Here’s another question in this question-filled day. Are uniform regulation of voting and central administration of elections more or less democratic than having them regulated and administered by the states?
Here’s another question in this question-filled day. Are uniform regulation of voting and central administration of elections more or less democratic than having them regulated and administered by the states?
Dave Schuler: Are uniform regulation of voting and central administration of elections more or less democratic than having them regulated and administered by the states?
That would depend on the particulars; but historically, the states have often had a very poor record with regards to democracy, such as Jim Crow restrictions on the franchise.
I guess that depends on perspective. Several states had granted women the vote a half century before the 19th amendment confirmed that as a right. I would characterize that as an example of the federal government having a weak record.
IMO there’s a reasonable concern of one half plus one of the members of the House and Senate doing things that did not actually have popular support.
Dave Schuler: Several states had granted women the vote a half century before the 19th amendment confirmed that as a right.
And not all states had Jim Crow or slavery. That’s the point. Democracy means that the entire citizenry can participate in the process. If the states had already extended the franchise to women and Blacks, then the federal government would not have had to act. The U.S. is certainly more democratic with federal enforcement of equal protection and voting rights.
Dave Schuler: IMO there’s a reasonable concern of one half plus one of the members of the House and Senate doing things that did not actually have popular support.
Yes, that’s the excuse they use to limit participation by minorities. But given democracy as a principle, the majority should not be able to limit democratic participation by minorities.
Do you have a present example of a state limiting democratic participation by minorities?
Dave Schuler: Do you have a present example of a state limiting democratic participation by minorities?
“In July 2016, a federal appeals court struck down several portions of a 2013 North Carolina law that included a voter ID mandate, saying GOP lawmakers had written them with ‘almost surgical precision’ to discourage voting by Black residents, who tend to support Democrats.”
https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-25c1633fd815ae57ca6c703a45c9d636
They got caught, but to continue the charade, they just have to pull their efforts back into the shade a bit. Keep in mind that Jim Crow was largely based on “race neutral” laws.
Here’s another example. The only reason we know about this is because Hofeller’s daughter made the hard drives public after he died. They just lie about it, and it’s hard to prove otherwise. But the intent is undeniable, and the mechanism for holding people to account is virtually non-existent.
“While Hofeller was known for drawing maps to give Republicans an advantage and to limit the impact of voters of color in North Carolina, Texas, Missouri, and Virginia, the new documents reveal he also participated in the 2010 redistricting cycle in Alabama, Florida, and West Virginia.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-files-of-the-master-of-modern-republican-gerrymandering
I would start by looking at how the Federal Government regulates campaign finance through the FEC. Do you think the FEC has done a better job vs State level regulation of State campaign finance laws?
In this; the details matter a lot. Is regulation and enforcement done through a commission, or through a cabinet department (answerable to an incumbent), How much delegation would an empowering law give to those administering elections, etc.
The details matter here so hard to answer. I think I would limit it to examples within the last 100 years.
Steve
Interesting back and forth between Dave and Zach. I can only say that the implicit notion that Fed level regulation of the issue would somehow be inherently better is laughable.
I’m with CO and steve on the issue of specifics. Further, I generally come down on the side of more distributed decision making than central. But it depends……..
Just a couple quick hits on the current public debate. Joe Biden used to pal with George Wallace. Many blue states have more restrictive requirements than red states. More importantly, bringing race into the issue is simply bottom of the barrel politics. You know the Dems are desperate. Try the real issues Dems: ID and unregulated voting by mail. Not exactly draconian requirements. Common sense.
Zachriel:
Your first example illustrates that present law along with the courts are dealing with the problem just fine. Your second example is not precisely to the point: AFAICT it’s about districting. I agree that districting is a serious issue but the legislation being proposed does nothing about it. You also might be interested in what FiveThirtyEight determined, presumably to their surprise, about gerrymandering. Since I live in Illinois it certainly didn’t surprise me. Democrats benefit more from gerrymandering than Republicans do. The map being proposed by the party leadership here is a case in point. It greatly benefits Democrats at the expense of Republicans and blacks at the expense of Hispanics.
uniform regulation of voting and central administration of elections more or less democratic than having them regulated and administered by the states?
A: More Democratic and that is bad.
Imagine if you will that Democrats are Hutus, and they have a thin majority and central control of elections.
Imagine then that today’s Republicans are Tutsis and fear government control by their enemies.
What is good then about denying a minority the refuge of local government ?
I sense that people don’t want aRepublic, but a democracy that they control in order to hunt to extinction their adversaries.
Every pundit for the last 75-80 years has beaten the drum of Jim Beam, er..Crow.
As if that has any Goddamn thing to do with the issues today.
Only that today’s Hutus sense a sharp edge on the blade to turn on their Tutsis neighbors with the blessings of federal government.
Dave- You do know there was a follow up to the 538 study suggesting they didnt get it quite right and it favors the GOP dont you? Ithink Would just say both sides gerrymander and whoever is able to control it benefits. At present the GOP control more state governments.
Steve
Drew: I can only say that the implicit notion that Fed level regulation of the issue would somehow be inherently better is laughable.
We didn’t say “inherently,” but historically.
Dave Schuler: Your first example illustrates that present law along with the courts are dealing with the problem just fine.
Um, it was a *federal* court. Furthermore, it was only uncovered by happenstance, even though Republicans made a conscious effort to hide it. Nor have they stopped. They are just a bit more careful with the camouflage.
Dave Schuler: I agree that districting is a serious issue
And relevant. Redistricting to reduce minority representation is inherently anti-democratic.
steve: At present the GOP control more state governments.
Some states have tried to reform the system by moving towards non-partisan redistricting, including New York and California with large numbers of representatives. It can be argued that this is unilateral disarmament.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/post-launch-images/2019/11/redistrictingcommission_map_final.png
Zachriel:
There’s a drastic difference between a federal department, part of the executive branch, and a federal court.
Dave Schuler: There’s a drastic difference between a federal department, part of the executive branch, and a federal court.
And it was Union armies that freed the slaves.
The federal court was enforcing the Voting Rights Act, a landmark of democracy. States have impeded democracy over and over again, and the federal government has had to intercede over and over again.