5 Republican Efforts To Suppress The Vote In 2012

Everyone who believes in democracy and the right to vote, which is fundamental right in a democracy, should have a problem with any effort to make voting more difficult. Republicans have been on a crusade to do just that in 2011 and 2012. Below are 5 active Republican efforts to suppress the vote in 2012.

• • •

Nicole Austin-Hillery: Voting In This Country Is A Right

Voting in this country is a right, and we should never allow it to be compared to things that are not rights (in the context of the voter ID law debate). We all know this, well at least those of us who value equal rights. The following quote is an excellent statement on the right to vote in America. It comes from Nicole Austin-Hillery (Director of the Brennan Center D.C. Office) on Saturday’s Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC.

• • •

GOP Congressman Todd Akin Says Overturn 1965 Voting Rights Act

What does a political party do when they become increasing ideologically pure and cater to a smaller portion of the electorate? They do whatever they can to suppress the vote. Polls and studies show that on average, the more people who vote in an election, the more likely it is to benefit the Democratic Party. So the Republican Party is going to do whatever it can to suppress the vote and limit voting rights. They will also do whatever is necessary to make Americans lose faith in the system altogether. If you think your vote won’t make a difference you might not vote at all, and Republicans have no problem with this.

• • •

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Lives, Judge Refuses to Block It

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson says he will not halt Pennsylvania’s voter ID law. Everyone else is calling the law “tough” but I call it “discriminatory,” and it matters little to me what one particular judge has ruled because I know what’s right and what’s wrong. It turns out that the reason Republicans stated we needed this law played little role in the judge’s decision.

• • •

Voter Suppression and the Voting Rights Act: It’s not the intent that matters, it’s the effect

As always, another great point made by Chris Hayes. On today’s Up with Chris Hayes the topic of voter suppression was at the top of the show. Texas is defending it’s undemocratic photo ID law and they want to be free from the restrictions of the 1965 voting rights act. Hayes tells us that the purpose of the voting rights act was not to police intent, but rather the effects. So if a state passes a restrictive new law that requires photo ID in order to vote, the test of whether that is allowed under the voting rights act is not the intent. We don’t need to know why the Republican legislators in Texas passed their restrictive law in order to judge it’s lawfulness. We don’t need to know if they are racists (which some most certainly are), and we don’t need to know if the reason Republicans passed these laws was to make the process of voting a more difficult task for minorities who are more likely to vote Democratic. Like Hayes said, “nobody has to do any mind-reading,” in order to enforce the voting rights act.

• • •