What's the Difference between Voter Suppression and Election Integrity?
I know because I’m a former Election Judge (Yes, Really)
Most reporting takes it for granted that voter suppression is behind various proposed and enacted election laws that would seem to make it harder for Democrats in general, and Blacks in particular, to vote. After all, those clamoring for apparent restrictions in election laws largely come from Republican legislators and Governors. The most publicized case in point is Georgia, where recently passed legislation indeed makes it harder to vote than last year, which saw the state vote for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since 1992, and which sent two Democrats to the senate in a special election.
Here’s a compelling data point on election law reform, courtesy of the National Conference of State Legislatures and dated August 3, 2021.
“All 50 states have introduced election-related bills so far this year [2021]. Many states have debated whether to make permanent policies that were temporary adjustments for 2020 and the most popular topics under consideration are increasing or limiting absentee and mail voting, ballot drop boxes and voter identification requirements.” See the full report here.
I’ll concentrate on Georgia. Changes there include: limiting drop boxes to no more than one per 100,000 registered voters in any county; limiting early voting to 67 days instead of six months previously; and barring the Secretary of State or any election official from mailing an absentee ballot application unless requested. Citizens voting via absentee ballots must also prove identity, such as by providing a Georgia Driver’s License number or equivalent state ID; or the last four digits of their Social Security Number; or any of several other methods. Signatures will no longer be matched as this practice was widely considered too subjective.
Most controversial, and most troubling to me, is that the law “also gives the State Election Board the ability to suspend county election officials for poor performance or violations of state election regulations.” The State Election Board is supposed to be non-partisan, yet is to be appointed by the state legislature, which will almost always be controlled by one political party or the other. Currently, the Republicans control it. (A more detailed roundup of the new Georgia election law specifically can be found here.)
One argument that the new Georgia law is all about voter suppression relates to how strong the mail-in vote was for Joe Biden in 2020. According to Votebeat, as reported by WABC, an NPR affiliate in Atlanta, “Joe Biden had almost double the absentee-by-mail votes as President Donald Trump – almost 850,000 for Biden compared with about 450,000 for Trump.” See the full article here.
So, the motive may seem clear that the new law is about voter suppression, yet evidence of a motive for misconduct is not in itself proof that misconduct was actually committed. In their defense, Georgia Republicans claim that the new law makes voting more accessible than in some other blue, putatively more liberal states. And, chain of custody is a legitimate issue in arguing for election integrity no less than in a criminal case where evidence presented by the police or a prosecuting attorney will invariably be thrown out unless chain of custody can be demonstrated.
Furthermore, some media outlets themselves have pointed fingers at other media for allegedly misrepresenting at least parts of the new law. For example, according to a “fact check” by WRCBtv, an NBC affiliate in Chattanooga, Tennessee, “The [new Georgia] law does, however, contain some provisions that can reasonably be described as pro-voting, and critics have not always described all of the text accurately.” See full article here.
Voter suppression or election integrity? I can’t tell you what to think, of course. But I’ve been an Election Judge in Indiana for several general elections and primaries since 2008 and I want to give you an overview of what real election integrity looks like, emphasizing chain of custody for ballots, which is second only to the secret ballot in small “d” democratic countries. Mailing ballots to people who haven’t requested them and who may no longer live at an address on file, or allowing “ballot harvesting” as is the case in California, for example, means chain of custody is greatly undermined.
Now, here’s a rundown of what real election integrity looks like, greatly simplified here because I’m not writing a how-to manual.
First, you come to the polling place the evening before the election to check the voting machines, which are sealed. You do this in the presence of representatives from both political parties. The machines are unsealed and checked to make sure they’re zeroed out, and you check the printers, as well. Everything is at zero. Then the machines are sealed again.
The next morning you go through the same routine! Additionally, when the polls actually open, you have a Clerk who checks in the voters (comparing their ID to the voter rolls) and each voter casts his or her ballot in private at a booth (okay, you certainly know that part of the process). At the end of the day votes are downloaded from the machines and printed out, and the total numbers must match the number of people who came through the door to vote, i.e., no ballots have been added or subtracted from the machines mysteriously. Then the machines are folded up into carrying cases and sealed yet again, the paper print-outs are secured, the Clerks and Judges witness and sign various documents, and everything is returned to county election officials, who go through their own procedures. It’s easily a 16-hour or 17-hour day for the Clerks and Judges, and that’s not counting the training ahead of time, or the set-up the evening before.
There are occasional complications and wrinkles but, again, I’m giving a brief overview to make a point, not writing a how-to manual.
Folks, this is election integrity. Certainly, more people will be able to vote if we make it easier to vote. But there is nothing that voting rights advocates are demanding that can ever come close to voting in person on Election Day in terms of insuring that real people are casting their own ballots, or even that they’ve voted in private without someone looking over their shoulder. This point cannot be overemphasized: chain of custody is a legitimate issue in arguing for election integrity no less than in a criminal case where evidence presented by the police or a prosecuting attorney will invariably be thrown out unless chain of custody can be demonstrated.
Sure, the whole topic can get more complicated than anything I’ve described above. I just wish there were a more nuanced public discourse on which voting law changes are necessary, and which are unwise.
Gnawbone, where subscriptions are always free.