Election day
05/11/24 02:17
The day has come, although election day feels different to me than it used to. Like millions of citizens of the United States, I have already cast my ballot. I live in a state where no one “goes to the polls” to vote. We have a universal vote by mail system. Registered voters receive their ballots in the mail. They are marked at home and returned by mail or by being dropped into official drop boxes located throughout the state. Local clerks of court certify the ballots using a system of comparing the signatures on voting registration cards with the signatures on the affidavits on the envelopes into which ballots are placed by voters.
I confess that I am old enough to miss the days when we voted by going in person to a local polling station, standing in line with our neighbors, receiving our ballots from volunteers who checked our names and addresses against the registration lists, marking our ballots in booths and placing them in secure ballot boxes before leaving the neighborhood voting station. However, I am convinced that our voting system is trustworthy. Over and over the claims of voter fraud have been investigated and found to be without merit. I am not saying that there is no voter fraud whatsoever, but it certainly is not as widespread as some pundits claim. Each time candidates file cases in court over voter fraud, they have been found to be baseless. I know many faithful citizens who have worked diligently to insure secure elections and I trust the integrity of the people we have elected to protect the right to vote.
Being old, however, there are things about the past that I miss. I miss the days when the airwaves were considered to be public property and broadcast licenses carried an obligation to present multiple sides to all issues, when journalistic integrity required a discipline of examining bias and eliminating it as much as possible. We have paid a high price for the deregulation of media that allows a few wealthy individuals to control the information received by millions of citizens. I miss the days when it seemed like an individual donation to a candidate’s campaign could make a difference.
In 1857, the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in the United States territories, denied the legality of black citizenship in America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. The decision is considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court and was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States. One of the lasting legacies of the Dred Scott decision and its subsequent overturning is the lesson that the Supreme Court can make mistakes with disastrous consequences and that when that occurs decisive action must be taken to overturn those mistakes.
In my opinion, the 2010 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case titled Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission is an example of another time when a ruling by the court has rendered injustice that must be challenged and hopefully will one day be overturned. The ruling that corporations have the free speech rights of individuals, that campaign finance laws cannot be used to limit the flow of cash into elections from extremely wealthy corporations and individuals, and that sources of money in campaigns can be hidden has unleashed a torrent of money into the system that has had disastrous consequences.
There is no doubt in my mind that the world’s most wealthy individual believes that he should have more power and influence in an election than any other citizen. The million dollar a day lotteries intended to influence voters are funded by cash that has been accumulated by someone who pays very little taxes and wants more tax cuts. The money he claims he has earned has come directly from government contracts. It is easy to see why he wants to keep the cash spigot to his companies flowing. It is less easy to see why his influence should be greater than any other citizen.
It is also clear that there is no amount of money that will satisfy his desire. There is no amount of power that will make him say, “enough.”
Most alarming and the source of much of my anxiety on this election day are the credible threats of violence coming from a candidate for the highest office in the land. The threats are rendered especially alarming because of the violence that was fomented following the last election that the candidate lost. This is a person who has never received the majority of the votes case. However, our electoral college system is the system we have and the way we have decided presidential elections in this country. Candidates have accepted that system and conceded victory to opponents who did not win the popular vote in many instances. Until the 2020 election we had enjoyed the peaceful transition of power from one candidate to another.
One of the prices of our deliberative court system however, is that it does not move quickly. It takes time to allow for the protection of the rights of all involved and the careful weighing of decisions. We find this election coming between the conviction of a candidate on 34 counts of cheating in the 2016 election and the sentencing portion of that trial. The prosecution of the abuses of January 6, 2021 has moved slowly and deliberately and although much credible evidence of wrongdoing has been made public, and many of the most violent attackers have been sentenced and incarcerated for their violation of the laws, the most visible prosecution continues to move slowly enough that the defendant might be placed in a position to halt the prosecution and even pardon himself of crimes.
Along with millions of others, I am watching the events of this day and of the weeks to come with high anxiety. I fear the threats of violence. I pray for peace. I recall the words of Pope John Paul II: “Peace for all of us comes from the justice of each of us.” Prayers for peace must always be accompanied by work for justice for all.
Certainly this election day will not be the end of our prayers, nor will it be the end of our work.
I confess that I am old enough to miss the days when we voted by going in person to a local polling station, standing in line with our neighbors, receiving our ballots from volunteers who checked our names and addresses against the registration lists, marking our ballots in booths and placing them in secure ballot boxes before leaving the neighborhood voting station. However, I am convinced that our voting system is trustworthy. Over and over the claims of voter fraud have been investigated and found to be without merit. I am not saying that there is no voter fraud whatsoever, but it certainly is not as widespread as some pundits claim. Each time candidates file cases in court over voter fraud, they have been found to be baseless. I know many faithful citizens who have worked diligently to insure secure elections and I trust the integrity of the people we have elected to protect the right to vote.
Being old, however, there are things about the past that I miss. I miss the days when the airwaves were considered to be public property and broadcast licenses carried an obligation to present multiple sides to all issues, when journalistic integrity required a discipline of examining bias and eliminating it as much as possible. We have paid a high price for the deregulation of media that allows a few wealthy individuals to control the information received by millions of citizens. I miss the days when it seemed like an individual donation to a candidate’s campaign could make a difference.
In 1857, the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in the United States territories, denied the legality of black citizenship in America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. The decision is considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court and was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States. One of the lasting legacies of the Dred Scott decision and its subsequent overturning is the lesson that the Supreme Court can make mistakes with disastrous consequences and that when that occurs decisive action must be taken to overturn those mistakes.
In my opinion, the 2010 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case titled Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission is an example of another time when a ruling by the court has rendered injustice that must be challenged and hopefully will one day be overturned. The ruling that corporations have the free speech rights of individuals, that campaign finance laws cannot be used to limit the flow of cash into elections from extremely wealthy corporations and individuals, and that sources of money in campaigns can be hidden has unleashed a torrent of money into the system that has had disastrous consequences.
There is no doubt in my mind that the world’s most wealthy individual believes that he should have more power and influence in an election than any other citizen. The million dollar a day lotteries intended to influence voters are funded by cash that has been accumulated by someone who pays very little taxes and wants more tax cuts. The money he claims he has earned has come directly from government contracts. It is easy to see why he wants to keep the cash spigot to his companies flowing. It is less easy to see why his influence should be greater than any other citizen.
It is also clear that there is no amount of money that will satisfy his desire. There is no amount of power that will make him say, “enough.”
Most alarming and the source of much of my anxiety on this election day are the credible threats of violence coming from a candidate for the highest office in the land. The threats are rendered especially alarming because of the violence that was fomented following the last election that the candidate lost. This is a person who has never received the majority of the votes case. However, our electoral college system is the system we have and the way we have decided presidential elections in this country. Candidates have accepted that system and conceded victory to opponents who did not win the popular vote in many instances. Until the 2020 election we had enjoyed the peaceful transition of power from one candidate to another.
One of the prices of our deliberative court system however, is that it does not move quickly. It takes time to allow for the protection of the rights of all involved and the careful weighing of decisions. We find this election coming between the conviction of a candidate on 34 counts of cheating in the 2016 election and the sentencing portion of that trial. The prosecution of the abuses of January 6, 2021 has moved slowly and deliberately and although much credible evidence of wrongdoing has been made public, and many of the most violent attackers have been sentenced and incarcerated for their violation of the laws, the most visible prosecution continues to move slowly enough that the defendant might be placed in a position to halt the prosecution and even pardon himself of crimes.
Along with millions of others, I am watching the events of this day and of the weeks to come with high anxiety. I fear the threats of violence. I pray for peace. I recall the words of Pope John Paul II: “Peace for all of us comes from the justice of each of us.” Prayers for peace must always be accompanied by work for justice for all.
Certainly this election day will not be the end of our prayers, nor will it be the end of our work.
