The Bush administration, its political appointees and their cronies have fomented dramatic fears in order to justify laws, policies and prosecutions that suppress the vote of minority and lower-income communities. It turns out that this is nothing more than fear mongering at its worse. Voter fraud has been disproved and occurs "statistically...about as often as death by lightning strike."

What is true, however, is that voter registration drives are incredibly successful (hence the backlash). The 2004 Census reported that such drives registered 12 million Americans to vote, largely from minority and low-income communities. In Florida alone, activists registered 524,000 new voters, mostly from African-American and Latino communities - almost 20 percent of all registrations processed by the state that year.

A Project Vote report notes that just as the Democratic Party felt threatened by an influx of new African-American voters in the late 19th century and responded by erecting stricter registration rules to "protect our democracy," so too are Republicans now resurrecting baseless fraud allegations to erect new barriers to voting and to thwart voter registration drives:

o In Florida, prior to the 2006 election, the state legislature passed a bill establishing a punitive set of fines - even for accidental mishandling of voter registration forms - that forced the League of Women Voters to halt a major registration drive for the FIRST time in its history. The law was later overturned as unconstitutional but not before real damage was done.

o Less than two months before the 2004 election, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell ordered counties to discard any registration forms not printed on thick, 80 lb. paper. The rule was partially reversed three weeks later due to pressure from voter registration groups and local election officials. (It's worth mentioning that the Ballot Integrity Act would also prohibit any chief state election official - such as Kenneth Blackwell and Katherine Harris - from serving on any political campaign committee of a candidate for Federal office.) In 2006 in Ohio, a law was passed requiring any individual collecting voter registration applications to personally return them to the Board of Elections within 10 days. Also, individuals compensated for collecting registrations needed to register with the state, complete a training program, and include their name and employer on each voter registration form. In Project Vote vs. Blackwell, a District Court ruled these requirements unconstitutional, noting that the direct return provision "severely chills the voter registration process."

o In New Mexico, the Secretary of State issued rules limiting the number of voter registration forms to 50 per individual or organization. The state also now requires activists to turn in forms within 48 hours, making it more difficult for organizations to thoroughly check every application for accuracy and thoroughness, and also causing them to spend more time transporting forms and less time collecting them from voters.

o Arizona now requires people registering to vote to provide the local board with proof of citizenship - a copy of a driver's license, US passport, birth certificate, Bureau of Indian Affairs card, or naturalization papers. Most people, of course, don't carry copies of these documents and so they often don't have them when offered assistance by voter registration programs.

Now, a bill co-sponsored by Senators Christopher Dodd and Dianne Feinstein - the Ballot Integrity Act of 2007 - would prohibit states from passing any law that hinders voter registration drives and address other needed election administration reforms as well. There are some divisions within the pro-democracy/voter reform community about some aspects of the bill, but there can be no mistaking the importance of protecting efforts to expand voting participation. As Maude Hurde, President of ACORN told me, "If legislators in Ohio and Florida had their way, ACORN would never have been able to run the kind of successful voter registration drives that helped 1.6 million Americans join the voting rolls in the past four years. Fortunately, Senator Feinstein's Ballot Integrity Act won't be leaving the decision up to them, and that is good news for America's democracy."

Burying pro-democracy activists in paperwork or forcing them to comply with burdensome and unjustifiable regulations are less violent than the tactics used against civil rights activists 40 years ago. But the impact is similar: minority and lower-income citizens are stopped from exercising their right to vote. Tell your Senator to support the Ballot Integrity Act of 2007 and protect organized voter registration drives today.

Originally by Katrina vanden Heuvel from The Nation: Editor's Cut on July 22, 2007, 7:17pm


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.