State-sanctioned bribery?

Should Arizona bribe voters to come to the polls by making a vote cast also eligible to win a $1 million lottery award?

That is the incredibly asinine proposal that Democrat Mark Osterloh, a 2002 (fortunately) unsuccessful candidate for governor, has been able to qualify for the November ballot.

TRENDING: Capitol authorities on high alert Thursday over 'real inauguration' threat

Will the quality of Arizona's elected officials be improved – or degraded – by such state-funded lottery bribery?

Or isn't it a blessing to good government that citizens who don't even bother to vote have no effect on the elections of which they think so little that they fail to vote?

The New York Times reports from Tucson that Osterloh, a political gadfly who is behind the initiative, the Arizona Voter Reward Act, is promoting it with the slogan:

"Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Vote!"

He collected 185,902 signatures of registered voters – and that is more than enough to guarantee that this bribery-of-voters scheme will be on the ballot this November – when it should surely be voted against.

"Mr. Osterloh sees the gimmick as the linchpin to improve voter turnout," reports the Times. But does this allure of gambling mean that the quality of voting by informed and concerned citizens will be improved – or merely increased?

"Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate in Washington, said the idea of a voter lottery had come up in other states, but he could not recall any moving forward with it. And he's glad.

"'People should not go vote because they might win a lottery,' Mr. Gans said. 'We need to rekindle the religion of civic duty, and that is a hard job, but we should not make voting crassly commercial.'

"Editorial writers, bloggers and others have panned the idea as bribery and say it may draw people simply trying to cash in without studying candidates or issues.

"'Bribing people to vote is a superficial approach that will have no beneficial outcome to the process, except to make some people feel good that the turnout numbers are higher,' said an editorial in the Yuma Sun. 'But higher numbers do not necessarily mean a better outcome.'

"One federal statute calls for fines or imprisonment of up to one year to anyone who 'makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote.'

"'It's clearly illegal,' said Jack Chin, a professor at the University of Arizona law school who has studied voting rights issues.

"'This is cute and clever, but even though it responds to a real problem, it does so in a way that threatens to degrade the process,' Mr. Chin said.

"But Mr. Osterloh, who has a law degree, and the lawyer who helped write the initiative, Anthony B. Ching, a former state solicitor general, said the laws were meant to stop individuals from buying or selling votes for particular candidates or parties. In this case, it would be a state-sanctioned program with a high purpose and, they add, offering the chance to win – voters opt into the program – was not the same as giving everybody money to vote.

"'I don't think the federal law would cover this kind of situation,' Mr. Ching said.
State political leaders so far are keeping their distance.

"Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who will also be on the November ballot as a candidate for re-election, has declined to take a position. The leaders of the State Senate and House, both Republicans, did not answer messages seeking comment."

Related special offer:

"Turning the Tables on Gambling"