This author has gotten his facts wrong:
If you commit a felony in Florida, you lose your right to vote there, and you‘re “scrubbed” from the rolls. You become a non-citizen, like in the old Soviet Union. This is not the case in most other states; it’s an uncivilized vestige of the Deep South.
Actually, 46 states and the District of Columbia restrict the right of felons to vote in some manner; 9 states, only 4 of which are in the South, restrict them altogether.
crime.about.com (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming)
My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime – except for being African American. We didn’t have to guess about that, because next to each voter’s name was their race.
Really. And yet out of 57,700 names which were scrubbed, this same report says that "There were 8,000 Floridians who had committed misdemeanors, but were counted as felons" and that "Harris’ office illegally scrubbed people who’d served time in other states, then moved to Florida." Out of 57,700 names, if 90.2 were completely innocent of any crime except being African-American, how is it that more than ten percent (8,000) had admittedly committed misdemeanors? How is it that still more had served time in other states (most time served is for felonies, though of course this "analysis" doesn't tell you that)? Looks to me like the author assumed (because of his own notions of racism) that because 90.2 percent of the scrubbed voters were African-American they were innocent.
We also don't hear how many people challenged being knocked off the rolls, and were successful.
When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn‘t. He didn’t even bother to ask how the machines were set up
I saw Koppel's report, and I believe (though I don't have a transcript) that the issue of the machines was mentioned. In any event, Koppel's history of factualness is far better than Mr. Scheff's appears to be from this article.
Voters in the affected counties also have the right not only to challenge their exclusion with Ms. Harris and Governor Bush, but also with federal officials (who at the time were overseen by the Clinton Administration). In the course of the vote controversy which dragged on for a month, you can bet that if Al Gore and his legal team had thought they could make a case of these voters, they would have. Instead, they focused on counting votes only where they thought they might win, and media recounts have shown that Bush would have won anyway.
A lawsuit challenging Florida's exclusion of felons was thrown out in 2002:
sptimes.com
The judge wrote:
The African-American felon plaintiffs have not been denied the right to vote because of an immutable characteristic, but because of their own criminal acts. Thus, it is not racial discrimination that deprives felons, black or white, of their right to vote, but their own decision to commit an act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment."
It wasn’t reported in mainstream press, but the NAACP sued Harris and the gang for the black purge, and won. The state threw up its hands immediately and said, ‘You got us! We’ll put these people back as soon as we can.’ We’re still waiting.
That statement is full of falsehoods which harm the author's credibility. Yes, there was a lawsuit: NAACP v. Harris. If you Google "NAACP v. Harris lawsuit", you get tons of hits, including from CNN:
cnn.com
So it is FALSE for the author to say the mainstream press ignored this case.
It is also FALSE to say that state threw up its hands and said "you're right."
Here is the actual settlement document from that case:
lawyerscomm.org
Paragraph 2A contains as a "mutual understanding" the specific statement that "no concessions" were being made by Florida regarding the allegations in the lawsuit. The settlement is basically an agreement about procedures to be followed in ensuring that scrubbing is done accurately; but it is not an admission that it wasn't done accurately in 2000.
lawyerscomm.org (other info re case)
Here is the complaint in that case, which seeks more relief than the settlement grants:
aclufl.org
So it a complete fabrication for this author to say that the mainstream press ignored the case or that the State of Florida admitted that it had done anything improperly. They didn't say "you got us" -- they expressly refused to say that. They didn't say "we'll put these people back immediately" -- they agreed to procedures to ensure that the people who don't belong on the rolls stay off the rolls and the people who belong on the rolls go on the rolls. |
