pretty important question: What is the posture nationally of the GOP or the conservative movement on the right to vote and its limits?
Not long ago you might have said that Republicans and conservatives were firmly committed to the view that rules governing voting and elections —even federal elections — were purely within the purview of state and local policy-makers. But that was before Donald Trump spent four years disparaging the decisions made by liberal and conservative jurisdictions on voting procedures whenever they contradicted his often-erratic but always forcefully expressed views. If, for example, voting by mail was as inherently pernicious as Trump said it was, almost daily from the spring through the autumn of 2020, allowing states to permit it was a Bad Thing, right? That simply added to the complaints made by Trump after the 2016 elections that California’s alleged openness to voting by noncitizens cost him a popular vote win over Hillary Clinton, and the widespread Republican whining after 2018 that the same jurisdiction had counted out Republican congressional candidates (whining that somehow subsided when Republicans did better in the exact same districts following the exact same rules in 2020).
And that was before Team Trump and his many Republican enablers spent the weeks and months after November 3, 2020, shrieking about state and local election procedures around the country, culminating in efforts to get the U.S. Supreme Court to
overrule state court interpretations of state election laws. Indeed, since Trump, his congressional Republican backers, and the Capitol riot mob were trying to block the certification of state election results by Congress on January 6, you could say that a major segment of the GOP wanted the federal government to impose its will on the states with respect to voting and elections.
And if the prevailing conservative idea is that decision-makers closest to the people should determine voting and election rules, then it’s hard to explain the provisions in the Georgia law (and in pending legislation in Texas) that preempt local government prerogatives decisively.
So what doctrine of voting rights does the GOP favor, other than whatever is necessary to produce Republican election victories? That’s hard to say.
Yes, at the Heritage Foundation you will find experts who more or less think everything other than in-person voting on Election Day should be banned everywhere. And now and then you will get someone like Kevin Williamson who will articulate the provocative old-school conservative case for restricting the franchise to “better” voters, which was pretty much the ostensible case for the poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow South. Unfortunately, snooty contrarianism isn’t a particularly helpful guide to the development of voting laws, and most Republicans (other than those caught in a gaffe) are unlikely to agree out loud with the Williamson proposition.
Until quite recently, most Republicans agreed that the jurisdictions that had for so many years discriminated against the voting rights of minorities deserved extra federal scrutiny and some additional hoops to jump through before changing their rules. In 2006, George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act that did just that, after it passed the Senate unanimously and the House with scattered opposition. Then a conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key feature of the VRA, and now it’s almost exclusively Democrats (via the John Lewis Voting Rights Act) who want to restore it. Where are Republicans on that idea? With the states and localities, or just with the states and localities where federal intervention in voting and election practices doesn’t inconvenience Republicans?
Whatever you think of Democratic attitudes toward voting and elections, at least they can answer such questions coherently. They have united to an amazing extent around highly detailed legislation (the House and Senate versions of the For the People Act and the aforementioned John Lewis Act) that generally expands voting rights and sets clear federal standards for procedures in and surrounding federal elections. The Republican response to these proposals has been almost universally negative. But it’s unclear what, if anything, they would propose of their own accord.
If the implicit GOP position on voting and elections is simply that such rules are part of the give and take of partisan politics and that both sides are free to play fast and loose with the facts and get what advantages they can, then I can understand why they are loathe to make it explicit. But in that case, people who care about voting rights one way or the other should simply choose sides and have it out.
McGreevey won’t make a difference one way or the other. It’s a funny state. Tends to go Republican for Governor (Keane, Whitman), but also goes Dem (Florio, McGreevey). The tendency is to be unhappy when the Gov is Dem and content with the Repub Gov. But the legislature trends Dem and national elections, I think, trend Dem. Went for Nixon, like everyone else. Not sure where it went with the Reagan and Bush I years. But went for Clinton and Gore. Both Senators are Dem (Corzine and Lautenberg). I think it will go Dem this time. That’s my ear to the street sense talking.
To compare the various polls, go to:
http://www.fastpolitics.com then scroll down the right side column to Polling Report and you’ll see them all. It’s a great site. This morning Kerry was ahead in four polls, Bush in two, and they tied in one. :))) Most encouraging.
Isn’t McGreevey becoming more popular (or at least less hated) in Jersey? Will that keep on through November?
Rasmussen has Kerry up by 5 points in Florida as of May 20. It was tied the previous week.
Don’t worry about those California and NJ polls. Kerry has to be up by more than a point in California if you accept that Kerry is even or slightly ahead nationwide. The New Jersey poll may be reflecting some unpopularity with Governor McGreevy but New Jersey should be there in November for us. As for Rasmussen his last poll in 2000 had Bush beating Gore 49-40. So don’t take his poll too seriously.
Trent,
The news Faux News/Opinion Dynamics poll has Bush up in the swing states. They have the 3-way race 40-40-3, but Bush up 43-37 in 16 battleground states.
Consider the source, but also consider that Bush gets only 43% in battleground states in this obviously slanred poll.
So what poll was that blond Republican bimbo on ‘Crossfire’ bragging about tonight when she said Bush is ahead in the swing states?
Gropenator is not helping Bush because he is riding high right now. Plus the gropenaror will be going to trail in UK for sexual harrasment shortly.
CA is safe , period. Only a san andreas earthquake can shake loose CA for Bush.
News just in that Kerry may not accept Democratic Party’s nomination at the convention. Acceptance will be delayed to permit Kerry spending donated campaign funds, without limitation, just like Bush. This would put him in sync with Bush on the expenditure limits of the $75 million in public funds.
Presumably, Kerry’s formal acceptance of the nomination would be in Sept. about the same time as Bush’s. One of Kerry’s aides explained to the media that they have no intention of fighting with on hand tied behind their back. Way to go Kerry!
RE: California polls — thanks to the several explanatory posts above, I have now relaxed enough to slip a sliver of lime in my Corona Extra and start enjoying my weekend. Much obliged.
“Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?”
Because Scott Rasmussen is a Republican. And the poll is a CRAP poll anyway.
Yeah, getting back to NJ, no worries here either. Went for Gore strong in 2000. Major job losses in the tech industry since then. Fed dollars bypass us in a big way with the Bush regime and Republican Congress. This state is not going Republican in 2004. Only problem we could run into is McGreevey, Dem governor, is unpopular and viewed as corrupt by many, which could hurt Dem chances in many ways. But I don’t think McGreevey has big enough “negative coattails” to help Bush.
JTBLA, Thanks for your post. I do remember that Calif. poll in 2000 that had Bush within 2, which turned out to be way off the mark.
As a Calif. resident I can guarantee that Bush has NO chance to win out here. That poll is out of whack with others that show Kerry up 10+, including a recent LA Times poll. In 2000 there was a late poll that showed Bush within 2 of Gore and people freaked. Gore won the state easily.
I don’t know what CA poll people are referring to, but let’s remember DR’s consistent arguments about the incumbent’s approval rating being more important than horse-race numbers at this point. Then, with that in mind, take a look at this story from early April:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/06/MNGPO616OS1.DTL
“A new poll shows President Bush’s approval ratings in California have plummeted, even in the state’s most GOP-dominated conservative areas.”
“With the Iraq war taking a difficult turn and questions raised at home about the administration’s terrorism policy, the poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Monday puts Bush’s state approval ratings at just 38 percent, while 50 percent disapprove.”
“That’s a dramatic change from the start of the year, when 49 percent of Californians approved of the job the president was doing, and 40 percent disapproved.”
Also keep in mind that this poll was from almost two months ago, just as the deadliest month for Americans in the entire Iraq conflict was beginning, and before the prison abuse scandal. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Bush’s approval ratings in CA haven’t improved since then.
Though I think the independent voters are important. I really think that bringing out the base will be most important.
Isn’t even the Groppenfurer distancing himself from Bush in Cali?
I believe there’s only one poll that has Kerry’s lead in California at just a point. Don’t worry; there’s no way Bush will win that state. You can take that to the bank.
Interesting and VERY encouraging. Remember, the Bushies have spent the vast majority of their campaign funds so far in the battleground states. This is the best they can do. The news won’t get better from Iraq, and the general opinion around my household (for what it’s worth) is that things will get worse there after the make-believe power handover. I do not celebrate that, but I do read the tea leaves that arise from it.
Don’t worry about NJ. I’m here. I got your back.
These data are largely good news, but I echo the previously stated concerns about California, and add New Jersey to that. Further: given the power structure and the loose definition of democratic rights there, Florida should not be considered in play. By hook or, more likely, by crook, Bush will end up with its electoral votes.
I’ve wondered about California myself. With such a majority of Deocratic voter registration, this state should be the Dem’s to keep for a long time. I took the 2000 election numbers and looked at the states where W has pretty much done himself in that are swing states and came up with Kerry winning the election with 292 electoral votes. This assumes that the voting machine are not rigged for Bush. Ohio should be a slam dunk for Kerry, as should Michigan, New Hampshire, and even West Virginia. Nevada should be Blue this time as Nevadans should start to glow from nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains very soon. With all the scandal (especially the NEW torture pictures on top of the old ones), Plamegate (something I think is a major issue and should be more public this summer), deficits and spending, this guy should be sent to Gitmo for retirement.
That data is encouraging, but here’s what I want to know (and I haven’t yet seen this addressed elsewhere): Why is Kerry only up by ONE point in the recent California polls? Shouldn’t that be a slam dunk, double-digit lead for him? Is he in trouble there, possibly because of Schwarzenegger’s successes? Is it possible that he could LOSE California? Is California really in play for this election, or are these poll results an aberration? I’d love to hear from someone who has some insights into this issue.
Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?