Could the US election be stolen?

MRG intern, Marissa Burik, tells us how junk mail and the credit crunch could be used against new minority voters

One might assume that, in democratic countries, voting is a right not a privilege. This is what I have always assumed about the United States of America. But very recently, there have been major challenges to this inherent right. These challenges diminish the trust between the government and the electorate. And they are particularly relevant to this election, because of the massive numbers of newly registered voters.

This election season has seen over 660,000 new voters register to vote in Ohio alone. The majority of those new voters are from previously underrepresented groups, such as the economically disadvantaged, young people, and minorities. But what many of these new voters do not realise is that registration is just the starting point: many obstacles – political and legal – have to be overcome before they get to cast their vote on November 4th. The Obama campaign is certainly taking the issue seriously: it’s already been in touch with the justice department about cases of alleged voter intimidation.

The first major issue is voter suppression. Voter suppression is a method of legalized election fraud in which voters are intimidated or purged from voter rolls. In other words, if you can’t beat them, just get less of their supporters to vote. How does it work? Political organisers target new voters in a specific neighbourhood – often the poorer areas. They send a piece of junk mail. If it is returned, or goes unanswered, political operatives argue that the registration may be fraudulent, because voter may not live there. It sounds incredible – but I’ve seen the consequences of this on polling day. In the 2007 mayoral race in Canton, Ohio, while we were struggling to get out the democrat vote, the republican side was struggling to suppress it, by challenging the eligibility of ‘junk mail’ voters on the electoral register. In 2008, this political ‘technique’ will be even more relevant because of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The tragedy is that as more and more people lose their homes, they could also lose their vote. A double-whammy, if ever there was one.

Another problem is the tighter identification rules in some states – often the key swing states. In 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act. This new legislation was in response to the 2000 election, in which Florida was turned into a state of chads and butterfly ballots. The law made it possible for states to create legislation requiring identification. For example in my home state of Ohio in 2004, people were turned away from polling stations because they did not have proper identification. This – in itself – was illegal because even those without ID are allowed to vote provisionally. But even more worrying, it was a practise pursued by a Republican dominated legislature, executive and judiciary, and disproportionately affected those who were poor and from minority backgrounds. Or in other words, voters who were most likely to support the Democrats. How worried should we be about this in 2008? Well, Obama’s team is so concerned that it has amassed a formidable team of lawyers in Florida. Their job will be to challenge the challenges, and to ensure that any recount would be conducted without undue political influence. In other words, they are not going to be caught off-guard this time.

The biggest tragedy in all of this is the lack of respect for new voters. Instead of being pleased that millions of American citizens have decided to re-engage in the political process, we’re focusing on the downside. These seemingly endless conversations about the possibility of voter fraud and intimidation tell new voters that there is a potential for their vote to not count.

Talk about going negative.

Marissa Burik is blogging for MRG in the run-up to the US presidential elections.

More than skin deep in Ohio

Marissa Burik

MRG’s intern, Marissa Burik, takes a look at her home State of Ohio – a key battleground in the upcoming elections – on how minorities are mobilizing for change.

A popular American idiom tells us that “As goes Ohio, so goes the nation.”

As a resident of that great state, I am one to agree. And in this election, the numbers speak for themselves. Already Senator John McCain has visited 18 times, while Senator Barack Obama has been here 9. Ohio’s importance in this election hinges on three main factors. First, we are a toss-up state. Consider us a state of independently-minded folks who haven’t quite made up our minds as to what we are going to do with our 20 electoral votes. Second, we are a political bell-weather which has accurately predicted the outcome of every election since 1960. Thirdly, Ohio is considered a microcosm of the United States. The fabric of our community is very diverse, with one of the nation’s largest growing Somali populations, vibrant African American urban areas, and a developing Muslim community. This makes Ohio a very interesting place to be for any national election.

In this year where ‘Change’ has become the mantra of both campaigns – and Ohio is on the front lines of actual change. Minorities in my State are becoming more important than ever. The Obama campaign has been able to mobilize people in numbers I have never personally experienced. This is emphasized when looking at the people in attendance at an Obama rally. I attended one such rally in Columbus, Ohio in November 2007, before the Democratic nomination was inevitable and before John McCain had breathed new life into his campaign. At this rally I did not see just one kind of person. Instead I saw black, white, Asian, young, old, student, teacher, union leader, and several different religions represented. What I saw were people who were willing to take on a challenge and work with people who didn’t look exactly like them. They were not afraid to embrace change and they refused to be marginalized.

This election year has also highlighted some negative qualities of the state that I love. Within the past two weeks, it is not uncommon to hear shouts of ‘terrorist’ or ‘kill’em’ at Sen. McCain’s rallies – a perspective which McCain has recently tried to distance himself from. An Obama campaign representative in a south-eastern county has said that race has played a role in the decision process for some voters in his area. South-eastern Ohio has a much smaller number of minorities, and has been disproportionately affected by changes to the economy. These are people who are afraid of what they do not know. That is not to say that they are racist and won’t vote for a minority. Rather, they live in communities disproportionately affected by change, and are not sure if they can handle more, so it becomes easier to believe or fall prey to those attempting to influence your decision.

What has been the most impressive, from my stand point, are my peers. As a twenty year old college student, I have not heard prodigious debate as to whether we should vote for someone because of their skin colour. For us, that has nothing to do with our decision. In Ohio, Sen. Obama has been able to reach a generation untouched by the racial strife of the pre-1960s world. He has connected with people who have learned about Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Robert F. Kennedy from textbooks. We are a generation that, generally, doesn’t understand why we shouldn’t vote for someone just because he or she looks different. Rhetoric emphasizing how ‘different’ Sen. Obama is from ‘normal’ Americans has backfired, and this gives me hope for the future.

Whatever the outcome of this election, that ‘change’ will surely remain. Unlike in civil rights era, our goal for the future is no longer to overcome, but to remember that our differences are only skin deep.

Marissa will be blogging for the next three weeks, in the run-up to US presidential elections on the November 4th