GOP candidates try, fail to respond to Clinton on voting rights

Last week, Hillary Clinton laid down what was arguably the most radical voting rights agenda in decades, calling for 20 days of nationwide early voting and automatic voter registration — a policy that would add over 50 million Americans to the voting rolls.

In her speech outlining the proposals, she also criticized her Republican opponents, by name, for “systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting” via the myriad ways in which they have tried to legally rig our nation’s elections through extensive legislation and bureaucratic indiscretion. From ID requirements to registration restrictions to poll taxes, Republicans have in no uncertain terms become the anti-voting party since Barack Obama’s election in 2008.

And they didn’t take too kindly to being called out over their anti-democratic platform.

Rick Perry responded to Clinton’s attacks by claiming that he was just the messenger. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday, said that he “just happened to be the governor who signed” the legislation, and since the majority of Texans supported the state’s draconian voting restrictions, specifically the state’s photo ID law that allows a gun permit but not a student ID, who was he to tell them they were wrong? Here’s the video:

Given the fact that Texan citizens are behind the Supreme Court case that could redefine “one person, one vote” to dilute the influence of minority voters, one can’t help but recognize his point: Texan voters don’t like Texans voting. But not too long ago, they also didn’t like black Texans marrying white Texans. Part of living in a constitutional democracy is that there are certain things you don’t put up for a vote: who gets to vote is high on that list, if not at the top.

It didn’t take much followup from Bash to turn 2016’s nerd-with-glasses Perry into 2012’s I-don’t-know-my-own-platform Perry. When asked to defend the specific gun permit/student ID restriction, Perry mumbled something about library cards and airplanes before declaring that voting was a states’ rights issue and asserting, unironically, that Texas makes it easy to vote. When Bash pointed out that a federal judge had declared Texas’s voting restrictions to have been passed with “discriminatory intent,” Perry rejected the premise, saying “I could probably find a federal judge to say just about anything.”

John Kasich denounced Clinton’s speech as “demagoguery” on Fox News before pointing out that Ohio has 27 days of early voting — a full week more than Clinton’s proposed 20 days — and that if Clinton wanted to sue a state, she should sue her home state of New York, which currently does not have any early voting. Fox then threw up a quote from Ohio Secretary of State John Husted proclaiming, a la Perry, that Ohio makes it easy for its citizens to vote.

Kasich, of course, failed to mention that Ohio has 27 days of early voting despite his best efforts as governor to shrink that number. In 2011, Kasich signed a bill that cut back early voting so severely that citizens successfully petitioned for a referendum that would have overturned the law at the polls, leading Ohio’s legislature to repeal the law and keep the bulk of the state’s early voting intact.

Even if that weren’t the case, the argument that Clinton’s claims are disingenuous because New York doesn’t have early voting doesn’t hold water. Not only has Clinton never held state-level office in New York, her proposals would apply to every state, Ohio and New York both included.

Scott Walker, also interviewed by CNN’s Dana Bash, maintained that Wisconsin’s laundry list of voting restrictions make it “easy to vote, but hard to cheat,” even when Bash noted that practically no one cheats.

Scott Walker, via DonkeyHotey / Flickr

Scott Walker, via DonkeyHotey / Flickr

To be clear, over 300,000 Wisconsin voters have been affected by the numerous, restrictive and, frankly, creative ways in which Scott Walker has tinkered with the state’s electoral system since becoming governor. Oh, and the only documented cases of fraud that could have been prevented by those laws in that timeframe were committed by a Republican who donated to Walker’s campaigns.

While many voting restrictions in Wisconsin are still on the books (and are the subject of a lawsuit brought by a lawyer affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign), the state’s voter ID law was previously found to be unconstitutional, in large part due to lack of evidence that could justify it.

Chris Christie insisted that Clinton “doesn’t know the first thing about voting rights” before asserting that “she just wants an opportunity to commit greater acts of voter fraud around the country.” Of course, if one were to commit voter fraud in some kind of systematic manner, they would need to know “the first thing” about voting rights, but that’s neither here nor there.

It didn’t take long for New Jersey Democrats to point out that Christie’s living in a bit of a glass house when it comes to tampering with electoral outcomes. From NorthJersey:

Democratic officials bristled at Christie’s “voter fraud” comments on Friday, and they pointed out he once spent $12 million to hold a separate, special election in October 2013 for the U.S. Senate seat that went vacant after Frank Lautenberg’s death. Christie could have set the election for Nov. 4, when he was up for reelection, but Democrats said he feared losing votes by sharing a ballot with Cory Booker, a popular Democrat who won the Senate seat.

In any case, New Jersey doesn’t have a voter ID law on the books. Clinton called Christie out in her speech for vetoing legislation that would have expanded early voting in the state, but by Republican standards Christie has done nothing to protect the “sanctity” of the ballot box in New Jersey. The most substantive debate about voting rights currently going on in the state is over online voting; Senator Cory Booker recently (and correctly) called out the state for the “absurdity” of not offering citizens an online option for voter registration.

Jeb Bush has, thus far, said nothing in response to Clinton’s speech. She specifically charged him for conducting a racially-biased purge of the voter rolls in advance of the 2000 presidential election — an election that was decided by under 600 votes in Florida. Bush has never offered a satisfactory defense of that purge, most likely because there isn’t one.

What was missing from all of the Republican responses to Clinton’s voting rights speech was any serious criticism of the address’ biggest element: automatic voter registration. One of the only most serious critiques of that proposal came from The National Review‘s Daniel Foster:

But the view of democracy associated with the desire for universal or near-universal participation (we already have near-universal franchise) is facile and vicious. The need to register to vote is just about the most modest restriction on ballot access I can think of, which is why it works so well as a democratic filter: It improves democratic hygiene because the people who can’t be bothered to register (as opposed to those who refuse to vote as a means of protest) are, except in unusual cases, civic idiots.

If that’s the best conservatives have against automatic voter registration, they don’t have much. As I’ve noted before, voter registration was not enacted as a “democratic filter,” it was enacted first as a financial filter and then as a racial one. What’s more, universal voter registration has nothing to do with universal participation; that’s called mandatory voting. In 2012, while less than 60 percent of eligible voters voted in 2012, nearly 87 percent of registered voters cast ballots. And millions of would-be voters who made up that gap were kept from the ballot box by restrictions on registration.

Asserting, without evidence, that the only reason why someone wouldn’t register to vote is that they’re too lazy or stupid to figure it out isn’t an argument. It’s a baseless assumption, like the time Reince Priebus said that voter fraud constitutes between one and two percent of the Democratic vote.

If the true “civic idiots” are already choosing to not participate, telling them that they don’t have to do something that they already have no intention of doing isn’t going to change that calculus. But there remains no sound argument for continuing to exclude the millions of Americans who want to participate in the electoral process, but are being systematically denied the opportunity to do so through ID and registration requirements.

This post has been updated to clarify that Hillary Clinton has never held state-level office in New York. She has held federal office there, serving as the state’s Senator.

Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

14 Responses to “GOP candidates try, fail to respond to Clinton on voting rights”

  1. HeatherENowak says:

    56$/[email protected]


  2. Nice post, Thanks for your very useful Information, I will bookmark for next reference, I really liked this part of the article, with a nice and interesting topics have helped a lot of people who do not challenge things people should know, you need more publicize this so many people who know about it are rare for people to know this.Success for you,,

  3. Cristiana taylor says:

    Just Work With Social Media At Free.. ….MAKE M0NEY AT Your H0ME 88$ pr H0UR.✯. Marina . although Ashley `s report is terrific, on tuesday I got a great Lotus Carlton after having made USD 6753 this-past/five weeks an would you believe ten-grand last-m0nth . without a doubt its the best-work Ive ever done . I started this 6 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringing h0me at least USD 83 per/hr ….

    You Can Just see here.

    ➱➱➱➱ https://www.Career/W0rk/FreeTime.C0m


  4. Bill_Perdue says:

    Don’t you wish you could be political? Don’t change. I like an easy victory.

  5. Bill_Perdue says:

    You’re dead wrong. HRH HRC is Bush Lite.

    HRH HRC is a rabid supporter of NAFTA and TPP, both anti-worker, anti-union and anti-environmental treaties.

    HRH HRC is a radical right wing religious extremist.Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. ”

    “Hillary, ‘The Family,’ and Uganda’s Anti-Gay Christian Mafia – The evangelical organization that describes itself as a Christian mafia has been the hidden hand behind Uganda’s anti-gay bill, along with Rick Warren, the gay-bashing pastor who presided at Obama’s first inauguration. …Hillary Clinton has been active with Family prayer groups since she was First Lady. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton described The Family leader Doug Coe as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

    HRH HRC is a racist whose political role in the 2008 primaries shifted from being HRH Hillary Clinton to a mean spirited race baiter. She played the race card against Obama every chance she got.

    HRH HRC does not support a minimum wage of $15.00 an hour or more.

    HRH HRC has been anti-union and anti-worker since she spent six years on the board of Directors of WalMart, the worlds worst anti-union company. David Nassar of the AFL-CIO’s WalMart Watch said “We respectfully disagree with former President Clinton’s characterization of WalMart as a benign, benevolent corporation striving for self-improvement either during Sen. Clinton’s tenure on the board or at present…” and “while we don’t have any insight into what Sen. Clinton advocated for while on the board of WalMart, we do know that WalMart has made no meaningful progress regarding the company’s poor business practices, including gender discrimination, low wages, inadequate health care, overseas sourcing or environmental degradation…” ABC New Jan 24 2008

    “The bulk of the reporting on this matter has focused on the amount of money the Clintons earned. “The report underscores how much wealth the Clintons continued to amass as the Secretary of State prepared to launch her second bid for the presidency,” concluded USA Today. But the bigger story is why the Clintons are so rich. Their wealth is derived from an army of corporations that benefited from the very laws the Clintons passed, and now they are returning the favors. Although corporations from every sector of the economy developed this symbiotic relationship with the Clintons, none is more prominent than Wall Street.”

    Next time, try doing a little research.

  6. Andy Taylor says:

    ❇✯❇ Just Make Your Ideas Daily.✯. MAKE M0NEY AT Your H0ME 88$ pr H0UR.✯. Marina . although Ashley `s report is terrific, on tuesday I got a great Lotus Carlton after having made USD 6753 this-past/five weeks an would you believe ten-grand last-m0nth . without a doubt its the best-work Ive ever done . I started this 6 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringing h0me at least USD 83 per/hr ….

    You Can Just Check it out…


  7. Doug105 says:

    Hat? Wrong end.

  8. GrantS says:

    How do you come to these conclusions? Did you pull them out of your hat? Clinton is offering red meat to low income workers and immigrants and you call her a tool of the 1%. The republicans are famous for catering to their base (pro-life, pro-gun, family values, no taxes) but when Clinton does the same thing you call it catering to the rich. Give your head a shake Bill.

  9. Bill_Perdue says:

    Clinton’s stands on voting right, immigration and fastfood workers are pure campaign BS. HRH HRC is not just a tool of the 1%, she is part of the 1%. The rich are the enemies of working people.

    These lies fool fewer and fewer people all the time. “Fewer Americans say Clinton inspires confidence, is trustworthy and honest – A growing proportion of Americans have negative views of Hillary Clinton…’

  10. toto says:

    And while we’re at
    it . . .

    Presidential elections don’t have to continue to be dominated by and determined
    by a handful of swing states, while most of the country is politically

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate
    who receives the most popular votes in the country.

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every
    presidential election.

    No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined

    There would no longer be a handful of battleground states where voters and
    policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that
    have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral
    College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538).

    The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC)
    would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states, and win.

    The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium,
    large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes, and been enacted
    by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go
    into effect.


  11. 2karmanot says:

    Just a reminder: Bavaria used to be the Texas of Germany and look how that turned out for the Germans. Goodwin’s Law is now therefore mute.

  12. Skye Winspur says:

    That balloon-head Walker picture made my day. Thanks, Jon.

    I am always left speechless by the quality of discourse over at National Review — not, of course, in a good way.

  13. Humbug311 says:

    I think what was meant was that she did not hold any state (as opposed to federal) office New York — such that she would have been in any position to do anything about the voting laws in NY.

  14. BearEyes says:

    Jon – I thought Hillary did hold office in NY as a senator before becoming Secretary of State.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS