Voting – It Seems As If "They" Really Don't Want Us To

You've heard all the reasons why you should vote. You know, it's your civic duty, your vote really does count and the more popular saying; make your voice heard, vote! With all of this positive reinforcement to vote why does it feel as if our government discourages us from partaking in this sacred ritual that has been a part of history for so long?

My personal experience with the government discouraging me to vote just recently took place in the primary elections this March, 2014. It all started on an icy day in Austin, Texas. The Tuesday Primary Elections were being delayed by two hours because of icy road conditions. Instead of 7:00 A.M. the elections polls would open at 11:00A.M. The idea was that voters got a late start so the polls hours would also be extended to accommodate all the late working people.

Pursuant to the Texas election laws, a court order was granted in district court to extend voting hours until 9:00 P.M. My plan was to work late because of the late start, run and pick up my son who was involved in an extra-curricular activity that evening, and who by the way, was also running on an altered time plan.

I ended up at a polling place right at 7:00 P.M. I was greeted with confusion as election officials discouraged me to vote. "Oh, you’re here to vote? I responded, yes. "Well you know that is now after 7:00 P.M. So your vote tonight will only be provisional. Why? I asked. Because, technically, the polls closed at 700 P.M. When I heard this answer, my first reaction was to scream and pull my hair. What was I hearing? I along with others who had arrived after me, were being punished for the two hour weather delay? My vote would be provisional? In other words, as it was explained to me at the voting site, all voting ballots done after 7:00 PM would be counted and reviewed for eligibility within the next two days. After this process, I would be notified by mail if my vote counted our not. It just didn't make sense.

It wasn’t until I looked up the meaning of a provisional ballot that I felt my civic duty had been crushed. According to the Texas Election code:

A Provisional Ballot is used when someone is not listed on the voter registration roll. A special process outlined in federal legislation is used to review the eligibility of these ballots. If you arrive at a polling location on Election Day and your registration status cannot be verified, you may request a provisional ballot at that time.

This was not the case here. I was certainly on the voter’s registration roll. I know because I had been mailed my updated voters’ registration card weeks before. I finally asked why I had to fill out all of this extra paper work and why my vote was being counted as a provisional ballot when the polls didn’t close until 9:00 PM. The answer I received was not good enough. It was simply because votes needed to start being counted so that candidates would be able to know their status by the next morning.

This special process that is "outlined in federal legislation" in order to review eligibility ballots is unjust when it comes to ballots that for no other reason were being investigated and held because the vote came in after 7:00 P.M.

The whole process of being scrutinized because of an after 7:00 arrival really tested my tolerance for the whole voting process as a whole. Here I was along with others in line behind me trying to exercise our right to vote, but being faced with yet another tactic our government has imposed on citizens.

On March 3, 2014, Laura Bassett of The Huffington Post wrote an article: Hobby Lobby Win at Supreme Court Could Lead to More Anti-Gay Laws. The article explains how abortion rights activists are comparing the just vetoed Arizona anti-gay laws to the Hobby Lobby case that will be heard before the Supreme Court soon. And, IF the Supreme Court rules in Hobby Lobby's favor the ruling could lead to more gay discrimination laws.

Hobby Lobby is stating that they do not want to be a part of offering birth-control coverage to its employees that is mandated by the new Affordable Health Care Act. Hobby Lobby is using their right to religious liberty in order to get around this law and not offer birth-control coverage to its employees and their dependents.

Abortion activists are stating that what Hobby Lobby is doing is no different than what business owners in Arizona were trying to do: assert their religious liberty by turning away; not providing services to the gay and lesbian community simply based on their religious beliefs. Of course, Rep. Governor Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill a few days ago because of much backlash from the media, constituents, democrats and even her fellow republicans.

From my viewpoint, the comparisons are valid and the article is right on target. The fact that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) community and Planned Parenthood came together to issue a statement to the media and declared that by letting Arizona businesses try and use the religious liberty “card” to deter the LGBT community from patronizing their businesses is the same thing as a for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby playing the religious liberty card to get around a government mandate and violate the rights of women by denying them affordable preventative health care. Basically, abortion activist want the public to know that Hobby Lobby would represent the Arizona businesses and the women who are employees and dependents covered under the Hobby Lobby insurance policy represent the LGBT community that are being discriminated against.

In addition, I also agree with the article that this type of imbalance and inequality, will only make this nation suffer more of the injustice that so many people face today simply because of the color of our skin, our gender and even who we choose to love. Hobby Lobby as a corporation has no right to religious liberties as the Arizona businesses did not either. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company that should abide by the government mandated Affordable Care Act and not discriminate against women the way Arizona tried to discriminate.

Legalize Marijuana? Check Yes or No.

A CNBC article posted on April 20, 2010: Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana  is somewhat one sided at best.  The article does not reveal an author, but sites numerous citations at the end of the article.  I believe the authors intended audience are older middle class possibly wealthy conservative Americans.  The author believe the use of marijuana is just as destructive to society as alcohol and tobacco and should not be legalized.  If the US Government legalizes marijuana is would only promote recreational use.

The article uses the gambling analogy as a vice that was previously legalized by the US.  "Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling just the way legal marijuana would set the stage for illegal marijuana trafficking."  The article does not provide any statistics on the growing number of people or entities that have been convicted or sentenced for illegal gambling.  So the reader is too assume that author has personal knowledge of illegal gambling rings existing at that time.

I believe that the article also fails to point out the benefits of legalizing this drug.  Proponents for legalizing marijuana for medicinal reason argue that the drug can be an effective treatment for people with cancer AIDS, multiple sclorosis, epilepsy, and glaucoma.

The article does however make a good argument in stating that the drug is not the most abused illegal drug (although there is no statistics on this statement either).  Proponents fail to realize that the greatest price tag of the drug is not that it is illegal, bu that it is the outcome from the use of the drug itself.  In other words, people who smoke marijuana are less likely to contribute to society in a good way.

In general, I believe that the legalization of marijuana will benefit the US.  The drug will be taxed and regulated.  And yes, legalizing this drug may lead to more potent marijuana and possible higher use, but that will have to be dealt with by new laws.  The fact that marijuana is an effective treatment for cancer, that alone for me is a great reason to legalize.  I myself have had many family members die from cancer and would one day like to see if this drug may lead to other effective treatments.

Increase the Minimum Wage.

On February 8, 2014, The New York Times posted an article titled:  The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage.  The minimum wage was established in 1938 under the Fair Labors Standard Act.  It was enacted to protect the American worker.  If you watched the President's State of the Union address, he spoke on raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. President Obama went on to state that millions of Americans would benefit from this wage increase and take them out of poverty and off possibly off government assistance.  

According to Democrats, 4.6 million people would be brought out of poverty "without requiring the government to tax, borrow or spend."  Apparently low wage paying employers actually help to bring the minimum wage down because their point of view is that the government is there to assist you in making ends meet.  The low paying employer has an incentive to keep wages down and have his employees be subsidize by way of food stamps and Medicaid.  

On the other hand, Conservatives favor the earned income tax credit as a way of discouraging the minimum wage increase. Conservatives say raising the minimum wage would cause an unnecessary income tax on the already poverty-stricken.

Reading this article will inform Americans on the subject of the possible minimum wage increase and shed light on just how large the wage gap is between the average American worker and corporate America.