Attempt to Attract Uninterested Voters Struck Down

On Friday, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that the state’s new early voting law is unconstitutional.  This “vote early and often” bill included an unfunded mandate allowing five days of voting in the week prior to Election Day, although the state constitution permits only one day of general election voting.  The bill also permitted voters to vote anywhere in the state using provisional ballots.  During early voting, this would occur at a limited number of polling places most of which were located in heavily Democratic districts.  The court ruled against that provision because the state’s constitution specifies that citizens who reside in the state vote in their wards or districts of residence.

Some Democrats were angered by the court’s decision.  In his August 25 AP article, “Md. Court of Appeals Overturns Early Voting Law,” reporter Tom Stucky quoted Maryland Democratic Party spokesman David Paulson saying, “I will criticize those who worked hard and spent money to suppress the vote,” by filing the lawsuit.  State House Speaker Michael Busch complained about the ruling because more than 30 states have early voting and nine of them have similar constitutional provisions.  Busch said, “I don’t know what makes Maryland unique.”  It is possible that early voting simply hasn’t been challenged in court yet in other states in which it violates constitutional provisions.  John Fund can tell Speaker Busch what makes Maryland unique: According to his February 9, 2006 OpinionJournal.com article, “Voting Early—and Often,” Maryland is unique in being “the only state in the nation to allow statewide early voting on touch-screen machines that lack a verifiable paper trail.”  Furthermore, Maryland voters are required to verify their names and addresses, but no identification or proof of residence at those addresses is required at the polls.  According to Fund’s OpinionJournal.com piece, a bipartisan advisory commission criticized use of provisional ballots in any part of the state because multiple votes by the same individual may not be detected until after the votes are certified.

Single day voting in a voter’s ward or precinct of residence hardly suppresses the vote.    In Maryland, polls are open for 13 hours on Election Day.  “No excuses” absentee ballots are available to Marylanders even if they will be in their home precincts on Election Day.  Voters can apply for absentee ballots over the internet, so obtaining them shouldn’t be a great hardship.

While early voting and the ability to cast ballots at polling places in various locations increases the potential for voter fraud, its purpose is to increase voter turnout.  Will it do so?  Is it even desirable?  Early voting provides more opportunities for voting to those who are “too busy” to go to the polls on Election Day.  If people are “too busy” to vote during the 13 hours that the polls are open on Election Day, will they have more free time on the other days?  Will they have time to go to polling places that may be farther away than their own precincts during early voting?  At the Take Back America 2005 Conference, Howard Dean said Election Day should be a holiday because people who have jobs and need to pick up their kids from daycare don’t have time to go and wait in line to vote.  Somehow, many people who have jobs, children and commutes still manage to vote on Election Day.  It seems that the problem may not be that some people are “too busy” to vote, but that they don’t think it is a priority to vote.  If Election Day were a holiday, would those people go to the polls or spend the day shopping or golfing instead?

Those who don’t think voting is important are unlikely to familiarize themselves with the issues or the candidates’ positions on those issues.  A recent Zogby poll found that 74% of respondents could name the original Three Stooges, but only 42% could identify the three branches of government.  Those who are more familiar with television comedy teams than their own government probably think voting in elections is less of a priority than voting on “American Idol.”  They are also likely to get most of their information from television and movies.  Who wants such individuals who think Syriana is factual to vote?  The Democrats do.  As a case in point, in Maryland, the three most heavily Democratic areas, (Baltimore City, Montgomery County and Prince Georges County), were the ones that mailed early voting information to voters before the appellate court made its ruling on the law.

Those who won’t vote if it involves any inconvenience are those most likely to ask what is in it for them.  They are easily swayed by promises of something for nothing such as healthcare for all, “affordable” housing and other tax funded services.  They are unlikely to care about how the government will pay for those things.

If early voting anywhere in the state isn’t enough to attract the “what’s in it for me?” crowd, Dr. Mark Osterloh of Tucson, AZ has a better offer.   He has a proposal on Arizona’s November ballot to enter everyone who votes in a drawing for one million dollars.  In his Townhall.com column, “We don’t need Beavis and Butt-Head voters,” Jonah Goldberg quotes Osterloh: “One of the goals that I’ve had in my lifetime is to see that all Americans have health care like every other major country on Earth.  One of the ways to do that is to make sure that everybody votes.”

Not quite.  Those who really care about our nation and the issues affecting it will vote anyway.  The best way to attract those who will vote for candidates who promise them “something for nothing” is to give them a chance to get something for nothing.  It’s cheaper than the price of a lottery ticket.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 08/29/06, all rights reserved