A right to vote

Pam Fessler of NPR reported on Morning Edition today about a troubling aspect of city and county governments not having enough money. They won't be able to properly fund elections. The smaller budgets affect such things as how many polling places are open, how many voting machines are available, and how many workers are hired to staff them. Any of those three could mean that next year voters have to drive farther to vote and wait in longer lines once they get there. It could also mean absentee ballots don't get sent out and registrations not processed. And those fancy voter machines purchased back in 2000 are proving to be high in maintenance or are about at the end of their lifespan (which, to me, is good because they could easily produce fraudulent results, but there may not be money for replacements).

Doug Lewis runs The Election Center, a national association of election officials. He said, "If they cut your budget 20 percent, which 20 percent of the voters do they not want to vote? I mean, this is where we are."

I have a very good idea which 20 percent the GOP doesn't want to vote.



Essayist Terrence Heath expands on something Jessie Jackson Jr. has noticed. The Constitution does not contain an explicit right to vote. What it does say is there shall be no governmental discrimination. But who gets to vote was left to the states -- and we saw how well that worked.

Jackson has proposed a solution -- a Constitutional amendment saying all citizens the age of 18 and over have the right to vote. Congress may enact regulations that are narrowly designed to promote efficiency and honesty. This is H.J. Res. 28.

So ask your Congresscritters to support it. And raise a ruckus if they don't.



Heath expands on the case of a GOP debate audience booing a gay soldier with none of the candidates condemning it. Most candidates fall over each other to say how much they support the troops, but Heath lists the many ways the GOP over the last decade hasn't supported the troops. Here is a partial list.

* Send troops to invade a country under false pretenses, with insufficient numbers, ammunition, and armor.
* Lose track of weapons.
* Waste billions on contractors.
* Prevent soldiers from leaving at the end of enlistments and send them overseas for missions that are too long and too frequent, causing suicides from stress.
* Cut veteran benefits.

In response to the booing and also an earlier debate when the audience cheered an example of a death because of no health insurance, Ana Marie Cox notes "Republican debate audiences have thus far shown themselves to be in favor of both government cruelty and personal vengeance."



A third essay by Heath expands on the video I linked to in which Elizabeth Warren gives a response to "class warfare." He adds it is good to hear Obama talk about it as well. Obama said, "Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both."

Warren's video went viral because most Americans (except the Tea Party) are hungry for these words. In spite our façade of rugged individualism we help each other. The story of the "self-made" American, as Warren put it, is a myth. We built this country together and we'll solve its problems together.

Blogger Richard Eskow has seen Obama take up the message of America as a group effort, one that most Americans are desperate to hear. But, Eskow says, that puts Obama in a bind. The policies he is promoting have been stigmatized by party elites (and I'm sure Eskow includes Democratic Party elites). So Obama can proceed with the support of the voters or the backing of the rich who are funding both parties and who label right-wing goals as "bipartisan". There is no third way.

Voters will back Obama -- if they believe he really means it this time.