Written by Matthew Hayes.
In a shocking twist, local man Bob Jenkins is now being accused of election interference after, wait for it, locking the gates of the town cemetery. Yes, you read that right, but don’t worry, we’ll unpack this baffling saga for you. It seems that the Democratic Party is always on the lookout for new ways to stretch the meaning of “voter suppression,” but this time, they might’ve truly outdone themselves.
Jenkins, a retired school teacher, thought he was just doing his duty as the cemetery’s part-time caretaker. Little did he know, locking those gates at sunset would make him public enemy number one—at least in the eyes of local Democrats. Apparently, the closure of cemetery gates could have, according to one party representative, “disenfranchised a critical voting bloc.” If you’re wondering what group that might be, let’s just say it’s a bit of a dead giveaway.
Cue the outrage! Democrat leaders rushed to their microphones, declaring this “gross injustice” as a targeted attack on “voter rights” for a population that seems a little… expired. It appears locking out voters with the unfortunate condition of being dead is now a direct assault on democracy, at least if you ask the more creative minds in politics.
New Low for Election Interference?
Election interference usually brings to mind some serious issues: foreign influence, voter intimidation, maybe some ballot box tampering. But locking cemetery gates? That’s a new one for the books. Jenkins, who was simply trying to prevent vandalism after dark, found himself at the center of what the Democratic National Committee is now referring to as a “scandal of historic proportions.”
“How can we expect to uphold the integrity of our elections if citizens can’t access the polling places of their choice—even if that place is six feet under?” asked one particularly outraged official. And it gets better. Some party members are suggesting a new round of funding—yes, taxpayer dollars—to investigate whether the dead were systematically barred from voting. Because nothing says good governance quite like digging up a few campaign strategies from the grave.
Meanwhile, Jenkins remains bewildered. “I just locked the gates at night. I wasn’t aware I was interfering with… well, anything.” Clearly, Jenkins underestimated the power of the vote, especially from constituents who prefer the afterlife over after-hours.
“Voting From Beyond the Grave”: The Newest Civil Rights Frontier?
This incident has already spurred debates about the future of voting rights, specifically how to cater to those who have shuffled off this mortal coil. Some Democrats are now calling for expanded absentee voting, arguing that if voting can be done by mail, why not allow ballots to come from, well, beyond the veil?
Social media is having a field day, of course. Memes of ghostly voters sneaking through graveyard gates and skeletons lining up at polling stations have taken over, with one user writing, “When your voter base is dead, but you still need that turnout.” The joke is as transparent as some of the alleged voters.
But let’s be clear: this isn’t the first time the Democratic Party has been accused of courting the deceased for votes. Rumors of ghostly voters are as old as elections themselves, dating back to the days of Tammany Hall and Chicago politics. It just took a quiet night in a local cemetery to bring the issue back to life.
Our Take
It’s one thing to champion voter rights; it’s another to defend the voting rights of people who, let’s face it, are no longer walking among us. This isn’t just absurd, it’s downright detrimental to the health of our democracy. If we start seriously considering the voting rights of people who are, quite literally, resting in peace, we’ve lost the plot. The real problem here is how far some politicians will go to twist the narrative in their favor, and this cemetery fiasco is a prime example of that. When the line between living and dead voters gets blurred, it’s not just bad for elections—it’s bad for the public trust. At this rate, we’ll be holding seances instead of debates.
