A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors


All is well: voting restrictions are really about ‘uniformity’

One of the first things you learn in high-school political science is that high voter turnout tends to favor one party while low turnout favors the other. Back when this was basic enlightening fact was made known to me, there weren’t the early voting, weekend voting, extended polling, or same-day registration-and-vote options as we’ve come to know them– although there were still plenty of fresh tales about the kind of suppression efforts, from the comprehensive to the spontaneous, that had spurred passage of the original Voting Rights Act in 1965 and given Congress in the intervening years ample reason to reauthorize it multiple times. Still, for a class of high-schoolers grappling with the particularities of the most recent reauthorization (this was 1982, for the record), it was generally much easier to view the axiom in meteorological terms: sunny voting days favor Democrats; rainy and snowy ones, Republicans.

Currently unable to dictate the weather, Republicans in swing states are finding ways to make conditions as inclement as possible. “Uniformity” is now the stated objective of their mission, which has gained urgency and speed since last summer’s Supreme Court ruling rolling back the preclearance requirements of the VRA. In places like Ohio and Wisconsin and Texas, making everything uniform basically means making it harder for the people who don’t fit a certain (shall we call it “uniform”?) demographic to cast their votes.

As a justification, it’s probably a less impeachable one than limiting fraud—evidence of which has been scant to nonexistent. It’s harder to argue against efforts to restore an unquantifiable “orderliness” to a process that for some has grown too unruly.

And if such measures as eliminating polling sites, rolling back voting hours, or requiring specific types of photo identification burden voters who rely on public transportation, work long hours or outside the uniform nine-to-five, or don’t have driver’s licenses or other valid ID (“validity” defined by a whole other set of craftily determined criteria)—well, then, mightn’t an introduction to the tenets of uniformity encourage them to get with the program?

It’s easy to say that measures to extend and simplify the opportunity to vote are equally geared toward benefiting the party that would gain the most from higher turnout. Still, encouraging people to take part in the democratic process seems a lot more in keeping with principles than discouraging or prohibiting them. And if uniformity is the goal, then why not apply it in the other direction? The creative energies now on display in bringing about uniformity could surely be directed toward inviting more Americans to vote—via uniform measures, even.

That Republican legislators can with straight faces dedicate themselves to the cause of “uniformity” is appropriate for a party known for lock-step discipline over messaging. Although that could put Wisconsin’s Republican State Senator Dale Schultz on the outs: “Making it more difficult for people to vote is not a good sign for a party that wants to attract more people,” he’s quoted as saying. But he might be making a larger error in assuming his party in fact does want to attract more people. As Martin Longman posits in the Washington Monthly

Would it really ever be in the interests of a major political party to restrict voting in a multi-party system? Since there is a political price to pay for nakedly trying to disenfranchise people, a political party would not make the effort unless they had the hope of a sufficient upside. In a strictly binary system, it might make sense. But in a system with, say, proportional representation and/or a prime minister, I’m doubtful that it would ever pay off enough to compensate for the way it alienates people. But maybe it’s normal for a two-party system to develop in such a way that one party always benefits from higher turnout and one party always suffers. In such a system, the party that suffers will begin to doubt the worth of people’s right to vote, since that right imperils their hold on power.

That complicates the basic sunny-vs.-rainy construct young poli-sci students are introduced to. It also shines a pretty bright light on just what’s behind such seemingly innocuous claims about bringing “uniformity” to the voting process.

About the Author

Dominic Preziosi is Commonweal’s digital editor.



Commenting Guidelines

  • All

Yeah, right!  And I still believe in fairies and unicorns:  All those whites in the Republican party want to protect our voting rights treat all of us equally. 

The evermore white and agining sectors of the body politic are fighting a desperate rear guard action against the rising electoral demographic tsunami that threatens to push them into political extinction - just like the dinosaurs running from the effects of the devastating meteor strike.

Mary Burke's candidacy in Wisconsin has scared the bejeepers out of TeaWalker because she is strong in Milwaukee and Madison.  So, change the rules to be "uniform" with rural Wisconsin where voting is not a problem for minorities (very few if any), the elderly (easy access to polling places) and many workers.

If you can't convince, then coerce.

I should have added the Milwaukee and Madison are strongholds for the Democratic party.  Rural Wisconsin (my home area) is heavily Republican; Wisconsin is the home of the Republican Party (Ripon), Joseph McCarthy politics and the John Birch Society.

Just amazing how Republicans can get away with something so undemocratic. But if you have money you will get people to betray their own. 

These tactics don't always work as well as Republicans hope they will. In 2012, people stood in lines at polling places for sometimes as long as six hours to cast a vote and show the election riggers that they would not be disenfranchised all over again. In some cases, Republicans may have actually increased the Democratic turnout. Remember how surprised they were on election night.

Still, it's a shameful thing to try, even if it doesn't work. But that's all they've got.


An "orderly" society was South Africa's raison d'etre for apartheid.

I can't help but wonder, though, how many countries permit people to vote if they cannot demonstrate that they are citizens of that country?  

Both Canada and Mexico require voters to have proof of their identity and to prove they are citizens when they go to vote.  Mexico issues a photo ID for free through its Federal Election Institute.  Some countries require that all citizens have a national ID card. 

It does not seem unreasonable to limit voting to citizens only.  The suspicions of fraud would be laid to rest if all voters prove their identity and citizenship.

Add new comment

You may login with your assigned e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.

Or log in with...

Add new comment