Unhappily sensing mass democracy was the inevitable future, the English jurist James Fitzjames Stephen wrote in 1873: “The waters are out and no human force can turn [mass democracy and universal suffrage] back, but I do not see why as we go with the stream we need sing Hallelujah to the river god.” I mention this quote largely because I find its sardonic tone amusing; but also because, despite first appearing in print nearly a century and half ago, it’s still applicable to conversations about voting and democracy in America today. I recognize democracy-expanding policies like automatic voter registration and early voting are on the horizon. But don’t expect any happy, “Annie”-style overtures simply because their arrival is as predictable as the sun coming out tomorrow.
My pessimism may seem surprising, given the apparent trend toward voter restrictions in many states. But for opponents of ever-expanding voting opportunities, these victories are likely Pyrrhic. Thanks to a combination of malice and mendacity, the party most likely to oppose these policies is in the hot seat for its record on voting rights. Despite 80 percent of Americans expressing support for voter ID laws, according to Gallup, the GOP has made the issue toxic. Republicans have taken the overwhelmingly popular idea that people ought to show identification to vote and morphed it into a racist policy that, according to a federal appeals court, “target[s] African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”The justly earned bad press resulting from this law will likely fatally damage the GOP’s legitimacy on all voter-related policies in the near future, as their concerns — no matter how sensible — will be understandably discounted as just more excuses for suppressing Democratic voters. With a reputation like that, how will the GOP be able to defeat popular but ill-advised measures pitched as benevolent attempts to strengthen democracy?
Consider the editorial board’s recent advocacy for same-day voter registration, or automatic voter registration, a stronger version of the policy already popular among Democrats. Unfortunately, per the aforementioned Gallup polling, 63 percent of Americans support the latter idea. Advocates of easier voter registration argue it will boost voter turnout, which they see as a positive good in and of itself. But I’ve never understood this position. I see no reason to view 85 percent turnout as inherently better than 35 percent turnout. It’s of course possible increased voter turnout could be a good thing, but it is equally possible (perhaps even probable) that increased turnout would be less preferable to lower turnout. If those who start voting for the first time are completely uninformed — which, given that these additional voters are those too apathetic to bother registering themselves under the current system, is probable — it seems ridiculous to conclude that simply because we increased the volume of voters we as a polity have achieved anything worth celebrating.
The honest position for opponents of these proposals, then, is to state simply that voting comes with a minimal amount of responsibility. People too apathetic to register to vote are likely too apathetic to bother becoming informed, so there is no compelling reason for the government to register for them. Of course, this assumes the process of registering isn’t unduly burdensome, which the GOP in some states has now made it for many minority voters. Rather than take the intellectually honest but unpopular position — i.e., “we think it’s good many apathetic people don’t vote, and don’t plan on making it easier from them” — some state-level Republicans tried to actively discourage Democratic voters by couching their policies in dishonest but popular terms — i.e., “we need more stringent voter ID laws to prevent fraud.” The GOP will now suffer doubly for their folly: its voter ID laws will be undone, and its ability to effectively oppose measures such as automatic voter registration has been kneecapped.
The GOP’s damaged reputation on voting rights will likely make it more difficult for them to oppose or rollback other bad policies, such as early voting (which, per the same Gallup poll, also enjoys 80 percent support). It may be necessary to have some small window allowing early voting, but currently the practice is farcical. Comically large early voting windows during the primaries, for instance, allowed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to draw over 13 percent of the vote in Arizona and finish ahead of Ohio Gov. John Kasich — despite Rubio’s withdrawal from the race a week prior. For Virginians voting in the general election, early voting starts on Sept. 23, before all three presidential debates and who knows how many other potentially mind-changing surprises. This seems reason enough to oppose current early voting policies, but of course it will be difficult to convince voters Republicans’ motivations for tightening voting timeframes are pure when they have a recent history of abusing voting laws to suppress minorities.
Popular support for policies geared towards increasing voter turnout, coupled with Republicans self-immolating their credibility on all issues related to voting, makes these policies seem inevitable. That doesn’t make them good ideas, and to echo J. F. Stephen, their popularity is no reason to sing their praises.
Matt Winesett is a Senior Associate Editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.winesett@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
