WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts. The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting. But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. "There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights. Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting. "In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said. In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods. Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University. The federal government does not require people to produce a photo identification unless they are first-time voters who registered by mail. "African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement. Courtenay Strickland of the Americans Civil Liberties Union testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week that at a primary election in Florida last month, many people were wrongly turned away when they could not produce identification. BLACKS' BALLOTS REJECTED The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush (news - web sites) won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists. Additionally, Florida is one of 14 states that prohibit ex-felons from voting. Seven percent of the electorate but 16 percent of black voters in that state are disenfranchised. In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks. In total, 13 percent of all black men are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, according to the Commission on Civil Rights. "This has a huge effect on elections but also on black communities which see their political clout diluted. No one has yet explained to me how letting ex-felons who have served their sentences into polling booths hurts anyone," said Jessie Allen of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, which seeks to ensure fair multiracial elections, recently reported that registrars across the country often claimed not to have received voter registration forms or rejected them for technical reasons that could have been corrected easily before voting day if the applicant had known there was a problem. Beasley said that many voters who had registered recently in swing states were likely to find their names would not be on the rolls when they showed up on Election Day. "There is very widespread delay in the swing states because there have been massive registration drives among minorities and those applications are not being processed quickly enough," she said. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...696&e=5&u=/nm/20040922/pl_nm/campaign_vote_dc
FYI, in the Florida recount, whites actually were almost 11 times more likely to have their ballots not count due to this thing. I agree that the principle of minority disenfranchisement sells, but I don't buy it for a minute. If these things were going on, the democrats would be all over it (and rightfully so).
That's because of two reasons: 1. It was screwed up for a crap load of districts, not just the minority ones 2. 78% of Floridians are White, while 14.6% are Black. You can't make the same reach about White voters that you can about Black ones. Black voters traditionally vote Democrat, it is a proven fact. For white people it is not as clear cut. So if a Black person's vote is not counted in Florida (or most anywhere else for that matter) statistically speaking it was likely a Democratic vote that was lost. If a White person's vote is not counted, you just can't tell what party was affected.
1. Felons not voting: I disagree with the concept of not allowing felons to vote, but it is the law and has been for a long time. It was justly legislated and the rule was on the books before the potential voters committed their felonies. Not sure if it is really all that unfair. 2. Flyers warning of arrests: The article doesn't say who sent them, but I doubt it was in any official capacity. You can't arrest people for not paying their rent or utilities. Doing so at a polling place is an invitation to a big fat lawsuit. Sending the flyers would be illegal intimidation that should be prosecuted. If it were govt officials doing it, that would be disenfranchisement; if it is private citizens (more likely, I'd think), it's just a crime. 3. People pretending to be cops: Since they are only pretending, I can only assume that these are also private citizens committing a crime -- two: impersonating a police officer, and intimidation at a polling place. This is a crime-control issue. 4. Licenses: I don't know why blacks would be less likely to have one than whites. But, if it is so, it is so. It would be wrong to demand a license when none is required (as long as they have their voter registration card). 5. Rejection of registration forms: I don't see how the state could have intentional racial disenfranchisement on the basis of clerical error and laziness. I don't think they get a race indicator on their paperwork. However, that new voters are getting disenfranchised is not a great situation. That it's happening to minorities isn't the state's fault. I read the article and felt like, "Ok, so what?" Some people didn't get to vote. We should fix that as much as possible. No suggestions were made though. So here are mine: If you are the target of intimidation through fliers or in person, call the police. These things are illegal. The only issue is enforcement and voters can do their part by reporting the crimes. Legislate the voting-ban of felons off the books. If you put it to a vote, I'll vote for it. There isn't anything to complain about while it is on the books. If the polling place requires a license when none is needed, raise hell. Call the cops, call the FEC, call the papers. It might be a mistake on the part of the election people, it might be particular pollsters trying to affect the election, but it is not a grand conspiracy. If you press the issue, you can get redress. Register early and make sure your paperwork is in order. Is it any surprise that your paperwork would get lost in the shuffle if you registered at the last second with a massive wave of other people? That's the nature of bureacracy.
Liberal interest groups (People for the American Way, ACLU, etc.) join in lockstep with Kerry talking about people being "denied their votes." They bring story to Reuters. Reuters writes story. This is what I'd term lazy, lazy, lazy, ideologically driven journalism. It would be like me getting a email from a group of Falcons fans who think Mike Vick sucks and they give me all of this data. I write a story about this and then ask Mike Vick at practice "There are several critics which think you are unable to play quarterback. How do you respond?" We're still waiting for the proof of legal black voters being driven from the polls in 2000. I guess this is a regular tactic of the Left. Bring out a boogeyman, racist Republicans, to gin up support for a candidate flailing like a paratrooper without a parachute on descent. However, for you on the left, here is some real voting "irregularities" brought to us by your side: link Ex-felons should never vote again as long as they live. Do the crime, do the time. This just shows the desperation your side has, because if (and when) Bush wins, the GOP will control the House, Senate and White House.
No, no, no, no, no, no. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," by Greg Palast, chapter one. Many minorities were cut out of the voting cycle because of false purge lists. About 90,000 people were disenfranchised, most of them poor, half of them black. Do the math. It isn't just a matter of former felons. The state of Florida actually sent a letter to a county supervisor for voting, stating she was not allowed to vote due to a prior felony. She had never committed a felony of any kind. Her name or SSN (can't remember now) closely matched that of a felon, and so...zip, gone. Yes, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not making this up.
Well, I guess that just goes the depth at which the Democrats have sunk: they need the convict vote to join their flagging coalition in the face of the loss of their power. There is a reason why convicts would vote Democrat because they tend to nominate Turn-'em-Loose-Bruce judges whose naive leniency allows them to go free. Of course convicts aren't going to vote for the GOP, they get too many lenient sentences and handouts stolen from the pockets of the hardworking from the Democrats. Like I said before, do the crime, do the time.
They did the time, that's the point. If prisons are supposed to rehabilitate people into citizens that are allowed to rejoin society, let them rejoin. I can understand why you wouldn't want them to be able to legally purchase a firearm if they were convicted of a violent crime, but voting is hardly a danger to society. Otherwise why stop at voting rights, why not just deport anyone convicted of a felony?
I'm annoyed by the characterization that these laws (that felons can't vote) are only a relic of Jim Crow. It may be true, but the circumstances of their origin should not prejudice the current legislative evaluation of the justice and usefulness of the law. It may have been started for all the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean it is without merit. Btw, does Texas have such a law? Mulder, I wouldn't say the only purpose of prison is rehabilitation. Not that the consideration is without merit -- I'm all for felons rejoining society -- but other people bring a different philosophy to imprisonment. Additional justifications would be deterrence, incapacitation (physically keeping prisoners from committing crimes), and Justice. Am I missing others? From a rehab standpoint, it makes no sense to deny voting writes, but from a deterrence standpoint (for example), it does make sense: someone who cared about their political participation maybe be somewhat disincentivized to commit a crime. However, it makes no sense from a Justice standpoint, which is ultimately why I oppose this form of punishment (as well as sex offender lists, but that's another thread). Most felonies do not merit a punishment that lasts the rest of your life. Depriving someone of voting rights forever is not commensurate to the crime. Why should such a disenfranchisement last longer than one's imprisonment? Bama, your argument that felons would form some kind of soft on crime bloc is without merit. There is nothing illegitimate about having a political stance that is soft on crime. If such a bloc did form (and, btw, has it formed in states that do not bar felons from voting?), they may force politicians to be softer on crime. Ok. That's democracy. If you could argue that felons would use their votes in a trecherous or undemocratic manner (like the rebellion mentioned in the Constitution), I can understand denying the rights. But, committing a serious crime suggests nothing about one's patriotism or dedication to democratic ideals. A felon may vote for candidates soft on crime, but they'd likely not tend in some uncivic direction when it comes to education, economy, national defense, or a host of other political concerns.
What is your standard on who should participate in a democracy? On another subject, do you think it is at all possible to be too hard on crime? If, for example, we had the death penalty for every offense, would you think that was overly punitive? If so, wouldn't it make sense to have a soft-on-crime faction to balance the tough-on-crime faction, so that we can settle on some just equilibrium? And, for the sake of the survival of this faction, should we avoid keeping its consitituency from voting? As it now stands, we have plenty of politicians who market themselves as tough-on-crime, but no real countervailing force. Do you trust the democratic mechanism to achieve a rational solution when these two factions meet or are you genuinely afraid that voting felons will actually plunge our nation into anarchy?
