It seems deeply hypocritical that in a country where virtually every party member brags regularly about “our democracy,” Republican party chiefs and legislators spend a great deal of time drafting voter “integrity” or “security” laws.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison asked, “Who are to be the electors [voters] of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.”
Alexander Hamilton worried in the Federalist Papers that government might one day “fabricate election laws for securing a preference to a favorite class of men.”
Hamilton said there were two ways to limit elections to the richer class of people. One was “by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect, or be elected.” Another was “by confining the places of election to particular districts ... (and by assuring) the place of election is at an inconvenient distance from the elector.”
Hamilton argued that under the Constitution only the state governments could do such things, and that is exactly what states are doing today.
New voter proposals or laws in Florida, Georgia, Texas and dozens of other states limit voting for those who don’t have sufficient electronic property to facilitate on-line registration or voting or sufficient financial means or transportation property to get to sharply limited polling places and times.
If America is not about “the rich more than the poor,” why are states restricting eligibility criteria/excuses for absentee voting, restricting the mailing out of absentee ballots and applications for ballots, limiting ballot collection activities and drop box locations, limiting polling places in heavily populated areas, reducing early in-person voting, banning drive-through voting, enacting stricter ID requirements and adding powers to potentially hateful partisan poll-watchers, all of which make participation harder and scarier for the poor?
The heavyweight poll watchers seem a bit like the biblical Jeremiah’s “watchmen on the walls,” whose role was to detect approaching enemies. But these are not enemy armies today folks, they are fellow citizens trying to get to the polls.
The Republican Party is preparing for a struggle with the electorate, and in this case the legitimate watchers on the walls should be turning their gaze inward to detect those illicit voter restriction activities. Where are the American prophets acting out the role of authentic watchkeepers today? Have they yet been sufficiently roused?
In ancient democratic Rome, Livy gave an account about a historical point-in-time where the working class were distressed that the wealthy class were taking measures to rig the elections against them. Democrats are beginning to express that same concern today about the well-heeled Republican Party. Where are the American historians today like Livy, who felt called to bring his nation’s history of voter suppression to light?
Early England famously expanded voter rights in that nation by means of the Magna Carta. In that case it was the educated class who worried out loud that King John was overriding the educated people’s own decision-making ability.
Today, where are the educated Republican champions of our tradition’s Magna Carta concerns about solidifying rather than contracting voting rights? Where are the contemporary Republican champions of our own founders’ concerns about shoring up equality in access to voting?
Kimball Shinkoskey
Kimball Shinkoskey, Woods Cross, is retired from state government employment and writes about American history, politics, and current affairs.
