Full Version: Florida Felon List
There is currently a battle being waged between CNN and the state of Florida over voter purge lists.
CNN would like the names of the felons released so that the voter purge list may be independently verified before the 2004 election.
The opposing side believes that releasing the records serve no public interest.
I'm wondering why this is even an issue because of all the controversy with the last election in Florida. This election is likely to be just as close and we need to ensure that all votes are properly counted.
Questions for debate:
1. Should Florida be required to release its list of felons so that the list can be independently verified?
2. If the list is not released and the election this November comes down to the wire again in Florida, what implication do you think the last election and the state's refusal to release this list will have upon voter confidence in the system?
CNN would like the names of the felons released so that the voter purge list may be independently verified before the 2004 election.
QUOTE
In its complaint, CNN attorneys wrote "there is an enormous public interest in scrutinizing the potential disenfranchisement of such a large pool of citizens in what portends to be a closely contested presidential race."
QUOTE
The plaintiffs in the case say they want a full list so that its validity may be independently verified. Florida officials hired a private firm in 2000 to flag felons and released a list with 173,142 names, many of which proved to be inaccurate. In fact, hundreds of legitimate voters may have been turned away from precincts. President Bush ultimately won in Florida by 537 votes after a 36-day recount. The 25 electoral votes from the state resulted in Bush winning the presidency.
The opposing side believes that releasing the records serve no public interest.
QUOTE
It also argued that a broad release of those names would offer no public service, denying CNN's assertion that the list might disenfranchise the 47,000 people whose names are on the list. While the felons have been flagged in the database, state officials argued that none would be purged from rolls unless county supervisors determine through further research that the convictions are valid.
I'm wondering why this is even an issue because of all the controversy with the last election in Florida. This election is likely to be just as close and we need to ensure that all votes are properly counted.
Questions for debate:
1. Should Florida be required to release its list of felons so that the list can be independently verified?
2. If the list is not released and the election this November comes down to the wire again in Florida, what implication do you think the last election and the state's refusal to release this list will have upon voter confidence in the system?
Is any list of felons publicly available?
I ask this because I know with the recent push to "advertise" sex offenders, there is a bit of an issue over whether or not releasing such a list (of sex offenders) violates the felon's right to privacy.
Wouldn't the same apply here? Wouldn't releasing such a list violate the felons' right to privacy?
1. Should Florida be required to release its list of felons so that the list can be independently verified?
I think the right to privacy can be asserted here. I am not sure what "good" can come of it. Iis someone going to verify that the felons are indeed felons? How would CNN do that without more government help?
2. If the list is not released and the election this November comes down to the wire again in Florida, what implication do you think the last election and the state's refusal to release this list will have upon voter confidence in the system?
I don't want to assume anything, but Democrats will be upset about losing Florida regardless of any actions by the State of Florida, the Bush campaign, or Florida voters. If they lose, that is. If they lose, there will be some reason behind it (unfair ballots, felons who should have been able to vote
, or some other reason). That isn't so hard to predict. Would this be fuel for the fire? Sure. Will there be other fuel if the State of Florida gives in: yes.
I ask this because I know with the recent push to "advertise" sex offenders, there is a bit of an issue over whether or not releasing such a list (of sex offenders) violates the felon's right to privacy.
Wouldn't the same apply here? Wouldn't releasing such a list violate the felons' right to privacy?
1. Should Florida be required to release its list of felons so that the list can be independently verified?
I think the right to privacy can be asserted here. I am not sure what "good" can come of it. Iis someone going to verify that the felons are indeed felons? How would CNN do that without more government help?
2. If the list is not released and the election this November comes down to the wire again in Florida, what implication do you think the last election and the state's refusal to release this list will have upon voter confidence in the system?
I don't want to assume anything, but Democrats will be upset about losing Florida regardless of any actions by the State of Florida, the Bush campaign, or Florida voters. If they lose, that is. If they lose, there will be some reason behind it (unfair ballots, felons who should have been able to vote
, or some other reason). That isn't so hard to predict. Would this be fuel for the fire? Sure. Will there be other fuel if the State of Florida gives in: yes.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 24 2004, 06:20 PM)
There is currently a battle being waged between CNN and the state of Florida over voter purge lists.
CNN would like the names of the felons released so that the voter purge list may be independently verified before the 2004 election.
The opposing side believes that releasing the records serve no public interest.
I'm wondering why this is even an issue because of all the controversy with the last election in Florida. This election is likely to be just as close and we need to ensure that all votes are properly counted.
Questions for debate:
1. Should Florida be required to release its list of felons so that the list can be independently verified?
2. If the list is not released and the election this November comes down to the wire again in Florida, what implication do you think the last election and the state's refusal to release this list will have upon voter confidence in the system?
CNN would like the names of the felons released so that the voter purge list may be independently verified before the 2004 election.
QUOTE
In its complaint, CNN attorneys wrote "there is an enormous public interest in scrutinizing the potential disenfranchisement of such a large pool of citizens in what portends to be a closely contested presidential race."
QUOTE
The plaintiffs in the case say they want a full list so that its validity may be independently verified. Florida officials hired a private firm in 2000 to flag felons and released a list with 173,142 names, many of which proved to be inaccurate. In fact, hundreds of legitimate voters may have been turned away from precincts. President Bush ultimately won in Florida by 537 votes after a 36-day recount. The 25 electoral votes from the state resulted in Bush winning the presidency.
The opposing side believes that releasing the records serve no public interest.
QUOTE
It also argued that a broad release of those names would offer no public service, denying CNN's assertion that the list might disenfranchise the 47,000 people whose names are on the list. While the felons have been flagged in the database, state officials argued that none would be purged from rolls unless county supervisors determine through further research that the convictions are valid.
I'm wondering why this is even an issue because of all the controversy with the last election in Florida. This election is likely to be just as close and we need to ensure that all votes are properly counted.
Questions for debate:
1. Should Florida be required to release its list of felons so that the list can be independently verified?
2. If the list is not released and the election this November comes down to the wire again in Florida, what implication do you think the last election and the state's refusal to release this list will have upon voter confidence in the system?
Questions for debate:
1. Should Florida be required to release its list of felons so that the list can be independently verified?
Does one lose their right to privacy and to start a new life because they have in the past committed a crime? Whose business is it? As far as I know, if you have been convicted of a felony and have served the time sentenced(early release and parole) then the individual must petition the court to get back their voting rights. It isn't automatic.
I would venture a guess that most, don't want to go near a court room again.
I can't speak for any other state, but we recieved a letter from Arizona telling us that they were removing our names from the voter registration, before they removed it. (Moved to a different state). Hopefully they will do the same to those who are released from prison.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 25 2004, 06:11 AM)
Is any list of felons publicly available?
That is part of the issue. The list is supposed to be made available to any person that wants to see it, but the lawyers are arguing that doesn't include providing copies of the records:
QUOTE
In an argument against the lawsuit, lawyers for the state wrote that Florida law requires records "be open for personal inspection by any person," but there is no requirement that copies of the records be provided.
The issue here is that Florida is one of I believe 7 states that does not allow convicted felons to vote in an election. In the 2000 election there were allegations that hundreds of people who were not felons were on that list and thus were not allowed to vote in an election which was separated by only 527 votes or so.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 25 2004, 11:39 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 25 2004, 06:11 AM)
Is any list of felons publicly available?
That is part of the issue. The list is supposed to be made available to any person that wants to see it, but the lawyers are arguing that doesn't include providing copies of the records:
Can I go to Florida and petition to see a list of people convicted for shoplifting? for armed robbery?
Wouldn't that violate the felons' right to privacy if I could do that (which I am unclear if I can or not, I would guess not).
I understand the Florida felon controversy. I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that over 500 convicted felons intended to vote for Gore and turned out not to be felons. Of course, I don't think that's the core of the problem here.
Why hasn't a disenfranchised, non-felon bring a suit to clear his name, which would probably result in the courts forcing Florida to ensure that their felon list is accurate? Florida is already checking its list.
Why isn't an actual "victim" involved here?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 25 2004, 09:05 AM)
Can I go to Florida and petition to see a list of people convicted for shoplifting? for armed robbery?
I don't know that it lists the charges, but yes you can view the list if you go in person. source
QUOTE
The list of names is available for the public to see but not copy. Only special groups or organizations, such as political parties and candidates, can copy the list.
That is the way the law is written, so it isn't an issue of violating the privacy of felons because anyone can go look at the list, even non-residents.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Why hasn't a disenfranchised, non-felon bring a suit to clear his name, which would probably result in the courts forcing Florida to ensure that their felon list is accurate? Florida is already checking its list.
Why isn't an actual "victim" involved here?
Why isn't an actual "victim" involved here?
There have been complaints, that is why the 2000 election was so hotly contested. (source)
QUOTE
At least 1,100 voters wrongly were purged. With Democrats and African-Americans accounting for a disproportionately high percentage of the exclusions, the purge became one more reason to distrust the results of the 537-vote disputed election. Too many voters showed up at the polls and found out they could not cast ballots, based on the shoddy work of a private company that the state trusted too much.
The problem here is that the list wasn't re-verified during the recount process. The problem with this election is that the list needs to be independantly verified to assure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 25 2004, 09:24 AM)
The problem here is that the list wasn't re-verified during the recount process. The problem with this election is that the list needs to be independantly verified to assure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
What does "independant" mean? CNN? Suddenly the media has a constitutional function of verifying voting lists? What if their "independant" conclusions differ from the official state conclusion? Which one do we go with?
Most states, and apparently Florida as well, have mechanisms for people to vote who have been wrongly removed from the list. In some places it's called a "provisional ballot", others a "disputed ballot" and if the determination is made that a person was wrongly purged, their vote is then counted. From one of your sources, CJ......
QUOTE
Hill added that if a mistake was made removing any name from the list in 2000, the elections office was prepared to correct it.
“We were willing and able to restore anybody on elections day,” Hill said.
“We were willing and able to restore anybody on elections day,” Hill said.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 25 2004, 09:53 AM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 25 2004, 09:24 AM)
The problem here is that the list wasn't re-verified during the recount process. The problem with this election is that the list needs to be independantly verified to assure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
What does "independent" mean? CNN? Suddenly the media has a constitutional function of verifying voting lists? What if their "independent" conclusions differ from the official state conclusion? Which one do we go with?
The press frequently serves as a watchdog for the government. There is no constitutional right for them to do this, but I think that CNN has decided they are going to take an active role in making sure we have a fair election. They clearly feel the state isn't competent to verify the list itself and I believe for good reason, all one has to do is look at the 2000 election. To my knowledge not much has changed with election law in Florida since 2000, although I could be wrong.
If there was a dispute between what the press reported and what the state reported, then I suppose it would be left for the courts to decide, as it should be.
Having transparency of government is never a bad thing, especially as far as elections go. Can you honestly argue that we should stand by and tolerate something similar to happen in Florida as happened in 2000?
Independent does not have to mean CNN, but it seems they are the only ones stepping up and expressing concern, so they'll do.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
Most states, and apparently Florida as well, have mechanisms for people to vote who have been wrongly removed from the list. In some places it's called a "provisional ballot", others a "disputed ballot" and if the determination is made that a person was wrongly purged, their vote is then counted. From one of your sources, CJ......
QUOTE
Hill added that if a mistake was made removing any name from the list in 2000, the elections office was prepared to correct it.
“We were willing and able to restore anybody on elections day,” Hill said.
“We were willing and able to restore anybody on elections day,” Hill said.
There are published procedures, but were any of them acted upon on election day? Clearly these people noticed they had their name on the list and thought it was wrong. Were they informed of their methods of addressing this problem at the voting booth?
Were these same people reconsidered during the recount process?
The answer to both is a resounding "NO". It doesn't matter if you have a procedure in place if 1) you don't inform people of it in a timely manner or 2) it is unreasonably difficult to act upon. The fact that these votes were not counted implies that at least one of the two of the aforementioned items was true.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.