The title of this post is Latin for "who benefits?" In law, it's a question asked when there is an issue of financial or other benefit to a person from a crime--be it murder, fraud, or something else. The presumption is that the individual or individuals who gained the most is the most likely culprit.
Who benefits when voting is made more difficult? When the very act of getting to the polls is hard? When proving you have a right to vote is made arduous? Clearly it's not the challengers in an election--they want a big turnout, because it may bring to the polls the people who oppose the incumbents. Smaller turnouts are almost always beneficial to incumbents, who have the name recognition and record to run on; who can, in most cases, rely on those who have voted for them in the past to vote for them again. This is especially true in places where the majorities are very lopsided and have been for a long time.
So, when a legislature acts to restrict access to the polls--by making mail-in ballots harder to get, by "consolidating" polling places, by limiting the hours and days when polls are open--it's a good bet it did not do so to help the minority party. Virtually any voting law enacted by a legislature--whether Republican or Democrat-controlled--is designed to help the party in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment