Watch this space for upcoming election news

 

 

50th AD Democratic Primary Endorsement

None of the Democratic contenders running for State Assembly in the 50th District, which includes Pacific Palisades, garnered the endorsement of the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club at the club's candidates forum January 15, 2012.

No single candidate was able to gain the support of 60 percent of the club's executive board in two rounds of instant runoff voting, so no endorsement was made.

 

*****

 

Voters Should Choose the Government,

Not the Other Way Around

                                           An op/ed by members of the PPDC board and Adam Wolman, VP, Communications

 

Here in Pacific Palisades, getting the green light to vote is simple.  When we show up at the Palisades Rec Center, American Legion hall, or other designated location, we’re asked for our name and address.  We sign on the upside-down line, asserting to the government that we are who we say we are under penalty of prosecution.  Easy.

 

And when the results are in – like them or not – people in the Palisades, in California, and across the United States have confidence that the voters have made their choices.

 

But trouble is brewing outside our community that affects the impact of our votes and our fundamental right to influence the laws that govern us.  Today many state governments are restricting voter registration in ways that will clearly benefit politicians currently in power.  If these efforts succeed, voters won’t be choosing the government.  The government will be choosing the voters.

 

For example, the state of Wisconsin no longer allows students to register to vote using IDs issued by the University of Wisconsin – which is, of course, run by the state of Wisconsin.  Kansas now requires proof of citizenship, such as birth certificate, to register. Such new laws could remove half a million Kansans (a quarter of all citizens) from the voters’ rolls.  In more than 30 states, newly elected governors and legislatures are pressing forward with plans that could disenfranchise tens of millions of our fellow citizens.

 

To most of us in the Palisades, having to produce a driver’s license to prove eligibility is no big deal.  But according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 11% of U.S. voting-age citizens, fully 21 million people, have no photo ID.  Of those with low incomes, it’s 15%.  Young voters?  Eighteen percent.  And for black voters, 25%.  Bottom line, while it would be easy for most Palisadians to produce a license if required, it’s hard for millions of others.  Even if we think it should be no trouble for those without IDs to get one, facts are facts: It is hard for them, and requiring photo ID is likely to greatly reduce voter turnout. 

 

Politicians like Kansas governor Sam Brownback justify these barriers by claiming they are “protecting the sanctity of the vote.”  But voter fraud is a minuscule whisper of a problem in America.  After five years of the Bush administration’s crackdown on voter fraud between 2003 and 2007, a grand total of 86 people were convicted, less than .000001% of those who voted.  Many were guilty of nothing more than innocent error, such as misunderstanding eligibility rules.

 

Protecting the sanctity of the vote is important.  Why shouldn’t the government of Kansas have unlimited power to ensure that not one vote is cast illegally, even if it effectively means disenfranching tens of thousands of its citizens?  Why is it any business of ours in the Palisades what the government of Kansas decides to do about voting?

 

Because if any states in our union get to selectively reduce their voting rolls, it affects the freedom of people everywhere.

 

America’s Constitution establishes a strong and limited government.  The government is strong to effectively promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense.  The government is limited to ensure it serves the people and not the other way around.  Reasonable people can disagree on where those limits lie, but we all should agree that we aren't free if the government gets to choose the voters.

 

In brief, in a free country politicians are supposed to compete on who can serve the people better, not on who can more self-interestedly choose the electorate most likely to keep them in power.  If our founders’ concept of a strong and limited government has any meaning, people should hold the government to the highest possible standard when it claims a need to change rules on who gets to vote. 

 

Our Constitution takes this threat to our freedoms very seriously.  The 14th Amendment unambiguously requires that a state which in any way abridges the right of some of their citizens to vote must have its representation in Congress and the Electoral College reduced proportionally to the number of those citizens so affected.  That is, states whose governments seek to choose their voters lose Federal representation in favor of those states that respect this crucial limit on proper scope of government action.

 

Why is this important to us here in the Palisades, whether we’re Republicans, Democrats, Independents or any other flavor of voter?  The 14^th Amendment was written and ratified because in the early years of our republic, federal elections were repeatedly skewed to the detriment of all citizens, because some state governments disenfranchised large numbers of voters to protect slaveholders – the largest economic interest of the day.  As became obvious to Americans then, when one state strategically restricts voters’ access to the polls, all other states suffer.

 

We talk about limited government when it comes to health care, the appropriate level of taxes, and other important issues.  There is room for debate on such questions.  But if limited government has any meaning beyond sloganeering, it means that the government doesn’t get to choose its voters.  That’s exactly what many state governments are trying to do, endangering our freedom here in California. 

 

All of us should join together to try to stop these efforts, and if these efforts do not stop, the Constitution mandates a remedy we can insist on.  States that diminish the ability of their citizens to vote must find themselves with diminished federal representation.  Something to think about well before the next time we find ourselves signing on that upside-down line, breezing through another no-mess, no-fuss Election Day check-in in the Palisades.