This is an adapted excerpt from Fred Lucas’ new book “The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections,” now out from Bombardier Books.
After Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed election reforms into law, several Democrats framed a talking point for their party by referring to the changes as “Jim Crow 2.0.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted of Kemp and his vanquished 2018 opponent Stacey Abrams, who never conceded defeat: “The Republican who is sitting in Stacey Abrams’ chair just signed a despicable voter suppression bill into law to take Georgia back to Jim Crow.”
The party of Jim Crow—the Democrats—can’t stop talking about Jim Crow. They found a new way for the race card to be used for electoral advantage.
The Democrats are accusing Republicans of trying to steal elections and attack democracy with the same dire predictions they’ve made since state voter ID laws became popular in the early 2000s, none of which came true.
First, it should be noted that the term “voter suppression” is rather vague. It is against the 1965 Voting Rights act to intimidate or threaten someone trying to vote. Vote denial, which is preventing a legally eligible voter exercising his or her constitutional rights to vote, and vote dilution, an intentional effort in order to dilute the votes from one group of people are also illegal.
“You could search long and hard in the lawbooks containing the United States Code and nowhere will you find one single law that mentions voter suppression,” J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney who now is president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, wrote2020. “That’s because voter suppression is a myth. It is a term made up to smear perfectly legal activities—like voter ID laws—by suggesting it is illegal.”
Real vote denial was rampant following the Civil War, which ended in 1965. After that, Democrats established Jim Crow to manipulate voting laws to gain an advantage. Today, Democrats use Jim Crow to manipulate voting law to gain an electoral advantage.
Invoking is better than imposing. But after Jim Crow laws became impossible to enact, Democrats had to pivot on strategy—while continuing the tried-and-true formula of identity politics.
Democrats are not only the party of Jim Crow, but also the party Tammany Hall and other machine-oriented parties. And to solve this supposed rampant voter-suppression problem, Democrats in Congress are pushing Tammany-style legislation with feel-good names such as HR 1, the “For the People Act,” to establish a legal structure for making fraud easier and installing long-term majorities.
Today, the competing narratives tend to be the Right’s concern about voter fraud and the Left’s concern about voter suppression. These two evils go hand in hand. Because of the improperly skewed election results, voter suppression was one type of fraud. Fraud is also a form voter suppression. This happens because fraudulent or ineligible ballots eventually cancel out or dilute eligible voters’ votes.
Tammany Hall, and all the smaller corrupt machines spread throughout the United States, had the same ultimate mission as the bigots running the Jim Crow elections in the South—warping the election law and procedures to ensure Democrat victory.
The machine Democrats were best known for fraud, while the Democratic Party’s Jim Crow policies are most known for mass voter denial, violence, and intimidation of African Americans.
However, the savagely southern deeds included methods identical to the northern Democrat machines. They included ballot theft and burning, illegal arrests of Election Day, illegal imports of voters who live outside the jurisdiction, and recording votes cast either by dead or fictional persons, according to U.S. district Judge Lynwood Smith. Lynwood Smith also wrote a 2011 report on Jim Crow election practices.
Age of the Machines
In 1789, Aaron Burr, before he became the nation’s third and most sinister vice president, founded Tammany Hall. Lasting well into the early 20th century, the machine did more than enough to honor the scoundrel’s infamous legacy.
In what might make some Democrats proud today, Tammany worked to get prisoners released to ensure they voted, and even established a “naturalization mill” to instantly turn immigrants coming off boats into voters.
As The Washington Post explained, Tammany Hall bosses in New York “ushered hundreds of thousands on the Lower East Side and elsewhere into citizenship,” so they could register to vote and keep Democrats in power. The Post continued: “The machine paid court fees and provided witnesses to testify that immigrants had been in the country the required five years. Sometimes, usually before crucial elections, immigrants were sworn in as citizens the day they arrived.”
Similar Democrat powerhouses were the Pendergast Machine in Kansas City, the Daley machine at Chicago, which is best known for its influence on the 1960 presidential elections; and the Long machine at Louisiana.
It was the machines that refused to reform to keep elections more fair. Today, the machines’ spirit lives on through Democrats in Congress, who create legislation such as HR 1 along with other nonprofits that fight against voter ID.
Battle for the Secret Ballot
In the early days of the republic, elections were decided through voice voting—typically at town gatherings. When it wasn’t voice voting, then political parties distributed color-coded party “tickets,” which is defined as a slate of candidates handed out to voters to drop in the ballot boxes.
Although it was better than shouting your vote, the brightly colored, preprinted party ballot was always a dead giveaway for election officials as to who the vote was for.
This accepted method began to change in the middle of the 19th century but—similar to the commonsense ID laws of today—those changes did not come easy, either.
The intellectual predecessors to liberal groups such as the Brennan Center for Justice and Fair Fight Action were the political machines that didn’t want their favorable system to change. They made similar arguments against a secret voting system that their successors use today, including against voter ID, clean voter rolls and the curbing of poll harvesting.
It wasn’t until 1856 that some localities in the United States first adopted what was called the Australian ballot system. Today, it’s just known as the secret ballot.
It might seem difficult to understand why anyone would object today to a secret ballot. There was a lot of resistance to such laws in that era. The publicly stated reason was—you guessed it—voter suppression.
Illiteracy rates were high in the 1800s, and either voice voting or color-coded ballots for a party’s slate of candidates arguably made the enfranchisement broader than entering a private voting booth, closing the curtain, and selecting from a menu of competing party nominees.
A secret ballot was what would be called today a “restrictive” form of voting. There was no one for a voter to talk to or get advice from, which arguably had a disproportionate impact on the poor. The secret ballot did not result in the horrific mass voter suppression that entrenched politicians had predicted.
The argument might not be as settled, however.
“Given that some of what [Donald]Trump claimed that Trump was so racist, homophobic, and misogynist during or before his campaign, voters might not wish to be associated with it. The secret ballot provided them the luxury of voting for him anyway,” a Washington Post op-edIn 2017, argued. “If a candidate acts in indefensible ways—and one must recall that throughout the campaign even the GOP leadership often refused to defend Trump—it is the voters who ultimately bear responsibility for defending him. The secret ballot allowed many of them to get away with never having to do so.”
This is not a mainstream view on the left—yet. But one of the nation’s largest newspapers published it. Some of the congressional proposals in election nationalization bills, such as HR 1, that would give a wrecking ball at the most basic election security standards were unimaginable just a few decades ago.
Do you have a comment about this article? Send an email to let us know your opinion. letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Include the article’s URL or headline, as well as your name and hometown.
