The original draft of this email was sent to Jo-Ann Armao, arguably the most level-headed member of the Washington Post’s editorial board. Copied to her ed board colleagues and Post publisher Fred Ryan, too, it suggests that, contrary to a Monday editorial, the criminal records of three Americans recently convicted of voter fraud may have had more to do with their disparate sentences than did their respective skin colors.
Dear Ms. Armao,
The Post is free to infer that race was the principal reason that two convicted white vote fraudsters in Pennsylvania and Iowa got off easier than a black fraudster in Texas [“How is this fair?” editorial, A24, May 10]. But objective readers might reasonably believe the convicts’ respective criminal records — or lack thereof — may have had more to do with it.
The Post reports that black Texan Crystal Mason had an earlier felony conviction. It reports no past criminal convictions for whites Bruce Bartman of Pennsylvania or Terri Lynn Rote of Iowa. This suggests to regular readers, who know reporters and editorial writers sometimes withhold inconvenient information, that the white fraudsters did not have significant “priors,” as Lennie Briscoe might say.
So, despite The Post’s general lack of concern about voter fraud in the past (“Nothin’ to see here, folks. Move along.”), it now seems to suggest the problem is such a threat to democracy that even first-time offenders should be locked up. If that’s so, it certainly makes for an interesting evolution of the ed board’s position over a fairly short span of time.
In any case, backing away from your tediously all-consuming race lens now and again and trying to see the bigger picture might help restore some of The Post’s journalistic integrity.
Darren McKinney, Washington, D.C.