Friday, November 22, 2013

Sen. Glenn Grothman: Democrats “don’t…care that much about voting” and how the GOP Voter Suppression Bill Attacks Cities.

During the whole Walker Authority attack on early voting, the one biggest issue that Democrats never thought to point out: Rural communities will continue to have complete flexibility on early voting, while cities will have hard restrictions. That’s what Republicans call a fair “uniform statewide law.”

Is there an opposition party at the Capitol, because I’m not hearing their outrage? 

Finally, this newer wrinkle on voter suppression got national air time:
Madison City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl told MSNBC: In 2012, the city saw more than 1,000 early voters per day, according to Witzel-Behl. She said the reduction in hours, and the loss of flexibility, would make life more difficult for her office – and for voters.

While hitting big cities hard, the bill leaves voting practices in small towns largely untouched. Many small towns in Wisconsin let people make appointments to cast their ballots at the local clerk’s house, McDonell explained—something they’ll be able to keep doing. “What this does is, it leaves in place the ability for the small communities to set their hours in different ways, but it shuts down the big cities from having the ability to do that,” said McDonell.
So gerrymandering wasn't enough, they had to make sure rural areas had a voting advantage? Yes.

Perhaps the GOP's obsession with voter suppression has its roots in something Sen. Grothman said:
State Sen. Glenn Grothman: “Between [early voting], mail absentee, and voting the day of election, you know, I mean anybody who can’t vote with all those options, they’ve really got a problem,” he said. “I really don’t think they care that much about voting in the first place, right?”
For a party that doesn't believe in over regulation, voting rights is that one exception.


Gareth said...

Wouldn't this violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? Didn't the Supreme Court stop the Florida recount in 2000 by upholding the claim that one class of voters was treated differently than others? I know that the esteemed justices said their decision was one-off and couldn't be used as a legal precedent in the future, but still....I think this will end up in Federal court with an injunction issued.

Sue said...

Let's see if I've got this right...
We have to have voter suppression laws, er, voter ID laws, to keep 'those people' from going from precinct to precinct to vote illegally, but 'those people' aren't all that interested in voting so we need to cut their opportunities to vote.

Democurmudgeon said...

Makes perfect sense, right?