Once a voter’s identity has been verified—as I observed this
morning— there is no valid reason for an election judge to question a voter’s
address.
Whether the interaction was creepy or something else, it
provides an opportunity for us to understand current voter suppression practices.
Here is a brief summary from the National Election Defense Coalition
(quoting below). I have emphasized in red text ways in which challengers
exploit voter addresses.
2014 VOTER PURGE
African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics are 67
percent more likely to share a common name as a white American.
...
Nearly two million of the pairs of names lacked middle name
matches.
Voters purged are not told they are accused of voting twice.
The procedure, created by the Republican Kansas Secretary of
State Kris Kobach, is to send a postcard to each “duplicate” voter requiring
them to re-verify their registration.
A large percentage are never delivered—Americans, especially
renters and lower-income Americans, move often—or cards are tossed away
confused for junk mail.
VOTER CAGING
Interstate Crosscheck is a form of Voter Caging—challenging
the registration status of voters and calling into question the legality of
allowing them to vote.
Sometimes it involves sending direct mail to the addressees
of registered voters, and compiling a list of addressees from which the mail is
returned undelivered. This list is then used to purge or challenge voters’
registrations on the grounds that the voters do not legally reside at the
registered addresses.
In the United States, this practice is legal in many states.
However, it has been challenged in the courts and due to its perceived racial
bias, has been declared illegal under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The term voter caging has also been applied to recent cases
where increased requirements for proof of identity, residency, and eligibility
have been added with the intent to limit the number of eligible voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment