Glenn makes an interesting claim in this post (as he did on the podcast with John). At some level it is true - people need to believe in the integrity of elections, and additional security measures may be justified even in the absence of any fraud if it increases public confidence.
I don't know if Glenn is aware of this or not, but his argument here tracks part of Justice Alito's opininon in the Brnovich case deicded in 2022.
1. I think it is clear that the Trump campaign and the Trumpist wing of the GOP have invested millions of dollars and considerable time and effort in convicing the public (at least the Trump supporting public) that our election systems are insecure. In effect they waged a massive PR campaign. Glenn's argument here sort of implies that that sort of fearmongering should be rewarded... If you want a change in elections rules that can be justified as increasing security, the way to get there is by engaging in the kind of PR campaign that Trump did? I have trouble buying that.
2. It is true that there are many people who believe that our elections are insecure and that this could be addressed through making election changes that tend to restrict access to the polls - make it harder to get registered and to show up and vote. But there are also many people who believe that our elections are unfair because of voter suppression - changes to election rules that make it harder for eliglibe voters to register, stay registered, and cast their ballots. As a result, the argument goes, the results of elections cannot be trusted. Why is the voter suppression argument any less justified? The Trump campaing asked various courts for literally this: they wanted Michigan to toss the ballots from Detroit, and Wisconsin to not count the ballots from Milwaukee. They asked the Supreme Court to throw away the electoral votes from 4 states: PA, GA, MI, AZ.
I'd argue that concerns about voter suppression are just as valid a basis to distruct election results and concerns about large scale, outcome determinative fraud. The evidence that various voting law changes have suppressed the vote in outcome determinative ways is, at best, dubious. Just like the evidence (or lack thereof) of fraud. If one perceived problem can justify changes to election law, the other should too.
Michael: I agree with many of your sentiments here, but I think there are ways to address both voting integrity and voter suppression simultaneously.
For example, I have no problems with ID requirements as long as we make it easy for folks who don't have IDs to get or replace them. And I have no problem with laws that aim to limit voting by mail if we open polls for a longer period of time (say a week before election day), keep them open until late into the night, and offer free transportation options for folks who don't live close to their polling place.
With just a little bit of investment, we should be able to have both more secure elections and increased voter participation. Think this investment would be well worth it in terms of increasing confidence in election results, even if the lack of confidence today is a function of having such a terrible person leading one of the parties versus actual examples of fraud.
At a theoretical level, I think that is true. In practice, those pushing for "increased security" tend to do so in ways that make it more difficult for to vote legally.
If someone truly believed in, say, voter ID, but was not interested in using voter ID as a way to disenfrashcise certain types of voters, their voter ID proposal would not look the same as someone who was actually trying to disenfranchise. (Stacy Abrams, very much known as a voting rights advocate, is on record as supporting voter ID in concept).
IDs don't have a damn thing to do with whites in the GOP diluting black voting districts in the South. Alabama is still resisting the federal court's instruction to remap their representative districts. We're talking about flagrant racism against blacks to erase them from the equation. Let's cut through the bullshit.
Glenn makes an interesting claim in this post (as he did on the podcast with John). At some level it is true - people need to believe in the integrity of elections, and additional security measures may be justified even in the absence of any fraud if it increases public confidence.
I don't know if Glenn is aware of this or not, but his argument here tracks part of Justice Alito's opininon in the Brnovich case deicded in 2022.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
I have 2 problems with the argument.
1. I think it is clear that the Trump campaign and the Trumpist wing of the GOP have invested millions of dollars and considerable time and effort in convicing the public (at least the Trump supporting public) that our election systems are insecure. In effect they waged a massive PR campaign. Glenn's argument here sort of implies that that sort of fearmongering should be rewarded... If you want a change in elections rules that can be justified as increasing security, the way to get there is by engaging in the kind of PR campaign that Trump did? I have trouble buying that.
2. It is true that there are many people who believe that our elections are insecure and that this could be addressed through making election changes that tend to restrict access to the polls - make it harder to get registered and to show up and vote. But there are also many people who believe that our elections are unfair because of voter suppression - changes to election rules that make it harder for eliglibe voters to register, stay registered, and cast their ballots. As a result, the argument goes, the results of elections cannot be trusted. Why is the voter suppression argument any less justified? The Trump campaing asked various courts for literally this: they wanted Michigan to toss the ballots from Detroit, and Wisconsin to not count the ballots from Milwaukee. They asked the Supreme Court to throw away the electoral votes from 4 states: PA, GA, MI, AZ.
I'd argue that concerns about voter suppression are just as valid a basis to distruct election results and concerns about large scale, outcome determinative fraud. The evidence that various voting law changes have suppressed the vote in outcome determinative ways is, at best, dubious. Just like the evidence (or lack thereof) of fraud. If one perceived problem can justify changes to election law, the other should too.
Michael: I agree with many of your sentiments here, but I think there are ways to address both voting integrity and voter suppression simultaneously.
For example, I have no problems with ID requirements as long as we make it easy for folks who don't have IDs to get or replace them. And I have no problem with laws that aim to limit voting by mail if we open polls for a longer period of time (say a week before election day), keep them open until late into the night, and offer free transportation options for folks who don't live close to their polling place.
With just a little bit of investment, we should be able to have both more secure elections and increased voter participation. Think this investment would be well worth it in terms of increasing confidence in election results, even if the lack of confidence today is a function of having such a terrible person leading one of the parties versus actual examples of fraud.
At a theoretical level, I think that is true. In practice, those pushing for "increased security" tend to do so in ways that make it more difficult for to vote legally.
If someone truly believed in, say, voter ID, but was not interested in using voter ID as a way to disenfrashcise certain types of voters, their voter ID proposal would not look the same as someone who was actually trying to disenfranchise. (Stacy Abrams, very much known as a voting rights advocate, is on record as supporting voter ID in concept).
IDs don't have a damn thing to do with whites in the GOP diluting black voting districts in the South. Alabama is still resisting the federal court's instruction to remap their representative districts. We're talking about flagrant racism against blacks to erase them from the equation. Let's cut through the bullshit.
While I would love to see all gerrymandering declared unconstitutional, the Alabama cases are being handled by the courts (as they should be).
Regardless, election integrity is something completely different, and there is no reason that efforts can't happen along both dimensions.
An insecure childlike conman inflated election fraud. He's a very dangerous sociopathic narcissist---cult of personality!