When the Democrats made card check their top priority, many wrote it off as something only for unions. Card check is the policy that allows unions to get certified by simply getting enough signatures and bypassing the voting process that allows for a secret ballot to determine if workers really want to unionize.
On Election Day in 2008, when Black Panthers armed with clubs occupied a polling station in Pennsylvania and shouted at voters going into the booths, many wrote it off as involving only one polling booth (even if the Department of Justice dropped all charges and "reassigned" the prosecutor who opened the investigation in the first place).
What if a state Attorney General argued that voters for any political election simply had no fundamental right to privacy on Election Day? Would we take notice then?
Consider the following words argued in Champaign County Court in Illinois by the Illinois Attorney General's office headed by Lisa Madigan:
While plaintiff attempts to suggest to the Court that there is a fundamental right to a secret ballot, no such right exists. (bottom of Page 11 of pleading)
The issue at hand is the result of a law changed in 2007 with SB 662. The bill clocked in at just under 200 pages and, as is custom in Illinois, rank-and-file legislators didn't read the bill. Tucked in this legislation were a few small clauses that required voting machines to reject any ballot where a voter did not vote in all races. Seems okay so far.
However, after rejecting the ballot an election judge comes down to have a conversation with the voter. On paper, at least, they give the voter three choices: fix the ballot, get a new ballot, or go home and your vote isn't counted. There are plenty of reasons to not vote in every race but the most important is that a voter should be able to vote however they please without an election judge questioning them on it.