[C-L]Dems win court victory but pay a high price
Mississippi Democrats have won a court fight to close primaries to registered party voters. The Dems filed suit last year against the Mississippi Election Commission in an attempt to close primaries and allow only registered Democrats to cast ballots. While U.S. District Judge Allen Pepper granted the party its wish, he also ruled that voter identification must be required at the polls starting April 1, 2008. The judge then added that no 2008 party primaries will be held until the system is revamped and voter ID is required, which means that the presidential primaries in March 2008 could be affected. It looks like the Dems, who have been fighting against required voter ID, might have paid a high price for their court win.
Pepper ordered the Legislature to create a primary system and require photo ID cards. The plan would be submitted to the U.S. Justice Department for final approval.
A new voting plan could mean every voter in Mississippi would re-register to vote and declare a party affiliation. Each political party would then decide whether to allow independent voters in their primary.
Democratic party officials would not comment Monday, citing the pending litigation.
State Republican Party Chairman Jim Herring said he supports a voter identification mandate.
“Our goal would be to let anybody vote in our primaries,” Herring said. “We think that that’s conducive to party building.”
Democratic Secretary of State Eric Clark called the lawsuit a “serious mistake” by the party.
“I believe in opening doors to voting and not in closing doors,” said Clark. “I think if this decision becomes final, it will serve to make Mississippi elections and government more partisan and more polarized, and that will be a bad thing.”
Posted by kate at 10:09 AM in Democrats, Elections, MS Newspapers | Email this entry
Comments:
You do realize that if this ruling had been in effect two and a half years ago, Melton would not have been elected or at least would not have been elected as a Democrat…
Posted by on 06/14 at 02:39 PM | #
Frustrating thing: It isn’t just the Democratic Party that will be paying the price. It’s low-income voters who don’t have cars and can’t afford to spend all day and twenty bucks at the DMV just to have permission to exercise their constitutionally protected right to vote.
Re Melton and the primary, I’m not sure I agree. He got a heck of a lot of votes from west of Gallatin, too.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by Tom Head on 06/14 at 04:17 PM | #
Tom, there is a state ID, which doesn’t reqire a car.
Posted by on 06/17 at 03:56 PM | #
Posted by Tom Head on 06/18 at 08:23 PM | #
Which still doesn’t make sense. You need ID for banks, jobs, cashing checks, verifying a credit card, et al.... It doesn’t make sense that republicans would alledgedly back something that if it were that racist, which is what opponents claim, would get shot down nationwide in a second. Instead, there are states which use ID in elections without the first bit of fuss.
Only in Mississippi is this considered racist.
Posted by on 06/18 at 09:23 PM | #
For the folks who have cars, and therefore get used to whipping out a driver’s license, this will of course have no effect. For the folks who don’t have cars, heaven help them. Are you denying that the majority of folks who will be turned away vote Democratic? Or that the folks who want to see them turned away are Republican politicians? Do you think this is a coincidence?
Cheers,
TH
Posted by Tom Head on 06/19 at 04:46 AM | #
Yeah, I think it’s also not accurate either. 
I don’t see any evidence of a Republican plot to disenfranchise Democratic voters. I think it’s also insulting to assume that all blacks vote democratic, too.
Picture ID is easy to get. The state provides it.
Let me turn the question around: Why do democrats in Mississippi fear Voter ID so much? I’ve been in other states, and everyone can live with it there. Why is it only in Mississppi people have a knee-jerk reaction to it? Why is it only here it considered oh-so-obviously “racist” and “evil”?
Posted by on 06/20 at 07:26 PM | #
Because Mississippi’s leaders have historically done everything in their power to disenfranchise black voters, and this will disproportionately have that effect.
IG, let me put it this way. In the 2003 election, 94% of black voters supported Ronnie Musgrove. Black Mississippians overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Black Americans are three times as likely to live in poverty as white Americans. 37% of Mississippians are black.
So you have a situation where a policy will have the net effect of reducing turnout in a category of voters that overwhelmingly trends Democratic, and the people who support enacting this policy are (surprise, surprise) the same Republicans who would benefit from suppressing voters in that demographic.
Do you really believe this is a coincidence? Seriously? I mean, if you do, say so--I think that would be a fascinating and, on many levels, astonishing statement. Personally, I don’t.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by Tom Head on 06/20 at 11:23 PM | #
Ah, Statistics. Hardest “C” I ever made, and I’m not a math person at all.
Yours illustrate a good point. Why, if such a simple thing as Voter ID would instantly disenfranchie tens of thousands of black democratic voters instantly, wouldn’t it have already been struck down?
Here’s a listof 24 states who go beyond the Federal HAVA mandate. You’ll note that not all require Photo ID, and all have plans to accept secondary forms of ID and even plans to accept the truly poor or indigent or just plan disenfranched.
There are other states who are dealing with this calmly and without hysteria. Why does this idea send chills up the spines of Democrats here?
Posted by on 06/21 at 10:38 PM | #
I can think of three good altruistic reasons, one good but self-serving reason, and one bad reason.
1. Because of our state’s history on voter disenfranchisement, Mississippi Democrats are more sensitive than most to these concerns.
2. Because our state has the highest percentage of African-American citizens in the country, the Mississippi Democratic Party is more aware than most state parties of policies impacting black residents.
3. Because our state is the poorest in the country, more people would be negatively impacted by voter ID than in other states.
4. Because Democrats want every vote they can get, they want to make absolutely certain that none of their likely voters are disenfranchised.
5. Because we’re in the Dirty South, there is some voting scheme afoot benefiting Democrats that voter ID would put an end to.
Unless #5 is true, voter ID is inexcusable. If #5 is true, then the answer isn’t to pass a new law--it’s to conduct a quiet federal investigation and prosecute some folks on voting fraud charges. Either way, voter ID isn’t really the solution.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by Tom Head on 06/22 at 11:14 PM | #
Posted by on 06/23 at 02:05 PM | #
IG, I think it’s safe to say that the response in some quarters of the state Democratic Party has pretty much proven your point with respect to party motives. I maintain, however, that voter ID is unacceptable because it has the effect of disproportionately driving low-income minority voters away from the polls.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by Tom Head on 06/27 at 12:42 AM | #
I wish you’d keep normal hours, Tom.
I don’t believe it’s going to keep anyone, rich or poor, black or white away from the polls who wants to vote. The bigger problem in Mississippi is the 80% of the population that believes that their vote doesn’t matter.
Posted by on 06/27 at 06:45 PM | #
The system will likely include a number of the components like antenna, signal processing, and display.remote support I am sure you have a friend who is an electric engineer, you can get some helps. it support
Posted by on 02/17 at 06:36 AM | #
