I’m sure you know by now that Florida is in the process of purging thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of eligible voters from the rolls. A coalition of groups in that state has now filed a federal lawsuit to stop that purge from proceeding.
The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the local office of the international law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP filed a federal lawsuit in Tampa, claiming that the state Bureau of Elections is breaking the law in its ongoing purge, designed to scrub voter registration lists ahead of the state’s August congressional primary…
“Florida is flouting federal laws designed to protect voters from precisely this kind of action,” Bob Kengle, co-director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement issued Friday. “The right of every citizen to have their voice heard at the ballot box is being threatened. The Lawyers’ Committee will continue to tirelessly fight any effort to make full-fledged Americans second-class citizens.”
“The illegal program to purge eligible voters uses inaccurate information to remove eligible citizens from the voter rolls,” Howard Simon, executive director of ACLUFL, added in the statement. Governor Rick Scott and his administration, Simon added, “mislead Floridians by calling their illegal list purge ‘protecting citizen’s voting rights.’ This is precisely why Congress has re-enacted, and why we continue to need, the Voting Rights Act – to prevent state officials from interfering with the constitutional rights of minorities. We now look to the courts to stop the Scott administration from assaulting democracy by denying American citizens the right to vote.”
The key at this point is getting a preliminary injunction to stop the purge because the case will likely not be decided by the time the election comes around.
27 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
daved
June 12, 2012 at 3:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
According to CNN, Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, announced that they had identified fifty people who were ineligible to vote (non-citizens), but had voted in the last election, and they may have found fifty more. Apparently, this is supposed to be sufficient to justify purging thousands of eligible voters from the rolls.
'Tis Himself
June 12, 2012 at 3:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
One of the excuses for the purge is to prevent “voter fraud.” Rolling Stone has an article on voter fraud:
Modusoperandi
June 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
‘Tis Himself, so now we have to purge lightning from the voter rolls too?
Gregory in Seattle
June 12, 2012 at 3:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@daved #1 – From what I’ve been seeing, Florida is using lists that are years out of date. Many of the “illegals” have become citizens since then, and many of them are now legally registered to vote. But apparently the fact that someone was once, at some time in the past, a non-citizen disqualifies one from ever being allowed to vote.
And that still doesn’t explain why so many still living, legally born African Americans and veterans, who have voted for decades, are being purged.
Alverant
June 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Scott just doesn’t want people to be allowed to vote if they won’t vote the way he wants them too. That’s the whole story about these voter purges. They don’t want to prevent fraud. In fact they’re all for fraud if it winds up helping them.
Scott’s holding up these 50 examples as if it justifies denying one of the most fundamental of our rights to thousands of others, the right to have a say in our government. Try pulling a similar stunt with taking guns and see what happens.
He says if you can prove you’re a citizen you can mail the form back. Let me guess, you have to pay for the stamp too. Not only are you convicted without a trial but you have to prove your innosense instead of they having to prove your guilt. I guess, “S/He votes for Democrats.” is all the proof Scott needs.
Modusoperandi
June 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gregory in Seattle, look, it’s their own fault for having names similar to actual (or potentially actual) felons (who can’t vote because, having done their time in prison and also having completed their parole, shut up, that’s why). If they wanted to have the “right” to vote, they should’ve chosen to been born to parents with proper American names. Not the ones they got. You know the kind I mean, dogwhistle dogwhistle.
d cwilson
June 12, 2012 at 4:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And if it’s like other claims of of “ineligible” voters, the vast majority of them will turn out to be one of the following: 1) People who died after mailing their absentee ballot in; 2) People who have similar names to dead voters, resident aliens, or convicted felons; 3) People who became citizens since the last time the database Scott is referencing was updated; or 4) Ann Coulter.
jufulu
June 12, 2012 at 5:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t remember where I read it, but I believe that the county election officials are refusing to purge the lists. It seems that they recognize that they are responsible for the list and are thereby libel for their actions. It’s their asses on the line and they have the idea that such actions would be illegal.
gwangung
June 12, 2012 at 5:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He says if you can prove you’re a citizen you can mail the form back.
Given that voting is a right, why is the burden on the individual, and not on the state?
gwangung
June 12, 2012 at 5:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t remember where I read it, but I believe that the county election officials are refusing to purge the lists.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/07/v-fullstory/2838176/county-elections-chiefs-to-state.html
meg
June 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I commented last week about the comparative simplicity of our system here in Oz, and how the govt made it so amazingly easy for me to enrol.
In last nights male was a postcard sized brochure from the Australian Electoral Commission asking ‘Will you count?’ or similar. On the back was details of how to check you are enrolled and your details are up to date. (http://www.aec.gov.au/)
I went to the site, just to see how had it was to check my details (easy). And saw this article: “AEC launches national campaign to find 1.5 million missing Australian voters” . The differences in the attitudes to voters is astounding.
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/2012/5-29.htm
thisisaturingtest
June 12, 2012 at 8:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Alverant @#5:
That reminds me of a great comment made by a poster (thegreatbear) on a Media Matters for America article. As near as I can remember, it went like this: “America is the only civilized nation in the world in which one of its political parties, and its media mouthpiece [Fox News], thinks it’s too hard to own a gun, but too easy to vote.”
Meg @#11:
That is amazing. Australia makes a concerted effort to find missing voters- the far-right in America is making a concerted effort to lose them.
meg
June 12, 2012 at 8:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@thisisaturingtest
Someone mentioned last week that it would be too difficult to have compulsory voting in the US, to have the kind of central database we do because of population numbers. Okay, yeah, we have a much smaller population. You guys put a man on the moon.
Also worth noting – the AEC is independent. No politician has any authority as to authorise these campaigns. For an Aussie politician to do what Florida is would be seen for what it is – fraud and an attempt to rig an election. We may not like the opposition, but we do like a fair playing field.
thisisaturingtest
June 12, 2012 at 8:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
meg: yup. Totally agree. Difficult? Sure. Too difficult? Well, to borrow from your “you guys put a man on the moon” reference- JFK, in 1962, said:
Why should we not accept another challenge that involves one of the most basic tenets of our system of government- that each and every one of us has such a vested interest in its success and continuance that we should be not just allowed to vote, but should feel a duty to do so? If the only way to prevent the sort of fraud Scott and others are trying to perpetrate is to make voting compulsory (and non-exclusive), maybe that’s where we need to go. I can sort of see an ideological opposition to the idea of compulsory voting, but certainly not a valid technical one.
Doug Little
June 12, 2012 at 8:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Now that conjures up an interesting image, lends a whole new meaning to the term mailman.
meg
June 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Doug – spell check fail . . .:)
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 12, 2012 at 10:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well lubricated, I hope! O.o
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
June 12, 2012 at 11:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@jufulu:
Just so you know, the word you want is “liable“. “Libel” is something else entirely.
Suido
June 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Meg:
The prime difference between Australia and (most of?) the rest of the world is that we have compulsory voting. Those 1.5 million voters who aren’t registered are breaking the law by not voting, so the AEC is actually responsible for getting them to enrol.
With regards to compulsory vs non-compulsory, I was pro-compulsory until about a year ago, when I had a revelation: compulsory voting makes politics a zero-sum game. With only two parties (the greens are steadily gaining, but are a long way from really affecting the duopoly in the lower houses), the only voters that are courted are the swing voters – everyone else is a lock.
Since that revelation, I’ve grown more and more confident in the idea that this is one of the root causes of problems in Australian politics at the moment. Without any need to cater to their broad bases of support, the two parties are wrangling over the tiniest specks of difference in centrist policies that will gain them some swing votes, and are both guilty of pandering to the masses through tax breaks for the middle class and moving away from their historic policy positions in favour of retaining power.
Without a need to galvanise the voters into liking them, the parties don’t need to have charismatic and dynamic leaders, don’t even need to be likeable – just slightly more likeable than the other party.
While other systems also have their flaws, the parties at least need to reaffirm to their major support base that they are still standing for the same values each election cycle, in order to convince the voters to take part.
meg
June 12, 2012 at 11:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Suido
The post I’d made last week covered compulsory voting, but yes, they are essentially enforcing the law.
I too wasn’t sure about compulsory voting. Greece has it, but doesn’t enforce it. Perhaps compulsory enrollment might be the better option?
However, having seen the vast amounts of money spent on ‘get out the vote’ campaigns, I wonder that this couldn’t be better spent.
I disagree that they don’t need to make voters like them – every party/candidate in any election needs to do that! And the centre is what will decide any election – I’ve read many a comment here that says ‘the republicans will vote for Romney regardless’. We have the same here – as you said, everyone else is a lock in. The reason we have a hung parliament is more the general dislike of both parties at the last election than compulsory voting. Otherwise, why do we get such a vast variety of results, including the election previous to that? We’ve had landslides and close calls over the last hundred years.
StevoR
June 13, 2012 at 4:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@20. meg says:
I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure there’s no actual requirement to vote only to get your name checked off the list at a polling place.
There’s always a small percentage who vote informally ie. ruin their ballot paper and don’t cast a legitimate vote or who do the “donkey vote” i.e. vote down the card.
Plus we (Aussie speaking here) have preferential voting as well.
I do vaguely recall one or two stories last state election of people in my state – South Australia – voting more than once at various polling booths which is ilegal but apparently happens.
StevoR
June 13, 2012 at 5:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Which means if youobject or don’t want to vote you can go, get your name crossed off then just leave without voting at all not even writing something rude on your ballot or placing intehbox empty.
Mind you, as I said I could be wrong – will have to check this further..
StevoR
June 13, 2012 at 5:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
PS. Checking AEC site doesn’t seem to have anything on that – cheers for the link there Meg. (#11.)
Wikipedia also doesn’t seem to answer that query but notes here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system#Compulsory_voting
mithandir
June 13, 2012 at 5:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Belgium has compulsory voting too and not showing up without a good reason will land you a fine. I’ve never had to register to vote, I get a letter from the government telling me where to be when, and voting is on a Sunday when almost all business are closed. Voting locations are usually schools and in urban areas nearly always within 1 km.
There’s pro’s and cons to compulsory voting IMO. On the one hand it forces everybody to have an opinion, but on the other hand it doesn’t force anybody to do the research. As a result you get a lot of uninformed voters. These voters are easy to fool into making a “protest” vote, often for an extreme right party. That said, at least we don’t have to worry about which part of our uninformed voters will turn out.
On the whole the belgian political system is a bit of a mess, which was shown to the whole world when we went without a government for nearly two years after last elections. One of the reasons it’s messy is because we actually have multiple parties who disagree on many points and that every government is always a coalition (a coalition in which no party can have a majority even within the coalition). However no matter how complex that makes politics, I still vastly prefer it to the “two choices fit none” system you get in the US and (less so) the UK and Australia.
democommie
June 13, 2012 at 7:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Someone mentioned last week that it would be too difficult to have compulsory voting in the US, to have the kind of central database we do because of population numbers.”
My reply last week was that we have both driver’s licenses and social security cards–a reply that was not rebutted by the person who made the original assertion. In addition we’ve had the Selective Service. That argument is DOA. When someone says that we can’t do something which we demonstrably can then it’s pretty much a given that they’re lying.
Modusoperandi
June 13, 2012 at 11:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hold on, Australia has elections? Did King Billibillibong “Bruce” Bongobong get overthrown or something?
Suido
June 14, 2012 at 10:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Meg: Look at the poll results on preferred Prime Minister.
http://au.acnielsen.com/news/200512.shtml
Do you think the parties would tolerate a Prime Minister/Opposition Leader having negative net approval rating if people had the option of not voting?
Of course not, but since we must vote and the system is historically rigged so only two parties are included, that statistic simply doesn’t matter. It should matter. We are currently in a situation where both parties have ex-leaders (Rudd and Turnbull) who are wildly popular with the public and unpopular with their cabinets, as opposed to the actual leaders who appear to be wildly popular with their cabinets and unpopular with the public.
This disconnect between public preferences and party preferences is a massive problem right now. I’m not whole-heartedly for changing the voting system to non-compulsory, as it would come with other problems and there are other ways in which the issue could be fixed (better public involvement in pre-selection, for example). Something does needs to be done though, and hopefully better minds than mine can find a solution.