The Badger Herald: Opinion: Van Hollen, state must compromise

Opinion

Van Hollen, state must compromise

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Joe Labuz:

Walker's love affair with tax cuts won't save state (November 4, 2009)
Athletes the key to diversity? Are you kidding me? (October 20, 2009)
DNA collection errors don't necessitate rash action (October 6, 2009)
Four years enough for undergrads (September 24, 2009)
Mammoth beer tax hike threatens state economy (September 16, 2009)

By Joe Labuz
Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:00 a.m.

2 Vote 0 Votes

Since the middle of September, a battle has been brewing in Wisconsin politics. Judicial decisions and elections have come and gone, but controversy still lingers over the lawsuit filed by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board to force them to comply with a federal law regarding the creation of a voter database.

The attorney general’s action has been sharply criticized as a purely partisan attack. Many have accused Van Hollen, a Republican, of making a transparently political move solely to appease his party’s base. Still, others hailed the move as a blow against voter fraud, citing irregularities in voter registration drives across the country led by the community organization group ACORN, including the registration of a voter by the name of Mickey Mouse in Florida. (It is not immediately known whether his home address was listed as Cinderella’s Castle.) In the end however, both actors in this drama have compromised the interests of all Wisconsin voters by pursuing narrow-wedge issues and in doing so, obscured the broader question of suffrage.

By neglecting (or refusing) to comply with a federal bill passed in January of 2006, the GAB not only disregarded the law but jeopardized the integrity of the state of Wisconsin in the process. The idea of the GAB trying to explain why they hadn’t even begun their task until this summer conjures up images of my little brother trying to explain to my parents he thought the project wasn’t due until next Monday, honest. At the same time, Van Hollen’s Republican affiliation, and especially his position within McCain’s Wisconsin campaign, raised more than a few eyebrows. What may have been a well-intentioned move to enforce election rules came off as cheap political posturing.

Neither the GAB’s incompetence nor Van Hollen’s conflict of interest should be the issue though. Instead, the focus should be on enfranchising the entire population in a legal, responsible way. Often times, that requires striking a delicate balance between protecting against voter fraud and ensuring that voting is simple and accessible to all segments of the population.

Unfortunately, the tools most useful to those marginalized sections of society are frequently exploited. The double vote of a Milwaukee woman was an oft-cited instance of abuse in this past election cycle, but same day registration remains a critical tool for many voters. Research conducted in the city of St. Paul in 2006 showed wards with traditionally disenfranchised populations (minority and low income groups, for example) had same day registration rates that were — on average — five times higher than those of more affluent neighborhoods. The importance of same day registration is magnified further by the disparity in voter turnout; the more affluent neighborhoods all had turnouts more than double those of the less affluent ones.

Part of the reason such a disparity exists is the language barrier that confronts many potential voters. To deal with its sizable Hmong population, Ramsey County (where St. Paul is) created a website instructing voters how to register in their native language. While St. Paul has a larger minority population than Madison, that should not preclude Dane County from taking similar measures, especially considering the progressive tradition that this city reportedly prides itself on and the ease with which such a system could be enacted.

Though their multi-lingual outreach may be subpar, one area where Dane County deserves commendation is their efforts to allow the transient population to vote. Without a permanent home address or any official mail, the homeless face predictably large obstacles to registering to vote. However, the city allows members of the transient population to claim residence wherever they live — be it a park bench or a church basement — provided they have a social worker or similar agent complete a form. It seems our government has been able to forge a middle ground here. Guarding against fraud (by requiring third party documentation) while still providing the means for a disenfranchised group to have their voices heard is a laudable achievement.

Our political tradition is based on compromise. In every age Americans have been forced to balance their principles with the realities of the time. We have achieved our strength not by pushing toward the edges, but rather by working towards the center. The political tug-of-war engaged in by the two sides over the past two and a half months has done little to benefit the voters of Wisconsin and has only managed to pull people to the extremes. As this issue is resolved, the GAB and Attorney General Van Hollen would both do well to review the path that adherence absolutes leads to.

Joey Labuz (labuz@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in biomedical engineering.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Peter Gruett | December 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply
IP hash: 72d1d7f3

Your accusation that the GAB was refusing to comply with the law (HAVA) is baseless, as it was when Van Hollen made it. The judge found there was no statute in state or federal law (including HAVA) that required the checks Van Hollen was demanding. GAB didn’t need to make excuses. They were following the law.

Anonymous | December 5, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply
IP hash: 234d4da6

It boggles my mind why this is so hard for people to comprehend. It is Federal Law that there be a database that keeps track of legit. voters and that an I.D. be presented to prevent voter fraud. The excuse, and primary argument, from liberals is that these measures disenfranchise people because they might not have an I.D., which would prevent them to vote. That has to be the most pythetic excuse for flately disregarding a passed law that I’ve ever head. First, who in today’s society doesn’t have some sort of picture I.D.? If they don’t, they should should literally be smacked upside the head. An I.D. today is needed to purchase the old school Sudafed, so where is the outcry from the liberals that their people are disenfranchised from being able to treat their stuffy noses? If I remember correctly from a few years ago, I think that Scott Walker even offerred to put up the money so that those without I.D.s could get them for FREE. Yet, the liberals were still not satisfied. The reason for this is simple. They don’t want this law to be enforced because it would damage their chances of cheating during each election. Those are the facts and nobody can legitemtally dispute them, unless they want to spin around.