Rachel Maddow did a very good segment giving an overview of some of the recent events with North Carolina's voter suppression efforts.
It gives useful historical background - how Republicans haven't had control of the government since 1870, the importance of the campaign finance changes allowing money in elections and how since that one wealthy Republican activist has spent millions - 75% of all outside money groups' donations in the state - having a huge effect, and leading to NC having super majorities in both houses and the governor's office.
Having gotten that power, they're trying to keep it by passing various measures that restrict voting primarily by blacks, and also young people, who vote democratic.
It reviews some of these measures that are being piloted for statewide implementation.
It's an American value to support people voting and their right to vote; that elections should be won on merit and not preventing the other side from voting.
Unfortunately, it seems that value is not holding up well as Republicans are finding suppression a very tempting way to try to get power.
It also touches on Gerrymandering, where a majority of North Carolinans voted for Democrats for Congress, yet of 13 seats, nine went to Republicans.
Apparently North Carolinians haven't voted for a Democrat for president since Carter, until they voted for Obama narrowly in 2008. The sorts of changes being made are well above that margin of victory. A lot of races are narrowly decided where these suppression measures swing the race.
This is after North Carolina had been making great progresson voting - going from 3rd lowest turnout in the nation to 11th highest. Not that's being reversed.
This is a good piece for getting some specifics on what this sort of unamerican power grab looks like. 20 minutes long.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52823877
Part 2, 6 minutes, shows a measure being enacted to block voting in a Democratic county:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52823962
In that country, recently, Republicans closed voting on a campus - the largest employer - to move three precincts into one in a much more remote location, with over 9,000 voters for one precinct, several times the amount guidelines allow, with 35 parking places and no easy access otherwise.
This was done with a pretense of cost-cutting needs. In a recent meeting of the governing body - all of the voting rights boards were recently taken over by Republicans - the one remaining Democrat on the board asked the relevant official at the meeting how much closing the voting on campus would save. Nothing was the answer.
The minutes for the meeting showed that; a video of the meeting went on youtube with tens of thousands of views. So the Republicans ordered the minutes to be redone to be 'more concise', but they still had that exchange. So the Republicans then re-wrote the minutes of the meeting to remove the exchange, so there's no record of their cost-cutting pretense being exposed. At a statewide meeting of the voting boards, the Republican in charge for the state said, 'let's not have any more of our meetings on youtube'.
There's a problem here, between money in elections, and officials who are willing and determined to use voter suppression as a weapon of war for their party to win.
These measures - gerrymandering, money, suppression - combine to let a relatively small percent of the people control the government, denying fair representation.
It should not be a surprised that the figure who donated the large majority of money to 'buy' the elections is a close partner with the Koch brothers, named Art Pope:
http://www.artpopeexposed.com/
The New Yorker has an article on the money in North Carolina elections, "State for Sale":
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer
This isn't exactly new in American history for political factions to win elections by suppressing votes. But it's a battle that had appeared to have been won since the 1960's.
It's important for Americans to understand the measures being taken - to get power as a minority with these measures, to block the majority when they're in the minority as they do with the record setting filibusters in the Senate, the obstructionist agenda, the threats not to pay our bills as 'leverage' to make demands they can't win in the legislative process, etc.
Unfortunately, there are no clear solutions. Fixing the Supreme Court's terrible ruling on money in elections needs a constitutional amendment very hard to get passed. Money in politics works - and isn't going away any time soon. While suppressing votes, gerrymandering and other measures are unamerican, they're working nicely.
One additional factor contributing is the poliarization - and the 'bubble' for citizens.
A recent poll found that nearly all Democrats would blame Republicans for a government shutdown if it happens; but nearly all Republicans would blame the Democrats.
Given that the cause of the shutdown would be Republicans using the paying of our bills as blackmail to make demands such as not funding the Affordable Care Act, it's pretty clear it'd be Republicans who were to blame for the shutdown, rather than Obama for not giving in to the blackmail. But with Republican voters blamig Democrats, Republicans have no incentive not to do it.
This polarization seems to be leading a lot of Republican voters not to stand up for American value son voting but instead to support the suppression because it helps them.
It's a challenge what to do. One measure is that Eric Holder has sued the state of Texas for intentional racially-targetted voting suppression, and he's asked to do it for NC.
But public outrage is muted by the money, and by the power. Republicans increased their lead in NC in 2012.
These measures threaten democracy. Another measure widely discussed is for Republican states to stop awarding electoral votes to the winner of the state, and instead award them by congressional district - for one reason, to take advantage of their gerrymandering, such as that 9=9 of 13 seat result in North Carolina. If they did that one thing in 2012, Romney would have won despite losing the popular vote by over 5 million votes.
I don't think most Americans want the country to have government bought by the highest bidder, and for voter suppression to be widely used to win elections.
But it's not clear they can stop it - or that many Republican want to if it helps them.
The bad result following this is that the anger becomes anti-government - which plays into the hands of the wealthy who are opposed to this 'democracy of the people' thing.
The government - when democracy is working - gives 'power to the people' to counter that of wealth. Many citizens are coming to want to give away that power.
It gives useful historical background - how Republicans haven't had control of the government since 1870, the importance of the campaign finance changes allowing money in elections and how since that one wealthy Republican activist has spent millions - 75% of all outside money groups' donations in the state - having a huge effect, and leading to NC having super majorities in both houses and the governor's office.
Having gotten that power, they're trying to keep it by passing various measures that restrict voting primarily by blacks, and also young people, who vote democratic.
It reviews some of these measures that are being piloted for statewide implementation.
It's an American value to support people voting and their right to vote; that elections should be won on merit and not preventing the other side from voting.
Unfortunately, it seems that value is not holding up well as Republicans are finding suppression a very tempting way to try to get power.
It also touches on Gerrymandering, where a majority of North Carolinans voted for Democrats for Congress, yet of 13 seats, nine went to Republicans.
Apparently North Carolinians haven't voted for a Democrat for president since Carter, until they voted for Obama narrowly in 2008. The sorts of changes being made are well above that margin of victory. A lot of races are narrowly decided where these suppression measures swing the race.
This is after North Carolina had been making great progresson voting - going from 3rd lowest turnout in the nation to 11th highest. Not that's being reversed.
This is a good piece for getting some specifics on what this sort of unamerican power grab looks like. 20 minutes long.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52823877
Part 2, 6 minutes, shows a measure being enacted to block voting in a Democratic county:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52823962
In that country, recently, Republicans closed voting on a campus - the largest employer - to move three precincts into one in a much more remote location, with over 9,000 voters for one precinct, several times the amount guidelines allow, with 35 parking places and no easy access otherwise.
This was done with a pretense of cost-cutting needs. In a recent meeting of the governing body - all of the voting rights boards were recently taken over by Republicans - the one remaining Democrat on the board asked the relevant official at the meeting how much closing the voting on campus would save. Nothing was the answer.
The minutes for the meeting showed that; a video of the meeting went on youtube with tens of thousands of views. So the Republicans ordered the minutes to be redone to be 'more concise', but they still had that exchange. So the Republicans then re-wrote the minutes of the meeting to remove the exchange, so there's no record of their cost-cutting pretense being exposed. At a statewide meeting of the voting boards, the Republican in charge for the state said, 'let's not have any more of our meetings on youtube'.
There's a problem here, between money in elections, and officials who are willing and determined to use voter suppression as a weapon of war for their party to win.
These measures - gerrymandering, money, suppression - combine to let a relatively small percent of the people control the government, denying fair representation.
It should not be a surprised that the figure who donated the large majority of money to 'buy' the elections is a close partner with the Koch brothers, named Art Pope:
http://www.artpopeexposed.com/
The New Yorker has an article on the money in North Carolina elections, "State for Sale":
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer
This isn't exactly new in American history for political factions to win elections by suppressing votes. But it's a battle that had appeared to have been won since the 1960's.
It's important for Americans to understand the measures being taken - to get power as a minority with these measures, to block the majority when they're in the minority as they do with the record setting filibusters in the Senate, the obstructionist agenda, the threats not to pay our bills as 'leverage' to make demands they can't win in the legislative process, etc.
Unfortunately, there are no clear solutions. Fixing the Supreme Court's terrible ruling on money in elections needs a constitutional amendment very hard to get passed. Money in politics works - and isn't going away any time soon. While suppressing votes, gerrymandering and other measures are unamerican, they're working nicely.
One additional factor contributing is the poliarization - and the 'bubble' for citizens.
A recent poll found that nearly all Democrats would blame Republicans for a government shutdown if it happens; but nearly all Republicans would blame the Democrats.
Given that the cause of the shutdown would be Republicans using the paying of our bills as blackmail to make demands such as not funding the Affordable Care Act, it's pretty clear it'd be Republicans who were to blame for the shutdown, rather than Obama for not giving in to the blackmail. But with Republican voters blamig Democrats, Republicans have no incentive not to do it.
This polarization seems to be leading a lot of Republican voters not to stand up for American value son voting but instead to support the suppression because it helps them.
It's a challenge what to do. One measure is that Eric Holder has sued the state of Texas for intentional racially-targetted voting suppression, and he's asked to do it for NC.
But public outrage is muted by the money, and by the power. Republicans increased their lead in NC in 2012.
These measures threaten democracy. Another measure widely discussed is for Republican states to stop awarding electoral votes to the winner of the state, and instead award them by congressional district - for one reason, to take advantage of their gerrymandering, such as that 9=9 of 13 seat result in North Carolina. If they did that one thing in 2012, Romney would have won despite losing the popular vote by over 5 million votes.
I don't think most Americans want the country to have government bought by the highest bidder, and for voter suppression to be widely used to win elections.
But it's not clear they can stop it - or that many Republican want to if it helps them.
The bad result following this is that the anger becomes anti-government - which plays into the hands of the wealthy who are opposed to this 'democracy of the people' thing.
The government - when democracy is working - gives 'power to the people' to counter that of wealth. Many citizens are coming to want to give away that power.
Facebook
Twitter