Mediaboss Marketing

A voter in Montpelier, Vt., cast a ballot for the Republican presidential primary in 2012.

Voting on Election Day usually entails some pre-planning, with registration required several days, if not weeks, ahead of time in most places.

But now, following a court decision last week, Massachusetts is under pressure to join more than a dozen other states including Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont in allowing residents to register or reregister on Election day, and vote moments later.

Advertisement

While the states top election official is raising concerns about costs, research shows that allowing same-day, or election-day, registration can bolster democracy by motivating voters to go to the polls.

While most other election reforms show pretty mixed effects, Election Day registration ... has produced a wide consensus that in pretty much every study you find positive and increased voter turnout, said Professor Barry C. Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, whose office oversees elections, said he is not opposed to the idea. But he said the state is appealing the Suffolk Superior Court ruling because election officials would need extra funding to deploy additional equipment and staffing for Election Day, or else there would be chaos.

Can it be done? Is it something we should do? Yes, he said. But its something we have to make sure we do right.

Officials from several states that have same-day registration said that while there have been logistical issues to iron out, they and the voters in their respective states have been generally happy with the policy.

Advertisement

For us its been great, said Denise Merrill, secretary of the state in Connecticut, which adopted same-day registration in 2013 and saw nearly 35,000 people take advantage of it this past November. Its enabled thousands of people to vote who would not have otherwise.

Same-day registration has been done for decades in other states without the need for any special technology. And officials in some states, including Vermont and Connecticut, said they rolled it out without any significant boost in funding.

Before casting ballots on Election Day, voters must prove their identity and residency in person, said Wendy Underhill, program director of elections and redistricting for the National Conference of State Legislatures. Specific requirements vary, but can include showing a drivers license, ID card, paycheck, utility bill, or other documentation.

In some states, those who want to register on Election Day must do so at a certain location, such as a city or town hall. Typically, residents can then vote in that same location.

Election officials have also taken steps to discourage fraud, such as sending a mailing to same-day registrants to verify their identity and residence, or updating the statewide voter database to ensure no one casts multiple votes.

At some polling locations, election officials use what are known as electronic poll books, which connect to the states database of voters and can verify in real time that the person isnt already registered and hasnt already voted in another part of the state.

Nationwide, voter fraud is believed to be exceedingly rare. Experts say theres nothing to indicate that states with same-day registration see any uptick in fraud. Some argue the same-day registration process is more secure because verification is done in person by trained poll workers, rather than registering by mail or online.

President Trump in February alleged that thousands of Massachusetts residents were bused to New Hampshire and voted illegally (and against him) by taking advantage of the neighboring states same-day registration policy. No evidence was ever presented to back up the claim, and numerous officials have disputed it.

The potential benefits of the policy are clear, experts say.

A US Government Accountability Office report last year said that a majority of studies on same-day registration showed it improves voter turnout by a statistically significant amount, from about 2 to 10 percentage points.

The Massachusetts ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the Chelsea Collaborative, a social services nonprofit, and MassVOTE, a nonprofit that registers people to vote.

If the state were to adopt same-day voting, Galvin would want a system in which election officials could use special computers that are connected, he said, (though not via the Internet) to the state voter database. That would allow registrants to be cross-checked in real time, and no one could accuse the state of compromising voting integrity, he said.

Getting that technology in place statewide would cost millions of dollars, he said.

Polling locations, unless they are located inside a city or town hall, do not have the technology and equipment in place now, Galvin said. Every city and town hall in the state does have the capability,but Galvin said those places would still need additional money for staffing and training to prevent long lines, confusion, and errors.

Connecticut avoided extra costs by offering same-day registration only in buildings where the technology already exists. Other states simply do not use the technology at most, if not all, polling locations.

Massachusetts lawmakers, who for years have considered adopting same-day registration, are now considering several bills that would allow for the policy. State Senator Anne Gobi, cochair of the Joint Committee on Election Laws, said they are likely to get more attention this year in light of the court case.

I think this issue is really coming to the forefront now, said Gobi, a Democrat from Spencer. Im very much in favor of anything we can do to get people more engaged in our government. If it requires more funding, obviously thats what we need to do.

Election administrators and some experts said same-day registration could actually reduce costs because it could slash the number of provisional ballots used when questions about a voters eligibility arise. In states with the policy, voters can typically address any issues on the spot, while those without it must commit resources to investigate after an election.

Same-day registration could also help election officials have cleaner, more accurate voter rolls, improving efficiency by keeping names and addresses up-to-date.

And while there are startup costs to using electronic poll books, over time they can decrease the cost of printing paper ones.

Wisconsin officials said theyve had same-day registration since 1975. The issue shouldnt be about money, said Neil V. Albrecht, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. (Both Albrecht and Burden, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, were called by the ACLU to testify, and did so, in the Massachusetts case.)

Elections should be about access and making sure everyone had an opportunity to cast a ballot. If theres somewhere youre going to earmark dollars, this is the place to do it Albrecht said. Voting is the foundation of democracy. Its hard to put a price tag on democracy.

Follow this link:
States with Election Day registration see bonus for democracy - The Boston Globe

This week, Vice President Mike Pence is visiting Montenegro. His historic visit signals a new chapter not only in bilateral relations, but also strengthen the overall trans-Atlantic alliance.

Most importantly, the visit will celebrate just how far the Montenegrin economy has come due in large part to quiet American leadership and a growing Montenegrin commitment to Western values.

When 97 senators voted on March 28 to add Montenegro to NATO, a clear message was sent across the Atlantic. Senators made clear to this young multiparty parliamentary democracy, no bigger than a congressional district, that its years of painstaking judicial, economic, and military reforms were worth it.

NATO is a military alliance. Much has been written about the Montenegrin military and the overall future of NATO. Sen. Marco Rubio alluded to the forgotten benefit of NATO enlargement in a floor speech before the vote, saying the "alliance helps advance our economic interests." The vote, CODELs beforehand and, most certainly the VP's trip all advance American economic interests.

Indeed, the Preamble of the NATO Treaty articulates that the alliance was "founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law." Furthermore, Article 2 makes clear that members "will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration." These NATO precepts are American values and have helped transform the American economy following World War II.

According to the Heritage Foundation's 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Montenegro ranks significantly ahead of its neighbors, Croatia and Serbia. Indeed, the journey to NATO has fostered a commitment to free market and capitalist economic principles. In just 11 years of independence and only 25 years after the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia, Montenegrin officials have discovered the ingredients to a dynamic economy. These are a robust private sector engaged in international trade with a defined, but not burdensome, regulatory and legal framework. This is what Pence has championed throughout his entire career. The vice president will find a country that appreciates the importance of a strong private sector economy.

Visitors from Washington matter. In November 2014, perhaps not coincidentally one month after the visit of Sen. Chris Murphy, the Montenegrin Parliament passed legislation to reform the judicial sector, including the establishment of a special prosecutor's office for organized crime and an anti-corruption agency.

Currently, the Montenegrin government has welcomed investors from 107 different countries. The high point of foreign direct investment, 2009, included over $1.2 billion of capital coming into this country of less than 650,000 residents. Last year, Norway remained the largest investor in private sector projects with $189M. American companies invested $5.6M in the economy in 2016.

Surely, Pence's trip will prompt additional American investment and tourist visits.

The words of Prime Minister Dusko Markovic during his June visit to Washington ring true in the days leading up to the vice president's trip, "This is a small day for the United States and its allies, but a great day for Montenegro." It was American leadership which ended two ethnic wars in the region. It will be continued American government leadership and fostering of American values which will continue this positive momentum.

In 1979, my family fled the brutality of Soviet Communism to celebrate our Jewish faith and embrace the freedoms of America. America has only grown stronger since the height of the Cold War by embracing the freedoms articulated by our Founding Fathers and the principles outlined by NATO.

So too, can Montenegro grow stronger, as it aligns with America and shuns a past defined by despotism and government bureaucracy.

Neil Emilfarb, a native of West Hartford, Connecticut, has lived and worked in Montenegro since 2006. He is CEO of Stratex Group which has developed and managed properties throughout Montenegro.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions.

Visit link:
America is helping Montenegro's democracy mature - Washington Examiner

On Tuesday, my colleagueJosh Rogins reportthat the State Department was considering excising democratic and just (as in a just society) from its mission and purpose statements induced abacklash in foreign policy circles. The State Departments faulty reasoning was revealed before the day was out by both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and President Trump.

In a rare appearance in the State Department briefing room, perhaps a sign that the rotten press he and his department had been receiving was starting to sting, Tillerson addressed a range of issues, including Venezuela, where two prominent opponents of the regime were seized by security forces in the wake of an election (boycotted by the opposition) to elect an all-powerful Constituent Assembly that moves the country further down the road of totalitarianism. (TheConstituent Assemblywill have the power to rewrite the Venezuelan Constitution, which [Venezuelan President Nicols] Maduro desires, and is expected to replace the previous legislative body, where the opposition has a majority.The new body will establish a truth commission to prosecute political opponents.)Tillerson told reporters:

Clearly, what we want to see is for Venezuela to return to its constitution, return to its scheduled elections, and allow the people of Venezuela to have the voice in their government they deserve.

We are very, very troubled by what were seeing unfold following the constituent assembly vote, which went about as we expected, but the re-arrest of opposition leaders last night is very alarming. This could lead to an outbreak of further violence in the country. The situation, from a humanitarian standpoint, is already becoming dire. We are evaluating all our policy options as to what can we do to create a change of conditions where either Maduro decides he doesnt have a future and wants to leave of his own accord or we can return the government processes back to their constitution. But we are quite concerned about were seeing down there. It is a policy discussion thats currently under development through the interagency process this week.

In other words,democracymatters greatly to us and has consequences for the region. If the State Departments mission no longer extends to defending democracy, why bother even addressing it, let alone taking action against Maduros thuggishness? Even the White House joined in condemning Maduro. The United States condemns the actions of the Maduro dictatorship, Trump said in a written statement. Mr. [Leopoldo] Lopez and Mr. [Antonio] Ledezma are political prisoners being held illegally by the regime. The statement continued, The United States holds Maduro - who publicly announced just hours earlier that he would move against his political opposition - personally responsible for the health and safety of Mr. Lopez, Mr. Ledezma, and any others seized. While the statement avoided the term democracy, the evisceration of democratic protections and the unjust(theres that word again) actions of an authoritarian regime remain a concern of the United States precisely because it is in our national interest to maintain a peaceful and free hemisphere.

In reacting to the decision to remove democracy promotion from the State Departments mission Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) told me on Tuesday, Everything we do to foster democracy in emerging states is an investment in national security. He explained, Democracies make better partners for peace and prosperity. Renouncing our commitment to work for the values we hold dear would be a dangerous abdication of U.S. leadership, making our world less safe by destabilizing global security. From the Arab Spring to Venezuela and Washington, we cant forget the fight for democracy requires more than a Twitter account and the adoption of a few budgetary changes. Menendez, in reaction to the State Departments refusal to fill numerous senior spots and rumors of a reorganization that will eliminate many programs and positions that support human rights, introduced legislation to thwart the realpolitik crowd. He told me that last week I passed an amendment to the funding authorization bill before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to codify and mandate the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, whose responsibility it is to support democracy and human rights as a critical component of the State Departments work. He vowed, I will fight tooth and nail so the U.S. government doesnt walk away from our responsibility to conduct foreign policy in a responsible way that doesnt cripple our global standing and directly harms our national security interests.

Candidly, the administrations foreign policy objectives remain murky and incoherent. If the State Department doesnt know what it stands for, how does it expect adversaries and friends around the world to know where the United States stands?

Continue reading here:
Venezuela shows why the US cannot downgrade democracy - Washington Post

In some ways, the United States seems far from such a situation today. The Trump administration, after all, appears weak: It is relatively unpopular, mired in scandal and divided by infighting Anthony Scaramuccis 10-day tenure is just the latest example. And it faces determined opposition from courts, the news media, state and local governments and ordinary citizens. If Mr. Trumps presidency ends in humiliation, future generations may well conclude that it was bound to fail all along.

But in other respects the United States is already well on the way to what I have, in my academic work, called democratic deconsolidation. Mr. Trump is increasingly emulating the playbook of popularly elected strongmen who have done deep, lasting damage to their countries democratic institutions.

In recent weeks, he has treated a gathering of Boy Scouts like a campaign rally. He has asked soldiers for political support at a ceremonial event. He has implied that policemen should rough up suspects they arrest. He has continued to feud with the countrys intelligence community. And he has suggested he still wants Hillary Clinton prosecuted.

Mr. Trump nonetheless has many supporters. While a majority of Americans believes that the president is doing a bad job, around 40 percent of voters and some 80 percent of Republicans approve of his performance. A number of Republican senators and congressmen have reportedly objected to Mr. Trumps attacks on Mr. Sessions and voted against parts of his legislative agenda, but most have yet to oppose him publicly.

This is worrying. The Constitution cannot defend itself. If Congress does not stand up to Mr. Trump because Republicans are afraid of their own base, the president may be able to obstruct the course of justice with impunity. Worse, he may then conclude that he can get away with violating even more basic limits on his power.

If Congress stands idly by as he fires Mr. Mueller, as it did when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey, it might prove similarly pliable should he disregard court rulings, attempt to close down critical newspapers or order his appointees at the Department of Justice to indict Mrs. Clinton.

Congress must send a clear message that these types of violations wont be tolerated. If Mr. Trump fires Mr. Mueller, Congress can ask him to continue his investigation under the auspices of the legislative branch. And if Mr. Trump pardons himself, disregards court rulings or blatantly oversteps the boundaries of his legitimate authority in some other way, Congress should impeach him.

No flashing light will announce that the very survival of democracy is now at stake if Mr. Mueller is fired. And since nobody can say for sure that the Constitution will become toothless if congressional Republicans let yet another infraction pass, their instinct will be to defer their patriotic duty to some more opportune moment in the future. But that moment may never come. There may never be a time when we know for sure that this decision, today, will determine whether the American republic lives or dies.

In Hungary, democracy did not end when Mr. Orban staffed the electoral commission with his cronies, or when he put loyalists in charge of state television stations or even when he changed the Constitution to expand his powers. But now that he has taken all these steps, the opposition has little chance of ousting him at the next elections. Slowly but surely, Hungary has ceased to be a real democracy.

The temptation to delay opposing Mr. Trump until the right moment comes along is understandable. Its also very dangerous. Even if congressional Republicans abdicate their duty, the Constitution may turn out to be unusually resilient. But the only sure way to save the Republic is for them to start standing up to the presidents authoritarian behavior not next week, or next month, but today.

Yascha Mounk, a lecturer at Harvard, a columnist for Slate and the host of the podcast The Good Fight, is the author of the forthcoming The People Versus Democracy.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 1, 2017, on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Is Destroying Our Democracy.

See the original post here:
The Past Week Proves That Trump Is Destroying Our Democracy - New York Times

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan delivers a speech in Istanbul in March 2017. Photograph: Ozan Kose/AFP/Getty Images

A rough inventory of Julys contribution to the global collapse of democracy would include Turkeys show trial of leading journalists from Cumhuriyet, a major newspaper; Vladimir Putins ban on the virtual private networks used by democracy activists to evade censorship; Apples decision to pull the selfsame technology from its Chinese app store.

Then there is Hungarys government-funded poster campaign depicting opposition parties and NGOs as puppets of Jewish billionaire George Soros; Polands evisceration of judicial independence and the presidential veto that stopped it. Plus Venezuelas constituent assembly poll, boycotted by more than half the population amid incipient civil war.

Overshadowing all this is a three-cornered US constitutional face-off between Trump (accused of links with Russia), his attorney general (who barred himself from investigating the Russian links) and the special prosecutor who is investigating Trump, whom Trump is trying to sack.

Lets be brutal: democracy is dying. And the most startling thing is how few ordinary people are worried about it. Instead we compartmentalise the problem. Americans worried about the present situation typically worry about Trump not the pliability of the most fetishised constitution in the world to kleptocratic rule. EU politicians express polite diplomatic displeasure, as Erdoans AK party machine attempts to degrade their own democracies. As in the early 1930s, the death of democracy always seems to be happening somewhere else.

The problem is it sets new norms of behaviour. It is no accident that the enemies of the people meme is doing the rounds: Orbn uses it against the billionaire George Soros, Trump uses it against the liberal press, China used it to jail the poet Liu Xiaobo and keep him in prison until his death.

Another popular technique is the micromanaged enforcement of non-dissent. Erdoan not only sacked tens of thousands of dissenting academics, and jailed some, but removed their social security rights, revoked their rights to teach, and in some cases to travel. Trump is engaged in a similar micromanagerial attack on so called sanctuary cities. About 300 US local governments have pledged entirely legally not to collaborate with the federal immigration agency ICE. Last week the US attorney general Jeff Sessions threatened federal grants to these cities local justice systems, a move Trump hailed using yet another fashionable technique the unverified claim.

Trump told a rally of supporters in Ohio that the federal government was in fact liberating American cities from immigrant crime gangs. They take a young, beautiful girl, 16, 15 and others and they slice them and dice them with a knife because they want them to go through excruciating pain before they die, he said. At school and I mean primary school we were taught to greet such claims about racial minorities with the question: Really? When and where did this happen? Trump cited no evidence though the US press managed to find examples in which gang members had indeed hacked each other.

This repertoire of autocratic rule is of course not new; what makes it novel is its concerted and combined use by elected rulers Putin, Erdoan, Orbn, Trump, Maduro, Duterte in the Philippines and Modi in India who are quite clearly engaged in a rapid, purposive and common project to hollow out democracy.

Equally striking is that, right now, there is no major country prepared to set positive global standards for democracy.

In her 2015 book, Undoing the Demos, UC Berkeley political science professor Wendy Brown made a convincing case that the worlds backsliding on democratic values has been driven by its adoption of neoliberal economics.

It is not, argues Brown, that freemarket elites purposefully embrace the project of autocracy, but that the economic microstructures created inthe last 30 years transmogrify every human domain and endeavour, including humans themselves, according to a specific image of the economic. All action is judged as if it has an economic outcome: free speech, education, political participation. We learn implicitly to weigh what should be principles as if they were commodities. We ask: is it worth allowing some cities to protect illegal migrants? What is the economic downside of sacking tens of thousands of academics and dictating what they can research?

In his influential 2010 testament, Indignez-Vous (Time for Outrage!), the French resistance fighter Stphane Hessel urged the rising generation of social justice activists to remember the fight he and others had put up during the drafting of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They fought for the word universal (not international as proposed by the main governments) in the full knowledge that arguments about sovereignty would sooner or later be advanced to deny the rights they thought they had secured. It seemed odd, back then, even to those of us sympathetic to Hessel, to receive this long, repetitive lecture about the concept of universality. But he was prescient.

The tragedy today is that there is not a single democratic government on Earth prepared to defend that principle. Sure, they will issue notes of displeasure over the death of Liu Xiaobo or Maduros crackdown. But they refuse to restate the universality of the principles these actions violate. The fight for universal principles has to begin as Hessel recognised with individual people. We must keep restating to ourselves and those around us that our human rights are, as the 1948 declaration states, equal and inalienable. That means if one faraway kleptocrat steals them from his subjects, that is like stealing them from ourselves.

Every democratic advance in history, from the English revolution of 1642 to the fall of Soviet communism in 1989, began when people understood the concept of rights they were born with, not to be granted or withdrawn. Today that means learning to think like a free human being, not an economic subject.

Read the original:
Democracy is dying and it's startling how few people are worried - The Guardian