The Integrity of Our Elections

As each election approaches, there are heated charges that the Democrats—or groups supporting the Democrats—are guilty of voter fraud.   At the same time, there are equally heated charges that the Republicans—or groups supporting the Republicans—are guilty of voter suppression and intimidation.   These charges make me wonder whether the United States of America is any better than a third world country.    How can we have faith in our government and in our elected officials if we do not have confidence in the integrity of our elections?   

What happened to honesty and integrity?    What happened to honor and ethics?    We live in a culture where cheating has become commonplace and almost expected.  Studies have shown widespread cheating by students in the nation’s best schools.  Many people cheat on their tax returns or lie on their resumes when they are applying for a job.   Employees steal from their employers.   Shoplifting is a major problem for most retailers.  Corporations “cook the books” and thereby misrepresent their financial condition to investors.   Individuals misrepresent their financial condition in order to get a mortgage or a loan from a bank.    The list could go on and on. 

Although voter fraud has always been a problem, it is impossible for me to escape the conclusion that it is getting worse and that our country has been and continues to be in a state of moral decline.   It seems that parents, schools, and religious institutions are no longer teaching basic values such as honesty, integrity, morality, and ethics.    Perhaps these values are no longer politically correct in an “anything goes” culture. 

With the overall decline in morality, it is not surprising that politicians or their supporters would be willing to cheat in order to gain political power.   With all the charges floating around, I don’t know who to believe or who to blame for the apparent corruption in the electoral process.   I suspect that both sides are guilty of at least some of the charges being leveled against them.      

The charges of fraud in the Presidential election began during the Democratic primaries.  After the Iowa primaries, supporters of Hilary Clinton accused Barak Obama’s campaign of breaking the rules by busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in Iowa.  Obama’s strong win in Iowa made him a major contender for the Democratic nomination for President.   Was his initial Iowa victory, which propelled him to the Democratic nomination, based on fraud?    I don’t know.  I only know what supporters of Hilary Clinton have claimed.   

Within recent months, there have been repeated charges that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“Acorn”), a liberal organizing group in minority and low-income communities, has been flooding the voting rolls with ineligible or fictitious voters.   Acorn is being investigated in several states.  Acorn responds to these charges by claiming the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote and keep eligible voters from the polls.  When proof is provided that Acorn has in fact registered ineligible voters, Acorn blames its lower level employees, several of whom have faced criminal charges, while at the same time continuing its voter registration efforts. 

Acorn recently admitted that 30% of the new voter registrations that it had collected were faulty.   But Acorn claims that these irregularities do not translate to fraud at the polls.  At a minimum, it is fairly obvious that Acorn does not have adequate internal controls, but the people who are running the organization don’t seem to care.    The Obama campaign has sought to distance itself from Acorn, but Obama himself has a close historical relationship with Acorn.  Among other things, he has been an attorney and trainer for Acorn, and he was a member of the Board of Directors of Chicago’s Wood Fund when it gave more than $200,000 to Acorn.   In addition, the Obama campaign reportedly has paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate.   A former employee of Acorn testified this week in a Pennsylvania court that Acorn had contact with the Obama campaign and had even obtained the Obama campaign’s donor list so that Acorn could solicit donations from those who had already given the maximum amount allowed to Obama. 

John McCain recently charged that Acorn is “now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”   Democrats say McCain and the Republicans are trying to create confusion among voters, to intimidate minority voters so they will not vote, and to set the stage to challenge an Obama victory.    In a recent editorial, The New York Times excused Acorn by arguing “there is virtually no evidence—anywhere in the country, going back many elections—of people showing up at the polls and voting when they are not entitled to.”    According to The New York Times, the “real threats to the fabric of democracy are the unreasonable barriers that stand in the way of eligible voters casting ballots.”    In an article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor at New York University, wrote, “the very party that is demonizing Acorn has now disenfranchised countless voters nationwide, through a dizzying range of tactics.”     According to Professor Miller, efforts to remove ineligible voters from the voting rolls often result in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. 

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that 34 major lawsuits are already pending involving the Presidential election.   It is inevitable that more lawsuits will be filed before and after the election.   If the election is close, we could be in for a real nightmare—one that would make the debacle in Florida in 2000 look like a walk in the park.    

In a civilized and democratic country, you would think we would all share an interest in ensuring that everyone who registers to vote is eligible to do so and that everyone who shows up at the polls is an eligible registered voter.   You would also think everyone would want all eligible voters to vote and would be opposed to any actions that would remove eligible voters from the voting rolls or otherwise keep them away from the polls.    But there are cries of discrimination when an election official asks someone to verify his or her citizenship.    Likewise, requirements in some states that voters prove their identity by showing photo identification are challenged as being intimidating and discriminatory against those who are elderly and those who are members of a minority group.   Personally, I do not understand the challenges to these common sense requirements unless those who are opposed to them actually want non-qualified or ineligible voters to vote.   I do recognize, however, that mistakes will be made when elections officials seek to remove ineligible voters from the voting rolls and that the mistakes could be intentional if the elections officials are dishonest.   It seems to me that common sense procedures could be implemented to guard against mistakes and to allow those whose names may have been wrongly removed to cast a provisional ballot.  

If Democrats and Republicans are unable to agree on procedures to ensure that only those who are eligible are allowed to vote and that those who show up at the polls are who they claim to be, then how can we expect them to agree on anything?   How can we respect a government that seems to be incapable of holding a fair election and accurately counting the votes?   How can we respect our elected officials when they may have achieved their positions through fraud?    Are we any better than a third world country?    

Everyone remembers what happened in Florida in 2000.    The vote was extremely close, and some of the ballots were defective.    Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, wanted to recount the votes only in those counties where he thought he had an advantage.   George Bush, the Republican candidate, felt that any recount should include the entire state.   The issue was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that a partial recount would violate equal rights.    Because there was not enough time for a full recount, Gore conceded and Bush became the President of the United States.   For the last eight years, Democrats have charged that Bush stole the election and have sought to undermine and discredit him in every way.   They have tried to ignore the fact that every subsequent recount of the Florida votes, even those conducted by liberal-leaning newspapers, showed that Bush won the state.  Despite the recounts, they claim that thousands of people were illegally purged from the voter rolls before the election and that those who were purged would have voted for Gore if allowed to do so.   Are we in for a repeat of 2000 this year?    Will half of the country think the next President of the United States stole this election and therefore is illegitimate?         

Education Reform

Although there are many very good public schools, our public education system in general is a failure.  The biggest failure involves our inner-city public schools.  Democrats and Republicans alike for years have tried to fix the problems in public education by throwing more money at the current system.  More money has resulted in substantial increases in the size of the educational bureaucracy with corresponding increases in the administrative requirements imposed on classroom teachers.   Classroom teachers are burdened with reports that must be submitted to educational bureaucracies at the federal, state, and local levels.   It seems that bureaucrats justify their existence by coming up with new requirements to be imposed on classroom teachers, leaving them with low morale and less time to teach their students. 

In my opinion, there are two simple ways to improve the quality of our public education system—more parental involvement and more competition.   

The first solution requires action by parents.  More parents, especially minority and low income parents, need to take an active role in insisting that their children place a high priority on getting a good education.   Numerous studies have shown that schools with active parental involvement perform at a much higher level than schools with little or no parental involvement.  Unfortunately, many inner city schools have little or no parental involvement.    The problem lies with the culture in some segments of our society.   No amount of money will bring educational excellence to a culture that does not value education. 

I have lived in the City of Atlanta for most of my adult life.   The Atlanta public school system has a terrible reputation, but there are some good public schools within the Atlanta system.   The good schools have one thing in common:  parents who are actively involved in the schools and who place a high value on education.    There are also good public schools outside the City of Atlanta but within the Atlanta metropolitan area.   Again, the good ones have active parental involvement.  

Because I am not now and never have been a teacher, you might legitimately question the basis for my opinion regarding the importance of active parental involvement.   In addition to reading about various studies on the subject, I come from a family of teachers.   My wife is a former high school English teacher in a public school, and my daughter has taught in both a private school and a public school in Atlanta.    I have two sisters who have taught in public schools for many years, and I have several nieces who are teachers.   Plus, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that children of parents who place a high value on education are going to outperform children who come from a culture where education is not valued.   It’s only common sense.    Money is not the cure for this problem.      

The second solution requires action by the government.  The government needs to permit more competition in the public education system.   In this regard, John McCain favors voucher programs designed to give parents a choice over where their children can attend school, and Barak Obama is opposed to voucher programs.   McCain finds it “beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe.”   McCain believes school choice is a fundamental and essential right we should honor for all parents.  Where available, school choice programs have been very successful and have been especially beneficial to those with lower incomes who cannot afford private schools. 

Along with his fellow Democrats, Obama, who sends his own children to a private school, has consistently opposed school choice.  The teachers unions, who have a vested interest in the status quo, provide substantial contributions to the Democrats, who express their appreciation by supporting the teachers unions in opposing school choice.    Obama’s answer to poor school performance is to spend more money on such things as early childhood education, child care for “working families,” reform of the No Child Left Behind Act, teacher training, charter schools, and new afterschool programs.    Many of Obama’s proposals have merit, but for the most part they involve throwing more money at a flawed educational system.    If there is one thing we should have learned over the last several decades, it is that increased educational funding does not result in improved learning for students. 

The government cannot solve every problem.   In the case of education, the primary solution lies with parents—not with the government.   Parents must assume responsibility for the education of their children.    The best way for the government to help is to give parents more control over their education dollars.     

As I see it, McCain—not Obama—is the one who supports “change you can believe in” and who offers the most “hope” for public education. 

The Abortion Controversy

One of the greatest moral issues of our time—and one of the most controversial—involves the question of whether a woman should have the right to have an abortion and thereby end the life of an unborn child.    The two major candidates for President of the United States have completely different positions on this issue.  John McCain believes that life begins at conception, and he proudly identifies himself as a “pro-life” candidate.   Barak Obama has said he does not know when life begins because, in his own words, it is above his “pay grade”, but he proudly identifies himself as a “pro-choice” candidate.   “Pro-life” means you are opposed to taking the life of an unborn child, and “pro-choice” means you favor giving women the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.  

McCain favors overturning the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Roe v. Wade, which interpreted the Constitution to give women the right to abort an unborn child, even though the Constitution is silent on this issue.    Because the Constitution is silent on this issue, McCain believes the question of whether abortions should be legal or illegal should be left to the states rather than decided by judicial fiat.   Obama supports the decision in Roe v. Wade and does not want to see it overturned.   Although he does not know when life begins, Obama believes women should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  Obama even supports a gruesome procedure known as a partial birth abortion and condemned a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning such abortions.  Moreover, Obama, while a state senator in Illinois, voted against a bill that prohibited killing a child who was born alive during an attempted abortion.   His attempts to explain his vote have been weak and unconvincing to me.   

Who is right on the subject of abortion?   My own views regarding abortions have changed over time.   As a grandfather, I have shared the excitement of my children and their spouses when they have seen a picture of their unborn child in the womb or heard their unborn child’s heartbeat for the first time only a few weeks after conception.   In my opinion, the ability to hear heartbeats and the sonograms available today make it indisputable that life begins at conception.   

Most of us have known women who have had miscarriages.  When a woman has a miscarriage, she grieves—and we grieve for her and with her—because she has “lost her baby”.   This is the common terminology used to describe the loss suffered by a woman who has had a miscarriage.   This past Sunday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contained an article about a pregnant woman who “lost her unborn child” in an automobile accident.   If a woman who has had a miscarriage has lost her baby, and if a woman involved in an automobile accident loses her unborn child, then what happens when a woman has an abortion? 

Those who are in the “pro-choice” camp must believe that (1) a fetus is not a human life, or (2) that a fetus is a human life but this life has no rights, or (3) that the rights of this new human life are superseded by the rights of the mother to choose whether or not to deliver her baby.   As to the first point, it is impossible to justify the position that a fetus is not a human life in light of the scientific knowledge available today.  As to the second and third points, if you adopt either of these beliefs you are left with the problem of identifying the stage in the development of a new human life at which he or she begins to have rights deserving of protection under the law.  

My son Matthews is a philosophy professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota.    He told me about Peter Singer, an infamous ethicist from Princeton University.   Singer is a strong advocate of a woman’s “right to choose”, but he also recognizes that consistency requires him to advocate the permissibility of infanticide as well.   In his book entitled Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 1979), Singer wrote at pages 122-123: 

“I have argued that the life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person.  Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus.  A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week, a month, or even a year old.  If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and that the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” 

I think Singer’s views are frightening, but he at least recognizes the inconsistency on the part of those who favor a woman’s right to have an abortion but oppose infanticide.    

I once had a Sunday School teacher who was a distinguished professor at a well-known divinity school.  He jokingly said he believed in the right to abort a child through age 18.  His comment was intentionally absurd and was designed to demonstrate the intellectual dilemma faced by those who are willing to take a human life in order to protect a mother’s right not to have a baby she does not want.   

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade regardless of who is elected President.    Even if the decision were overturned, however, this would not mean abortions would become illegal.   It would be up to each state to decide whether to make abortions legal or illegal.    Moreover, women would still have a choice even if Roe v. Wade were overturned and even if the states thereafter decided to outlaw abortions.  Women would be able to choose, as they can today, to abstain from engaging in unprotected or irresponsible sex that could lead to an unwanted pregnancy.   The question is not whether women have the right to choose, but whether they should exercise their right to choose before or after a new life has been created.   Whether or not abortion is outlawed, a woman will also be able to choose, as she can today, to give birth and let someone adopt the child she does not want.  

Many of those in the “pro choice” camp think people who oppose abortion are religious zealots.  Even though I am a religious person, I view abortion as a moral issue that should concern everyone regardless of his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof.  

What do I think about the millions of women who have already had an abortion?   It is not my role to judge them.    If God disapproves of abortion, as I believe He does, then He has already forgiven women who have had an abortion and who have requested forgiveness.   I believe in a loving and forgiving God who is more concerned about how we are living our lives today and how we will live our lives in the future than He is about our sins of the past. 

The Federal Judiciary

The oldest Justice currently serving on the United States Supreme Court is 88.   Six of the nine Justices are age 69 or older.   The next President of the United States, in all likelihood, will have the opportunity to appoint at least two and perhaps more Justices to the Supreme Court.   The next President will also have the opportunity to fill numerous vacancies—probably 200 or more—in the various federal courts below the Supreme Court.   All of these appointments are for life, which means the next President will be able to influence the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts for decades to come. 

There are two dramatically different philosophies regarding the role of the judiciary.    Those who subscribe to the “strict constructionist” philosophy believe the Constitution and the laws adopted by legislative bodies must be interpreted as they were written—not as judges think they should have been written.   Judges who adopt this philosophy generally believe they are required to interpret the law in a neutral manner without regard to their personal feelings and without regard to the interests that may be before them.    Under this philosophy, a judge’s personal feelings about a specific issue or cause are irrelevant.    

A second philosophy is based on the theory that the Constitution is a “living document.”  Under this philosophy, the Constitution should be evaluated and interpreted in light of changes in the contemporary society and culture and after taking into consideration other factors that a judge may deem appropriate, including even foreign law and precedent.   Judges who follow this more flexible philosophy have no hesitation to find individual rights—or restrictions on individual rights—that are not expressly written into the Constitution or other laws.   Judges who believe the Constitution is a “living document” also tend to have a much broader view of their right to apply their own views when interpreting legislation adopted by Congress or other legislative bodies. 

There are some judges who do not have a strong judicial philosophy.   They sometimes follow the “strict constructionist” philosophy, and they sometimes follow the “living document” philosophy.    In other words, they do not have a strong conviction about the role of the judiciary, and they make up the rules as they go along. 

As a general rule, conservatives tend to prefer judges who follow the “strict constructionist” philosophy, and liberals generally prefer judges who view the Constitution as a “living document”.   Although normally associated with liberal judges, the “living document” philosophy could also be used by conservative judges who want to base their decisions on their personal preferences.       

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently delivered the Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute.    As part of his lecture, Justice Thomas, who is a strong advocate of the strict constructionist philosophy, said, “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretative methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.  To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.” 

John McCain has promised that, if elected President, he will appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than legislate from the bench.   McCain has referred to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the two most recent appointments to the Supreme Court, as examples of the type of judge he would nominate to serve on the Supreme Court or on the lower federal courts.   As a member of the U.S. Senate, Barak Obama voted against both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

When asked what type of judge he would appoint, Barak Obama said he wanted “a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’t protect themselves from being… dealt with sometimes unfairly…”   Obama has criticized Chief Justice Roberts for saying “he saw himself just as an umpire”.

In my view, McCain has the right approach and Obama has the wrong approach.  Obama’s statements about the type of judge he would nominate to the federal bench sound good because they appeal to your emotions.  Everyone wants to be empathic to the poor and powerless.   The role of a judge, however, is to interpret the law—not to make the law.  A judge should be impartial—not sympathetic to one side or the other.   A judge should not base his or her rulings on either a conservative or a liberal ideology but instead should seek to achieve a non-partisan interpretation of the law as written in the Constitution or as adopted by a legislative body.   Justice Roberts was right when he said a judge should be an unbiased “umpire.”   

Obama has as much as admitted that he would nominate judges who would bring their personal feelings to the courtroom and who would implement their own policy preferences through judicial fiat.   This is not only wrong, but it is also dangerous.    Obama’s view of the role of judges undermines our system of government by permitting and encouraging judges to make important policy decisions that should be left to elected officials.   In my opinion, Obama’s view confuses the roles of the legislative and judicial branches of government and, if followed, will lead to public cynicism rather than respect for the rule of law.