NAACP’s Ben Jealous on the Voting Rights Battles that Could Roll Back Gains and Decide 2012 Election

Amy Goodman
Democracy Now! / Video Report
Published: Friday 7 September 2012
“Republicans have led the effort, saying argue voter ID laws prevent fraud.”

NAACP President Ben Jealous joins us to discuss what some are calling the greatest wave of legislative assaults on voting rights in more than half a century. As shifting demographics give more weight to voters in the South, eight of 11 states in the former Confederacy have passed restrictive voting laws since the 2010 election. Republicans have led the effort, saying voter ID laws prevent fraud. But others call it a political ploy to suppress voters who may not have the proper identification, and typically vote Democrat.

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, "Breaking With Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency." We’re covering the Democratic convention, inside and out. I’m Amy Goodman.

And in this last segment of this hour of Democracy Now!, we’re joined by Ben Jealous. He is head of the NAACP. I saw folks from the NAACP at the Republican convention, now here at the Democratic convention. Voter rights has been a clear message of the NAACP. What do you mean, Ben?

BENJAMIN JEALOUS: What we mean is that this country thinks it should be one person, one vote, that we should be allowed to vote free and fair. And we’ve seen more states pass more laws in the past year, pushing more voters out of the ballot box than at any point in the last hundred years. Our country is moving in the wrong direction. And you know, it’s not simply a Republican thing, because we’ve seen Rick Snyder, Republican governor of Michigan, veto strict photo ID. We’ve seen Bob McDonnell of Virginia actually expand the re-enfranchising of formerly incarcerated people in that state and say to his folks, "Don’t even bring me a strict voter ID bill, or I will veto it." It’s an extremist thing. It’s a far-right thing. You know, and it’s having a real effect on this race, and it will have a real effect come November.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talk about what’s happening around the country.

BENJAMIN JEALOUS: So, ground zero right now is probably Pennsylvania, where this strict voter ID law, which says that you aren’t going to be able to vote unless you show up with a government-issued ID with your photo on it and so forth, has not been struck down. It’s been struck down in Texas. It’s been struck down, you know, in several other states. But it’s still in effect there. And there’s 800,000 voters in that state who don’t have an up-to-date, current ID. And black voters are 100 percent more likely than white voters in that state not to have their ID, and there’s just no way we’re going to get all 800,000 of them IDs in the next two months.

AMY GOODMAN: Why do people not have IDs? Explain why there is a disparate impact on communities of color and poor people and older people.

BENJAMIN JEALOUS: Right. So, there’s a whole host of reasons, right? One is that this ID has to have the same address. And so, if you’re a poor person on the margin of this economy or somebody who’s struggling—two, three jobs—you often move at least once a year. And people just don’t tend to go to the DMV once a year. So, you know, you could have an ID, but it just might not have the right address. If you’re too poor to own a car—and there’s a lot of folks these days who are too poor to own a car—you tend not to have a driver’s license. If you’re a student who’s moved—I mean, think about when you went to college, right? Did you really run to the DMV to get, you know, a driver’s license from that state? No, most of us just carried the one from home. So there’s a whole host of reasons. And then, you know, it could also be because—they say that your ID has to have an expiration date. Well, if it’s a veterans’ benefit card, there’s no expiration date, right? because your status as a vet never expires. Many student IDs don’t have expiration dates. And so they put all sorts of technical things in there.

But here’s the real funny part, Amy. In court, they admitted there’s never been a case of voter impersonation in Pennsylvania. Bottom line is this: if the law is not intended to solve a problem, it’s intended to be a problem. And that’s what we’re dealing with in Pennsylvania.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain the history of voting rights. Here we are in North Carolina, Charlotte, one of the first lunch counter sit-ins after Greensboro, right? The Woolworth sit-in. Explain what—the history of literacy tax, of poll tax.

BENJAMIN JEALOUS: So the first thing folks have to understand is—because they’ve heard of the '60s civil rights movement, the ’50s—well, those laws that Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner, that Medgar Evers and so many others were killed trying to invalidate were actually put in place 50, 60 years before that, at the end of Reconstruction, to really ensure white supremacy in politics in the South. And they put in place a whole raft of laws—the grandfather clause, which just basically said you were grandfathered in if you were registered to vote before the Civil War; tests on whether or not you could read; tests on—you know, a poll tax, right? basically saying that a man who couldn't pay the tax could be bought. And they also put in bans on formerly incarcerated people voting. But all of these had hugely disproportionate racial impact, and they disenfranchised black voters, and they got rid of black representation in the South.

What we’ve seen is that every time that the vote has been significantly expanded for black people, there’s been massive waves of voter suppression. It happened after the Civil War and the enfranchising of blacks with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. It happened after the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. And here it comes again, after we break the color barrier at the White House for the first time with the largest, most diverse presidential electorate ever. And now, like then, the reforms that they’re passing again don’t solve problems, they create problems, and they create problems for young people of all colors and people of color of all ages, who were exactly where the surge came from in 2008.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much, Ben Jealous, CEO and president of the NAACP.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of "Breaking the Sound Barrier," recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

Top Stories

5 comments on "NAACP’s Ben Jealous on the Voting Rights Battles that Could Roll Back Gains and Decide 2012 Election"

margaret m

February 01, 2013 9:22am

Voter IDs would have limited use since people change and cannot be identified by the original photo anyway. A better strategy to limit voter fraud would be state fingerprinting of each individual at the booth, and automatically saving electronically. Put a fingerprint scanner at each poll. Then we'd have no faked addresses, faked IDs and faked photos to contend with since each fingerprint is unique. Tie all public and private benefits to this fingerprint. Maintain the fingerprint database within the states in a secure location and have them accessible only within the state. If someone attempts to vote more than once, or fraudulently, charge them with treason on the spot and automatically revoke all benefits administered by the state. Leakage of the fingerprint database by any state official should result in a charge of treason, and all property of anyone doing this should be seized and sold by the state.

With our current system, there is massive voter fraud. With a fingerprint system there would be none because the penalties would be severe. Stealing elections is a crime against the people and should be treated accordingly.

Fingerprinting would allow victims of crime to be identified and also criminals. The only hitch is that it must be maintained only within the states, with the federal government unable to touch it unless an individual fingerprint was needed to solve a crime outside the state.

This system is already successfully working at many hospitals, and the database is secure. Perhaps they could share their strategies with state governments.

A vote for IDs is a vote against fraud, however, requiring an ID is not sufficient to prevent fraud. Fingerprinting, with loss of all property in case of attempted fraud, would prevent voter fraud all together, and ensure fair elections.

Massive fraud by inmates has recently been reported, whereby they bilk state and federal governments out of millions and billions of dollars with faked IDs, faked social security numbers, and other fake documents. Requiring a fingerprint before the tax return left the state would stop this also.

kentuckywoman2

September 09, 2012 4:46am

Here's my thoughts on the matter - much ado about nothing. I've voted for 42 years now and no matter where I've lived/voted, I've always had to produce a picture id with my current address on it, before I could vote. So I don't understand what all this hoopla is about, since many states have required this for decades.

I'm older. I'm poor. I'm disabled. Yet, I still manage to save the 60 cents each month in order to renew my driver's license (which has a photo) every four years. When I'm no longer able to drive, I"ll probably just get a photo ID. What in Sam Hill is the big deal about that?

IMHO, requiring citizens to produce a photo ID is not irrational, nor unwarranted. Our country has a history of voter fraud as far back as it goes! In fact, there were laws created to address this voter fraud. It was common to sell one's vote in Europe as far back as the Middle Ages. We've had that happen here, as well. Poor people sold their votes because they needed the money. Wealthy people paid individuals to vote their way. Some people went back and voted more than once.

Nevertheless, I am most concerned that some people will vote more than once. Without a proper photo ID, what's to prevent one from voting in precinct after precinct? It wouldn't be that hard to do if all one needed was a name and address on a piece of paper. How many utility bills, hospital/medical bills, etc., could you get your hands on if you really wanted to or if you had an organization dedicated to just that?

I would think that Democrats would be just as interested in this bill as Republicans. And the fact that they're not, because of pressure from the Latino population I'm thinking, makes me think that begs for a reasonable explanation. WHY is the Latino population so adamant about this legislation? Or is it immigrants in general?

ARE there illegal immigrants who vote in our elections? If NOT, then why object?

There are so many organizations today that are dedicated to voter rights that I sincerely believe that any and all obstacles to obtaining a photo ID could EASILY be surmounted with a little ingenuity. And THAT is what I think we should be concentrating on, not getting rid of a bill that makes good common sense.

We went through a similar argument when states first started requiring a photo on driver's licenses - and today, is there even a state left in the country that DOESN'T require a photo?

Much ado about nothing.

oldhat

September 08, 2012 2:30pm

the election is close the democrats need all the dead,non citizens ,duplicate votes it can get

Tom Magstadt

September 07, 2012 10:31am

The concerted nationwide effort of Republican party strategists to make voting more difficult for the poor, elderly, and minorities is cynical and transparent. It is also fundamentally subversive (and remains a mystery why Democrats can't capitalize on this fact). The US is governed as a republic and republics are only as good the elections by which they are governed. Elections decide who is, and who is not, worthy of deciding how we will live, by what rules, and even who will live and who will die (think Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as access to health care and capital punishment). If we care about "democracy" as a country and as a body of citizen-voters, we will vote every incumbent who does not support the principle of free and fair elections out of office. That means most of the Republicans currently serving in the House and Senate and in the state legislatures of the growing number of states with strict photo ID laws designed to keep voter turnout low.

kentuckywoman2

September 09, 2012 5:00am

I'm a Democrat and I support this law. If you read my post, you'd see that I'm poor, elderly, and a woman, so technically a minority. lol. That being said, I disagree with you on this point.

I don't think it will be impossible for any legal citizen of this country, regardless of race, gender, SES, or age, to get a photo ID. Most people already have one. Anyone who drives a car has a photo ID on their driver's license. University students have a photo ID. If you have a bus pass you must have a photo ID. If you have a passport you have a photo ID. Most workplaces require a photo ID, these days. I could go on....and on....even Blockbuster requires a photo ID! I don't know how anyone could get by in today's world WITHOUT a photo ID!

In short, most transactions in this country today require a photo ID. I find it hard to believe in this day and age that some one would NOT have a photo ID of some sort or another. Where I live, I can't even get a library card without showing a PHOTO ID!

Unless the poor, elderly, minorities you speak of live in a cardboard box (and I realize some may, unfortunately) and has absolutely NO dealings with the rest of the world, I find it hard to imagine going through life without having to show a photo ID for something. If you apply for Food stamps, you have to show a photo ID....I would argue that most poor people are on food stamps. Ditto for the elderly and food stamps, medicaid/medicare/social security. Gotta have a photo ID.

The ONLY people I can imagine would not be able to get a photo ID would be an illegal resident - and they shouldn't be voting in our elections, anyway.

I think it's a good, common sense law and we should be focusing on how to make sure that all those we THINK might be affected and don't already have a photo ID, are able to get one.

Again, there are so many organizations out there today that would be able to help eligible citizens who are poor, elderly, living in rural areas, minorities, etc., get a photo ID. But again, I would submit that 99% of these people already have one.

Much ado about nothing.