Burnt Orange Report

The real scandal of Florida 2000 wasn't the halted recount or the hanging chads. It was the way African Americans were prevented from voting, particularly in Duval County.

I thought they couldn't tie voter registration to other forms of identification, like drivers licenses?

What other ID proves where you live, other than your voter registration itself?

Census information tells you how Black/White/Hispanic a precinct is. They're easy to target..

Byron,

Why can't Republicans ever have a legitimate interest about preventing voter fraud, why does it always have to be a "racist attempt to disenfranchise" minority voters? And what is it about being asked to prove you are who you say you are that is so "intimidating?" Do you seriously believe that minorities are so emotionally fragile that, when asked to show identification, they will bolt and not vote? Come on.

Like it or not, voter fraud is a big problem. A friend of mine volunteered to monitor the vote in Detroit in '98. Yes, he was white, and he was serving in a predominantly black precinct. What did he find when they checked the voting machines that morning? Magically, before the polls had opened, there were over 500 votes registered on them. (These were pull-lever style, not optical cards). Wonder how that had happenned? While the machines were reset, if he hadn't been there, 500+ fraudulent votes would probably have been counted. Doesn't that bother you? Don't you think it *might* be a legitimate public interest to have election observers in precincts to prevent fraud, and that the motivation *could* possibly have nothing to do with race?

Sherk

The real scandal of Florida 2000 wasn't the halted recount or the hanging chads. It was the way African Americans were prevented from voting, particularly in Duval County.

This myth has been completely debunked by the US Commission on Civil Rights.

And Sherk is absolutely right - what do you have against preventing voter fraud? Granted the Republicans focusing on a black neighborhood is a partisan tactic, given the 90% black vote for Dems...but on the other hand, I don't see any Dem-led voter registration drives blockwalking gated communities - does that mean Dems are trying to disfranchise whites? Of course not...stop reading racism into what is simply political partisanship.

The link that Mark provides as his proof that the 2000 election in Florida was free and fair is one to the notorious conservative journal, National Review.
I feel that the BBC provides a less partisan view. Here is a transcript of a program (similar to Nightline) which was originally aired a few months after Dubya won the election by a five to four margin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

Without any spin provided by the National Review folks, here is a portion of the report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on Florida 2000.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm
Please scroll down to the section "Police Presence At Or Near Polling Places".
The conclusion is hardly an exoneration.

What Sherk and Mark don't seem to get or won't admit is that the nonexistent "vote fraud" myth was one created by right-wing demagogues on talk radio in the first place in order to provide a pretext for suppressing the minority vote. The right wing couldn't stop the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act from passing during the 1960s so they have turned to other, more devious means to keep groups who tend to vote liberal away from the polls.

You two are also conveniently sidestepping the fact that having anyone other than a poll worker approach somebody at the polls demanding identification or proof of voter registration constitutes harassment and is probably illegal vigilanteism. I plan on being at the polls with a video camera and plan on getting in the face of any right winger I see harassing or intimidating minority voters, and will take them to court if necessary to see that they are prosecuted.

And Florida did indeed prevent blacks from voting in large numbers. They are one of only 7 states that revoke the right to vote for life, with no chance of regaining that right, because of a past felony conviction. Because of this, the estimates are that around 30% of black males in Florida cannot register or vote. By contrast, in most states the right to vote is automatically restored once a sentence is completed. I would suggest that federal intervention is needed in the states of Florida, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Alabama, which are the 7 states in question, just as it was needed during the Civil Rights era in the south, and that the 2000 and 2002 election results from those 7 states should be thrown out. Let's get a federal court order requiring those states to allow ex-felons to register and vote, and send in the National Guard if necessary to enforce this. Revoking the right to vote because of a past mistake IS vote fraud.

the notorious conservative journal, National Review

Tim, regardless of the forum in which it appeared, the writer of that article SERVES ON the US Commission on Civil Rights. Which would seem to give him a bit more insight into the issue than that of a BBC reporter. But if you prefer to evade addressing his article on the merits, you can always play this tiresome ad hominem card, I guess.

having anyone other than a poll worker approach somebody at the polls demanding identification or proof of voter registration constitutes harassment

Well, that's no problem, since the Republican party will be installing official "Election Day challengers" who have "poll worker" status.

Your presumption that restricting the right of felons to vote is de facto oppression of blacks, regardless of any stats you might trot out on incarceration rates, is an offensively racist and condescending perspective. Not that I fail to find it amusing that Democrats seek their constituency among convicted felons. However, with "friends" like you, blacks certainly don't need enemies.

But when you say, after first proposing the overthrow of our federal system of government, "the 2000 and 2002 election results from those 7 states should be thrown out", I can only presume you to be either (a) a right-wing provocateur posing as a clueless lefty or (b) a clueless lefty. In either case, that portion of your argument is not worth addressing.

Look, I'm a D, but calling Palast and the Beeb unbiased about Bush II is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

While nobody is perfect, by comparison the BBC is a less biased source than the National Review. The latter does have a political ax to grind and doesn't really hide that fact.
The BBC is closer to being "fair and balanced" than any major broadcast news organization in the US. If the BBC seems more critical of Dubya, that's because the major American media had been spooked by his (now evaporated) high poll numbers into reticence. While I don't always agree with Greg Palast, he was right on the mark here. The BBC deserves credit for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Around the first anniversary of 9/11, the BBC aired a riveting documentary called "Clear the Skies". It focused on what went on in American airspace on September 11, 2001. You'll find no criticism of Bush, not even a snide reference to him.
If the BBC were as wildly anti-administration as the conservative media establishment in the US would have you believe, this program would have been dripping with gratuitous criticism. After all, even mainstream Democrats and independents feel that Bush has yet to come clean on intelligence failures prior to 9/11.

Unfortunately, the entire 60 minutes of "Clear the Skies" is not available online, but here are two articles which provide much information on the content of the program as well as a few short clips from it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2224245.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2222205.stm

Getting a little off topic, but I felt a lot more proud of our air force after seeing this.

First off, I would not say that the BBC is "unbiased" and in fact they often pander to the anti-American sentiments of their viewers. There are lots of sources on this story, I think going to the Commission's report would be best and I have not read it. I'll try and give it a gander at some point and see what it concludes. I would suggest everyone do this rather than listening to the National Review or the BBC or any other secondary source.

Furthermore, both parties have at one time or another benefitted from voter fraud. The Democrats kept in power in the South for 100 some odd years via voter fraud. GOP activists in Louisiana in 2002 put out fliers in Black neighborhoods saying that Election Day was cancelled in the event of rain (I was there, it was nice weather, a little cool though). In a major national election I'll bet you can find a dozen instances on each side of voter fraud. The big difference is systematic, high-level voter fraud. Some asshole low-level intern pulling a unilateral op and printing up fliers telling Black voters that all their bills and tickets must be paid before they vote is shitty, but hard to prosecute and not a huge deal. Karl Rove (or Donna Brazille or whoever) ordering wholesale disenfranchisement or ballot box stuffing is unconsciousable and must be stopped. A county party taking this action, particularly the state's largest county is a serious deal.

If the problem is they want to prevent voter fraud then why not put observers in all precincts? If they only put them in predominantly black precincts and ignore predominantly white precincts then they are suggesting that Blacks are more likely to perpetrate voter fraud. Suggesting that one race has a general characteristic of a negative nature- like stealing elections- while another doesn't is racism, prima facie. What the Jefferson County GOP is doing could best be defined as racism and it is racism in order to suppress the turnout of likely Democratic voters in order to steal what promises to be a close election.

It is telling that the GOP is always interested in fewer people voting. The fewer people that vote, the more likely they are to win. Essentially, there is an incentive for the GOP to keep people from participating in our democracy, it is the position of the GOP that the majority ought not be heard, only a minority. The Republican Party cares little about the poor, the struggling, the oppressed in this country and wishes to see them disappear and would love nothing more than to see them silenced. That is the difference between our parties today- the Republicans represent an apathetic populace and taking advantage of those who need help the most while the Democrats represent reaching out to those in need and making sure everyone has a place at the American table.

"If the problem is they want to prevent voter fraud then why not put observers in all precincts? If they only put them in predominantly black precincts and ignore predominantly white precincts then they are suggesting that Blacks are more likely to perpetrate voter fraud."

No, they are suggesting that blacks are more likely to vote Democratic.

This point has been addressed decisively by Mark Harden above. To hold that this is some act of racism rather than partisanship is to be deliberately obtuse.

"It is telling that the GOP is always interested in fewer people voting...." [remainder of ad hominem argument deleted]

... and a personal attack by one of the site administrators, no less. I came to this site looking for some principled arguments from the left. Guess I was wrong....

"If the problem is they want to prevent voter fraud then why not put observers in all precincts?"

My understanding (at least based on my experiences in Michigan, which may or may not translate well to other states) is that both parties DO try and put observers in all the precincts. However, the Republicans have a tough time trying to find local Republicans who will observe the precincts in heavily urban/black areas. There just aren't that many Republicans to recruit in these areas, so they have to bring in observers from other areas.

I know people who have volunteered to observe the polls in Flint and in Detroit. It has nothing to do with selectively observing the voting in black precincts. All the precincts are monitored. It is just that they often have to recruit Republicans from other cities to watch for fraud in Detroit and other heavily Democratic areas, since they can't find enough in the city. To suggest that that is a racist act is absurd, however, and people should check the facts more closely before throwing charges of bigotry around.

Sherk

It is telling that the GOP is always interested in fewer people voting.

More precisely, at least speaking for myself, I am certainly not interested in people who are ignorant of the issues, who are such lazy citizens as to require someone banging on their door or calling them on the phone to remind them that an election is today and "oh, by the way, do you need a ride to the polling station?" Or people who are frightened away from polling booths by the presence of a police car! Similarly, people foolish enough to be unable to ocmplete a butterfly ballot - the thought that they have the same influence on the outcome of an election as everyone else is quite depressing.

If such people are discouraged from voting by a de facto "poll tax against ignorance", so be it.

No, Mark's article did nothing decisively. I'm not sure where Kirsanow came up with the figure that whites were twice as likely as blacks to be on the list since more than half of the 94,000 "scrubbed voters" were black. Krisanow then throws out a red herring argument about county supervisors. Sorry, Peter, but reality intrudes: County supervisors had nothing to do with hiring DBT, accepting supposed felon lists from other states, and dictating how felon lists are (not) verified.

I can't say that the focusing on blacks was intended, but when race and a minimal name match (first four letters of first and last names) are virtually that is used, I have to be very suspicious. (Don't bother with addresses or social security numbers.)

The National Review fails to account for some disturbing facts about the "felon purge." 1) Florida settled out of court to restore the voting privileges. 2) DBT, which managed the scrub list, admitted that over 95% of the list was wrong.

You look at the facts about how the state and DBT went about collecting the names with practically little verification, and you see the grounds of what looks like a case of ineptitude at the very least. When someone on the felon list is to be convicted in 2007, you know that you're dealing with ineptitude.

I agree that voter fraud is a problem. Posting people to check ID is fine, as long as it is done in other polling places.

Minnesota Public Radio has produced a week long series about democracy in the U.S. called, "Whose Democracy Is It?". This series is being aired on many NPR stations.
As luck would have it, Monday's program dealt with voting. One item which was mentioned was the faulty list of known felons which kept many legal voters from voting in Florida in 2000.
Here is the program's site:
http://www.americanradioworks.org/features/voting/index.html

Scroll to the bottom for links to the transcript as well as the audio.