Political candidates win elections by generating more votes than their opponents. A vigorous and superior get-out-the-vote campaign is commonly understood to be the key to success. A less recognized but all-too-familiar alternative tactic is to intimidate their opponents supporters and suppress their votes. Voter intimidation and vote suppression campaigns are often mounted in communities of color, where voter participation is more tenuous. Few states have enacted clear and effective prohibitions against these abuses.
In the final days of the 2006 campaign, as in any election year, citizen interest is peaking as election news--and debates on the issues--becomes more pervasive in the media. Unfortunately for America's voters, in all but eight states (one of which does not require voter registration) , if you are not already registered to vote in this week's election, it is too late. There are seven states, however, where eligible voters are not hampered by arbitrary deadlines, no matter when they become engaged by an election, and can register to vote on Election Day itself.
In response to ever-increasing financial pressures, families have come to depend on high-cost credit as a way to bridge the gap between stagnant or decreasing incomes and rising costs. How are families coping with their new burden? To hang on to the American Dream, to be part of the ownership society, homeowners are depleting their home equity to pay off a growing mountain of unsecured debt—a financial strategy fraught with serious consequences.
For the first time since its decision in Buckley v. Valeo nearly 30 years ago, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of campaign spending limits. The case, Randall v. Sorrell, No. 04-1528, raises issues that go to the heart of our democracy. Vermont’s comprehensive reform law was adopted in 1997 out of concern over the escalating arms race in campaign fundraising and spending that has undermined public confidence in government and turned elected officials into full-time fundraisers.
Passage of the bankruptcy bill would make it harder for families struck by financial misfortune to get back on track. It would benefit the very profitable ($30 billion in 2004) credit card industry at the expense of the modest-income families who represent the great majority of those who declare bankruptcy.
"State officials are rightly wary of the goals of the commission because it does seem that the whole purpose for setting it up is to justify a preordained conclusion that somehow millions of votes were cast illegally in the last election," says Brenda Wright, vice president for policy and legal strategies at Demos, a progressive think tank. "That's the verdict, and now they want to hold a trial." [...]
“We think of education funding, particularly at the state level, as a spending issue, but it’s myopic,” said Mark Huelsman, a senior policy analyst at Demos, a left-leaning think tank. “There are all kinds of second order effects to investing in education — homeownership or wealth building is certainly one of them. If you don’t spend the money on students now and that means that they’re less likely to go to college or they’re more likely to take on debt, that is going to impact their future economic activity.” [...]
Black students are far more likely to take on debt for a degree than white students, and young black households have more student debt despite fewer educational opportunities and a more uncertain payoff in the job market.
Without the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, lenders preying on communities of color would continue to pull in windfall gains, while widening the racial wealth gap and undermining the precarious financial stability of vulnerable households.
Demos (pronounced with long "e") — a public-policy group trying to shape a Democratic agenda on working-class issues like household indebtedness, college affordability and economic challenges facing young people — tested economic messages with an online survey of 1,536 registered voters in June.
To succeed in 2018 and 2020, Democrats need to run campaigns that actually motivate people to get out and vote, especially 20-somethings and struggling people of all races.
That means running unapologetically on the belief that inclusion and diversity is our nation’s strength, that government can and should ensure opportunity and a decent standard of living for its people and that democracy should work for the people, not just the wealthy and corporations.
FESSLER: Brenda Wright is with Demos, a liberal advocacy group. She notes that the main purpose of the motor voter law is to make it easier to register but also harder to remove legitimate voters from the rolls.
WRIGHT: The problems that DOJ should be focusing on are that too few eligible people have access to the vote and are voting. DOJ going after states to force them to do more purging is exactly the opposite of what the department should be doing.
f the Trump Commission uses the data it says it wants to use, it will target this group of citizens with false allegations of illegal voting. We must fight against the purges of these voters, because in America, it is assumed that there are no two classes of citizenship, regardless of what the current President believes.
That kind of polarization may only intensify in coming years. In a blog post today at Demos, a left-leaning think tank, Sean McElwee points out that young Democratic primary voters and donors are both more liberal than other democrats their age and more liberal than older primary voters and donors. All of that means that the Democratic party will soon be pulled further left, McElwee predicts. [...]
"These data all suggest that, rather than seeing racism as a persistent problem still in need of remedy, many young white people—including those who identify as Democrats—are inclined to believe America is a colorblind society and that little remains to be done to remedy past racial injustices," researchers Sean McElwee and Jesse Rhodes wrote.
