Pages

Saturday, August 18, 2018

Editorial: Foreign and Domestic Election Hacks


Russian military intelligence in 2016 may have hacked the Democrats’ computer system, as well as voting software and a voting-system manufacturer, and they helped spread rumors about Hillary Clinton (though, ironically, Hillary’s private email server was one of the few the Russians apparently were unable to crack), but it was Republican officials on the ground, in states they control, that actually kept people from voting — or, if Democrats managed to cast a ballot, kept those votes from being counted.

For example, Donald Trump carried Wisconsin by nearly 23,000 votes. The state ranked second in the nation in voter participation in 2008 and 2012, but in 2016 saw its lowest turnout since 2000. A federal judge in 2014 noted that 9% of all registered voters did not have the newly required form of voter ID, and black voters were about 50% more likely than whites to lack these IDs because they were less likely to drive or to be able to afford the documents required to get a current ID, and more likely to have moved from out of state. Mother Jones noted that more than half the state’s decline in turnout occurred in Milwaukee, where nearly two-thirds of the state’s African-American population lives and which Clinton carried by a 77-18 margin, but where almost 41,000 fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2012. Turnout fell only slightly in white middle-class areas of the city but plunged in black ones. So discriminatory ID laws prevented 45,000 eligible voters from participating in the election.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast noted that 1.1 million Americans — many of them people of color — were purged from voter rolls of GOP-controlled states before the 2016 election, under the Crosscheck system created by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. He compiled a list of 7.2 million “potential” double voters whose names are similar. For example, Donald Alexander Webster Jr. was accused of voting a second time in Virginla as Donald Eugene Webster Sr. The list was loaded overwhelmingly with voters of color and the poor and the deletion of those voters was more than enough to provide for Trump’s margin of victory.

In 2013 the Supreme Court, in its Shelby County vs. Holder decision, removed a key protection from the 1965 Voting Rights Act that had required states with a history of voter discrimination to get US Justice Department approval before changing voting laws. With that requirement removed, 14 states put in new voting restrictions, including some states that had not been under federal supervision, such as Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin.

In “caging” states, voters were sent letters or cards marked “do not forward.” If voters did not respond to the card, they were challenged as “ghost” voters and their registrations were canceled.

In Michigan, the Crosscheck system purged 449,922 voters from the rolls and Trump’s victory margin was 10,704. In Arizona, the Crosscheck system purged 270,824 voters and Trump’s victory margin was 91,234. In North Carolina, Crosscheck purged 589,393 voters and Trump carried the state by 173,313. In Ohio, Crosscheck was used to eliminate 497,000 voters and Trump carried the state by 446,821.

Exit polls also provide evidence of shenanigans. In North Carolina, exit polls showed Clinton winning by 2.1 points. Instead, Trump won by 3.8 points — a swing of 5.9 points.

In Pennsylvania, exit polls showed Clinton winning by 4.4 points. Instead, Trump won by 1.2 points, a swing of 5.6 points.

In Wisconsin, exit polls showed Clinton winning by 3.9 points. Instead, Trump won by 1.2 points, a swing of 5.1 points.

In Michigan, exit polls showed Clinton and Trump tried at 46.8% each. The official vote showed Trump winning by 10,704 votes, but an estimated 75,000 ballots were not counted because of equipment malfunctions in Democratic strongholds in Detroit and Flint.

Critics say the exit polls were simply wrong, but Palast said the polls were accurate. “That’s because exit pollsters can only ask, ‘How did you vote.’ What they don’t ask, and can’t, is ‘Was your vote counted?’”

The mass disenfranchisement also likely impacted at least seven US Senate seats in the past two elections, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman reported after the 2016 election. At least four Democrats would likely have won seats (in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Missouri) that they officially lost in 2016. Similar results are evident from 2014 Senate races in North Carolina, Colorado and Alaska.

Since the 2016 election, another two million voters have been removed from the rolls nationwide, as the number of registered voters has dropped from 112 million to 110 million, Palast noted.

Palast noted that Ohio Republican Secretary of State John Husted removed another half a million people from Ohio’s voter rolls in the past two years. Husted targeted voters who failed to vote in two federal election cycles. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 states that registrants should not removed for failure to vote. However, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 allowed states to use a registrant’s failure to vote to identify an address that likely changed, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Husted, Ohio Secretary of State, v. A. Philip Randolph Institute et al. this past June.

Ohio claimed it had evidence that, in 2012, 1.5 million voters — 20% of its total voter base — had moved their residence. Thy were sent postcards asking them to confirm their mailing address.

Failure to return the postcard cost them their right to vote. The five right-wing Justices ruled that a voter’s failure to return a postcard (which asks the voter to confirm their address) constitutes solid proof that the voter had left Ohio or moved to another voting district.

Writing for the four dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the effect of the Court’s decision was to disproportionately wipe out the rights of “minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters.” Sotomayor went on to cite an investigation revealing that Ohio’s purge operation had knocked out the registrations of 10% of African American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati compared to only 4% of voters in a nearby suburban, majority-white neighborhood.

Any of those people who lived in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District and tried to vote, thinking they were still registered, got a provisional ballot — and there were 3,435 provisional ballots in play in the election, which Republican Troy Balderson led Democrat Dan O’Connor by 1,564 votes in the official tally. Most of those provisional ballots were from O’Connor’s home county, Franklin (Columbus).

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp removed 591,548 names from the state’s voter rolls in 2017, and Palast said that removal list is overloaded with voters of color and young voters — that is, Democrats. On July 24 Kemp won the Georgia Republican nomination for governor and the Democratic nominee, Stacey Abrams, told Palast she fears this ethnic cleansing of the voter rolls will have an impact on the general election. Anybody who voted in the Democratic primary should watch out for post cards in their mail.

So, as the election approaches, worry about enemies, foreign and domestic. Be prepared for Russians to spin disinformation and Republicans to try to keep you from voting. Make sure you are still registered to vote at your local election office. You can check online at Vote.org. If you don’t already have a state-approved photo ID, such as a driver license or state ID, get one, if possible. Some states allow voters to present other forms of ID along with a declaration that there is an impediment to getting a photo ID. Don’t be denied. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, September 1, 2018

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2018 The Progressive Populist
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the September 1, 2018 issue

















Tuesday, August 14, 2018

With school districts all over the country putting armed guards into schools, it’s only a matter of time before a school guard shoots down an African-American parent


By Marc Jampole

Try going to Google News and entering “armed guards in schools” and you will gain access to hundreds of articles about school districts nationwide taking additional security measures for the upcoming academic year. Most often mentioned is the posting of armed guards—usually one per school, but bringing guns into schools is not the only step school districts are taking to attempt to prevent a mass murder at their facilities. Across the country, local and national news media are reporting an increase in locked doors, buzz-in systems for visitors, hand-held metal detectors, active shooter lockdown drills and staff training. Districts are mandating the use of clear backpacks, increasing student mental health services and doing random searches.

Except for expanding mental health services and placing armed guards in schools, all of these changes involve restricting the freedom of individuals. Students and visitors will have to go through security. Others will be forced to buy new backpacks or have to undergo random searches of their lockers and backpacks. It’s indeed ironic how easily American legislators are to restrict individual freedoms, except the freedom to own guns. By contrast, our leaders fear any and all restrictions on corporations, even those that protect the health and safety of individuals.

My first emotion in perusing article after article about new security measures mixes amusement with anger. I’m amused in an ironic way that school boards can so quickly find money to increase security after years of claiming poverty, but angry that the same money—and more—has not been made available for decades to improve education. The frown gets the best of the chuckle when I consider that some if not most education systems may be paying for the new guards by cutting teachers or postponing purchases of new computers or textbooks. For decades, state and federal governments have been shaving public school budgets or letting money be reallocated to the failed educational experiment called “charter schools.” We have slowly tried to starve public education, so it’s particularly unfortunate that we feel obliged to spend money on addressing a safety problem in the schools that is of our own making.

Keep in mind that it’s possible that the districts spending the most on added security are the wealthy ones that can afford it, those that haven’t seen enrichment programs and small class sizes go by the wayside in the wake of shrinking budgets. That wealthy kids enjoy both better education and better protection merely reinforces the inequity of income, wealth and opportunity that is destroying the American dream and the dreams of most Americans.

The big question is will the added security measures work? The answer will depend on how we define success. If we look just at school shootings, it’s anyone’s guess, because the various factors interact in complex ways. Which of these measures really help and which only make us feel good? How effective will the authorities be in addressing the sickos whom enhanced mental health counseling identifies? Will the primarily white Christian terrorists who commit these acts figure out ways to get around the new security measures? Can a security guard deal effectively with a crazed killer brandishing one or more AR-15s who has no fear of his own death?

The only prediction I will offer is that the sooner or later an African-American father trying to visit a guidance counselor at a primarily white school will be shot down by a security guard. 

If we, however, don’t limit ourselves to schools, but ask a broader question, Will new security measures lead to an overall reduction in gun violence?, the answer is clear. No way. Because so many schools are bringing guns onto campus, the number of guns in circulation in the country will increase. An increase in the number of guns will lead to an increase in gun violence and gun deaths. Every shred of research done on the topic in the United States and across the world has always come to the same conclusion: The more guns in a society, the greater the gun violence, the fewer guns, the less gun violence. The unintended consequence of placing more armed guards at any public location has to by definition be an increase in gun violence, even if that increase doesn’t come where the guards are posted.

Thus, arming school personnel will contribute to a reduction of gun violence and deaths if and only if we take measures to reduce the number of guns elsewhere in society. I’m fairly certain that a comprehensive package of federal gun control laws would do more to make our children safe in schools—and elsewhere—than the best efforts of all the school boards across the country to “harden” the campus with guards, buzzers, drills and searches.

I’m the left-wing nut who wants to outlaw all private ownership of firearms and make hunters and recreational target shooters rent or store their guns at hunting lodges, gun clubs and shooting ranges. But even my radical eyes can see that there are a number of actions we can take that allow individuals the privilege of owning firearms yet keep people safe, including:
·      Ban private ownership of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and require those who currently own such weapons to sell them to the government or face still jail time.
·      Improve the gun national registry and increase participation by the states.
·      Increase to seven days the waiting period to purchase guns and extend the waiting requirement to all gun purchases, even those at gun shows and on the internet.
·      Require all individuals to pass a rigorous written and operational test before being allowed to buy or own a gun, similar to a driver’s test, and retest every 5-10 years.
·      Require all gun owners to carry firearms insurance.
·      Ban open and closed carry at all schools, universities, downtowns, malls, theatres and other public places.
·      End all “stand your ground” laws.

I have expressed the radical form of virtually all these ideas to limit and control guns in United States. More moderate versions in all cases are approved by large majorities of Americans, including majorities of gun owner. Both surveys and my extensive anecdotal evidence find that virtually all gun owners would have no problem with longer waiting times. Most don’t see any reason for anyone to own an AR-15. Most would be happy to keep guns away from known bad actors, those with ties to terrorist organizations, domestic abusers and the mentally ill. 


The only impediment in the way of reducing gun violence are our elected officials who are too frightened to oppose the National Rifle Association (NRA) or depend on NRA largess for their election. Pundits assume that Russia funneled tens of millions of dollars to the NRA to help elect the Republican candidate for president in 2016. But think about it. By fostering greater ownership of firearms and therefore greater gun violence, the NRA weakens the United States, with or without the excesses of Donald Trump.