September 27, 2004

Voting Rights in Florida

Publius has a long, troubling report on this topic. As he admits, there is no smoking gun in the evidence he gathers that proves Republicans have acted to suppress the black vote in a way that would violate the Voting Rights Act - but there's plenty there that would seem to call for further investigation. And given the other actions the party has taken of late - the "interviews" with black voters, the problems black voters had with being allowed to vote in Florida in 2002 and 2000 ... well, there are an awful lot of coincidences going on, and I'd feel much more comfortable with this if I trusted the Justice Department to take this seriously. But I haven't seen much happen over the last 4 years of Bush/Ashcroft to make me think that will occur. Since we are sending our troops abroad to fight for the right to vote, it would be comforting to be sure that the rights of Americans to vote weren't being imperiled.

As an aside I'll briefly note that the Vanity Fair story on Bush v. Gore that is getting so much mention of late is really only partially about the court case. It also covers a variety of other troubling matters tied to that election. And to my reading, none of what's covered in that article, including the behavior of the Supreme Court, is as disturbing as the treatment of black voters in that election.

Posted by armand at September 27, 2004 12:18 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics


Comments

As if the continued existence of the archaic disenfranchisement laws aren't enough, these excerpts show why the implemtation of the law in Florida is especially appalling:

As far back as 1997, state election officials knew that using race to create a felon voter purge list could mean Hispanics wouldn't be included in the purge, the Herald-Tribune has learned. Elections officials studied the race issue for the purge conducted before the 2000 election, and again in 2001 as they developed the latest version of the list designed to keep felons from voting.

...

Jones cited Janet Modrow as one of the secretary of state employees who would have known about the race problem. Modrow also played a central role in developing the latest purge list. Modrow told the Herald-Tribune on Friday she needed permission from a secretary of state spokesperson before she could answer a reporter's questions.

...

Long before Accenture laid out its concerns in the letter, state officials knew there would be problems with the central voter database and the felon purge list, according to Paul Craft, voting systems chief for the Division of Elections. In an interview Friday, Craft said he believed that the Division of Elections knew in the summer of 2001 that FDLE's database did not offer Hispanic as a race category. A year later, when Roberts demanded the stricter matching system, no one, including Craft, remembered that, he said. If they had, election officials would have realized that changing the matching requirements would eliminate most Hispanics -- who tend to vote Republican -- from the purge list.

Posted by: binky at September 27, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINK

For what it's worth, I didn't think the "disclosures" by the ex-clerks was worth breaking the traditional norm that the clerks don't talk about what they did in chambers. That part of the story was small, and didn't tell us anything we didn't really already know.

Posted by: baltar at September 28, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Armand,
I find it intersting to look at your comment:
"As he admits, there is no smoking gun in the evidence he gathers that proves Republicans have acted to suppress the black vote in a way that would violate the Voting Rights Act - but there's plenty there that would seem to call for further investigation."
So, despite the fact that the Justice Department has investigated this and found nothing, you think it's okay for the anti-Bush forces to play the race card in this way. There's an interview on Hannity.com with Jesse Jackson, and about five minutes into it he plays this horrible ad trying to scare African Americans into voting for Kerry, despite the fact that no substantiated evidence is available to support these charges. I want everyone to be able to vote, but to raise these charges without substantive evidence is, to use your (and Donald Duck's) word, despicable. It's strange you're so concerned with uncorroborated reports in this instance, but choose to ignore them when they link Iraq and 9/11. And have you forgotten? It's lawyers supporting Kerry who are going around the country trying to keep Nader's name off the ballots, but I don't hear you crying about that subversion of the democratic process.

Binky,
As to your first point, do you really think felons should be able to vote? Lawmakers in several states of this nation disagree, and at the point that becomes law it isn't illegal to keep them from commiting further crimes (by voting), whether they're white, hispanic, black, pacifican american, asian american, or of any other national origin. To allow them to do this in states where it's against the law is an abuse of the voting process. If they wanted to vote so badly, maybe they should simply have not harmed their society by commiting a felony. If society wants to keep people like this from voting, I don't see how it's a racist motive, and to suggest that it is since 5 out of 7 are Southern, this brings up an interesting question. Isn't this person making assumptions about Southern culture equally offensive to those he perceives these Southern states to be making? And what about the other two states? Southern states tend to be more conservative, it's true, they favor less ACLU and more punishment for criminals; but that's not racist, and these are voter scare tactics equal in distaste to the one posted by Armand a few days ago.

As to your second point, this is not unusual, especially with the likes of 60 minutes reporters around who make up the story without checking their facts. Even when I worked at a restaurant in Houston, that was the policy, and we could be fired for violating it by talking to the media. Let me tell you, it was the cleanest restaurant I've ever seen. But that's not news, and some reporters take things out of context to make a good story. There's not a hell of a lot on the first five minutes of any news broadcast that doesn't involve conflict or tragedy.

Posted by: Morris at September 28, 2004 07:11 PM | PERMALINK

You betcha, I think felons should be able to vote. They are still citizens. Until a felony conviction removes citizenship, I think the few states that limit voting for felons are wrong. Those who have completed their sentences and return to society should be able to resume their rights without the challenge of a process like that which Florida requires. There are two main reasons I believe this. First, the patterns of imprisonment have a disparate impact of exclusion by race, which troubles me more than the idea of someone who has committed a crime having a say in who gets elected. Second, and connected to the first point, is the role of the war on drugs in felony sentencing (I'm sure you are aware of the inequity in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine for example, and how possession of the "white" drug historically has been punished less severely than the "black" variety). I also have trouble with the notion that "people like this" don't have fundmental democratic rights.

Who said anything about violating laws? "To allow them to do this in states where it's against the law is an abuse of the voting process." I said nothing of the sort, and commented that the continued existence of archaic laws is appalling. I'm sure you would agree that there are laws that you think are wrong, and would like to see changed, and would work for in the democratic context to revise. This is the implication of my statement about Florida's felony voter laws. They are bad, and should be repealed. By the way, you read the part of the article that describes which states have similar laws. You seem to suggest ("lawmakers in several states") that such prohibitions are widespread, and have nothing to do with southern-ness, or that the suggestion that they do is anti-south bias. They are rather concentrated, don't you think? You want to look at other criminal justice statistics, like imposition of the death penalty by race of offender versus victim? States of the south aren't the only "conservative" states with tough on crime attitudes. So why aren't the other conservative states equally hard on felons? I'm a third generation Floridian, you know, but I can admit my home state is wrong.

I'm not sure what restaurants have anything to do with my "second point." The second paragraph I cited was meant to show that allegedly 1) staff had knowledge of the problem and 2) those same staff worked on the purge list. The last bit that you are so interested in was just the rest of the paragraph. I'll go ahead and make your point for you, and suppose it undermines my point by suggesting that the paper couldn't get the supposed staff member to confirm or deny the allegation. However I don't know why you think it means reporters not checking facts. Sounds like they tried for a verification and were refused, and so reported that lack so that readers could interpret for themselves. If they hadn't told us that, and just printed the allegation, then I would be concerned.

Finally, I wouldn't know about the first five minutes of a broadcast anyway, since I don't watch television. ;)

Posted by: binky at September 28, 2004 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

Morris -- Happy Birthday! Now ....

ARGHHHHHH!!!!! You confuse the brilliance of Daffy Duck with the only so-so lispy laughs of Donald Duck? For shame! Daffy is, and always has been, the country's #1 duck.

As to the rest of what you wrote ... what do you mean the Justice Department has investigated this stuff? They haven't investigated most of it. And it is CLEARLY going on in lots of states. These aren't uncorroborated reports. True, no one from the RNC has walked away in handcuffs - yet. But it's pretty well documented and happens in lots of places (this week there have been stories on it in Michigan, Ohio, and yet again Florida - and that's just what I've seen).

And if Nader can get on the ballot - fine. The thing is that 1) much of the money behind getting Nader on the ballot (like much of the money going to the Sharpton campaign) is from Republicans so that's a little fishy and 2) even with that help he's doing a lousy job meeting the criteria for getting on the ballot. If he can meet those criteria, great, if not he shouldn't be on. But to suggest that there's a big Dem. plot to keep him off (there is) and not mention that there's a big Repub. plot to put him on (there is) is overlooking a key part of the politics of this.

And btw - re: your exchange with Binky, you are aware that as a general matter the "Southern" states are treated differently (according to our noble legal system) on voting rights matters, right (though I think a tiny portion of the "North" faces extra scrutiny too)? That's right there in the code (or whatever it's called), so it's not a matter of insulting the South. Or if it is - it's the US government insulting the South.

And finally, as to the race issue and voting rights thing - don't you find it the least bit peculiar that we don't take away the voting rights (and DEFINITELY not the contribution rights) of corporate criminals at anything like the same rate? There's an article on that that I'd strongly encourage you to look at if you're interested in this subject by Stephen Fortunato (a justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court). You could find it on the website for Dissent magazine. I think it's in one of the 2002 issues.

Posted by: Armand at September 29, 2004 08:51 AM | PERMALINK

i'm not going to wade all the way into this one (i'm still recovering from my illness, thank you much), but just a few comments.

first, am i correct that happy birthday wishes are in order? well, happy birthday!

second, either morris hasn't read the vanity fair article or he ignored every word. but for those of you who, like me, have waited breathlessly for the opportunity to read this (mostly, i was looking forward to the bush v. gore stuff, but as noted above, it was actually the continuing florida voting inequities that are scandalous), the article can be found in two parts -- first here, and then here. it's a good read.

as for supreme court clerks' traditional silence, i will point out that until edward lazarus wrote Closed Chamber about his tenure as a clerk to justice blackmun in the 1980's no formal confidential procedures were imposed. only after lazarus's rather embarrassing account of the early days of the ideological split that has defined the rehnquist court did procedures tighten considerably.

and while in this case the information shared might not be worth it, daniel ellsberg made a compelling, if not wholly surprising argument for the importance of whistle-blowing in the times yesterday.

finally, as to the illegality of what's going on in florida, the supreme court already provided a non-VRA rationale to call into question the disparate impact of florida's highly dubious procedures on blacks, former felons and non-felons misidentified, alike -- the equal protection clause of the united states constitution. you have heard of it, right? especially section 5, which vested in the federal government a great deal of power to enforce the reconstruction amendments principally as against the southern states? just checking.

Posted by: joshua at September 29, 2004 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Baltar, Binky, Joshua, and Armand, my brother,
A quick scan of your responses tells me thanks are in order to all of you for remembering my birthday. I know Armand may meet this with chagrin, but I do think it's a good thing when we each remember the humanity of those against whom we're debating. I have a midterm tomorrow, so I look forward to responding to you all (since I'm from a Southern state, my first instinct is to say "ya'll", but I'm translating this for you as I go) this weekend, whether or not you wrote something pithy and confrontational. However, I will respond to Armand's argument now; I do give effusive apoligies for confusing Daffy and Donald Duck, but I thought you prefered Howard the Duck as the country's #1 duck. To me, there's a compelling argument to be made for Duckman, also for Darkwing Duck aka the terror that flaps in the night, and if we're going to include all winged creatures, I think that the Chicken that gave Peter a coupon on Family Guy may be the greatest of all time.

Posted by: Morris at September 29, 2004 04:03 PM | PERMALINK

omg, howard the duck, holy s*it i haven't thought of that in years and years and years . . .

back when leah thompson was a fox!!!

jesus christ am i laughing here . . . morris, a thousand thanks for the afternoon respite.

Posted by: joshua at September 29, 2004 04:07 PM | PERMALINK

of course, now i also have to kill you, since i'm going to have that stupid eponymous song stuck in my head for probably the next eight or ten hours. good luck on your mid-term.

Posted by: joshua at September 29, 2004 04:17 PM | PERMALINK

So Josh you hadn't thought about the movie in years - well I hadn't thought about that song in years. Thanks for putting that in my head (not).

And Morris, if any duck from Duckman is the country's #1 duck, shouldn't it really be Bernice? Or is it that she's the symbol of what we wish America could be, while Duckman more symbolic of the United States in practice?

Posted by: Armand at September 30, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

if i may briefly restore the conversation to its original run, volokh posts a letter from hatch and others concerning the supreme court clerks' leaks evident in the VF article.

Posted by: joshua at September 30, 2004 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Joshua,

Yeah, fine, some people want Hatch to have hearings on this. That seems like trying to kill a fly with a baseball bat, but since the Repubican Congress is spending it's time passing flag-buring amendments and screwing up intelligence reform, I suppose you can argue that an investigation of supreme court clerks would be less of a waste.

I'll maintain my position. The clerks were ethically obligated to refrain from talking. Yes, they should have spoken up if it would reveal a real injustice being done. Since, in this case, we already knew about the injustice, I'm not sure if their violating their code was worth the potential harm this has on deliberations in the Supreme Court. I guess all I'm saying is that they should have waited until they really had a serious violation (like, something that would get one of the justices impeached or arrested or something), not just more detail on a story we already knew was ugly.

Posted by: baltar at September 30, 2004 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

baltar, i'm pretty sure i didn't disagree with what you say here. i pointed to ellsberg's column because i found it interesting, but i don't think his position vis-a-vis the pentagon papers is entirely apposite to that of supreme court clerks.

courts are at great pains to maintain not just the integrity of their deliberations in fact, but also the appearance of the integrity of their deliberations. if you want federal troops to enforce your edicts, you better be fundamentally legitimate in the eyes of the people at large. hence, the scrutiny of matters like whether scalia recused himself from a case with broad implications for cheney's political reputation and effectiveness, and the more broad question of whether a judge who has publicly taken a position on an issue should be permitted to participate later in the decision of a case that implicates that issue (scalia was wrong in the former case, irrespective of whether his judgment would be tainted; and scalia also is, in my opinion, frequently guilty of the latter, as evidenced by his recent speech, though you couldn't pry the gavel from his cold dead hand).

if pinned down, i'd acknowledge that this is a close case, and ultimately agree that the modicum of transparency the vanity fair article provided probably didn't justify the blow to the integrity of the court in the public's eye as well as the damage done to the justices' faith that their deliberations on the many difficult decisions they face will remain confidential.

it's a close case because this is one of, if not, the most political decisions the court has ever issued. it's worth noting that the line defined by the political question doctrine, under which the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over questions thought to be fundamentally "political" in nature, was substantially dimmed by bush v. gore, with a concomitant diminution of the court's credibility generally (ostensibly, the "injustice" you refer).

just the same, as an appellate clerk i am especially sensitive to the importance of the confidentiality of judges' deliberations and internal conflicts, for various reasons not exhausted by the two cited above (also, generally, my feeling is that they signed agreements to keep the court's confidence, and as attorneys they should have more respect for their word on a matter so important to an attorney's professional reputation as his willingness to take a client's or employer's secret to the grave than they evidently do).

and so it's not really my position that the clerks above were right to have leaked, although i enjoyed the voyeurism they enabled, just as i enjoyed closed chamber tremendously. this stuff ultimately comes out when people die, and that's probably soon enough, once the wounds have healed.

Posted by: joshua at September 30, 2004 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Binky,
I have to disagree with your supposition that we as a society owe all the rights of citizenship to all people, regardless of their behavior. We agree that these rights shouldn't be abriged on the basis of color. I'm not sure that drugs like powdered cocaine should be punishied equally to crack cocaine with the rationale of equal protection. I've known crackheads and cokeheads, and cokeheads are a lot more functional. I think heroine (maybe the velvet underground tune will ease Joshua's eponymous torture) would be a better comparison to crack, and I think we'd agree that it should be punished similarly to crack as a felony, even though one's more common now in the white community and the other in the black; that is, I think the rationale for punishment of traficking in these substances should be based on their effects on their consumers, not the community in which they are popular. I wonder if you've thought about the angle that we're punishing people more for trafficking (I can't spell today) crack, a drug dealt primarily to african americans. If you think african americans should indeed be given special consideration, then wouldn't this policy actually be in line with that consideration?

Armand,
Here's a link talking about other complaints of voting abuse by the NAACP, this one in New Orleans where an African American woman was in charge of the situation. Voting rights were surely violated here, but the violation of voting rights as this instance indicates is not necessarily a deliberate measure motivated by nepotism, party, or race, though this is clearly the tone of the VF article.

My point with Nader is that with regard to the Florida election, you argue that the judicial process should be above concerns of mere partisan politics; yet you say lawyers supporting Kerry trying to get Nader's name taken off the ballot, that's somehow just politics.

Perhaps you suggest a distinction between lawyers and justices, that lawyers may be partisan but justices may not be. However, if you read the Vanity Fair article, it clearly says, "...Gore could not have asked for a statewide recount, because there was no provision for it in Florida law."

"Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Only with a "statewide recount" (according to the CNN source) would the inclusion of overvotes have given Gore a victory in Florida. This was not (according to the VF article) permissible under Florida state law. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court may have pushed in favor of their party's candidate, though even your article admits "Ultimately, only the five justices in the majority know how and why they decided the case they did and whether they did it in good or bad faith," despite having offered little evidence for its suppositions (or, given the language and descriptions of the article and its characterizations, propaganda is more fitting) save that provided by clerks against its ultimate ruling. I'm not going to say, as Jesse Jackson might, "The question is moot!" However, the law was upheld, even if only by, as Homer Simpson would say, my two favorite words in the English language: "De fault."

And if you think the U.S. government gives legitimacy to "insulting the South," then you should agree with the Supreme Court's decsion, for they're an agent of that government, and you must also disagree with Binky, whose point is that we can have meaningful disagreements with the government and its policies. I have no problem whatsoever with taking away the voting rights of those who abuse this country, whether it be while they're wearing a white or a blue collar.

Joshua,
I hope you're feeling better.
First, I will agree with you: yes, most definitely, Leah Thompson was a FOX in that movie. Second, I am all for the voting rights of all Americans, and if it takes special measures to restore the perception of legitimacy to our American democratic process, so be it. Lets have observers in St. Louis, Florida, and Chicago. But I do take issue with the idea that keeping felons from voting is somehow racist. I don't want people who lack enough of a conscience to keep from exploiting others...I don't want these people deciding who's the best person to protect the citizens of our country. Yes, this is a value decision, and yes, there is a way it can be seen as undemocratic. But democracy is not the same thing as anarchy, and what separates the two is that democracy has a vested interest in protecting its people, for their own benefit.

Posted by: Morris at October 1, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINK

Morris - You write "I have no problem whatsoever with taking away the voting rights of those who abuse this country, whether it be while they're wearing a white or a blue collar." OK, so you are consistent. But that doesn't mean that the system is.

We live in a legal system in which it's much easier for rich white guys to get away with crimes. And our society consistently looks the other way depending upon who commits certain acts of not. Take vandalism - if rambunctious white boys wearing a lot of J Crew do some they may very well benefit from a boys being boys attitude, but if it's a couple of black guys who haven't had a shower "society's" reaction may be very different. Or for a better (and non-hypothetical) example, take Rush's recent run in with the law, or the fact that the president could have presumably been put away back in his wild days ... but that's not how the system of "justice" works. The rich (and usually the white) have certain protections that others don't. I've known plenty of drug buyers and users who live in beautiful neighborhoods where the police would never dream of harassing them ... other people who commit the same acts that society has deemed criminal don't have the same good fortune. I guess what I'm riffing on is that while you might be color-blind, the administration of the law often is not (or at least not class-blind), and if that means that certain people get put away at artificially high rates, and that in turn knocks the voting representation of groups of people out of whack ... I think that's a problem.

Posted by: Armand at October 1, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINK

morris morris morris -- a year older, but no more assiduous a reader . . .

i didn't say denying felons the vote is racist. i just. didn't. say it. and as for people who lack enough of a conscience to keep from exploiting others, two words: en. ron.

i'm also not really sure how anarchy worked its way into this discussion, although i'll grant the florida's highly anomalous voter roll winnowing process is nothing if not anarchic.

all i said -- and the VF article unequivocally bears this out, as do hundreds of stories in the mainstream media -- was that florida's peculiar process, and i use that word loosely, is undemocratic, and represents at least as much a violation of the equal protection clause as that which purportedly drove the supreme court decision in bush v. gore. i leave it to the states to decide whether felons can vote; i have my own moral commitments, but i'll submit that particular question to the democratic process.

the irregularities in florida's implementation of its felon exclusion system, however, permit only one conclusion: that officials somewhere up and down the florida voting bureacracy, which is infested with more blatant republican partisans than Fox "News", knowingly allowed their automated process of identifying excluded felons to operate in such a way as to be radically overinclusive of blacks (who vote predominantly democratic) and radically underinclusive of hispanics (who, at least in florida, vote predominantly republican) . . . and which furthermore in its overinclusion clearly affected more non-felon blacks than non-felon whites. similarly, the hopeless shortages of functioning equipment and the understaffing in black voting districts in 2000, as well as the odd coincidence that it was in predominantly black voting districts that poll workers tended erroneously to deny black voters their right under clear florida law to cast provisional ballots under protest of their supposed ex-felon status, contributed to the same shameful end.

equal protection in this sense is not about the laws themselves -- it's about the plainly biased application thereof, its impact rather than its facial language -- and there's simply no room for doubt that non-felon black voters were disproportionately disenfranchised in 2000 to bush's undeniable benefit. moreover, without serious interference by outlets that are digging down there, the same abuses would be committed again in 2004, in precisely the same way.

finally, and only because you brought it up, so long as the criminal justice system disfavors black defendants (and it does, due to racial profiling, overworked public defendants and the clear advantage conferred on those with the resources to retain private counsel, and quantifiable jury discrimination, not to mention political forces that tend to encourage greater prosecutorial leniency toward white defendants (or less of it toward black defendants)), creating precisely the bias you claim i observed (but which i'm only observing now for the first time), i think the benefits of excluding felons is far outweighed by the cost of disenfranchising broad swaths of the community. i might add that there's probably a colorable constitutional argument that while the status of felons as citizens is diminished, insofar as they retain some modicum of the fundamental rights protected by the constitution (these are not tendentious propositions in the abstract; binding constitutional law says as much on a panoply of topics), they may well be entitled to vote even during their imprisonment. after all, rights are only as strong as those who are there to enforce them, thus felons have a clear interest in who will constitute their government. a pennsylvania felon is as much arlen specter's constituent as am i.

stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

happy weekend all, and i promise, armand, to complete and post my response to the nomination nation thing monday am.

Posted by: joshua at October 1, 2004 04:43 PM | PERMALINK

Joshua,
You make some interesting points. I wonder whether as well as african americans, the poor are also overrepresented in the prison system. And if this is true, then would Bush really want poor Hispanic ex-felons excepted from the voter rolls? I'm just not sure that they would vote for him, given that republicans give tax credits to the rich and take entitlement programs from the poor, right? I don't really think anyone in the Republican party would see this as such an advantage that they'd do this deliberately. As the New Orleans example I provided shows, not all mistakes made in the voting process are the result of intentional voter suppression.

If there's "no denying", as you put it, that black voters were suppressed in the 2000 election, then why haven't we seen any independent investigations? It's too prejudicial to just throw these charges around without any proof. Why haven't we seen a single conviction from this if it's as widespread as you say? This is so much like Kerry making all the charges about systematic war crimes after getting back from Vietnam, yet not pursueing a sinlge instance of an actual war crime. It's propaganda.

If the right of even felons to vote was as protected as you suggest by the Constitution, why hasn't the Supreme Court overturned these laws? Even if you say this is currently the function of conservative court, is that a valid argument considering Roe v Wade has stood for a quarter century? I don't feel so guilty about the actions of my ancestors that I want to give a bunch of thugs the steering wheel when it comes to guiding our country, not to any degree. It's like when the President gave the death penalty to the racist who drug the African American man behind his car in Texas. He didn't do it because it was a racist crime, he did it because it was a crime against a human being, and we all should be protected.

Armand,
You and Joshua suggest our society allows rich white guys to get away with crimes. I think it allows rich guys to get away with crimes, given the examples of OJ who lost his civil suit and Kobe who's letter of apology sure sounds like a confession. And maybe Michael Jackson will get the same benefit of the doubt, though all the money in the world couldn't save the Menendez kids. The distinction you make about drug buyers has more to do with neighborhood, I think, than race--if someone has enough money, they can get off of just about any crime, even if convicted, like that drug dealer Clinton pardoned after his wife donated a boatload of money to the cause. It's not that I'm colorblind, I just think the colors are those who have the green versus those who're in the red.

Posted by: Morris at October 2, 2004 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

And? Either way these ex-felon lists disenfranchise a segment of society, whether it's blacks and browns, or just generally those who are in the red. It strikes me that is problematic. And given the considerable overlap between the black and red groups and the existence of the Voting Rights Act - it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to say that proponents of such policies are wandering pretty close to illegality (and of course that's not even getting into issues like accepting people and extending forgiveness once they've paid their debt to society, making sure that ALL AMERICANS have a place in our society, or, hopefully, not adopting the morality and voting structures of a time and place when the rich had complete control over government and didn't even let the poor show up at the polls).

And it's not getting at the basic point of the post which is that the Republican party has active operations trying to scare or disuade people into not voting. That suggests to me one, they are really unpleasant, and two, they don't seem to think much of a governmental system built on a the idea of a voice for every American. And please remember that much like the terrorist watch list, not everyone on this list is a felon. Lots of perfectly upstanding people can lose their right to vote simply b/c of a mistake or misclassification.

Posted by: Armand at October 2, 2004 09:30 AM | PERMALINK

Armand,
Thankyou, I needed a good laugh this morning. It's nice to remember that some people still see felons as making mistakes that they redeem later in life. Of course, usually that doesn't happen. Usually, these behaviors are related to neurological correlates such as low serotonin levels, and these correlates are hardwired into the brain, suggesting that most felons are not going to just change their ways. So I'm not sure we should be as forgiving; we're not keeping people in prison so they can pay a debt to society, we're keeping them there so they don't hurt anyone. And, as I've said, I don't want people who find it almost impossible to control their impulses to hurt others, I don't want them in charge to any degree of making decisions about the protection of our society. Yes, we may end up excluding the occasional person who doesn't have these characteristics hard wired into their brain, we may exclude them, but I think it's worth it given they did commit a felony, this is not arbitrary.

As I've said, if you're worried about people being excluded from the polls, monitor the elections. Are you telling me that for all the crimes caught on videotape, no one caught any or these thigmentary republican operatives on camera? If there are deliberate tactics as you suggest, I fully support prosecuting them as much as the law allows, for democracy is precious. But when you let fly with these accusations in the absence of convictions and evidence for these crimes, you're also guilty of "trying to scare or disuade people into not voting," for Bush.

Yes, give me a lecture about how the rich shouldn't have control over government; does the name George Soros mean anything to you? He's put 15 million dollars into slandering Bush with these 527 groups that have no accountability to anyone.

Yes, not everyone on the felon list is a felon, human beings, as I've said before, are imperfect. But that's why I included the example from New Orleans, where the NAACP is complaining about disenfranchisement of african american voters even though an african american woman was responsible for their not voting; voter suppression is not always deliberate.

Posted by: Morris at October 2, 2004 02:33 PM | PERMALINK

Ah you and your lovely right-wing judicial principles - perfectly happy that innocents get caught up in the net and lose their fundamental rights to liberty, much less voting. You do realize that according to the principle you put in the first paragraph, that could be an excuse to lock up EVERYONE and throw away the key.

As to your first paragraph it seems flawed in 2 GIANT ways - one, if that's what you think, why do we EVER let people out of prison? Why not just keep them there forever? If we have to protect ourselves from "them" that would seem to be called for. Secondly, I presume you are aware of how we came to have so many people in jail in the first place and the degree to which that's tied to our moronic drug-crime laws. Loads of people get put away who posed no clear threat to others at all. Personally, I'd like them out in society since 1) I have some respect for individual liberty 2) it costs a fortune to keep them locked up 3) by putting them in there some perfectly harmless people will learn all kinds of unfortunate skills, get raped, basically become real horrors ... and then we release them back into society! 4) typically some of these folks need doctors, not guards 5) and if the harmless ones were in society as opposed to prison they could be working, supporting the economy and paying taxes that will help keep the bad ones in prison. And yes I could have just written that in much more elegant philosophical tones and included cites to various studies and things, but it's early in the morning ... basic point. Lots of the people in prison, weren't much of a threat to anyone (at least before we locked them up), so it seems rather ridiculous to keep them there forever or to stigmatize them and say that they have no place in a "real" America after their release.

"Yes, give me a lecture about how the rich shouldn't have control over government; does the name George Soros mean anything to you? He's put 15 million dollars into slandering Bush with these 527 groups that have no accountability to anyone." Ohhhh puh-leeze. Tell you what - look up the numbers on the number of people who make more than $200,000 a year that vote Republican and the number that high that vote Democratic. The difference is staggering. Yes there are a handful of Democrats who put a lot of money into politics, but as far as which party the wealthy are generally behind, it's the one backing El Presidente. And as to how that fits with the previous question, it means a lot fewer of them lose their voting rights (for among other reasons, they have extra influence on the law-making process and on what society deems to be crimes, they have better attorneys, and they have more of an ability to use political leverage to see to it that they are never charged with anything in the first place). And as to this 527 nonsense: 1) Bush signed McCain-Feingold and 2) what sort of "accountability" are you looking for? A government watchdog to approve or disapprove of political ads? Aren't you at all worried that sounds more than a bit like a practice in, oh, say, Russia?

And maybe it's not always deliberate. But often it is - and that's a problem.

Posted by: Armand at October 3, 2004 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Armand,
I'm starting to think you're naive. How can you say that "moronic drug-crime laws" lead to the imprisonment of "people who "posed no clear threat to others at all"? Have you never seen what an addiction can do to a person's life? Have you never seen someone going through withdrawl? Have you not see the brain scans of people after they've used meth just once? If someone's willing to exploit another human being to make money for themselves, that really does cause suffering.

If you're worried about how much it costs to lock someone up, you need to talk to Joshua; because I'm sure he can explain to you that even one person killed or disabled for life would in civil court cost a company who did such a thing millions to compensate that person or their family for a loss of a lifetime's wages. That's the cost to society, the productivity of one human being, if you want to look at it in dollars and cents, and it IS significant even in those terms.

They need doctors, not guards? I guess you're talking about ones suffering from mental health issues for which there is no cure. Most people who commit felonies suffer from anti-social personality disorder, and there is no cure. I think even their doctors would say they need guards.

If you're concerned about their productivity, let them work in prison, be part of a work crew.

The people in prison who aren't much of a threat are there, for the most part, for misdemeanors.

Party of the wealthy? Bush may have the edge in contributions over 200,000, but look at contributions over a million dollars. And is any Republican contributor spending $18.1 million dollars, like Soros. That's what's screwed up by these 527s, one person can have enormous influence by spreading money around through these different groups, and then they'll get political favors in return. And there's no safeguards against coordination that judges are willing to enforce. Beyond direct coordination between the Kerry campaign and MoveOn, there's more:
"The Kerry campaign was once run by Jim Jordan. But last November he left the campaign and now helps to run two liberal 527s, Americans Coming Together, or ACT, and The Media Fund. Gibbs — the former Kerry campaign who worked for Americans for Jobs, Health Care, and Progressive Values — also now works for ACT.

Harold Ickes, former deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, advises both ACT and the Democratic National Committee, which works directly with the Kerry campaign. Bob Bauer gives legal advice to ACT, worked for the Kerry campaign until a few months ago, and is now paid by the DNC to give the Kerry campaign legal advice. Bill Knapp made ads for The Media Fund and now makes ads for Kerry. Minyon Moore, a founder of ACT, spearheads the Kerry campaign's minority outreach program."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Vote2004/527_groups_040825-6.html

How about we just eliminate these unregulated 527 groups, go back the way it was before?


Posted by: Morris at October 3, 2004 07:33 PM | PERMALINK

Call me naive, but I've known people who were caught young by illegal behavior that with drug sentencing made them felons without developing a pattern of career criminality. Time done? Go back to school, enroll in grad school even. Voila, return to society. By no means are all felons like that, but again, as I mentioned before, especially with the mandatory drug sentencing (and, the supreme court seems to be taking up mandatory sentences...joshua and armand, any comments?) there are enough people like this that I would be willing to return them to full citizenship rights. What are we worried about having felons vote anyway? Is it a fear that they have a big enough block to make rape and murder legal? Or is it simply punitive? We could always go back to an attack on the state is an attack on the king's body, and must be punished in kind. This doesn't strike me as productive, and in fact likely to be counterproductive as an indicator to felons and their families (again, citing joshua and armand's info about race) that a whole class of people doesn't count.

Posted by: binky at October 4, 2004 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

damn i need to get me a home ISP connection, so i can not come back to such a staggering array of BS to which i'd like to respond. but i've got to do some surfing, and -- gasp! -- some working, so for now, morris, regarding your delightfully high-minded ideas about drugs, i just have a few words:

anheuser-busch.

al capone.

prohibition has always looked like this -- it's never made sense, and it never will.

kirk out.

Posted by: joshua at October 4, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINK

Morris. May I 1) urge you to look at your first paragraph and 2) introduce you to the concept of self/other. "Others" generally is what exists beyond the "self".

Why just stop at the 527s? Let's take away everybody's rights to run political ads. I mean you're usually the one who's willing to have certain people lose their rights as long as the guilty are punished (forever and ever) and it solves the problem for society.

But really, what is so bad about the 527s? Honestly. I'd like to know. People are funding political dialogue. What grievous sin is it that the 527s are committing that other organizations and advertisers are not?

Posted by: Armand at October 4, 2004 09:31 AM | PERMALINK

Binky, this has nothing to do with punitive. Many elections in our country come down to just a few votes (a few hundred in Florida, right?), and I really don't like the idea of allowing people who essentially have no conscience to decide what's best for my community or my country. I realize there are a few who commit crimes and redeem themselves, but I don't think we'll be doing ourselves a great diservice by losing what they might add to the electoral process if we can keep out those who might poison the prosperity of our country.

Joshua, I would be all for efforts to limit the suffering caused by alcohol, though I know you're hoping I'm being inconsistent here. Do you really think the number of people killed every year enforcing prohibition is more than the number who die from drunk driving? Is it more than the amount of suffering brought by their crimes (from my criminal justice courses I remember estimates that more than 50% of violent crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol)? At the risk of sending this debate off on a tangent, I'm a bigger fan of Jean Luc than Kirk. Even when it comes to self parody, his erotic cakes skit on SNL was top notch.

Armand, your first comment is a little too nuanced for me, perhaps you can dumb it down for me, doctor.
As much as I can appreciate a good ad absurdium argument, the system wasn't perfect before McCain Feingold, but at least politicians didn't have to be indebted 18.1 million dollars of political payback to a single eccentric millionaire. It's true, Kerry may not give Soros any access, but he'd risk visiting Soros on a holiday and hearing the dreaded words, "release the hounds."
Doesn't it seem a little inconsistent that you within this very thread lament how rich people are better able to get away with crimes, then want to keep an avenue open for this to continue by allowing unlimited contributions to 527s? Maybe you're not sure what I'm talking about, so I'll remind you:
"Jimmy Carter, the perfect ex-President, broke the cardinal rule of the brotherhood and called Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich 'disgraceful.'"
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/03/05/pardonme.html


Posted by: Morris at October 4, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINK

If $450,000 bought that kind of pardon, what kind of pardon will 18.1 million dollars buy? Can anyone say indulgences?

Posted by: Morris at October 4, 2004 01:23 PM | PERMALINK

. . . I really don't like the idea of allowing people who essentially have no conscience . . .

two reasons why i'm done talking about felons with you, morris: 1) i've said what i have to say, and i haven't seen anything that directly and robustly responds to my point; and 2) i find your overgeneralizing -- and the above is just the latest instance -- to be condescending to the unconscionably massive class of people to whom you putatively refer, and frankly repellant to meaningful debate.

if you want to go through life thinking every felon lacks a conscience, is afflicted with a mental defect so profound as to be beyond remediation, and is (i take it inexorably) a less worthy person than you in every meaningful regard, really -- be my guest.

i don't share your sense of superiority, i hold neither the laws nor the system through which they are executed to be infallible (in essence, a necessary property if you are going to make such indelible judgments about every individual who is convicted (as opposed to guilty) of a felony in this country), and furthermore i will let neither a legislature nor a jury of twelve decide for me who i will and will not adjudge to be a good person, a man or a woman of conscience.

poverty creates crime; it wasn't giuliani or other so-called law-and-order executive officials who reduced the crime rate during the nineties, but rather the booming economy. do the leg work and you'll find that crime rates diminished at about the same rate in every major city nationwide during the past twenty years, notwithstanding the party affiliation of a given city's stewardship.

it's ignorant, hateful, and unrealistic to paint so many people with such broad strokes, unless you are prepared to accept two necessary corollaries: 1) natives of pretty much every other "developed" nation simply are better people than we are since they commit so many fewer crimes that our legal system would consider felonies; and 2) you are shoveling shit against the tide, going to absurd lengths, to defend the presidential tenure and right to reelection of a man who on any number of accounts fits your definition of lacking a conscience. and that's not just because he very likely indulged in cocaine use; for my money, the local street dealer of marijuana isn't nearly so dangerous to the universe as someone who gets behind the wheel drunk, an act of profound ignorance and selfishness.

and, of course, your argument on this point has absolutely barred you from suggesting that bush could repent, since by your overbroad definitions, he lacks a conscience, and is beyond repair.

Posted by: joshua at October 4, 2004 01:34 PM | PERMALINK

Joshua,
I don't suggest my life is more meaningful along any fundamental arbiter of worth than a felon's; but because I care for my life and others in this world, I would protect them. I've met psychopaths I really liked, I've felt some loyalty to them; but I'd feel better at night if when I sleep they're in prison.

The trend in crime rates you refer to is not unusual, but back when I took criminal justice classes, they attributed national crime trends to the number of adolescent males in the population. I'm not certain this is the answer, but neither am I sure this has anything to do with the economy, considering the increase of crimes that occured alongside the Great Society programs.

As for Bush, a felony conviction usually requires more than a $150 fine, so I'm guessing a first offense DUI wasn't a felony where he committed it, when he committed. And you may suggest this is an arbitrary distinction, but weren't you the one who said law is not about being consistent but rather making decisions? Bush and I both agree that such an act is irresponsible, but you suggest a logical short cut that I didn't make (another straw man). You suggest I say all people who commit felonies have no conscience. I clearly said many people who commit felonies have no conscience, and that's enough of a reason to keep them from voting. As for the difference between the U.S. and other nations, do you really believe we don't have a violent politcal culture? This seeps into all parts of our society, including the ways parents raise their children.

Posted by: Morris at October 4, 2004 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

So many people who commit felonies should lose their right to vote because other people who commit felonies have no conscience? I'm confused and thinking perhaps we should just put an end to this thread (he says as he hits post).

Posted by: Armand at October 5, 2004 01:13 PM | PERMALINK

Or divert it back to a discussion of electronic voting. First, a starter of humor (to those who dislike Jeb at least):

http://wearabledissent.com/101/floridavote.html

Second, onto the main course of anti-Dieboldness:

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

Dig in! Yummmmm!!!

Posted by: binky at October 5, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINK

VP debate humor (not entirely on point, but still funny).

Posted by: joshua at October 5, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINK

In the ongoing saga of Florida....

In an article coming next week in Harper's, Greg Palast, who originally reported the story of the 2000 felon list, reveals that few of those wrongly purged from the voting rolls in 2000 are back on the voter lists. State officials have imposed Kafkaesque hurdles for voters trying to get back on the rolls. Depending on the county, those attempting to get their votes back have been required to seek clemency for crimes committed by others, or to go through quasi-judicial proceedings to prove that they are not felons with similar names.

from Krugman, citing an upcoming Harper's article.

Posted by: at October 15, 2004 09:51 AM | PERMALINK

WHAT IM WRITNG ABOUT TODAY IS THE TRUTH OF IT, FLORIDA ASWELL AS ALOT OF STATES DO NOT WANT TO SEE EX-FELONS MAKE AWAY FOR THEMSELVES IN TODAYS SOCIETY. THE REASONS I BELIEVE ARE ONCE WE GO TO PRISON OR COMMIT OUR CRIME WE ARE SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT THE PENAL SYTEM IN THAT FASHION. AS WE LOOK AT TODAY WITH ALL THE FAULTS OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE FAILING OF THEM TO THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY WE SEE THAT NOW NOT JUST EX-FELONS ARE FEELING THE BRUNT OF THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY BUT AS WE WOULD SAY IN PRISON AN L7 SQUARE CANT GET AHEAD ASWELL.THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT HAS MAD OUR COUNTRY WEALTHIER BECAUSE IT DISMANTLED THE BARRIERS TO ACHIEVEMENT AND HAS ALLOWED US ALL TO CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICAN PROSPERITY IN WAYS WE COULD NOT BEFORE,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EX-FELONS. UNLIKE 40 OF THE 50 STATES STATES , IN FLORIDA, CONVICTED FELONS ARE PROHIBITED FROM VOTING EVEN AFTER HAVING COMPLETED THIER SENTENCES. NOW THAT KEEPS US FROM VOTING FOR THE RIGHT TO AN UNJUDGEMENTAL WORKFORCE WHO NOW AND DAYS ARE NOT HIRING EX-FELONS DUE TO THESE BACKGROUND CHECKS THEY DO. I UNDERSTAND THE BUISNESS WORLD IS PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM THEFT AND FRAUD AS WELL AS VIOLENCE IN THE WORK PLACE WHICH ALOT OF US DO HAVE ON OUR RECORDS, BUT VOTING COME ON!! IT IS A RIGHT THAT THEY DEEM AS A PRIVILGE SO THE CAN MAKE LAWS THAT KEEP EX-FELONS FROM VOTING WE ARE DISENFRANCHISED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA BUT THEY DID NOT DISENFRANCHISE BUSH WHEN HE CHEATED TO GET INTO OFFICE AND SIGN THE BILL TO KEEP US FROM VOTING.

Posted by: jovan at January 7, 2009 08:07 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?