Yeah, once again raising the specter of voter disenfranchisement, the NY Times has run an editorial urging the that the federal government more strictly enforce the "Motor Voter" law.

States started out with some enthusiasm, but in recent years compliance has fallen sharply. Project Vote and Demos, public-interest groups that work for voting rights, studied the implementation of the motor voter law nationally from 1995 to 2007. In a 2005 study of 103 people leaving a Department of Jobs and Family Services office in Ohio, only three reported being given voter registration forms. Surveys conducted outside of public assistance offices in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland and other states found similar problems.

Not surprisingly, the motor voter law is proving to be far less effective in registering voters than it should be. According to the report by Project Vote and Demos, the number of people registering from public assistance agencies fell 79 percent between 1995 and 1996 — the first years for which data were collected — and 2005 and 2006, the most recent reporting period.

You see, for the liberal editors of the Gray Lady (it would be more accurate to call it the Pink Lady, given the paper's socialist tilt), the real purpose of the law is to push voter registration forms into the hands of public aid recipients -- the most likely to vote Democrat -- rather than the general public. Merely having the forms available at the office -- sitting on the counter -- isn't enough. the paper wants them actively given to each applicant.

Now here's the problem with the law, one I've mentioned before and which explains why I prefer to call it the "Auto Fraud-o" Law. The legislation makes it virtually impossible to reject a registration form, and difficult to detect voter fraud. For example, when I lived in Illinois when I got married, but the wedding was in my wife's home town in Pennsylvania. I had just presented my Illinois driver's license and given my Illinois address to the clerk in the office that issued our wedding license when she turned to me and asked, pursuant to the law in question, whether I would like to register to vote. Flabbergasted, I pointed out that I was not a Pennsylvania resident. In response, she told me that I could use my mother-in-law's address and there would be no problem with me voting absentee -- that the law made it illegal for her to refuse my registration if I gave that other address. Given that I believe in the principle of "one person, one vote", I chose not to engage in election fraud. But the thing is, the law would have facilitated, not prevented, my doing so if I wanted to. So rather than supporting more enforcement of the law, I'd urge its repeal.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.