MY TURN: An expandable table

Much is written about election integrity. Since 2015, we have been advised that our election system is rigged. This is despite many court cases, reviews by Republicans and Democrats, attorneys and judges, etc., all attesting to the integrity of our election process. If we do not accept that, then that is our problem and may not be a problem with the election system.

Along with these false claims are efforts to fix what really is not broken. We hear too many mail in ballots, photo IDs, not enough people to count paper ballots, many illegals voting, including dead people. I have to assume that people here in Idaho, who make those claims, are talking about other states. Idaho has had a Republican super majority for quite a few years. It has overwhelmingly voted for President Trump. Who are we protecting? I do not believe the Republican Party in Idaho could give a hoot about Democrats winning an election. In fact, most of their efforts are directed toward suppressing potential Democratic voters.

A recent article in the Coeur d'Alene Press discussed the large number of legislative bills submitted, and how many actually pass through the process. I don’t think the issue really should be how many, but, more importantly, what are these bills proposing? If our legislators think that they are going to change morality through legislation, they ought to look at their history book and how the South handled segregation. I don’t disagree for one minute that we want moral people making our decisions and casting votes. I learned my values from my parents, my school, my friends, my church and people I met along the way. When our Legislature is focused on cultural issues, such as what constitutes a legitimate family, I must think they don’t have a clue. In a nation where the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the past years, perhaps our legislators might focus on ensuring the well-being of families rather than their moral or religious beliefs. Many of our legislators adhere to whatever their political party advocates. Shouldn’t they be looking at what we need as a people, as voters, as residents of our community. I am less concerned about who someone in my community chooses to divorce or marry as I am concerned about affordable housing for my children and grandchildren, health care for those who need it, an adequate lunch for children, quality day care for working parents or parent. My religious beliefs and my political beliefs certainly do overlap. When I go to work each day, I do not spend my time proselytizing except through my behavior. I expect the same from my legislators.

Many of us claim to believe in or at least value the teachings of Christianity, although other religions advocate some similar views. Can we set a table that includes people of differing stations in life? Our religious beliefs help to determine our behavior, but our actions matter more.

“It seems Jesus didn’t please anybody by breaking rules to make a bigger table. Notice how his contemporaries accused Jesus: one side criticized him for eating with tax collectors and sinners (see Matthew 9:10–11). The other side judged him for eating too much (Luke 7:34) or dining with the Pharisees and lawyers (Luke 7:36–50, 11:37–54, 14:1). Jesus ate with all sides. He ate with lepers (Mark 14:3), he received a woman with a poor reputation at a men’s dinner (Luke 7:36–39), and he even invited himself to a “sinner’s” house (Luke 19:1–10). How do we not see that? [2]"

Do we include people who differ from us in multiple ways at our table or do we limit the number of chairs? We may all disagree on the best solution, but must agree on the problem. Should children receive a free lunch at school? We may disagree on the costs or amount, but need to recognize no child should go to school hungry, no person should be denied health care, public education is important for all, adequate housing is essential. These all require recognizing the problem, considering a solution and coming together to address the problem. If your particular group or political affiliation sees a one solution fits all, denies a problem exists or that government should help, then perhaps you need a bigger group. In one of his more sarcastic moments, Mark Twain is quoted as saying “If voting made a difference,” he wrote, “they wouldn't let us do it.”

He said that believing politicians seldom do what they claimed. All the fuss over the discredited belief in the lack of election integrity seemed directed at ensuring politicians do what the political party wants, the public be damned. I wonder why would anyone try to vote who is not eligible? We have so many registered voters who don’t or won’t vote. We should be seeking ways to encourage eligible voters to register and vote. In a democracy it is a right and, more importantly, an obligation to participate. A larger table, an expandable table, should be our goal irrespective of our personal beliefs. How big is your table?

• • •

Phil Ward is a Coeur d'Alene resident.