Voter Registration Deadlines!

by: Erica Brody

Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 16:44:14 PM EDT

Like many things, the deadline to register to vote varies state by state. Here in New York, this Friday -- October 8 -- is the deadline. So if you're not registered, you've got three days to remedy the situation.

You know how when you fly, the flight attendant tells you to fix your oxygen mask, then help others? Well, voting's what keeps a healthy democracy living and breathing. In other words, if you're already registered, why not take the time this week to help others register. You can download forms here. Or remind your friends on Facebook.

Primary Elections this week - ROCK THE MITZVOTE!

by: Sarah Chandler

Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 21:55:04 PM EDT

The Youth Influence: Why the Young (Jewish) Vote Matters

by: racrj

Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 13:58:29 PM EDT

As Election Day creeps upon us, one question seems to be floating around the average college student's conversations, "So, are you registered to vote yet?" In the past, the youth vote has often been overlooked due, in part, to the relatively low voter turnout. In this critical and potentially close election, evidence exists that this year's election could result in a historically high number of votes cast by 18-24 year olds , resulting in an increased emphasis on the youth vote. This is our country, this is our future and thus, this is our chance to start making the decisions that will affect us for years to come.  

The Responsibilities of Citizenship?

by: Rabbi Jill Jacobs

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:30:33 PM EDT

At 7PM yesterday, I was the 28th person to vote at my polling station in the New York Democratic primary.  A friend who votes a few blocks away from me reported that she was #19 at her polling station. In my area, there were three races--two for judges, one for the chair of the State Democratic Committee, and all contested. 

On the way out from voting, I had a long conversation with an elections worker who was incensed at the low turnout, which she blamed on the Board of Elections' failure to publicize the election.  Perhaps some blame goes there, but there's probably enough to spread around.  As someone who thinks of myself as an informed voter, I spent a lot of time looking for information about the relevant races. . . and came up with very little.  The New York Times offered endorsements for the races, and there were a few mentions on blogs here & there, but not much more than that.  I miss the days when you could count on the League of Women Voters to drop off a detailed voter guide before every election. . . 

On the other hand, plenty of my politically-engaged friends laugh at me for voting in every election.  "Does voting for judges really matter?" they ask (never mind whether judges should be elected at all).  Personally, I would feel guilty if I didn't vote less than a century after lots of gutsy women (& men) fought for my right to vote. But would the ten minutes I took to vote for a judge about whom I actually know very little be better used to call a senator about some key issue?  To write a check?  I know that it's not a zero sum game, but being voter #28 in election after election gets you down after a while. . . 

Is the hype over youth participation (wooo-hoooo) paternalistic?

by: Alana Krivo-Kaufman

Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:05:09 PM EDT

Go Watch "Recount" on HBO

by: Hannah Farber

Wed May 28, 2008 at 19:08:22 PM EDT

I've spent the last two days trying to figure out the, ummmm, policy angles that would allow me to write about the HBO movie Recount, which I watched last weekend and which was vivid enough to make me have to go take an angry nap as soon as it was over.

For me, the points that emerge most vividly from reliving the 2000 election are these:

Our attention spans are short. Eight years after the election, all that talk about how the prolonging of the dispute would have irreparably damaged our democratic process seems very odd. What would another month have mattered, in comparison with the huge decisions that were made shortly thereafter by the president who was chosen? Today, who even remembers? Yet I remember this being a very serious point of discussion for people in both camps.

Minority wins

by: Rabbi Jill Jacobs

Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:07:35 AM EDT

There's a Jewish legal principle that, at least much of the time, we don't worry about something with a low likelihood of happening.  In other words, if things go a certain way the majority of the time, but in a small minority of cases, things go the other way, we don't generally make law around the minority possibility.  (there are, of course, exceptions, as with every law).

This principle popped into my head when I read about the effort by the Missouri legislature to require proof of citizenship from all voters: 

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who opposes the measure, estimated that it could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship. . .

In Arizona, the only state that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, more than 38,000 voter registration applications have been thrown out since the state adopted its measure in 2004. That number was included in election data obtained through a lawsuit filed by voting rights advocates and provided to The New York Times. More than 70 percent of those registrations came from people who stated under oath that they were born in the United States, the data showed. . .

Supporters of the measures cite growing concerns that illegal immigrants will try to vote. They say proof of citizenship measures are an important way to improve the accuracy of registration rolls and the overall voter confidence in the process. . .

From October 2002 to September 2005, the Justice Department indicted 40 voters for registration fraud or illegal voting, 21 of whom were noncitizens, according to department records.

If we don't require proof of citizenship to vote, some people who aren't legally able to vote will try to do so anyway, either willfully or out of ignorance about voting laws.  The number of these people is probably larger than forty.  Is it 100?  Maybe.  1000?  Possibly?  200,000?  Hard to imagine.

On the other hand, how many US citizens will find themselves unable to vote for lack of passport, SS card, birth certificate, or other proof of citizenship? Well, at least 75% of Americans don't own a passport.  There are no statistics about how many people have lost their social security cards or birth certificates, or filed these away at their parents' homes, or in who knows where, but I'd venture to say that it's a lot.  Even if drivers' licenses become acceptable proofs of citizenship, that will only help a bit--roughly ten percent of eligible voters--and a higher percentage of the elderly, minorities, and other often-disenfranchised voters (apparently including nuns)--don't have a drivers' license or any other form of state-issued id.  

At the same time, today's NYT carries an editorial decrying attempts to mandate computerized social security verification:

Because the Social Security database is rotten with errors, the crackdown could force millions of Americans to battle a computerized bureaucracy that tells them, unjustly, that they cannot work. And the Government Accountability Office has cited evidence of employers abusing E-Verify, forcing workers who are tentatively flagged as unauthorized to take pay cuts or work longer hours until they can clear their names.

Personally, I have twice encountered situations in which I was listed either by my school or workplace under the wrong social security number (just one digit off in both cases)--both times, we were able to clear things up once we figured out the problem, but in neither case did anyone have to deal with a government bureaucracy to get the problem solved--if we had, I can only imagine that I would currently be without a college degree and without a job, spending my days camping out in the local social security office.

Will some people try to take advantage of loopholes in the system?  Yes, of course.  But does this possibility justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people, putting thousands of others out of work, spending who knows how many millions of dollars of government money dealing with the fallout, and wasting millions of people's time?  Personally, I wouldn't worry about the minority. 

Are You an Adherent of American Civil Religion?

by: Hannah Farber

Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:23:54 AM EDT

A sociological study suggests: 

Voters are four times as likely to prefer a presidential candidate who they perceive to uphold the values of America's civil religion -- regardless of whether those voters are religious themselves.

Definition of civil religion:

It's the idea that the United States bows to a higher authority. Or, as Wimberley explained it: "There's an authority above all of us and by this authority we seek our independence"... It's a notion that can be found in the "one nation under God," phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the "In God We Trust" motto on U.S. currency.

This finding was based on data from a 1984 voter survey that someone finally got around to analyzing. It would be interesting to know if the results would be different today. 

Are you an adherent of American civil religion? Would you only vote for a fellow believer?

(via Pew Forum)