New Report Charges that States Disfranchise Older Voters

Published in Woonsocket Call on November 11, 2017

Since 1948, Wisconsin resident Christine Krucki had voted in every presidential election, but effectively lost her right to vote when her state enacted a voter ID law in 2011. An old Illinois photo ID and proof of her residence in Wisconsin was just not good enough to allow her to cast a vote.

Krucki did not have a birth certificate and was forced to purchase one for $20. However, her last name on the document did not match her current last name, changed when she married. She then paid $15 dollars for a copy of her marriage certificate , but that document listed her list name differently than her birth name, as she was adopted a different name after moving in with her stepsister when she was in her early 20s. Changing her name on the Illinois marriage certificate to match her birth certificate to solve the problem would cost between $ 150 and
$ 300.

The obstacles Krucki faced when attempting to exercise her right to vote are encountered by millions of older Americans when they attempt to vote. With the 2018 mid-term elections less than a year away, two U.S. Senators release a report detailing Krucki’s problem at the polls, and notes how suppressive state laws and inaccessible voting locations disenfranchise older voters.

Pushing Older Voters Away from the Polls

Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging, and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration’s 15 page report, “Barriers to Voting for Older Americans: How States are Making it Harder for Seniors to Vote,” finds that strict voter identification (ID) laws, closure of voting locations, inaccessible polling places and limits on early voting and absentee ballots are preventing seniors and people with disabilities from casting votes.

“The right to vote is one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy. But, that right is under threat for millions of older Americans and individuals with disabilities across the nation,” stated Sen. Bob Casey in a statement announcing the report’s release. “This report brings awareness to the unique challenges that seniors face in exercising their constitutional right. We must work to ensure that all Americans have equal access to the voting booth.”

“The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, but exercising that right is becoming harder and harder for many Americans, especially our seniors,” add Sen. Klobuchar, noting that long lines, inaccessible polling places, and strict voter ID laws have become barriers to voting for older Americans. “This important report shines a light on the hardships these voters face and proposes common sense solutions to make voting easier for everyone. We need to do more to restore Americans’ confidence in our political system. Our first step should be making it easier for their voices to be heard on Election Day,” he says.

The report, released on Nov. 2, also includes new information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which found that only 17 percent of the polling places it examined during the 2016 election were fully accessible. Most polling places GAO examined had one or more impediments from parking to the voting area and had accessible voting stations that could impede private and independent voting.

According to the report, suppressive voting laws and issues of accessibility affect tens of millions of older Americans and people with disabilities. In the 2016 election, 30 percent of the voters were between the ages of 50 and 64-years-old and 13 percent were 65 and older. Sixteen million (11.5 percent) of the 139 million votes were cast by people with disabilities. As the baby boomer population continues to age, these restrictions and barriers are likely to adversely impact more Americans.

In order to protect the voting rights of older voters and persons with disabilities, the report calls on Congress to ensure the full authorization and empowerment of all federal voting laws, which will make polling places accessible to older voters. Access to polls can also be increased by allowing opportunities for accessible early voting and absentee voting. Finally, it calls on limiting restrictions on voting and ensure that election laws fully consider the needs and abilities of older Americans.

Reflections from Rhode Island

“The depth of this issue varies from state to state,” says AARP State Director Kathleen Connell, who herself is a former Rhode Island Secretary of State. “I believe that older Rhode Islanders are well protected here, but we must be vigilant. Older Rhode Islanders are traditionally the most engaged voting group. Their voices are important and should not be silenced in any way.”

“I would add, however, that deliberate voter suppression is a threat to voters of all ages and the implications are as serious as they are obvious.

“When Voter ID legislation was passed in Rhode Island, we worked with then Secretary of State Ralph Mollis to set up photo booths to create ID cards for voters who did not have proper photo IDs. It was well received, but transportation was identified as a barrier to reaching some potential voters. Fortunately there were other remedies in place and, I have to say, no one contacted us saying they were prohibited from voting.”

Adds, Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, this report presents a troubling situation across our country. The right to vote is sacred. I have spent the past three years modernizing our elections so that we can engage and empower all Rhode Islanders. Civic participation at all age levels is critical to our success as a state. I will continue to work to remove barriers so that eligible Rhode Islanders can have easier access to the ballot.”

Joe Graziano, Gorbea’s Communication Coordinator, notes that the GAO findings cited in this “Barriers to Voting” report is based on Council on State Governments research that his Department did not have a chance to review. “While it is not called “early voting”, Rhode Island does have an emergency mail ballot period that allows Rhode Islanders to cast their ballot ahead of Election Day without an excuse, says Graziano, noting that older voters have been able to use this system, in fact, 45 percent of the emergency mail ballots cast last year were by Rhode Islanders 65 and older.

Graziano admits that the GAO report shines a light on some of the barriers to voting across the nation. “Secretary Gorbea agrees that access to voting is critical and has successfully strived to improve it in the last three years including the introduction of online voter registration, automatic voter registration and the implementation of new, easier to use elections technologies (voting machines and ePoll books). Additionally, she has redesigned the ballot and the voter information guide to make them easier to read and understand. She also introduced legislation to update and expand opportunities for early, in-person voting,” he says.

“As a way to mitigate the negative impact of the photo ID requirement for voting, the Rhode Island Department of State has made sure that free photo Voter IDs are available to people in the communities where they live,” says Graziano, noting that last year alone, the Secretary of State staff held 51 events at senior centers and retirement facilities to ensure that eligible, older voters had proper voter identification, were introduced to new voting technologies and had any of their elections related questions answered by our Elections Division staff.

Looking to the upcoming General Assembly Session, Graziano says that Secretary Gorbea will once again introduce legislation for early in-person voting. “The legislation would eliminate the need for emergency mail ballots by allowing voters to cast their ballot at their local city or town hall, up to 20 days prior to an election, including the Saturday and Sunday prior to Election Day,” he says.

For more details about the Senate voting obstacle report, go to http://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Voting%20Rights%20Report.pdf.

Advertisements

Winning the Votes of Older Women

Published in Pawtucket Times on October 10, 2016

On Oct. 7, Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthol’s story broke detailing a three minute video of GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump wearing a hot microphone during a 2005 bus ride with former-host Bill Bush, of “Access Hollywood” to the set of “Days of Our Lives” where the real estate mogul had a walk on cameo on the soap opera. The video captured Trump saying “And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything …Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything” and crudely describing his failed attempts to seduce a woman while being recently married.

Reaction came swiftly to Trump’s locker room banter with Bush. “No woman should never be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” said Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who was doing damage control to keep woman voters from voting Democrat. The leaked video has also resulted in a number of Republican Senate and House candidates running in November to withdrawal their endorsements of Trump.

This is horrific,” Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton said on Twitter, noting a link to the Washington Post article. “We cannot allow this man to become president.”

The embattled Trump initially issued a statement and later a video to try to defuse the controversy and get his flailing campaign back on track 30 days before the November presidential election.

Many political pundits believe that Trump’s off-the-cuff comments that are derogatory to woman, a powerful voting block who decide elections, might just block his chances of becoming the next occupant of the White House.

Women’s Campaign Issues

One day before the politically damaging Washington Post article appeared detailing Trump’s lewd comments in a leaked video, AARP, the nation’s largest aging advocacy group, released survey findings highlighting issues of importance to women voters ages 50 to 69 in key battleground states.

“Older women voters – particularly women of the Boomer generation — could help decide the 2016 presidential election,” said AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond. “Yet many of their real concerns are being ignored and their questions overlooked in a largely issueless campaign. The candidates still have an opportunity to talk to these women about the issues that matter to them.”

The 27 page report, Women Voters Ages 50 +: Economic Anxieties, Social Security, and the 2016 Election, says that heading into this year’s presidential election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has a whopping 15 point lead (48 percent) over the GOP’s standard bearer Donald Trump (33 percent) among woman over age 50. The findings also indicate that older woman favor Democrats running for Congress by a narrower margin (47 percent are inclined to vote for a Democrat while 36 percent inclined to vote for a Republican).

AARP’s survey results noted that majority of woman age 50 and over believe that Clinton will do a better job than Trump in addressing family caregiving (Clinton, 57 percent; Trump, 27 percent), education (56 percent; 31 percent), environment (55 percent; 29 percent) and health (53 percent; 35 percent). The Democratic presidential candidate is also perceived by older woman as having a slight advantage over Trump in controlling government spending and controlling the budget deficit (44 percent; 43 percent).

“It’s the Economy Stupid”
Plus Retirement Issues

As to the economy, the majority of the older woman respondents across these 15 battle ground states worry about pocketbook issues such as prices rising faster than their income (61 percent) and having to pay too much in taxes (54 percent. Four in ten (41%) worry about having prescription drug expenses they cannot afford. Women with lower household incomes are especially likely to worry about these pocketbook issues.

Also, the AARP survey found that many women also worry about retirement security, including their ability to care for themselves as they age (45 percent), not having financial security in retirement (41 percent), and whether Social Security will be there when they retire (38 percent). These retirement-related issues are of particular concern to women with lower household incomes.

Additionally, most women (53 percent) say that the nearly 25 percent cut in Social Security benefits that would result from not addressing the solvency of Social Security would impact them, including 32 percent who say it would impact them “a lot.”

Fixing Social Security is a key issue to older woman voters. The AARP survey noted that the vast majority of women voters ages 50+ (72 percent) say that the next president and Congress should address Social Security immediately.

Most women (67 percent) also favor giving a caregiver credit in calculating Social Security benefits to people who take time off from work to care for loved ones, says the report.

Social Security is flying under the radar screen of the voter. The survey findings noted that few women say that they have heard about the candidates’ plans for Social Security. About one in three (34 percent) say they have seen or heard anything from Clinton, and even fewer (20 percent) say that they have seen or heard anything from Trump.

The AARP survey found that over 54 percent of the respondents are currently, or have been, a family caregiver providing unpaid care to an adult loved one. More than eight in ten (85 percent) women voter’s ages 50+ think it is important for the presidential candidates to talk about how they would support family caregivers who provide unpaid care to aging parents or spouses or other adult family members.

Finally, four in ten (41 percent) women are not confident that they will be able to cover the cost of care for an aging or elderly parent, spouse, or other family member.

Women: A Powerful Voting Block

According to the Center for American Women in Politics, “In recent elections voter turnout rates for women have equaled or exceeded voter turnout rates for men. Women, who constitute more than half of the population, have cast between four to seven million more votes than men in recent elections.“

Only weeks will tell if embattled Trump can overcome the political backlash generated from his locker room banter degrading woman, political insiders predicting that the gender vote gap might just historically widen.

AARP’s survey findings provide sound advice to Clinton and Trump and congressional candidates who are scrambling for last minute votes, especially from married women, younger millennials and women living in the nation’s suburbs. The women’s voting block might just surely tilt the election to a candidate in many legislative districts.

How the Election Impacts Social Security

Published in Woonsocket Call on July 24, 2016

On the final night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) an average of 32 million Americans tuned in to watch Donald J. Trump, a New York Real Estate Developer, author, television personality and now politician, formally accepted the GOP nomination for President of the United States.

After he delivered his July 21 speech, reporters, political commentators, and even postings trending on twitter called Trump’s hour and 15 minute speech (4,400 words) “dark” because of its stark tone and content. This GOP presidential candidate’s speech was even referred to as being the longest acceptance speech in history since 1972.

Before more than 2,400 delegates Trump, 70, pledged to be the nation’s law and order president who would crack down on crime and violence. America first would be Trump’s mantra during the negotiation of international trade deals and the existing NAFTA trade accord would be renegotiated.

Trump also called for defending the nation’s borders against illegal immigrants and giving parents more choice in choosing schools for their children. And to the forgotten men and woman across the country who were laid-off because of President Obama’s mishandling of the economy Trump promised to be their voice. Syrian refugees would be vetted and only those individuals who “will support our values and love our people” will be admitted, he said.

Trump Ignores Social Security in Speech

Aging advocates say that Trump’s acceptance speech was short on details when it can to domestic policy, specifically Social Security and Medicare. But, you won’t need tea leaves to read how a future Trump Administration will change the way the nation supports its retirees. .

According to Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), the choice of Governor Mike Pence as Trump’s running mate should send “a very clear message to America’s seniors that their priorities will hold little weight in a Trump administration.” While Trump has promised on the campaign trail that he won’t cut Social Security and Medicare.

During his 12 years serving as a U.S. Congressman, Pence consistently voted in favor of GOP legislative efforts to cut benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, says Richtman, charging that Trump’s vice presidential running mate is one of a few Congressional lawmakers that has a strong “anti-seniors voting record.”

Richtman says that “Mike Pence was one of Congress’ biggest proponents of privatization. He supports cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, reducing the COLA, means-testing and turning Medicare into “CouponCare.” As he told CNN, ‘I’m an all of the above guy. I think we need to look at everything that’s on the menu,’ and the record shows he has done just that by supporting every form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cut proposed in the past decade.”

While Trump has promised not to cut Social Security benefits on his year-long campaign trail, he continues to surround himself with advisors who are “polar opposite” of his positions says Richtman. “They say actions speak louder than words — Donald Trump’s choice of Mike Pence as his Vice-Presidential running mate will speak volumes to American seniors,” he adds.

Political Experts Weigh in

Darrell M. West, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, says that “Trump is on record as saying he does not want to cut Social Security so that is considerably different from most Republican leaders, who support benefit reductions as a way to balance its books. This probably is the reason the [GOP] platform is vague on Social Security. The party could not reconcile Trump’s view on not cutting benefits with the party’s general view that cuts are needed. That left them with a reference to market solutions without explaining what that meant.”

“Party leaders have said they want to raise the retirement age for people under age 50. That issue certainly would be on the issue in a Trump presidency although it is not clear how he views that issue. But there would be significant support in a GOP-run Congress for doing that and cutting the benefits of future retirees,” adds West.

West believes that “Democrats have a very good chance of recapturing control of the Senate. If that happens, that will allow them to block benefit reductions or raising the retirement age, he says.

Wendy Schiller, professor and chair, Department of Political Science at Brown University, warns that talking about changing Social Security can be risky and this “involves a depth of knowledge about entitlement financing that eludes most political candidates especially those without any political experience.”

The Brown professor of politics does not see Trump tackling this issue in any meaningful way in the campaign and she does not believe it will be a priority for him or the GOP if he wins. “Recall George W. Bush tried to reform Social Security immediately after he won reelection in 2004 – by late January 2005 it was dead on arrival in Congress,” she says.

“Overall I am not sure the GOP leadership in the Congress has fully processed what a Trump presidency would look like in terms of policy or what his priorities might be. It is unclear to me that they will align closely and getting anything through Congress these days is nearly impossible, no matter who sits in the Oval Office,” she adds.

Stark Differences in Platforms to Fix Social Security

On Friday, the released Democratic Platform released reveal a stark difference as how to the Democratic and Republican parties will fix the ailing Social Security program. The GOP platform. Although current retirees and those close to retirement will receive their benefits, changes are looming with a Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress. For younger generations all benefit cut options to be put on the table, opposing the lifting of the payroll tax cap and sees privatization of Social Security as a way for older American’s to create wealth for use in retirement. On the other hand, the Democratic Party platform calls for a strengthening and expansion of the existing Social Security program. The Democrats oppose any attempts to “cut, privatize or weaken” Social Security, and calls for lifting the payroll tax and exploring a new COLA formula.

NCPSSM’s Richtman notes “ It’s also very telling that while the GOP buried their cuts and privatization plans for Social Security under the Platform’s Government Reform heading, the Democrats addressed Social Security, as they should, as part of their plan to restore economic security for average Americans. That’s been Social Security’s fundamental role for more than 80 years — providing an economic lifeline impacting the lives of virtually every American family.”

As AARP’s John Hishta noted in his July 22 blog, even though the “political spotlight was not on Social Security” at the RNC in Cleveland, delegates, rank-and-file politicians and even political operatives that he talked with clearly understand the programs importance to retirees and younger generations.

“If political leaders fail to act, future retirees could lose up to $10,000 a year. All beneficiaries could face a nearly 25 percent cut in their benefit,” warns Hishta. .

Hishta tells his blog readers that “AARP’s Take a Stand campaign left the RNC with renewed determination to make updating Social Security a bigger part of the presidential debate.” He pledges to continue pushing for strengthening and expanding the nation’s Social Security program at next week’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and until the November presidential elections.

To keep informed about Social Security discussion during this presidential campaign go to http://takeastand.aarp.org/,

Candidates Mum on Social Security

Published in Pawtucket Times on February 8, 2016

Just a week before the New Hampshire primary, scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, AARP releases a new survey, of likely primary voters, that finds Social Security is “one issue that transcends the partisan divide and unites people of all ages.” Both surveyed Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that all presidential candidates should give details as to how they will strengthen or expand Social Security.

In recent presidential debates, moderators focus on the economy, abortion, gun control, immigration and defense, hardly touching on aging issues. The January 29 AARP survey found that voters want more specifics about Social Security. More than nine in 10 New Hampshire primary voters across party lines and age groups say it is important for presidential candidates to lay out their specific plans to make Social Security financially sound for future generations.

Presidential Candidates Dodging Social Security Issue

“New Hampshire primary voters are sending a clear message to the presidential candidates that having a plan to keep Social Security strong is a test of leadership,” said AARP New Hampshire State Director Todd Fahey. “Yet, some presidential candidates are dodging the issue. Our survey confirms New Hampshire primary voters agree if a candidate thinks they’re ready to be president, they should at least be able to tell voters where they stand on Social Security’s future.”

According to AARP, the recent survey of 1,004 likely New Hampshire primary voters, was conducted by telephone from January 12 through January 16, 2016. By design, half of the respondents consist of likely Democratic primary voters (501) and half consist of likely Republican primary voters (503).

The AARP survey is part of nonprofit’s 2016 presidential election issue campaign, “Take A Stand.” In November, the nonprofit launched its its 2016 election accountability campaign initiative which demands on behalf of America’s voters that presidential candidates detail their specific positions on making Social Security financially sound.
The survey findings indicate that nine in 10 New Hampshire primary voters (93 percent Democrat and 92 percent Republican) across party lines and age groups say its important for presidential candidates to lay out a detailed plan to make Social Security financially sound for future generations. Regardless of age, nearly half or more of likely primary voters in each party think this is “very important.”

Also, more than three in four New Hampshire primary voters, across party lines and across age groups, agree that having a plan for Social Security is a basic threshold for presidential leadership. This includes 89 percent of likely Democratic primary voters and 80 percent of likely Republican primary voters.

Moreover, nearly nine in ten or more voters across both parties and age groups believe it is important that the next president and congress take action to make Social Security financially sound. This includes 96 percent of Democratic primary voters as well as 92 percent of Republican primary voters.

“If our leaders don’t act, future generations could see their Social Security benefits cut by 25 percent. That’s a $4,000 to $10,000 per year benefit cut! This survey confirms how critical it is for the next president to have a plan to update Social Security and a commitment to act on that plan,” said Fahey.

On the question of which presidential candidate they expect to vote for on February 9, the AARP survey found that among likely Republican primary voters, Donald Trump is the leading choice for president (preferred by 32 percent) with Marco Rubio preferred by 14 percent and John Kasich preferred by 13 percent However, more than one in four (26 percent) are less certain who will get their vote.

Among likely Democratic primary voters, Bernie Sanders is the leading choice for president (preferred by 59 percent), with Hillary Clinton coming in second (preferred by 33 percent. But one in five (21 percent are less certain who will get their vote.

“AARP said early on in the election cycle that Social Security is too critical a matter – and one affecting far too many people – to allow it to be skimmed over, breezed by, or paid only lip service,” said AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “The presidential candidates need to take a stand on how they would update Social Security to keep it financially strong and adequate for future generations,” she says.

“Unfortunately, Social Security does not seem to be top-of-mind for candidates nor a discussion that finds its way into the debates,” says Connell, observing that some candidates, including some frontrunners, remain silent on the Social Security issue.
(You can get the very latest news and read what candidates with plans did say at http://www.2016takeastand.org.)

Connell says, “The challenge itself – keeping Social Security strong for the future – gets talked about a lot. You can be sure that when a candidate or elected federal official visits a senior center there will be a pledge (one I happen to believe has been sincere in Rhode Island) to protect Social Security.”

“You don’t hear so much about how. The devil is in the details. And, as the saying goes, ‘It’s complicated,’” adds Connell.

Older Voters Have Political Clout

From inside the Beltway, Darrell M. West, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, considers voters age 50 and over are one of the most important voting blocs in the nation. “It is a numerous group and these people vote in higher percentages than those who are younger. They often are decisive in elections and candidates have to take their views seriously,” says West.

Connell agrees about the clout of older voters. “The average age for a Rhode Island voter in the 2012 presidential election was 48.6, and that was up from 48.5 in 2010. We know that older Rhode Islanders vote in high percentages and we know that the 50+ population is grown as people live longer. But I have to say that when it comes to Social Security, voters 50 and older are united on the issue; they expect some form of accountability from the candidates on how they would lead on this issue, she says.

Anyone who thinks they’re ready to be President of the United States should be able to tell voters how they’ll keep Social Security strong,” adds Connell. “If our leaders don’t act, future retirees could lose up to $10,000 a year. Every year our leaders wait and do nothing, finding a solution grows more difficult,” she says.

Aging issues impact everyone, says Connell. “When I am asked about ‘aging issues it seems to me to indicate how people often default to a narrow view of ageing. Access to and the cost of healthcare is an issue for all ages. Taxation is an issue for all ages. Affordable housing is an issue for all ages. Protecting pensions is an issue for all ages, even for voters working in their 30s or 40s – as is the issue of Social Security. Our aging population presents a challenge to all Americans and I think you will see 50+ voters becoming increasingly liked-minded making more and more of an effort to be heard.”

Mistaken Identity Can Be Hazardous to Your Business

Published in Golocalprov.com, October 24, 2014

Just three weeks before the City of Providence’s election for Mayor, Eastside customers of The Camera Werks, a long-time fixture on Hope Street, expressed concern over a recent letter to the editor (LTE) written by a Patricia Louise Zacks, who they surmised was the retail store owner. The small neighborhood retail establishment has operated for over 27 years, serving three generations of customers.

Unaware of the published letter, visitors and emails began coming in regarding the LTE, which left the shop owner. Patricia Susan Zacks, confused. Through conversations, she quickly learned that emails were circulating throughout the East Side neighborhood, linking her to the editorial letter that she never wrote. In sharp protest to the views of the editorial letter, longtime customers pledged to bring their business elsewhere.

Last week’s political drama came about because of mistaken identities. The October 15 LTE, was actually penned by Providence resident, Patricia Louise Zacks, who is now married to the retail store owner’s former husband.

The mistake of mixing up the two Zacks’ identities might not have occurred if Providence Journal newspaper readers had gotten the facts straight before they circulated the LTE to Eastside friends among the Summit Neighborhood. Each Zacks has a different middle name and reside in different cities, one is an East Side resident in Providence, and the other is a Pawtucket resident in Oakhill, just across the Providence city line.

Patricia Susan Zacks, the camera store owner, attempted to use Face Book to clarify that the author of the LTE was not her, but rather a Providence resident, stating “I am a Pawtucket resident who has been a Hope Street merchant for over 27 years and have proudly served my customers. I extend best wishes to all the candidates and look forward to working with whomever the voters decide for the future of Providence.”

Coming to Like Buddy, More

The LTE’s heading, “Journal’s fear of Cianci leads us to support him,” summed up Providence resident Patricia Louise Zacks’ personal journey to ultimately support the former Providence mayor, she says. The Eastside resident of 10 years who works for the State’s Department of Transportation notes that she and her husband “sat on the fence,” for a while not able to decide whether to cast their vote for Housing Court Judge Jorge Elorza or Cianci.

The couple knew of Cianci’s previous felony convictions (acknowledging he served his time and legally had a right to run for mayor) but that he was able to run a City and provide needed services to its residents. Elorza had “impressive credentials,” too, making their political decision, virtually “an impossible choice,” noted Patricia Louis Zacks. She also pointed out in her LTE that Cianci has little to hide, he’s an open book to the voters because of the coverage in the Providence Journal, editorials, op eds, and debates.

Finally, the LTE noted that the straw that broke the camel’s back was the continual attack on Cianci by the Providence Journal combined with an attempt by East Siders to secretly raise $1 million to defeat the two-time convicted felon.

Patricia Louise Zacks notes that after she went public with her household’s support for Cianci, several spiteful messages were left on her answering machine. One caller gave his support for her candidate, but others made typically insulting remarks.

“I expected I would get all sorts of flack, but I didn’t get upset or angry because I could just hit the delete button,” she said.

But, Patricia Louise Zacks also learned of the negative impact of her LTE on another person, one who carried her last surname.

Looking back, “What kind of world do we live in where I cannot exercise my constitutionally-protected right to express my personal opinion in a local newspaper without causing professional and possibly even financial damage to a woman [with the same last name] who owns a small photography and framing business, and is also someone I personally know, admire, and hold in high esteem,” says Patricia Louise Zacks, quipping. “How in God’s name can such a thing happen?”

Chiding those who punish merchants because of who they politically support, she believes offering a quality product or service at a fair price should be more than enough for any businessperson to offer. “Making that owner’s religion, sexual orientation, race, and gender – especially that person’s political ideology – a part of the transaction is, in my opinion, vindictive and small-minded,” charges Patricia Louise Zacks.

A Political Moral

Living in a democracy gives us many rights and privileges, including the entitlement to support a particular political candidate and the right to publically publicize that choice.

Over the years, political campaigns have become a blood sport, even more so in controversial campaigns like the Cianci-Elorza race. Patricia Louise Zacks voiced her support for Cianci, giving us examples of how she reached this decision (to the dismay of many Eastsiders) in a LTE printed in the Providence Journal, the largest major daily in the Ocean State.

But, it was Patricia Susan Zacks who faced the wrath of Eastside readers, many of her customers, because they mistakenly believed she was endorsing the former Providence mayor, a candidate that they were working hard to defeat. Circulating emails with this LTE attached only added fuel to the intense political drama in Rhode Island’s largest community.

One well-placed Elorza supporter told this columnist that he saw no problem boycotting businesses if the owner was not in sync with their choice of candidates. But, in my opinion winning an election should not be based on a “torch and burn” mentality because of differing political views.

For those who want to use their economic clout to support their candidates, I urge them to get the facts straight. Here is a situation where people took action based on faulty information.

If people have differing positions on candidates or policy issues, they can just agree to disagree. When the dust settles after the upcoming Nov. 4 election, whoever carries the day, the sun will surely rise the next day. I can guarantee that one.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket-based writer who covers aging, health care and medical issues, who just happens to be the husband of Patricia S. Zacks. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com