Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A Welfare Check and a Voting Card

After years of deliberate neglect, the Justice Department is finally beginning to enforce the federal law requiring states to provide voter registration at welfare and food stamp offices. The effort not only promises to bring hundreds of thousands of hard-to-reach voters into the electorate, but it could also reduce the impact of advocacy organizations whose role in registering voters caused such a furor in 2008.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the motor-voter law, is well-known for making it possible to register to vote at state motor vehicle offices. However, the law also required states to allow registration at offices that administer food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, disability assistance and child health programs. States were enthusiastic about the motor-vehicle section of the law, and millions of new voters got on the rolls while getting a driver’s license. But registration at public assistance offices proved far less popular.

In part, that was because of additional paperwork at those offices, but in many states, Republican officials did not want to provide easy entry to the voting rolls for low-income people whom they considered more likely to vote Democratic. The Bush administration devoted its attention to seeking out tiny examples of voter fraud and purging people from the rolls in swing states. It did little to enforce the motor-voter law despite years of complaints from civic groups and Democratic lawmakers.

In April, however, President Obama’s Justice Department sent the states a set of guidelines making it clear that it expected full compliance with the public-assistance office section of the law — the first time in the 15-year history of the motor-voter law that the Justice Department has explained what kinds of offices are covered and what procedures are to be used. The guidelines make it clear that people applying for benefits must not only be offered the chance to register but must be given help in filling out the forms if they ask. If states do not comply voluntarily, lawsuits are likely to follow.

The administration will undoubtedly be accused of acting in a self-serving political way by making it easier for more Democrats to vote. The effort may have that effect. But it is worth remembering that the recession has brought millions of new people to food stamp and other welfare offices in the last two years, many of whom may not be traditional Democrats. In addition, government offices are much more likely to provide reliable registrations than Acorn or other advocacy groups that were widely accused of fraudulent sign-ups in the last cycle. Welfare offices generally have extensive methods of verifying identities in order to provide benefits, and it is illegal to provide false records there.

But the best reason to applaud the Justice Department’s new posture is that it will bring more voters into public life. When advocacy groups sued Ohio and Missouri to force their public assistance offices into complying, huge groups of new voters surged onto the rolls — more than 100,000 in Ohio, and more than 200,000 in Missouri. Nationwide enforcement by the Justice Department could add millions more. The more people who have access to the ballot, the better the country will be.

AZGrizFan wrote:This country doesn't need more uneducated voters living off the government.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:We need more voters who decide who to vote for based on what benefits they will receive or even worse how a candidate smiles or parts his hair. Let the disinterested and ignorant stay home on election day.

From the class of 09 wrote:If you don't pay a net income tax you shouldn't be able to vote.

Grizalltheway wrote:

From the class of 09 wrote:If you don't pay a net income tax you shouldn't be able to vote.

Fuck it, let's just go back to only letting white male property owners vote.

LeadBolt wrote:Do they need to prove citizenship?

hank scorpio wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:Do they need to prove citizenship?

In theory, yes. It really depends on what a state would accept as an ID, and how easily said document can be forged.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Fuck it, let's just go back to only letting white male property owners vote.

sounds good to me. Although there are a LOT fewer of them in recent months, given the foreclosure rate recently...

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
sounds good to me. Although there are a LOT fewer of them in recent months, given the foreclosure rate recently...

So, does your mortgage lender get your vote?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

So, does your mortgage lender get your vote?

AZGrizFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Oh, I get it now.

True....being 20% underwater probably nullifies my vote.

Thanks, Obama.

Grizalltheway wrote:

From the class of 09 wrote:If you don't pay a net income tax you shouldn't be able to vote.

Fuck it, let's just go back to only letting white male property owners vote.

Grizalltheway wrote:

From the class of 09 wrote:If you don't pay a net income tax you shouldn't be able to vote.

Fuck it, let's just go back to only letting white male property owners vote.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
**** it, let's just go back to only letting white male property owners vote.

sounds good to me. Although there are a LOT fewer of them in recent months, given the foreclosure rate recently...

citdog wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
**** it, let's just go back to only letting white male property owners vote.

Wedgebuster wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Fuck it, let's just go back to only letting white male property owners vote.

But could they still vote for ignorant bitches with big tits?

AZGrizFan wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
In theory, yes. It really depends on what a state would accept as an ID, and how easily said document can be forged.

regardless of the document, the answer to that question is "very easily".