On the other side, of course, we have the long history of documented Republican Party vote suppression developed and executed at the highest institutional levels. We need only look at recorded law enforcement actions, at the findings against Republican "caging" and the imposition of remedies provided by law. This legal history is not crammed in a tight time period: it is, as Chandler Davidson and others have shown, a programmatic party commitment pursued over many decades. The party is quite proud of it: it holds conferences (of the Republican National Lawyers Association) and otherwise holds forth on the topic, and it looks forward to the quadrennial re-publication of John Fund's compendium of anecdotes. And their representatives go about "caging" as one of their preferred strategies for controlling the" fraud" that is always present to their fevered minds or part of their strategic calculations.
Against this history, Potter asks that we credit the denials of Carabelli. He said he did not mean it, didn't he? Not exactly: recently, a Michigan radio station I was invited to call into played a tape of this "denial." Perhaps before the national party had squeezed the last bit of candor out of him, Carabelli huffed only that he had been "misinterpreted" and that he had answered a "leading question."
As denials go, this one is in need of work; and whatever it is, it is not of the absolute and unqualified kind. What leading question might he have been asked? Perhaps it was, "Are you planning to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters," to which he seems to have answered "yes." That the question was leading does not render the answer false. About the nature of the "misinterpretation," Carabelli said nothing. He was lost: this handlers up the chain had yet to descend upon him.