Dread Scott?

Must we now dread Scott?
A little over a week ago, I wrote about Florida’s importance in the upcoming election, and the efforts of the Republican governor there to disenfranchise Floridians who are likely to vote Democratic. There have been further developments in the story.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit in an effort to block Governor Rick Scott’s attempt to purge minorities from the voter rolls. In response, Governor Scott announced his intent to sue the Department of Homeland Security to gain access to a database he says will assist his efforts.
Governor Scott’s controversial program is intended, he says, to ensure that non-citizens in Florida don’t vote. The state is matching information on driver’s licenses (which often includes citizenship status) against lists of registered voters. Over 2,600 letters were sent — 87 percent to African-Americans and Hispanics — informing selected voters that they would be dropped from the voting rolls unless they could prove their citizenship within thirty days. Many of the people indicated as non-citizens on their licenses have since become citizens, and simply not altered their records. In Miami-Dade County, forty of those receiving notice have been shown to be non-citizens. More than five hundred have already supplied proof of citizenship, providing (so far) more than a ten-to-one ratio of false positives.
DOJ has pointed out that Florida is one of sixteen states with a proven history of suppressing minority votes. According to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, these states may alter neither their voting procedures nor their voter registration laws without federal approval. Since this attempted purge of the voting lists was not preapproved, it is illegal.
Furthermore, federal law prohibits any state from removing voters from the rolls within ninety days of an election — and Florida has a primary coming up on August 14. There is nothing about Governor Scott’s efforts that is either reasonable or legal, and the DOJ has ordered him to stop.
Other organizations are also weighing in. A Hispanic civic organization and two naturalized citizens — backed by the The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — have also filed suit to halt the voter purge, and specifically named Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner as a defendant. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL) and the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, have joined the suit.
As of a few days ago, county election officials throughout Florida have halted efforts to comply with Governor Scott’s voter purge. Vicki Davis, president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections, said, “Too many voters on the state’s list turned out to actually be citizens.”
None of this deters Governor Scott, who has pledged to forge ahead, and has accused the Department of Justice of “stonewalling” his program. Despite the Voting Rights Act, and despite violating the law by removing voters too close to an election, the Governor has announced plans to sue the Department of Homeland Security for access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, to allow him to continue purging registered voters. This is neither the purpose nor the intended use of this database, so Florida has been denied permission to use it. Additionally, “Justice officials said it takes more than a name or birthdate to prove a match in the federal immigration database and that Florida has already conceded it doesn’t have the right data.”
We often hear of Republican desires for “tort reform,” to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits clogging our judicial system. Governor Scott’s suit should be considered a standard-bearer in this regard.
In 2000, thousands of registered voters, most of them black, were turned away from Florida’s polls. Voting machines in Florida’s heavily Democratic and Jewish districts registered a surprisingly large number of votes for independent candidate Pat Buchanan. Buchanan himself stated that he believed most of those votes were intended for Vice President Al Gore. These and other irregularities gave Governor George W. Bush enough votes to give America eight years of his administration. It seems clear that Rick Scott is attempting to manufacture a similar outcome for former Governor Mitt Romney.
This drama is far from over. Stay tuned.
Related articles
Florida and feds sue each other over noncitizen purge controversy(miamiherald.com)
Florida’s voter purge sparks lawsuits between state and feds(kansascity.com)
Rick Scott to Sue DHS for Access to Immigration Data for Voter Purge List(news.firedoglake.com)
Department of Justice Sues Florida Over Voter Purge(theobamacrat.com)

This entry was posted by dcpetterson on June 13, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
Governor Scott has a history of wonderful-sounding efforts to “clean up” this or that program that Tea Party types think is failing, in the absence of actual data.
Take, for example, the effort to “clean up” welfare rolls by drug testing applicants.
This effort, predictably, cost the State of Florida more than it saved, and predictably, had to be halted by court injunction as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights to boot.
Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.
The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.
The state’s net loss? $45,780.
“That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy,” Newton said.
The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.
The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use.
“It’s not about money, it’s about the drug issue,” said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. “It’s about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs.”
Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said the governor agreed: The drug welfare law is about protecting children and getting parents back to work.
“It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs,” she said.
-
Again, why do conservatives hate democracy? Rhetorical.
Voter suppression, making it more difficult for minorities/seniors etc. to register, robocalls telling people to vote on Wednesday, unnecessary ID requirements re: voter fraud ie a solution in search of a problem …
To answer my rhetorical question, conservatives are totally pissed an African/American was easily elected the 44th President of the United States of America! turnin’ Republican’s world completely upside down
and they’re using everything within their power to prevent his re-election, legal or otherwise ~ politically, legislatively er lack thereof and judicially.(2) words ~ sore losers! or more to the point, three words ~ bigoted sore losers!
-
-
#5 written by Max 11 months ago
-
Mono,
“It’s not about money, it’s about the drug issue,” said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. “It’s about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs.”
This is interesting because Teapers were insisting, just a year or two ago, that they were all about fiscal responsibility, and didn’t care so much about social issues. This particular quote, while it may or may not be typical of today’s Teapers, implies the exact opposite.
-
-
-
Florida Governor Rick Scott Now Less Popular Than Very Unpopular Lebron James
“A new poll conducted by the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling shows Florida Governor Rick Scott, with a 31 percent approval rating, is less popular amongst Floridians than the highly polarizing Miami Heat star LeBron James, who pips Scott with a 32 percent rating.
If Scott’s poor approval rating wasn’t enough, the new poll also shows he is 12 points behind the first declared Democratic candidate for the 2014 governor’s race, State Senate Minority Leader Nan Rich, who holds a 47 to 35 lead in a hypothetical race. Even worse, Rich has only 14 percent name recognition amongst Floridians, “giving credibility to the theory that literally anyone could beat Scott in 2014,” the report writes.
Scott’s 31 percent approval rating is not the worse he has polled—in December he was the least popular governor in the country with a 26 percent approval rating. LeBron’s favorability is up from 22 percent last July.
The poll also shows that, like Obama and voters in several other states, some Florida voters have undergone an evolution on their gay marriage views. Support for legalizing same sex marriage has grown by 5 points since last October, though same-sex marriage opponents still lead supporters 45 to 42 percent. The state has both a law and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.”
>
Emphasis mine.
>
Interesting Lebron pissed off Ohio by taking his talents to South Beach!, whereas Scott is pissing off most everyone in FL just by his very existence lol.
Ohio/Ohio/Ohio ~ Florida/Florida/Florida
As again, the Rep 2012 convention in Tampa should be quite, how shall I say, festive!
-
#11 written by Rose 11 months ago
I used to think that the photo ID or even proof of citizenship requirement wasn’t such a big deal until the following was pointed out to me.
This is difficult for many of the elderly rural poor, especially in the South. These people were born at home and have no birth certificates to show, just an entry (maybe) in a family Bible. They don’t have the money, resources, or know how to get proof of citizenship.
Even having to provide a simple photo ID can be difficult if you are impoverished and old. It can require travel to a State office of some kind and paying a fee, which may be needed more for food or medicine. -
Ultimately the fundamental question is whether a particular policy will reduce illegitimate votes by a greater number than legitimate votes. If the only goal is to eliminate all illegitimate votes at all cost, the solution is much simpler than voter roll purges: stop having elections. Anything less, and the discussion necessarily has to be about the balance between false positives and false negatives.
-
Rose,
That is precisely so. And this is why even Max’s suggestion — to simply require everyone to re-register — is onerous and discriminatory.
It’s part of the reason America does not have a national ID card, or requirements to show passports at state borders.
In the absense of an actual problem, the only purpose these laws serve is to suppress voting in selected communities.
The alternative is to accept that no system can be perfect. Even a voter ID system can be gamed, and will miss most of the most flagrant kinds of vote fraud (ballot-box stuffing, intentional miscounts, stolen or forged ID’s, and so on).
This idea — that you can eliminate 100% of a risk — is absurd. In a free society, one must accept that there is risk, and that there will be some small amount of abuse of that freedom. That’s the danger (and the promise!) of any free society.
The only other course is totalitarianism, because the only way to avoid all possibility of vote fraud is to have no voting whatever.
There is no evidence that “vote fraud” of the kinds that these new suppression laws claim to address is actually hapening, and even les evidence (less than none) that is has swayed a single election in the last, oh, half century. The only possible effect of these laws is to disenfranchise selected communities of legitimate voters.
-
#15 written by WA7th 11 months ago
-
Actually, Scott is a lot like McDonnell of VA ie Scott will not be running for a second term because he has no chance of winning the 2014 Rep primary, soooo he feels free to do any damn thing he pleases like voter suppression, whereas McDonnell, who likes vaginal probes
is term limited by law.And Scott also compares w/kasich ie he got 48.87% and kasich got 49%. Soooo 2010 was a wave election for the Rep party and yet neither Scott/Kasich could get 50%.
Maybe a group picture of mittens/Scott/kasich/McDonnell
at the 2012 Rep convention. Yea, that’s the ticket! lol -
#18 written by Max 11 months ago
And this is why even Max’s suggestion — to simply require everyone to re-register — is onerous and discriminatory.
And I have NOT pretended it is not onerous, as compared to doing nothing! Discriminatory, meh.
The fact that EVERYBODY has to jump through the same hoop negates that assertion. Rose’s fear of “elderly without birth certificates” is a bit dated as EVERY state has had it’s birth records for a century or more. (SC was last in 1915) So there are very few, very old folks that would be affected.
Understand, this is not a position that I am advocating. I am simply stating that IF such laws are to be passed, this will be the “most fair” way of implimentation.
-
#19 written by rgbact 11 months ago
Interesting the obsession Democrats have developed with what goes on in states these days. Whether its a national recall campaign of WI,or a national boycott campaign of AZ, or ripping on FL voting rules or VA abortion law hysteria —it appears Democrats would rather declare war on certain states than actually run the Federal govt.
Democrats likely will be down to 18 governors after Nov, I believe an all time low. If Obama is reëlected, I predict nearly an all out war between the Feds and the states as the DOJ will likely be dedicated full time to suing states over their laws and governors band together to ignore Fed dictates like PPACA.Wonder if Shiloh’s favorite propagandist…er, pollster, PPP, will ever do a poll on Gov Quinn’s approval here in IL.
-
#20 written by Max 11 months ago
Interesting the obsession Democrats have developed with what goes on in states these days. Whether its a national recall campaign of WI,or a national boycott campaign of AZ, or ripping on FL voting rules or VA abortion law hysteria
Wha ? Really? Are you truly that naïve, rgbact?
You DO UNDERSTAND that there are political parties in the states, right? You do understand that “all politics is local”, right?
You DO UNDERSTAND that we DO NOT have nationwide elections, right? That although voting and other things are regulated by the individual states, those states MUST follow the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, and if they do NOT, they are subject to legal action under the Constitution.
And MAINLY, you DO UNDERSTAND that (as was the case with the apostle Paul, a Greek citizen, but also a citizen of Rome) although we are citizens of our respective states, we are also citizens of the United States with rights under the supreme law of the United States, right?
rgbact, I truly believe you to be a smart individual, who believes mightily in your ideology and I respect that. I do not particularly relish pounding on you on a regular basis. But when you make such ridiculous, inane and poorly thought out statements such as this, . . . !
-
#21 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
Again, rgbact’s ad nauseam inane/childish deflections notwithstanding, also interesting in the 2010 wave election for Reps that Quinn, a Dem, got elected governor of IL after two/three years of the Blago scandal. Sorry rgbact.
So rgbact’s teabagger sour grapes aside, maybe he should relocate to a more conservative state like ID or WY.
>
grog, at least in previous threads you attempted cogent arguments re: Reps continual disenfranchisement of voters, whereas now you just call it nonsense, wisely having given up the ghost after losing several discussions.
Congrats on being pithy re: losing previous debates.
>
grog, is Rick 31% up from 26% in December lol Scott your hero?
take care
-
-
-
-
#26 written by rgbact 11 months ago
the 2010 wave election for Reps that Quinn, a Dem, got elected governor of IL after two/three years of the Blago scandal.
Clearly they didn’t want to break their string of governors being sent to prison. But thanks for a flashback to a great past Dem governor—Blago. But don’t forget about Spitzer (aka Client #9) and Corzine (the smartest guy Joe Biden knows). Maybe thats why Dems are bitter and obsessing about tearing down a GOP governor and finding a “GOP Blago” to help gain back some states. -
#27 written by shortchain 11 months ago
You know, I find it rather offensive when people characterize anybody commenting about some politico as “obsessing”. It’s a misuse of the term, which has a pretty specific meaning, and it’s merely an attempt to frame the argument in a manner in which only one side can be given credence.
If there’s any “obsession” in today’s politics, it’s the one the GOP has with Barack Obama. As I’ve mentioned in previous threads, every call I get from a conservative organization and every email I get from the RNC are focused totally on Obama, not on policy, and not on specific actions.
So let’s drop it, OK?
-
rgbact, do you have any arguments that are not false-equivalence tu quoque–type arguments? Are you capable of discussing any subjects on their own merits, or must every argumetn be of the type, “Oh yeah? Well your gramma sucks eggs!!!”
I mean seriously, try responding to an actual point someone makes. That can be fun, too!
-
#30 written by rgbact 11 months ago
I mean seriously, try responding to an actual point someone makes. That can be fun, too!
Sorry, the thread was dying so I though I’d break into Shiloh-esque mindless hackery for a bit. It can be fun. C’mon, its not like the “well Bush was worse” excuse isn’t used relentlessly. So I thought I’d reflect on some past governors…especially since liberals seem intent on running against nearly every GOP governor this year. -
#31 written by Max 11 months ago
try responding to an actual point someone makes. That can be fun, too!
Now, now, dc. How much fun could he have explaining how Reagan tripled the debt in HIS 8 years, when it would take Obama running up the debt to $33 TRILLION to do the same? Or all the Reagan folks indicted during Iran-Contra! Or Bush commuting Scooter’s prison time after Libby’s conviction!
-
-
-
#34 written by DrFunguy 11 months ago
Re. an ‘obsession’ with the states, the Democrats are in the company of the founders one of whom famously said:
A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals against encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil.
– James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787. -
#35 written by Max 11 months ago
-
#36 written by DrFunguy 11 months ago
Max,
I don’t have any expectations of the winger-troll community herein except that they will ignore any evidence contrary to their dearly held beliefs. The issue of states rights is one over which they appear to be particularly conflicted: states rights always trump federal except when they don’t (Bush v Gore, DOMA, euthanasia laws, etc.). There is no logical consistency sought in such cases, it is enough that the state pass a law to which conservatives object, then they go all federalist for a nanosecond. -
#37 written by Max 11 months ago
DFg,
I’m having a similar debate on another site over drug testing welfare recipients. OK, then let’s test all CEO’s and Boards of Directors of all companies that receive ANY form of government money and tax breaks, ag companies and families that do so, Social Security and Medicare recipients.
Ya oughta hear the squawking! -
Max,
At least that way the American People would learn some important lessons about false positives and the sensitivity and reproducibility of medical tests.
Say, for example, that you screen a population where 1% are regular drug users. If the false positive rate is 5% (probably an underestimate) on the initial screen, then there will be 5 times as many false positives as true positives.
Of course, that will (mostly) be sorted out in the secondary screening process, but look at the numbers in comment #2 above: at $35 a pop, we end up costing the Evil Gubmint 50% more than we save, not to mention the Fourth Amendment issues that arise.
No wonder Tea Party advocates believe gubmint is inefficient. Holy Individual Mandate! What if we mandate monthly drug screening for ALL Americans!
-
#42 written by shortchain 11 months ago
-
#43 written by mclever 11 months ago
It’s the false positive aspect that so few people seem to grasp. People expect test results to be black-n-white. They don’t understand that even with 95% accuracy, that means 5% of the time someone gets a “positive” result when there’s really nothing there. Those 5% mean the expenses of follow-up testing and the stigma associated with false or misplaced suspicion. Happened to one of the IT guys at the company I worked for in Dallas, where they did random testing and he came back with a positive result. Follow ups showed nothing–he was clean, but our boss never really trusted him again even though he was one of the top guys on the team. He ended up leaving the company because he couldn’t take the aura of suspicion that clung to him despite never having done anything wrong.
It’s the issue of false positives that also recently caused medical experts to back away from advising things like regular prostate screening and breast cancer screening for all 40 yr olds.
In the cases of prostrate cancer, the treatment for a false positive is far more harmful than delayed detection of an extremely slow-growing and usually relatively benign form of cancer. In some instances, the treatment killed the patient faster than prostate cancer would have. Even getting a true positive is almost useless, and it’s even worse when you factor in the high number of false positives where the patient undergoes unnecessary, expensive, and emotionally-charged treatments for no reason.
In the cases of breast cancer for women with no primary risk factors, 9 times out of 10, the positive test result sends the poor woman through all of the emotional turmoil of being diagnosed with cancer, the expensive follow-up screening and biopsies, only to find out after a year of back-n-forth that there was nothing there. It’s expensive, frustrating, and futile. I know the Susan G. Komen folks don’t like it, but for most healthy women in their 40’s, the minimal likely benefits are swamped by the costs. The obvious exception is if you have a known risk, then early testing makes sense. For most women, the risk of a false positive makes it a losing proposition to get a mammogram just because she turned 40.
Perhaps you’re right, Max/Monotreme. If we mandated drug testing for everyone who receives any sort of government aid, people would quickly realize how expensive and counter-productive the false-positives are, and why it’s better practice to only test when there’s already reason for suspicion. And, no, being on welfare does not count as an automatic reason for suspicion any more than being a rich, white CEO does. -
#44 written by mclever 11 months ago
@shortchain
“It is beyond important — vital, really — that our legislature and executive do not participate in illegal drug use.”
Good point. Our tax dollars pay their salaries. We don’t want legislators spending our tax dollars on drugs! Mandatory drug testing for anyone in elected office!!
-
#45 written by mclever 11 months ago
Actually, the issue of false positives makes me wonder about the recent Lance Armstrong allegations. He’s been tested something like 500 times without getting caught, but now all of a sudden years after he quit cycling they’re getting a positive result??
(As an aside, the cynical side of me has trouble imagining that he was able to so consistently win at cycling without cheating in some fashion, considering everyone he beat was also cheating. Are we supposed to believe that he was some sort of superhuman able to beat all of the cheaters without any extra help? But, I also think there should be a statute of limitations on revisiting the poor guy’s blood samples. What are they going to do, come back in 50 years and revoke all of his titles because they finally “confirmed” a positive result after he’s no longer around to dispute it?) -
#46 written by shortchain 11 months ago
Mac,
And let’s not forget the judiciary! Those black robes would hide needle marks! Test everybody who takes a dime from the government. (And then the rest of the population wouldn’t have enough political clout to prevent testing from becoming universal, and the value of my investment in drug-testing technology would make me wealthy.)
-
#47 written by mclever 11 months ago
@shortchain
Absolutely! Test every judge, attorney general, police chief, everyone on down through judiciary to law enforcement! (For those of you who can’t tell whether I’m serious or not, please check the settings on your sarcasm detectors…)
If such a law ever makes it through Congress, I’ll be buying pantloads of Quest and PMD before the President’s ink is dry.
And I’ll be ready to dump it at the first signs of a repeal working its way through the legislature…
-
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
- Cruzin’ for a Bruzin’
- Supreme Court Watch: Salinas v. Texas
- Supreme Court Watch: Shelby County v. Holder
- Supreme Court Watch: Missouri v. McNeely
- Gravis Marketing: A Deeper Analysis
- Ballot Watch: The South (Part 2, The Swinging South)
- Shot to the Foot
- Ballot Watch: Obamacare
- The Battle for Florida
- Rights Wronged
About dcpetterson (186 posts)
D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He is the author of A Melancholy Humour, Rune Song and Still Life. He lives with his wife, two dogs, two cats, and a lizard, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar and piano, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts—for fun. Follow on Twitter @dcpetterson






A simple Temporary Restraining Order immediately halts Scott’s efforts. It also is followed with an Order to Show Cause, as to why the TRO is not to be made permanent, and the process must take it’s course.
The basis of the TRO would easily be the false positive ratio. The OSC would include a relief prayer calling for, should the State of Florida wish to continue in a legal manner (not violating the existing Voting Rights and Voter Registration Laws, then they would have to conclusively demonstrate that the “list” of purge candidates is substantially more accurate than the one currently in use, and that the State set forth a time frame significantly longer than the 30 days currently for the citizen to be able to prove that status, before being purged.
Once again, treating all citizens equally, simply requiring ALL voters to renew their voter registration in person, providing appropriate identification, and receiving a photo ID voter registration card, to be accomplished with a minimum full election cycle (2 year) time frame, leapfrogging the next election.
Reasonable lead time. No voter “targeted”, everybody complies, no grandfathering. Citizenship and identification question resolved. Voter registration offices have time to scale up for the demand. If there is still concern about procrastination, then in the second year, each month one who had not yet renewed, would have to renew during their birth month.
All problems solved.