Ask Them Why

Last week on the House floor, Representative Corrine Brown (D FL) accused her Republican colleagues of stealing the 2000 presidential election. Her outburst was in response to Representative Steven Buyer's (R IND) proposed amendment to HR4818, relating to "appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs." Buyer's amendment (H.AMDT.701) required "that none of the funds made available in the Act may be used by any official of the United States Government to request the United Nations to assess the validity of elections in the United States." This amendment was meant as a means to obstruct the request that Corrine Brown and seven other members of Congress made in a letter to Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations on July 1, 2004. In their letter, the eight Representatives requested that the Electoral Assistance Division of the United Nations Department of Political Affairs "send election observers to monitor the presidential election in the United States scheduled for November 2, 2004." "We are deeply concerned," the Representatives wrote, "that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy."

As you may know, the 2000 presidential election was steeped in controversy. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan federal agency, investigated widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement and questionable practices in the state of Florida relating to the purging of names from voter registration lists, methods of balloting, and the independence of counting and certification procedures. In a report released in June 2001, the Commission found that the electoral process in Florida resulted in the denial of the right to vote for countless persons and further that the "disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters" and in poor counties.

It was not shocking that the Republican majority of the House unanimously voted to support Buyer's amendment. What was surprising was that 33 House Democrats also supported Buyer's amendment. If the 33 Democratic supporters of Buyer's amendment had reservations about the UN, a vote against Buyer's amendment would not have been a certain road to UN monitoring of US elections. A no vote, however, would have demonstrated support for the reenfranchisement of African American voters. A no vote would have made a show of understanding the state of emergency of the electoral system in Florida and in the nation as a whole—a state of emergency that federal and state measures will not be able to redress by this November. In 2001, in response to the tragic 2000 election, the Democratic National Committee formed the Voting Rights Institute as an "all out effort to ensure democracy is not denied in future elections" (press release). If there's been an all out effort in the last three years, there has not yet been any respectable advancement in guaranteeing the civil rights of African American voters in Florida.

            ***         ***         ***
Let's review some of the well known and some of the not so well known facts regarding the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections in Florida. There was a staggering array of problems in Florida's 2000 elections, far too numerous to list here. To get the whole picture, read the United States Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) 2001 report, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election. I am only going to touch upon a few of the problems found by the USCCR in their investigation, primarily spoiled ballots—ballots that were cast but not counted—and purged voter roles.

Regarding vote spoilage the USSCR found:

The disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters. The magnitude of the impact can be seen from any of several perspectives:

•Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have their ballots rejected.

•Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida’s black voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have their presidential votes counted.

•Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage rates—i.e., ballots cast but not counted—between black and nonblack voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush’s Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters account for less than 1 percent of the problems.

•Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American; however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000 spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual precinct data.

In anticipation of the November 2002 elections in Florida, the USCCR issued a briefing summary, Voting Rights in Florida 2002. The USCCR noted that

It was important for the Commission to revisit Florida to discuss the implementation and likely impact of Florida’s reforms. Unfortunately, the Commission found that the governor, the secretary of state, and other state elected officials are no longer willing to discuss voting rights and election reform.

On June 20, 2002, the USCCR held a briefing in Miami and heard testimony from "state and national organizations, local election officials, policy analysts, and voting rights organizations on the scope and implementation of the election reforms adopted in Florida." None of the high ranking state officials mentioned above showed up. After hearing the testimonies, the USCCR expressed substantial concerns that Florida's reforms did not:

•Remove the burden from the voter to prove registration status.

•Allow automatic restoration of voting rights to former felons who satisfied their sentences.

•Establish uniform hours for polling places.

The Commission was also alarmed that:

•Purging errors are still likely because the Division of Elections has not provided step-by-step instructions on how supervisors of elections should verify the accuracy of any information that may purge a voter from the central voter file.

•Sufficient funding for voter education, poll worker training, and the timely replacement of voting machinery to reduce ballot rejection or spoilage rates is uncertain.

•The absence of a process and timetable for identifying and promptly reinstating voters erroneously purged from voter rolls in 2000 may continue to disenfranchise voters.

November 1, 2002, on the eve of the 2002 Florida elections, Greg Palast published an exclusive article in Salon.com, Jeb Bush's Secret Weapon. Palast wrote:

There's another close race in Florida. This time, younger brother Jeb is fighting to fend off a challenge from Bill McBride for the governor's race. The Nov. 5 face-off could again come down to thousands, if not hundreds, of votes.

And even though the list has been widely condemned -- the company that created it admits probable errors -- the same voter scrub list, with more than 94,000 names on it, is still in operation in Florida. Moreover, DBT Online, which generated the disastrously flawed list, reports that if it followed strict criteria to eliminate those errors, roughly 3,000 names would remain -- and a whopping 91,000 people would have their voting rights restored.

Eventually the list will be fixed, state officials have promised, in accordance with a settlement with the NAACP in its civil rights suit against Florida following the 2000 election. But not until the beginning of next year -- and after Jeb Bush's reelection bid is long over. . . .

The state's list, most of which has been obtained and reviewed by Salon, contains such alleged criminals as Thomas Cooper, whose inclusion on the list represents either the dawning of a "Minority Report"-era of predicting criminal behavior -- or a glaring error. According to the list, Cooper is listed as a felon convicted on Jan. 30, 2007. In all, the list includes more than 400 people whose crimes were apparently committed in the future. More than 8,000 on the list have no conviction date at all. And eight, remarkably, appear to have been convicted before they were even born. . . .

The racial bent of the scrub list and its particular bias against Democrats -- was a foreseeable result of the purge methodology. African-Americans account for approximately 46 percent of felony convictions in the United States, so it's no surprise that ChoicePoint's report for the NAACP on its scrub lists found that less than half of those on the Florida list are identified as white. (The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires Florida to ask voters to state their race on registration forms.)

Florida's black voters are expected to cast ballots by at least 4-1 against Jeb Bush on Nov. 5, according to a recent Miami Herald poll. And a University of Minnesota study indicates that nine of 10 ex-cons, on leaving jail, vote Democratic, no matter their race.

Last Friday, a press release on Palast's blog stated:

The New York Times has reported that the State of Florida has stopped purging voters from registries. This is plain false, a canard traceable to the partisan office of the Florida Secretary of State.

In May, Governor Jeb Bush's appointed Secretary of State ordered local officials to begin removing 47,000 voters from registries, supposedly illegal "felon" voters. As in a similar list used in 2000, the new "purge" list turns out to contain few felons but many Democrats - four to one over targeted Republicans.

Excluding such innocent voters -- about half of them African American -- won Florida and the White House for the Bush family in 2000.

Given the problems which persisted in Florida, despite its legislature's passage in 2001 of the Florida Election Reform Act, it should have been encouraging that "The Commission urged Congress to act swiftly to set milestones and allocate sufficient funding for the development and delivery of federal election guidelines." However, "Congress did not act swiftly, but took two years to pass election reform legislation, and state implementation shows signs of being equally retarded."

Nearly two years after the November 2000 elections, and after a lengthy and divisive debate, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) [pdf], and President Bush signed it into law on October 29, 2002. . . .

HAVA authorizes distribution of $3.86 billion in federal aid over three fiscal years ($2.16 billion in 2003, $1.05 billion in 2004, and $650 million in 2005) to states for improving elections. HAVA sets dates and standards for rendering voting equipment, registration lists, and general election administration fair, accurate, and representative of the needs of America’s populace.

However, a year and a half since HAVA passed, many mandated milestones remain unmet. For example, HAVA required that, by 2004, states offer provisional ballots to voters, verify identities of first-time voters who register by mail, post voting information at polling places, and establish complaint procedures for cases in which voters experience problems at the polls. . . . [M]ost states have passed legislation necessary for those actions, but few have built the infrastructure, made purchases, or acted to implement all of the law’s requirements.

Although states are responsible for implementing election reform and ensuring compliance with HAVA, the federal government has the responsibility to provide funding and guidance to the states. ("Is America Ready To Vote: Election Readiness Briefing Paper," April 2004, 13 (pdf), web)

I have been reviewing a small subsection of Florida's failures in implementing election reform. "Is America Ready" also details the federal government's failures "to provide funding and guidance to the states."

By mid-June 2003, GSA [General Services Administration] had disbursed almost all of the $650 million in early money to the 55 jurisdictions covered by HAVA. Another $15 million was appropriated to reimburse some states that adopted new voting technology early. HHS [US Dept. of Health and Human Services] paid out $13 million to states for improving voting systems for individuals with disabilities, and another $2 million to state disability protection and advocacy systems. An additional $830 million appropriated in 2003 for “requirements payments” has not been distributed. Thus far, approximately 18 percent of the total $3.86 billion authorized (for fiscal years 2003–2005) has been distributed to states.
Without the money transferred to state coffers yet, it will be difficult if not impossible for states to have all systems in place by November. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) . . . was supposed to be established and acting independently within 120 days of HAVA’s passage (that is, by February 26, 2003). However, it was not until December 2003—nearly 10 months behind schedule—that its members were confirmed by Congress. EAC is responsible for reviewing and approving state grant requests. (Is America Ready, 15-16, emphasis added)

In its responsibility to provide guidance to states, the federal government has been alarmingly ineffectual:

Title III [of HAVA] directs EAC to adopt voluntary guidance for voting technology standards by January 1, 2004, for provisional voting by October 1, 2003, and for voter registration lists by October 1, 2003. HAVA establishes that the recommendations must be reviewed and updated at least once every four years. . . . EAC appointments were delayed 10 months; thus, it has not met any of the milestones so far. Nor has EAC begun a comprehensive review of the areas in which states are dependent on guidance before they act, such as equipment and registration list technology; it has offered no commitment for when it will make guidelines available. EAC met for the first time as a formal body on March 23, 2004, but it is still without office space, designated staff, or basic administrative infrastructure. (Is America Ready, 18, emphasis added)

At the same time that Florida, along with the other United States, lacks funding and oversight to properly administer required electoral reforms, there continue to be disconcerting flaws in the measures Florida has succeeded in taking. Just last month, Florida's Democratic Representative Robert Wexler issued a press release that included his June 8 letter to Florida's Attorney General, Charlie Crist:

[R]ecent developments in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties have fueled serious concerns about Florida's flawed elections system. A recent article printed on Saturday, May 15, 2004 in the Miami Herald cites that Election System & Software (ES&S), which makes touch-screen voting machines for Miami-Dade, Broward and the nine other ES&S counties, "will need to have to work around a glitch in the machines' auditing systems because the software that would correct it will not be certified by the state in time for the fall elections."

In order to solve this costly and widespread problem, laptops will apparently need to be purchased and attached to each of the 6,600 or so voting machines to extract voting information. The same format will be developed in Broward County where there are approximately 6,020 touch-screen voting machines. The error in this decision is that this process of extracting information from the touch-screen voting machines has not gone through the proper Florida certification standards that all other voting equipment must adhere to; therefore, it is unlikely that the problem will be fixed before Election Day (emphasis added).

Wexler goes on to enumerate questionable abdications of responsibility for these problems by Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood and Division of Elections Chief Ed Kast—officials who both refused to meet with the USCCR in 2002 to discuss voting rights and election reform.

Assesing the nation as a whole, the USCCR concludes:

[T]he potential is real and present for significant problems on voting day that once again will compromise the right to vote. Avoiding this will require unprecedented effort by all with authority and responsibility for implementing HAVA and voting generally, and will necessitate extraordinary cooperation and coordination between federal and state officials, as well as among various state and local officials.

The federal government could consider adopting an emergency posture and use all available means to ensure that every eligible citizen can vote and have his or her vote counted. Securing voting rights was the result of many acts of courage, determination, and sacrifice. When the right to vote is infringed, whether by poor planning or intentional actions, the nation as a whole suffers. As President Lyndon Johnson foreshadowed in 1965, the denial to any group of citizens the right to vote should raise concerns about the system’s integrity as a whole. (Is America Ready, 54)

To its own question, Is America Read to Vote?, the USCCR does not make a direct answer, but the findings in their April 2004 study add up to a resounding NO! If the suggestion here is that an "emergency posture" is needed "to ensure that every eligible citizen can vote and have his or her vote counted" in the nation as a whole—then the emergency in Florida must be some order of magnitude greater, something more like an impending catastrophe.

            ***         ***         ***
I want each of the 33 Democratic Representatives who voted with the Republicans on Representative Buyer's amendment to explain why they voted against UN monitoring of the 2004 Florida elections. I can think of three Democratic objections to UN monitors of a US election:

1. It would be an international embarrassment.

Why is it more embarrassing to have UN election inspectors in Florida than it is to have the world know we are not able to conduct fair elections in Florida or in the US as a whole?

2. The Representative or the Representative's constituents don't trust the UN.

The evidence is clear that we cannot trust our current electoral mechanisms and in some states, like Florida, we cannot trust the officials who administer our electoral mechanisms. What evidence is there that we cannot trust neutral outside observers from the UN? Our own resources to address this fundamental failure of democracy have been insufficient to guarantee anything but more civil rights disasters in the 2004 elections.

3. The Democratic National Committee's Voting Right's Institute has pledged "to make sure that every legitimate ballot that is cast is counted and we are going to deploy 10,000 lawyers across the country to reinforce the point" and, therefore, outside monitors are unnecessary.

If the feds and the states and the existing mechanisms in various stages of reform can't do it, how can an army of volunteers, solicited on the DNC website? Whatever the the VRI may find, it will be impossible for them to say anything that will not be dismissed as partisan. I also have to say that the VRI's activities are so poorly documented on the DNC website, that it's hard to have much confidence that the VRI will serve any function beyond sorry-you-got-screwed-but-see-we-tried PR.

Whether it was for one of these three reasons or others I haven't considered, the 33 Democratic Representatives need to explain themselves. Their yes votes on H.AMDT.701 to HR4818 implied that they stand with their Republican colleagues in opposition to true democracy.

Let's ask them why.

Below are the 33 Democratic Representatives in question. If you're from their state—and especially if you live in their district—use the contact information below to ask them to issue a press release on why they voted with the Republicans on H.AMDT.701 to HR4818.

(Note: I have not found an existing list of the 33 Democrats who voted yes on Buyer's amendment. I compiled the list by comparing this with this . It is possible that I've made errors. Corrections are welcome.)

Florida
1. Allen Boyd (D - FL02) 202-225-5235 (DC phone) 202-225-5615 (DC Fax)
Georgia
2. Jim Marshall (D - GA03) 202-225-6531 (DC phone) 202-225-3013 (DC Fax)
Illinois
3. William O. Lipinski (D - IL03) 202-225-5701 (DC phone) 202-225-1012 (DC Fax)
4. Jerry F. Costello (D - IL12) 202-225-5661(DC phone) 202-225-0285 (DC Fax)
Kentucky
5. Ben Chandler (D - KY06) 202-225-4706 (DC phone) 202-225-2122 (DC Fax)
ben.chandler@mail.house.gov
Louisiana
6. Rodney Alexander (D - LA05) 202-225-8490 (DC phone) 202-225-5639 (DC Fax)
Minnesota
7. Collin C. Peterson (D - MN07) 202-225-2165 (DC phone) 202-225-1593 (DC Fax)
Montana
8. Ike Skelton (D - MO04) 202-225-2876 (DC phone) 202-225-2695 (DC Fax) web form
Mississippi
9. Gene Taylor (D - MS04) 202-225-5772 (DC phone) 202-225-7074 (DC Fax)
North Carolina
10. Mike McIntyre (D - NC07) 202-225-2731(DC phone) 202-225-5773 (DC Fax)
North Dakota
11. Earl Pomeroy (D - North Dakota At Large) 202-225-2611 (DC phone) 202-226-0893 (DC Fax)
New Jersey
12. Robert E. Andrews (D - NJ01) 202-225-6501(DC phone) 202-225-6583 (DC Fax)
New York
13. Michael R. McNulty (D - NY21) 202-225-5076 (DC phone) 202-225-5077 (DC Fax)
Oklahoma
14. Brad Carson (D - OK02) 202-225-2701(DC phone) 202-225-3038 (DC Fax)
Oregon
15. Peter A. DeFazio (D - OR04) 202-225-6416 (DC phone) 202-225-0032 (DC Fax)
Pennsylvania
16. Tim Holden (D - PA17) 202-225-5546 (DC phone) 202-226-0996 (DC Fax)
South Carolina
17. John M. Spratt, Jr. (D - SC05) 202-225-5501 (DC phone) 202-225-0464 (DC Fax)
South Dakota
18. Stephanie Herseth (D - South Dakota At Large) 202-225-2801 (DC phone) 202-225-5823 (DC Fax)
Tennessee
19. Lincoln Davis (D - TN04) 202-225-6831 (DC phone) 202-226-5172 (DC Fax)
20. Jim Cooper (D - TN05) 202-225-4311 (DC phone) 202-226-1035 (DC Fax) web form
21. Bart Gordon (D - TN06) 202-225-4231 (DC phone) 202-225-6887 (DC Fax)
22. John S. Tanner (D - TN08) 202-225-4714 (DC phone) 202-225-1765 (DC Fax)
Texas
23. Max Sandlin (D - TX01) 202-225-3035 (DC phone) 202-225-5866 (DC Fax)
24. Jim Turner (D - TX02) 202-225-2401 (DC phone) 202-225-5955 (DC Fax) web form
25. Chet Edwards (D - TX11) 202-225-6105 (DC phone) 202-225-0350 (DC Fax)
26. Martin Frost (D - TX24) 202-225-3605 (DC phone) 202-225-4951 (DC Fax)
27. Gene Green (D - TX29) 202-225-1688 (DC phone) 202-225-9903 (DC Fax)
Utah
28. James D. Matheson (D - UT02) 202-225-3011 (DC phone) 202-225-5638 (DC Fax)
Washington
29. Richard R. Larsen (D - WA02) 202-225-2605 (DC phone 202-225-4420 (DC Fax)
rick.larsen@mail.house.gov
30. Brian Baird (D - WA03) 202-225-3536 (DC phone) 202-225-3478 (DC Fax) web form
31. Norman D. Dicks (D - WA06) 202-225-5916 (DC phone 202-226-1176 web form
32. Adam Smith (D - WA09) 202-225-8901 (DC phone) 202-225-5893 (DC Fax)
Wisconsin
33. Ron Kind (D - WI03) 202-225-5506 (DC phone) 202-225-5739 (DC Fax) web form