A tossaway comment on a message board to promote usual anti-liberal talking points provided one of those "hmmm" moments. The comment suggested, without sourcing, that 44% of polling places in this country is in churches. A quick search (some stupid online comments can be shown to be so with a quick web search, but this one was a bit trickier) led to a study suggesting that polling locale affects voter choice. An interesting thought by itself, but the article also provided a breakdown of Arizona polling places in its analysis. And, it did turn out that forty percent were in churches, and another web search did result in many hits pointing to polling places in churches.
If a conservative state only has forty percent, while others probably have less, the 44% arguably is too high. Still, perhaps not by that much. I would be interested in obtaining a more complete breakdown, if one actually is out there. Anyway, is it really a good thing to have a polling place in a church? It seems like a bad mix of church and state, especially for those who strongly disagree with the faith represented by the church in question. Might even some find it against their religion to enter such an "impure" place or whatnot? My old polling place was a Knights of Columbus, not totally neutral surely, now it is a school. This is fairly common.
And, probably better -- a neutral* site like a school, apartment building, or city center is the best path. I would add that it is appalling that a more united effort is not in place to ensure that people will be able to vote smoothly this year. Many problem sites are likely, especially since many states will have new technology or rules in place. A recent per curiam opinion by the Supremes appears (one cannot give too much weight to such things) to warn against reliance on late in the day judicial appeals, especially when the purported harm to the right to vote is only conceivable. This might be a good thing since it adds to voter confusion to have late in the day changes in voting requirements, which might not even hold up in the end anyway. I'd think existing laws, see 2000, would be a bit different.
But, this does not mean legislative and executive officials cannot provide a strong effort to guide often fearful and confused voters. This should not be a partisan issue. And, if we want it to be, would not it be useful for Republicans to prove their bona fides? Some would reply that they ultimately want voter suppression, want perhaps to even steal the election. I'm not going to convince the strongest of these fears; but overall, many Republicans are simply not that fanatical. They should be quite willing to make nice by easing voting. In fact, yes, many are in safe districts and even states.
Should not voting be a safe practice as well? Cannot midterms be a useful warm-up for the big show in two years? Sure, in the sense that the Democrats will win, and all. [Knock on wood.] But, in this sense as well.
---
* Update: I crossposted this on the Slate fray, and a reply suggested since the locale of polling places had an effect, this implies (or, rather, it seemed like I was implying) any polling place is not "neutral." I meant religiously neutral (and the context suggests as much), but true enough up to a point. And, the matter is worthy of further study.