Why the Media Can't See the Trees for the ACORNs

John McCain and other Republicans making criminal allegations
against the community-organizing group ACORN know exactly what they're
doing. They're using alarmist allegations of "voter fraud" to fire up
their conservative base and suppress the votes of some citizens who
may, out of fear, stay away from the polls.

They exploit lingering unease among the poor and minorities who,
with some justification, believe themselves to suffer
disproportionately from unbalanced wheels of justice in America. These
innocents know they don't have to commit crimes to be accused of
crimes. Better to stay away from the places where the accusations might
be leveled. Like the polls.

The allegations can also help cover up actual election fraud
undertaken on behalf of McCain. This is the tactic Karl Rove learned so
well from his right-wing predecessors: accuse your opponent of your own
unethical or illegal acts.

These are a tried and true -- and grossly undemocratic -- tactics.
And they are often accomplished with the complicity of the press.

I don't think there is a journalist covering the ACORN matter who
doesn't know with a great deal of certainty that there is a substantial
difference between fictionalized voter registration forms and real
voter suppression and election fraud. The former are easily identified
and never result in fraudulent voting. No one covering these stories
believes that someone is going to show up at the polls this year and
say, "My name is Mickey Mouse."

A few bad-apple, low-paid canvassers who take jobs registering
voters will turn in fraudulent forms. In this case (as in most) it
appears the bad registration forms were identified by ACORN and turned
over to authorities in accordance with the law.

The media attention granted the right-wing attacks on ACORN begs the
question: why does it seem to be a greater sin to be suspected of voter
registration mistakes than to publicly engage in voter suppression
efforts?

One answer to this question might be simple editorial bias. E&P's Greg Mitchell detailed the right's pioneer suppression efforts in his book, The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics.

As reported by Mitchell, in the 1934 race for governor of
California, Republicans hatched perhaps the most sophisticated voter
suppression scheme undertaken up to that time in America. Taking the
shrewd advice of a former New York prosecutor, Eli Whitney Debevoise,
opponents of Democrat Upton Sinclair leveled wild charges of voter
registration fraud. A cooperative district attorney drew up a secret
list of 200,000 allegedly illegal registrants.

The Los Angeles Times advanced the suppression campaign,
writing on the front page that "it would be far better for a few honest
persons to lose their votes than for a hundred thousand rogues to
defeat by fraud the majority will of the people." The publicity, the
conspirators knew, would frighten those who were afraid they just might
be on that list. Rather than risk capture (for a vague crime they had
no understanding of), they'd stay away from the polls.

Ultimately, the effort ended in some embarrassment when no actual
voter registration fraud was uncovered and the state's Supreme Court
tossed out the accusations. But not before the goal of the publicity
was met.

There is some historical symmetry in the fact that in 1982, U.S.
District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, a distant cousin of El
Debevoise, the suppression guru who hatched the California scheme,
ordered the Republican National Committee to forever halt its voter
intimidation and suppression campaigns. In the 1982 New Jersey
gubernatorial contest, the RNC launched a sophisticated "voter caging"
campaign. Letters were sent to voters. If they were returned for bad
addresses, the GOP challenged the addressees' registration. It raised
doubts among citizens about whether they were illegally registered.

A "Ballot Security Task Force," patrolled the polls, lurking beneath
signs that read, "It is a crime to falsify a ballot or to violate
election laws." The tactic is being used this year by state attorneys
general and others. The RNC remains theoretically under Judge
Devevoise's order.

When I covered politics for Texas newspapers in the 1980s, the voter
intimidation efforts of the Right were well known. We covered some of
them, but not with a lot of energy or insight. I'm afraid we took
intimidation and suppression as just another part of the game.

But it's a fact that Karl Rove was the consultant to the incumbent
Texas governor back then. So it shouldn't be a surprise that county
voter registrars received a list of 29,000 alleged felons to purge from
the rolls. That got some coverage when it turned out a Democratic
candidate for the state house who had no criminal record was on the
list. But it didn't stop the intimidation efforts. Signs reading "You
Can Be Imprisoned" were posted at minority polling locations.

If media bias is not the answer to broad coverage of spurious registration fraud allegations, what is the answer?

I think it has something to do with our history. The right to vote
has always been contested. In our early years, those without property
couldn't vote. Neither could women, freed blacks, or slaves. It took
140 years for women to be granted the franchise. Exclusion is a
tradition with deep roots in our cultural narratives and founding
documents. Historically accustomed as we are to exclusion, maybe we
don't judge it to be news.

Illegally crossing barriers to inclusion, however, is news. I guess.

Isn't it finally time for the media to drop the habit and turn its
attention to anti-democratic voter suppression tactics they know are
anti-democratic? Isn't it time they dropped their complicity in voter
suppression schemes? The ACORN controversy would be a good place to
start.