Why are there any Americans who are opposed to guaranteeing everyone maximum opportunities to exercise their right to vote and to be safe from gun violence? How can any politician oppose American citizens from having optimal access to the most fundamental of all democratic values, to cast a ballot in any election for which they are a registered voter? Why do so many Americans still believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution means that Governments may not restrict the availability of weapons? Something is wrong when people may be encumbered by laws that restrict their right to exercise their ability to vote but at the same time people should live in fear of being killed attacked by deranged and/or criminally inspired individuals.
This political reality and belief system is not new. It may be fueled by many of Trump’s supporters, but it did not begin with President Trump. Preventing blocs of citizens from voting began immediately after the Civil War with Jim Crow legislation, as political officials, and legislators at both the state and federal levels sought to restrict newly free, enfranchised former slaves—now citizens—from voting.
The Brennan Center at NYU Law School reports that there are now 361 bills before various state legislatures that, if enacted, would greatly affect voter participation and voter turnout. Such bills include efforts to restrict early voting by reducing the number of days, hours in a day, and number of available voting sites. There are also efforts being made to complicate—not to simplify—the process of mail-in voting. Individuals might need multiple correspondence with election boards; require duplicate forms of identification; face complicated processes for delivering mail-in ballots and votes; and have reduced time during which this entire process would occur.
The champions of these suppression laws are largely Republicans who currently control both chambers in 30 of the state legislatures. Democrats have a majority in both houses in 18 states while the chambers are split in two states. This onslaught of bills in the state houses is staggering. Even more inexplicable is that at present the Senate does not appear able to muster enough votes to move ahead on a federal bill to prevent voter suppression.
All of these efforts largely sponsored by Republicans in Washington and in the states might be very short-sighted on the part of the GOP. Based on what has transpired after Governor Brian Kemp signed the new voting bill passed by the Republican controlled Georgia legislature, corporate America appears prepared to involve itself to oppose voter suppression laws. The decision by Major League Baseball to move the All-Star Game this summer from Atlanta as well the opposition raised by Atlanta based Delta and Coca-Cola may signal to politicians that while they may believe it is legitimate to reduce access to voting, corporate America recognizes it will be very bad for their businesses.
Similarly, the gun rights advocates may be in for a rough row as well. The stridency of gun owners’ fight to insure their “right to bear arms” has grown since the creation of the NRA in 1871 and especially since political assassination became a form of political action in America in the 1960’s. Gun rights advocates viewed the proliferation of guns and the arbitrary killing of children, women, and men as merely a function of the growth of mental illness which needed to be addressed; but not by restricting the availability of guns or citizens’ right to own them.
Public arousal against the unnecessary availability of non-sporting weapons, assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and even automatic handguns is once again challenging Congress to address the proliferation of guns. More and more of the public is unable to comprehend why the nation must endure more Stoneman Douglas High Schools, Sandy Hook Elementary Schools, concerts, nightclubs, and houses of worship being targeted by killers gaining easy access to weapons. At a bare minimum, Congress ought to be able to institute a national gun registration/waiting period program for all weapons sold. It would not prevent all killings, address illegal weapons, or those already in an individual’s possession; nevertheless, it would permit the tracking of guns sold and the potential criminal use of some weapons.
There is reason to understand that major legislation addressing infrastructure, climate change, and minimum wage increases will evoke huge debate and partisan differences. These are the traditional political issues which government address. The failure of Governments to ensure maximum voter access and to prevent gun violence makes no sense.
Comments