12:30-1:30pm PM Chart Room, Fairhaven Commons, 2nd Floor, Fairhaven College
Race, Class, and Voter IDs in the 2008 Presidential Election
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law requiring all voters to present ID prior to voting. Though seemingly neutral in their language, voter ID laws have a disparate impact along race and class lines. The Supreme Court's decision could have a significant impact in an election where the Democratic candidate expects to mobilize large numbers of minority voters. This talk will touch on the potential role of the Court's decision in the election as well as using the conflict over voter IDs as a window into how considerations of race and class will influence the strategic calculations of both parties.
2:00-3:20pm Arntzen Hall 219
Bush v. Gore in 2008: Courts, Law, and the Presidential Election
The prominent role of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election surprised many observers who expected the Court to stay out of electoral politics. Courts, however, have been playing an increasing role in election-related litigation as political candidates, parties, and interest groups have turned to the judiciary to resolve disputes about who can vote, how votes should be counted, and who can run. Given the increased rate of election litigation over the last two election cycles, what can we expect in 2008? What areas are litigants focused on and in what ways are courts influencing the outcomes of elections? While the circumstances of Bush v. Gore were unique, the reliance on courts as yet another electoral battlefield is a trend that is not likely to disappear anytime soon
Chris Shortell is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Portland State University. He writes and teaches on the relationship between law and the broader political system, with a particular focus on the interactions between law and society, law and elections, and federalism. His recent publications include Rights, Remedies, and the Impact of State Sovereign Immunity (SUNY Press) and articles in Election Law Journal and Judicature. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, San Diego in 2004.
All election law students will be required to attend the 12:30 - 2:30 talk by Dr. Shortell.
Posts
5 comments:
Being raised in the middle class, being white, and having the means to afford a driver’s license — I never even thought about those characteristics helping me vote, or the lack of those characteristics preventing me from doing so. What an eye opening talk! I’m quite surprised and now angered that seemingly racial issues or, at the very least, class issues, are still occurring to such a blatant degree in 2008. This does seem very reminiscent of the polling taxes and other methods imposed to prevent African Americans and most likely, Latino Americans, from voting. If what Professor Shortell said is correct in his statements that substantive individual fraud at the polling place is extremely hard to find and that voter ID laws apply mainly to fraud at the polling place, then the only logical conclusion to draw is that these laws are aimed at lower class citizens, who, in America, are also many times in the ethnic minority. In this upcoming election, voter ID laws could make a huge impact on who is elected as our next president — more so than I ever thought possible.
Overall, I was impressed at how well the orator was able to convey his main points. He was definitely knowledgeable in his field. He tried to be as objective as possible. If I was a gambling man, I would say he is personally against voter ID. He brought up many good points and backed it up with supporting statistics instead of making wild conjectures which was a breath of fresh air. The most interesting point he brought up, in my mind, is that individual voter fraud is near impossible to detect, or at least that not very much has been caught. It was interesting that he entertained the possibility of people being registered to vote in two separate states AND excercizing that potential power to its fullest. At this point, I wonder what the repricussions would be if we actually nationalized the voter registration databases. It would almost necessarily lead to all polling stations to require computers to validate voters. If computers should be faulty or tampered with, this would only lead to more frustration. But this is merely a digression.
The one topic I wish had been addressed more was the idea of substantiated GROUP voting fraud. If individual voter fraud is hard to substantiate…why not do at least a survey overview of something that has been detected. Whether group voter fraud has been detected or not is beyond my own knowledge, but I wish I had at least asked a question beyond the scope of the individual.
Good lecture. Great follow up lecture about the implications of Bush v. Gore. But I wish there had been more time for questions.
I enjoyed Professor Shortell's talk. He was detailed and laid out the arguments for both sides very well. It seemed very clear that he was against voter ID laws, though the presentation seemed quite objective and his personal bias was limited.
I had some previous knowledge in regards to voter ID laws, but I found it interesting that voter ID laws themselves are not effective in preventing voter fraud, and indeed don't address some of the biggest problems with voting legitimacy, especially in terms of the lack of a national database of voters. It was interesting to me that it could potentially be pretty easy to vote in multiple states, and such action would be difficult to prevent on the part of individual states. At the same time, I can see the benefits of states controlling the vote apparatus, because local elections would need to be dealt with on a more local level. Still, it's a scary to think that the system can be beaten so easily.
I also found Shortell's discussion of Republicans and Democrats essentially engaging in a dirty war all over the nation to try and come out on top. It's sad that politics has fallen to that level, and it's too bad that more is not being done to prevent these kinds of dirty tactics.
I wish I'd had the time to attend his next talk, because I would have liked to learn more about the Bush v. Gore implications, and Shortell was clearly very knowlegable.
I enjoyed Professor Shortell’s presentation. I thought he was articulate and he knew a lot about the subject that he was discussing. It’s hard for some of us to completely understand the issue because we have always had a driver’s license or passport. Part of me thinks that it really isn’t that difficult to have some form of ID and that if you’re a citizen you should have some form of identification.
I did feel that Shortell was very biased because it was obvious that he was against the voter ID laws. Ultimately, I do agree with him. In a country as big as ours the system will never be absolutely perfect and there will be a small amount of corruption, but I think the ultimate goal has to be to get the most amount of people to vote.
I was struck again by the shocking nature of our voting apparatus. The fact that the voting system in every county in the country is different seems so ineffectual.
I was interested to see that having the laws seemed to have no affect on the trust of the system. If the things he was saying are true then I can’t seem to understand how you can make a valid argument for the voter ID laws. In my opinion they should be challenged in court.
Chris Shortell brought up many of the issues facing voters today. With two recent bitter fought elections, there is a lot of discussion within government institutions on how to best assure the integrity of the electoral system. Some of the changes are necessary. Many of the other changes may undermine the most important component of the voters of America i.e. their right to cast a ballot.
Any impediment that a voter must overcome makes it less likely a voter will get to the polls. Many of these impediments are further pronounced by the socio-economic status of the voter. In Marion County, the voter card requirement is one such obstacle. What may be a slight inconvenience for the middle class may be a higher hurdle to climb for a person without the means to leap. Lower income voters may not all have vehicles to get to the places where voter cards are issued. Others on fixed income must prioritize their budgets and an extra trip for a voter card may not be as important as a trip to the grocery store.
The number of potential registrants the voter card requirement may undermine is a hard figure to know for sure. Estimates indicate a percentage at between 2 and 16%. Even at 2%, it would seem to be unacceptable, especially given the lack of evidence for the cards’ need. According to Chris, the incidence of voter fraud is negligible. There is little evidence to suggest there has been any measurable effect from voter fraud. Decisions seem to be based on partisan issues and the people with the least are often the ones most affected.
Brian A
Post a Comment