home

Florida Vows To Fight For Voter Purge

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:34:10 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In response to the Justice Department's warning letter to the government of Florida noting that Florida's voter purge initiative violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires Justice Department pre-clearance of state actions which have a disparate impact on the voting rights of minorities and a federal law prohibiting purging of voter rolls within 90 days of an election, Florida vows to fight for its voter purge:

Ken Detzner, Florida’s secretary of state, accused the federal government of sullying the integrity of the election process by trying to thwart Florida’s efforts to remove voters who are not American citizens.

What Detzner does not acknowledge is that the Florida purge removes lawful voters from the rolls, and most of those voters are minorities.

Individual rights? What about the most fundamental of them - the right to vote? Somehow I doubt that too many "individual gun rights" advocates are much concerned about Florida's attempt to thwart the most fundamental right - the right to vote.

Speaking for me only

< Stand Your Ground Law Infographic | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Florida Vows To Fight For Voter Purge | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The Latino vote is a demographic that can swing (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    though.  This makes no sense to me what they are doing.  First, because our Latino population will only grow and they are firmly on the record using discrimination tactics against Latino voters.  I guess they are attempting to ensure that the Latino vote becomes solidly angry energized Liberal.  Second, some Florida Latinos are solidly Conservative, how do they know they aren't purging Conservative votes?  Unless this purge is somehow a masterfully rigged purge......

    Wondering if the State of FL would (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    be content to confine its efforts to the Homeland Security database re citizenship, if and when FL receives that information:

    A Homeland Security privacy-impact statement dated August 2011 states that the database can be used for "any legal purpose such as background investigations and voter registrations."
    Ugh (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:56:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Double ugh... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    I can only imagine how screwed up that database is.  We should be deleting it, not finding new nefarious uses for it.

    Parent
    I'm one of those... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    individual rights evangelicals concerned about disenfranchisement.

    Just as it is better to let untold guilty go free than to imprison one innocent, it is better to let untold numbers of those forbidden from voting to vote than to disenfranchise one legitimate voter.  

    Every state in the union should allow active prisoners to vote, & ex-cons...nevermind the push for ID restrictions and assorted nonsense meant to keep the proles out the polls.

    I'd reconsider if I was you (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:57:06 AM EST
    -- Just as it is better to let untold guilty go free than to imprison one innocent, it is better to let untold numbers of those forbidden from voting to vote than to disenfranchise one legitimate voter. --

    If you think about that a bit longer, you might reject your conclusion.

    The criminal/not-criminal bias works in favor of the individual.  It puts the burden on the state to prove conduct that has been determined to be criminal.

    The voter hypothetical is a point of group action, where a majority of votes obtain the result they prefer.  If the vote result is swung by votes that are ineligible, the people are denied the result they prefer.  Eligible voters, although they got to vote, did not get the result a majority of them sought (assuming the margin is determined by ineligible votes).

    Your position that the system should be biased so that ineligible votes could have the power to determine the outcome of an election is at odds with a republican form of government.

    Parent

    Your hypothetical (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    admittedly drawn from KDog's comment, is faulty.

    No elections of recent vintage have been decided by ineligible voters.

    However, many elections, most notably the Presidential election of 200, have been decided by the exclusion of votes cast by eligible voters.

    I did not notice your concern about that.

    FTR, you have chosen to comment in my thread and therefore cast your self into the jaws of my "style of argumentation."

    You can choose to refrain from my commenting in my posts should you wish to avoid me.


    Parent

    My remark was about the principle (none / 0) (#37)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    -- No elections of recent vintage have been decided by ineligible voters. --

    I think by definition, there are no, or an insignificant number of ineligible voters.  It is rare to have an election challenge alleging fraud or loss due to ineligible voters.

    But my remark was directed to the principle that it is better to let untold numbers of ineligible voters (which I assume to be a large number, not a small one); as a parallel to biasing the criminal justice system in favor of the accused.

    When you bias the voting system in favor of the ineligible, you increase the risk of obtaining a result that works against the eligible voters.

    Maybe that's a desirable result from your point of view, or whoever it was that made the original contention - but it isn't a desirable result from my point of view, and hopefully I've expressed my rationale for rejecting the principle in a clear enough fashion.

    Parent

    It's a nonissue (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    as you yourself admit.

    The issue is the removal of ELIGIBLE voters.

    Not a concern of yours of course.

    Parent

    You aren't always correct (none / 0) (#49)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    -- removal of ELIGIBLE voters.
    Not a concern of yours of course.     --

    Says you.

    Parent

    Let me rephrase (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    You have expressed no concern with regard to the disenfranchisment of eligible voters in this thread.

    Perhaps you are expressing your concern directly to Scott.

    Parent

    Depends on who the ineligibles are... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    if you're talking about the paperless, I'm not sold they should be ineligble...they live here, are subject to our laws, why shouldn't they get to vote?  If they slip by and place a vote I say god bless 'em.  Same for disenfranchised ex-cons, or a 17 year old anxious to participate in our process.

    Absent some evidence of boatloads of Chinese citizens coming over on Election day to decide our elections and sdailing right back to China or something like that, Florida is selling a "cure" in search of a disease.  Usually a sign of being up to no good.

    Parent

    Wonder how many persons (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    convicted of a felon who are ineligible per their state's law to vote do actually cast a vote.  Probably miniscule.  

    Parent
    rick scott (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Amiss on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    Makes everything suspect and this is no different. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat,

    Parent
    they did 2600 voters (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Amiss on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:23:54 PM EST
    87% were either a minority or democrat.  Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

    Parent
    A militia of 1 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:03:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Nobody likes a... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:08:54 AM EST
    "don't tread on me, tread on them!" type, and there is alotta that going around;)

    Parent
    Having met the 1, I think that is (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:08:54 AM EST
    an apt description.  

    Parent
    Ha! I am glad he is on our side! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:33:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Given the vast numbers of people who are (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    legally registered to vote who don't bother to do so, and the numbers of people who are eligible to register but don't make the effort to do it, I find it ironic and upside-down that states like Florida are devoting hours to scrubbing the voter rolls to ensure that even fewer people will be voting.  

    I'm inclined to be less bothered by people voting who aren't citizens, but who care enough about the society in which they live that they actually want to vote, than I am by citizens who just don't give a crap.

    Just so (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    Thank you!

    Parent
    The "Democrat" effort? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    Careful, Doug, your conservative undies are showing.

    At a time when state and local governments are short-handed and straining to provide services to their residents, this is a colossal waste of time and money.  I have yet to see, from you or the rest of the (what seems to be) xenophobic crowd any statistics, numbers, charts, graphs or any other verifiable evidence that Florida - or any other state - is being massively hoodwinked by non-citizens daring to show up to vote in "our" elections.

    Tell you what: you give me a dollar for every eligible, registered or not-registered, citizen who can't be bothered to exercise his or her right to vote, and I'll give you five dollars for every non-citizen who is voting.  I'm 99% certain that I am going to end up with more money than you are.  Sadly, a lot more.  

    Ridiculous.

    They should be excluded ... (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Doug1111 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:05:52 PM EST
     
    The review process has angered civil rights and immigrant groups who say the state's Republican governor wants to remove these voters because they tend to vote for Democrats.

    They should be excluded excluded if they aren't voting age citizens entitled to vote, whether they tend to vote for Democrats or not.

    It looks to me like the Obama administration is trying to keep lots of illegal Hispanic immigrants who aren't citizens and hence are ineligible to legally vote, able to do so, so as to get more votes for Democrats, whether they're legit or not.

    What if they are (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    "voting age citizens entitled to vote?" Cuz the evidence is pretty clear that the purge is including a significant number of such folks.

    Parent
    No then of course they (none / 0) (#81)
    by Doug1111 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    shouldn't in that case be purged, and I've seen zero evidence that they have been.

    The governor's list of 2,600 registered voters who should be investigated as to their eligibility was not a final purge list, but merely a preliminary step in determining who should rightfully be purged as in fact not a citizen of voting age.

    Parent

    It happens every time (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    In the 2000 election, at least 1,100 people were wrongly purged (other estimates much higher), which is one of the main reasons they don't permit these purges within 90 days of an election - no time to find out about and correct wrongful purges.  Most of the "evidence" isn't realized until people show up to vote and are denied, but by then it's too late.

    Parent
    If you have seen (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:24:51 PM EST
    zero evidence of this then perhaps it's time to question your eyesight.  This has been documented.  It is fact.  It has happened.  Most notoriously ALSO in Florida.

    Parent
    There are none so blind as those who will not see. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:51:23 PM EST


    Parent
    there were (none / 0) (#98)
    by Amiss on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:31:56 PM EST
    A whopping total of 5∅ out of 2600.

    Parent
    You do understand, don't you, that ... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    ... that in the initial pass-through, well over 90% of those who responded to the letter have since proven themselves to be citizens?

    Of the initial list of 2,700 persons identified by Gov. Scott as ineligible to vote, only 47 thus far can be verified as potentially ineligible. Further, of that 47, only two (2) have been identified as having cast ballots in previous elections. That's two out of 2,700. You do the math -- that is, if you know how.

    Yet Gov. Scott -- and you, by entension -- appear perfectly willing to risk disenfranchising 98% of otherwise eligible Florida voters who appear on his lists, in order to root out a miniscule handful.

    Therefore, it looks to me like you are engaging in nothing more than rank partisan GOP hackery here. You clearly don't know what you're talking about -- just like the people who crafted the GOP talking points upon which you've based your nonsensical contention that:

    "... the Obama administration is trying to keep lots of illegal Hispanic immigrants who aren't citizens and hence are ineligible to legally vote, able to do so, so as to get more votes for Democrats, whether they're legit or not."

    So, my condescending little teabot, you are in dire need of a clue.

    Parent

    Waste of breath (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    These low information winger dildo heads wouldn't recognize a partisan agenda if it jumped up and bit them on their face. They're from the same strain as those who adhere so submissively to the idiot's refrain, "if you didn't do anything wrong, why wouldn't you let the police search your house?"

    The problem is, and of course, it's Walker real goal, that the tiny number of "illegal voters" they'll discover will be far outnumbered by the many legal voters who, for one reason or another, will just say, "wtf, it ain't worth the trouble," and stay home.

    And, all the while, Dick Army is convulsing in laughter at how compliant these fools are in supporting laws that will ultimately enslave them, as well as a couple of "illegal voters."

    After the 2004 re-election of GWB a British newspaper blared across its front page, "How Could the American People be so Dumb?"

    Look at Wisconsin, look at Florida, look at Ohio....there's your answer.


    Parent

    Or is this your "respecting" comment? (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 12:29:09 AM EST


    Parent
    why the tempest about 47? (none / 0) (#92)
    by diogenes on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:36:52 PM EST
    If we're only talking about forty-seven voters, then why was this even introduced as a topic of conversation?  And if, as BTD says, no election was ever decided by ineligible voters, then surely no election was ever decided by the lack of wrongfully purged alleged felon or noncitizen voters.
    If the numbers are really so small, then let the GOP have the issue and turn it into a nonissue.  

    Parent
    Because the GOP is using the so called epidemic (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    of voting fraud as an excuse to make it harder for everybody to vote. The immigration piece is just part of it.

    The other day I got a letter saying I had to re-complete a registration form so they would have my signature on file in case I ever  vote absentee again.  I wonder how many voters got that letter and missed sending it back, filled out something incorrectly, etc and invalidated their registration.


    Parent

    Doesn't logically follow ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    And if, as BTD says, no election was ever decided by ineligible voters, then surely no election was ever decided by the lack of wrongfully purged alleged felon or noncitizen voters.

    ... particularly considering the number of wrongfully purged voters has been faaaarrr higher.

    Parent

    Request to use the database (none / 0) (#9)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    But though Colorado, Michigan and North Carolina also have sought similar information from DHS and immigration officials, they have not been successful either. DHS officials could not recall any state that currently uses the database to check voters.

    Orlando Sentinel

    I don't recall the founders (none / 0) (#10)
    by me only on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    thinking that there was a fundamental right to vote.  Women, blacks, Indians, non-property owners didn't have the right to vote.  We even amended the Constitution to grant women the right to vote.

    And unlike the First Amendment (and others) you don't have to be a citizen to have freedom of speech.  So no, there is no fundamental right to vote.

    Propertied white males were given the fundamental (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    right in the original Constitution, and it has since been amended to include the rest of us.  That makes voting rights fundamental enough for me.

    People here in FL are acting like it is a privilege the state has to protect. NO. It is a right they have to do their utmost to allow, or at least not impede. Any errors have to be on the side of inclusion.

    Parent

    See Baker v. Carr (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    Also too, you are confusing who is eligible to vote with the fundamental right to vote.

    The Founding Fathers provided for election of representatives.

    Article 1 provides:

    "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

    "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

    Parent

    Apparently you are confused (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by me only on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    Saying the state would not stop trying to scrub the rolls of ineligible voters

    is the first sentence from your link.  The State of Florida contends that the individuals in question are not citizens, hence they are not eligible to vote.  You don't have to be a citizen to have the right to due process.  Why?  Because it is a fundamental right.  Citizen, Legal Alien, Illegal Alien, none of that matters, you are protected by the US Constitution.

    Parent

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    as far as I can tell.

    But I will address it. The problem with Florida's "attempt to scrub ineligible voters" is they are catching eligible voters in their sweep.

    And of course the whole illegality of it might bother people too.

    Parent

    Scrubbing ineligible voters (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by me only on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    is illegal?  Color me unimpressed with that argument.

    Parent
    Straw arguments ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:40:36 PM EST
    ... tend to be very unimpressive.

    Parent
    Listen to what BTD is saying. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    The primary issue is the deliberate purging of otherwise eligible voters from Florida voter rolls. There is good reason why the county election supervisors are refusing to comply with Scott's directive.

    In the initial list of 2,700 names sent out by the Florida Sec. of State's office, those supervisors found in just their initial pass-through that only 40 persons could legally be purged (some of whom were deceased), and that over 500 who responded to the letters sent proved themselves to be citizens.

    Gov. Scott's potential purge list is so unreliable that 66 of the 67 local elections supervisors (Miami-Dade County has a home rule charter), regardless of whether they're Republicans or Democrats, are now on record as refusing to continue the purge.

    I'm not going to get into the argument that since we're within 90 days of an election, it's against federal law to purge voter rolls. That alone is enough to haul Gov. Scott before the federal bar for this scheme.

    But given these first results, the burden of proof should be upon Gov. Scott to prove that these people he's identified in his lists are in fact actually ineligible, rather than placed upon the voters themselves who receive this notice.

    Parent

    Those election supervisors (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:46:31 PM EST
    are heroic, IMO.  They stood up when they could just as easily have gone along with it all.  Bravo to them.

    Parent
    Sh*t... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:35:36 AM EST
    we should be honored that anybody not civically obligated to vote wants to bother wasting their time voting along with us.  Honored and grateful.

    I'm of the opinion having a voice in how the society you live in is governed is pretty fundamental, even if the vote ain't much of a voice.

    Parent

    So you knew them personally? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    Or simply came to be able to "channel" them?  They fought all the time, they fought until the day each of them died...being intelligent yet mortal and such

    Parent
    Both knew them and channeled them (none / 0) (#45)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    -- Or simply came to be able to "channel" them? --

    Well, being a vampire and all, it was easy for me to know them all.  I didn't say they all agreed either.

    AntiFederalist Paper No. 24

    Morris is the one who was most concerned about universal suffrage.  Others were rightly concerned about attempting to establish a federal rule for voting eligibility.


    Parent

    Do you notice how obvious (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    it is that our "founding fathers" embraced that we would evolve?  That the nation, the rights of the people, and its laws would evolve to meet its needs?

    Parent
    This was clarified by the 15th Amendment (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

    Parent

    Society and the world evolves. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Leopold on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    Personally, I don't see why we should invest complete primacy on what a small number of privileged white males said centuries ago. It matters, but so does the evolution of society past that point.

    I don't recall the founders (none / 0) (#10)
    by me only on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    thinking that there was a fundamental right to vote.


    Parent
    They did think (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    the right to vote was fundamental.

    Parent
    Yes, thank you. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Leopold on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    I suppose I was reacting to the overall mindset, not the specific.

    Parent
    Some of the convention attendees (none / 0) (#30)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:09:03 PM EST
    From what I've read, there was spirited debate about what the constitution would say about the privilege of voting.  Some people making remarks were quite wary of universal suffrage, and in very blunt terms.  The students of history were aware of the failures of democracies, and aimed to erect a government that did not sway with the winds of popular sentiment and mob power.

    Ultimately, the decision was to have the constitution silent, because there was substantial difference among the states about the criteria for being eligible to vote; and concern that state conventions would reject a constitution that contained a federal rule that either expanded or contracted the criteria for voter eligibility.

    Parent

    100% support the fundamental right to vote (none / 0) (#15)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    for citizens.  

    So you oppose (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    a lawless purging of the rolls that denies citizens the right to vote.

    Good for you.

    Parent

    So you oppose (none / 0) (#22)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    an illegal vote by a non-citizen and the "state's" authority to enforce the law.

    Good for you too.

    Parent

    Of course I do (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:59:06 AM EST
    Now that we all agree, I hope you raise your voice in opposition to Scott's illegal voter purge.

    Parent
    Then let him (none / 0) (#36)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    purge all non-citizens and all is well.  As stated in my original comment - Completely support the fundamental right to vote of all CITIZENS.

    Parent
    He's not doing that (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    Sort of the point here.

    But if you just want to ignore the whole point of the opposition to it, by all means.

    Parent

    What's lawless (none / 0) (#58)
    by Doug1111 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    about it?

    Non citizens including illegal aliens should be purged surely, shouldn't they?

    Parent

    As explained in the post (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    It violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and a federal law prohibiting voter roll purges 90 days from an election.

    But who cares about that?

    Parent

    But many in the GOP are willing to put that right (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    jeopardy for many citizens in order to 'solve' a miniscule problem of non-citizens trying to vote. And that is ascribing the best motives to their actions. It is pretty obvious they want to keep citizens they don't like from voting.

    Parent
    They're being disengenous to boot... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    non-citizens voting the GOP has no real problem with, it is who they think non-citizens would vote for that they can't stomach, so they weaponize the law to acheive their goal...not fair elections, but victories in unfair elections.

    Parent
    This may be true, or not, I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    However, I do believe if the Dems were convinced the non-citizens were voting for GOP candidates, the Left would speaking out of the other sides of their mouths on this issue...

    Parent
    Are you then "convinced" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    that his voter purge is politically motivated?

    I actually agree with you.

    It just so happens that the political benefit of excluding minority voters from the rolls redounds to the GOP.

    Parent

    My opinion is that, in general, (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    legal voters do not like the idea of non-legal voters.

    I also think that, in general, a legal voter does not like the idea of a non-legal voter effectively nullifying their legal vote with a non-legal vote.

    I also think that, in general, people who are concerned that their legal votes could be nullified by non-legal votes will support changes in the voting process that they think could stop the illegal votes and thereby would make the process more "fair" in their eyes.

    Parent

    how do legal voters (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    feel about being illegally purged from the voter rolls before an election?

    From the article linked above:

    "So far, 13 people in Miami-Dade County, which has the most potential noncitizens on the list, have acknowledged not being citizens. Two of them have voted. More than 1,000 have not responded to the letter, and 500 are citizens."

    Collateral damage?

    Parent

    In my opinion, they do not like the idea. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:42:40 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't think it's actually been asked yet (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    how do you feel about it?

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    In a practical, numerical sense, I think it's much ado about nothing.

    In an emotional sense, I think it (now) matters to a lot of people on both sides of the issue.

    Therefor, the reality is it matters.

    Parent

    it matters? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    Claptrap!

    Do you have opinion as to whether or not the voter purge is legal/a good idea/not legal/a bad idea?

    I am not asking you whether or not the justification for it is coming from an honest place, or whether you think it's an important discussion, I'm asking whether or not you agree with this specific policy.

    Parent

    Thanks for clarifying. (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    If the purge dumps legal voters off the books, as it seems to do, especially if the numbers far outweigh the illegal voters who get dumped, as it also seems to do, I don't like the purge.

    I also think it's a loser for the GOP, politically.

    Parent

    Yes, I agree that some people have been (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    whipped up to an emotional anti-immigrant frenzy on a lot of issues, this being one of them. The way I combat it is with logic and facts. I admit it is not always effective.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    legal voters do not like the idea of non-legal voters.
    I think, in general, most legal voters don't give a second -- or even a first -- thought to the idea of "non-legal" voters until someone creates a boogie man in order to purge voter rolls of (largely) brown voters.

    Parent
    No argument from me, (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:56:16 PM EST
    which is why I said:
    In an emotional sense, I think it (now) matters to a lot of people on both sides of the issue.


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    You didn't answer my question, but whatever.

    Parent
    Your question is unfairly framed, imo. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    When did you stop beating your wife?

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    You stated this belief - "I do believe if the Dems were convinced the non-citizens were voting for GOP candidates, the Left would speaking out of the other sides of their mouths on this issue... "

    I asked if you believe that is true for the GOP. I chose your framing.

    Parent

    You asked whether the issue was (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    politically motivated, as though that would make this issue inherently different or worse than any other political issue.

    Parent
    I asked what I just wrote (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    using your own words.

    Are you accusing yourself of discussing the issue "as though that would make this issue inherently different or worse than any other political issue[?]"


    Parent

    Everything in politics is politically motivated. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:02:31 PM EST



    Parent
    So that's a yes to my question? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    Why so reluctant to say so?

    Parent
    You should reread my comment #51 (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    with the intent to understand rather than to find something argue with. imo, of course...

    Parent
    I read it (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    You decided to claim "Dems would definitely do it" for political purposes without addressing the fact of who is actually doing it and why.

    I think the teeth pulling required to get you to acknowledge the logic of your comment extends to the GOP quite remarkable frankly.

    Parent

    You my think what you like, frankly. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:19:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Your permission is appreciated (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    Sorry that my pointing out your inability to condemn the GOP for the same mindset you attribute to Dems is so upsetting to you.

    Parent
    I think both sides of this issue (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    are enthusiastically making political hay with it.

    Parent
    "Effedtively nullifying"? (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    not quite.. the math does not quite add up. The confirmed cases of non-citizens voting in Florida added up to 47, according to Rick Scott. So even if those 47 did not vote the same way I did, according to my 2010 vote was diluted by about a 50 to 5.5 million proportion.

    Not worth all of this fuss, IMO.

    Parent

    I'm not arguing whether or not I believe (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    the fuss is worth it or not, I'm giving my opinion of the mindset of those who are involved in the kerfuffle, as I was asked to do.

    Parent
    I think you argue (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    for the simple pleasure of arguing.

    otherwise, the principal of proportionality would have stopped you from being a nuisance, nothing more. The issue of illegal voters is universally accepted as a non-issue by election officials from both political parties.

    Why not lobby for the death penalty for unsafe tire violations?

    I'm beginning to appreciate Jeralyn's definition of "chatterer."

    Parent

    Well then, (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:27:37 PM EST
    please alert J of my supposed transgressions, and I will follow whatever she decides.

    Parent
    Right, like that's even a possibility (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    I respect everyone's comments....especially those I disagree with the most

    Parent
    Your comment #75 is respecting? (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    If that's you respecting, I'd sure hate to see you dis-respecting!

    No worries, it's all good by me...

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:49:48 PM EST
    Surprisingly, to you I guess, there are fair number of Dem.-dominated cities that officially permit non-citizens to vote in local elections on kdog's principle that anybody affected by government actions should have a say in who decides those actions.

    Sorry, guy.

    Parent

    Pretty significant logical disconnect (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 12:25:39 AM EST
    in what you said in response to what I said. Let's see if you can figure it out...

    Heh.

    Parent

    Democrats probably would... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    no argument, the "left" and Democrats are two very different things, just as the "right" and Republicans are two very different things.  

     

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#62)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Department of Justice announced its plan to ask a federal court to block the state from pushing ahead with removing potential non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Authorities contend that the state's effort violates federal voting laws.

    The DOJ's contentions have should be taken with a grain of salt until they can establish some creditably as a non partisan organization. It does not directly translate into Florida doing something illegal. That requires a court.

    Also and please correct me if I'm wrong in Fl. Most states allow unregistered voters to cast provisional ballets. The votes are tallied into the vote totals after the eligibility of the voter is verified.

    This is not being disenfranchised.

    I think we can read laws (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    And a reading of the laws in question makes Florida's violations patent to the honest observer.

    To the dishonest observer, I doubt a court finding will be convincing.

    Parent

    Please understand that ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    ... while one may cast a provisional ballot, that doesn't necessarily ensure that said provisional ballot will be tallied.

    In many states and municipalities, provisional ballots are only counted if the margin of a given race is close enough that counting said provisional ballots might in fact change the outcome.

    Parent

    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#95)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:21:15 PM EST
    but I remain confused.

    From you clarification it follows that a  provisional ballot is always counted if it is germane to outcome - much like some late absentee ballots.

    So the provisional voter has the same ability to effect  the outcome as any other voter,how is that disfranchisement?
     

    Parent

    ummm (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:21:42 PM EST
    because it may not be counted?  Like a regular vote is always counted (in theory)?  That's disenfranchisement. Moreover, a provisional ballot is counted only if it is deemed to be valid.  In the case of the [politically motivated] voter rolls purge, as far as I can find out, it is incumbent on the voter to prove citizenship before the vote will be counted, and there is a very small window to do so.  

    Parent
    Are you also (none / 0) (#104)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 04:08:44 AM EST
    against Absentee voting where the votes are not always tallied if they are received after the outcome is decided?

    However  seems the simple remedy is to require states to eventually tally all votes that prove to be legitimate ?

    I am unsure that the benefit of this new requirement would out weighs the cost.

    Under the current system  the outcome of the election is not altered. If an election is close then its fair to assume that the window for verification is expanded during the recount.Additionally close elections would generate the impetus to tidy any lose threads.

    Parent

    I am against changing the rules (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 06:47:54 AM EST
    for convenience's sake.  There are deadlines for receipt of absentee ballots.  It isn't that "absentee ballots are not always tallied if they are received after the outcome is decided". All absentee ballots received by the pre-determined deadline date and time are counted.  Period.  

    That predetermined date is election day.  Absentee ballots received after that date are not counted.  This is true regardless of the closeness of the race and the potential impact on the outcome.  If you can find a state that has a different deadline date than election day, I would be very interested in reading their rules/laws.

    In any case this cannot be compared to a provisional ballot where the voter showed up on time only to encounter a difficulty to be resolved.

    This makes no sense at all:

    If an election is close then its fair to assume that the window for verification is expanded during the recount.Additionally close elections would generate the impetus to tidy any lose threads.

    A vote cast using a provisional ballot is not for use in the event of a recount.  It is a vote that has been cast in the event of an election.
     

    Parent
    calling them out...Bravo! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Tov on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:56:28 AM EST
    It is truly ironic is it not?

    Florida Vows To Fight For Voter Purge | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment