I link to this commentary in The American Conservative not to give unwarranted credibility to it—but to convey the messages currently being communicated by those opposed to making voting accessible to all eligible voters.  In this particular example, there is a heavy emphasis on: 1) urban (i.e., euphemism); 2) change from tradition & allegations of conspiracy (i.e., they are taking our country); 3) “dilution” of “suburban and rural voters” by “questionable absentee ballots” from cities and university towns; 4) characterizing “convenience” as capitulating “to the preferences of the most disengaged, apathetic ‘unlikely’ voters”; 5) distinguishing voters who have a “legitimate reason” for not voting in person from “mass” mail-in voting; and 6) outright disinformation. 

In fact, voter turnout in the U.S. is relatively low compared to other countries, and significant racial gaps in voter turnout persist among the citizen voting age population. Numerous studies have found Black and Latino Americans face longer wait times for in-person voting, and many local election offices are underfunded.  Fraud is very rare.  Vote-by-mail has been around, secure, and non-partisan for years, and shouldn’t be available to just select segments of our population.   

Thanks in large part to the Voting Rights Act and Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1965, our nation has made great strides in moving toward a well-functioning, inclusive multiracial democracy. Unfortunately, these changes have also resulted in anxiety and backlash. We’ve got to understand both, along with the rhetoric that fuels them, to figure out how to remove obstacles and ensure a strong and inclusive democracy for all (including those currently experiencing anxiety and susceptible to rhetoric to exclude other Americans). I’m still working on it.  And so, here it is. . . .