In a audio presentation from WISN, story teller Dan O'Donnell tries to make a case that concerns over disenfranchisement in larger Wisconsin communities and cities stemming from a GOP bill making early voting hours across the state uniform are fraudulent.
Titled Decimating Claims of 'Voter Suppression' in Just Six Minutes," O'Donnell however makes the claim that voters in smaller communities are indeed disenfranchised, which is a strange case to make if you support the GOP's bill to cut early voting access hours in larger communities so that they match the hours of the smaller (disenfranchised) communities. You're simply saying that you support action that will result in disenfranchising voters across the state - equally.
Excerpt from audio -- "If anything, allowing city clerk's offices in larger municipalities like Milwaukee to stay open on weekends or late at night when smaller communities don't have that option - disenfranchises people in those smaller communities who can't take advantage of the same voting hours as people in Milwaukee."
In the above statement, "disenfranchises" is supposed to mean depriving a person or a community of their right or access to vote, but O'Donnell is claiming smaller communities are disenfranchised simply because clerk offices are open during weekends in OTHER communities. Really? This sounds more like a case to create voter envy out of thin air to divide and conquer constituencies.
So, are people in smaller communities really saying, "I'm deprived of voting access during the weekend BECAUSE voters in larger communities stole my access?" That would be bordering on insanity to make such a claim. But the narrator does veer in that direction.
Later in the segment, O'Donnell defines disenfranchisement correctly as "to prevent a person or group of people from having the right to vote," but then states that "it's clear this bill disenfranchises ...no one." In other words, he concludes the GOP bill will end disenfranchisement among voters even in smaller communities, but only as long as the disenfranchisement is spread around EQUALLY in all communities. Got that?
This brings about a few simple questions...
Question 1A. If voters in smaller communities feel disenfranchised from less access, why isn't that issue more popularly known and corrected with MORE access?
Question 1B. If voters in smaller communities are NOT disenfranchised, why does O'Donnell try to transpose responsibility of their non-issue onto those trying to prevent disenfranchisement in the larger communities?
Question 2. Why would anyone care about the hours of early voting access in other communities so long as ballots are available and others have access they are satisfied with?
Question 3. If by chance an individual or community is not satisfied and feels shortchanged as O'Donnell implied, how does shortchanging others end your disenfranchisement?