« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Conservatives Claim Enforcing Voting Rights Is Too Hard
The Tampa Tribune criticized ACORN in an opinion piece that ran on Saturday July 19th for putting Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning on notice that the state of Florida was not in compliance
with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. According to the act,
voter registration assistance must be provided not only at the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) but at all agencies that provide
public assistance (such as Medicaid and food stamps). A recent study
released by Project Vote, ACORN, and Demos showed that Florida’s
percentage of registrations from public-assistance agencies dropped
from 9% in 1995 and 1.8% in 2007.
Instead of calling for the
state to comply with the Federal law, an action most citizens can find
little fault with, – after all, Americans pride themselves on living in
a nation built on laws – the Tribune launches into a litany of excuses for illegal behavior.
The paper defends the state, saying that it is already doing all it can through the DMV to register voters and calling ACORN’s description of the state’s illegal behavior a civil rights issue "nonsense".
This characterization is itself nothing but nonsense clumsily camouflaged behind a disingenuous and contextless statistic regarding the number of Floridians receiving cash assistance and a hilariously ironic reference to community-based voter registration drives.
First, let us tediously remind our good friends on the Tampa Tribune editorial board that Section 7 of the NVRA requires all public assistance agencies, not just those handing out cash assistance, to be responsible, like those exemplary DMV employees, for offering clients the opportunity to register. If the DMV can keep a steady stream of applications rolling in, one wonders why the folks administering the Medicaid program, a program not counted as "cash assistance", can’t do that same.
Second, while it is true that Project Vote and ACORN have been at the forefront of assisting low-income families register to vote in Florida, it is also true that even at their most efficient and wide-spread these drives reach only a fraction of Florida’s unregistered voters. For example, in 2006 Florida had over 4.2 million eligible unregistered voters according to Project Vote’s 2007 report on the 2006 electorate called Representational Bias. In 2004, over the course of the state’s largest voter registration drive ever, ACORN assisted just over 200,000 voters register to vote. By simply following the law, Florida could register far more voters than most voter registration drives combined.
But getting into a back-and-forth over the exact number of folks who have been affected by Florida’s disregard of the law obscures a fact that should be obvious to even the Tribune’s editorial board: Florida’s actions are illegal whether they’ve failed to offer registration opportunities to one voter or to 100,000. The fact that the editorial board of any newspaper, let alone one of the largest in the Sunshine State, would, in the 21st century, condone and defend illegal activities related to the enforcement of civil rights laws is, quite frankly, shocking.
We can only hope that once an enforcement action is filed the judges reviewing the case show a greater understanding than does the Tampa Tribune of the difference between following the law and flouting it.
Contact Information:
Tampa Tribune:
Tampa Bay Online Office:
813-259-8225 or 1-800-527-2773
Loren Omoto, Director of Content
lomoto@tbo.comClick here to write a letter to the Tampa Tribune editor
Kurt Browning:
Secretary of State
Florida Department of State
R. A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250Telephone: 850.245.6500
Fax: 850.245.6125
secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us
Comments (5)
I see no evidence in the articles you linked that states weren't following the law. While registrations declining might indicate the law is not being followed it isn't proof. While being more encouraging would probably increase the number of voter registrations I doubt the law requires that or defines some level of encouragement.
While I certainly don't have a very high opinion of Florida's government I have had experience dealing with both public assistance agencies and the dmv. In both cases I was offered the opportunity to register to vote and I heard other's being offered the same opportunity. I think that is sufficient. I don't think its the business of these agencies to attempt to talk people into registering who refuse an offer to do so.
July 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, far be it from us to say that someone's personal experience is "wrong" because it isn't. But, at the same time, a single person's experience is not necessarily representative of what is going on across an entire state.
I would encourage you to read the report that Project Vote, Demos, and ACORN put out this year on the broad failure of states to comply with Section 7 of the NVRA, which is linked in the posting above. (Here's the URL just in case: http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/NVRA_Project/Unequal_Access_Final.pdf)
Some counties in a given state do a great job complying with Section 7, but most do not. It is possible that your experience was at a county that takes its responsibility seriously.
As to the state as a whole failing to do its duty, a simple comparison between departments helps build a picture of being in or out of compliance. The FL DMV continues to do a good job offering registration opportunties with little fluctuation in applications submitted, but social service agencies have dropped dramatically in their applications and, as the study makes clear, this cannot be explained by drops in enrollment in cash assistance programs or community-based VR programs. The case of FL is striking similar to what Project Vote, Demos, and ACORN found in Missouri, which was recently forced by a Federal judge to revamp all of their social service agency registration procedures in order to comply with Section 7 of the NVRA.
Here's a story about that:
http://projectvote.org/index.php?id=80&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2417&tx_ttnews[backPid]=75&cHash=6e5b301e0d
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
July 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did read your pdf and except for several counties in Ohio not having forms on hand in the offices its case rests on the numbers. There was no mention of spot checks in Florida or other states. Again while one might infer based on the numbers that states were not in compliance with the law that in itself is not evidence.
For example in the case you cited in Missouri the article clearly lists the "substantial evidence" of non compliance. It was not simply that there was a decline in registrations.
That some states or counties do better than others might mean that some states go above and beyond what is required by law. It might be argued that that is a good thing. But its not proof that other states or counties are not enforcing the law.
Furthermore the editorial in the tribune at no time claimed "Enforcing Voting Rights Is Too Hard" nor did it launch "into a litany of excuses for illegal behavior." Its contention is that the decline in registrations might have other causes having nothing to do with non compliance. Those points may be argued and may or may not be found specious but that is a far cry from calling them excuses for illegal behavior.
July 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think part of this is the fact that I've been paying attention to this for a long time and certain arguements tend to get recycled by conservatives in reacting to criticism of states failures to comply with NVRA most of which boil down to a simple desire not to follow the law because it means that the electorate will grow with voters who trend more progressive in their voting patterns.
That's why we characterize these as a litany of excuses. The data simply doesn't support an arguement that other factors are responsible for the decline in agency-based registration. Here's the key phrase:
"The state, especially through its motor vehicles department, has done about all that government can do."
We think that's not true. In fact, surveys conducted at local social service agencies in the most populous of Florida's counties consistently show that the vast majority of people going in to get services are not offered the opportunity to register. This is the same methodology Project Vote and ACORN used in Missouri, which the court refers to as "substantial evidence".
There are other things that form the basis for our allegation about Florida's non-compliance which will be included in a complaint filed once the notification period has ended but we are not able to share them in this forum at this time. If the Judge decides that they are not substantial evidence he will rule against us. Likewise if Florida agrees to a set of policies and procedures that enhance its ability to offer registration to all persons elgible for it under Section 7, then no legal complaint will be filed in the first place.
Project Vote, ACORN, and Demos understand the high bar of evidence Federal courts require to in order to find that a state is not in compliance. Part of that is reflected in declines in registration numbers, especially as overall client loads for programs like Medicare and Medicaid remain more or less constant (much as volume at DMVs remain more or less constant).
Saying that the state is already doing its best and citing an agency that isn't part of section of the law with which we suggest the state of out of compliance (Section 7 is specifically about social service agencies) is deliberately ingenuous and provably false. To further suggest that other factors, given without any context with which to evaluate their quantitative impact on the voter rolls, may be the real culprits for the decline serves not to offer realistic alternative explanations but only to obscure the state's failings.
The editorial also uses conservative code language such as "nanny state" and "responsibility", suggesting that ACORN embraces a nanny state, whatever that is, and implying that voting is a conditional right predicated upon one exercising some undefined responsiblity, rather than a pure right of citizenship.
Finally, the editorial throws in the intransigence by the US DVA in allowing voter registration activities to occur on its campuses which wasn't a part of the original article, wasn't a part of ACORN's comments, and isn't subject to anything related to the NVRA, because the NVRA doesn't apply to Federal agencies. The only reason to include this is to further distract the reader from the issue at hand: Florida's questionable compliance with Section 7 of the NVRA. (And, to answer the Tribune's editors, ACORN is, in fact, in partnership with Project Vote, addressing this problem.)
Perhaps "litany of excuses" was not quite right. How about "several examples of dissembling and distraction from the issue at hand."
July 22, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the discussion. I would like to add for clarity's sake that I do support NVRA and an investigation to determine if the declining numbers are a reflection that people are not being offered a chance to register to vote.
July 23, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment