AZ lawmaker says 'everybody shouldn't be voting,' supports restrictions
Category: News & Politics
Via: gsquared • 3 years ago • 47 commentsBy: Grace Panetta (Business Insider)
This is the mindset of today's Republican Party. Only they should get to decide who can vote.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- An Arizona GOP lawmaker said voting restrictions are necessary because "everybody shouldn't be voting."
- Rep. John Kavanagh falsely claimed that expanding voting options leads to more fraud.
- "Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well," he told CNN.
A Republican Arizona state lawmaker, who chairs a committee overseeing election administration, said that new voting restrictions are needed because "everybody shouldn't be voting" and "we have to look at the quality of votes."
During the ongoing legislative session, Arizona lawmakers have, introduced 19 bills aimed at making it harder to register and vote — the most of any state in the country, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.
In total, Republican lawmakers in 43 states have put forth 253 bills with the goal of restricting registration and voting in the aftermath of the 2020 election, the Center found.
While most Republicans cite the need to ensure "election integrity" and prevent fraud (which is already exceedingly rare) to justify such legislation, Rep. John Kavanagh, the chair of the state House's Government and Elections Committee, took that argument a step further by saying that fewer people should vote.
"There's a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans," Kavanagh told CNN. "Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they're willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote — but everybody shouldn't be voting."
The bills include measures that would eliminate Arizona's permanent early voter list (which allows voters to sign up to receive a mail ballot every cycle), make it easier to remove voters from the list, further restrict already-limited third-party ballot collection, require voters to get their mail ballots notarized, mandate voters to return mail ballots in person, and require mail ballots be postmarked by the Thursday before Election Day.
"Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they're totally uninformed on the issues," Kavanagh further told CNN. "Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well."
As things stand, Arizona already has a strict voter ID law in place, votes on all paper ballots, conducts signature matching of mail ballots, requires ballots to arrive by Election Day, and carries out post-election audits.
Research shows that expanding mail voting doesn't always lead to higher turnout
Kavanagh is misinformed, however, about the relationship between voting laws and voter fraud as well as voting laws and voter turnout.
Simply put, there is no evidence that higher voter turnout leads to a greater chance of voter fraud. The 2020 election saw over 66% of the US' voting-eligible population turn out to vote, the highest turnout since 1900, according to the US Elections Project.
2020 was also the most secure and transparent election in US history, experts concluded, with no evidence of widespread voter or election fraud, despite former President Donald Trump's claims otherwise.
And, contrary to Kavanagh's claim, expansive vote-by-mail options aren't shown to benefit Democrats over Republicans or even to necessarily increase turnout.
Researchers at Stanford University authored a new working paper analyzing the results of the 2020 election. They challenge the conventional wisdom embraced by both Republicans and Democrats that making it easier to vote and offering more voting options boosts voter turnout and, thus, benefits Democrats.
The Stanford researchers, however, concluded that the rise of "no-excuse absentee voting mobilized relatively few voters and had at most a muted partisan effect despite the historic pandemic."
In line with previous research on the matter, Stanford concluded that a voter's preexisting interest in voting is a far better predictor of whether they'll turn out to vote than whether their state has widespread no-excuse mail voting, especially in high-profile presidential elections like 2020.
"We argue that, in high-salience elections like 2020, there are probably very few marginal voters who base their decision to participate on the relative costs of one mode of voting over another," the authors wrote.
The researchers specifically examined data from Texas, which allowed only voters 65 and above to request to vote absentee without an excuse. While the rates at which 65-year-olds chose to vote absentee increased, they turned out to vote at virtually the same rate as 64-year-olds, with the greatest turnout increases being reported among people between 20 and 30 years old.
In other words, Stanford's research suggests that if someone is "uninterested in voting," as Kavanagh put it, the existence of a no-excuse mail voting, a permanent early voting list, or the lack of a ballot notarization requirement in their state isn't what will draw them to the ballot box.
"As we've shown, the major effect of expanding absentee voting is to change how people vote, not whether they vote," the authors concluded.
Tags
Who is online
62 visitors
This elitist P.O.S. perfectly exemplifies the anti-democratic, anti-American modern Republican Party.
BINGO
What color is quality to him, one guess.
I think we know.
If one can't pass a basic intelligence test, why allow them to vote?
The days of Jim Crow Democrats are over.
It's now the era of Jim Crow Republicans.
Wrong!
Your denial doesn't mean it's not true, because it is true.
Fine then no one from the gop/gqp should vote then.
Rep. John Kavanagh is not fit to hold any public office. He is a complete disgrace and should resign immediately.
There are people from all parts of the political spectrum who feel this way. There are probably different reasons, too.
One could only hope that ignorant far right wing fascists would refrain from voting.
See?
"One could only hope that ignorant far right wing fascists would refrain from voting."
Which includes Kavanugh obviously. Turds like him know repukes cannot win without lying, cheating, stealing, (suppressing votes). The former occupant of the White House said so himself.
I think a basic grasp of reading and writing is required. A smattering of Civics would be nice, too
No need confirming it. He is a damn republican!
Another exceeding bad idea pops out of the gop...
Oh how the Republican Party wishes that only votes for Republicans can qualify. Isn't that something like China where you are entitled to vote for anyone you choose as long as it's the CCP and Xi Jinping?
Be careful my friend.
That does sound like what they are trying for doesn't it?
Well, at least he admits it....
Amazing that republicans let their reps put restrictions on voting and let them call it election security when anyone that doesn't have their head up their ass knows the bills they put forth have nothing at all to do with security.
What surprises me is that the federal government doesn't have any control over voting rights on elections for federal bodies, i.e, the Presidency, the House and the Senate. That way, notwithstanding the wishes of the majority of Americans, even if the majority of citizens in the individual States wish otherwise, the results can be manipulated to be contrary to the wishes of majorities in the States and Nation. Is that what Democracy should produce? Why should it be different because it is a Republic - so that means it is NOT a Democracy?
Then you will be shocked to learn the federal government does have some control over voting rights.
After all, I didn't have the wonderful advantage of studying American civics.
more's the pity then.
I have been told one can look it all up on the internet web thingy
Funny how the ideal doesn't quite match the reality.
Really? Then perhaps you can explain the Voting Rights Act.
Really? Then perhaps you can explain the Voting Rights Act.
We do know the Democrats strongly opposed it..
Thank you for never failing to interject irrelevant comments Greg.
What part of the Voting Rights Act do you need explained to you?
And I stated that the feds DO have some control over voting in federal elections.
SO wtf are you actually arguing here?
You asking someone to explain the Voting Rights Act is irrelevant, so what are you complaining for?
Do you need the VRA explained so you will believe that the feds DO have control over federal elections?
The fact that it exists kind of proves it already, no?
None.
Good.
Not 'arguing' anything.
Then your comment had no point. This comment: "Really? Then perhaps you can explain the Voting Rights Act. " Why are you asking to have the VRA explained to you in the first place?
Then why are you asking irrelevant questions?????
A poster said the feds don't have any control. I tried to explain that they do indeed have control.
Anything in that not clear?
Asking a question equates to arguing. Got ya.
Clearly not.
It was the specific question you asked apropos of nothing.
And one which you now claim you didn't need an answer to.
Pointless, in other words.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably, [2] and, generally, the two current types of democracy are direct and representative. In a direct democracy , the people directly deliberate and decide on legislation. In a representative democracy , the people elect representatives to deliberate and decide on legislation, such as in parliamentary or presidential democracy . [3] Liquid democracy combines elements of these two basic types.
Thank you for your irrelevant response.
The Republicans don't want a republic anymore.
Seriously, it's true.
After losing the national popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, and with changing demographics forecasted to continue shrinking the white vote in the coming decades, the "Republican" Party no longer wants "the public" authorizing and installing its own government. They're perfectly fine with rule by political minority these days (as long as it's them, of course), and are actively pursuing it.
That makes today's Republican Party an anti-republic party. They're basically anti-American now, displaying open contempt for the entire political philosophy of small r republicanism (that the legitimacy of government is derived only through consent of the governed).
Don't tolerate it. Don't look away and ignore it as if it were just another stupid thing from the stupid party that will eventually pass. Don't coddle them and let them act like this kind of shit is OK, here or anywhere else.
They often describe themselves as patriots and "true" Americans, but that's the last thing they are. Enemies of free and fair elections are enemies of the republic itself. Patriots and true Americans are pro-republic, and think voting should be made as easy as possible for as many citizens as possible, not restricted through nefarious, partisan, bad faith legislation designed to make it harder or more of a hassle for certain people in certain places to vote and participate.
Excellent comment, Dig.
Same.
These mail in voting laws were championed by state Republicans when they thought they would help them and now despised when they find it helps Democrats more. Democrats are still largely losing in state races and the only way forward is to turn that trend around. Good luck!