This gets tiresome.
Wisconsin conservative James Wigderson is a genuinely good writer. His thoughts are insightful. He presents those thoughts crisply and clearly.
But he’s not perfect, a fact he illustrates while complaining about a Republican passed state law that says a state commission is required to use a disreputable method that has a history of disenfranchising legitimate voters. James is not complaining about an unjust, anti-democratic law. His beef is with a state election commission that is not using the law as it was intended. Instead, members voted to add safeguards to be sure valid voters are still allowed to vote.
The practice is known as voter caging. When used unethically, a mail piece is sent to voters. The piece is non-forwardable. Non-wealthy, non-owners are more likely to move short distances away. Those pieces will be returned as non-deliverable. Around the country, Republicans have used the method to file legal complaints against voter registrations. When voters show up to vote, they are told they are no longer registered. When used aggressively, tens of thousands of legitimate voters are told they are no longer voters. Some don’t show up, since reminders are sent only to those still on file.
The national Republican Party eventually signed a consent agreement that has the force of law. They agreed never to use voter caging again, because … well … the rights of voters should be protected.
Sometimes, today’s Republicans use state governments to get around the consent agreement. When they get control of a state legislature they use the state itself to perform voter caging. The consent agreement only keeps the Republican Party from unfairly keeping voters from voting. It doesn’t keep state governments from doing the disfranchising.
In Wisconsin, the Election Board is using caging, but they are taking additional steps, like giving voters more time to show they are still state residents.
James is pretty upset. He approves of a lawsuit by a conservative organization that seeks to force the commission to cancel voter rights within 30 days after a mailing is returned. After all, the law is the law, right?
There could be reasoned arguments against additional safeguards. Perhaps the national Republican consent agreement against caging was a bridge too far. Maybe, if done carefully, caging is okay. Perhaps a call or visit could ensure that only folks who move out-of-state are purged. Or perhaps there are other arguments for what otherwise would look like a naked attempt to undermine democracy.
If a voter shows up to vote and is unexpectedly barred from voting, Wisconsin does allow that voter to go home and dig up hospital birth papers, marriage licenses, and other documents, then to return and re-register on the spot, and vote. Many forms of ID are not allowed. This is a bit of a burden, especially for non-drivers who rely on bus schedules to commute to work, to shop, and to vote. James argues that the Wisconsin same-day home trip document provision is absolute proof that caging presents no burden on low income voters.
Aside from that, James relies primarily on accusation. He charges that a failure to purge these voters will cause voter fraud. In reality, when elections are stolen, it is by behind-the-scenes fiddling with vote totals, not illegal voters showing up to vote. An amazing number of studies have shown voter fraud is vanishingly rare, while the denial of voting rights is alarmingly common.
James does not document his discredited accusation. He does not bother to defend his stance from well-known arguments against it. In fact, he does not mention those arguments.
He neglects the Republican history of abuse, and the Republican consent agreement, and the danger of purging valid voters and making it impractical for them to re-register.
To be fair, James has, over his writing career, repeatedly proven he can do better than this.
Skip to content
Seldom Balanced – Usually Fair