Voter Suppression

Bill Internicola had to show his papers. He received a letter last month from the Broward County, Fla., supervisor of elections informing him the office had "information from the state of Florida that you are not a United States citizen; however, you are registered to vote. " So Internicola had to prove he is an American. He sent the county a copy of his Army discharge papers. Mr. Internicola is 91 years old. He was born in Brooklyn. He is a veteran of the Second World War. He earned a Bronze Star for his part in the Battle of the Bulge.

Let me see if I can get this straight. A political aide to former Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. was convicted Tuesday of conspiring to use election day robocalls in an effort to suppress black voter turnout during the 2010 gubernatorial election ("Schurick convicted," Dec. 7). In 2008, members of the New Black Panther Party stood at a Philadelphia polling place, shook a billy club, used menacing gestures, and made racial threats to intimidate voters. Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department dismissed all charges against two of the men, and the third got a slap on the wrist and was told to simply not display a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia until Nov. 15, 2012.

Both voter fraud and voter suppression, the subject of recent Sun op-eds and an editorial ("Voter ID laws uphold system's integrity," Feb. 26, and "The phantom menace," Feb. 27), have been addressed by the General Assembly. When an individual's right to vote is challenged at the polls, that person may establish his or her identity by presenting a voter registration card, Social Security card, valid Maryland driver's license, any identification card issued by a government agency, any employee identification card with a photo, or a copy of a current bill, bank statement, or government document that shows the individual's name and current address.

The trial of a veteran political operative, charged with violating election laws by sending out robocalls on Election Day last year that suggested voting was over, was postponed Tuesday after the only judge available to hear the case recused himself. Julius Henson, 62, who at the time was working for former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. on his 2010 campaign, is charged with three counts of conspiracy to violate election laws, among other charges. A new trial was set for February. The case was assigned to Baltimore Circuit Judge Charles J. Peters, but, according to Henson's attorney, Edward Smith Jr., Peters recused himself because he had recently been appointed by Gov. Martin O'Malley, Ehrlich's opponent in last year's gubernatorial election.

As I follow your coverage of the Paul Schurick voter suppression trial ("No plan to suppress the black vote, Schurick says," Nov. 3), I find I'm more amazed at the number of public officials willing to vouch, under oath, for the character of a man who clearly tried to mislead voters on election day, in effect attempting to steal their votes. That it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election is immaterial. The deviousness and dishonesty of the ploy should have sent former Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and the others running in the other direction when asked to testify on Mr. Schurick's behalf.

Sunday mornings are whenRobert L. Ehrlich Jr.gets to share his right-wing political views with the rest of us, but his most recent column was more extreme than usual ("It's not easy being attorney general," July 29). He defends Jim Crow politics in the South and anti-immigrant bigotry in Arizona. But the most outrageous position he takes is to defend the cruel voter suppression measures in a number of states designed to keep minorities and low-income voters from exercising their right to vote.

The opinion piece by Richard E. Vatz ("Schurick's behavior wrong, but not criminal," Dec. 11) seems to be comparing apples to oranges. His premise that the Schurick trial is an attempt to criminalize political freedom of speech is faulty. Sending out robocalls to try to keep voters away from the polls is not the same as claiming "Ehrlich was a Nazi" or "Ellen Sauerbrey was opposed to civil rights. " Uncivil speech, misrepresentation of facts as well as out and out lying seem to be the political norm on all sides during elections.

Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s column about the first anniversary of the Occupy movement betrays a hubris, a willful stupidity, and the usual threadbare deceptions ("Occupy movement got America wrong," Sept. 23). Such are the building blocks of the corrupt edifice that Occupy seeks to dismantle. It is no surprise that a politician of Mr. Ehrlich's stripes would think along these lines, as his administration acted as a tribune for the Walton family. Likewise it is no surprise that Mr. Ehrlich missed the ethical humanism at the core of Occupy.

Regarding Leonard Pitts' column about the impact of voter ID laws on African-Americans, it's time to squelch the outrage and be sensible ("With its voting rights threatened, black America is silent," July 15). Do we want to continue to proclaim our outrage and, as a result, let those votes be lost? These dastardly laws are in place and nothing can be done about them. So let's move on. Let's make sure that those now without valid photo IDs get them. These are mostly poor black people.

As we approach the 2012 election, the fear that many Americans will be denied their right to vote is increasingly becoming a reality. A growing number of states have enacted voter suppression laws that will require identification to vote, impose stricter voter registration requirements or prevent early voting or same-day voting - tactics that will push out many Americans from the electorate, particularly the elderly, people with disabilities, low-income...