Democracy in Danger

With the upcoming election, one question often comes to mind: Do the people truly have the power in electing the leader of the free world, or is the system truly “rigged”? Whether it’s stories about ticket flipping, governors purposely limiting the number of people who can vote, or the parties supporting one primary candidate over another, there is certainly an aspect to our American democracy that has been “rigged.”

Right here in New Mexico, we saw a restriction on voting rights occur.

On Jan. 13, a Democratic New Mexican Senator, Jeff Steinborn, introduced a bill that would have allowed 17-year-olds who turn 18 in time for the general election to vote in New Mexico’s June 7 primary. According to the New Mexico Legislature website, the bill passed through the Republican-controlled House on a 41-26 vote.

Then, the bill passed the Democratic controlled Senate on a 24-16 vote. However, the Senate passed the bill without the “Emergency Clause,” which meant the bill would go into effect on July 1 — too late to matter for this election cycle. But it ultimately changed again, thanks to a citizen who questioned the date of effect. So now, as of April 12, 17-year-olds can vote in the New Mexico primary.

A provision in the New Mexico Constitution provides that a bill that lacks a solid date of effect will go into effect 90 days after the bill is passed. Because Governor Martinez passed the bill on March 2, the bill goes into effect in time for the June 7 primary.

Many could theorize about why the Senate would want to make it impossible for 17-year-olds to vote in this election even though they had ample opportunity to pass a bill allowing hundreds of teens to vote, but the answer is clear: politics.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Committee), which struck down previous rulings on campaign finance reform.

This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to an explosion of outside money in elections through so-called super PACs, or political action committees. These organizations were formed because campaign finance laws had placed restrictions on campaign donations. However, if a corporation or labor union or other organization now wishes to donate a large sum of money to a campaign, they can form a super PAC, which lets millions of dollars be poured into presidential and congressional elections.

The ruling essentially makes corporations individuals, meaning the First Amendment rights that apply to people also apply to corporations, and their “speech” is their money. Since there are very few restrictions on individuals and personal contributions, Citizen’s United effectively removes the restrictions on contributions.

According to POLITCO Magazine, “In the 2012 election, we quickly saw the results of the Citizens United decision — 32 major super PAC donors combined to give more money than the millions of ordinary Americans who donated less than $200 each to Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. More than 60 percent of all super PAC funds came from just 159 donors, each of whom gave more than $1 million.”

Several candidates have spoken out against the Citizen’s United, including Bernie Sanders.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had this to say about Citizen’s United:“It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system.”

Another issue is voting rights. Photo identification requirements at voting booths restrict a large number of potential voters from letting their voices be heard.

According to ABC News, Democrats and the American Association for Retired Persons believe that photo ID laws that require the presentation of a valid driver’s license at the time of voting, regardless of a clear registration to vote, suppress voter turnout among the elderly, poor and minorities who are less likely to have government-issued photo IDs.

“It’s another hurdle in the way of voters,” said Neil Bradley of the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

In addition, “motor voter” laws, which couple voter registration with getting a driver’s license or state-issued ID, instead act as a barrier for those people not only getting licenses, but also those who simply do not want to vote.

Supporters of photo ID laws, mainly Congressional Republicans, believe the laws are not discriminatory or restrictive and serve the valuable purpose of making sure those who shouldn’t be allowed to vote, don’t.

The National Commission on Voting Rights cited “measures like photo-ID laws or proof-of-citizenship requirements, redrawing districts to dilute minority votes, and reducing early-voting hours” as examples of potentially discriminatory policies.

This 2016 presidential primary in Arizona brought many problems for voters attempting to cast their vote for Democrats, resulting in a lawsuit from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

According to The Washington Post, some voters waited for over five hours, while some gave up because of the long lines and a shortage of ballots. In Maricopa County, the largest in the state with about 4.2 million people and home to Phoenix, the number of places to vote was reduced from 200 in 2012 to 60 on voting day in 2016. That’s one polling place for every 21,000 voters.

“It is no coincidence many poor and predominantly Latino areas didn’t get a polling place,” writes Arizona Republic columnist Elvia Díaz, reporting that Democrats “for weeks had sounded the alarm about insufficient resources.”

The March 22 Arizona primary is one of many examples of voter restriction that has been running rampant in this country for decades now. This election in particular is providing an interesting look at how party politics affect the outcome of the primary election. Many critics blame Republicans for restricting votes of minorities and the poor.

The Sanders campaign officially filed a lawsuit against the DNC saying that they violated campaign finance laws and are picking sides in the race between Clinton and Sanders. Trump has made similar accusations against the RNC.

Our democracy is slowly degrading due to decreasing voter turnout, restrictive voting laws and big money — all policies that inhibit citizen participation in the political process.