Pennsylvania's Taxation Without Representation

A U.S Appellate Court ruled last week that the restrictive a voter ID law adopted in Texas discriminates against minorities and violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This comes as no surprise to those who view such laws as thinly veiled attempts to thin the ranks of potential Democratic-leaning voters.

The law was enacted in the wake of the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision "that blocked the voting act’s most potent enforcement tool, federal oversight of election laws in numerous states, including Texas, with histories of racial discrimination," the New York Times reported.

"The Texas ID law is one of the strictest of its kind in the country. It requires voters to bring a government-issued photo ID to the polls. Accepted forms of identification include a driver’s license, a United States passport, a concealed-handgun license and an election identification certificate issued by the State Department of Public Safety," according to the Times.

Only in Texas would a concealed-carry permit allow you to vote, but a library card would not.

It also serves as unfortunate notice that a state once regulated for its racism returned to it immediately once freed from the shackles of government oversight.

This ruling is good news; as was a judge's ruling suspending Pennsylvania's own version of voter ID, a law which boldly solved a problem that does not exist and, at the same time, handily discouraged minorities from voting.

Protesters in Harrisburg speak out against Pennsylvania's Voter ID Law.

Both rulings highlight what seem to be an admission by the Republican Party that with national demographics working against them -- Hispanics will be the majority within the next decade or so -- they are now forced to win elections by restricting voters rather than by winning them over with the inclusiveness of their policies.

In other words, scared of losing in a fair fight, they rig the rules.

Anyway, we're not here to talk about race. Heaven forbid.

But Pennsylvania has another long-standing voter restriction that has nothing to do with race, but is a truly insidious form of discrimination. It works against independent thinkers.

This particular voter discrimination goes largely un-remarked and, arguably has more negative impact on fair representation at the polls than the disreputable voter ID law.

Because Pennsylvania has a "closed primary" system, those who are not part of a registered party cannot vote in the spring primaries.

This is not unique in America and is the result of the argument that those not members of a party should not allowed to help choose its nominees. 

This seemingly rationale argument would be less harmful if not for the fact that most school board races in Pennsylvania get decided in those primary elctions.

This is due to another innocent-sounding rationale, that school board's are "non-partisan."

Those of us who attend school board meetings on a regular basis know this to be a load of horse hockey. 

There are often few places more partisan. The only difference is the partisanship on school boards is not always related to party, but to faction -- property tax hawks versus the "anything for the children" faction.

But as the result of something called "cross-filing," school board candidates are legally allowed to seek BOTH the Republican and Democratic lines on the spring ballot.

(Does anyone else find it fatuous that people not registered as Democrats or Republicans are not allowed to vote for a nominee, but the candidates themselves, can win the nomination, no matter what their party registration, if any?)

Yet another injustice, independent voters can't get one of these cool

stickers during the spring primary election.

Often ignored, these primary elections, which attract the smallest percentage of voters, become the place where school board candidates, who will have sway over the largest part of your tax bill, often win the election out right by taking both ballot lines.

This leaves those who, understandably, cannot stomach the shenanigans of either party, no say in their school board representation.

They are allowed to vote in November, yes; but often the only choice they have is which party line to cast their vote for the only candidates available.

This is not democratic (small "d.")

Worse, it represents the illusion of democracy, made more egregious by the fact that few positions have more power over our pocketbooks, the value of our homes and the future of our children, than that of school board.

Only the state government has the power to change this but, since no powerful school board lobby is lining their re-election pocket, it goes unaddressed.

They're too busy arguing about where we buy our booze, as if any of us cares.

There are two easy fixes. 

The state government could, like other states, change to an "open primary" system in which registered independent voters could vote in one primary or the other.

But since this could unbalance the hegemony each party has over its ballot line, don't look for a "come to Jesus" moment from any of that pack any time soon.

The easier solution, more likely because it doesn't gore any of Harrisburg's sacred cows, is to stop allowing cross-filing. 

This simple change would mean that come November, registered voters who are not registered Democrats or Republicans would more likely have a choice in who raises their school taxes.

Sadly, it does not solve the problem of too few candidates running for school boards and other local offices, although the rigged primary probably does little to encourage fledgling candidacies.

But at least it removes the structural exclusion of independents on those occasions when an actual contest might take place.

Otherwise, for independent voters, cross-filing is truly taxation without a say in representation.

And I thought we were supposed to be opposed to that here in America.

Have We Changed?

U.S. Supreme Court building

Well it's been an interesting week for Supreme Court news.

Many of those who believe you should be able to marry whomever you want cheered the decision undermining the Defense of Marriage Act and overturning California's Proposition 8, both of which opposed same-sex marriage.

Others also cheered the decision in which the justices refused to undo decades of Affirmative Action for minorities at the nation's major colleges and universities.

Both laudable in the extreme.

Of course it wasn't all good news.

President Lyndon Johnson and The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. after the signing of the Voting Rights Act

While the court helped the advance of civil rights in some quarters, it dealt a blow in others.

The decision overturning a portion of the landmark Voting Rights Act -- the portion which required nine states with a history of discrimination at the polls to get federal approval before making changes to their voting procedures -- was a step back.

(For those who may have missed it, I had a very interesting conversation with Bethel AME Pastor the Rev. Dr. Vernon Ross on this subject. Click here to read The Mercury article that resulted from that interview.)

But the door was left open on that decision as well.

The theory behind the law was not declared un-Constitutional, just the manner in which it was most recently re-authorized by Congress, in 2006.

When Congress acted that year, it used data from 1975 to justify the need for

Chief Justice John Roberts

continued federal oversight. Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, in essence said "stop being so lazy congress. Do the work."

While "Congress" and "work" may indeed be the worst kind of antonyms and not much of a foundation for hope, Pennsylvania's senior senator is already pushing to do just that.

In reaction to the ruling, Sen. Bob Casey issued a letter to the Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging that the Senate immediately begin work on re-authorizing the portion of the Voting Rights Act the court struck down.

Pennsylvania Sen. Robert Casey

"There have been multiple reauthorizations of the VRA, most recently in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support, with the Senate voting 98-0 to reauthorize the Act," Casey wrote to Leahy.

In writing, Casey also took aim at Robert's rationale for his decision -- that "the nation has changed" since the law was first enacted in 1965:

While we have made significant progress as a nation, it is simply not the case that the protections of Sections 4 and 5 are no longer needed. In fact, since 2000, the Department of Justice has objected to proposed changes to state and local election laws 74 times, with ten objections taking place in 2012 alone.

We should not allow the successes of the VRA to be used to justify stripping the very provisions that allow for effective protection of the rights it guarantees. It is now the responsibility of Congress to pass legislation that will enable enforcement through Section 5 and continue to secure the right to vote to all of our citizens, regardless of race, national origin or language.

Already, states subject to the rule and which had attempted changes to state voting conditions the U.S. Justice Department had extreme doubts about, have announced their intention to move ahead; in the case of Texas, almost immediately.

Perhaps, that's just the kick in the pants our complacent nation needs.

Perhaps, the potential injustice of the changes Texas and South Carolina want to enact can be the key that unlocks Congressional grid-lock and displays the need for those protections to continue.

Consider that the Republican National Committee is already worried about the demographic changes that are coming, changes that will make former minorities the new majority.

They have tried to forestall those changes with exactly the kind of electoral tampering -- inherent in Pennsylvania's undecided voter ID law -- the Voting Rights Act was enacted to prevent; the kind of changes that minimize voices so long denied a voice proportional to their presence.

Some, like Jeb Bush, have recognized the Republicans have to deal with the reality on the ground instead of trying to create their own. 

Witness the passage of immigration reform in the Senate, a bill passed with the partial purpose of demonstrating to the coming Hispanic majority that Republicans are not united against them.

Can they really afford to make war on another minority; to, in essence, take back voting rights so dearly earned and enjoyed these last 50 years?

Is it possible that this decision could be a blessing in disguise; one that forces the nation to put Justice Roberts' belief that the country has changed to the ultimate test?

After all, if we truly have changed; if the need for that law was so universally obvious to 98 senators just seven years ago, is it not possible that Congress actually could act?

Could this be the basis of bi-partisan agreement?

That would indeed be evidence that the nation has changed; change we could believe in ....

Is the Election Over Yet?

So my latest teaching-an-old-dog- new-digital-tricks exercise is Tumblr.

Sort of a combination of blogs and Facebook as best I can figure out, its free, like most services.

So I decided to try it out and have been posting my blog there as well as here.

But now for a little reverse.

Below is something that came across my Tumblr feed which I found kind of thought-provoking.

I am not as familiar with Tumblr as I am with the other platforms, so I can't vouch for the accuracy and certainly not the math.

But even if the numbers aren't right, I think you get the idea.

Have a look:

In just 16 days, outside spending groups (like super PACs, various breeds of nonprofits) spent $212.8 million on political ads, starting Oct. 1.

As Politico’s Dave Levinthal points out, that’s enough to buy every person living in Flint, Mich., or Green Bay Wis., a “high-end” LED flat screen TV.

That got us thinking, and playing with Wolfphram Alpha, what else could 16 days worth of political ads buy?

(Arranged in order from serious, to decidedly less serious.)

• 1,363 packs of ramen noodles ($334.58 worth) for each homeless person in the U.S. (using 2011 stats).
• Four years’ tuition and board at Harvard University for 976 students.
• A full tank of gas for 5,728,129 cars (using national average of $3.71, and assuming a 10-gal. tank).
• A year’s salary for 3,795 full-time, public school teachers (using U.S. average).
• The 2012 season salary for every active player on the New York Yankees — plus Derek Jeter and Joe Girardi — with roughly $3 million to spare.
• First of all, a $32,000 fixed-gear bicycle exists — but even for that price, you could buy 6,650 of ‘em.
• A binder (like this) for every woman living in the state of California.
• One of these giant gummy bears on stick for every child 4-years-old and under in the U.S.
• 5,600,000 shares of Facebook stock when company first went public … or 11,211,801 shares today (stock value is $18.98 now, $38.00 at IPO).

All of which is to say, even for a political junkie like me, I've about had it. Thank God we don't live in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin or Virginia, I can only manage the hazards waiting when you turn on your television there.

Thanks a lot Supreme Court.

It is also to say that this is what we get when the U.S. Supreme Court says money is speech. Now even though  I disagree with the results of that decision, I do see the legal rationale.

I think we might all be able to withstand this barrage a little more if people had to be accountable for what they bought and have the names attached to the ad. No more "dark money."

But given that the only people who can fix the problem right now belong to a group of largely useless yahoos called the U.S. Congress, I'm not holding my breath.