FREEDOM CORNER: The Save Act, What Does It Mean?
Dr. Paul Hernson from the University of Connecticut recently gave an interview with the Goshen News to discuss the Save Act. Dr. Herrnson earned his Ph.D at the University of Wisconsin - Madison and his BA at Binghamton University. He is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut. His primary interests include political parties and elections, money and politics, and voting systems and election administration. He teaches courses on campaigns and elections and other aspects of American politics. We sat down with him to discuss the SAVE Act.
Q: Can you explain what the Save Act is and its implications?
A: The Save Act requires individuals to provide documentation to vote in federal elections. This documentation could include a birth certificate, driver's license, or passport. The intent is to prevent voter fraud, but it poses challenges, especially for those who might not have these documents readily available. Historically, claims of voter fraud have been minimal, and such measures could suppress voter turnout, particularly among certain demographics.
Q: What happens procedurally after the Senate votes on this act?
A: If the Senate passes the Save Act, it will be sent to the President to be signed into law or potentially vetoed. However, given its implications, it’s likely to face legal challenges. The Constitution grants states the power to conduct elections, and this federal mandate could be seen as a violation. Courts, including the Supreme Court, could be involved in determining its constitutionality.
Q: How might this act impact towns throughout Connecticut, if enacted?
A: On election days, or during early voting, individuals may be asked to present proof of citizenship. For long-time voters or those without immediate access to necessary documentation, this could result in provisional voting or being turned away. Military voters abroad and those without traditional IDs could face significant hurdles. In Connecticut, while we don’t discourage voting, other states have made it more difficult, potentially disenfranchising eligible voters.
Q: Historically, how does the Save Act differ from past voter regulations?
A: Similar proposals have existed, especially during eras like post-Civil War, where voter suppression was rampant. Today, elected officials sometimes use such acts to choose their voters rather than allowing voters to choose their officials, akin to gerrymandering. The Save Act, while seeming reasonable, could disadvantage those without access to specific documents, influencing election outcomes unfairly.
Q: Is it reasonable to require documentation to vote, similar to needing ID for alcohol or cigarettes?
A: While IDs are required for certain transactions, the context of voting is different. Many might have presented such documentation when initially registering to vote. For example, not everyone has a passport because not everyone travels abroad or can afford one. Similarly, driver's licenses are not universal; many urban dwellers, the elderly, and disabled individuals might not possess one. Birth certificates can be challenging to obtain for some, especially if they've moved frequently or have had name changes. These requirements could disproportionately affect certain demographics, potentially skewing the political landscape.
Q: Given the rarity of voter fraud, why is the Save Act seen as necessary by some?
A: There are three categories of voter fraud to consider: actual fraud, which is rare; the potential for fraud, where vulnerabilities exist but are often mitigated by checks and balances; and the perceived threat of fraud, which is frequently exaggerated. Despite the infrequency of fraud, the narrative of a stolen election is politically potent. Measures like the Save Act are often justified as preventive but can be more about gaining political advantage by restricting access to the ballot.
Q: How do you view the discourse around voter fraud and its impact on democracy?
A: The discourse is often politicized, with claims of fraud used to justify measures that might suppress voter turnout. True democracy requires fair and accessible elections where all eligible citizens can participate. When legislation like the Save Act is implemented, it can discourage opposition and weaken democratic principles by making it harder for people to exercise their right to vote.
Q: What can be done to ensure fair elections without overly restrictive measures?
A: It's crucial to strike a balance between security and accessibility. While safeguarding elections against fraud is important, the measures should not be so restrictive that they disenfranchise voters. Encouraging transparency, maintaining bipartisan oversight at polling stations, and ensuring that any documentation requirements are reasonable and accessible to all can help preserve the integrity of elections.
Q: As an expert, what are your thoughts on the future implications of acts like the Save Act?
A: If such acts become widespread, they could lead to a competitive autocracy where rules are manipulated to favor certain parties or candidates. This could discourage political participation and erode public trust in electoral processes. It's essential to remain vigilant and advocate for policies that promote inclusivity and fairness in voting.
Q: Do you have any final thoughts or recommendations for those concerned about these issues?
A: Stay informed and engaged in the political process. Support organizations and initiatives that fight for voting rights and fair elections. Educate others about the importance of accessible voting and the potential consequences of restrictive legislation. Ultimately, a healthy democracy requires active participation from its citizens.
