SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Voting Rights Shall Not Overcome NYT Reporting Like This
The New York Times' report (3/8/15) on Barack Obama's speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Selma march noted that the president called the Voting Rights Act, passed in the wake of the march, "the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence." With the law "weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor," Obama called on Congress to "pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year."
Not so fast, wrote Times reporter Richard Fausset:
Mar 09, 2015
The New York Times' report (3/8/15) on Barack Obama's speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Selma march noted that the president called the Voting Rights Act, passed in the wake of the march, "the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence." With the law "weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor," Obama called on Congress to "pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year."
Not so fast, wrote Times reporter Richard Fausset:
That could be difficult, given the highly partisan tenor of the debate over voting rights. In many states, particularly since 2010, Republicans have passed new laws requiring voters to show identification cards and restricting early-voting hours, arguing that these methods would help prevent voter fraud.
Democrats say such fraud is nearly nonexistent, and charge that the laws are a new push to disenfranchise minority voters and the poor.
Voting Rights is unlikely to overcome the "partisan rancor" Obama warned about, the Times reports, because of the "highly partisan tenor of the debate." Thanks for the insightful analysis, paper of record!
Actually, if we shall not overcome partisan rancor, it will be because of reporting like this, which duplicates and does not investigate the claims made about voting reform. Will voter ID and restrictions on early voting "help prevent voter fraud," or is such fraud "nearly nonexistent"? The Times can't say, but can only say what others say, as if there were no objective reality that the paper could report on directly.
Law professor Justin Levitt has been trying to investigate the reality of voter fraud. Since 2000, he reported in a Washington Post op-ed last year (8/6/14), he's tracked down every "specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix."
He's documented 31 incidents-in 15 years of voting, involving more than a billion ballots cast.
Levitt's work was the main basis of a New York Times editorial (10/9/11) that stated:
There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.
But that's reality, which is reserved for the opinion page; in the news pages, all that's allowed are dueling opinions.
P.S. If you want to quote politicians on whether voter ID laws and restrictions "are a new push to disenfranchise minority voters and the poor," you aren't limited to Democrats--there are plenty of Republicans admitting, even boasting, of the the political intent of these laws, as a round-up by Jason Sattler of the National Memo (10/25/13) illustrated:
"I guess I really, actually feel we shouldn't contort the voting process to accommodate the urban--read African-American--voter-turnout machine."
--Franklin County (Columbus) GOP Chair Doug Preisse ( Columbus Dispatch, 8/19/12)
"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama's ground game. "
--Phyllis Schafly, WorldNetDaily (8/19/13)
"Voter ID...is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
--Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai (Politics PA, 6/25/12)
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The New York Times' report (3/8/15) on Barack Obama's speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Selma march noted that the president called the Voting Rights Act, passed in the wake of the march, "the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence." With the law "weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor," Obama called on Congress to "pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year."
Not so fast, wrote Times reporter Richard Fausset:
That could be difficult, given the highly partisan tenor of the debate over voting rights. In many states, particularly since 2010, Republicans have passed new laws requiring voters to show identification cards and restricting early-voting hours, arguing that these methods would help prevent voter fraud.
Democrats say such fraud is nearly nonexistent, and charge that the laws are a new push to disenfranchise minority voters and the poor.
Voting Rights is unlikely to overcome the "partisan rancor" Obama warned about, the Times reports, because of the "highly partisan tenor of the debate." Thanks for the insightful analysis, paper of record!
Actually, if we shall not overcome partisan rancor, it will be because of reporting like this, which duplicates and does not investigate the claims made about voting reform. Will voter ID and restrictions on early voting "help prevent voter fraud," or is such fraud "nearly nonexistent"? The Times can't say, but can only say what others say, as if there were no objective reality that the paper could report on directly.
Law professor Justin Levitt has been trying to investigate the reality of voter fraud. Since 2000, he reported in a Washington Post op-ed last year (8/6/14), he's tracked down every "specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix."
He's documented 31 incidents-in 15 years of voting, involving more than a billion ballots cast.
Levitt's work was the main basis of a New York Times editorial (10/9/11) that stated:
There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.
But that's reality, which is reserved for the opinion page; in the news pages, all that's allowed are dueling opinions.
P.S. If you want to quote politicians on whether voter ID laws and restrictions "are a new push to disenfranchise minority voters and the poor," you aren't limited to Democrats--there are plenty of Republicans admitting, even boasting, of the the political intent of these laws, as a round-up by Jason Sattler of the National Memo (10/25/13) illustrated:
"I guess I really, actually feel we shouldn't contort the voting process to accommodate the urban--read African-American--voter-turnout machine."
--Franklin County (Columbus) GOP Chair Doug Preisse ( Columbus Dispatch, 8/19/12)
"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama's ground game. "
--Phyllis Schafly, WorldNetDaily (8/19/13)
"Voter ID...is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
--Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai (Politics PA, 6/25/12)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The New York Times' report (3/8/15) on Barack Obama's speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Selma march noted that the president called the Voting Rights Act, passed in the wake of the march, "the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence." With the law "weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor," Obama called on Congress to "pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year."
Not so fast, wrote Times reporter Richard Fausset:
That could be difficult, given the highly partisan tenor of the debate over voting rights. In many states, particularly since 2010, Republicans have passed new laws requiring voters to show identification cards and restricting early-voting hours, arguing that these methods would help prevent voter fraud.
Democrats say such fraud is nearly nonexistent, and charge that the laws are a new push to disenfranchise minority voters and the poor.
Voting Rights is unlikely to overcome the "partisan rancor" Obama warned about, the Times reports, because of the "highly partisan tenor of the debate." Thanks for the insightful analysis, paper of record!
Actually, if we shall not overcome partisan rancor, it will be because of reporting like this, which duplicates and does not investigate the claims made about voting reform. Will voter ID and restrictions on early voting "help prevent voter fraud," or is such fraud "nearly nonexistent"? The Times can't say, but can only say what others say, as if there were no objective reality that the paper could report on directly.
Law professor Justin Levitt has been trying to investigate the reality of voter fraud. Since 2000, he reported in a Washington Post op-ed last year (8/6/14), he's tracked down every "specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix."
He's documented 31 incidents-in 15 years of voting, involving more than a billion ballots cast.
Levitt's work was the main basis of a New York Times editorial (10/9/11) that stated:
There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.
But that's reality, which is reserved for the opinion page; in the news pages, all that's allowed are dueling opinions.
P.S. If you want to quote politicians on whether voter ID laws and restrictions "are a new push to disenfranchise minority voters and the poor," you aren't limited to Democrats--there are plenty of Republicans admitting, even boasting, of the the political intent of these laws, as a round-up by Jason Sattler of the National Memo (10/25/13) illustrated:
"I guess I really, actually feel we shouldn't contort the voting process to accommodate the urban--read African-American--voter-turnout machine."
--Franklin County (Columbus) GOP Chair Doug Preisse ( Columbus Dispatch, 8/19/12)
"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama's ground game. "
--Phyllis Schafly, WorldNetDaily (8/19/13)
"Voter ID...is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
--Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai (Politics PA, 6/25/12)
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.