Ballots, Citizenship And Repercussions

LAWMAKERS SHOULD TREAD CAREFULLY ON VOTER ID; PROBLEMS ARE FEW, COSTS ARE SIGNIFICANT

Sunday, January 6, 2013

I expect a lot of antivoter-fraud legislation and antiillegal immigration bills in the upcoming General Assembly. I also expect severe political backlash to them.

We have serious fraud problems in this state that have nothing to do with immigrants or voter ID. Rep. Hudson Hallum, D-West Memphis, and others face federal charges of buying votes, for instance. Note, however, the eligibility and identity of the alleged bribery targets aren’t the issue. Therefore, things such as requiring identifi cation by driver’s licenses and proof of citizenship would’ve made no diff erence.

Voter ID and such precautions are perceived, fairly or not, as naked voter suppression of minorities.

Look at what has happened in Arizona, Mississippi and other places.

Arizona had a massive voter registration drive among Latinos before the election. This came in direct response to efforts to end “fraud” in that state’s elections that were viewed as raw voter suppression. The result: Record numbers of new voters cast ballots that went through a restrictive and poorly thought-out system.

More than a week went by before the votes were even counted, adding to the view the whole purpose was to prevent Latinos from voting.

Much the same thing happened in Mississippi, only with African-American voters. Nationwide, the NAACP had one of the bestvoter registration eff orts in its history, according to news accounts. At least some of the reason for this was the reaction against voter ID laws. Those laws were viewed as suppression of the African-American vote.

“Blacks voted at a higher rate this year than other minority groups and for the first time in history may also have voted at a higher rate than whites,” according to a Pew Research Center analysis of census data, election day exit poll data and vote totals from selected cities and counties.

See the whole report at www.pewsocialtrends.org.

People push back when you push them.

What’s particularly relevant to Arkansas is the Arkansas Legislative Black Caucus has always been a very valuable ally to Latino voters. For instance, the caucus has always taken a dim view of requiring people to show driver’s licenses or prove citizenship. The black caucus recognizes discrimination when members see it and reacts strongly.

The Latino community in this state hasn’t been as politically active as itcould be. Legislation that picks on them could and should rouse them. When they do get riled, they will find the state’s black caucus somewhere already ahead of them.

Now add another powerful group: people of any ethnic background who take a dim view of what they perceive as discrimination.

Liberal columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post (washingtonpost.

com) made a very good point about this Dec. 11.

Everyone talks about how the Republican tough party line on immigrationdrove Latino voters to Democrats by a 3-1 margin.

As Robinson wrote: “What the GOP seems not to grasp is that the party’s ‘send’em-all-home’ stance is way out of line with much of the rest of the electorate as well. I’d argue that this is a point that non-members of the GOP have not grasped well either.

“A Politico-George Washington University poll released Monday (Dec. 10) asked voters whether they favored ‘an immigration reform proposal that allows illegal or undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship over a period ofseveral years.’ That would be amnesty, pure and simple - and a whopping 62 percent said they were in favor, compared to 35 percent who said they were opposed.

“You might expect Democrats, then, to be pushing hard for a straightforward amnesty bill. But they don’t have to.

Because Republicans are so far out in right field on the issue, Democrats haven’t actually had to do anything to reap substantial political benefits. They’ve just had to sound more reasonable, and less hostile, than Republicans, which has notrequired breaking a sweat.”

I’m going to sound very cynical on what should be a matter of principle, but here goes: The amount of voter fraud related to ineligibility to vote is small.

So is the amount of illegal immigration we have left in this sluggish economy.

Both these problems appear far too small to make it worth the raw political cost of passing legislation that is widely - and I believe accurately - perceived as voter suppression.

DOUG THOMPSON IS A POLITICAL REPORTER AND COLUMNIST FOR NWA MEDIA.

Opinion, Pages 12 on 01/06/2013