# Jeb Bush goes for a repeat of 2000 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 23, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583 "2004-07-23T21:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/101 "2004-07-27T19:34:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cite? Specifically, I’m looking for a cite that says that Mr. Bush’s current initiative is violative of the law. Andros X covered it very well. I trust you are satisfied that there is sufficient citation? > [@](#): > > Not at all. > > Mr. Bush’s decision eliminates the need for any forms. The “…necessary application and other forms required for the restoration of civil rights…” now don’t exist, having been replaced by the phone application system. That’s not what the court ordered him to do. > [@](#): > > The court doesn’t order that the system use paper forms I’m sorry, what thread have _you_ been reading? Surely not this one. The court most certainly did order him to provide the paper forms. Your little trick of changing the word “provide” to “use” notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > – if the system does, then the court orders that they all be made available. But if there are no forms, then the administration plainly is not violating the court’s order. The court said no such thing. And besides, this clearly does not provide the _assistance_ required by the law. They are required not only to give the proper forms to the felons _before_ they are released, but to help them fill them out and submit them as well. That’s the LAW. The phone system does not meet this requirement. From the OP’s article: > [@](#): > > ``` > "The bottom line is, this will streamline the process," said the governor's spokesman, Jacob DiPietre. ''Once felons are notified that they don't qualify for restoration without a hearing, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call, send a letter or e-mail a request for a hearing." > > ``` Note that he’s saying “all THEY have to do…” But the law specifically requires the governor to _assist_, and not just leave it up to the inmates. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/102 "2004-07-27T19:46:31Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > well, no, but I think he’s doing a fine job defending that point. Weak. I refuted his argument, and rather than address what I said, you simply say he’s doing a “fine job”. Whatever. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Actually, I would NOT have you believe that, I was being a bit hyperbolic. I was merely pointing out that just because one person states an opinion (pro or con) doesn’t make it fact. I personally think he’s trying to comply with the court order in a way that is cost effective, thus the phone system. And as I keep pointing out, that would be inconsistent with Jeb’s past behavior, and you have given absolutely no reason to believe that he would suddenly behave differently. So I’m afraid I have to reject your opinion. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you have a very good reason to think the way you do, but it doesn’t change the way you (and many other people here) think about the Bushes. What it boils down to, and what is SO damn tiring about these rants is this. Regardless of what that something is, the anti-Bush crowd hunts around for the evillest, most vile possible reason behind the action, and claims that’s exactly why he did it. They latch on to the negatives like a pit bull and proclaim it as proof. This is nothing but ad hominem. You haven’t refuted anything I said; you’ve just tossed out some blithe “you guys always do this because you hate Bush” generalities. Totally meaningless. > [@](#): > > I still submit that if Jeb had eliminated a phone system and replaced it with a form system, you’d be here slamming his ass just the same, because you don’t give him the benefit of the doubt that he might not do something evil. It’s this thought that forces me to consider the anti argument with a HUGE grain of salt. In other words, you refuse to consider any arguments made by people on the left because you are biased against them. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/103 "2004-07-27T20:18:27Z")
You’ve refuted nothing, you are continuing to discuss it with him, your final point being that inmates need “assistance” to make a telephone call. They do not even have to fill out a single form to apply for their hearing, isn’t that considered "assistance’? Or, do you really believe that the inmate should not have to take the tiniest bit of initiative or do any work whatsoever to get the ball rolling? You are admittedly using past behavior to color your current analysis of the situation. There is no proof and no reasonable argument that a single person will be disenfranchised by this change. First off, their names are automatically entered into the system, so 15% of the inmates will get their vote back without having to do a thing. The remainder get a letter detailing how to contact them back, via any of 3 different methods of the inmates choosing. This is not an arduous process by any stretch of the imagination, if you’re not biased in the negative to begin with. You’re argument is “He did something wrong with voter rolls 4 years ago, so this MUST be another criminal act on his part.” Because you admittedly don’t give him the benefit of the doubt, it is YOU who are unwilling to even consider the opposite side. Since I’m trying to be neutral here, I AM willing to consider your side, I just find the proof lacking. I don’t give a shit about Jeb Bush, I don’t live in his state and I’m probably not voting for his brother either (not that it’ll matter in NY) I’m just a man who’s tired of hearing these pathetic whining arguments against the Bushes on topics so small that they shouldn’t even show up on anyone’s radar to begin with. FTR, I even defended **december** on these boards when I thought he was getting jumped on over his past threads rather than the thread he just started. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/104 "2004-07-27T20:56:47Z")
Waitaminit. The important thing is that Ken Lay, having been indicted, still gets to vote, right? Phew. -Joe, worried for a second ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/105 "2004-07-27T21:05:03Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > […] it’s obvious that any thought put into it is intended to find the most negative spin on the topic rather than to just consider the facts at hand. An intelligent person once said that facts are slippery things. Intelligent people recognize that one has to look at facts in the context that surrounds them. I don’t think it is left-wing bias that is 100% at work here, although it certainly is a factor. I think a \*reasonable \* person could look at the context – the past behavior of Jeb Bush – and consider it to be very relevant when interpreting these particular facts. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/106 "2004-07-27T21:09:51Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > I understand the recovery. Trust me. I just don’t have a lot of sympathy when an addict puts my loved ones at risk. And I’ve had many an occassion where I could have blamed the booze for what I did, I just decided not to do it. > > But kudos for your recovery, I honestly hope I can someday be where you are. What an asswipe. Maybe the felons should just put “Youthful indescretions” as their reason when they’re filling out their forms? -Joe, 0 convictions so far ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/107 "2004-07-27T21:10:04Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Andros X covered it very well. I trust you are satisfied that there is sufficient citation? No. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, what thread have _you_ been reading? Surely not this one. The court most certainly did order him to provide the paper forms. Your little trick of changing the word “provide” to “use” notwithstanding. No. No. No. From the court’s ruling: > [@](#): > > Although an “E-list” or “E-application” is deemed the requisite application by the Office of the Governor, the parties agreed at oral argument that 85% of all offenders must also submit form ADM 1501A to seek restoration of their civil rights. It is undisputed that form ADM 1501A was not being provided to offenders prior to their discharge. Accordingly, the Department is not complying with the requirement of section 944.293 to provide “other forms required for the restoration of civil rights” to offenders prior to their discharge. To comply with the court order, the governor can certainly provide form ADM1501A. But the governor may also _do away with the requirement for form ADM1501A_. Either action places him in compliance with the court order. If your interpretation is correct, then we have the absurd result that the court is ordering the executive to use form ADM 1501A for now and evermore. The court is not doing that, nor could they; the particular form and its use is the creature of the executive, not the judiciary. The court based its order on the concession, at oral argument, that a large majority of released felons used form ADM 1501A, and that, as a result, the failure of the Department to provide it was violative of the law. If the form is no longer required, then the order is complied with. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/108 "2004-07-27T21:10:20Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You’ve refuted nothing, you are continuing to discuss it with him, your final point being that inmates need “assistance” to make a telephone call. How utterly disingenous of you. I refuted Bricker’s point, then made the ADDITIONAL point that they aren’t providing the assistance required by the law, yet you pretend that my additional point _was_ the refutation. All the while, you wrongly claim you can “skip” the point because you pretend that Bricker has put it to rest, which he in no way has done. > [@](#): > > They do not even have to fill out a single form to apply for their hearing, isn’t that considered "assistance’? Or, do you really believe that the inmate should not have to take the tiniest bit of initiative or do any work whatsoever to get the > ball rolling? The point is not what _I_ believe, but rather what the law requires. The crux of the matter is that Jeb wasn’t providing the assistance as required by law, GOT SUED, and WAS ORDERED BY THE COURT to do so. Now he’s STILL refusing to provide the assistance. > [@](#): > > You are admittedly using past behavior to color your current analysis of the situation. I’m using past behavior as _evidence_ towards a conclusion. It is not _coloring_ anything. You, on the other hand, are allowing your partisanship to color your belief in what Jeb’s motivation might be. You want us to believe that Jeb has done this out of the goodness of his heart because he wants to comply with the court order, A COURT ORDER THAT WOULDN’T EVEN EXIST IF JEB HADN’T NEGLECTED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. But no, now you want us to believe that he WANTS to comply with the law, and this is his way of doing so. Not only that, but you want us to IGNORE all his past behavior, and just _believe_ that he’s now trying to comply. And the capper here is that if we _don’t_ ignore that mountain of evidence, you brand us as “biased”. > [@](#): > > There is no proof and no reasonable argument that a single person will be disenfranchised by this change. The argument is eminently reasonable. As to proof, you are asking for proof of that which has not yet occured - an impossibility. > [@](#): > > First off, their names are automatically entered into the system, so 15% of the inmates will get their vote back without having to do a thing. 15% eh? I’m underwhelmed. > [@](#): > > The remainder get a letter detailing how to contact them back, via any of 3 different methods of the inmates choosing. Cite? > [@](#): > > This is not an arduous process by any stretch of the imagination, if you’re not biased in the negative to begin with. Again, the law is very specific about the assistance that is to be provided. The law does not simply call for it not to be “arduous”. That’s a strawman. > [@](#): > > You’re argument is “He did something wrong with voter rolls 4 years ago, so this MUST be another criminal act on his part.” Calm down. I did not use the words, “This must be another criminal act.” You are deliberately overstating my position to make it sound like something it’s not. > [@](#): > > Because you admittedly don’t give him the benefit of the doubt, it is YOU who are unwilling to even consider the opposite side. Nope. I considered it, and concluded that it is without merit. > [@](#): > > Since I’m trying to be neutral here, I AM willing to consider your side, I just find the proof lacking. Ha! You’re neutral? That’s rich. > [@](#): > > I don’t give a shit about Jeb Bush, I don’t live in his state and I’m probably not voting for his brother either (not that it’ll matter in NY) I’m just a man who’s tired of hearing these pathetic whining arguments against the Bushes on topics so small that they shouldn’t even show up on anyone’s radar to begin with. FTR, I even defended **december** on these boards when I thought he was getting jumped on over his past threads rather than the thread he just started. Oh, here we go. You’re losing on the facts of the matter, so you resort to characterizing your opponents position as “whining”. Typical… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/109 "2004-07-27T21:15:20Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > How utterly disingenous of you. I refuted Bricker’s point, then made the ADDITIONAL point that they aren’t providing the assistance required by the law, yet you pretend that my additional point _was_ the refutation. All the while, you wrongly claim you can “skip” the point because you pretend that Bricker has put it to rest, which he in no way has done. You make a claim that not even the appellants in the court case made. In fact, they specifically admit that your claim is bullshit: > [@](#): > > The appellants expressly stipulated to the trial court that they do not contend that the Department has ever refused a request by an inmate for assistance in applying for the restoration of voting rights. So where do you get the idea that the Department isn’t providing the assistance required by law, when not even the freaking PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT offers that accusation? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/110 "2004-07-27T21:20:08Z")
FWIW, NPR is reporting that new citizens in Florida are being given voter registration forms at the swearing-in ceremonies that are pre-marked so as to register them as Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/111 "2004-07-27T21:22:50Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > FWIW, NPR is reporting that new citizens in Florida are being given voter registration forms at the swearing-in ceremonies that are pre-marked so as to register them as Republicans. Is NPR reporting WHO is doing this? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/112 "2004-07-27T22:09:34Z")
blowero, read Bricker’s note just above yours, for evidence of exactly why you haven’t refuted his argument. Rather than have the inmates meet with someone to help them fill out a form, they talk with someone on the phone who processes their request directly, no form required. I’m just fucking baffled how someone can see that as a terrible injustice. You say you’re not claiming Jeb is committing a crime? I’m overstating your position. I see you stating over and over again that he is breaking the law, refusing to comply with court order AND trying to deny people their right to vote so that he can fix the election! What do you consider that if not criminal? Whether or not you use the word criminal, you’re making BIG accusations, and dammit you need a hell of a lot more than prior bad acts to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/113 "2004-07-28T08:00:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the form is no longer required, then the order is complied with. > > - Rick I don’t see where you’re getting that. The law requires them to provide the form AND assist the inmates in filling it out and sending it, BEFORE they are released. How is that the same as telling them “You can call, email, or write a letter…” They’re still leaving the onus on the felon to take the necessary steps to schedule a hearing, which is EXACTLY what they were ordered NOT to do. The onus is on the STATE, not the felon. And before you get your panties in a bunch about that, remember that Florida is one of only SEVEN states that even require a hearing AT ALL. They _ought_ to just restore voting rights automatically. The only reason they don’t is because of a 19th century law designed to keep former slaves from voting. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/114 "2004-07-28T08:04:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > ## You make a claim that not even the appellants in the court case made. In fact, they specifically admit that your claim is bullshit: > > ## Quote: The appellants expressly stipulated to the trial court that they do not contend that the Department has ever refused a request by an inmate for assistance in applying for the restoration of voting rights. > > So where do you get the idea that the Department isn’t providing the assistance required by law, when not even the freaking PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT offers that accusation? Wrong. It very clearly says “do not contend that the Department has ever refused a request by an inmate…” You DO understand that _assisting_ and _not refusing_ are different, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/115 "2004-07-28T08:25:26Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > blowero, read Bricker’s note just above yours, for evidence of exactly why you haven’t refuted his argument. Geez, Cheeesteak. You know perfectly well that you were piggybacking on Bricker’s argument _before_ he responded to my criticism. > [@](#): > > Rather than have the inmates meet with someone to help them fill out a form, they talk with someone on the phone who processes their request directly, no form required. I’m just fucking baffled how someone can see that as a terrible injustice. You’re doing it again - putting words in people’s mouths. Show me where I used the words “terrible injustice”. Let’s stick to the arguments that have actually been made, please. You’re still missing the point. You think this is a debate about whether felons should have the right to vote, but it’s not. It’s a debate about whether Jeb Bush has deliberately circumvented a court order for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the upcoming election. So let’s please try to stay on track. The law requires that they assist the inmates. I did not write the law; I am only telling you what it says. The court ordered them to uphold the law. Whether you think the felons _deserve_ to get help is immaterial. The law _requires_ it. You say “rather than meet with someone…” they “talk with someone on the phone”, but is that the same thing? No. The analogue to my giving you a form is for ME to call YOU, not for me to WAIT for you to call. Get it yet? Giving you a form and helping you fill it out constitutes assistance. Simply saying “You can call me if you want”, does not. And what if you can’t get through on the phone? What if they’re understaffed? It’s not the same thing. It’s disingenously designed to _appear_ like the same thing, but it’s not. > [@](#): > > You say you’re not claiming Jeb is committing a crime? I’m overstating your position. I see you stating over and over again that he is breaking the law, You’re _still_ overstating it. He _failed_ to uphold the law. Let’s just word it that way, please, because that’s what happened. Your continued taunting of “Are you calling him a criminal?” is just needlessly inflammatory. > [@](#): > > refusing to comply with court order AND trying to deny people their right to vote so that he can fix the election! What do you consider that if not criminal? Whether or not you use the word criminal, you’re making BIG accusations, and dammit you need a hell of a lot more than prior bad acts to prove it. I have _provided_ a lot more than prior bad acts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/116 "2004-07-28T11:05:52Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I don’t see where you’re getting that. The law requires them to provide the form AND assist the inmates in filling it out and sending it, BEFORE they are released. The law requires them to provide any form that exists. It does not require that there be any forms at all. If there are no forms in the process, then the law is being complied with. > [@](#): > > How is that the same as telling them “You can call, email, or write a letter…” They’re still leaving the onus on the felon to take the necessary steps to schedule a hearing, which is EXACTLY what they were ordered NOT to do. The onus is on the STATE, not the felon. The onus is on the Department to assist the felon, If there are no forms, then, clearly, providing the released felon forms does not assist the felon. > [@](#): > > And before you get your panties in a bunch about that, remember that Florida is one of only SEVEN states that even require a hearing AT ALL. They _ought_ to just restore voting rights automatically. The only reason they don’t is because of a 19th century law designed to keep former slaves from voting. No, they OUGHT do what the law of Florida tells them to do. I trust you don’t want to take the ridiculous argument you’ve advanced above anywhere: “Massacusetts OUGHT to forbid same-sex couples from marrying; they are the ONLY state that doesn’t.” I can’t speak for the origins of Florida’s law, but in Virginia, felons were denied the right to vote well before slavery was abolished, so it’s clear that the motive you ascribe to Florida’s law was not in play in Virginia. I am thus moved to ask for a cite for your claim about Florida’s law. I’ve just finished reading two Law Review articles on the subject; oddly, neither mentions the “former slave” angle. I don’t think there are on-line links to either, but if you have Lexis or Westlaw: Howard E. Hill, Comments, Rights of the Convicted Felon on Parole, 13 U. Rich. L. Rev. 367 (1979) see also Joseph H. Kelley, Notes, Restoration of Deprived Rights, 10 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 924 (1969). In any event, the true thrust for your agument becomes apparent here: because you disagree with Florida’s law disenfranchising felons, you seem to believe every Florida agent and agency should work to nullify its effects as much as possible. But your view is not correct. The Department is compelled by Florida law to do some specific things: provide whatever forms are required, and provide assistance to felons in the process of restoring their voting rights. If the state of Florida changes the process so that forms are not required, the Department is not required to provide any forms at all: they don’t exist. And the phone system certainly complies with both the black-letter meaning of the law as well as the court’s ruling to provide assistance. Tell you what: if your view is correct, the plaintiffs should be back in court claiming that the court’s order was violated, and the court should agree. Right? Bet you $100 that doesn’t happen. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/117 "2004-07-28T12:06:49Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > You’re still missing the point. You think this is a debate about whether felons should have the right to vote, but it’s not. It’s a debate about whether Jeb Bush has deliberately circumvented a court order for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the upcoming election. So let’s please try to stay on track. Ok then, is it your position that Jeb “deliberately circumvented a court order for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the upcoming election?” I assume so since > [@](#): > > It’s not the same thing. It’s disingenously designed to _appear_ like the same thing, but it’s not. Now that we have settled that point, you decide to reword your claim as > [@](#): > > He _failed_ to uphold the law. Let’s just word it that way, please, because that’s what happened. This description suggests you think this failure is an accident rather than deliberate. I know you don’t think this is accidental. If Jeb honestly tried to comply with the court order and chose a method that didn’t work out, that is “failing to uphold the law.” Deliberately designing a system to appear to follow the law while fully intending not to is “breaking the law.” > [@](#): > > Your continued taunting of “Are you calling him a criminal?” is just needlessly inflammatory. I disagree, I think it is sorely needed in this debate. You throw around accusations of criminal conduct like accusations of bad breath. Trying to fix an election by denying people the right to vote is big-time bad shit, it’s criminal, and if Jeb is doing it, his ass belongs in prison and HE should have to get a review to get his right to vote back. You can’t make that kind of accusation without something really solid to hang your hat on. At this point we’re reduced to quibbling about what constitutes sufficient assistance, that’s not exactly the stuff you build a federal case over. There is a whole continuum of assistance levels available, I don’t think these two processes differ much on the level of assistance provided, but you do and I don’t think we will come to agreement on it any time soon. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/118 "2004-07-28T19:29:03Z")
> [@](#): > > No, they OUGHT do what the law of Florida tells them to do. I trust you don’t want to take the ridiculous argument you’ve advanced above anywhere: “Massacusetts OUGHT to forbid same-sex couples from marrying; they are the ONLY state that doesn’t.” Don’t be obtuse, Bricker. I didn’t advance that as an argument; I offered it in anticipation of your protests. You and Cheeseteak are the ones who have sidetracked this discussion into whether ex-felons _ought_ to have voting rights, rather than merely discussing what the law says. Don’t fob it off on me, for Christ’s sake. > [@](#): > > I am thus moved to ask for a cite for your claim about Florida’s law. I’ve just finished reading two Law Review articles on the subject; oddly, neither mentions the “former slave” angle. I don’t think there are on-line links to either, but if you have Lexis or Westlaw: Howard E. Hill, Comments, Rights of the Convicted Felon on Parole, 13 U. Rich. L. Rev. 367 (1979) see also Joseph H. Kelley, Notes, Restoration of Deprived Rights, 10 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 924 (1969). I sense that you didn’t try all that hard to find the information. Did you try a simple google search with some keywords like “slave”, “florida”, “vote”, etc.? Here’s just one article: [http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/auto/epaper/editions/thursday/news\_046f4a7aa3065147009d.html](http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/auto/epaper/editions/thursday/news_046f4a7aa3065147009d.html) > [@](#): > > The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 **to limit the political power of freed slaves** , are impossible to calculate, civil rights groups say. I mean, geez - who _doesn’t_ mention it? [save your 2 law review articles] > [@](#): > > In any event, the true thrust for your agument becomes apparent here: because you disagree with Florida’s law disenfranchising felons, you seem to believe every Florida agent and agency should work to nullify its effects as much as possible. Nope, that’s not the trust of my argument at all. As I’ve said over and over, the Florida government needs to simply _comply with the law_ that requires them to assist the felons. Surely I was clear on that. To the extent that you and Cheeseteak want to argue the irrelevant point that ex-felons don’t _deserve_ assistance, I pointed out that you’re wrong on THAT point also, but it’s definitely not the crux of my argument. Clear now? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/119 "2004-07-28T19:35:18Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Ok then, is it your position that Jeb “deliberately circumvented a court order for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the upcoming election?” I assume so sinceNow that we have settled that point, you decide to reword your claim, [blah, blah, blah…] Well, Cheesesteak, you were making some good points, but now you’re just trying to miscontrue everything I said, and we’re just arguing in circles. I’m not really interested in playing “gotcha” games with you, especially when you’re just dead wrong about what I said - thanks anyway… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/120 "2004-07-28T20:26:47Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I mean, geez - who _doesn’t_ mention it? [save your 2 law review articles] Fascinating. I did find the quote you offer, but dismissed it as utterly useless. The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 **to limit the political power of freed slaves** , are impossible to calculate, civil rights groups say. It’s very odd that you empahsized that phrase. Here’s what I focused on, and why I dismissed the quote as useless: The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 to limit the political power of freed slaves, are impossible to calculate, **civil rights groups say.** In essence, this is no more compelling than: The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 to limit the political power of freed slaves, are impossible to calculate, **blowero** says. There is nothing to indicate what reasons the “civil rights groups” are relying upon to draw this conclusion. There is nothing obvious in the policy that suggests it would limit the rights of former slaves. And since other jurisdictions implemented such policies thirty-some years before slaves were ever freed, it stands to reason that there exist non-racist reasons for such a policy. So again I ask for a cite. A cite does not mean other people repeating a baseless assertion: it means some evidence that actually supports the claim. What evidence did the civil rights groups rely upon when they formed this opinion? > [@](#): > > Nope, that’s not the trust of my argument at all. As I’ve said over and over, the Florida government needs to simply _comply with the law_ that requires them to assist the felons. Surely I was clear on that. Well, then, I have amply demonstrated that the new policy complies with that law. If it does not, surely the plaintiffs will be back in court pointing out that the court’s order was flouted, and the court will surely agree. You going to take me up on that bet? - Rick [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583.md?page=7)