Now the Lawsuit
Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 17 September 2012
by Arturo Balderas Rodríguez (link to
original)
It is highly possible that the U.S. elections this November will culminate in endless lawsuits. This is the prognosis of various experts, according to a report that appeared in The New York Times. The ghost of what happened in Florida in 2000, when in a divided decision the U.S. Supreme Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush, could repeat itself — with the aggravating circumstances extending to more than one state.
This time it will not only be Florida where claims and counterclaims could arise. In the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Carolina it’s also possible for contending parties to solicit the intervention of the Judicial Branch to resolve lawsuits that come up after the elections.
In each of those states, all governed by Republicans, attempts are being made to change the rules over how votes have historically been cast. Now they want to verify the identity of voters at the polls. In contrast to what happens in other countries, in the U.S. electoral system there is no reason to test the identity of voters. Cases of fraud have been isolated and of little importance, and this election does not warrant the necessity of changing the form in which votes have traditionally been cast.
What then is the necessity of demanding documents to prove voter identity? According to various human rights and get-out-the-vote organizations, those who lack identifying documents are ethnic minorities, specifically African-Americans and Latinos. Coincidentally, the majority of people in those groups vote for Democratic Party candidates. That’s why it isn’t strange that it should be the Republican Party promoting initiatives for demanding voter identification monitoring. The practical result is to inhibit the vote of those minorities.
In states where there is a special zeal for demanding identification in order to vote, there is a high possibility that voting will be monitored. As it happens, there is a significant number of Latinos and African-Americans in those states that could be excluded from the vote. Suspicions about the true intentions for changing voting rules are confirmed because Obama won those states in the previous election. It must be remembered that unlike countries like Mexico, where the winner is decided by a universal vote, in the United States the Electoral College determines the election, which means that it’s the votes of each state that count, so winning these states is key for the candidates.
Democrats are seeking protection before the courts against this change in legislation, but the Republicans are counterclaiming, and it is not clear how this issue will turn out. To put it in colloquial terms: The Republicans lost in 2008, and they are resolved to seize power, whatever the means.
This time it will not only be Florida where claims and counterclaims could arise. In the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Carolina it’s also possible for contending parties to solicit the intervention of the Judicial Branch to resolve lawsuits that come up after the elections.
In each of those states, all governed by Republicans, attempts are being made to change the rules over how votes have historically been cast. Now they want to verify the identity of voters at the polls. In contrast to what happens in other countries, in the U.S. electoral system there is no reason to test the identity of voters. Cases of fraud have been isolated and of little importance, and this election does not warrant the necessity of changing the form in which votes have traditionally been cast.
What then is the necessity of demanding documents to prove voter identity? According to various human rights and get-out-the-vote organizations, those who lack identifying documents are ethnic minorities, specifically African-Americans and Latinos. Coincidentally, the majority of people in those groups vote for Democratic Party candidates. That’s why it isn’t strange that it should be the Republican Party promoting initiatives for demanding voter identification monitoring. The practical result is to inhibit the vote of those minorities.
In states where there is a special zeal for demanding identification in order to vote, there is a high possibility that voting will be monitored. As it happens, there is a significant number of Latinos and African-Americans in those states that could be excluded from the vote. Suspicions about the true intentions for changing voting rules are confirmed because Obama won those states in the previous election. It must be remembered that unlike countries like Mexico, where the winner is decided by a universal vote, in the United States the Electoral College determines the election, which means that it’s the votes of each state that count, so winning these states is key for the candidates.
Democrats are seeking protection before the courts against this change in legislation, but the Republicans are counterclaiming, and it is not clear how this issue will turn out. To put it in colloquial terms: The Republicans lost in 2008, and they are resolved to seize power, whatever the means.