A Florida Division of Elections database lists more than 47,000 people the department said may be ineligible to vote because of felony records. The state is directing local elections offices to check the list and scrub felons from voter rolls.
But a Herald review shows that at least 2,119 of those names — including 547 in South Florida — shouldn’t be on the list because their rights to vote were formally restored through the state’s clemency process….
State elections officials acknowledge there may be mistakes on the list but insist they have built in safeguards to make sure eligible voters are not removed by local election offices. They say they have warned election offices to be diligent before eliminating voters, and have flagged possible cases in which voters on the list may have regained their rights….
Of the 2,119 people who obtained clemency, 62 percent are registered Democrats, and almost half are black. Less than 20 percent are Republican. Those ratios are very close to the same in the list of 47,000 voters who the local elections officers are supposed to review and possibly purge from the registration rolls.
As it turns out, justice delayed is, in fact, justice denied. The list was released yesterday, and the Miami Herald has already found this. I feel a case of the shrill coming on.
Via Body and Soul.
{ 40 comments }
Giles 07.02.04 at 6:09 pm
surely the reason why there are so many convicted felons who cant vote is the million blacks that were incacerated under the clinton adminisration?
Its kinda typical of the democrats that they didnt care about these people when in office but now they’re out they desperately need them
Giles 07.02.04 at 6:19 pm
surely the reason why there are so many convicted felons who cant vote is the million blacks that were incacerated under the clinton adminisration?
Its kinda typical of the democrats that they didnt care about these people when in office but now they’re out they desperately need them
Bernard Yomtov 07.02.04 at 6:30 pm
Giles,
I hope you are joking.
jack pugh 07.02.04 at 6:40 pm
So, Giles,
If the Democrats are guilty of opportunism in wanting these voting rights restored because they think these guys will vote for them, are the Republicans guilty of opportunism if they want to keep them off the rolls because they think it helps their candidates?
Somebody give me a rationale for pulling voting rights for a crime. Is it supposed to be a deterrent to crime? If so, it’s at least as ineffective as the death penalty. Or is it mere retribution?
Giles 07.02.04 at 6:49 pm
no I agree that there’s something seriously wrong with stripping someone of their voting rights.
Point I’m making is that the Democrats wanted them off when they didnt need their votes, now they want them in.
By contrast I’m not aware that the Republicans have flip flopped on this issue.
Katherine 07.02.04 at 6:55 pm
The President has no authority at all over Florida’s penal code.
jack pugh 07.02.04 at 6:56 pm
Did the Democrats argue this from both sides? I haven’t seen or heard that as I’ve followed the story. Regardless of either party’s consistency, I see no distinction between them on the charge of “opportunism”.
brett 07.02.04 at 6:57 pm
I’m sure this was all on purpose, right — election officials went through the list of people who were supposed to have their voting rights reinstated, cross-referenced that list with statewide voter registration data, identified which were Democrats, and decided not to reinstate just those felons? Horseshit. Maybe the explanation is a lot simpler — felons, for any number of demographic reasons, skew heavily Democratic.
Ted Barlow 07.02.04 at 7:02 pm
Giles,
I can’t see any inconsistency between (a) wanting criminals to go to jail for crimes they’ve committed, and (b) wanting criminals who have served their time to regain their right to vote.
Unless it was the previous position of the Democrats that felons shouldn’t regain the right to vote, I don’t see any point in your statement at all.
…unless you are saying that there was a large wave of racist arrests of innocent blacks in the 90s, under the supervision of Bill Clinton. Is that what you’re saying? How would you defend that point?
Katherine 07.02.04 at 7:04 pm
“Maybe the explanation is a lot simpler — felons, for any number of demographic reasons, skew heavily Democratic.”
Which would be a good reason to ignore grants of clemency, and make every effort to err on the side of mistakenly denying people voting rights instead of mistakenly allowing people to vote. Hypothetically, of course.
Or they could just be incompetent. Either way–what’s defensible about this?
Ted Barlow 07.02.04 at 7:06 pm
Brett,
I’m sure that you’re right. That’s not the argument that critics like me would make. The argument would be that (a) Florida should change its policy to allow felons to vote after they have served their time.
(b) If Florida won’t change their laws, they should make every effort to ensure the quality of their lists of ineligible voters. They have not done so.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.02.04 at 7:07 pm
“…unless you are saying that there was a large wave of racist arrests of innocent blacks in the 90s, under the supervision of Bill Clinton. Is that what you’re saying?”
There were quite probably just as many racist arrests of innocent blacks in the 90s under Bill Clinton as there were intentional disruptions of returned voting rights now.
So draw your own conclusions about how many you think that is.
Ted Barlow 07.02.04 at 7:12 pm
Giles,
One more thing:
I don’t think that there’s any case that either the Republicans or Democrats have flip-flopped on the issue. To the best of my knowledege, hey’ve both been pretty consistent (arguably for opportunistic rather than principled reasons).
Rather, I think that there’s a right and a wrong side of the issue. So do you. In fact, we’re on the same side- we both agree that there’s something wrong with stripping people of their voting rights. Yet you seem to be making an effort to tar the Democrats on this issue, the guys you agree with. I don’t get it.
brett 07.02.04 at 7:15 pm
Yes, it’s incompetence — is anyone surprised that Florida election officials are incompetent? I would be shocked if they had achieved competence in 4 years. It’s not defensible. What I object to is the Moore-esque implication of ill intent. Subtle, but an unmistakable cue to commenters of a certain stripe.
Extradite the Neocons 07.02.04 at 7:20 pm
Were any of them convicted for crimes committed after July 2, 2004?
Ted Barlow 07.02.04 at 7:22 pm
“There were quite probably just as many racist arrests of innocent blacks in the 90s under Bill Clinton as there were intentional disruptions of returned voting rights now.”
I don’t see the parallel.
Someone who has been arrested for a felony has a number of rights and redresses. He has the right to an attorney, a trial, the right to confront witnesses and evidence against him, etc. This is as it should be.
Someone who arrives at the voting booth to find that he has been mistakenly been made ineligible has no means of redress. In fact, the state of Florida has been fighting to prevent scrutiny of its lists and methods. This is not as it should be.
Ted Barlow 07.02.04 at 7:26 pm
“What I object to is the Moore-esque implication of ill intent.”
Please help me understand how I implied ill intent, Brett.
John Isbell 07.02.04 at 7:33 pm
I’ll gladly imply ill intent. I will wager money that they were royally pissed off to be ridiculed by the world media. Out of option a, reform, and b, fuck the planet, they chose b, with secrecy thrown in. Now they’re being screwed, but this time before the election. Perhaps they’ll take this on board for 2008. Meanwhile, we can maybe all vote without them having an impact. Let them keep their impact to their home lives.
Sharon 07.02.04 at 7:39 pm
Excuse my British ignorance here but I can’t quite get my head round this one. OK, over here convicts *in prison* can’t vote. But anyone convicted of a felony in the US – or some states? – is ineligible to vote? Ever? (unless they get ‘clemency’ – and I’m not entirely sure what that means either?) Have I got that right? If so, I’m flabbergasted.
Ted Barlow 07.02.04 at 7:42 pm
Sharon,
It’s only true in six states, each of which has its own regulations. So I don’t know about “forever”. But you basically understand it correctly.
Chris Lawrence 07.02.04 at 7:44 pm
I have no particular problem with depriving felons of voting rights; it’s not like it’s an ex post facto provision of law, for example. By committing a crime against society, I think it’s reasonable to make the argument that they should be deprived of the legal ability to affect the course of society.
That said, there are probably too many felonies on the books. And I wouldn’t be opposed to restoring voting rights to felons after 10 years freedom without a criminal conviction, limiting the voting disqualification to certain crimes (as in the case of Mississippi, where the list is “murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy”), or a systematic “parole board” for past felons to restore their voting rights, or some other procedure to let reformed criminals back “in” the process.
brett 07.02.04 at 7:57 pm
It actually wasn’t you, Ted – it was the original article:
> Of the 2,119 people who obtained clemency, 62 percent are registered Democrats, and almost half are black. Less than 20 percent are Republican.
Isn’t it a problem when *anyone*, regardless of party affiliation, is denied his or her constitutional rights? Maybe I’m paranoid (though the response of commenters above bears me out), but this passage implies that there is some sinister force at work here denying Democrats the vote.
bob mcmanus 07.02.04 at 8:53 pm
“Maybe I’m paranoid (though the response of commenters above bears me out), but this passage implies that there is some sinister force at work here denying Democrats the vote.” ….Brett
LOL
ROTFL
Looking over at Isbell and waiting for Zizka and giggling manaically.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.02.04 at 9:54 pm
“Someone who arrives at the voting booth to find that he has been mistakenly been made ineligible has no means of redress.”
My understanding of the procedure is that they are allowed to cast a provisional ballot which is then counted if their presence on the list was found to be an error.
BTW, I see it as off topic, but I would certainly agree that there has been ‘felony inflation’ to the extent that many felonies shouldn’t permanently end your voting rights. But I think that wasn’t the thrust of the article.
Walt Pohl 07.02.04 at 10:04 pm
I’m impressed that we successfully dodged arguing about whether it was all Clinton’s fault, though it was only a near miss.
Generally, you can only use the “I was cleaning my gun when it went off” excuse once. In the 2000 election, the state of Florida “accidentally” used a procedure that knocked off a disproportionate number of Democrats. In 2004 they’re using a similar procedure that “accidentally” has the same effect? How many times do we have to get shot before we’re allowed to wonder if they’re shooting us on purpose?
q 07.02.04 at 10:06 pm
_But anyone convicted of a felony in the US – or some states? – is ineligible to vote? Ever? (unless they get ‘clemency’ – and I’m not entirely sure what that means either?) Have I got that right? If so, I’m flabbergasted._
How many people in the USA are denied the right to vote due to criminality? Anyone…?
cs 07.02.04 at 10:09 pm
I’m not exactly sure what giles is trying to say, but I think there is a point there to be made.
Democrats in general have been very pro severe criminal penalties. And now that policy is somewhat coming back to bite the Democrats in the ass, since their electoral prospects might be better if it wasn’t for all those people in jail, or ineligible to vote.
Granted, this doesn’t have anything directly to do with the issue of not allowing people to vote who legally should have that right, and it overgeneralizes about Democrats, some of whom are not so eager to support jail terms. And on the other hand, many Democrats probably think their electoral prospects would be even worse if they could be more easily portrayed as soft of crime. But still I think there is a point there.
Doctorg 07.02.04 at 10:37 pm
Hell yeah, I’ll say it:
In both 2000 and now, these lists of “ineligible” voters are a planned, orchestrated attempt to kick as many potential Democratic voters off the rolls as possible. The tool employed by Katherine Harris last time around was a company called Choicepoint. Other contracting companies might have done it cheaper or more efficiently, but only Choicepoint had the correct political leanings to ensure the desired outcome.
Reporter Greg Palast has already covered this extensively. Here’s a link: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2
bob mcmanus 07.02.04 at 11:20 pm
Oh, imagine some really weird, unpredictable event, like a bunch of Diebold machines or tabulators crashing and records of millions of votes disappearing forever(since there is no hardcopy). Since the Constitution really precludes revotes, we are stuck with a state picking electors, or maybe going so far into chaos that the election is thrown into Congress, where, son-of-a-gun, the Republicans have tight control of both chambers.
Bush says he “knows” he is going to to be re-elected. Not thinks, hopes, plans, or believes in the American people. He has a certainty. So do I. So do Sebastian, Brett, gc, and giles. And we all understand quite well why we are certain, pre-emptive defensive moves aside.
We should be planning for the next, incredibly worse, four years of Bush.
mad bobman 07.03.04 at 12:24 am
bob mcm – you need to lay off the weed. It’s making you paranoid. Same goes for you doctorq.
John Doe 07.03.04 at 2:13 am
I agree that far to many non-violent crimes are classified as felonies. However the number of legitimate voters denied voting rights is far less than the number of felons and foreigners illegally voting. Last time around Gore stole the election if four states and almost stole it with 6000 illegal votes in Florida. The Democrat party needs electoral fraud to be competitive, and will until the huge influx of Latinos makes them the permanent majority party.
Loco 07.03.04 at 4:17 am
Giles is a bit right.
Clinton continued with a policy of changing the US from the land of the Free to the land of the Imprisoned.
Current statistics (midyear 2003):
– 12 perc. of “black” males in their twenties in prison or jail.
– 1.3 perc. of all males in prison or jail.
– .715 perc of US citizens in prison or jail.
– .48 perc. of US citizens serving a sentence of more than 1 year.
Incredible.
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
bad Jim 07.03.04 at 9:58 am
IIRC (no link, sorry, I’m lazy, STFW) Florida by default disenfranchises felons, who have to petition the state in order to be able to vote again. This isn’t generally the case in the U.S.
They purged the rolls in 2000 using a privately generated list which was notoriously inaccurate, and this is generally considered to have been a significant part of that year’s election fiasco.
Given our laws and our society, the purging disproportionately disenfranchised blacks and thus Democrats.
Salon covered this in depth. Seek thither, or where you will, for further detail.
Giles 07.03.04 at 11:11 am
Ted – the reason I’m tarring the democrats on this one is twofold;
firstly, I think Clintons prison policy was a scandal and this is one of the consequences.
But secondly, if they were serious about ending this disenfranchiement, why not start in say Rhode Island where they have the power to change the policy at state level?
Instead they complain in Florida – a split state that is likely to remain under republican control.
Maybe they sincerely want to change the policy but are just a bit dim. Or maybe they are happy to leave the policy in place so they can carp about it for political gain whenever convinient.
Rob 07.03.04 at 11:28 am
Yes, why worry about disenfranchising those who have the right to vote? I mean they are black and all so they are probably felons anyway, right giles?
So sure most of the people who should be allowed to vote and are being blocked are overwhelmingly Democrats, but hey its just random right?
Zizka 07.03.04 at 1:05 pm
Hi, McManus. Hi Walt. This place goes to hell when I’m not around.
This story is, pretty much, 3+ years old. Palast covered it that long ago, and it’s developing (since obvious corrections were not made). There are really several issues: disenfranching felons by law in the first place; restoring rights of felons from states which restore felon rights who then move to Florida; the fact that the original list was innacurate so that many non-felons were denied the vote; and the question of whether this was deliberate or just one of those things.
Given the probably-deliberate ignorance most of the commentators here, there’s not too much to say. For whatever reason, the nice folk at CT really seem to attract the riffraff.
Palast’s “Best Democracy Money Can But” is a good place to start, even though it’s out of date now. The new news is that there apparently hasn’t been any effective determination to improve the situation.
Give Giles the Green Herring award for trying to derail the discussion. Some of what he said would be interesting in a different context, but there are axes to be ground.
Phill 07.03.04 at 2:56 pm
All the evidence points to Katherine Harris appointing Choicepoint to scrub the voter rolls to rig the vote.
Remember that here the standard is that officials have to prove that they are honest.
It has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Choicepoint bid was not just slightly higher, it was many times the cost of all the other bids. It has also been proven beyond all doubt that Katherine Harris had ties to the Choicepoint management. Choicepoint has also admitted that they made no attempt to verify the accuracy of the data they provided.
Walt Pohl 07.03.04 at 7:04 pm
We definitely need you to keep the trolls in line, Zizka. You have the knack for it.
Conservatives are genuinely superior debaters. I think they hone their skill in college, where they are a minority. (I’m pretty sure Giles is in college right now, for example.) What’s impressive is their laser-like focus. They themselves never get distracted; instead they focus on whatever will distract their opponents.
andy 07.03.04 at 11:12 pm
Felons in Florida who have had their rights restored have to reregister to legally be able to vote—maybe these people have not done that yet?
Matt Weiner 07.03.04 at 11:25 pm
q–
In 1998, Human Rights Watch’s Sentencing Project wrote, “Using national conviction and corrections on data, we estimate that 3.9 million Americans, including 1.4 million black men, cannot vote because of felony convictions.”
From the same source “One-third of all disenfranchised ex-felons (436,900) are in Florida,” which perhaps answers Giles’ question about why we complain about it in Florida.
By the way the governor of Rhode Island is a Republican. (And I just found out that the Democratic House Majority leader has come out of the closet–cool!)
Comments on this entry are closed.