Vincent Bugliosi,
Greg Palast,
DOCUMENT: REPORT FROM THE US COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS: THE 2000 VOTE AND ELECTORAL REFORM [EXTRACTS]
To ensure that every eligible citizen in Florida has an opportunity to exercise his or her right to vote, the state established a system of checks and balances that extends from the governor to the local poll worker. This system of control is codified in many of the provisions of the election laws of the state of Florida and, in part, is intended to help guarantee the rights granted to voters by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 will be protected. During the November 2000 election, a wide range of errors, including the insufficient provision of adequate resources, caused a significant breakdown in the state’s plan, which resulted in a variety of problems that permeated the election process in Florida. Large numbers of Florida voters experienced frustration and anger on Election Day as they endured excessive delays, misinformation, and confusion, which resulted in the denial of their right to vote or to have their vote counted. While some maintain that what occurred in Florida was nothing out of the ordinary, but rather was simply amplified by the closeness of the election, the overwhelming evidence provided to the Commission proves otherwise.
It is impossible to determine the total number of voters turned away from the polls or deprived of their right to vote. It is clear that the 2000 presidential election generated a large number of complaints about voting irregularities in Florida. The Florida attorney general’s office alone received more than 3,600 allegations—2,600 complaints and 1,000 letters. In addition, both the Democratic and Republican parties received many complaints from Floridians who either could not vote or experienced difficulty when attempting to vote. These widespread complaints prompted Florida’s governor to sign an executive order creating the Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology. The task force was formed to examine the concerns that had been raised about Florida’s election process and to recommend reforms where necessary.
Several advocacy group representatives testified about the disproportionate number of complaints they received from their constituents in Florida. Jackson Chin, associate counsel at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York City, explained that his group’s preliminary investigation revealed that certain election practices in central Florida might have led to the widespread voter disenfranchisement of up to several thousand Latino voters. D. P. Misra, former president of the Association of Indians in America, and Venghan Winnie Tang, president of the South Florida chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans, both testified that immigration and language assistance problems prevented many East Indians and Asians from being able to vote in Florida.
Other advocacy groups formed coalitions to investigate or to take action against the election problems that surfaced in Florida. For example, the NAACP filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of voters in Florida who allege their right to vote in the election was unlawfully denied or abridged. The Florida Justice Institute joined with the ACLU of Florida and Florida Legal Services to develop statewide electoral reform that focuses on the concerns of Florida’s racial and language minorities and those who live in poverty, “considerations that are probably long overdue in this state.” According to JoNel Newman of the Florida Justice Institute, “[w]hen new or vulnerable voters from traditionally disenfranchised groups are wrongly prevented from going to the polls and from voting, they feel often a humiliation and a stigma or a disaffection that has the effect in many cases of causing them never to return to the voting booth.”
The complaints from those denied the right to vote during the 2000 Florida presidential election were anything but isolated or episodic. Credible evidence shows many Floridians were denied the right to vote. Analysis of the testimony and evidence gathered by the Commission show that these denials fell most squarely on persons of color.
[…]
The Commission heard from several experts regarding potential violations of the VRA during the Florida presidential election, including Professors Allan Lichtman and Darryl Paulson.
Professor Lichtman, applying the results test, said, “The key is whether a system, regardless of why it was adopted or why it was held in place, has the effect of diminishing minority voting opportunities.” Professor Lichtman explained:
We do not have to demonstrate an intent to discriminate. We do not have to demonstrate that there was some kind of conspiracy against minorities or that anyone involved in the administration of elections today or yesterday had any intent whatever to discriminate against minorities, because indeed under the Voting Rights Act, practices can be illegal so long as they have the effect of diminishing minority opportunities to participate fully in the political process and elect candidates of their choice.
Professor Lichtman testified that a violation occurs if the following two criteria are satisfied:
• if there are “differences in voting procedures and voting technologies between white areas and minority areas”; and
• if voting procedures and voting technologies used in minority areas “give minorities less of an opportunity to have their votes counted.”
Referring to a
In other words, minorities perhaps can go to the polls unimpeded, but their votes are less likely to count because of the disparate technology than are the votes of whites… That is the very thing the Voting Rights Act was trying to avoid—that for whatever reason and whatever the intent, the Voting Rights Act is trying to avoid different treatment of whites and minorities when it comes to having one’s vote counted… If your vote isn’t being tallied, that in effect is like having your franchise denied fundamentally.
Professor Lichtman testified that one remedy in such a case would be to equalize the technology across all voting places in the state of Florida—“to have technologies equalized such that there are no systematic correlations between technologies and whites and minorities, and a minority vote is as likely to be tallied as a white vote.” The professor acknowledged this would require spending additional funds in certain parts of the state.
Darryl Paulson testified he did not believe
An analysis of the incidence of spoiled ballots (votes cast but not counted) shows a correlation between the number of registered African American voters and the rate at which ballots were spoiled. The higher the percentage of African American residents and of African American voters, the higher the chance of the vote being spoiled.
[…]
In a very small part, the county-level relationship between race and rates of ballot rejection can be attributed to the fact that a greater percentage of African American registered voters live in counties with technologies that produce the greatest rates of rejected ballots. About 70 percent of African American registrants resided in counties using technology with the highest ballot rejection rates—punch cards and optical scan systems recorded centrally—compared with 64 percent of non-African American registrants. Counties using punch card or
