The election is four weeks away, and easily lost in the seasonal outpouring of candidate speeches and debates, polls and fact-checking is this sad reality: The U.S. has witnessed the greatest rollback in voting rights since the Jim Crow era in recent years, yet federal authorities will have fewer resources to deal with polling place disputes than at any time during the last half-century.
The election is four weeks away, and easily lost in the seasonal outpouring of candidate speeches and debates, polls and fact-checking is this sad reality: The U.S. has witnessed the greatest rollback in voting rights since the Jim Crow era in recent years, yet federal authorities will have fewer resources to deal with polling place disputes than at any time during the last half-century.
To suggest that is a troubling circumstance is a serious understatement. For a half-decade or more, Republican-controlled states have piled up rules that effectively make it more difficult for minorities and the poor to cast a ballot, chiefly through strict voter ID laws and registration requirements.
Many of these states are taking advantage of the 5-4 Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court ruling in 2013 that reduced election oversight under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And here’s where the other shoe drops: As a result of that decision, the Justice Department does not have authority to staff these at-risk polling places with trained observers who can spot, and potentially intervene against, discriminatory behavior.
What makes this situation particularly worrisome is that Donald Trump already called on his supporters to act as poll watchers.
Given the behavior that’s taken place at some Trump rallies, it’s reasonable to worry that Trump “poll watchers” could be more likely to interfere with the process than serve as polite and respectful observers. And they might be emboldened by the smaller Election Day presence of federal monitors.
Of course, Trump supporters will counter that they are there to guard against voter fraud, but as study after study has documented, the notion that prospective voters will misrepresent themselves and cast a ballot as someone they are not is minuscule at most.
It’s surely no coincidence that the majority of the states with new voting laws were previously covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — the protection so foolishly weakened by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. With no need for federal pre-clearance of election laws, at least nine states reverted to form and produced rules likely to decrease voter participation. Even if Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump on Nov. 8, the likelihood of a disputed down-ballot election result now appears high.
— The Baltimore Sun