Jump to Navigation

A Better Way To Ensure Accurate Voter Rolls | Paula Dockery

Our Columnists
Informed Personalities from Across the State, Across the Spectrum
 

A Better Way To Ensure Accurate Voter Rolls | Paula Dockery

Paula Dockery's picture
A Better Way To Ensure Accurate Voter Rolls
Thursday, June 07, 2012 — Paula Dockery

Over the past few weeks, I've been asked to comment on the state's efforts to purge the voter rolls, the methodology by which it came up with the initial and revised lists, and the propriety of the U.S. Department of Justice’s intervention.

As a brief history, Gov. Rick Scott directed Florida's Secretary of State to undertake an effort to purge non-citizens from the voter rolls. Initially, the Division of Elections identified roughly 180,000 potential non-citizens by searching a computer database from the state's Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. After making comparisons to the voter registration database, it whittled the list to 2,600 voters and sent those names to the counties -- just months before the 2012 elections.

At the top of the list was Miami-Dade, where 359 voters have had to prove they were Americans, and an additional 26 were determined to be citizens by the county. A mere 10 voters were either ineligible, or requested to be removed, from the rolls.

In Broward County, 259 voters were given 30 days to prove they were Americans. Among them: Bill Internicola, a 91-year-old Army veteran of World War II, who earned the Bronze Star and Legion of Honor for his service at the Battle of the Bulge.

Also in Broward, Maureen Russo got a government letter challenging where she was born. She sent a copy of her passport immediately. She was born in Akron, Ohio.

The stories don’t stop there. In Hillsborough, another World War II vet, Archibald Bowyer, 91, was forced to prove his citizenship. And in Seminole, Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel posted a picture of a so-called ineligible voter -- holding his passport.

Across the state, stories about mistakes raise doubts about the integrity of the voter purge. 

It will be interesting to see how many of the original 180,000 voters -- or even the 2,600 targeted voters -- will be removed. The preliminary data indicates a very small percentage, as evidenced by Miami-Dade, which found 10 illegal voters out of 395 -- a mere 2.5 percent.

Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes told the Miami Herald: "List maintenance is ongoing. We would have gotten folks off the rolls if they are not supposed to be there." To put this in perspective, Broward has more than a million registered voters and its list of potentially ineligible voters had 259 names.

We can all agree that we want our voter rolls to be as accurate as possible, eliminating non-citizens and voters that have died. Where the disagreement begins is in the manner that this is accomplished. If the state seeks to remove someone, shouldn't it be certain the individual was registered improperly? Shouldn't this be initiated through the 67 locally elected supervisors of election, who are constitutional officers? And shouldn't this be done in a non-election year and in a non-redistricting year?  

One legitimate concern is that some eligible voters might be purged incorrectly and prevented from voting. What if the voter is disabled, old, blind and doesn't respond to the letter? What if the voter moved and never received the letter or was away from home and saw the letter too late? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the state to remove a voter rather than on the voter to prove he or she should remain?

A spokesman for Florida’s Secretary of State said "a handful of people have been inconvenienced." It seems more accurate to say, "in order to remove a handful of ineligible voters, a thousand or so legitimate voters were inconvenienced," including two 91-year-old vets who fought for the right for all of us to hold free elections.

The Justice Department has ordered the purge to stop, but the governor has indicated a desire to challenge the feds. The appropriate response should be for the state to voluntarily cease the purge and direct the 67 elections supervisors to implement an ongoing process to clean up the voter rolls, with state agencies sharing their databases. That way, local supervisors could check the voter's status without issuing alarming letters to citizens. As constitutional officers, it is their responsibility to protect the integrity of the voting process, a role they take very seriously. 

Paula Dockery is a term-limited Republican senator from Lakeland who is chronicling her final year in the Florida Senate. She can be reached at pdockery@floridavoices.com.

© Florida Voices
 

Comment on this Column Using Facebook

FloridaVoices User Comments

Log in or register to post comments

Comments

Thank you Ms Dockery for your common sense approach. At a tactical level anyone who has ever worked with databases knows the difficulty of data matching and management. And when it comes to people's names It's especially difficult for a multitude of reasons. As you suggest in an off-year in the hands of the local supervisors - with transparency - I am sure that the sensible steps can be taken to ensure well managed voter rolls. I think an area of more likely misbehavior would be snowbirds who are tempted to vote in two different states, facilitated by absentee ballots. But I haven't heard that as a Scott priority - perhaps because it would more likely impact his supporters? Just speculating.......

The most fundamental right we have as citizens is the right to select our elected officials through voting. It was shocking to see our Republican controlled legislature pass and the Governor sign legislation intended to make it more difficult for people to register and to vote. Looking at that legislation it is clearly aimed certain demographic groups. Placing unrealistic and punitive penalties on those organizations/individuals seeking to register new voters was certainly directed at minorities and first time voters.

I recall reading coverage of the hearings on this legislation where election supervisors of BOTH political parties testified that there was no reason to make these types of changes. The only area many thought needed review was the Absentee Ballot procedures. Yet no action was taken. Republicans are twice as likely to vote by Absentee Ballot......could there be a connection?? Could there also be a connection with the passage of similar punitive election laws in states controlled by Republican Governors and legislatures? Here in Florida it doesn't take an engineer to figure out the elimination of the Sunday before Election Day voting is a direct attempt to lower participation from minority voters.

Senator Dockery provides a serious look at the current purge directive of Governor Scott and I support her thoughtful suggestion. I agree we should all want the integrity of the voting process to be protected. Along with that, it is just as important to not unduly place roadblocks and obstacles in the way of citizens to either register or vote as the last session of our legislature did.

Gordon Wayne Watts's picture

Thank you for weighing in on this issue, Paula: You historically have had common sense on assessing issues, and have resisted the temptation to side with “big money” interests (angering 'big money' Republicans), while also defending the Constitution, and opposing stupid spending (angering some of the liberal democrats --not all Democrats are bad, I add).

However, you don't address the obvious:

Wouldn't it be simpler to require a photo ID (a Florida Driver's License, or, if the person doesn't drive, a Florida State ID)? [[Addendum: I'm editing my post to clarify here: A photo ID does not prove a person is elligible, but it does prove their identity, and then the vote cast is a provisional ballot, to be checked against the registered voter database --so that the end result is accurate.]]

A lot of liberal posters on The Ledger's forums seem to say this is burdensome, but I don't think so: The cost of a photo ID is a mere *fraction* of the total costs for a person to spend on food, clothing, shelter, and fun things, and if a person is unable to get a photo ID, they have bigger problems, and don't need to worry about voting.

Is my assessment correct?

If not, then what is your proposed solution: I have carefully read your assessment, and agree that we need to keep dead people, non-citizens (and, I'll add: felons) off the roles, while not burdening Joe Q. Citizen, but I don't see a proposed solution.

Besides weighing in my my solution, what is yours?

Thx!

:-D

GW