Figures don’t lie, but presidents…?
Why Trump wants the SAVE Act
Gordon L. Weil
President Trump stresses the three major themes of his
persistent and unsupported attempt to undermine faith in U.S. elections.
They were the central themes of his primetime address.
First, he reminded us of his assertion that he won the 2020
presidential election. Second, he worries about this year’s midterm
elections. Third, Republicans must suppress voting by Democrats, because
demographics suggest they will become the majority in coming years.
Trump believes that his first term had shown he was a great
president, perhaps the greatest. The logical result of such a successful
presidency should be easy re-election in 2020. Besides, he thought the
Democrats put up a weak candidate.
When the votes were counted, Trump lost. Neither more
than 60 lawsuits nor investigations by Republican and Democratic state and
local election officials and outside inspectors uncovered the voter fraud he
alleged.
Extremist thinking often depends on conspiracy theory.
If he logically should have won, it was also logical that hidden plotters had
deprived him of his victory. Facts disproving his belief were dismissed
as false, the product themselves of a hidden conspiracy. Fury and
frustration, not facts, led to the January 2021 assault on the Capitol.
A second reason behind Trump’s push to impose new
constraints on voting access is the GOP’s concern that the Democrats will carry
this year’s midterms if they can’t be kept from voting. That’s the
reason for Trump’s sense of urgency.
Finally, Republicans worry that the country’s changing
demographics will produce more Democrats. A non-white majority could
control, and minorities are assumed to lean toward the Democrats.
The Republican Party, with Trump’s backing, has developed
techniques of voter suppression, targeting members of minority groups and those
with low incomes and less education. It places complexity and obstacles
on their path to the ballot box, believing they may be unable to overcome them
and simply refrain from voting.
A variety of methods have already been deployed intended to
make voting access more difficult. Aside from the pervasive,
conspiratorial logic of election losers, there is no indication that access has
been abused to the extent that could call election results into doubt.
Voting by mail or voting before Election Day brings out more
voters. So is the ready availability of polling places and long opening
hours. In theory, by narrowing the opportunities or simply shutting down
polling places, better motivated voters, mostly Republicans, will vote but,
lacking discipline, Democrats will be discouraged and stay home.
One way to evaluate the assumptions of Trump and the
Republican Party is to look at the
actual performance of voting groups. Do low-income, immigrant, less
educated voters depend on early voting and mail balloting compared with higher
income, native born and better educated voters?
Income. Roughly 55 percent of persons with family incomes
below $40,000 use early/mail voting. About 60 percent of more affluent
people use the same methods. Not much difference.
Immigrants. About 65 percent of naturalized citizens
use early/mail voting while 60 percent of native-born citizens do. Ditto.
Education. Of people who have not gone beyond high
school, 54 percent use methods allowing them to vote other than on Election
Day. Among those with more education, well more than 60 percent use
early/mail voting. Again, not much difference.
Region. In the usually Republican South, 63 percent
vote early or by mail. In the West, led by Democratic California, more
than 75 percent use mail. Midwesterners, who vote Republican, and
Northeasterners, mostly Democrats, are traditionalists and more than half go to
the polls.
Sex. Women don’t vote early or by mail more than
men. Only 40 percent of each group vote at the polling place on Election
Day.
Supposedly to reduce cheating or errors, Trump’s proposed
SAVE Act would require voter identification that may be more difficult for
lower income, less educated people to obtain. This week, a Democratic
governor of New Jersey reported on uncovering several thousand mostly
inadvertent registrations for non-citizens. A Democrat found the problem
without SAVE.
Nationally, there’s no evidence of significant fraud.
Trump’s attacks on the election process undermine faith in popular control of
the government. In the absence of term limits, elected officials give the
highest priority to holding onto their seats, and may find that limiting the
electorate helps.
Big money wields big power in elections. The only
asset of average people is their vote. Voter suppression undermines popular
influence and enhances the power of money. Some GOP members of Congress
oppose the SAVE Act. They could put their own party’s supporters at risk
or annoy average voters, while Washington ignores their more serious concerns.
His speech looks like a case when Trump not only read the
data wrong, but also misread the American people. Voting matters, and
the Republic only works when the government remembers who it works for.
