The Dynamic Center: Voter Caging or How I Learned to Doubt Representative Government

Posted by ikabod Crane on 08.17.2007

With Karl Rove’s Departure, I Thought It Would Be Worth Looking at the Practice of Voter Caging

Karl Rove departed the White House this week, but I suspect he can still give advice over the phone to President Bush. Rove is a guy who got Bush elected governor of Texas versus Anne Richards in 1994. This was a year in which Democrats got smashed everywhere and Newt Gingrich came to prominence. Still, Bush winning in Texas quietly positioned him well within the Republican Party. Bush was re-elected in 1998 when the economy was strong and most governors were able to cut taxes and increase services regardless of party.

Rove engineered two strong performances in the second most electoral vote rich state in the union. This placed Bush as the GOP favorite for 2000 if he decided to run. Rove along with a confluence of events and persons including Ralph Nader, a poorly designed ballot and the Monica Lewinsky scandal helped push Bush ahead of Gore in the Electoral College even after 8 strong years as Bill Clinton's Vice President. This leads us to Rove's 2004 strategy.

Karl Rove in 2004: Grow the Base and Push Turnout

Winning in 1994 and 1998 were years that were hard for a Republican and incumbent to lose. One could argue Rove was lucky, but as others have said – the better you are at something the luckier you get. Rove made the easy putts and put Bush in position to be President and enough breaks went their way, especially in the period between the 1st and 3rd debates where Gore was branded a liar, Lieberman a terrible debater, and Gore being too agreeable in debate #2, to win the closest election in history. Rove was certified a prodigy of politics and electioneering. 2004 was his moment to shine.

The philosophy going into 2004 was to identify everyone who is likely to vote for your candidate and make sure they vote. Bush did not triangulate as Clinton did heading into 1996. Clinton adopted a number of conservative policies in order to win some independent votes and blunt Republican criticisms. It worked even if it set Nader up nicely in 2000. Rove's idea was different and bucked the conventional wisdom. His idea was to grow the conservative base only rather than to reach out to moderates.

Odds Start to Reverse

Had Bush been running for re-election in 2002 it would have been a cakewalk on par with 1984. Instead in 2004 Bill Clinton had written his autobiography and was on a national tour. Fahrenheit 911 was in the theaters breaking every documentary ticket record. More importantly U.S. support for Bush's approach in Iraq was turning. The Democrats not only had a chance, but they might have a few breaks such as the Clinton book tour to help them. Could Rove grow the base enough to win?

Voter Caging

To preface my comments, I do not put all of this on Karl Rove or 2004. Voter caging is a deplorable practice that has been engaged in many times over the years. Still, if the strategy is to identify likely voters and get your base to the polling station, then the reverse becomes tempting. Identifying those unlikely to vote for you and keeping them from voting is the flip side of Karl Rove's coin.

Voter caging works by identifying voters likely to vote for the opposition and finding a way to disqualify them as a voter. This story from NOW on PBS details how voter caging was targeted along racial and economic lines in 2004. Targeting voters along racial lines is illegal, and the Ohio GOP was found to have violated federal law in its attempts to identify and disqualify African American voters. This is the same state that decided the 2004 electoral vote in favor of Bush.

The method that the GOP used to cage voters in Ohio and elsewhere revolved around junk mail. Letters were sent with a "do not forward" stamp placed on them. Once the letter is returned, the voter can rightfully be challenged as perhaps not living in a given precinct. Now some might ask, "How does this work if the person actually lives at the address the junk mail was sent to?" Here is the kicker and ingenious/devious aspect of voter caging. Letters are sent to likely Democratic voters at places and times they are not expected to be able to receive those letters. A predominantly African-American college in Jacksonville, Florida received a blanket of junk mail in early August 2004. Since the students do not move in until late August, the letters were returned and students who registered to vote at home or at their college address could be challenged as being fraudulent voters. Sending the letters with a "do not forward" directive three weeks before the students arrived eliminates many potential voters.

The ploy with college students in Florida is far less nefarious than how minority soldiers in Jacksonville, FL were treated. These soldiers would be sent the same sort of junk mail while doing a tour of duty. Since they were not present and the "do not forward" directive was present, these soldiers became voters who could be disqualified. As the reporter the NOW story focused on asks, "You send a letter to a serviceman that's overseas and you say, ‘That's a fraudulent voter. Don't let them vote.' Excuse me, is that the America that these guys are fighting for?"

Back to Rove

The U.S. attorney scandal also ties in with voter caging. David Iglesias, a fired U.S. attorney, has noted that he was constantly asked to investigate voters. Given that Rove was coordinating re-election efforts, had an official government post along with his political post, and his entire strategy centered around identifying likely voters and making sure they voted on election day, is it a leap to think he had his hands in the caging strategy? If you think not, consider that an aide of Karl Rove was hired to replace one of the fired U.S. attorneys.

I do not claim to have made an iron clad case against Rove. I think those who admire and despise him can see his finger prints on voter caging. The thing is he is too smart to get caught beyond a reasonable doubt. I just wanted to put a story out there about Rove that was worse than Jason Easley's take on Rove appealing to our worst instincts and dividing us as a nation. That is bad to be sure, but targeting minorities and not even allowing them to vote strikes me as worse.