New and events of the Philadelphia Bar Asso.
Issue link: https://thephiladelphialawyer.epubxp.com/i/434516
alone to protect our democratic system. This battle must also be fought at the state legislative level and, more importantly, in the court of public opinion. Frankly, we need to turn public opinion on this issue with the same astounding speed and thoroughness with which it has so recently changed on marriage equality. If those pressing voter restrictions really believed in democracy and universal suffrage, they would instead enact laws designed to enfranchise, to encourage people to vote and to make it easier to do so. The truth is, of course, obvious – they do not want more people to vote because they fear, and rightfully so, that new and certain vulnerable groups of voters will not vote as they wish. However, recent history teaches that the current electorate may not be quite as passionate about voting as our forebears or I. In the recent mid-term elections, only 36 percent of eligible voters voted. Which means about 19 percent of eligible voters determined the political fate of the nation for at least the next two years. And at least half of that 19 percent vote against their own economic interest being either deceived or distracted by the shiny objects of fear and extraneous emotional social issues. So, our "democracy" runs on the will of less than 10 percent of the electorate? Perhaps we get the government we deserve. Lest you think this well-funded, comprehensive, coordinated national campaign of voter suppression could not possibly be successful in this country, see the U.S. Supreme Court's Oct. 18, 2014 order in Veasey v. Perry (No. 14A393 and 14A404) which permitted Texas' Voter I.D. law to take effect for the mid-term election – shades of things to come. And, keep in mind, that the progenitors of today's Disenfranchisers, Southern senators, congressmen and state legislators, by 1911 had repealed virtually all state and federal Reconstruction-era election laws and enacted literacy tests, poll taxes, property tests, understanding tests, the white primary, grandfather clauses, stringent residency requirements and inconvenient places and times for registration and voting, (everything but "Voter I.D." – a relatively recent, creative suppression tool), disenfranchising every black voter who had been enfranchised less than 50 years before by the 15th Amendment. It would take another 50 years and the passage of the 24th Amendment (1964) and The Voting Rights Act (1965) to begin to reverse these legal obscenities. Although the Disenfranchisers shamelessly pretend to have the noble purpose of protecting the integrity of the process, all but the most blind and dense, including a few Supreme Court justices, do not see (or wish to see) through this ruse. However, as with so many on the wrong side of history, technology will overrun them. Secure online voting systems will one day enable every eligible voter to vote easily. We are quite creative when we want to be. The first patent of our most prolific inventor, Thomas Edison, was for an electromagnetic voting machine. (June 1, 1869, U.S. Pat. No. 90646A). We do virtually everything else online and there is no reason why we cannot devise and implement secure online voting systems that will finally make universal suffrage and democracy a reality in this country and end the disingenuous efforts of a powerful few to silence the votes of the powerless many. Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia have all had excellent experience with online voting. As we take pains to protect the Baltic states from the Russian Bear, perhaps we can also learn something from them and enfranchise millions via new technology. Right after we join the rest of the world (except also Liberia and Myanamar) and adopt the metric system. M. Kelly Tillery (tilleryk@pepperlaw.com), a partner with Pepper Hamilton LLP, is Editor-in-Chief of The Philadelphia Lawyer. the philadelphia lawyer Winter 2015 5 The Philadelphia Lawyer Editor-in-ChiEf M. Kelly Tillery Editorial Board Niki T. Ingram Jennifer J. Snyder Steven R. Sher David I. Grunfeld Steve LaCheen Harold K. Cohen John C. Gregory Richard G. Freeman April M. Byrd Emmanuel O. Iheukwumere Michael J. Carroll James Backstrom Peter F. Vaira Deborah Weinstein Daniel J. Siegel Justine Gudenas May Mon Post Editor Emeritus Herman C. Fala Senior Managing Editor Jeff Lyons design Wesley Terry Philadelphia Bar Association ChanCEllor Albert S. Dandridge III Chancellor-Elect Gaetan J. Alfano Vice Chancellor Deborah R. Gross Secretary Jaqueline G. Segal assistant Secretary Judge A. Michael Snyder (ret.) treasurer Wesley R. Payne, IV assistant treasurer Mary F. Platt Executive director Mark A. Tarasiewicz The Philadelphia Lawyer (USPS #025-241), printed with soy inks on recycled paper, is published quarterly in March, June, September and December by the Philadelphia Bar Association, 1101 Market St., 11th floor, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107-2955. Telephone: (215) 238-6300. E-mail: tplmag@philabar.org. Subscription cost for members is $5 which is included in annual dues, and for nonmembers is $45 yearly. The opinions stated herein are not necessarily those of the Philadelphia Bar Association. All manuscripts submitted will be carefully reviewed for possible publication. The editors reserve the right to edit all material for style and length. Advertising rates and information are available from Don Chalphin, Sales Director, ALM, 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1750, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 557-2359. Periodicals postage at Philadelphia and additional locations. POSTMASTER: please send changes to The Philadelphia Lawyer, c/o Philadelphia Bar Association, 1101 Market St., 11th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107-2955