And I was specifically asked to provide two pieces of ID. Odd.
Florida has decided to scrap the felons list. Here’s the story from yesterday’s St. Petersburg Times:
So I guess this is going to be a non-issue for the election this year, at least in Florida. If the Pubbies want to rig this one, they’ll have to get even more creative. Look for even more press on protesters demanding a paper trail for the new touchscreen voting computers.
Sorry, flubbed the link. Here it is again:
I got the distinct sense there wasn’t a lot of intense security at the polling place. I was waiting for them to ask for more ID - or proof of citizenship at least, which a driver’s license is not - but nope.
Frankly, unless there was a massive organized effort to cheat the system, I don’t think it much matters.
To steal from an old Doonesbury strip, “Just remember, these are only the folks who got caught.”
This is an excellent question and one I’d like to see answered. I don’t know much about merging databases, but what could have gone wrong that just Hispanic voters ended up being off the felon list? Can someone with more knowledge in the area than I explain how this could have happened “accidentally”?
OK, so now what?
Aren’t they going to be in violation of their own rules if felons who shouldn’t vote do vote?
Doesn’t this leave a door open for litigation?
It could be a problem with how Hispanics were categorized in the databases that were merged. When you’re asking for racial/ethnicity data White, Black, Asian, etc. are fairly straightforward. ‘Hispanic’ isn’t as straightforward and sometimes Hispanic won’t be an option at all. In a place with a large Hispanic population there may be varying distinctions within “Hispanic”
For instance in one database the choices might just be White, Black, Asian, Other, and in “other”, someone writes “Hispanic” and in the other database the choices might be White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Other.
When you merge you get a mismatch between “Hispanic” and “Other - Hispanic” and the mismatch is tossed out.
Something along those lines might have happened.
The concern I have is - if what I described is what happened - when stuff like that happens it’s usually picked up on early in the verification process (“Hey, what happened to this guy and this guy and this guy?”). An error like that should have been dealt with way before the list made it up the chain.
Something like that. From the link I posted two days ago:
Well there ya go, then!
All it does, in theory, is put things back the way they were before 2000.
In Florida, when you register to vote, you have to swear an oath that you have not been convicted of a felony or, if you have, your rights have been restored. I’ve never heard of an instance of someone taking such an oath falsely – you would have to be pretty rash, since that would be perjury, a crime in its own right and a violation of your probation, if you’re on probation. But verifying your eligibility to vote would be the responsibility of the supervisor of elections of the county where you are seeking to register.
Now, I do not know whether there has ever been any mechanism for automatically de-registering a voter as soon as he or she is convicted of a felony. But, if there was, apparently Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris were not satisfied with it. They contracted a private company to come up with a list of “felons,” sent it to all the county supervisors, and, in effect, instructed them, if any of these people are registered to vote in your county, you must purge them from the rolls. As we now know, this led to the de-registration of many voters who had never been convicted of a felony, but just happened to have a name similar to someone who had been; and, I believe, most of them did not find out they had been purged, until they showed up on election day and were turned away – too late to take any action to correct their status.
The state’s decision to scrap the list means only that this won’t be happening this year. The supervisors of elections will not be asked to purge any voters based on a list. Of course, they still have the authority to de-register anyone who does have a felony record, and it is easy to check any particular person’s record with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s online database. Anyone can do it.
Now, if some felons slip through the cracks and do manage to register and vote – would that open the door to litigation? Only if Bush loses this state, and it’s by a very close count, and the Republicans file suit to have some votes thrown out because felons cast them. Do you really think that, after all this fuss over the whole issue, and with the sores from the 2000 election still smarting four years later, the Pubbies would resort to that?
Well, that answers the question of whether the list was illegal and politically motivated. As soon as it came under public scrutiny Jeb’s thug squad went crawling back under their rock ASAP. Wonder what excuses we’ll hear about why this was actually legitimate last time around, and how the 2000 election wasn’t rigged.
I know someone – know him reeeel well in fact – who registered and voted without incident in Florida in 2000, not knowing that he had been convicted in abstentia of a felony in another state. It ain’t like they check the FBI database.
If it happened as you’re describing, then your friend was not committing perjury, because he was not aware of his conviction. But most felons are very aware.
Here’s an update from today’s St. Petersburg Times:
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/13/State/Many_felons_likely_to.shtml
Thanks for the explanation, mack. Sorry I missed your earlier post Fear Itself.
In his daoi;y column in the St. Petersburg Tmes today (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/15/Columns/The_excuses_are_scatt.shtml), columnist Howard Troxler noted that the state spent $2 million to develop this years felons list (most of it paid to Accenture, a consulting firm with close ties to the Florida Republican Party). And, when several Florida newspapers sued for access to the list, the state spent another $125,000 in court, trying to keep it secret. And then when access finally was permitted, the state was so embarassed by the presence of felons who had in fact had their rights restored, and the curious absence of Hispanics, that they had to scrap it entirely – as related above. So Governor Bush has just wasted a huge pile of our tax money in a clumsy, dishonest, and ultimately futile attempt to fix the election for his brother. I don’t think the angry smiley :mad: adequately conveys my feelings here.
yeah, that Bush Justice Dept. gonna move real hard and fast on THIS case.
I could probably google on this - but I figure it’s relevant to a discussion here anyway:
Is it the case then, that people who have been convicted of a crime but have been subsequently released from prison cannot vote (or are these felons who have had a non-custodial sentence)?
I ask, because there seems something odd to me about restricting democratic freedoms to people who have served the punishment for their crimes. I’d welcome some clarification and/or indications of the reasoning.
If that is all that stands between Bush/Cheney and reelection? Damn right they would. After all, it worked the first time, didn’t it?