Florida's voter purge

Yet another tool preserved by Jeb for his brother.

I wouldn’t take anything Mr. Moore says as fact unless it is backed up with proof.


“The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp


Mitch

[This message was edited by Mitch on Tue 25 May 2004 at 3:23.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mitch:
I wouldn’t take anything Mr. Moore says as fact unless it is backed up with proof.

---

Moore didn't uncover this story. It was the work of investigative journalist Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com), and it's all true. He first brought it to light immediately after the election debacle here in Palm Beach County, home of the finest democracy money can buy.
It was a deliberate attempt to exclude African-American voters, who, of course, are overwhelmingly Democrats.

Oh, my! One hardly knows where to begin!

First, I wonder exactly which "civil rights" the ACLU claims Florida "strips" from convicted felons? Many of them are constitutionally guaranteed and no state can deprive someone of them.

Voting, however, can be, and the power of states to exclude convicted felons from voting has been consistently upheld by the courts, including the US Supreme Court. The rationale is that felons have had "due process" and thus may be deprived of, in this case, a "liberty" interest. Defining voter qualifications is a state affair, subject to certain minimal federal restrictions (cannot be deprived on the basis of race, sex, age if over 18, religion, etc.).

As far as Harris is concerned, if she were really removing anyone "suspected" of being a felon, or (my favorite!) "anyone with the same birthdate as known felons" or similar SS numbers, I would point out that if that were true, NO ONE in Florida would be able to vote. If Harris is removing KNOWN felons from the voter rolls, it is ironic indeed that she would be pilloried for actually following the law...

I agree that deliberate efforts to exclude any group, whether African-American, Asian, Hispanic, whatever, from voting are abhorrent. But my sympathy for convicted felons is limited--their lives would have been a lot simpler if THEY HADN'T BROKEN THE LAW!

Best,

Bob

Of course Florida's lifetime disenfranchisement situation is deeply rooted in the state's long history of unrivalled institutional racism and race-based vote rigging/tinkering/restricting. Amazingly, most of the other states that have or recently had lifetime voting penalties- including Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and Virginia- also share ugly racist pasts.

Further... Bouncing a check in Alabama, jaywalking in Iowa, and lighting a bonfire in Nevada are all felonies and each state has disenfranchisement laws (with varying terms).

The US is the world's only democracy that denies ex-prisoners voting priveleges for life (in a few states). Why??? I've never heard a logical argument for why a citizen should lose, of all things, their voting rights for life and I suspect I never will.

[This message was edited by Ludwig on Tue 25 May 2004 at 6:22.]

A suitable quote from Palast:

"Five months before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 57,700 names from Florida’s voter rolls on grounds that they were felons. [...] My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime – except for being African American. We didn’t have to guess about that, because next to each voter’s name was their race.

When I questioned Harris’ office about the high percentage of African Americans on the scrub list, they responded, “Well, you know how many black people commit crimes.”

Bob said "As far as Harris is concerned, if she were really removing anyone "suspected" of being a felon, or (my favorite!) "anyone with the same birthdate as known felons" or similar SS numbers, I would point out that if that were true, NO ONE in Florida would be able to vote"

"[Harris and DBT, got the names] From the Internet. They went to 11 other states’ Internet sites and took names off dirt-cheap. They scrubbed Florida voters whose names were similar to out-of-state felons. An Illinois felon named John Michaels could knock off Florida voter John, Johnny, Jonathan or Jon R. Michaels, or even J.R. Michaelson. DBT matched for race and gender, but names only had to be similar to a certain degree. Names could be reversed, and suffixes (Jr., Sr.) were ignored, but aliases were included. So the felon John “Buddy” Michaels could knock non-felon Michael Johns or Bud Johnson Jr. off the voter rolls. This happened again and again.

Although DBT didn’t get names, birthdays or social security numbers right, they were very careful to match for race. A black felon named Mr. Green would only knock off a black Mr. Green, but not a single white Mr. Green. That’s how DBT earned its $2.3 million.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2



Regarding Moore, his profile and position mean it's great that more people in America get to hear an alternative viewpoint than they get from 99% of their media. However, it's an absolute disaster that he makes his films in such a shoddy way as it just allows the targets of his films and their supporters to deflect the criticism. It's relatively straightforward to make a very strong case on the sort of stories and issues Moore covers and one hardly needs to lie and decieve to do so.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ludwig:

The US is the world's only democracy that denies ex-prisoners voting priveleges for life (in a few states). Why??? I've never heard a logical argument for why a citizen should lose, of all things, their voting rights for life and I suspect I never will.

---

I cannot think of a defesible argument why any adult should be disenfranchised unless they are demonstrably incapable of understanding what voting is.

Clearly, though, there must be restrictions on campaigning in certain cases - we can't have party workers stalking the wards of mental hospitals in pursuit of votes.

America - land of the free?

One of the abiding memories of the 2000 election was of police in Florida physically preventing African-Americans from actually casting a vote.

It's a shame Moore has got a reputation for distorting the fact/bending the truth, etc. as I've always looked up to him as a kind of one-man "America's conscience'-type figure, champion of the disenfranchised. Perhaps it's a symptom of how supine the US media is that he feels he has to take these steps to get attention. And let's face it, he's pretty good at it.

JonR

If 54000 Florida voters were illegally deprived of their voting rights in 2000 then that's surely a big deal for the government. I checked the ACLU Florida web site and couldn't find a reference to any action on this front. If it were me I'd be extremely angry.

The real shocker is that 1/3 of African/American Florida men are convicted felons and therefore legally disqualified from voting. What's going on there then? Giving them the right to vote won't fix the underlying problem.

FWIW I think you are disqualified from jury service in the UK if you've been convicted of a crime and jailed (suspended or not) in the last 10 years. It's not clear if that's 10 years from release or not. The debate on the right of prisoners to vote is ongoing in the European Court. It looks like they consider that serving prisoners should get votes.

Paul

"If 54000 Florida voters were illegally deprived of their voting rights in 2000 then that's surely a big deal for the government"

I think the problem is that the voter lists and this purging process are controlled by the state government. There is a clear conflict of interest involved in having such a sensitive process under partisan control and I guess that might extend to investigating such issues as well.

The story is also very under reported in America and most people don't seem to know about it.

"I checked the ACLU Florida web site and couldn't find a reference to any action on this front"

There was quite a bit of campaigning against the "Help America Vote Act" (which extends the Flordia process and machines to the whole USA) but it all seems to be from last year. This seems a bit odd given the impending election so maybe the issues were addressed or else everyone is concentrating on Iraq.

Matthew

"This seems a bit odd given the impending election so maybe the issues were addressed or else everyone is concentrating on Iraq."

Exactly. I started this thread because from what I heard Jeb has ordered up another purge. Unfortunately, I've not been able to find out any more about this latest move.

Dan

Let's just hope the vote in November is not sooo close that it relies on one swing state to produce a result - especially when the prez's brother is conveniently installed as governor.

JonR

Matthew--

You said "I think the problem is that the voter lists and this purging process are controlled by the state government." For better or worse, that is exactly where control will remain forever. I'll spare everyone the inevitable history lesson, but the US Constitution would not have been ratified without the "dual sovereign" system that exists here.

What this means is that the federal government has power over certain areas and the states have power over others. Defining the qualifications to vote is one power reserved to the states, subject to the Constitutional provisions I mentioned above (can't discriminate based on race, age, sex, religion, etc.).

So to challenge the Florida process, one would have to show one of two things. First, you could show that Florida's statutes were discriminatory on their face--by showing that they include language to the effect that African-Americans were to be denied the right to vote because they are African American. This challenge would have been brought by now if it were possible. The second would be to show that the "purpose and effect" of the statute is to disenfranchise people based on their race. While showing the "effect" part would not be difficult, the "purpose" prong is much harder, and the plaintiffs would have to show some deliberate intent on the part of Harris et al to win. And no, the mere fact that struck voters are overwhelmingly African-American is not enough.

Ultimately, the remedy is in the hands of the voters--they have to elect a state legislature that changes voting requirements. The other remedy is for convicted felons to move to a state that allows convicted felons to vote.

It is ironic indeed that the US is seen as overly litigious until someone wants to effect change--at which point they inevitably run to the courthouse....

Best,

Bob

Bob,

I didn't mean voter lists should be controlled by the Federal Government but by an independent and accountable public body and not by Katherine Harris (or the equivalent Democrat).

"So to challenge the Florida process"

I don't think the Florida process allows the removal of people for being convicted Felons when they are in fact *not* convicted Felons. I don't think the Consitution comes into it at all.

"Ultimately, the remedy is in the hands of the voters"

Other than the 57,000 non-Felons who are (apparently) not allowed to vote.

Matthew

Matthew--

Harris was an elected official, and so was accountable to the voters. They disliked her so much they elected her to Congress...

The Secretary of State is supposed to be "independent and accountable," and indeed it is--they are accountable to the voters.

I agree with you that it is outrageous that people who should not have been removed from the voter rolls were, in fact, removed. And that is actually where Constitutional protections DO enter play. And those people removed probably have grounds to sue, although it is unlikely they would get very far...

And I should have said "Ultimately, and unfortunately, the remedy is in the hands of the voters...." Unfortunate because it allows Florida to remain as it is. But ironically fortunate because it does allow for local control.....

Best,

Bob

Bob,

I just think it's wrong for an elected official to have such control over the process of the election itself and who can and cannot vote. Certainly when, as they often do, the West sends independent observers to the developing world to oversee "free and fair" elections, its the sort of thing they would put a stop to.

Incidentally we had our own version of this sort of gerrymandering thing when the Conservative controlled Westminster Council in London sold off council homes to (more than likely) Conservative voters and dumped the now homeless (more than likely) Labour voters outside their voting district. The main players were fined some £27 million pounds each as I recall.

Matthew

Oh we have plenty of redistricting here too, but it's not about houses- it's actually legal. As a result, incumbents are increasingly more difficult to defeat.

Matthew--

I actually think it is critical that an elected official--accountable to the people--be in charge of conducting elections. After all, SOMEONE has to run the election, and in my view it is preferable that an elected official with limited power do it, not an "independent and accountable" body.

And we should be careful to note that Harris had only limited power--she could not set voter qualifications, she could only apply them. Her power was primarily procedural--which, granted, can have significant effects.

What I find ironic in all of this is that Florida Democrats were fully aware of Harris's efforts and intentions, and did nothing in advance to try to change them. Then, when the result was one they didn't like, they cry foul. And rightfully so. But their position is weakened by their failure to act on knowledge they already had...

Best,

Bob

Patrick--

There are two dynamics here--the individual and the electorate.

If an individual is "unfairly" or improperly struck from the voter rolls, their remedy is to be relisted in the rolls and to potentially sue the person/office responsible. This is part of the reason most states have a requirement that you be registered some time before an election--it provides election officials and voters time to correct mistakes. If someone really HAS been stricken unfairly, their chances of success in court are quite high (at least according to the civil rights lawyers I know). The reason I said they probably wouldn't get very far is that as soon as a lawsuit is filed, the state would settle by relisting them on the voter rolls.

For the electorate as a whole, the remedy (assuming the electorate thinks one is needed) is to elect different legislators who will then change the law.

Re defending the system--yes. I don't claim it is perfect, but I do think that an elected official, responsible to the electorate, is the appropriate choice to run elections. I do not, and have not, condoned the clearly political efforts to exclude people from voting based on their race. I do agree that it is the purview of the states to decide if convicted felons may vote. I may not agree with the substantive decisions certain states have made, like Florida, but I certainly do respect Florida's ability to make those determinations.

Best,

Bob

Like I said, it's all about Jeb preserving a racist law for his brother's benefit. He could easily remove the law with the stroke of a pen, as other governors have done. Yes?

Anyway, I like what Thurgood Marshall once said:

"[Ex-offenders] ... are as much affected by the actions of government as any other citizen, and have as much of a right to participate in governmental decision-making. Furthermore, the denial of a right to vote to such persons is hindrance to the efforts of society to rehabilitate former felons and convert them into law-abiding and productive citizens." and "The ballot is the democratic system's coin of the realm. To condition its exercise on support of the established order is to debase that currency beyond recognition."

Bedtime For Democracy..

Bjorne--

What democracy?



Best,

Bob

quote:

---

I actually think it is critical that an elected official--accountable to the people--be in charge of conducting elections. After all, SOMEONE has to run the election, and in my view it is preferable that an elected official with limited power do it, not an "independent and accountable" body.

---

I'm clearly missing something here. What are the downsides of an independent cross party or apolitical body overseeing the election processes? Once election legislation is in place, surely this is a straightforward administrative task requiring no input from any individual who might benefit from tinkering. Why would anyone give a damn if the person or body running the election were elected, as long as the election was carried out in a fair and proper fashion, as outlined in the legislation?

quote:

---

Mick, it's an American thing - you have to elect the toilet cleaners over there.

---

A slight exaggeration -- obviously -- but it's not that far from the truth.

Exhibit A -- Democratic candidate for Park County Coroner

Exhibit B -- Elect Judge Ural Glanville

Exhibit C -- Elect Brian Blair, Hillsborough County Commissioner

Exhibit D -- Elect Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands

I'm Joe Petrik and I approve this message. (Obligatory disclaimer which follows all political ads)

We've some elections coming up soon in the UK. Without much notice my area has gone totally to postal voting. No more going to the polling station. This is clearly a political decision, although made by some nebulous entity rather than a directly elected and accountable Secretary of State.

Why weren't the 54000 wrongly erased from the Florida electoral roll screaming and shouting about it prior to the election? It's not like this was some minor janitorial or gubernatorial occasion.

Paul