The universal franchise--all adult citizens being eligible to vote in local, state and federal elections--was a long time coming. In other words, the citizens of the United States didn't begin to realize government by the people until women, blacks and everyone over the age of majority (18) were enfranchised.
In 1971, 18-20 year olds gained the right to vote with the passage of the 26th amendment to the United States Constitution. The road to this landmark amendment was not a smooth one. It was paved with young people's resentment that they could fight in a war but at the same time were not permitted to vote. The decision to allow 18-20 year olds to vote was made only a mere 39 years ago.
The universal franchise had opponents in 1970 and it continues to have them today. However, since amendments to the Constitution are very hard to overturn, other strategies have had to be used to depress voter participation. The low rate of voter participation in the United States is not the result of either laziness or indifference on the part of the electorate. The opponents of the universal franchise work year in and year out at reducing the electorate and the number of people who turn out to vote. And, to that end, they employ a basket full of strategies:
- Legislating additional requirements such as length of residency, advanced registration, documentation (personal ID, birth certificate, etc.) and criminal record checks (used to "trim" the voter rolls in Florida in 1999).
- Political propaganda to project the inevitability of results and voting as a waste of time.
- New mechanical voting systems that are unfamiliar to traditional and new voters.
- Some voters rendered ineligible to participate in certain elections by virtue of arrests, convictions or residency tests (the homeless can't vote).
- Subverted voting equipment to provide inaccurate tallies.
- Candidate participation restricted by limiting access to the ballot via petition requirements and fees.
- Primary elections scheduled at times that are inconvenient for some populations.
- Intimidation of candidates and voters via verbal and physical aggression and/or threats.
- Rumors, lies and misrepresentation of political issues.
- Unqualified or joke candidates (e.g. a promoter prostitution in New York) to minimize the importance of the political process.
- Distraction of the electorate (FOX News).
- Harassment of public officials.
There are likely more strategies which a well-schooled political operative could enumerate, but twelve is a nice number. The Dirty Dozen of the Electoral Process, first launched by Richard Nixon's tricksters, some of whom are still active. Roger Stone, Karl Rove and Bob Odell, to mention just a few.
At present, there's an effort in New Hampshire to employ strategy number one--i.e. bills in the legislature to complicate participation in elections for all voters on the grounds that they might be thinking of committing a fraud by pretending to be somebody they are not.
HB 626 would require town and city clerks to issue voter ID cards to all new voters starting in 2010. HB 1671 requires those who do not provide photo identification when registering to watch for a letter from the state to appear anytime in the three months following an election, and return a signed affidavit or face investigation of voter fraud.
Voting is a civil right, nay obligation. Fraud is a crime. Under our Constitution, a person cannot legally be deprived of a civil or human right unless there is evidence that person has committed a crime. That's the order to be followed: first the crime, then the proof, and finally the punishment.
The Constitution (which is addressed to what agents of government, including legislators, can do) does not provide for punishment on the basis of suspicion. There's a good reason for that. Punishing on the basis of suspicion is likely to target innocents, generate resentment and waste time and effort. Which might well be another tactic (13?) to undermine public confidence in government and discourage citizen participation.
Of course, passing un-Constitutional legislation to restrain citizen participation in governing is not new. Illegal laws are what the Supreme Court keeps having to throw out. Perhaps, with a little more attention, we can keep the New Hampshire legislature from wasting everyone's time. Contact your Representative and instruct them to vote against HB 626 and HB 1671.
While you're at it, remind them that their job is to carry out the will of the people; not tell the people what to do. Moreover, the nationwide reduction in crime should not be taken as an excuse to create new ones.