![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nebrisAs COVID-19 spreads across the nation and world, President Donald Trump and Republicans are exploiting these massive dislocations and suffering for political purposes. Their swift action to derail extended voting in the recent Wisconsin primary election reveals just how blatantly opportunistic the administration and its political allies actually are.
The legal intervention in Wisconsin was an overtly anti-democratic effort to gain political advantage at the expense of citizens caught in the midst of a pandemic. Voters in every state, including Maine, face the prospect of broad voter suppression in this presidential election year.
Suppression by pandemic in Wisconsin
Because of the potential exposure of voters and poll workers to coronavirus, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, made the decision to extend absentee voting beyond the April 7 election day. While a federal judge upheld Evers’ action, five U.S. Supreme Court justices overturned the federal court ruling, asserting — in the face of COVID-19 — that the extension of absentee voting “fundamentally alters the nature of the election.”
Even more confounding, the Court’s conservative majority claimed that the governor’s decision sowed confusion. In effect, the Supreme Court justices in the majority opinion found that Evers’ decision to extend voting opportunities beyond election day was a greater threat to democracy than the pandemic itself.
By limiting absentee voting, the Supreme Court effectively forced Wisconsin voters to brave the risk of infection to vote. It also forced the closing of polls as fearful poll workers stayed home. As a result, only five polling centers were open to Milwaukee voters, in a city of nearly 600,000 people.
Meanwhile, recent reports indicate that dozens of Milwaukee voters may have been infected with the virus before or after voting at polls. It stretches credulity to believe that the majority of justices on the Supreme Court did not appreciate the suppressive impact that the pandemic would have on voting. Ordinary American voters may reasonably conclude that this Supreme Court decision was an unabashed political decision lacking any moral or rational justification.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court also rejected Governor Evers’ decree. While not explicitly coordinated, these simultaneous judicial decisions nevertheless indicate the pivotal role in determining election results that conservative justices may play from the state to the federal level, from Wisconsin to Washington. The “hanging chads” controversy in Florida in the 2000 presidential election showed just how consequential political interference in elections can be.
Preserving access to the ballot
Today, in Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona and other states, Republicans have launched legal assaults to suppress any form of remote voting. They are fighting mail-in only balloting in New Mexico and the expansion of postal balloting in Minnesota. Add in purging voter rolls and racially-based gerrymandering and you have an elaborate, multi-tiered attack that will constrict voting opportunities and effectively disenfranchise some, especially minority voters.
Implicit in the voter suppression strategy of Trump’s re-election campaign is a virtual promise that unfavorable state election results will also be disputed in the courts. It is not hard to imagine that voting obstacles such as changed polling stations, inappropriate identity document requests and too few voting machines in opposition districts will crop up widely in November, especially in the so-called “trifecta” states where the Republicans’ control the governorship and have majorities in both houses of state government. Currently, there are 21 Republican state “trifectas,” including Ohio and Florida. These states account for 40.9 percent of the nation’s population.
https://mainebeacon.com/under-cover-of-pandemic-republicans-lay-siege-to-democracy/
The legal intervention in Wisconsin was an overtly anti-democratic effort to gain political advantage at the expense of citizens caught in the midst of a pandemic. Voters in every state, including Maine, face the prospect of broad voter suppression in this presidential election year.
Suppression by pandemic in Wisconsin
Because of the potential exposure of voters and poll workers to coronavirus, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, made the decision to extend absentee voting beyond the April 7 election day. While a federal judge upheld Evers’ action, five U.S. Supreme Court justices overturned the federal court ruling, asserting — in the face of COVID-19 — that the extension of absentee voting “fundamentally alters the nature of the election.”
Even more confounding, the Court’s conservative majority claimed that the governor’s decision sowed confusion. In effect, the Supreme Court justices in the majority opinion found that Evers’ decision to extend voting opportunities beyond election day was a greater threat to democracy than the pandemic itself.
By limiting absentee voting, the Supreme Court effectively forced Wisconsin voters to brave the risk of infection to vote. It also forced the closing of polls as fearful poll workers stayed home. As a result, only five polling centers were open to Milwaukee voters, in a city of nearly 600,000 people.
Meanwhile, recent reports indicate that dozens of Milwaukee voters may have been infected with the virus before or after voting at polls. It stretches credulity to believe that the majority of justices on the Supreme Court did not appreciate the suppressive impact that the pandemic would have on voting. Ordinary American voters may reasonably conclude that this Supreme Court decision was an unabashed political decision lacking any moral or rational justification.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court also rejected Governor Evers’ decree. While not explicitly coordinated, these simultaneous judicial decisions nevertheless indicate the pivotal role in determining election results that conservative justices may play from the state to the federal level, from Wisconsin to Washington. The “hanging chads” controversy in Florida in the 2000 presidential election showed just how consequential political interference in elections can be.
Preserving access to the ballot
Today, in Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona and other states, Republicans have launched legal assaults to suppress any form of remote voting. They are fighting mail-in only balloting in New Mexico and the expansion of postal balloting in Minnesota. Add in purging voter rolls and racially-based gerrymandering and you have an elaborate, multi-tiered attack that will constrict voting opportunities and effectively disenfranchise some, especially minority voters.
Implicit in the voter suppression strategy of Trump’s re-election campaign is a virtual promise that unfavorable state election results will also be disputed in the courts. It is not hard to imagine that voting obstacles such as changed polling stations, inappropriate identity document requests and too few voting machines in opposition districts will crop up widely in November, especially in the so-called “trifecta” states where the Republicans’ control the governorship and have majorities in both houses of state government. Currently, there are 21 Republican state “trifectas,” including Ohio and Florida. These states account for 40.9 percent of the nation’s population.
https://mainebeacon.com/under-cover-of-pandemic-republicans-lay-siege-to-democracy/