Guest blogged by Ernest A. Canning
Last week, after notifying the state of Florida of its intention to do so, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit [PDF], seeking to halt what Asst. U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez described in his June 11, 2012 letter [PDF] to FL Sec. of State Ken Detzner (R), as “a new program for systematic voter removal, which may ultimately target more than 180,000 registered voters.”
A longtime respected election official in the state went further, describing the attempted scrubbing of the rolls to be “un-American”.
The lawsuit alleges that the ongoing, systematic voter removal program violates the provisions of the National Vote Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which “expressly forbids such removal programs during the 90-day period before an election for Federal office.”
The complaint seeks not only an immediate federal court injunction to stop the purge, but an order directing FL officials “to take all steps necessary to ensure that no registered voter identified as potentially ineligible based on the [faulty FL Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles] database and voter verification procedures…is removed from the voter rolls within 90 days of a primary or general election for Federal office.”
The injunction may prove to be necessary only in three of the Sunshine State’s 67 counties — Lee, Collier and Bay — where election officials have signaled they intend to continue the allegedly unlawful voter roll purge, even after the actions taken by the DOJ.
When interviewed last week by Brad Friedman on the nationally-syndicated Mike Malloy Show, Leon County (Tallahassee), FL’s legendary Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho — the man placed in charge of the aborted 2000 Florida Presidential recount — explained the reasons why most of the Supervisors of Elections (both Democratic and Republican) in each of the state’s 67 counties have now refused to carry out the state-ordered purge. He described the ongoing effort by the Governor and Sec. of State as “shameful.”
The DOJ’s 6/11/12 letter also responded to, and seemed to debunk, the claim made by FL that it had been denied access to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration database. The state, in its own lawsuit filed against the DHS last week, has cited lack of access to that database as their reason for using the less reliable state Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) database for the basis of its voter purge.
The purge, to date, has identifies hundreds of perfectly legal citizen voters for removal from the rolls.
The state of FL, in its response to the DOJ, appears not to be offering the full facts about their attempt to use the DHS database and, as it turns out, Republican Gov. Rick Scott should, by now, be very well acquainted with the perils of voter purges based on inaccurate information…as an apparent victim of one such purge himself…
DOJ’s twin obligations
Where the FL GOP has attempted to justify the purge of thousands of voters on the basis of the possibility that there may be non-citizens who have been registered to vote, the DOJ, by way of the 6/11/12 Perez letter to Detzner, explained that the DOJ, an agency headed by the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, has an obligation to ensure “that all eligible citizens have the opportunity to register and vote, and that ineligible persons, including non-citizens, do not register and vote in federal elections.”
Both the NVRA and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) mandate, as Perez observed, “that every person seeking to register to vote in a federal election swear or affirm under penalty of perjury their United States citizenship.”
Moreover, he added, the DOJ “does not hesitate to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute” all forms of voter registration and voting fraud, “including non-citizens.”
FL purge violates the NVRA
As explained by Perez in his 06/11/12 letter:
The DOJ complaint alleges that, under the NVRA, with certain exceptions not applicable in this case, any state program that seeks “to systemically remove the names of ineligible voters,” must be completed by a state “no later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office.” As a federal primary election is scheduled in the Sunshine State for 8/14/12, FL may not lawfully engage in this systematic form of removal after 5/16/12.
By way of an earlier 6/6/12 letter from Detnzer to the DOJ, FL declared that it “intended to proceed with [its] voter verification process,” despite direction from the DOJ that the purge is in violation of the NVRA as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) in a number of counties where the VRA requires federal preclearance of new election procedures.
‘Round up the usual suspects.’
The process of targeting as many as 180,000 legal voters as “potential non-citizens” in order to identify, at most, a handful of non-citizens who may have voted in an election at some point, calls to mind a remark made by Captain Renault (Claude Rains) in the classic 1942 film, Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.”
In covering the ACLU federal lawsuit filed recently in hopes of blocking the latest purge, The BRAD BLOG cited a study by the Brennan Center for Justice which revealed that illegal, non-citizen voting is about a scarce as hen’s teeth. The “penalty (not only criminal prosecution, but deportation) is so severe, and the payoff (one incremental vote) is so minimal,” the Brennan Center observed, that few could be expected to take the risk.
That position was seconded by Asst. AG Perez, who observed in his June 12 letter that “federal criminal laws [that] prohibit fraudulent voter registration as well as non-citizens voting…have proven quite effective in deterring non-citizens from registering to vote and from casting ballots in federal elections.”
In its federal complaint [PDF], the ACLU alleged that FL Secretary of State Detzner created the “potential non-citizen” purge list based upon a FL DHSMV database which is incapable of establishing non-citizenship as the DHSMV did not require applicants for new or renewed driver’s licenses to present proof of citizenship until 2010. Many, like named plaintiff, Murat Limage, became naturalized citizens after their driver’s license was last updated, so that information is not reflected accurately in the state database.
The DOJ, in its federal complaint, alleges that FL officials are knowingly relying upon an “outdated and inaccurate database” that has put “U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote” at risk of being disenfranchised; that this has included not only recently “naturalized U.S. citizens” but also “native-born citizens, including decorated combat veterans who served in the United States Armed Forces.”
As we previously reported, those ensnared by the purge included U.S. citizens like Bill Internicola, the 91-year old, Brooklyn-born, World War II veteran and Bronze Star recipient who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and Archibald Bowyer, another 91-year old WWII vet who has been a citizen since the age of 2, and who received his letter from the state warning he would be purged just as his wife had recently died.
Disturbingly, this “shameful”, knowing reliance upon an inaccurate database comes at the behest of a governor who, from personal experience, knows that it could interfere with a citizen’s lawful right to vote. In 2006, before he was elected to office by the state of Florida, Gov. Rick Scott (R) was forced to cast a provisional ballot because Collier County election officials, based on a Social Security Death Index Record, mistakenly believed he was dead.
Equal Protection
Although it was not directly mentioned in either the ACLU or DOJ complaints, there is an Equal Protection issue that arises from the purge.
Gov. Scott insists that there is nothing wrong with his “round up the usual suspects” approach because U.S. citizens are afforded “due process.” They are given 30 days notice and an opportunity to prove their citizenship, he claims.
As revealed by previous cases which struck down a draconian Photo ID law in WI as unconstitutional, however, coming up with certified copies of documents necessary to prove citizenship (e.g., birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers) can be expensive and time-consuming.
Moreover, as Brad Friedman observed during his interview with Leon County, FL Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho, a vacationing citizen may not receive notice in time to act. Worse, a notice could be mailed to the FL address of a soldier who is in the midst of combat in Afghanistan.
The disparate number of minorities and Democrats targeted by a purge that has been arbitrarily compiled by partisan state officials from a known faulty database suggests that the effort to shift the burden of proof of citizenship to otherwise eligible voters is tantamount to a denial of Equal Protection as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Sancho, when interviewed by Friedman last week, was more direct. He directly lambasted the effort by Scott and the other state officials as nothing less than “un-American.”
FL election supervisor revolt
During his June 12 interview, Sancho told Friedman that FL county election supervisors need not, and most will not, carry out the purge. He is aware of only three GOP controlled FL counties that are still vowing to continue the removal of voters.
Sancho explained:
The vast majority of county election supervisors, he said, have refused to purge “American citizens [who are] perfectly legal to vote.”
DHS did not deny FL access to database
In his 6/11/12 letter, Perez responded to FL’s claim that they were denied access to the DHS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database which, the state alleges, is a more comprehensive and accurate database than the they one currently being used from the state DHSMV.
That database, however, Perez explains, does “not include a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens, and does not include, for example, those born in the United States.”
While SAVE can verify documentation regarding naturalized citizens and “U.S. citizens born abroad who derived citizenship from U.S. parents,” Perez wrote, as early as October 2011 the DHS advised FL that “SAVE…can verify these individuals only if [FL provides the DHS with] unique identifiers, such as alien registration numbers or certificate numbers found on immigration-related documents.”
In other words, the SAVE database cannot identify immigration status based on names alone, as FL had been hoping to use to compare suspected non-citizens to the federal database.
The state, Perez wrote, “admitted to DHS nearly eight months ago that the Division of Elections does not collect any of the immigration-related numeric identifiers or documentation that DHS has advised would be necessary to participate in SAVE.”
Thus, this appears not to be a case of DHS denying a state access to the database, as FL has claimed, and as its rightwing proponents have echoed in the media, but rather a case in which a state has failed to provide the information necessary for it to participate in the federal program.
“In fact,” Perez notes, “we understand that the SAVE program has had long and successful working relationships with a number of Florida agencies that need to verify immigration status for their programs and that are able to comply with SAVE requirements.”
Moreover, the letter explains, the SAVE program is used by another state (it does not identify which one) “for purposes of verifying citizenship of new voter registrants through use of appropriate identifying information that DHS requires of governments participating in that program.”
“Your claim that the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have worked in concert to deny Florida access to the SAVE Program is simply wrong,” Perez admonished, reminding Detzner that the state admitted to having been informed eight months ago of the necessary requirements for participation in the program, but have “failed” ever since to “provide the necessary information DHS.”
“As a result, the significant problems you are encountering in administering this new program are of your own creation,” the Asst. Attorney General scolded.
The state of Florida has yet to respond publicly to the DOJ lawsuit, other than to indicate they intend to continue their purge of “non-citizens”, and any inaccuracies in that effort can be laid at the feet of DHS for not giving them access to the federal database they claim is required to be shared with them by law.
With additional reporting by Brad Friedman.
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). Follow him on Twitter: @Cann4ing.
The whole premise of this purge is absurd. With actual voter fraud being almost non-existant, (with the exception of Ann Coulter), Illegal aliens are not going to risk deportation to vote illegally. They are the least likely group to vote illegally.
The problem is it’s so close to the primary election which would seem to violate the law. But so far they have apparently stricken 105 non-citizen “voters” from the rolls and of that number 56 have a “voting history”.
http://galesburgplanet.com/posts/15425
There was just an election in Texas which was determined by a coin flip because it ended in a tie. The Bush vs. Gore fiasco seemed like it happened just yesterday. Point being, I can understand why the GOP would want illegal voters stopped with the thin line that separates us. And also why the Obama administration desperately wants it to be status quo. Those 56 votes could turn the election.
The numbers posted by WingnutSteve @2 are of questionable validity.
Rick Scott, himself, alleged that the state found 50 non-citizen voters.
Whether the number is 105 or 50, I’ve seen nothing to reflect whether those who have allegedly be “stricken” from the rolls have been proven to be “non-citizens” (as opposed to being presumed to be non-citizens because they did not respond to a purge letter).
Keep in mind that, under the FL GOP method, the burden of proof shifts to everyone targeted by the purge to affirmatively prove their citizenship.
Absent independent verification, Scott’s allegations about the number of individuals identified as “non-citizens” is meaningless.
Finally, even if one were to assume that there were, indeed, 105 non-citizens, does that justify targeting 180,000 citizens, who have a lawful right to vote?
My link cites a spokesman from the Florida Department of State, not Rick Scott. And, if your acceptable citations to back up the numbers has to be from a left wing source then I guess we can forget about discussing this issue.
I’ll say it again, I can understand why the Obama administration (and you) desperately wants to allow those 56 people to vote as that small of a number could turn the election.
WingnutSteve @4 writes:
If you’d bothered to actually go into the article I cited, you would see that it includes a video of Gov. Rick Scott (R).
Wow! Rick Scott is a “left wing source.” Who knew?
Still didn’t answer my question, my wingnut friend. Does the possibility that there may be 105 non-citizens on the voter rolls justify disenfranchising 180,000 voters?
Nice spin, btw. This isn’t about whether a few non-citizens should vote. It’s about the illegal, eleventh hour purge of thousands of legal voters. But you don’t seem to have a problem with that because those legal voters are the type who cast the wrong vote; to wit, for someone other than a Koch Industries bought-and-paid-for-Republican.
Since Repubs always howl about government waste amd spending My question is this.
How much is it COSTING Florida Taxpayers to carry out these investigations and purges when the results, from Republican’s OWN data, are so statistically insignificant as to not affect the outcome of an election? I mean, 50 voters out of how MANY millions of Florida votes cast? Even if it’s only ONE million, the ratio works out to 0.00005%
WingnutSteve said @ various:
Actually, it’s not just a “problem”, it’s illegal. Scott has been in office since the beginning of 2011. He could have legally ordered the voting rolls to be cleaned up then, but waited instead until now, just days before a federal election. The former Republican Sec. of State, who resigned last February (for reasons unknown), said Scott told him to purge the 180,000 suspected non-citizens, but he refused to do it, since he couldn’t confirm that any of them were actually non-citizens.
Again, that was before he resigned last February. And yet, Scott waited until last month to begin his purge, even though it was within the 90 days when systematic purges are illegal under federal law.
So it’s more than a “problem”, it’s a violation of law — which real conservatives used to care about.
As Ernie correctly points out, those numbers come only from the state of FL (Chris Cates, the spokesperson for the SoS who is appointed by, and working very closely with and serves at the pleasure of Gov. Scott) and without verification of any type.
As this is the same group who publicly charged, (incorrectly and without evidence) they’d discovered 180,000 non-citizens on the voting rolls — most of whom are clearly not non-citizens — a responsible American would take their unverified numbers with a HUGE grain of salt.
Apparently you haven’t.
But let’s play along for a moment, and pretend the worst case scenario (which WingnutSteve seems to trust in uncritically — a courtesy he’d never, nor should ever, show me, but seems to have no prob doing when it comes from the perpetrators of an illegal purge by a party he blindly supports) is actually true.
Even though we don’t actually know if any of those 56 actually voted — it would have been simple for the state of FL to produce their evidence if it was true — or that the 105 purged from the rolls (out of 11.4 million registered voters in the state) to date are actually non-citizens, let’s assume it’s all true.
So, of the 2,700 on the initial list sent to FL election officials to purge, we have 105 non-citizens discovered, allegedly, on the rolls (and a much smaller percentage of them who actually voted, if we believe the completely unproven allegations.)
That means, in the best case scenario for your argument, that, to date, the Governor and the Sec. of State was willing to disenfranchise 2,595 legal voters in order to keep 105 illegal voters from voting.
That same success rate (and presumably, the first 2700 were the most provable and egregious names) extrapolated out to the 180,000 alleged non-citizen voters Scott claimed were on the rolls, means that well over 100,000 perfectly legal voters might have been removed from the rolls in order to keep a few thousands illegal voters from voting.
I don’t, for a second, believe the rates of illegal voters were anywhere near that high. Not even close. But in even the best case scenario for you and Rick Scott, there would have been exponentially more legal voters removed from the rolls than illegal voters.
And yet, you then explain why such a purge is necessary:
So, to avoid an election unfairly being tied or thrown to one candidate instead of another — thanks to illegal citizens purportedly voting (though there has been no evidence of that in TX, and so far none presented in FL either), you are fine with disenfranchising exponentially more perfectly legal voters.
See any flaws in your “logic” yet? Wouldn’t that inappropriate stand a much better chance of inappropriately affecting an election in the other direction?
You seem to have no concern about that for some reason, even though — even in the very best case scenario — the numbers are entirely against your argument here.
That’s just a dick thing to say. It’s absurdly untrue, without a shred of evidence, and, just a dick thing to say. Sorry you chose that route instead of a serious discussion/debate on a very serious issue.
Dude, you’re impossible.
You don’t accept a citation for numbers from someone in the Florida Department of State stating that they are questionable because Rick Scott himself dropped those numbers.
A. I never cited Rick Scott.
B. I never called Rick Scott a “left wing source”.
C. I clearly stated in my first comment that the voter purge seems to violate Federal Law and btw I’m also against disenfranchising any legal voter as I’ve stated several times on this board in the past. In fact, searching for information about that subject is why I often find myself at this far left website, because there doesn’t seem to be any other place to go.
D. What’s the difference between a Koch industries bought and paid for Republican and your Soro’s and Goldman Sachs bought and paid for Democrat? You talk all the correct talking points, but step back and look in the hypocritical mirror dude.
E. Your 180,000 numbers are highly questionable, in fact ridiculous, and the only place I’ve been able to find that number is at far left websites and the occasional “mainstream media” story which cites people like you as being factual.
I know I know your all about “right vs. wrong” and not about “right vs. left, just like Fox News says they’re fair and balanced, saying so must make it so.
Please cut and paste the standard “butbutbut we did a story about Joe Miller, AND we did a partisan account of the Lehman victory in Wisconsin! See, we’re non-partisan!!”
As Ernie correctly points out, those numbers come only from the state of FL (Chris Cates, the spokesperson for the SoS who is appointed by, and working very closely with and serves at the pleasure of Gov. Scott) and without verification of any type.
Nice job covering for Ernie Brad, but he didn’t point that out he merely posted a link to a Rick Scott video. Knowing what he meant is why I responded to that post with “And, if your acceptable citations to back up the numbers has to be from a left wing source then I guess we can forget about discussing this issue.” If one must use a source that he agrees with politically then you’ll always have the numbers to support his points. I cite his often tossed out number of 180,00 people being disenfranchised which is patently false.
Brad said: So, to avoid an election unfairly being tied or thrown to one candidate instead of another — thanks to illegal citizens purportedly voting (though there has been no evidence of that in TX, and so far none presented in FL either), you are fine with disenfranchising exponentially more perfectly legal voters.
See Brad, now you’re no different than Ernie in your hysterical ramblings. I’m against disenfranchising any voters as I’ve said many times before. My original points were; the voter purge seems to be against the law, and with the thin line separating the parties I can understand why the GOP wants those illegal voters purged and why the Democrats want them left on the voter rolls. I didn’t take any position, I was hoping to start a discussion that exchanged ideas rather than be about right vs. left
Curious that in his defense of this indefensible and illegal voter roll purge @2, our friend WingnutSteve would cite the infamous Bush v Gore judicial coup in which a majority of the Supreme Court blocked a recount.
We recently touched upon that event as well, noting:
In Armed Madhouse
, investigative reporter Greg Palast touched upon a purge of supposed felons from the 2000 FL voter rolls which was carried out by then FL Secretary of State Katherine Harris (R), then a co-chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign.
That event tells us precisely why the FL GOP seeks to purge 180,000 voters from the rolls before Nov. 2012 — and it has nothing to do with the phantom menace of non-citizen voting. Without that purge, Bush could not have carried FL in 2000. Without that purge, Al Gore would have been the POTUS.
WingnutSteve @11 wrote:
Please provide a link to a single instance in which a Democrat has said that they want illegal voters left on the rolls.
Certainly, that twisted position does not come from the Eric Holder-led Department of Justice, which, through Ass. AG Perez’s letter expressly stated [emphasis added] that the DOJ has an obligation to ensure “that all eligible citizens have the opportunity to register and vote, and that ineligible persons, including non-citizens, do not register and vote in federal elections.”
What part of the obligation to ensure that “eligible citizens have the opportunity to register and vote” and that it is also committed to ensuring that “non-citizens do not register and vote” did you not understand?
It would seem to me that the burden of proof (that someone is not a citizen)is the responsibility of the state not the individual being purged from the voter rolls. If the state has evidence that an individual is not a citizen they should reveal said evidence for public scrutiny. If all they have is what they suspect then they got nothing.
It’s absurd to believe that an undocumented individual would risk deportation and fines to cast an illegal vote. Just because one is non documented it doesn’t follow that they are an idiot. OTOH, those that believe that is the case are idiots
The Department of Justice has shown that they will sue any state which tries to clear their voting rolls of illegal voters, or require voters prove that they are who they say they are in order to get a ballot.
That’s what you claim, wingnutSteve. Got any evidence to back it up?
Yeah, it’s called google. I’m sure you can figure it out.
Oh, sure, Steve, I’m sure I can google hundreds of fact-free, right-wing sites that say the same thing that you say.
That’s not evidence.
Claiming that non-citizens are voting or that in person impersonation voter fraud is taking place when there is no verifiable facts to back up those claims is not evidence.
The truth, which you refuse to recognize, my wingnut friend, is that both polling place photo ID restrictions and this illegal purge have absolutely nothing to do with preventing voter fraud or non-citizen voting and everything to do with preventing a significant minority of citizens who tend to vote for someone other than GOP candidates from voting.
That’s the reality. Deal with it!
That’s what you claim Ernie. Got any evidence to back it up?
I’m sure I can google hundreds of fact-free, left-wing sites that say the same thing that you say.
That’s not evidence.
Truth is Ernie, you can check the archives of any “news” type website and find countless articles about the DOJ filing lawsuits, or threatening lawsuits against states which try to enforce their laws. You can find that at left-wing, right-wing, and “main stream” websites. Finding your ridiculous claims is mostly limited to far left dingbat sites.
I finally figured you out. You “say” you want free and open elections, but that’s only to be applied to the right. Anything goes for the left.
No, my wingnut friend, what those “news” sites show is that the DOJ appropriately files legal actions when the ALEC-connected GOP majorities in those states ram through voter suppressing legislation in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act, the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, or, in this case, the National Voting Rights Act.
I know it comes as a shock to some of my right wing friends, but the notion that a state is free to deprive U.S. citizens of their constitutional rights ended in the 1960s with the adoption of various civil rights acts including the VRA of 1965. It should have ended in the 1860s with the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
When a state legislature passes a law which violates those acts, it is not only the right but the duty of the DOJ to file one of those lawsuits you so self-righteously complain about.
Oh, and insofar as evidence to support the facts alleged @18, I know that you know that I’ve furnished reams of evidence in multiple articles.
Assuming that you actually know the difference between verifiable facts and unsubstantiated opinion, try this one for starters:
U.S. Senate Hearings on New GOP Voter Suppression Laws [Part 1 of 2] – Photo ID Restrictions and the Disastrous Return of Hans von Spakovsky
WingnutSteve @10 wrote, quoting Brad:
Actually, Steve, I wrote @3:
It would be useful if you actually bothered to read and digest what it is that I actually have to say before you launch into your customary diatribes.
Brad & I had both said the same thing. Whether you deal with Cates’ 105 or Scott’s 50, the number of alleged non-citizens they claim to have discovered has not been independently verified!
Got it?
One thing Wingnut Steve seems to be overlooking regarding the DOJ and the lawsuits it has filed against some states is that any changes to voting laws in these states must be approved by the DOJ before they are enforced. Texas is one of those states and it is because of voting irregularities and unlawful restrictions of voters in defiance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So any time our Republican-state legislature tries to push something like a voter id law through, it has to be approved. And unfortunately, we have an Attorney General who likes to file lawsuits against the Federal government.
Not only are we trying to get a final ruling on the voter id law, we are currently using an interim redistricting map until we can get one that is fair to everyone in the state and get approved by the DOJ. As a result of the redistricting fiasco, our primary was moved from March to the end of May, coming two weeks after a bond issue election in my city. And we still have runoff elections from the primaries which will take place right before the two national conventions.
And the Texas election decided by a coin toss – the town of Wolfforth, approx. 3,700 residents – was decided that way to settle who won a city council seat after both candidates received 118 votes each and not have to spend $10,000 on a runoff election. Wingnut Steve made it sound like it was on a par with Bush/Gore, when it obviously wasn’t. And what did a coin toss have to do with disenfranchising voters?
Thank you, Mr. Canning and Mr. Friedman for the valuable service you are doing with regards to what is going on in various state elections. It is most informative and IIRC, there have been stories regarding both Democratic and Republican missteps and mistakes and flat-out wrongdoing. It just seems that the Republicans do it so much more often and here lately have been caught at it.
WingnutSteve @ various:
If you believe The BRAD BLOG is far left, you are even more clueless than you let on in your comments. You really need to get out (of Fox “News”) more often.
Um, is the former FL Republican Sec. of State “far left”? The number (actually 182,000, as he tells it) was “too high for Browning,” according to the Miami Herald. “I didn’t feel comfortable rolling this initiative out. … We didn’t have our I’s dotted and T’s crossed when I was there. … “I would not have sent the list to the counties,” Browning said.
But then he resigned and the new Sec. of State had no similar qualms, apparently.
Of course, the Miami Herald and the Republican Sec. of State are probably “far left” in WingnutWorld too.
Actually, we did a bunch of stories about Joe Miller and spent several hours advising his campaign via email, phone calls etc. Don’t forget the Tea Party’s Doug Hoffman in NY-23 or the series of feature articles I wrote about it and him for the Rightwing Gouverneur Times. Then there’s Steve Smith, the conservative Supreme Court Justice in TX I also advised during his contest, but, well, ya know, “far left” and stuff.
I think you do not understand sourcing. If the Communist Party of America publishes an article which uses numbers sourced from a study by the GAO, or the Heritage Foundation for that matter, it doesn’t mean the source of those numbers is “far left”. Similarly, if the “far left” Media Matters documents their allegations, as they do almost every single time, with independently verifiable sources, one would look like a jackass claiming the information was unreliable because it was from a “far left” source.
Conversly, when the Sec. of State’s office which has said they have as many as 182,000 non-citizens on their rolls claims that, in fact, they’ve found 56 who have voted, that may or may not be true. Do they have evidence to back it up? Because, at the moment, they have zero credibililty seeing as they’ve been so wrong, so many times already. And, again, releasing voting records (which are public records) is simple to do, to help us see all of those 56 non-citizens who voted, who are worth disenfranchising thousands of citizens to stop from voting!
Um…didn’t you say up at 11: “I can understand why the GOP wants those illegal voters purged and why the Democrats want them left on the voter rolls.”
Where is your evidence that any Dem has ever sought to keep illegal voters on the voting rolls?! And you say that’s not either a “hysterical rambling” or taking “any position”??
Really? Because every state has a requirement under HAVA for clearing voting rolls of illegal voters, and I’m unaware of the DOJ suing any of them for doing so.
Moreover, while the DOJ has rejected preclearance for Photo ID laws in SC and TX, based on their legal duty to review state evidence in jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, evidence which, in those two case, showed clear discrimination in the law, they have not — to their shame — filed suit in TN, PA, KS, WI and several other states which passed Photo ID restrictions.
They should. It’s outrageous that they haven’t, as Ernie reported here, but to say what I just quoted you saying above just makes you look even more ridiculous. (And completely wrong. Again.)
If you have any evidence to prove otherwise, feel free to share it. (Don’t Google too hard, you’ll come up empty, because you’re completely wrong. Again. No matter what Fox “News” tells you. But feel free to have at it! You can even give me links to RW websites, so long as they have links to independently verifiable sourcing. Thanks!)
I don’t want it to seem like I’m beating a dead horse, but I find it troubling that so many in the MSM simply repeat the variable claims by FL officials that the purge has established either 50 or 105 non-citizens who are registered to vote.
In the case of the misidentified, there have been specific examples, e.g., U.S. citizens like Bill Internicola, the 91-year old, Brooklyn-born, World War II veteran and Bronze Star recipient who fought in the Battle of the Bulge.
If, as FL officials now claim, the purge has netted 105 non-citizens, then FL officials should reveal the names of those allegedly illegally registered non-citizens so that the press can independently verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of this new “official claim.â€