In The Hill: "Democrats should embrace FBI background check for voters and gun purchasers alike"

I have a new piece at The Hill
Background checks are required for so many things from getting a job to buying a gun. But despite legitimate concerns about voting by illegal aliens and felons, Democrats become outraged by the mention of checks for voting. 
Last week, in testimony to the President’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I suggested using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to screen for ineligible voters. Democrats have long lauded this system, calling it simple, accurate, and in complete harmony with the second amendment right to own guns. 
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) bragged that the checks are done “without in any way abridging rights.” Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that expanding the system to cover all private transfers of guns would not be “in any way imposing on or impinging on the rights that the Second Amendment guarantees.” 
But literally only a few states currently even try in any way to check whether registered voters are US citizens. In 34 states, felons are not able to vote immediately upon release from prison. Even the states that check people criminal records rely on just records in their own states. 
The NICS checks information from the entire country and looks at more than people’s criminal histories. It also checks on citizenship status. So why not use that information to prevent ineligible people from voting? 
Background checks for gun purchases are costly, running roughly $55 to $175 for checks on private gun transfers. Requiring federally licensed gun dealers to do checks on each individual transfer is somewhat time-consuming. The current NICS system places the entire financial burden on gun buyers. This is unfair to poor people just trying to obtain a gun for self-defense, just as it would be unfair to voters. 
But checks on voters would be a simple and very low-cost process. States would comparing a state’s computer database of voters with NICS. Indeed, many states already regularly compare their list of concealed handgun permit holders to ensure that they are still eligible to carry. Under my proposal, the states would pick up the costs. 
The reaction to using NICS for voting was swift and harsh. “Horrified,” “patently absurd,” and “flabbergasted” were some of the reactions. That it was being proposed just to “suppress” voting. Reporters attacked my qualifications. The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham asserted that except for one unpublished paper, I had not done any other research “on elections or voting.” CNN’s Eric Bradner quoted someone questioning whether I was really “an academic” and that I hadn't written anything about elections in a decade. ProPublica’s Jessica Huseman attacked Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for “falsely” saying I am a “prolific author” in academic publications. 
But I have published 19 peer-reviewed, academic articles on the issues of elections, voting, and election law. My most recent is from 2014. I also served as a statistical expert for USA Today on the 2000 presidential election, wrote the Statistical Report on that election for the Minority members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and testified before the US Senate on election issues. In total, I have published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and I have held academic positions at the Wharton Business School, University of Chicago, and Yale. 
Salon’s Heather Parton argued that I am disqualified from the discussion because I usually study “gun violence on behalf of the NRA.” But the NRA has never paid for my research. 
Most of the responses have been personal in nature. But there have also been some more substantive comments. 
A Kansas City Star editorial raised the concern that . . .
The rest of the piece is available here



Blogger bart simpsonson said...

Great work, Mr. Lott, but I must take issue only with your figures for the cost of NICS checks for a gun purchase. I believe, at least in my case, it only takes a few minutes, with a phone call, for an FFL to access the system which gives approval or not. Admittedly, they are not likely your figures, but something provided by the government, and may include all sorts of incidentals, such as the cost of pensions for employees engaged in the work involved in compiling, accessing, and disseminating information to the FFL necessary to approve the pending transaction, or not. If the government is providing the numbers, I tend to totally disbelieve them suspecting they have little basis in fact, or accepted accounting procedures. Keep up the good work, on behalf of America and Americans. Regards......

11/02/2017 8:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home