Witt: What’s wrong with straight ticket voting?

Published 10:45 am Tuesday, September 24, 2019

For some inexplicable reason, Kentucky always seems to be in the backwater when it comes to rules and laws which might work to make the lives of the state’s inhabitants more comfortable or more able to enjoy the fruits of life or to exercise normal privileges and freedoms which are routinely granted to the residents of other states.

Just as importantly are statutes and laws which make the simple act of voting either too complicated or so asinine that they remove incentive for the voter to actually examine the positions of candidates.

A prime example of this latter situation is straight ticket voting (STV).

Email newsletter signup

This is the system which places an option at the top of each election ballot to allow the voter to cast all of his or her votes for every candidate in a single party. The option is available for Democrat and Republican choices.

There are nine states which allow straight ticket voting: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. Texas eliminated STV in 2016, but it does not go into effect until 2020.

Kentucky is once again among the minority of states which maintain either outdated, restrictive or simply ridiculous voting practices.

The Pennsylvania legislature passed a bill to eliminate the practice in 2019, but it was vetoed by the governor.

In 2001, the New Mexico legislature abolished STV. In 2012, that state’s legislature attempted to re-introduce it, but the effort failed.

In 2018, the New Mexico supreme court ruled 5-0 against an attempt to re-instate straight ticket voting by the secretary of state who was a Democrat. The court accepted a petition against the re-instatement of STV.

Michigan has undergone a lengthy process regarding straight ticket voting. The legislature passed and presented a law banning straight ticket voting to the governor, who signed it. It was subsequently challenged in Federal District Court and the Sixth District U.S. Court of Appeals before going to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the law’s failure. So straight ticket voting remains in effect there.

What’s wrong with straight ticket voting? Well, if one asks a staunch Democrat or Republican, the answer will probably be “nothing.” Political parties, depending on which has control of the state’s political machinery, probably gain by having this option available.

But the average voter is simply turned into an automaton, ignoring candidates from other parties who may be more qualified, or hold opinions more in line with the individual voter, than an opponent who simply is running in the party list under that switch on the voting machine.

Critics suggest the elimination of STV will result in longer lines at the polls. Maybe. But a longer wait to vote is a small price to pay for possibly finding a more qualified candidate for a position.

All politicians claim they want to increase voter participation. In actuality, they only want the increase to occur if it benefits their own party.

But asking the voter to acquaint himself or herself with the positions of candidates is a stipulation that harkens back to a very basic tenet from high school civics.

“Democracy flourishes only under an educated population”. Part of that education is learning about candidates, those of all parties. Elimination of STV would aid that education.

Chuck Witt is a retired architect and a lifelong resident of Winchester. He can be reached at chuck740@bellsouth.net.