Mediaboss Marketing

As former President Donald Trump edges closer to clinching the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, our political science research has shown that a second Trump presidency is likely to damage American democracy even more than his first term did. The reason has less to do with Trump and his ambitions than with how power dynamics have shifted within the Republican Party.

In our forthcoming book, The Origins of Elected Strongmen: How Personalist Parties Destroy Democracy from Within, we explain the dangers that arise when leaders come to power backed by political parties that exist primarily to promote the leaders personal agenda, as opposed to advancing particular policies.

In general, typical political parties select new leaders at regular intervals, which gives elites in the party another chance to win a nomination in the future if the party is popular. And typical parties tend to select leaders who rise up the ranks of the party, having worked with other party elites along the way.

But so-called personalist parties, as political scientists like us call them, are a threat to democracy because they lack the incentives and ability to resist their leaders efforts to amass more power.

From 1990 to 2020, in countries all over the world, elected leaders backed by personalist parties have gone on to undermine democracy from within. There are three reasons personalist parties are harmful to democracy, all of which have clear parallels to experiences with Trump and the Republican Party.

Personalist party elites are loyal to the leader. A classic indicator of party personalization is the ouster of politically experienced people in the party elite, who are often highly qualified and more independent of the leader and their replacement with less experienced people who are personally loyal to the leader. These people are more likely to view their political success as being intertwined with that of the leader rather than the party. They therefore are more likely to support the leaders agenda, no matter how harmful it may be for democracy.

In Turkey, for example, Recep Tayyip Erdogans Justice and Development Party, known in Turkish as the AKP, initially included elites who were established politicians, such as Ali Babacan, Abdullah Gul and Bulent Arinc. As time passed, however, Erdogan weeded out these veterans and replaced them with more loyal supporters. This paved the way for Erdogan to consolidate control, including among other things shifting power in 2018 from the parliament to the presidency and expanding his powers considerably.

In personalist parties, elites endorse the leaders actions, cueing voters to do the same. Ordinary citizens who support personalist parties often go along with leaders efforts to dismantle democracy, even if they care about democracy, because they are highly receptive to signals provided by the party elite. When the party higher-ups endorse rather than condemn the leaders undemocratic inclinations, supporters get the message that nothing is wrong, and they fall in line.

In Brazil, for example, then-President Jair Bolsonaro generated doubts among supporters that the 2022 presidential elections would be fair, suggesting that electoral officials might manipulate the results in his opponents favor. The political elite, including members of Brazils Congress, amplified these claims.

These elite cues signaled to Bolsonaro supporters that his actions were compatible with a healthy democracy, ultimately setting the stage for them to resort to violence when Bolsonaro lost the election in a contest that independent observers considered free and fair.

Leaders of personalist parties polarize the societies they govern.

While many kinds of leaders demonize their political opponents, we have found that personalist party leaders anti-democratic behaviors such as attempting to overturn an election theyve lost split society into polarized factions: those who support them and everyone else.

When opponents of the leader raise concerns that the leaders actions are harmful to democracy, as the Democrats regularly have since Trump won office in 2016, supporters dig in their heels in defiance, incredulous that there is cause for concern. Affective polarization, where citizens increasingly dislike their opponents, deepens. With the opponents vilified, the leader has the political support to take actions to keep the other side out of power, even if those actions undermine democracy in the process.

Take Venezuela, historically one of the most stable democracies in Latin America. Former President Hugo Chavezs power grabs splintered Venezuelan society, dividing citizens over what the rules of the game should be and who should have access to power. As the chasm between his backers and the opposition grew, so did the abuses of power his supporters were willing to accept to ensure his continued rule. Chavezs actions, which faced no resistance from those in his party, polarized society, ultimately pushing the country toward dictatorship.

The present Republican Party closely fits the personalist mold.

Conventionally, a party leader rises through the party ranks. But Trump didnt do that, and before seeking the presidency, he didnt have strong, collegial relationships with key Republican figures in government. Rather, he switched party allegiance several times and before becoming president had never held any elected office.

Since 2016, Trump has increasingly sidelined the traditional party establishment to remake the party into an instrument to further his own personal, political and financial interests. As an indicator of this, the party elite have grown fearful of diverging from his agenda, so much so that the 2020 GOP platform essentially amounted to whatever Trump wants. Today, the main qualification for a Republican candidate or appointee appears to be loyalty to Trump himself, not fealty to longstanding GOP principles. Traditional parties, including the pre-Trump Republican Party, offer voters a bundle of policy positions hashed out among multiple elite factions of the party.

Trumps supersized control over the Republican Party has transformed other leading party figures into sycophants, always seeking Trumps favor. Even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, after experiencing ridicule and abuse from Trump, endorsed the former presidents bid to return to the White House.

The personalist nature of the Republican Party means that if Trump were to win office again, he is unlikely to face pushback from the party on any issue. All signs indicate that Trump, if reelected, is likely to pursue an authoritarian power grab by, for example, purging professional bureaucrats, expanding the Supreme Court or using the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against protesters. Party members may even support him in that power grab.

Most elected leaders are ambitious and, like Trump, seek to gain and hold onto power for as long as they can. Indeed, very few elected leaders resign voluntarily. The octogenarians who fill Congress attest to many politicians unwillingness to relinquish the power they have.

We have found that what matters for democracy is not so much the ambitions of power-hungry leaders, but rather whether those in their support group will tame them.

As our research shows, the most danger comes when personalist ruling parties hold legislative majorities and the presidency, meaning opposition parties in the legislature cant stop the ruling party from dominating. In those circumstances, there is little that stands in the way of a grab for power. For instance, if Republicans won a slim Senate majority, they might abolish the filibuster. That would limit Democrats ability to hold up legislation they opposed.

Elected leaders backed by personalist parties are therefore often successful in dismantling institutional checks on their power, whether from the legislature or the courts. Leaders of personalist parties have attempted to curb judicial constraints in countries as different as El Salvador, Hungary and Israel, with the ruling parties doing little to stop their efforts.

Long-standing and wealthy democracies, like the U.S., are remarkably resilient to the challenges that confront them. But ruling party personalism helps elected leaders undercut these protective guardrails. Because the Republican Party has taken a personalist turn under Trumps spell, democracy in the U.S. would suffer should Trump win a second term.

See the rest here:
Why Trump's control of the Republican Party is bad for democracy - The Conversation

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. Priya Kumar, assistant professor in the Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology (IST), has joined the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)s 2024 cohort of non-resident fellows.

The Non-Resident Fellows Program aims to inform policy solutions by engaging academics in key discussions involving technology policy, according to a CDT press release. Scholars from diverse organizations and backgrounds collaborate on projects and events alongside CDT policy experts, and their research is shared and amplified by the organization. Kumar will serve a two-year term.

I am thrilled to join CDTs Non-Resident Fellows Program, Kumar said. As part of my research on how digital technologies affect childrens privacy, I argue that meaningful privacy protection for children and adults alike requires changing the business model that drives tech platforms to extract user data for profit. CDT is a leader in pushing for privacy rights, and I look forward to working with their research and policy teams, as well as the other fellows, to translate academic research into meaningful impact in this space.

Kumar joined Penn State in August 2021. Her research has appeared in information, communication and human-computer interaction publications and been featured in national media outlets that include The New York Times, NPR, Wired and Buzzfeed.

Kumar earned bachelors degrees in government and politics and in journalism from the University of Maryland. She holds a masters degree in information from the University of Michigan School of Information and a doctoral degree in information studies from the University of Marylands College of Information Studies.

This fellowship is a testament to the important work Priya is doing in the field of social and organizational informatics, said Andrea Tapia, interim dean of the College of IST. Her efforts to advance the digital technology discourse surrounding privacy are helping to make the world a safer place in the ever-evolving Information Age.

Continued here:
IST faculty member named to Center for Democracy and Technology fellows program - Pennsylvania State University

El Salvador will hold presidential elections this Sunday. If the polls are to be believed, the outcome is a foregone conclusion: President Nayib Bukele will win in a landslide. Recent polling shows the president with over 70% support.

His rivals from the traditional parties, the right-wing ARENA and left-wing FMLN, trail far behind in single digits. In fact, some polls predict that Bukeles New Ideas Party could win 57 out of 60 seats in the National Congress. The bigger issue is the impact Bukeles reelection will have on the future of democracy.

Para leer en espaol

Democracy demands free, fair and competitive elections. This means that electoral rules must be clear and fairly applied, competitors must have equal access to the media, and state resources should not be used to favor one candidate over others.

Opinion

Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.

In Central America, the legacy of authoritarianism and military governments led nearly every country to constitutionally restrict reelection as a bulwark against presidential abuse of power. In the past decade, however, presidents have sought to use control of the judiciary to loosen the restrictions on reelection. Both Juan Orlando Hernndez in Honduras and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua were allowed to seek and win reelection through questionable legal maneuvering by compliant supreme courts.

The same has now happened in El Salvador. Bukeles re-election was permitted in September 2021 after a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. Faithful to the president who appointed them, the justices reinterpreted the Salvadoran constitution, which explicitly prohibits, in at least five articles, the immediate re-election of the president. According to the courts ruling a sitting president can seek re-election if he or she leaves office at least six months before the election.

In November 2023, the legislature dominated by Bukeles party dutifully gave the president the green light to take a leave of office for six months. The legislature installed Claudia Rodrguez de Guevara, Bukeles private secretary, and longtime employee, as the acting president. Interestingly, the leave did not remove Bukeles presidential immunity, thus shielding the president from any legal liability while he is out of office.

Bukele rose to power by challenging a system that, he argued, was based on obsolete ideological frameworks, and rooted in the dominance of corrupt elites. His approach has been characterized as personalist, populist, and autocratic. He has skillfully used social media, particularly X (formerly Twitter), to disseminate his message. His X handle has gone from the coolest dictator in the world to Philosopher King. As a former public relations executive, Bukele and his team are well versed in setting the agenda, nurturing a favorable image and neutralizing opponents.

Bukeles popularity can also be explained by his tough security policies. For decades prior to Bukeles rise to power in 2019 El Salvador was among the most violent countries in the world. The legacy of a brutal civil war and the consequences of U.S. deportation policies led to the rise of violent gangs such as the Mara Salvatrucha and Barrio 18. As a result, the homicide rate rose to 70 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005, and 103 in 2015 the highest in Latin America.

Bukeles signature security policy is based on a state of exception in force since March 2022 that cracked down on the gangs but also suspended certain civil liberties, including due process. The policy has resulted in more than 74,000 people, suspected of being gang members, arrested and imprisoned. On Bukeles watch, El Salvador has claimed the highest rate of incarceration in the world, around 2% of its adult population.

El Salvadors prison system was already notorious for overcrowding, violence and a breeding ground for gang members. There is little evidence that Bukele has made any progress in improving those conditions. In fact, he has boasted of making prisons an even worse experience in an apparent attempt to deter criminal activity.

While the government claims all those arrested are gang members, recent police reports indicate that at least 40,000 gang members still remain at large. If true, it means that thousands of those arrested have little to no connection with gangs and the strategy, while partially successful in reducing violence has come at a high price in civil and human rights.

While the mass incarceration has coincided with a significant drop in homicides, theres evidence that the spikes and drops in violence are also the results of negotiations with the gangs, rather than directly connected to Bukeles Territorial Control Plan. For example, as a result of these negotiations the Salvadoran government apparently allowed Elmer Canales Rivera, alias Crook, a top leader in the Mara Salvatrucha, to escape the country. U.S. court documents revealed that gang members were routinely allowed in and out of prison with impunity, and press reports claimed that Canales Rivera lived in luxury in one of the most exclusive areas of the capital, despite the fact that Washington had requested his extradition on multiple occasions and that an Interpol red notice was in force.

Canales Rivera was arrested by FBI agents in November 2023 in Mexico and extradited to the United States. In a revealing twist to this saga, investigative news outlet El Faro published evidence that the government of El Salvador had actually negotiated with Mexican cartels to recapture Crook before he could be extradited to the United States. The Salvadoran government has repeatedly denied negotiating with the gangs.

What happens in El Salvador has direct consequences in the United States, both because of a large diaspora and continued migration pressures. The Biden administration seems to be pursuing a middle road between condemning some of the populist and authoritarian behavior, such as the lack of independence of the judiciary and the attacks on NGOs and the press, but has also dispatched high-level emissaries to negotiate with Bukele on economic assistance and migration policy. The United States is gambling that El Salvador will still have a democracy after Bukele is done consolidating power.

Bukele is not the first leader to manipulate popular support and a strong electoral mandate to undermine democracy. From Venezuelas Hugo Chvez to Hungarys Viktor Orbn and Nicaraguas Daniel Ortega, the playbook is familiar: win the election, use the levers of power to manipulate the media, exacerbate social and political divisions, use state resources to win further elections, and then seek to remake the political system by changing the constitution and subordinating independent agencies, and politicizing security forces. Finally, use the new rules to maintain and extend power. Nearby Nicaragua is a clear example of what happens when a leader is allowed to manipulate the political system to consolidate power and create a one-party state. I hope for the sake of El Salvadors citizens that this is not where Bukele is headed.

Orlando J. Prez is a professor of political science in the University of North Texas at Dallas

Part of our series The Unraveling of Latin America. This essay discusses the Salvadoran elections and the autocratic traits of its president running for reelection.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com

Follow this link:
Why Bukeles reelection is a threat to democracy in El Salvador - The Dallas Morning News

As mail-in ballots begin to arrive for voters across California for the March 5 presidential primary, election officials in both Yuba and Sutter counties shared with the Appeal the safeguards and processes in place to ensure our democratic system remains intact.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud and unfounded conspiracy theories have plagued the U.S. electoral process in recent years thanks to rhetoric from prominent politicians and media personalities seeking to take advantage of a skeptical public. False claims of interference have caused some to lose faith with the entire system of checks and balances put in place.

Some major media outlets have pushed these conspiracy theories and have had to pay the price. In 2021, Dominion Voting Systems filed a lawsuit against Fox News Network alleging that several shows on the cable news network had aired false statements that Dominions voting machines were rigged to change the results of the 2020 presidential election.

In March of 2023, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis ruled that the disputed statements Fox News made about Dominion were not true and subsequently ordered a trial to determine if Fox News acted with malice. Weeks later, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial, the Associated Press reported. Dominion had sued Fox for $1.6 billion.

Dominion set out to prove in the lawsuit that Fox acted with malice in airing allegations that it knew to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. It presented volumes of internal emails and text messages that showed Fox executives and personalities saying they knew the accusations were untrue, even as the falsehoods were aired on programs hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeannine Pirro, the Associated Press reported. Records released as part of the lawsuit showed that Fox aired the claims in part to win back viewers who were fleeing the network after it correctly called hotly contested Arizona for Democrat Joe Biden on election night. One Fox Corp. vice president called them MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS.

While the Yuba-Sutter area hasnt seen quite the uprising of election denial that has been on display in other parts of the country, there are some who still doubt the process. The Appeal reached out to both Sutter County Clerk-Recorder Donna Johnston and Yuba County Clerk-Recorder Donna Hillegass to get answers on just what the election process entails and how it is safeguarded from widespread fraud or interference.

Preventing voters from casting multiple ballots

The entire voting process, especially in California, is filled with checks and balances and this is no different when submitting a vote by way of a mail-in ballot.

Each voter has a verified record in the statewide voter registration database, Hillegass said of the mail-in process. When a voter returns a vote-by-mail ballot, elections staff verify that the signature on the envelope matches the voters record and that the voter has not already submitted a ballot to be counted. Once a ballot is accepted for counting, the registration system marks their record in such a way that no additional ballot will be accepted for counting from that voter.

A similar process also is in place at the polls for in-person voting.

On Election Day the electronic poll books have near real-time voter registration data, Hillegass said. When a voter checks in with the poll worker, before being issued a ballot, the poll worker can verify that the individual is properly registered and that they have not already submitted a ballot to be counted. Voters will only be issued a ballot after their eligibility to vote has been verified.

Johnston shared that similar measures are in place in Sutter County.

We have safeguards in place to prevent a person voting more than once in an election. In our election management system, when a ballot is issued to a voter, it is noted in our system, Johnston said. When the voter returns their ballot, it is updated in our system. If the voter attempts to vote (with) a second ballot, it would be stopped by the system. For example, if a voter mailed in their ballot, then attempted to vote at the polls, the ballot that we received first would be counted. The second ballot would not be counted, and the voter would be turned over to the District Attorney.

A typical gotcha moment for those skeptical of the election process can be found in the upkeep of voter rolls. While there have been circumstances where data may not be correct or up-to-date for everyone listed at any given time, it is a process that is constantly evolving and improving.

Maintaining voter registration information happens on a daily basis throughout the year, Hillegass said. The rules about how and when voter registration records are created, updated and canceled are governed by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and California Elections Code.

Johnston also said Sutter Countys voter rolls are updated daily.

Hillegass said update sources include registered voters themselves, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the California Department of Public Health, the California Department of Corrections, the California Secretary of State, Yuba County Superior Court, the U.S. Postal Service and a statewide database called VoteCal.

According to the California Secretary of State, VoteCal is Californias centralized voter registration database that provides benefits to voters and election officials. Hillegass said it cross references registration and voter participation across all 58 counties in the state in near real time. On Election Day, VoteCal allows counties to instantly see if a voter has already cast a ballot in another county.

Johnston said when a person updates their drivers license, that information is forwarded to the county. She warned the public to be careful when making a party selection when updating their voter registration while at the DMV.

If they leave this blank, the DMV system defaults to No Party Preference, Johnston said.

Logic and accuracy testing

Hillegass said that prior to every election, logic and accuracy testing of the voting system is conducted.

Pre-marked ballots are processed by each tally scanner, Hillegass said. After the ballots have been processed, the results are compared against the pre-determined results to ensure the system is tallying correctly.

According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, documenting this testing is critical as this is the point where most voting equipment transitions into election mode. Testing cannot start until ballots are proofed and finalized but should be completed before voting begins.

Hillegass said a Test Deck is used, a collection of ballots that are clearly marked Test Ballot, that already have been marked with votes. The ballots are marked in a distinct pattern in order to test the system.

We then run these ballots through the tally program. Because the contests were marked in advance, we already know what results should be reported. This pre-determined result is called our Expected Outcome, Hillegass said. After running the ballots we compare what the tally program reported for results and what we expected it to report. They should match.

Along with a pre-marked test deck, Hillegass said staff also cast test ballots using ballot-marking devices used in the election.

Testing staff vote these ballots in a pre-determined manner. We determine which votes will be cast to ensure we cover the appropriate data, Hillegass said. Our in-house test results are added to the Test Deck pattern results and that makes up our total Expected Outcome. After running the test deck and our in-house test ballots, the end result should be exactly what we have already determined it will be. A perfect match is a successful logic and accuracy test.

To promote transparency of the voting process, Hillegass said any member of the public can observe the election process. That includes vote-by-mail ballot processing, logic and accuracy testing, poll worker training and the vote tally.

The public is also encouraged to participate in the process as a poll worker, Hillegass said. Poll workers are responsible for processing voters on Election Day in the manner prescribed by law, ensuring the integrity of the process and maintaining the security of all supplies and equipment.

Johnston also said Sutter County voters are invited to see how the process works.

People are welcome to observe any process that occurs during the election cycle, from the pre-logic and accuracy testing of the voting equipment, processing of vote by mail ballots, election day activities, visiting polling places, central counting/tabulation, and the canvass process. If a voter is dropping off their ballot and would like a tour, we bring them back to the secured area to view what is happening at that time, Johnston said. If anyone would like to view a process, they can coordinate with us to view what they are most interested in, or watch what is happening when they stop by the office. We are currently full with poll workers, however we will still accept and train additional people in case of any poll workers who need to cancel. The application form is available on our website, or they can drop by to fill one out.

In Yuba County, every ballot cast in the election is a paper ballot.

At polling sites voters may choose to use an electronic ballot marking device, but this device is only used to mark their paper ballot, Hillegass said. It does not produce any electronic record of the vote. The electronic ballot marking device is required by the Help America Vote Act and provides accessibility options to assist those voters who may require assistance or who just choose to use it.

Hillegass said a paper record is maintained under strict security measures and through a chain of custody. Tally scanners also retain an image of the ballot when it is scanned.

Yuba County currently uses a Dominion Voting Systems optical scanner that has no Wi-Fi capability or hardware and is never connected to the internet, Hillegass said.

Hillegass said there are physical, technical and procedural safeguards in place to protect the security of the election process.

Physical safeguards include the following:

Voted ballot and voting system secure storage: Motion detector alarm and security badge access.

Election office: Secure election work areas with restricted access and observers require a security escort.

Tamper evident seals: Tamper evident security seals are used to validate the chain of custody.

Technical safeguards include the following:

Trusted build firmware/software: Upon certification of a voting system by the California Secretary of State, the trusted build is held in a secure location until a copy is hand-delivered to an authorized county official.

Controlled password access of systems and data: All account passwords are generated by the Registrar of Voters and the System Administrator. All passwords are shared with the Elections Manager and then with added staff only as necessary.

Closed and air-gapped system network (Dominion): The system is air-gapped to separate all devices from external networks. No part of the system is connected to the internet at any time. There is no Wi-Fi capability or hardware on the voting units. No part of the system receives or transmits wireless communication or wireless data transfers.

Procedural safeguards include the following:

Chain of custody (hardware, software, ballots)

Logic and accuracy testing

Vote-by-mail signature verification

Voting systems reformatted and software re-installed every election

Ballot tracking allows the public to verify their ballot status

Preparing ballots to be counted

Hillegass said that every ballot received is checked by election staff to verify the signature on the envelope matches the voters record.

For those with unsigned envelopes, voter outreach is conducted to provide the voter an opportunity to fix the issue. For an unmatched signature, following a review, if it is determined the signature does not match, then the voter is contacted to provide them an opportunity to fix that issue as well, Hillegass said.

Before they are counted, all ballot envelopes remain sealed.

Prior to envelopes being opened, a final precinct balance is conducted to validate the number of envelopes balances to the number of good ballots reported by the Election Management

System, according to Hillegass. Initial ballot processing (inspection and tally) takes place on the Saturday before Election Day. Ballots processed on this Saturday become the results released at 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Hillegass said efforts are made to include all ballots received and verified by noon on the Friday before Election Day.

The following is the inspection process used to ensure integrity:

Ballot envelopes are opened and assigned to a two-member Ballot Inspection Team.

The team separates ballots from envelopes while protecting the voters privacy.

The team inspects the ballots: Damaged ballots (tears, stains, unknown substances, marked with red pen) are pulled to be duplicated during canvass. The law requires ballots with personally identifiable information to be duplicated.

Audit tracking information is completed and ballots are submitted to be tallied.

Tally and adjudicating ballots

The following is the continued election process once votes are inspected, verified and ready to be counted:

Tally: As inspection teams complete a batch, it is staged, with the appropriate audit tracking forms, to be tallied. Each batch is then scanned, the audit tracking forms are completed and the scanned ballots are placed in a plastic bag with the completed audit form and sealed for storage.

Adjudicating ballots: As ballots are scanned, the system identifies ballots with over-voted contests, marginal marks and write-in votes and directs those ballot images to the adjudication workstation. An adjudication team reviews these images and using a predetermined set of standards, marks the ballot as necessary. An adjudication audit mark is added to the record and the ballot is released for results reporting.

After ballots are tallied, the audit, called canvass, takes place, Johnston said. Verification that the number of voter signatures matches the number of ballots in the ballot box is usually done first. Random precincts are chosen and contests are then hand-counted and compared against the machine tally. Any discrepancy is investigated and is noted on the final statement of vote that is sent to the Secretary of State.

Visit link:
Protecting our democracy: Officials share steps taken to keep our elections safe and secure - Appeal-Democrat

It will be hard to top the absolute banner year for democracy Ohio had last year, but were keeping our eyes on the prize in 2024 to wrestle even more power back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

While most folks will understandably center their attention for this years election cycle on top-of-the-ticket races, mine will be fixated on two potential constitutional ballot measures aimed at tilting the scales of power away from politicians in Ohio. Those two proposed measures are one to create a citizen-led, independent redistricting commission the third redistricting ballot measure that Ohio voters would decide on in a decade and the other an Ohio voters bill of rights that would enshrine our right to vote in the state constitution and expand access to our democracy.

To me, these reforms are two sides of the same coin one is about who we can elect and the other is about whether we can vote. Both are necessary for Ohios voters, particularly given that Republicans in my state have spent the last decade and a half undermining the power of our votes and gerrymandering our state and congressional maps to hell.

And while much attention has already rightfully been paid to the need for redistricting reform, I want to dig a little deeper into why voting rights reform is also so essential for our state.

Ohio is a state too often overlooked in conversations about voter suppression and attacks on the power of our vote despite the fact that we are home to some of the worst of each of those tactics. No matter the tactic to block people from exercising their most fundamental American right, Ohios got it. Strict voter ID rules? Weve got the strictest. Cuts to early voting? You bet. Voter purges? Ohios never met one it doesnt like. Systemic suppression? Top to bottom.

I want to be clear that Ohio is not so different from our midwestern neighbors like Michigan or Minnesota that the electoral results and, more importantly, civic engagement levels seen there are impossible here. Rampant voter suppression efforts and gerrymandering, though, lead to election outcomes and lower civic engagement rates that belie the real political nature of our state.

In just the last five years, Republican secretaries of state have purged more than 700,000 voters from the rolls, unjustly making our most fundamental American right a use it or lose it one. The most recent purge came in October of last year after the voter registration deadline had passed and early voting had begun for the November election. Again, Ohio Republicans have really never met a purge they didnt like. They even went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their aggressive supplemental style of purges that outpaces most other states in the country.

And rather than working on bringing our election system into the 21st century to make it more accessible to all of us, like so many of our other midwestern neighbors have done especially in recent years, Ohio voters are tripped up by unnecessary, outdated procedures that create a complicated, if not entirely prohibitive, path to the ballot box.

To fight against these efforts, for nearly a decade, Black civil rights leaders, including the Ohio chapter of the NAACP, the Ohio Unity Coalition (the state chapter of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation), the A. Philip Randolph Institute and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, have worked to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot that would bring much-needed change to how we run elections in Ohio.

Their first try was in 2014 with an amendment carrying the same name as the current one the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights and another came in 2020. Both were hobbled by rampant opposition from especially in-state Republicans, but also (in the case of the 2020 effort) by the early days of the pandemic, which stymied signature collection efforts.

In the meantime, voter suppression efforts havent slowed; if anything theyve become even more urgent. The worst of those tactics came in the form of a sweeping anti-voter bill, House Bill 458, that was enacted at the start of 2023 and includes the countrys strictest voter ID law and various other provisions that further limit Ohioans access to the ballot box. And, of course, theres always our illegally gerrymandered maps that deny us the full power of our votes.

The time has come again for these same organizations to lead the righteous fight to protect our most precious freedom to vote.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said back in 1957, The hour is late. The clock of destiny is ticking out. We must act now, before it is too late. Its time to modernize our election system and to bring more Ohio voters into the fold by protecting the full power of their votes. And the current version of the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights offers us an important opportunity to do just that.

It eases the current photo ID rules, ensures that only eligible citizens can vote, protects military and overseas voters ability to have their votes counted and makes sure all Ohioans can vote when, how and wherever they want. It also provides the opportunity to people to vote even if they dont have access to the amendments expanded list of photo IDs, bringing Ohio in line with the vast majority of states in this country that dont exclusively require a photo ID to vote.

It empowers local boards of election to institute policies that make the most sense for their communities, like setting up more drop boxes across their counties and expanding the number of early vote centers so voting is more convenient and accessible. Rather than the current system where each county in Ohio may have just one early vote center, the amendment would allow counties to meet their voters where they are to ensure the path to the ballot box is actually accessible to everyone. If states like Georgia, North Carolina and Texas can provide dozens of early vote locations, surely Ohio can, too.

Give us the ballot and put the people of my Ohio back into the drivers seat of our democracy.

And it makes sure our elections work for all of us by requiring prepaid postage on all election mail, protecting no-excuse absentee voting, streamlining the voter registration and updating process (through automatic and same-day registration systems) and requires the state to fund all the necessary policies to make this amendment a reality.

The amendment is a sweeping reimagining of what might be possible in this heart-shaped state of mine if our state government bent over backwards to clear the path to democracy rather than working in overdrive to ensure certain voters cant access the voting booth.

To my mind, there is no other fight worth waging in Ohio than the one to enshrine the full power of our votes into the state constitution. The right to vote, after all, is our most fundamental because it is preservative of all other rights we enjoy. Without our votes, we have nothing. Republicans in this state certainly understand that; its why they work so damned hard to attack it and to kneecap our voices and our votes at every opportunity they get.

Now, to be clear, I am equally as passionate about ensuring that the redistricting reform qualifies for this years ballot and that it passes clearing the path for actually fair maps drawn without politicians, Democratic or Republican, tipping the scales in their favor rather than in favor of the people theyre sworn to represent.

But the reality is that redistricting reform will only take us so far; it alone is not enough to shift long-term power in this state. After all, what good are fair maps if all eligible Ohioans cant reach the ballot box to vote under them? Ohio needs both redistricting reform and a massive overhaul to our voting rights and election system in this state to really move the needle. We need the ability to both dictate our political futures under maps that reflect our communities and also to harness the full power of our votes to steer our state forward.

In 2023, Ohioans overwhelmingly stood up for our democracy and for the power of the people. In 2024, were going to carry that trend forward by advancing two essential ballot measures unified by a single motto: give us the ballot.

Give us the ballot and we will elect leaders who reflect our values under maps that meet the needs of our communities. Give us the ballot and we will chart a course for our beloved Ohio that aligns with the peoples vision, not that of out-of-touch extremist politicians. Give us the ballot and put the people of my Ohio back into the drivers seat of our democracy.

For so many reasons this year, democracy is again on the ballot in Ohio. If we can manage it, these two essential reforms will qualify for the November election and Ohioans will have a direct opportunity to weigh in on the full range of our voting power. I look forward to working with incredible leaders from across the state to make that a reality.

Katy Shanahan is an attorney and activist in her home state of Ohio where she continues to fight for fair maps and expansive voting laws in the Buckeye State. As a contributor to Democracy Docket, Shanahan writes about the state of voting rights in Ohio as well as redistricting both in Ohio and across the country.

Originally posted here:
Ohio's New Motto: Give Us The Ballot - Democracy Docket