Anyone who is legally eligible to cast a ballot in an elect…

That is the only acceptable way for a democratic republic to function. Voting should be easy and it should be encouraged. There should be:

- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.

This is not controversial.

It's telling how people defend more restrictive voting methods. Look at this ridiculous quote from Pete Hegseth about how everyone being able to easily cast a ballot somehow stripping people of the "recourse" of the ballot box.
https://t.co/4AcTPT2HfD

They know there's not widespread fraud. It's not about "fraud." It never was.

They just want to put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible, to make it more difficult for people to vote.

"We could've voted in person. I can go to Walmart. I can go to a store, I can go to a restaurant, I can go to sports games in some places. You tell me we couldn't have voted? I just don't buy it."

No one stopped you from voting in person, Pete!

If you're a minimum wage worker who doesn't get paid time off, who lives in an area where the number of polling places is limited and always has hours of lines... you're going to be less likely to vote *on* election day.

Only Republicans could look at record turnout and treat it like a problem that needs to be solved.

Efforts to limit early voting, to make it harder to cast votes by mail, to make it easier to reject ballots on technicalities like whether or not it was sent inside a special envelope... those are efforts to disenfranchise people.

Because all of those things are designed to affect the ability of people who work hourly jobs with little flexibility and an inability to take hours off in the middle of the day and live in densely-populated areas to cast votes. It's no coincidence that those are people who

tend to vote for Democrats. It's an attack on people of color. It's an attack on democracy. It's unacceptable.

And it's time the press started treating it as such.

Look at how often mainstream media outlets adopt the conservative framing on these election restrictions: "election security measures," "anti-voter fraud initiatives," etc.

Shameful. It's not a matter of "this side says it's about security, this other side says suppression"

"Both sides" coverage is how we got to this place. A fascist mob tried to overturn the election results. Mainstream media played a role in it.

How often are the people trying to add various "election integrity" measures asked what the ratio of instances of fraud their bills will prevent to the number of disenfranchised voters is? Never?

A lot of the DC media acting shocked and appalled with what happened yesterday are the same outlets that have led us to this point.

And had they, personally, not felt threatened, could they have even mustered up what outrage they did have?

Yesterday needs to be a major wake-up call. This is what endless "in this Trump town, they never stopped saying 'Merry Christmas'" profiles and "Meet the dapper Nazi" pieces have created.

Do better. And that means more than just a single day of acting outraged. That means reevaluating what the role of the press is in a functioning society, and rethinking journalism. It can't be entertainment anymore. It just can't.

The people who make decisions at CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, ABC, the AP, NPR, Reuters, USA Today, NBC, etc., won't see this thread. Or if they do, it won't sink in.

I can hope, though.

(I use "in this Trump town, they never stopped saying merry christmas" as an example because, I kid you not, it's something the Washington Post actually published... as if the rest of the country had stopped recognizing Christmas https://t.co/DaO6vPXR5A )

Anyone who is legally eligible to cast a ballot in an election should be allowed to do so in whatever way is most convenient for them. If that's in-person on election day, great; by mail, great; in-person in the weeks leading up to an election, great.

More from Parker Molloy

More from Legal

You May Also Like