Select Page

Is it vote suppression … or vote protection?

Is it vote suppression … or vote protection?

Georgia is the epicenter on the issue of voter suppression …. or voter protection.  Gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is the poster child of the suppression argument.  She represents Democrats across the nation who claim that Republican legislators and governors in half the states are enacting restrictions on voting that is suppressing minority voters.  At least that is her claim.

While the claims of voter suppression make a good partisan election year narrative, is there any legitimacy to them?  If you go past the headline and take a deep dive into the specifics and the facts, you will discover that the answer is “no.”  The claim is as empty as Vice President Harris’ list of accomplishments.

Abrams made a big deal about Georgia’s more recent election laws – claiming they were suppressing the vote.  In response, the overly woke National Baseball Association switched the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver – a state with more restrictive voting laws than does Georgia even after the new legislation. 

Even Biden’s home state of Delaware has more restrictive voting laws than Georgia. President Biden’s repeated claims (lies) about Georgia election laws won him four Pinocchios from the Washington Post.

Even as the left continues to point to non-existent voter suppression in Georgia, the black population has been voting in record numbers in several of the recent elections.

CNN newly reassigned morning anchor Don Lemon – when confronted with the increase in black voter participation in Georgia – said that two things can be possible at the same time.  In this case, voter suppression and an increase in the number of “suppressed” voters.  

Sorry, Don … this is not one of those situations in which two things can be true at the same time.  By definition, voter suppression means engaging in policies and actions that actually LOWER voter participation.  Based on the increased numbers of black voters in Georgia, the Peach State can legitimately claim to be one of the least prejudicial states in terms of black voters.

But the issue is not just about Georgia.  Democrats call all the recently passed election laws in more than 25 states – and what the claim will be of future actions by legislators and Secretaries-of-State – suppression against blacks.  These claims of future voting suppression and cheating by Republicans in future elections lose credibility when you examine how totally dishonest and wrong are the Democrats’ claims of suppression today.  After all, if you are going to whole cloth lie about the current situation, why should anyone put any trust in those future claims?   

Virtually every Republican-backed law in every state focused on ballot protection.  Democrats do not like to talk about the specifics of the laws because most of the provisions are common sense and widely popular with voters.

To maintain voting integrity there are two essential issues.  First, is the assurance that the ballot is being cast by the person who has a legitimate right to vote.  Fake votes and fake voters have been an evergreen problem in maintaining election integrity.

Among the provisions in the new legislation is the requirement to show a photo identification at the polling place – or submit it with mail-in ballots.  Some legislation requires that the polling roles be purged of the dead or those who have moved to other jurisdictions.  Democrats oppose those commonsense measures – and called them voter suppression.

Other portions of the legislation deal with weak points in the “chain of custody” – the security along the route as ballots move to and from voters and throughout the tabulation and reporting systems.

Some of the past legislation — allegedly to provide easier access to voting — created weak points in the system.  Some of the new laws outlawed unattended ballot drop boxes.  If the chain-of-custody has any meaning at all, there can be no … zero … unattended points along the way.  In fact, there should be no point in which one party alone has exclusive access to the ballots, the machinery and the voting process.

Democrats oppose having partisan stakeholders oversee the process.  Three is no end to the mischief that can take place when only one party is in charge.  Yet, you hear Democrats opposing the participation of partisan observers — a concept that for generations has been at the core of voting integrity.

Some of the laws restored the historic restrictions against the once illegal practice of “ballot harvesting” and “dumping.”  These are practices in which one person may enter multiple ballots into the system.  Whether by mail, early voting or election day voting, each ballot should be submitted by the individual voter.

As a person who has labored in the field of election integrity, I have been a constant critic of early voting and unattended ballot drop off boxes.  I see no need to extend early voting beyond ten days ahead of Election Day – and there is no need for unattended ballot drop boxes.

While the Pollyanna left proffers the claim that there is no such thing as election fraud, cheating and irregularities, the fact remains that if there are opportunities to steal votes, there will be stolen votes.  The system needs to be based on pre-emptive protection.  We need to minimize the opportunities to steal votes by not counting an opponent’s votes … switching votes from one candidate to another … or packing the ballot box with fraudulent ballots.

In every election, there will be cheating somewhere to some extent.  The best we can do is to keep it to an absolute minimum – and hopefully prevent it from producing dishonest election results.  The most important aspect of vote integrity is an effective chain of custody with monitoring by all stakeholders – candidates and parties — throughout the process.

It is true that that the vast majority of voting in millions of precincts is conducted fairly and honestly – but that is not true everywhere.  If you want to identify where vote fraud is taking place, the first sign is anywhere that there is one-party rule – where stakeholders of other parties are not present.  In the worst cases, workers of one party will take up the election judge position devoted to the other party.  In those cases, there is no end to the virtually undetectable mischief that can … and does … take place.

Under the claim of making voting easier and more accessible to more people, we have built in weak points in the process.  Early voting – for all its advantages – create prolonged periods of time in which ballots are not supervised by all stakeholders. In most cases, the stored ballots are under the control of only one partisan elected official.

No matter what you believe about the outcome of the 2020 election, there should be a universal devotion to effective protections in the balloting process.  Democrats, unfortunately, call that suppression and racism.  Why do they have a problem with ballot security?

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Sam

    Anyone who is qualified can vote. And should. All of the race baiting bullshit only proves how racist the democrats are. They think it’s impossible for many blacks to vote or have ID. It’s amazing that so many people fall for the rhetoric

  2. Mike

    Larry, the answer to your initial question is obvious and hardly requires the long-winded tome above. Since there was no evidence of any significant voter irregularities in the 2020 election (or any earlier elections other than a few Republicans trying to cast multiple votes for trump, or having their dead mother vote), the purpose of these changes is to decrease the vote. You may bloviate all you want that laws are less restrictive in Georgia than blue states, but the simple fact is Republican led legislatures want fewer people to vote believing that will increase their likelihood of remaining in power. End of story….

    • Richard

      Really, Mike, you need to pull your head out of your derriere long enough to take a breath of reality and stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid. ANY election fraud by the Democrats cancels out my vote and disenfranchises me, so proper prevention as noted in the article is essential to free and fair elections. To do almost everything in this country requires proper ID and voting should be at the top of the list. Democrats don’t want to purge the voting roles of dead people and people who’ve moved because keeping these names on the list ensures the chance for some type of manipulation in the future. Democrats don’t want to abandon the practice of ballot harvesting and don’t want to abandon having unattended ballot drop-off locations for the same reason. I don’t really want to relitigate the accusations of actual fraud in 2020, let’s just say that we disagree as to whether there were legitimate concerns regarding mail-in ballots, unattended drop-boxes, ballot dumps (some even from one state to another), removal of partisan watchdogs, etc.

      • frank stetson

        How to make friends and influence people. Lesson number 1: “Really, Mike, you need to pull your head out of your derriere long enough to take a breath of reality and stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid.” Don’t do this.

        Hey Richard, perhaps you have actual proof?

        No really, just one piece of proof that an election was crooked, that someone was cheated out of winning, or even that a sizeable effort was engineered? 65 court cases and a half dozen recounts indicate that you’re full of shit. You haven’t been successful in changing that no matter how much you cry, how much you whine. Just shut up already, give your hard earned dollars to Don, and move on.

        Or are you standing there with your richard in your hand?

        Although I enjoy taking pictures of poll watchers taking pictures. They are quite excitable.

    • larry Horist

      Mike … You disappoint me. Either you have never worked in the bowels of an election or you forget it. You have bought into the bullshit that there is not voter fraud. It is seen in every election. It may not be prosecutable, but it exists. The election fraud deniers seem to rely on prosecutions, but I repeated explained by election fraud is almost impossible to prosecute. On this one you have swallowed the false narrative hook, line and sinker. There are examples of voting irregularities all across the country in 2020. That is not to say it was enough to steal the presidential election — but they are there to be found. But the major media on the left will not report them. you will see them in more local reporting, The only thing Republicans want is fewer illegal voters casing ballots and protections from future problems. To say that with all the voting opportunities in America in every state that ANYONE is prevented from voting is an absurdity and an insult to votes. That are not that stupid. Opportunities have been expanded over the years … not inhibited. In times when more people are voting than every — percentage wise — it is just stupid to complain about suppression. Do you really thing that early voting … mail in voting … same day registration …etc. make it difficult to vote? Voter suppression reduces the vote … not expands it. End of story …

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        Larry, pardon my French, but you’re full of shit. It is you who has drunk the Trump koolaid. As Frank said above, there were 65 court cases, and all dismissed because of lack of evidence. If there were “examples of voting irregularities all across the country”, give us a couple of examples. The only examples I’ve heard of were Trump’s chief of staff (and his wife), who voted in a couple of different districts, a guy who voted using his dead wife’s ballot, and a woman who accidentally voted by mail and in person. And the 20 ex-convicts that DeSantis set up and then arrested, which will get thrown out in court anyway. All in all, less than a dozen irregular votes out of what, 180 million votes case? Compared to probably 10’s of thousands of votes that get thrown out or lost because people can’t follow instructions (like voting for two candidates for the same position, or voting for one office and ignoring the rest, or turning in blank ballots, or writing their names on the ballot). C’mon, you and the rest of the Republican Party are claiming that voter fraud exists – the burden is on you to produce the evidence, or else the rest of us have to assume it’s not a problem. Put up or shut up.

        I have counted ballots in state recounts, I’ve witnessed recounts, and every election I help count ballots in my town. The people counting the ballots, whether Democrats or Republicans or Independents, are METICULOUS about getting it right. And I’ve never seen a recount change the tallies by more than a handful either (usually due to spoiled ballots or unclear markings by the voter). And yet, the election denier running for Congress in my state continues to spout the tired old perennial line about “school bus loads of voters coming in from neighboring states”, and his source is “somebody told me about it” (he also railed against “kids identifying as cats and using litter boxes in grade schools”, again with the “somebody told me” source, and even named the school, which of course called it a lie). And yet, with all the press around during the elections, people with cameras on their cell phones, and candidates and watchdog groups at the polls, nobody has ever seen or recorded buses full of illegal voters, or brought it to the attention of the press or police or the Secretary of State’s office.

        You spout another tired old trope about “the media on the left”, when in reality there is a lot more right-wing media. There’s a local FOX affilitate in every media market, you’ve got News Max and OANN, Washington Times, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Barrons… even NPR, decried by Republicans as “that liberal bastion from hell” makes sure to include the Republican opionions (maybe even more than the Democratic opinions) because they don’t want to be seen as having a liberal bias, and yet, none of them have aired or printed any proof of irregularities. No right-wing media outlets have shown any evidence of fraud either. If any local market media ever found real proof of voter fraud, you can bet it would be amplified into the national media by one side or the other in a New York minute – and yet, it hasn’t happened.

        And I have to disagree that people are not prevented from voting in minority districts. You can count the number of polling stations in minority and poor districts compared to the number in richer and whiter districts. Just google “Texas polling stations” and you’ll see that county that includes Waco closed 44% of polling places while the population grew by 15,000. Always for “cost cutting” or “efficiency” or innocuous-sounding reasons, but always in minority districts. Hundreds of state laws to limit voting conditions were proposed and passed in majority Republican states after the last election. Where they hold a majority in the legislature, Republicans passed laws to shorten voting times, limit early voting, limit voting by mail, stopping same day registration – the very things you list that make it easier to vote, Republicans are against. Certainly those things that make it easier to vote have been expanded in blue states, but red states have limited or even stopped those practices.

        I don’t doubt that you may have witnessed (or at least heard of) voting irregularities in Chicago 50 years ago. It’s not relevant today. It’s not the same people, it’s not the same city, it’s not the same country, it’s not the same technology, it’s not even the same Party. To just say “it exists” is nothing more than the religious belief of the cult of Trump. It’s a proxy argument for the fact that demographic changes are going against the Republican Party. But until you have proof otherwise, don’t advocate policy based on something you heard from somebody who heard from somebody who heard from somebody … ad infinitum.

        • larry Horist

          Joseph S Bruder …. based on on your view of elections, we should eliminate all protections as unnecessary.. If all elections are meticulous, why is the DOJ sending in monitors? Since you have never experienced urban election fraud, you have no basis to say it does not exist. You can say it was 50 years ago, but again you are simply ignorant of today’s realities. I could go to Chicago today and easily find evidence of election fraud. But as I explained over and over … it is not prosecutable. So if you rely only on court cases, you will not see it. If you look at court records to find people not using the turn signals as the law requires, you would not see many cases. YOU would argue that every one is obeying the law regardless of what you see on the streets. You also confuse the Trump court challenges to the protective legislation passed by state legislatures. Essential to democracy is the protection of the voting process as a preventative. No one in America is suppressed from voting. Those claims are purely political and laughable on the surface — and refuted by the vote counts.

  3. jboo7

    What we are trying now -and have partly achieved- is a BETTER INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION!

  4. Mike

    Larry, sorry, I deal with facts, most of which have been provided by Republican election officials. You, not so much (hardly credible that you trust the my pillow guy more than actual election officials). You prefer to believe that there is a problem (mainly due to the fact that your preferred candidate lost), so you believe that changes are required. I on the other hand, prefer to believe people who really know what they are talking about (unlike you I need to add). Chris Krebs-trump director in charge of election security, bill Barr-no evidence of widespread fraud, the governors of Georgia, Arizona and all the other states trump thought he should win. When people start making changes due to non-existent problems, a thinking person asks ‘why’? In this case one has to wonder is it to placate their base, or is it to reduce voting, or both? Either way these changes were unnecessary since there was no problem reported…