If you step back for a moment it is simply astounding to me that so many are working so hard to make it more difficult for people to vote. During a pandemic. Unreal.
I wrote an article about this early during the pandemic, and I concluded, contrary to what I've thought for the last 25 years, that the only way out of this mess is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to vote and establishing nonpartisan election administration.
Here's that article: liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/el…
Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them.
Since publication, the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and many lower appeals courts, have made things much worse.
The fact is, (some) Republican officials, the Trump campaign and Republican Party have used various arguments to prevent efforts to make it easier to vote during a pandemic. I wish both parties competed for voters, and not to shrink the electorate. Especially during a pandemic.
And I get some of the arguments these officials make about sticking to the rules and avoiding voter confusion. But late litigation rolling back voting expansion causes more confusion, and during a pandemic we should put a thumb on the scale to make voting easier, not harder.
If some of these changes would cause serious voter fraud or administrative difficulties, I get the concern. But voting rights plaintiffs should not have had to run to federal court for help. All states should have eased burdens on their own. (Some did.)
Take the South Carolina example. Elected officials and the Republican party didn't mind when a federal court got rid of the signature requirement for absentee voting during the primaries. But they got the Supreme Court to kill it in the general. For no good reason.
So many of the arguments against easing voting burdens during a pandemic just disingenuous. Others are sincere but elevate other, lesser values over the right to vote. It's wrong, especially during a pandemic. <End of rant.>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've been calling on my conservative friends to condemn Leonard Leo, one of the key players in building the Federalist Society and promoting Trump's judges to the federal courts, for backing a group trying to suppress the vote. But now there's evidence of Leo's self-dealing. /1
Here's the piece @Dahlialithwick and I wrote @Slate in May on how same people pushing conservative judges for the court were spawning more voter fraud myths through the "Honest Elections Project" backed by Leo to defend laws making it harder to vote. slate.com/news-and-polit… /2
Then @Dahlialithwick and I followed up in this @Slate piece showing same people providing financial backing to get three former Bush lawyers from Bush v. Gore on Supreme Court are pushing legal theories going to SCOTUS aimed at suppressing the vote. /3 slate.com/news-and-polit…
This Tom Cotton guy makes an empirical claim that the reason we have long lines is because of a shortage of volunteers. I say reports show other reasons, such as slow voter registration databases. I ask for receipts, and he says he won't provide proof of his claim.
It reminds me of when @JaneMayerNYer asked von Spakovsky why he would not provide me evidence that a Brooklyn grand jury report showed voter impersonation fraud. He told her he wasn't my "research assistant." When we got the report, it showed no such fraud.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/…
And to be clear, I'm following problems with our election process now all day, every day. If there's a problem somewhere with a lack of volunteers causing long lines I'd like to get the word out to get more volunteers. But everything I've seen suggests this is not the problem.
And even if it is likely Biden will win based upon current polling, pollsters still say there is a chance Trump wins in a fair contest. Talking like this can delegitimize election outcomes.
Loving all the people in my mentions telling me that I should learn something about how elections work.
All of a sudden from @BartonGellman's excellent @TheAtlantic piece, people are learning that we only get to vote for President because state legislatures give voters that right, and they can take it away. The risk of this happening in 2020 is not new but also not likely. /1
Here's @mjs_DC writing about this issue in March, and I've picked up on this theme in a number of my writings about the risks of the election with extensive normbreaking and constitutional hardball. /2 slate.com/news-and-polit…
The fact that we don't have a direct right to vote for President in the Constitution is a travesty (just like the potential for faithless electors to change electoral outcomes). In the long run we need constitutional change. /3 nytimes.com/2020/06/29/opi…
My new one @Slate: I’ve Never Been More Worried About American Democracy Than I Am Right Now; The pre-emptive attack on the vote count is a five-alarm fire.
. slate.com/news-and-polit… via @slate
I posted a new paper at SSRN which is a brief response to a forthcoming @BULawReview online symposium on my book, Election Meltdown.
Optimism and Despair About a 2020 “Election Meltdown” and Beyond. Abstract: /1 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…