Participation is the heart of democracy

James Martorano

My father was a Republican who believed that America should aim for every eligible citizen to vote.

Not every Republican. Not merely those who agreed with him. Everyone. I share that conviction because it expresses something more fundamental than party loyalty: faith in government that derives its authority from the people. A democracy should welcome participation, encourage it, and remove unnecessary obstacles. When citizens stay home because voting has become needlessly difficult, our country loses something precious, regardless of which candidates would have received their votes.

We should measure the health of our democracy partly by how seriously we pursue that ideal. Working parents, elderly widows, college students, citizens with disabilities, and veterans far from election offices all belong to the same political community. Voting should not require unusual stamina, disposable income, access to transportation or permission to miss work. The ballot is how people exercise extraordinary authority over those who govern them.

American history reminds us how easily that principle can be betrayed. During the Jim Crow era, Southern states used poll taxes, literacy tests, discriminatory administration and intimidation to deny Black citizens meaningful access to the ballot. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 confronted that injustice. Its moral lesson remains urgent: a right can exist on paper while being systematically frustrated in practice.

Today's proposals are not identical to Jim Crow, and historical accuracy requires acknowledging the differences. Nevertheless, that history obliges us to scrutinize restrictions whose practical effect is to discourage or exclude eligible voters. A measure does not become democratic simply because its sponsors describe it as election protection. We must ask what problem it solves, what evidence supports it, and how many lawful voters will encounter new obstacles. We must judge security alongside access, rather than invoke it to end the discussion.

The SAVE Act and the expanded SAVE America Act deserve that scrutiny. Their central approach requires documentary proof of citizenship when registering for federal elections; the expanded proposal also adds photo identification requirements for voting. These proposals could create serious obstacles for eligible voters. A person can be unquestionably American and still lack ready access to the documents government demands. Citizenship and possession of paperwork are different things.

Consider a woman who adopted her husband's surname. Her birth certificate may bear her original name, while her driver's license bears her married name. Connecting those records can require additional documentation, such as a marriage certificate. The legislation does not expressly declare married women ineligible, and it would be inaccurate to say otherwise. The concern is the burden of proving an identity already established in everyday life. Marriage should not turn exercising a constitutional right into a bureaucratic obstacle course.

Similar difficulties confront citizens whose records were lost, who cannot readily obtain certified copies, or who live far from government offices. The Bipartisan Policy Center has explained that the SAVE America proposal would require citizenship documents submitted in person for mail registration, undermining its convenience. Supporters should answer a simple question: why place additional burdens on eligible Americans when less burdensome verification methods deserve consideration? Government should help citizens establish eligibility, with clear procedures and meaningful opportunities to correct errors.

The justification repeatedly offered is voter fraud. Actual fraud should be investigated and punished, whoever commits it and whichever party benefits. But responsible discussion must distinguish deliberate wrongdoing from administrative mistakes, suspected cases from proven cases, and isolated misconduct from evidence of a national crisis. Claims that millions of noncitizens secretly determine federal elections require convincing proof. Repetition, outrage and partisan advantage cannot supply it. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already prohibited; the question is whether further restrictions are justified by demonstrated need.

The Brennan Center's study of the 2016 election provides useful perspective. Election administrators in 42 jurisdictions overseeing 23.5 million votes reported approximately 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting for investigation or prosecution. Those referrals represented approximately 0.000128 percent of the votes surveyed. These were suspected incidents, not 30 established convictions. The study cannot prove that misconduct never escapes detection. Nevertheless, its findings are inconsistent with allegations of millions of illegal votes.

We should also acknowledge documented election fraud. North Carolina's election board ordered a new congressional election after investigating an unlawful absentee ballot scheme surrounding the 2018 election. That episode demonstrates why safeguards matter. It does not establish that everyone who votes by mail is suspect. The appropriate response is to identify the misconduct, enforce protections and remedy the damaged election. Abolishing a useful voting method because someone abused it would punish lawful voters for another person's wrongdoing.

Mail voting can help citizens who face transportation problems, demanding work schedules, illness or caregiving responsibilities. Safeguards vary by state and include verification procedures and, in some jurisdictions, ballot tracking. The administration has advocated broad limits on mail ballots, with specified exceptions. Those political demands should be distinguished from the precise provisions of any particular bill. But the governing principle is clear: preserve convenient access while addressing demonstrated vulnerabilities. A democracy need not choose between making voting easier and taking election security seriously.

I consider it a disgrace that the executive branch is pursuing what I see as an all-hands-on-deck effort to suppress participation, promoting documentary hurdles while pressing to sharply curtail mail voting. The administration should mobilize its resources to help every eligible American cast a ballot. Instead, its agenda risks making that fundamental right harder to exercise. We must judge these proposals by their consequences for lawful voters. The presidency belongs to the entire country. Its power should protect people's right to participate, not place obstacles in their path.

We should invest in accessible polling places, adequate staffing, reliable equipment, clear instructions, and fair procedures for correcting mistakes. We should encourage registration and provide practical opportunities to vote early or by mail. Every proposed restriction should face public examination of its necessity and consequences. No party should fear an electorate that includes all eligible citizens. Candidates should earn support through persuasion and service. Their ambitions do not entitle them to reshape participation around the voters they would prefer.

My father's ideal remains our challenge. This November, honor those who fought to make the ballot ours. Check your registration, make your plan and help someone else participate. Refuse to surrender your voice to cynicism or your rights to those who would narrow them. Whatever your party, vote. Let those who govern us hear an unmistakable answer: this democracy belongs to all of us. We will not be spectators while our right to shape its future is diminished. We will show up. We will be counted. We will vote.