Voter first 

I am writing this to add to my comments at the June 18 Voters First hearing in Providence.  I would appreciate it if my comments were placed in the record for the Voters First Commission and forwarded to every member of the commission.  I would appreciate it if the receipt of my comments was acknowledged and if I could be informed when these comments have been forwarded to the entire commission.  I would also appreciate any responses to the substance of this statement. Greg Gerritt

Comments on the Voters First proposal.  Greg Gerritt 6/19/07

In keeping with the request from the commission I kept my remarks at the public hearing very short, so I would like to expand upon some of them in this written document.  But before focusing on the 10 proposals I would like to comment on my reception before the commission. 

In his opening remarks Secretary of State Mollis remarked upon the bi partisan nature of the commission.  My commenting that the bi partisan nature of the commission seriously disenfranchised a very large number of Rhode Islanders, was met by serious disbelief and rebuttal.  But let the record show that there are more people in Rhode Island registered as neither a Democrat nor a Republican than are members of either of those parties, and that the bi partisan nature of the commission did leave them out.  I should have anticipate the reaction, though I did not, as in this country it is as if the bi partisan nature of our system was written into the constitution.  In reality the constitution never mentions political parties, though the Democrats and Republicans seem to have captured the public arena, to our everlasting dismay.  Secretary Mollis was personifying a trait most common in Americans, a tunnel vision in which it is simply assumed that bipartisanship covers the entire spectrum of politics in America, when the reality is that in the spectrum of American politics the Dems and Reps are simply a small and violent sector of the political spectrum.  (I will return to the violence later in my remarks)

Roger Harris, in his comments actually proved my point.  Roger noted that he had to bust in and violate the rules to get named to the commission so that people with disabilities would be included.  I applaud my friend Roger for his efforts and skill in being named, but it also ought to give us pause and make us think about who else was not included, and did not happen to be in a place to break into the process.  If we are seriously looking at the voting process why was the process not more inclusive from the start?  I can provide a short and not very inclusive list of communities in Rhode Island that could have been asked to serve.  15 minutes by the people initially involved could have come up with a much longer and more inclusive list of who else to ask to the table.  The blinders of bi partisan ship are just that, blinders, and needed to be removed for the process to really reflect what is going on in Rhode Island.  Just for examples, Homeless people have a hard time voting, and coming to hearings.  Where is their representation?  Where are the former felons who have just had their vote returned to them?  They have special issues that ought to be addressed and need a seat at the table to do so.  And the lack of representation for political groups outside the two party system is all too typical. 

I have met and worked with many of the commission members, find them to be decent and caring people, and wish them luck in their efforts, but the holes in representation on the commission will damage its credibility and also taint its results. 

As for the substance of the report:  I look upon the commission as a body that should be seeking to increase voter turnout, make it easier to vote, make voting more inclusive, but the reality is that at least 4 of the 10 proposals placed in front of us will make it harder for marginalized people in our society to vote.  The system of voter registration is a carry over from the days when it was used to make sure that only White Men of Property were allowed to vote.  In that respect it may be irredeemable and it might be better to just through out the whole rotten thing rather than try to reform it.  I did not sit through all of the testimony but I heard about people trying to prosecute voters, about dead people voting, about concerns about what district people vote in.  These concerns seem to be at the heart of the proposals from the commission as well as making it harder for people to register by requiring more identification and making the voter registration form longer and more intrusive. 

The suggestion I offered at the hearing, that we do away with the entire registration system, seems to have been ignored by the commission, at least it seems it was not heard in the clamor to question me about bipartisanship.  So let me repeat some of my thoughts.  People who are already marginalized by the voting system, poor, young, homeless, etc are often only caught up in the politics and idea of voting at the last minute, days or weeks before the election.  Many places around the country accommodate this late interest by allowing people to register to vote on Election day.  I have lived in a state which allowed day of registration, and it worked just fine.  The requirement that people register an entire month before the election really works to keep people from voting, and often so frustrates people that they never try again.  The commission needs a serious proposal to handle the voting of people coming late to the process. 

I find the issue of a photo id to be truly offensive to the spirit of inclusive democracy.  In fact I find it an acquiescence to the police state we find ourselves in rather than standing strong for democracy.  The federal government seems to think that it can continue to marginalize more and more people, and use that marginalization as a way to continue to keep the rich and powerful in an elite position.  Photo ids are more and more a way to control the cash economy, marginalizing the poor to a greater and greater extent.  We use photo ids as a way to prevent people from traveling. In a country built on go west young man, restricting travel to those with documents seems patently offensive and un-American.  And our government works harder and harder to become the thought police, monitoring every conversation, trying to track and trace every transaction. But there are people who resist, and those who resist should not be marginalized, but rather they should be celebrated as true American heroes.  Not carrying ID is a truly American thing to do.  These folks are the last true patriots.  They should be the ones we most want voting, not the ones shut out of the ballot box. 

Right now most people use a drivers license as their photo ID, But what of those who do not drive?  And what of those who resist the lure of the automobile as a way of standing with the planet against global warming.  And those who understand the end of the age of petroleum and avoid car culture?  Making them go to the DMV for a state id is offensive. 

Y’all are a bit on track with the idea of opening the polls for longer hours.  I suggest a national holiday with polls open from 6 AM to midnight so that everyone can get there.  Maybe we need to shut down all businesses except for health and safety workers.  If we can not get a voting day holiday, at least close the state except for safety and health workers and use state workers to run the polls.  Pay them their normal days pay, but have them work at the polls, 8 hour shifts so no one starves, or has child care issues.  They would be an easy group to train, they are a captive audience for training as is. 

I am opposed to early voting and a 4 day election.  Part of this is the expense of keeping the polls open for 4 days, and part of it is that it makes the work of candidates that much harder, favoring the more well financed campaigns.  (Note you can not separate the voting process from the political process, and there is much to improve in our political process that would then go hand in hand with efforts to increase voting, but that is for another day).

My last point is on the relationship between immigration and voting.  Several of the speakers I heard, with one exception, noted that they were worried about non citizens voting.  I would like to see every person in the community vote.  No exceptions.  It seems that this is tied up in some rather complicated issues, but I look at it simply.  Nearly every one in the US without documents is here because of bad things the United States has done in their homeland.  They are refugees from trade deals that undercut their livelihood or refugees from the violence the US has supported in their homelands (I said I would get back to the violence).  This is actually why there is such a move to keep these people disenfranchised.  If people who were displaced through US trade policy, or US propping up dictators or arming death squads were allowed to vote here, the US might not be following such evil policies and the corporate elite would be making less money. 

I know this sounds strange and off beat to many of you, but Juan Pichardo, tell us how many times the US has invaded the Dominican Republic?  How many of the recent undocumented from Mexico and Central America came here because of NAFTA destroying the agricultural economy or because of the death squads we funded in Honduras and Guatemala?  Where did the weapons come from used in all the recent African wars.  In the age of the Global War on Terrorism, it is subversive to mention blowback from places like Guantanamo, but the refugees we see are the result of US policies, and we ought to be as a community, welcoming, including them in the American Dream, rather than reinforcing the craziness that comes out of DC.  If the refugees from American violence could vote, maybe the violence would stop, and that is one of the foremost reasons to quit worrying about who votes and invite everyone to the party. 

My solution to the voter registration list dilemma is to abandon all voter registration lists, the system, based on only allowing White Men of Property to vote can never be fixed and should be abolished.  Simply mark the finger of each person who votes so they can not vote again.  If everyone knows they can vote only once, they will not vote in strange districts, they will vote at home.  Politicians will have little incentive to bring in voters from away, or rather they will face the wrath of politicians who lose voters.  And it will turn out to be a miniscule problem.  Dead people can not vote if the only voters are those who show up.  It would make the voting system easier and quicker, shorter lines on election day.  Less paperwork.  No worries about who is there. Get ballot, dye finger, vote, go home.  And the colored fingers would be a real reminder to those who have not voted yet. 

Voter First is an idea who’s time has come.  We need to do something to get everyone voting.  Open up the process, bring everyone in.  Too many of the initial proposals are designed to prevent voting.  Please think long and hard about how to increase voting, not block those who are already marginalized in our society from voting. 

Greg Gerritt

Comments