I tend to be skeptical of "voter suppression" claims. There may well be organized efforts to keep eligible voters from voting. There may also be organized efforts to ensure the integrity of the voting process, which efforts are interpreted as attempts to keep eligible voters from voting. For example, requiring a photo I.D. in order to vote in-person can be viewed as an effort to keep some people from voting. Alternatively, it can be viewed as an effort to ensure that only duly registered voters cast votes. (I tend to see this issue through the lens of how commercial flying has changed since 9/11. Passengers' word that they are who they say they are is not good enough for the airlines. No photo I.D., no boarding a plane. It's that simple. And I don't see why it shouldn't be that simple for voting in federal elections: No photo I.D., no voting.) Of course, funds could -- and should -- be allocated by the state and/or federal government to help those citizens who lack a photo I.D.to verify their identity and obtain a photo I.D. that can be used for voting purposes.
Voting MUST have rules: Who is eligible to vote? When and how must voters register? How can a voter's identity and permanent address be verified? Do the voters fill out the ballots themselves? Do they submit their own ballots or do other people submit the ballots for them? Who counts the ballots? Who observes the counting? How are the ballots counted? How are discrepancies in the count resolved? Who reports the count? Who designs the ballots? Who decides on the order in which the candidates' names appear on the ballot? What are the rules for voting in person vs. mail-in ballots?
The stakes in presidential elections seem to get higher every four years. And therefore there are more reasons every four years to be concerned about somebody somewhere trying to influence those who vote and the decisions about who is allowed to vote. It also means that there is more reason over time to be concerned about efforts to steal elections -- by padding the count, by restricting access, or by some other clever mechanisms to illegitimately affect the outcome.
Question: Who might do such things?
Answer: Those who are deeply invested -- economically, emotionally, ideologically, or otherwise -- in seeing to it that the "right" people win critical elections.
It could be Democrats or Republicans, blacks or whites, Russians or Chinese, anarchists or corporatists. We should not assume that no one will try any funny business regarding elections. Our democracy depends on our voices being heard and our votes being counted.
