The following numbered clauses come from the lawsuit filed by the NAACP in the state of Florida-read these and tell me that the disenfranchisement was not systemic:(http://www.naacp.org/communications/press_releases/florida_lawsuit.asp)

58. Plaintiff WILLIE STEEN has been a properly registered voter living in Hillsborough County, Florida since he was honorably discharged from the military in 1993. He has lived at his current address since December 1999. On November 7, 2000, Mr. Steen went to vote for the first time. When he arrived at his polling place, he was told that he could not vote because he had a felony conviction. Mr. Steen has never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Steen was improperly denied the right to vote.

59. Plaintiff WALLACE MCDONALD is a properly registered voter residing in Hillsborough County, Florida. In June 2000 he received a letter from the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections informing him that he would be removed from the voter rolls because of a prior felony conviction. Mr. McDonald responded in writing, informing the Supervisor that he has not been convicted of a felony. He also engaged an attorney to search the court records in Hillsborough County. His attorney found no record of a felony conviction. Upon information and belief, although Mr. McDonald's attorney brought this to the attention of the Supervisor of Elections, the Supervisor nevertheless refused to reinstate Mr. McDonald as a registered voter. Mr. McDonald does not have a felony conviction and was improperly denied the right to vote

60. Plaintiff JERMAINE TERRY is a properly registered voter living in Hillsborough County, Florida. On November 7, 2000, Mr. Terry was told by Hillsborough County voting officials at the polls that he had been purged from the voter roll, and he was not allowed to vote. There is no valid basis upon which Mr. Terry could have been purged from the voter rolls. On information and belief, records of the Supervisor of Elections of Hillsborough County indicated simply that he was deleted from the rolls pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act. Such deletion was not proper under state or federal law. As a result of this violation, Mr. Terry was improperly denied the right to vote.

61. Plaintiff LORINE WALDEN has been a registered voter since the 1960s. About one week prior to the November 7, 2000 general election, she went in person to check the status of her registration. The employee at the Supervisor of Elections office checked something on a computer and then informed her that she was not in the system and that she would not be allowed to vote in the general election this year. There is no valid basis upon which Ms. Walden could have been purged from the voter rolls. Because the clerk specifically informed her that she could not vote in this election, Ms. Walden did not try to vote on November 7, 2000, and was effectively and improperly denied the right to vote

62. Plaintiff EMERY TIMBERLAKE is a properly registered voter living in Volusia County. Mr. Timberlake requested an absentee ballot for the November 7, 2000 election. He never received a ballot or any other response from the Supervisor of Elections. On November 7, 2000, Mr. Timberlake went to his polling place to vote. Mr. Timberlake gave his voter registration card and driver's license to the clerk. The clerk reviewed the voter roll and told him that he was not on it and that he could not vote. No further information or assistance was offered to Mr. Timberlake at that time. There is no valid basis upon which Mr. Timberlake could have been purged from the voter rolls. On information and belief, the Supervisor of Elections removed Mr. Timberlake from the rolls in 1999 based on an alleged duplicate registration in Alabama. Mr. Timberlake has never lived in or registered to vote in Alabama. Mr. Timberlake was improperly denied the right to vote.

These are not folks who voted, um, improperly, and were not, uh hem, too "stupid" to follow directions. These people were directly prevented from voting in the state of Florida. I am sure there are many more. US Supreme was so concerned about equal protection-that was a sham.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001

Answers

FutureShock,

Er, uh, cough, uh, ahem, uh,

WAAAAAAAAAH!

Do you really think that this was the first election ever where mistakes like this were made? Millions of people vote in this country, and it is impossible to have perfection in the process. The NAACP, of course, knows this, but there is no angle in the truth, so they must pull out the victim routine.

I sometimes wonder if the ultimate aim of certain civil rights leaders and organizations is not peaceful racial equality, but instead, if their aim is a violent, all out race war. By the way they keep fanning the flames, and even starting new fires at times, one must truly question their ultimate motives.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 22, 2001.

Fortunately, FS, the legal system does not share your unusually light "burden of proof." The NAACP will have every opportunity to produce evidence that people were systematically purged. To determine this, one must look not only the purged individuals who fit the NAACP profile, but every person purged from the voter registration rolls. Since 1,519,117 voters were deleted from the rolls between 1995 and August 2000... I'll wait to see how the entire dataset looks before jumping to any conclusions and so will the Court.

One must also remember the effort to clean up the voter registration rolls was prompted by the discovery that some 50,000 felons were registered as Florida voters in 1998. Oh, and roughly 18,000 dead persons were found among the 8.3 million Florida voters. Finally, the 1997 Miami mayoral race was influenced by 5,000 fraudulent ballots.

This matters because the Court will consider intent and whether the purging of voters had precedent. The Court will also examine the processes and the firm contracted to purge the registration rolls will have to demonstrate the "paper trail" required to purge voters. No matter how careful the process, mistakes will be made. The real question is if the mistakes in the 1.5 million deletions constitute a statistically significant pattern.

In the mean time, FS, feel free to jump to any conclusion you'd like.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

What baffles me is how even the veriest dunce could cherry-pick a handful of alleged cases out of millions, and claim this as evidence that anything was "systemic". This indicates a desire to believe, so strong that all rational thought has been abandoned. A classic case of starting with the conclusions and fabricating data as required to fit, and bogglingly transparent at that. A good thing FS believes in cars, or he'd have been run over long since.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.

J:

And you make my point exactly, at least in part. The fact that the US Supreme per curiam opinion hinged on the equal protection clause is what made it such a farce. In your own words:

"Do you really think that this was the first election ever where mistakes like this were made? Millions of people vote in this country, and it is impossible to have perfection in the process"

If one were to utilize the majority's opinion, then one would have to be nearly perfect, or make every reasonable attempt to be perfect in the process. The Supremes essentially said that, absent statewide standards in counting undervotes/overvotes, equal protection was not guaranteed. Mistakes cannot be tolerated to a high degree if you are going to call the equal protection clause into play. The Supremes on the one hand stated that differing standards in counting brought up equal protection issues, and on the other hand, ruled in a way that denied equal protection to all undervoters and overvoters. Their decision was inconsistent in this and other ways.

Ken:

I did not discuss the merits of the case precisely because I do not have all the data. I posted this for discussion and not as my judgement on those merits. The supreme court of the us opened its own can of worms by applying the equal protection clause. By a very narrow reading of this clause, every one of those voters listed in the lawsuit had their equal opportunity violated, as did any voter of any race in FLorida, or elsewhere in the country. This is why I do not believe this clause should have played a role in the us supremes decision-it is not applicable, and the cases the majority cited had little to do with the case they had at hand.

As far as felons, I think you may know, Ken, that by its own state law, Florida cannot take the right to vote away from felons who have had their voting rights restored by other states, and then moved to Florida. Governer Bush was demanding that felons who had moved in the state ask him for clemency to have voter rights restored, in direct violation of FLorida law. There was a systamatic purging of voters who committed felonies in other states that was not legal by the laws of the state.

It is a shame that 18,000 dead people voted. And it is a shame that so many people were fucked by the system in Florida. It is a poor debate technique(J) to talk about how mistakes may have been made in other states, and because that is so, what happened in FLorida should not be addressed by lawsuits, such as the one filed by the NAACP. Their suit seeks to not have this happen again in FLorida-It does not seek to overturn or change results-it wants to make sure that partisan politics does not play a role in determining the validity of a person's right to vote in the state.

There is no way to get around the specific application of the equal protection clause to elections, as the supremes did, and have it be okay to have a system of counting votes marred with errors.

Ken:

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001.

Flint:

Back to the old sarcasm, eh? I am getting a little tired of your shit, ever since the comment about my setting dogs on fire. I do not know why I am even responding to you; I think I will choose to ignore you in the future. Your debating style has devolved over the last year, and your use of sarcasm only debases you, not me.

I believe there were systemic violations of equal protection. So does the NAACP, The American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, and others who have signed on as co-plaintiffs. This is a class action suit, and as with most suits seeking class action status, certain assumptions are made about the class. There are 4 points that all class action suits need to meet in order to be certified as a class. Look them up yourself. A cite is given in the lawsuit to which I linked.

How about we let the courts decide if this will recieve class action status? How about we let the courts decide if the use of a third party company, names in this suit, to perge florida's roles of felons from other states, directly in violation of state law, is a systemic violation of voter rights.

I am starting to think Patricia's beef with you is extremely valid. You seem to be no longer debating with people-you seems to want to stand up on a wall and insult people for not thinking the way you do. It really is sad to see this devolution of a once solid thinker-a once solid debater. Now I sit here and watch someone more intent on blowing wind and trying to knock people over. Shame.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001.

FS:

My problem here is, I see nothing substantive to debate about. Yes, I'm sure there were a lot of errors. yes, some people are prejudiced against certain groups (as you yourself are against conservatives), and probably applied some of that prejudice here and there. But everyone does this to some degree or another.

Was it Florida's intent to disenfranchise anyone systematically? The NAACP has very carefully selected a few errors and seems to be trying to claim they are typical. You yourself seem predisposed to accept any old position the NAACP takes, *even before* you evaluate it to see if it has any solid basis in fact.

And here, you give us five (5) as-yet-unproven cases, out of millions of possible cases, and demand someone claim these 5 cases don't reflect systemic disenfrancisement!

If there was a clear and present, organized, deliberate effort by anyone to disenfrancise anyone else, then this should of course be determined beyond reasonable doubt and punished. And I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying the NAACP's approach proves no such thing, which you have the sense to realize if you could pull your nose away from the NAACP's rectum and smell the fresh air. We need to use statistical methods to examine statistical claims. I could easily find five (5) old people, or rich people, or white people, or members of nearly any profession, against whom errors were made.

The difference is, most of these people are content to correct any errors made in their cases. They haven't raised victimhood to a high art form. You shouldn't either.

I believe the world has a lot of ills and shortcomings. I think we should identify and establish what they are and how they come about, and address them. I do NOT think we should decide what the ills are first, and then go out and build invalid cases for them. And I *especially* don't believe we should buy in to someone with a known axe to grind going out and doing this, just because it sounds good. At least you should make your own invalid claims supported by your own invalid statistics, and not just copy someone else's.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.

FS,

You said:

"The following numbered clauses come from the lawsuit filed by the NAACP in the state of Florida-read these and tell me that the disenfranchisement was not systemic. (my emphasis)

How can you make the above statement and then claim you are not discussing "the merits of the case?" Per your post, the case is exactly about "systemic disenfranchisement" and your statement challenges anyone to read "these" and "tell me the disenfranchisement was not systemic." I prefer you stand by your original statement or recant it... the denial of a conflict between the two statements undermines your credibility.

The Supreme Court decision limited its decision to apply to only the situation at hand. You and the legal community can debate the decision until the cows come home, but the decision does not apply to the case you cited. The NAACP will attempt to prove voters were wrongfully denied the right to vote and that there was a distinct pattern to this wrongful conduct, i.e., democrats and/or persons of color were unfairly treated.

There may have been persons who were wrongfully denied the right to vote. This is a much easier case than to prove "systemic disenfranchisement." In the former, it takes a single voter to prove a case. In the latter, it takes an analysis of all the voters who were deleted from the rolls controlling for multiple variables.

Please note, that despite the attempts at cleaning up the voter registration rolls a substantial number of felons still voted. And there is ample legal precedent that the state should take reasonable steps to ensure the voter rolls are up-to-date and accurate... and to minimize vote fraud.

I'm sure the case will cause Florida and other states to review the process for purging voter rolls. In a highly mobile society, however, maintaining an accurate voter registration role is challenging. Perhaps Florida was too draconian in cleaning the rolls. The more important issue is if the purging itself was biased. I don't think we have enough information to draw any conclusions... and the NAACP's selected examples do not sway.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Ken-

Ken, You are right. I stand behind my original comment. It sure is interesting that the state of Florida is one of few states that has "race" as a question in their voter registration process. Now why do they need that? I believe there was statewide disenfranchisement, loosely coordinated, and that the record will eventually show that this happened in some way, in more than 1 county in florida.

Yes, the state does have a vested interest in cleaning up their roles of convicted felons IN FLORIDA ONLY. Jeb Bush had no right under Florida law to demand that felons from other states, who had their voting rights restored in those states, apply to him for clemency. This is outright maliciousness. Your reference to the supremes decision that it applied only to the case at hand is actually in argument in favor of my position-that there was so little merit to their opinion that they were too cowardly to use it as precedent in the future. If there concern was so widespread about equal protection, do you not think they would want to make a statement going forward that in any similar disputes in the future, this is a case that will provide guidance? Yet they did not do that. What they in essence did was say " We're so concerned that SOME of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different FLorida county standards, that we are going to solve your problem by making sure that NONE of you undervoters have your votes counted".

Varying methods to cast and count votes have been going on in every state for the past 200 years, and the supremes have been as silent as a church mouse on the matter, never even hinting that there may be a right under the equal protection clause that was being violated.

Ken and Flint:

If this is indeed a case to be decided on equal protection grounds, how many voters equal protection rights need to be violated before it raises a red flag for you? It is precisely my point that raising this clause is what opens up the can of worms that cannot be closed. How many rights have to be violated? If there are more than enough violations to have changed the result of the election, are you saying this is not an issue? Does it have to be thousands? Ten?

My nose is not up the butt of the NAACP. I promise to never post about politics again if the case is summarily discharged by the courts. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and SOMETHING is going to come of all this that will right the serious wrongs that occured in FLorida.

FLint

What statistical measures should we use? I am all for ascertaining the facts. One fact I know is that in Leon county, they received a felon role from one of the named defendents in this case which had 590 names, and fewer than 40 proved to be convicted felons. Does this really not bother you? I cannot imagine that it does not. I truly believe you are interested in the facts.

Maybe I should define what I mean by 'systemic". I can tell you what I think it is not-I do not believe there was a statewide conspiracy, acted upon at will by minions of the republican party. This is not the systemic to which I refer. I do not beleive in conspiracies of that magnitude, hence i essentially got Y2K correct. What I do believe is that in many area, in many cases, there were deliberate attempts made to make voting difficult for members of society(blacks, emancipated felons, etc) and that the sum total of these attacks amounted to a systemic disenfranchisement-adding to this was the disorganization of many counties, and the lack of concern for making sure that every valid voter got a chance to vote.

The truth will come out. I will NEVER alter from my opinion that the majority in Bush vs. Gore are criminals who made null and void the votes of 50 million americans.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001.

"[FS,] you have the sense to realize [it] if you could pull your nose away from the NAACP's rectum and smell the fresh air."

-- Flint Said It (not_me_@pertinent.quotes), January 22, 2001.

"I will NEVER alter from my opinion that the majority in Bush vs. Gore are criminals who made null and void the votes of 50 million americans."

What you are saying, in essence, is that no amount of data, analysis or legal opinion will deter you from a foregone conclusion. Hey, why let facts get in the way of a strongly held opinion?

As for your conviction of "systemic disenfranchisement," I think forming a conclusion without benefit of analyzing data is premature and that's being kind. I don't know why Florida asks for "race" on a voter registration though existence of this data element does not prove racism. If there was a "conspiracy" to weed out African American voters, this will be revealed in one of two ways. First, there will be evidence of the conspiracy found in the entities that purged the rolls. Second, the data will suggest bias.

It is easy enough to allow the legal process to run its course and then make an informed decision. Why rush to judgement?

As for Gov. Jeb Bush's alleged demand, if he was wrong then the felons who had their voting rights restored can seek redress through the legal system. Let's wait for a judge to rule against Gov. Bush before we start throwing around accusations of malice.

To the Supreme Court's decision, the Court may have had many reasons to limit the decision. It's just juvenile to call the Court "cowardly." Cogent arguments can be made for and against the Supreme Court decision. If I might broaden the discussion, it is hypocritical of the liberals to applaud the Court as fair-minded jurists when they vote to uphold a liberal value (like criminal's rights or abortion) and then call them a bunch of political hacks when they vote against them.

The Supreme Court only hears cases it chooses to hear. Had not the Florida Supreme Court become involved in this disputed election, I have no doubt the Supreme Court would have sat on the sidelines. Personally, I think the Justices were uncomfortable, but had little choice but to resolve this ugly business.

You have been pretty well dismantled on the "systemic disenfranchisement" claim. As for your new protest about a "red flag," what? I am concerned about voter's rights, but I am content to let the legal system work and to see some actual data and analysis before I fly off the handle with bombastic rhetoric.

If the rights of voters have been violated, there will be changes in the system. Regardless of the NAACP legal case, I imagine many jurisdictions will make improvements and install safeguards to improve elections. Please note that republicans have complained for years about voter fraud in big city elections (Chicago 1960). Apparently, this is only a hot-button issue for liberals when their candidate loses.

As for your smoke and fire proverb, horse fritters. Are you saying that everyone who makes a complaint or files a suit has a real issue? What would you have written when Twana Brawley made her rape accusation. Sometimes smoke is produced not by fire... but by politicians and advocacy groups who want to obscure rather than enlighten.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

FS:

Again, you are working backwards from a belief you yourself state that you will NEVER change. I can only ask that you consider what this attitude looks like to someone who does not share your fanaticism. Imagine if I were to say "Those who disagree with my preference are criminals. I will NEVER change my mind. NOW, let's consider the "facts".

I ask you, just how likely is it I might change my mind after having made such a statement? Just how objective do you think I might be in my determination of what is a "fact" and what is not? Similarly, just how likely are you to be satisfied the "facts" have been found, if your inflexible conviction is anything but fully ratified?

As it stands, you now backpedal like mad. No, it turns out, you don't mean "systemic" in the sense of "systemwide". That's too far. You actually mean that some prejudiced people probably made it more difficult somehow for some people to vote somewhere. Uh, right. Nobody would disagree that this probably happened, in every precinct in the entire world, at one time or another. Indeed, much as we all might not enjoy facing it, the party in power has traditionally and systematically made it more difficult for the party out of power to get elected. The number of methods used range from rigging machines to dumping ballots in the bayou to voting the rolls of the deceased to outright murder. We do our best to prevent this, and we probably do better in the US (on the whole) than in many other countries.

Now you define "systemic" as being the sum total of every individual case that just happens to have worked against the specific group of your choice, *according to that group*! This is a rather empty word game, as Ken pointed out.

The NAACP is trying to make the case that (1) A variety of efforts were made to prevent blacks from voting; (2) That no such effort was made to prevent any other identifiable group from voting (so that blacks will stand out as having received special treatment). This is NOT an easy case to make. At best, you might find some responsible individual who made some questionable decision, and strip him of responsibility (and maybe fine him as well). But that's not what the NAACP wants. So that's not what you want either.

Yes, I want any illegalities identified, and if any are found, I want the perpetrators punished and the crimes prevented in the future. But when you *define* those who disagree with you as "criminals", and state that you will NEVER change your mind, and work backwards to see systemic in isolated allegations and think everyone else must share such delusions, you go too far.

But anyway, be thankful Bush won. You will be better off, as will we all, even though you remain forever (and deliberately) blind to it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.

If I might digress for a moment, I find the "I know what I know" attitude in liberals or conservatives. You (and many others) apparently have decided "how the world is" and then make the data fit the theories. I ran across this same attitude during the Y2K debate. Most of the Y2K doomsayers were completely immune to rational, factual debate. The notion of a Y2K catastrophe was a matter of faith rather than science.

It is much easier just to have an opinion and treat it like fact than to do the work required by the scientific method. In fact, most people wander through life with a wide range of bad ideas. The progress of humanity, however, depends on our ability to sort out the bad ideas from good. As a thinking species, we have agreed on some general rules for intellectual inquiry... and one of the cardinal rules is objectivity. This means, to the extent possible, we avoid letting our opinions distort our analysis of the data. We also avoid premature conclusions. We observe, we hypothesize, we test and we consider. And we do this in a manner others can replicate. When a conclusion seems unavoidable, we test it further... looking for any exogenous factors, any missed variables.

Your statements, FS, are like planting a banner against this careful process of reason.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Do you a-holes ever give it a rest? Gawd the two twitwitians, Flint and Decker are BORING to the maximum. Still "debating" the OBVIOUS I see, dingbats.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), January 22, 2001.

The tag team asses are at it again. Poor poor future shock. What will his future hold?

-- themasses (asses@are.them), January 22, 2001.

When the books are written, fellas, then I will point you to them, but I am sure the overwhelming consensus is going to be that the supremes overstepped their bounds, and they made a decision that had no basis or precedent in the annals of the court. I have read EVERY writ, EVERY brief, EVERY decision having to do with the case of Bush vs. Gore. I have read EVERY cite, and analyzed EVERY statute cited, both in the federal law, and the state law. My opinion is based in the law, and it is the opinion of many legal scholars, conservative as well as liberal. I really think you folks have not considered anywhere near the amount of data I have considered, and it is a real shame that you must couch everything in terms of partisanship. Had this gone down the other way, and it was Gore playing the role of Bush, I would have said the same thing. YES-I would have said the same thing.

We all tend to paint black and white pictures of one another on this board-I have been guilty of this at times. But the both of you seem to be relying lately on the argument that I am hopelessly liberal, and essentially, a sore loser. I agree we will let the courts sort this out, and I have SAID that. I have SAID I will never post on politics again if the NAACP's case is thrown out at the first level. I think you need to come up with better arguments than "nah nah he's a liberal shill".

I did not come up with an opinion and then work my way back. Since 12/12/2000 I have felt the supremes acting contrary to law. I was up reading the opinion until 1 in the morning and I was sickened by what I read. Justice Scalia is a thief. He issued an opinion on 12/9/2000, that Bush might suffer irreperable harm, BEFORE he ever read the briefs that were due the next day. In any court of law this kind of action would be abhorrent to normal procedure. Neither of you have responded to my point about what the court in essence said-that they were concerned about votes being counted unequally, so the solution was not to count them at all. Neither of you has responded to the obvious issues the per curiam and majority opinion raises regarding different methods of tallying votes all across the country-in Texas hanging chads can be counted-apparently in Florida they cannot.

Do some research fellas. If ya do not want to, let me know, and I will be more than happy to bore everyone with link after link to legal scholars who share my opinion. I have not formed it lightly- unlike others, I have meticulously spent time in research, hour after hour perusing the documents, so please do not use sophistry to try and shoot me down as one just having a loud mouthed opinion.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001.

I agree, DP, that real analysis can be quite boring. It is necessary, however, if one wants to find a conclusion by means other than accidently stumbling over one. Speaking of which... how is your pal Charles Reuben? And what are you doing outside the League of Super Heroes?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

FS:

Your research is very narrowly focused. *Of course* you can come up with lots of links to scholars who share your opinion -- that's the only opinion you consider worth saving links to.

You say the majority of the USSC are thieves. But THEN you say partisanship has nothing to do with it, this is all based on pure objective research into the opinions of those who agree with you! And if the court decisions go your way, then this proves you were right. If they go against you, this proves *they* are thieves! Nope, no partisanship involved here. And you wonder why we laugh at you?

Try a thought experiment, just for the sake of exercise. First, decide that the USSC made the *right* decisions, for reasons good and proper. Convince yourself (just for the sake of exercise) that the *minority* is a bunch of thieves. NOW do your meticulous research and see if you come up with the same results.

I've been convinced, and said so here many times, that the USSC *could not* have made a good decision in this case. A political election is strictly a political issue, and the constitution explicitly grants the legislatures the power to handle disputes, ties, etc. The courts are carefully excluded, and for good reason. The courts are supposed to be apolitical, disinterested in the results. But *nobody* is disinterested in a presidential election, by definition. The courts CANNOT make objective decisions in such cases. These are exactly the kind of political thicket cases the courts should avoid at all costs.

But the Florida Supreme Court wanted Gore to win. They did NOT want the political bodies in Florida to properly make these decisions, because the "enemy" party dominated both other branches of government in Florida. So the FSC fell all over themselves inserting themselves into the political process, making law out of thin air, taking cases they had no business addressing, overruling every lower court in the process. They were so comically desperate to help Gore that they completely poisoned the political process.

And at that point, the USSC was screwed. They could NOT HELP but appoint the president, after what the FSC did. They could refuse the case, thereby appointing Gore indirectly by letting the FSC pick the president. Or they could take the case and pick the president themselves. The Florida Supreme Court's irresponsibility, despite the USSC asking them to *please* reconsider their powers, led to the entire mess.

But I notice you ignored this argument, but as FS and as "Syd Barrett", because you could not answer it. Or because you were too busy looking for "nonpartisan" agreement with your opinions, which are amazingly inflexible and WAY left of center.

In any case, you make it clear you are not doing research to answer a question, you are gathering ammunition in favor of a foregone conclusion. You had the answer before the question was ever decided, just as Ken told you. You don't listen very well.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.

FS, it is time you faced the real facts in this case. Mr. Flint agrees with Mr. Decker that you are wrong. On top of this, Mr. Decker agrees with Mr. Flint that you are wrong. This condition is usally fatal. Unless you mend your ways, your thread is dead.

If we know anything on this forum, it is that Flint's position on any given issue must be right. If we know anything else on this forum, it is that Decker's ponderings on any subject must be correct. This is an invariable truth, whether or not they agree with each other. Learn this truth. Embrace it and your thread may live again.

As Flint and Decker's words shed their gross earthly meaning, they charmingly reveal the radiance of their lotus-like perfection, peace descends upon you like a deep, implacable river, and your heart lifts without effort. You then perceive the ineffable effulgance of the rightness of Flint, and the divine incandescence of the rightness of Decker. Then you achieve bliss.

Try it. It works.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), January 22, 2001.

Why do you keep changing the issue, FS?

Originally, you claimed that there was "systemic disenfranchisement" in Florida. We've determined that this is your personal opinion sans any supporting data save a nonrandom sample provided by the NAACP. In short, you've been handed your debate hat... and that has nothing do with your political leanings. Forming conclusions about a data set with over 1.5 million elements after reading a few selected snippets is just plain dumb.

Now you want to talk about the Supreme Court. Did the Supreme Court make a "proper" decision in Bush v. Gore? If not, what motivated this decision?

These are legitimate questions and you provide no answer aside from, "I've read alot more than you guys and I'm right." In what grade school does this debating tactic work?

I don't care how you lean politically. My issue is that you can't construct a decent argument. You and your wife bumped into some poor people so welfare reform doesn't work. You've read some stuff on the Internet so the Supreme Court is wrong and Justice Scalia is a thief.

Make a real argument and we can have a real discussion.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Decker/Flint:

You guys continue to use your sarcasm to inflate your arguments and your egos. Flint, if you "laugh" at me, who is the bigger fools for debating me? ROTFLMAO! Place state your legal argument for stating the Florida supreme court made law out of "thin air". Decker, by the very nature of class action suits, it is impossible to consider every possible member of a potential class, and that is why certain standards have to be met before a class is certified. In fact, class action suits are settled regularly, and always without the analysis of the circumstances of each individual member of the class.

And this is where Decker/Flint's argument falls apart. Yes it is important to study the data, and have statistics at your beck and call, but to harrumph the NAAACP's case because it cites "x" number of examples is just not an argument, if you know anything at all about class action cases, which you obviously do not.

You both claim I have no argument, simultaneously throwing out the insults, and you both CONTINUE to avoid the serious issues which arise from the USSC decision. Why is that? Is there no response to the LEGAL issues I bring to the table?

How do you get out of the logical trap that their decision set? The one that says "we are so concerned about your vote having unequal weight, and we are so concerned about different standards in different counties that our solution is to not count them at all"? I see no way out of it myself. You cannot say on the one hand that you are concerned about the manner in which a vote is counted, and on the other hand say do not count it at all.

Instead, the two of you think it is a solid debating technique to not only attack the debater, but to attack his research. I am not saying I read it, so nah nah nah nah nah. I AM saying that maybe you yourrselves should read it before pontificating that my position is a purely liberal position, and my arguments purely based on what I wanted to find. Both of you choose to try and deconstruct my position not on its merits, not on the law behind my opinion, but by the TRULY juvenile technique of saying "You cannot contruct an argument, and you have no debating skills".

If you continue to refuse to read the law behind the decision, than how can you make an argument against my conclusion? I have stated for two months for people to read the briefs and decisions, yet I guess it is easier to say FS just wants to see things one way, thereby reducing me to a cartoon character.

If, as you state, you laugh at me and I have no debating skills, why do you even bother? Do you get good fun out of picking on the obviously debate-challenged? Do you always make such fun of the disabled?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001.

How beautifully the fireflies dance in the darkness!

How marvelously the LEDs proclaim the ten thousand names of the time of day!

How impressively the debaters strike the air with their hands and feet as their cries reverberate in the stillness. Yet, the air is not disturbed by their passing and no creature is harmed in the making of this movie.

The mayfly is clobbered by a falling cherry blossom! The frog who has been still as a stone, blinks once and sprouts mayfly wings from his mouth. The crane has found his supper!

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), January 22, 2001.

Give me a break, FS.

You shot your mouth off about "systemic disenfranchisement." After all your huffing and puffing... nothing. You read the NAACP case and swallowed it whole. Then you changed your mind. Then you decided you really meant what you said. And we still haven't seen jack proving there was, and I quote, "systemic disenfranchisement." All we have are a few examples where voters MAY have been denied their rights.

Your "class action" argument doesn't hold water here. The entities purging the voter rolls will have records as will the state. By definition, you have to know someone is on a list to purge them from it. Both the NAACP and the State of Florida (and other interested parties) will sort through the 1.5 million person database and look for patterns. The fact that Florida collects the racial data element will allow researchers to analyze the purged lists for racial discrimination... something that would be impossible WITHOUT this data field.

I'm not arguing the NAACP doesn't have a case. I'm arguing that it cannot make a case out of a selected NONRANDOM sample. This is Social Statistics 101. This is not a class action suit where we aren't sure who exactly worked in the vermiculite mines in the 1960s... this is a case where a list of every purged voter is available for review. This is not a tenuous link between work conditions and medical problems... this is a simple deletion from the registered voter rolls.

Listen carefully, it is far too early to make the challenge, "me that the disenfranchisement was not systemic." You don't know. I don't know.

As for the Supreme Court case, all I have heard on this thread is your personal opinion that you've read more than I have and know better. You haven't provided a shred of research. Maybe you and your wife ran into Justice Scalia in the street next to the people who had been booted off welfare. (Now that is sarcasm.)

Try this. Explain your position without the crying. Cite the legal journals and articles that support your position. Make a clear, concise argument and support it with evidence. Who knows, you may convince me the Supreme Court made a lousy decision. It would not be the first, nor will it be the last.

By the way, I have read the decision and legal analysis... and like most people, will be sorting out the ramifications of the decision for some time. Thus far, I agree with Constitutional scholar John C. Yoo:

"I think we should balance the short-term hit to the court's legitimacy with whether in the long run we can agree that it was in the best interest of the country to end the electoral crisis at an early date. People, like law professors, who spend their lives fixated on the court would rather have the court not do this than have the government up and running. I would rather have the divisive crisis over and the government put together than [preserve] the court's legitimacy for some unforeseen future need. The court has regularly intervened in cases [such as abortion and gay rights] . . . and my liberal colleagues never were troubled.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Bradford Berenson (attorney): "It seems to me there is an equal protection problem of a fairly serious kind if you are applying different standards to votes in different parts of the state. . . . It can't possibly be that the 'clear intent' of the voters means one thing in Palm Beach and something else in Broward County. Seven justices agreed on that basic proposition, including a Clinton-Gore appointee, which shows the majority was not off on some adventurous journey. It's true there was a wide variety of defects exposed in this election, including the disparities caused by the voting machines. But there was no way to unscramble that egg, except by throwing out the entire election. I think the justices concluded there was no fair and constitutional way to conduct a statewide recount at this late date. So, if you can't fix the problem and make it perfect, they decided that ultimately the fairest way was to take the guy who received the most votes in the machine count."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Daniel H. Lowenstein, (UCLA Law Professer): "I believed from the start that the Dec. 12 deadline was meaningful. The Florida Supreme Court intimated that it regarded Dec. 12 as a binding deadline. I don't regard it as shocking that the U.S. Supreme Court took them up on it. There has been a lot of debate among election law experts as to whether the U.S. Supreme Court read the Florida court correctly or should have sent the case back for clarification on that issue. That kind of hair splitting misses the point. One needs a bit of legal realism. Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. Supreme Court thought this case had to be brought to an end. This was a plausible method to reach that result. What was in the Florida Supreme Court opinions makes the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis plausible."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Three times the Decker brings us nourishment. Three times he slides into our mouth an empty spoon. Three times he pats our chin with a napkin. Humbly, we thank the Decker. Humbly, we notice our mouth tastes faintly of metal.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), January 22, 2001.

"Break out the cookies"--

LOL, nicely done.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.

Lars and friend,

I believe the phrase "kiss my ass" is expressly reserved for such an occasion.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Florida's 'Disappeared Voters': Disfranchised by the GOP

by GREGORY PALAST

In Latin America they might have called them votantes desaparecidos, "disappeared voters." On November 7 tens of thousands of eligible Florida voters were wrongly prevented from casting their ballots--some purged from the voter registries and others blocked from registering in the first instance. Nearly all were Democrats, nearly half of them African-American. The systematic program that disfranchised these legal voters, directed by the offices of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was so quiet, subtle and intricate that if not for George W. Bush's 500-vote eyelash margin of victory, certified by Harris, the chance of the purge's discovery would have been vanishingly small.

The group prevented from voting has few defenders in either party: felons. It has been well reported that Florida denies its nearly half a million former convicts the right to vote. However, the media have completely missed the fact that Florida's own courts have repeatedly told the Governor he may not take away the civil rights of Florida citizens who committed crimes in other states, served their time and had their rights restored by those states.

People from other states who have arrived in Florida with a felony conviction in their past number "clearly over 50,000 and likely over 100,000," says criminal demographics expert Jeffrey Manza of Northwestern University. Manza estimates that 80 percent arrive with voting rights intact, which they do not forfeit by relocating to Florida.

Nevertheless, agencies controlled by Harris and Bush ordered county officials to reject attempts by these eligible voters to register, while, publicly, the governor's office states that it adheres to court rulings not to obstruct these ex-offenders in the exercise of their civil rights. Further, with the aid of a Republican-tied database firm, Harris's office used sophisticated computer programs to hunt those felons eligible to vote and ordered them thrown off the voter registries.

After reviewing The Nation's findings, voter demographics authority David Bositis concluded that the purge-and-block program was "a patently obvious technique to discriminate against black voters.">/b> Bositis, senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC, notes that based on nationwide conviction rates, African-Americans would account for 46 percent of the ex-felon group wrongly disfranchised. Corroborating Bositis's estimate, the Hillsborough County elections supervisor found that 54 percent of the voters targeted by the "scrub" are African-American, in a county where blacks make up 11 percent of the voting population.

Bositis suggests that the block-and-purge program "must have had a partisan motivation. Why else spend $4 million if they expected no difference in the ultimate vote count?" Florida's black voters gave Al Gore nine out of ten of their votes; white and Hispanic felons, mostly poor, vote almost as solidly Democratic. A recently released University of Minnesota study estimates that, for example, 93 percent of felons of all races favored Bill Clinton in 1996. Whatever Florida's motive for keeping these qualified voters out of the polling booths on November 7, the fact is that they represented several times George W. Bush's margin of victory in the state. Key officials in Bush's and Harris's agencies declined our requests for comment.

The NAACP, tipped off to the racially suspect voter purge by early reports of this investigation, added the tainted felon-hunt to its lawsuit, filed January 10, against Harris, her elections unit chief Clay Roberts and their private database contractor. The suit accuses them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Constitution's equal protection amendment. The NAACP demands an immediate injunction to halt the felon purge.

The disfranchisement operation began in 1998 under Katherine Harris's predecessor as secretary of state, Sandra Mortham. Mortham was a Republican star, designated by Jeb Bush as his lieutenant governor running mate for his second run for governor.

Six months prior to the gubernatorial contest, the Florida legislature passed a "reform" law to eliminate registration of ineligible voters: those who had moved, those who had died and felons without voting rights. The legislation was promoted as a good- government response to the fraud-tainted Miami mayoral race of 1997.

But from the beginning, the law and its implementation emitted a partisan fragrance. Passed by the Republican legislature's majority, the new code included an extraordinary provision to turn over the initial creation of "scrub" lists to a private firm. No other state, either before or since, has privatized this key step in the elimination of citizens' civil rights.

In November 1998 the Republican-controlled office of the secretary of state handed the task to the single bidder, Database Technologies, now the DBT Online unit of ChoicePoint Inc. of Atlanta, into which it merged last year.

The elections unit within the secretary of state's office immediately launched a felon manhunt with a zeal and carelessness that worried local elections professionals. The Nation has obtained an internal Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections memo, dated August 1998, which warns Mortham's office that it had wrongly removed eligible voters in a botched rush "to capriciously take names off the rolls." However, to avoid a public row, the supervisors agreed to keep their misgivings within the confines of the bureaucracies in the belief that "entering a public fight with [state officials] would be counterproductive."

That November Jeb Bush had an unexpectedly easy walk to the governor's mansion, an election victory attributed, ironically, to his endorsement by black Democratic politicians feuding with their party.

Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the governorship and the secretary of state's office, now under Harris, the felon purge has accelerated. In May 2000, using a list provided by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to purge 8,000 Florida voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the group were charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake caught but never fully reversed. ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent out "corrected" lists, including the names of 437 voters who indeed had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was in error, since a Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing their time. In this case there was no attempt at all to correct the error.

The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap. The secretary of state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the removal of 714 names of Illinois felons and 990 from Ohio- -states that permit the vote even to those on probation or parole. According to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in the state from Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for the scrub nearly 3,000 felons who came from at least eight states that automatically restore voting rights and who therefore arrived in Florida with full citizenship.

A ChoicePoint DBT spokesman said, and the Florida Department of Elections confirms, that Harris's office approved the selection of states from which to obtain records for the felon scrub. As to why the department included states that restore voting rights, Janet Modrow, Florida's liaison to ChoicePoint DBT, bounced the question to Harris's legal staff. That office has not returned repeated calls.

Pastor Thomas Johnson of Gainesville is minister to House of Hope, a faith-based charity that guides ex-convicts from jail into working life, a program that has won high praise from the pastor's friend Governor Jeb Bush. Ten years ago, Johnson sold crack cocaine in the streets of New York, got caught, served his time, then discovered God and Florida--where, early last year, he attempted to register to vote. But local elections officials refused to accept his registration after he admitted to the decade-old felony conviction from New York. "It knocked me for a loop. It was horrendous," said Johnson of his rejection.

Beverly Hill, the elections supervisor of Alachua County, where Johnson attempted to register, said that she used to allow ex-felons like Johnson to vote. Under Governor Bush, that changed. "Recently, the [Governor's Office of Executive] Clemency people told us something different," she said. "They told us that they essentially can't vote."

Both Alachua's refusal to allow Johnson to vote and the governor's directive underlying that refusal are notable for their timing-- coming after two court rulings that ordered the secretary of state and governor to recognize the civil rights of felons arriving from other states. In the first of these decisions, Schlenther v. Florida Department of State, issued in June 1998, Florida's Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that Florida could not require a man convicted in Connecticut twenty-five years earlier "to ask [Florida] to restore his civil rights. They were never lost here." Connecticut, like most states, automatically restores felons' civil rights at the end of their sentences, and therefore "he arrived as any other citizen, with full rights of citizenship."

The Schlenther decision was much the talk at a summer 1998 meeting of county elections officials in Orlando. So it was all the more surprising to Chuck Smith, systems administrator with Hillsborough County, that Harris's elections division chiefs exhorted local officials at the Orlando meeting to purge all out-of-state felons identified by DBT. Hillsborough was so concerned about this order, which appeared to fly in the face of the court edict, that the county's elections office demanded that the state put that position in writing--a request duly granted.

The Nation has obtained the text of the response to Hillsborough. The letter, from the Governor's Office of Executive Clemency, dated September 18, 2000, arrived only seven weeks before the presidential election. It orders the county to tell ex-felons trying to register that even if they entered Florida with civil rights restored by another state's law, they will still be "required to make application for restoration of civil rights in the state of Florida," that is, ask Governor Bush for clemency--exactly the requirement banned by the courts. The state's directive was all the more surprising in light of a second ruling, issued in December 1999 by another Florida court, in which a Florida district court judge expressed his ill-disguised exasperation with the governor's administration for ignoring the prior edict in Schlenther.

Voting rights attorneys who reviewed the cases for The Nation explained that the courts relied on both Florida statute and the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution, which requires every state to accept the legal rulings of other states. "The court has been pretty clear on what the governor can't do," says Bruce Gear, assistant general counsel for the NAACP. And what Governor Bush can't do is demand that a citizen arriving in Florida ask him for clemency to restore a right to vote that the citizen already has.

Strangely enough, the governor's office does not disagree. While Harris, Bush and a half-dozen of their political appointees have not returned our calls, Tawanna Hayes, who processes the requests for clemency in the governor's office, states unequivocally that "we do not have the right to suspend or restore rights where those rights have been restored in another state." Hayes even keeps a copy of the two court decisions near her desk and quotes from them at length. Then why have the governor and secretary of state ordered these people purged from the rolls or barred from registering? Hayes directed us to Greg Munson, Governor Bush's assistant general counsel and clemency aide. Munson has not responded to our detailed request for an explanation.

A letter dated August 10, 2000, from Harris's office to Bush's office, obtained under Florida's freedom-of-information act, indicates that the chief of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections also questioned Harris's office about the purge of ex-cons whose rights had been restored automatically by other states. The supervisors' group received the same response as Hillsborough: Strike them from the voter rolls, and if they complain, make them ask Bush for clemency.

While almost all county supervisors buckled, Carol Griffen did not. Griffen, Washington County's elections chief, concluded that running legal voters through Jeb Bush's clemency maze would violate a 1993 federal law, the National Voter Registration Act, which was designed to remove impediments to the exercise of civil rights. The law, known as "Motor Voter," is credited with helping register 7 million new voters. Griffen quotes from the Florida section of the new, NVRA-certified registration form, which says, "I affirm I am not a convicted felon, or if I am, my rights relating to voting have been restored." "That's the law," says the adamant Griffen, "and I have no right stopping anyone registering who truthfully signs that statement. Once you check that box there's no discussion." Griffen's county refused to implement the scrub, and the state appears reluctant to challenge its action.

But when Pastor Johnson attempted to register in Alachua County, clerks refused and instead handed him a fifteen-page clemency request form. The outraged minister found the offer a demeaning Catch-22. "How can I ask the governor for a right I already have?" he says, echoing, albeit unknowingly, the words of the Florida courts.

Had Johnson relented and chosen to seek clemency, he would have faced a procedure that is, admits the clemency office's Hayes, "sometimes worse than breaking a leg." For New Yorkers like Johnson, she says, "I'm telling you it's a bear." She says officials in New York, which restores civil rights automatically, are perplexed by requests from Florida for nonexistent papers declaring the individual's rights restored. Without the phantom clemency orders, the applicant must hunt up old court records and begin a complex process lasting from four months to two years, sometimes involving quasi-judicial hearings, the outcome of which depends on Jeb Bush's disposition.

Little wonder that out of tens of thousands of out-of-state felons, only a hardy couple of hundred attempted to run this bureaucratic obstacle course before the election. (Bush can be compassionate: He granted clemency to Charles Colson for his crimes as a Watergate conspirator, giving Florida resident Colson the right to vote in the presidential election.)

Was Florida's corrupted felon-voter hunt the work of cozy collusion between Jeb Bush and Harris, the President-elect's brother and state campaign chief, respectively? It is unlikely we will ever discover the motives driving the voter purge, but we can see the consequences. Three decades ago, Governor George Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door and thundered, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!" but he failed to block entry to African- Americans. Governor Jeb Bush's resistance to court rulings, conducted at whisper level with high-tech assistance, has been far more effective at blocking voters of color from the polling station door. Deliberate or accidental, the error-ridden computer purge and illegal clemency obstacle course function, like the poll tax and literacy test of the Jim Crow era, to take the vote away from citizens who are black, poor and, not coincidentally, almost all Democrats. No guesswork there: Florida is one of the few states to include both party and race on registration files.

Pastor Johnson, an African-American wrongfully stripped of his vote, refuses to think ill of the governor or his motives. He prefers to see a dark comedy of bureaucratic errors: "The buffoonery of this state has cost us a President." If this is buffoonery, then Harris and the Bushes are wise fools indeed.

-- Your New Privatized Police State (thanks@'pubs!.com), January 22, 2001.

Bold off.

-- -- (GOP@fraud.com), January 22, 2001.

Ah, this reminds me of the days of kevin "mixesmusic", who went around spamming huge blocks of cut and paste into any thread tending in the "wrong" direction. If you can't win the argument, then kill it!

At least FS has a large enough mind to discuss events. Maybe this is why he uses a consistent handle?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.

Inside Republican America: A Blacklist Burning for Bush

The more you look the more disbarred and 'disappeared' Gore voters you find. You'd almost think it was deliberate

by Gregory Palast Hey, Al, take a look at this. Every time I cut open another alligator, I find the bones of more Gore voters. This week, I was hacking my way through the Florida swampland known as the Office of Secretary of State Katherine Harris and found a couple thousand more names of voters electronically 'disappeared' from the vote rolls. About half of those named are African-Americans. They had the right to vote, but they never made it to the balloting booths. When we left off our Florida story two weeks ago, The Observer discovered that Harris's office had ordered the elimination of 8,000 Florida voters on the grounds that they had committed felonies in other states. None had. Harris bought the bum list from a company called ChoicePoint, a firm whose Atlanta executive suite and boardroom are filled with Republican funders. ChoicePoint, we have learned, picked up the list of faux felons from state officials in - ahem - Texas. In fact, it was a roster of people who, like their Governor, George W, had committed nothing more than misdemeanours.

For Harris, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother, the Texas blacklist was a mistake made in Heaven. Most of those targeted to have their names 'scrubbed' from the voter roles were African- Americans, Hispanics and poor white folk, likely voters for Vice- President Gore. We don't know how many voters lost their citizenship rights before the error was discovered by a few sceptical county officials, before ChoicePoint, which has gamely 'fessed-up to the Texas-sized error, produced a new list of 58,000 felons. In May, Harris sent on the new, improved scrub sheets to the county election boards. Maybe it's my bad attitude, but I thought it worthwhile to check out the new list. Sleuthing around county offices with a team of researchers from internet newspaper Salon.com, we discovered that the 'correct' list wasn't so correct.

One elections supervisor, Linda Howell of Madison County, was so upset by the errors that she refused to use the Harris/ChoicePoint list. How could she be so sure the new list identified innocent people as felons? Because her own name was on it, 'and I assure you, I am not a felon'.

Our 10-county review suggests a minimum 15 per cent misidentification rate. That makes another 7,000 innocent people accused of crimes and stripped of their citizenship rights in the run-up to the presidential race. And not just any 7,000 people. Hillsborough (Tampa) county statisticians found that 54 per cent of the names on the scrub list belonged to African-Americans, who voted 93 per cent for Gore.

Now our team, diving deeper into the swamps, has discovered yet a third group whose voting rights were stripped. The ChoicePoint- generated list includes 1,704 names of people who, earlier in their lives, were convicted of felonies in Illinois and Ohio. Like most American states, these two restore citizenship rights to people who have served their time in prison and then remained on the good side of the law.

Florida strips those convicted in its own courts of voting rights for life. But Harris's office concedes, and county officials concur, that the state of Florida has no right to impose this penalty on people who have moved in from these other states. (Only 13 states, most in the Old Confederacy, bar reformed criminals from voting.)

Going deeper into the Harris lists, we find hundreds more convicts from the 35 other states which restored their rights at the end of sentences served. If they have the right to vote, why were these citizens barred from the polls? Harris didn't return my calls. But Alan Dershowitz did. The Harvard law professor, a renowned authority on legal process, said: 'What's emerging is a pattern of reducing the total number of voters in Florida, which they know will reduce the Democratic vote.'

How could Florida's Republican rulers know how these people would vote? I put the question to David Bositis, America's top expert on voting demographics. Once he stopped laughing, he said the way Florida used the lists from a private firm was, 'an obvious technique to discriminate against black voters'. In a darker mood, Bositis, of Washington's Center for Political and Economic Studies, said the sad truth of American justice is that 46 per cent of those convicted of felony are African-American. In Florida, a record number of black folk, over 80 per cent of those registered to vote, packed the polling booths on November 7. Behind the curtains, nine out of 10 black people voted Gore.

Mark Mauer of the Sentencing Project, Washington, pointed out that the 'white' half of the purge list would be peopled overwhelmingly by the poor, also solid Democratic voters.

Add it up. The dead-wrong Texas list, the uncorrected 'corrected' list, plus the out-of-state ex-con list. By golly, it's enough to swing a presidential election. I bet the busy Harris, simultaneously in charge of both Florida's voter rolls and George Bush's presidential campaign, never thought of that.

But enough is never enough, it seems. We have discovered a fourth group of Gore voters also barred from the polls.

It was Thursday, 2am. On the other end of the line, heavy breathing, then a torrent too fast for me to catch it all. 'Vile... lying... inaccurate... pack of nonsense... riddled with errors'... click! This was not a ChoicePoint whistleblower telling me about the company's notorious list. It was ChoicePoint's own media communications representative, Marty Fagan, communicating with me about my, 'sleazy disgusting journalism' in reporting on it.

I was curious about this company that appears - although never say never in this game - to have chosen the next President for America's voters. Its board dazzles with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone and Home Depot tycoon Bernard Marcus, big Republican funders.

Florida is the only state to hire an outside firm to suggest who should lose citizenship rights. That may change. 'Given a new President, and what we accomplished in Florida, we expect to roll across the nation,' ChoicePoint told me ominously.

They have quite a pedigree for this solemn task. The company's Florida subsidiary, Database Technologies (now DBT Online), was founded by one Hank Asher. When US law enforcement agencies alleged that he may have been associated with Bahamian drug dealers - although no charges were brought - the company lost its data management contract with the FBI. Hank and his friends left last year and so, in Florida's eyes, the past is forgiven.

Thursday, 3am. (I should say both calls were at my request). A new, gentler voice giving me ChoicePoint's upbeat spin. 'You say we got over 15 per cent wrong - we like to look at that as up to 85 per cent right!' That's 7,000 votes-plus - the bulk Democrats, not to mention the thousands on the Texas list. Gore may lose by 500 votes.

I contacted San Francisco-based expert Mark Swedlund. 'It's just fundamental industry practice that you don't roll out the list statewide until you have tested it and tested it again,' he said. 'Dershowitz is right: they had to know that this jeopardised thousands of people's registrations. And they would also know the [racial] profile of those voters.'

'They' is Florida state, not ChoicePoint. Let's not get confused where the blame lies. Harris's crew lit this database fuse, then acted surprised when it blew up. Swedlund says ChoicePoint had a professional responsibility to tell the state to test the list; ChoicePoint says the state should not have used its 'raw' data.

Until Florida privatised its Big Brother powers, laws kept the process out in the open. This year, when one county asked to see ChoicePoint's formulas and back-up for blacklisting voters, they refused - these were commercial secrets. So we'll never know how America's president was chosen.

ChoicePoint complains that I said Harris signed their contract. It was a Beth Emory. I'm still more than 85 per cent accurate.

-- The "Privatization" of Democracy (thanks@'pubs!.com), January 22, 2001.

Flint, I remember Kevin trying to discuss Y2K... at least a few times.

As for FS, I think he thinks he's really presenting a compelling argument. Unfortunately, I have no telepathic powers to review what he has read. I do know there has been a hue and cry from some legal scholars. Apparently, the recent Supreme Court decision has ended the world... the rest of us just don't realize it yet. Of course, I do find it amusing that the liberal legal scholars applaud judicial activism when it serves their ends. Ah, well....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 22, 2001.

Sure, Flint. When the FACTS are presented in journalistic form, you debase the poster of the facts. It's YOU who cannot win this argument, and the articles handily show how skewed your biased assumptions are. In my own case, I prefer reading well-researched reports by professionals over the meandering assumptions of a certified gun-crazy "libertarian."

-- Flint Again Proven Wrong by Facts (thanks@pubs!.com), January 22, 2001.

Passed by the Republican legislature's majority, the new code included an extraordinary provision to turn over the initial creation of "scrub" lists to a private firm. No other state, either before or since, has privatized this key step in the elimination of citizens' civil rights.

This is what will not stand, and it ought to make any reader of this board of ANY political persuasion very uneasy.

If you don't find this frightening, I suggest you are nothing less than a traitor to this nation and the democratic ideals it was founded upon.

-- Coup 2K (thanks@'pubs!.com), January 22, 2001.

"Tuesday's Supreme Court decision giving the presidency to George W. Bush, delivered in the dead of night in an opaque, anonymous opinion rendered by Justices who gave no oral presentation from the bench (as they usually do) but instead appropriately snuck out of the Court building throught the garage, leaves the country facing a worrisome political future."

Gee, I don't know. That sounds pretty "cowardly" to me.

In fact it was so cowardly that Bush cowered in his limousine on Inauguration Day, surrounded by thousands of police and Secret Service agents who set up unprecedented checkpoints and miles of barbed-wire fencing and searched private citizens, all to protect the illegitimate coward cowered in the limosine from the outrage of tens of thousands of courageous Americans who called this election what it is : a coup d'etat.

Hail to the Thief.

-- Coup 2K (thanks@pubs!.com), January 22, 2001.

pubs:

What you are calling "facts in journalistic form" (Orwell would have *loved* that phrase) are carefully selected and organized to support the opinion of the editorialist. This is perfectly acceptable, provided you recognize that you are reading an intentionally and highly slanted opinion with which you agree. I can assure you I'd have no difficulty spamming this forum with editorials from the opposite end of the spectrum, using carefully selected and interpreted facts as weapons in exactly the same way.

What interests me are the conclusions drawn by anyone who reads multiple points of view. And in this case, we get plastered with only a single viewpoint, without so much as a word of reaction or analysis by the spammer. If this forum devolves into a place to regurgitate duplications of what's available elsewhere without any thought behind it, then what's the sense of being here at all? Do YOU know?

FS has more than once used as his ace in the hole, the claim that "I have read every opinion that agrees with mine that I can find, spending long hours in the process. This makes me *educated*!" Yet he cannot present these opinions consistently or coherently.

There is a great deal to be said in favor of his positions, and a strong case can be made, *provided* he doesn't convince himself that this is the ONLY case that can be made. Claiming that Chevrolets are the greatest cars in the world and Fords are the worst, and "supporting" this by reading every press release GM ever made, doesn't make for a sensible argument, nor make the arguer look anything but silly. You cannot show *why* one side is superior to another if you grant your opponent no respect. We are supposed to recognize what is meant by the LOYAL opposition. We need it, desperately. Those who use power to gun it down are shooting themselves.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.

The articles are presented for anyone with an open mind who wishes to discover the facts.

Since you have such a problem accepting facts, Flint, and since these two credible articles state the facts so well, I thought it might provide "context" and "process" to this "debate." Again, I would rather read well-researched articles by professionals than the ridiculously slanted and sarcastic "rebuttals" by a gun- crazy "libertarian" who goes by the name of Flint.

It must be hard to be shown up so convincingly, and to be proven wrong on so many counts by the independent press. It's so painful that you resort to accusing me of "spamming," as if you were some kind of forum official who knows the "real rules." Why not present an article that shows how the "cleansing" of voter lists in Florida was perfectly legitimate, legal, and systemically unbiased toward Democrats -- that is, if such an article exists.

In any case, like Brian before me, I refuse to engage in further discussion with you because I don't respect you, personally, or your views. Although I once admired your intellect, I now scorn it. I long ago began to skip most of your posts, and will henceforth resume bypassing your posts and the ugly political and personal views they express.

-- Coup 2k (thanks@'pubs!.com), January 22, 2001.

"I have read every opinion that agrees with mine that I can find, spending long hours in the process. This makes me *educated*!" Yet he cannot present these opinions consistently or coherently."

Just so you know, Flint, by opinion I mean the opinions issued by the court, not opinions that agree with mine. In fact, it was well over a month after the ussc decision that I started to read other folks stuff. My conclusion was based on extensive study of the law behind the cases. One thing that stands out is this:

In the original certiorai to the USSC, the Bush team presented three issues that they felt the supremes should review in the Palm Beach County suit(Gore vs. Theresa Lepore). The court agreed to here the appeal on two of the issues. Guess which one they refused to discuss? Yep, if you guessed equal protection clause you are absolutely right. Why, all of a sudden, two weeks later, do they issue an opinion which ostensibly hinges on equal protection?

Why did the notably conservative 11th US court of appeals deny stopping the recounts, in a defeat for the Bush team? Because they could not find compelling reasons to stop it, based on essentially the same info. presented to the Supremes.

These are the questions which vex me. What vexes me is that people like John Yoo say stuff like this:

"I would rather have the divisive crisis over and the government put together than [preserve] the court's legitimacy for some unforeseen future need"

I do not know about you, Ken, but I was taught as a kid that "haste makes waste". This was never, and should never have been about expediancy. Deadlines in law are never quite that, if there is a compelling reason to extend them. There is NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States that would have prevented the counting to have gone on right up until 1/6/2001. Hawaii submitted revised counts in the 1960 election on January third of the year after the election.

Yoo has confused the issue-it is not about the reputation of the court; it is about wether or not 50 million people suffered irreperable harm. Did their votes get diluted by not having the under/over votes counted in Florida? By the supremes own opinion, one would have to answer YES. I find Yoo's comments about expediancy detestable. We have provisions in the constitution about order of succession if this was not resolved by 1/20/2001. This is a rather weak argument that states-well, we may have gotten it wrong, but it is more important that it is over, and a transition is taking place.

Bradford Berenson said:

"It seems to me there is an equal protection problem of a fairly serious kind if you are applying different standards to votes in different parts of the state"

So what would he say to applying different standards in different states in different counties all over the nation? What will he say if the election is to close to call in 2004, and two states are having contests which will hinge on counting undervotes/overvotes? Will both these states have passed legislation by 2004 to make all things equal?

This is a problem which, reductum ad absurdum leads to this conclusion: in order for every vote to be counted legally, every vote must be counted uniformly. There would have to be one way of voting in every precint in the country. I do not have to tell you that this would be a fairly clear violation of the constitution.

Lowenstein said:

"Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. Supreme Court thought this case had to be brought to an end. This was a plausible method to reach that result."

This is another version of the Yoo argument. Rightly or wrongly? Had to be brought to an end? Sure Florida wanted safe harbor-and the florida supremes stated such. But the decision to halt the recounts on 12/9/2000 assured that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to resolve the issues by the safe harbor date. Was there wiggle room even the Florida wanted safe harbor? Sure was. I have stated before that that deadline was not exactly iron clad.

I am not impressed by folks who look at expediency as the aim, rather than doing everything possible by 1/6/2001 to count the under/over votes. Even Lowenstein says, in the contruction of his sentence, that what the supremes did may have been wrong, but, you know, we just had to move on. And this is what upsets me the most-that they WERE more concerned about shutting the doors as quickly as possible-They were NEVER concerned with counting all the under/over votes.

Something will come of all this. Improprities will be found and adjudicated. Again, if in two years(sadly I will probably still be on this board!) nothing has surfaced and the NAACP's case is thrown out, and it is shown that nothing illegal happened in FLorida, I will write a good long post about what an asshoel I was.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001.

Flint,

I didn't mean to be so harsh in my last post. I don't agree with your politics, and it's probably better that we don't engage in argument, but that doesn't excuse my harshness. It's nothing personal, I just can't debate with you because I cannot find merit in your arguments about politics. Anyway, my apologies.

FutureShock,

I totally agree. I think that the excuse of "expediency," and of having to "settle" the so-called "crisis," which is the only argument the conservatives have been able to muster in defense of the gross injustice of the Supreme Court's decision, is feeble and transparently reprehensible in the face of what was at stake -- democracy itself!

-- Coup 2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 23, 2001.

So, FS, by your lack of response I take it your giving up on the "systemic disenfranchisement" nonsense... at least until we have some decent data.

As for the Supreme Court decision, I realize it was controversial. You overstate your case, however, when you say the "consensus" of legal scholars disagree with the decision. My quotes simply indicate there are more than one side to this argument... contrary to your earlier posts on this thread.

Mr. Yoo and other scholars are not arguing for "haste" or "expediency." This is a distortion of their position. Right or not, the Supreme Court considered December 12 a deadline. Justice Breyer said, "Of course, it is too late for any such recount to take place by Dec. 12, the date by which election disputes must be decided if a state is to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of 3 U.S.C. Section 5." A majority of justices agreed that December 12 was a binding date per 3 U.S.C. Section 5.

As for "deadlines in the law," FS, meeting legal deadlines is part of my job. Deadlines do matter. When government does not meet specific statuatory deadlines its actions can be overturned or invalidated.

Again, I'm not sure if I agree with Yoo's assessment, but don't hand me a line about how everyone agrees the Supreme Court "robbed" the Florida electorate.

The Florida votes were machine counted twice in accordance with Florida law. Bush won both times.

"This (counting the undervotes) is the heart of the problem that divided the two sides. . . . The Florida Legislature thought, and the Bush side assumed, the votes would be counted by machines and that the machine count was it. The vice president asked for a machine recount, and that was done. Anything beyond that was creating a new system because you are then looking at votes that normally are not included. No one could say with any certainty those little blips on the ballots were expressive of the voters' intent, and the Legislature did not intend that." Douglas W. Kmiec, Pepperdine Law Professor

There were no clear standards for the manual recount. There was no clear standard for determining intent. By numerous accounts, both democrats and republicans were claiming flaws in the manual counting process. As Berenson noted, seven justices agreed that "clear intent" can't be one thing in one county and something else in another.

I'm not sure the equal protection argument is appropriate, but the justices clearly felt the manual recount process was flawed. Let me quote Berenson again... "I think the justices concluded there was no fair and constitutional way to conduct a statewide recount at this late date. So, if you can't fix the problem and make it perfect, they decided that ultimately the fairest way was to take the guy who received the most votes in the machine count."

The Supreme Court faced two unpleasant choices... allow a badly flawed, selective manual vote count process proceed past the December 12 deadline or intervene. Your argument presupposes that this manual process would have accurately counted the "over" or "under" votes. I do not share this opinion. I think the manual process was highly politicized and fraught with problems.

As I demonstate in two recent posts, vote fraud is a historical fact in the U.S. (and Florida). What I hope happens is that the Florida debacle prompts necessary reforms in voter registration and elections. If there was voter fraud in Florida, I hope the culprits are caught and punished... but I'll wager you'll find examples of democrats and republicans breaking the same laws.

"Coup,"

The Republic has survived numerous bad Supreme Court decisions. It has even survived a misguided socialist agenda that would gladly substitute a totalitarian central government while eliminating our individual liberties. We have survived a "War on Poverty" that increased the welfare rolls and culture of dependency. We have weathered collectivist agricultural policies that mostly benefit large corporate farmers. We have moved forward despite a failing public education system protected from reform by selfish teacher's unions. Amazingly enough, the Republic continues despite the best intentions of the intelligentsia. Unless the Supreme Court has taken hold of the nuclear "football," they cannot do any more damage to America than liberal policy makers.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 23, 2001.

Kmiec states:

"... Anything beyond that was creating a new system because you are then looking at votes that normally are not included."

This is simply false, by any reading of the Florida contest statutes, and FLorida case law. I will not post those statutes as they have been posted here before, but there was precedent in Florida to do manual recounts. It startles me that a law professor would publish such diatribe. I have no idea how he drew this conclusion-maybe a link to the whole text?

Also, please do not say that all the votes were machine counted twice- they WERE NOT in at least 17 counties in FLorida, by the admission of those county boards. Let us not lose sight of the known facts.

Ken, you said:

"Right or not, the Supreme Court considered December 12 a deadline. Justice Breyer said, "Of course, it is too late for any such recount to take place by Dec. 12, the date by which election disputes must be decided if a state is to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of 3 U.S.C. Section 5." A majority of justices agreed that December 12 was a binding date per 3 U.S.C. Section 5."

I guess I will admit to a tad of idealism in my veins, but I do not think there was any room for the Supreme Court to be "wrong" here. They HAD to get it right due to the grave nature of the situation. I have been arguing all along that they indeed got it wrong, based on the law. As far as safe harbor, it is a red herring. Even if the most bizarre end game developed, where two slates of electors were sent by the state of FLorida, Governor Jeb Bush had the final say about which set of electors was truly certified by the state.

What the supremes were saying is that if they let the recount go forward, and it was found that Gore won-and if that occured after 12/18/2000, that the Gore slate of electors sent would not get a rubber stamp by congress in a dispute. The state would lose the rubber stamp by not resolving the issue in time. In some ways I would have preferred the end game scenario where Bush's electors get recognized by congress, even if Gore was shown to have more votes. At least all these under/over votes would have been examined.

As far as legal deadlines, sure they give the appearance of being real. But every day actions filed after statutes of limitation have expired, especially in civil matters, are allowed to stand due to extrenuating circumstances. The law in writing and the law in application can of course be two very different things. I certainly understand legal deadlines, and typically they are rock solid. In application, however, "rules" are bent regularly.

When hostory is written, the consensus will be that this was a bad USSC decision, not unlike the Dred Scott decision. My opinion of what will happen. You believe differently. That is fine.

The issue in Florida was the fact that their law stated a standard, "clear intent of the voter", that, according to the US Supremes, was unconstitutional. The catch-22 situation which developed was that Gore never had a way of getting redress-he had no remedy available to him, and that is what distresses me most of all. Our legal system is supposedly designed to allow the petition for redress. If indeed the FLorida stature regarding clear intent is unconstitutional, the elimates the use of the contest action in the state of Florida, which allows manual recounts as part of a contest provision.

Yet the supremes did not REALLY state it was unconstitutional-a per curium opinion does not have the weight of setting precedent. And this is another reason I feel the majority on the court were cowards- why not back your opinion with precedent?

At the end of the day, Ken, we are going to agree to disagree. You know that, and I know that. Legislation has been introduced in at least two bills this session in the house regarding election reform; one of them asks to appoint a "gold medal" panel to review election law in its entirety, including the electoral college.

No dounbt change is inevitable, and hopefully we will never have to have this debate again. The legislature of Florida penned a very bad law, and Gore and the majority of americans who voted in this election must suffer the consequences of that. It IS a small world.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 23, 2001.

What you are calling "facts in journalistic form" (Orwell would have *loved* that phrase)...

Indeed he would have. George Orwell was a journalist. Read The Road to Wigan Pier. Read Homage to Catalonia. They are both journalism.

I don't think Orwell would take exception to the idea that journalists are capable of writing facts. But I do think he could see through this kind of argumentation.

-- Peanut Gallery (peanut@gallery.con), January 23, 2001.

Peanut:

Yes indeed I'm sure he could. It's what he's famous for. And you will notice I never said journalists were making things up, they are using real facts. The y2k doomers also used real facts. It's the selection and interpretation of facts that counts. In straight news, journalists try to present pertinent facts without interpretation. But what we have here is howlingly partisan editorial, where (as I said) facts are used as weapons, to persuade and NOT to inform.

The whole point of FS's original post was that these facts are *extemely* selective. They are literally being used to create a legal case, whether or not the underlying pattern being alleged actually exists. They are presented to advocate, NOT to educate. And FS is so partisan that, if he flipped a coin, if you won it's luck and if he won it's merit. And he actually believes this!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 2001.

Flint, my dear dum dum. All along I have stated that it is my belief that there was disenfranchisement in Florida. At one point I gave a rather ambiguos hat's off to "systemic", but I believe there was a losely organized attempt to keep the vote down in FLorida, as the NAACP's suit posits.

Continuing to make light of my opinion, making references to my myopic vision of the world, casting me as a cartoon character, as a person entirely incapable of seeing the other side of the picture is a poor debating tactic. If the NAACP's case is dismissed at the first level, as I have said before, I will post I am an asshole. I do not think this will happen. I will say again that you do not need to examine an entire data set in a class action suit in order to prove the class was harmed.

Organizations such as the NAACP, and other plaintiff's in this action including the ACLU and People for the American Way do not just go around filing frivolous lawsuits. They would be laughed out of countenance, and their suits in the future will be regularly bounced out of the courts.

I propose a new rul that in any debate, the person who raises the partisan objection first loses. It seems at times that arguments are attacked merely because they represent the opposing view to the attacker, and not on its merits. I propose that we debate the issues at hand, and not say, in effect, "he's partisan. why listen to him". That is really the most disingenous argument of all. We are all partisan to a degree. Should we all just stop listening to one another?

That is where you are leading this, Flint. Your constant shout about my partisanship is getting tiresome. Do you want to talk about the issues at hand, or do you want to try to remove me from the pulpit with a lot of hot air about partisanship.

Do you want to talk about class action suits, and what it takes for a class to be certified? Do you want to talk about the law behind the decisions made in the Florida Fiasco, or do you want to stay put in your conclusion that it was all political, and all truly unsolvable?

I think they have a case. You do not. So what? Must you continue to say how invalid my opinion is simply because I feel so strongly one way about this?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 23, 2001.

"It seems at times that arguments are attacked merely because they represent the opposing view to the attacker, and not on its merits."

And now you know why most of us don't even bother attempting to "discuss" anything with him any longer. I tried to point this out I don't know how many times. Brian tried to point this out I don't know how many times. Others have tried to point this out I don't know how many times. Each and every attempt resulted in Flint's Personal Attacks: "I Can't Refute the Facts, So I'll Just Debase YOU" (tempered by such insight as "I know you know better").

No mas.

And remember, FS: It's only "spin" and "partisanship" if it comes from the Left ;-)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), January 23, 2001.

No, Patricia, it's spin if Poole is talking.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 23, 2001.

Tsk, tsk, how self-serving we all are. FS once described a piece that I published from the National Review on Ashcroft as "spin". Naturally, I would describe it as "opinion".

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.

FS:

[Organizations such as the NAACP, and other plaintiff's in this action including the ACLU and People for the American Way do not just go around filing frivolous lawsuits.]

I believe the situation is more subtle and complex than this. What, exactly, does the NAACP hope to gain through this lawsuit? A reversal of the election's outcome? No chance there. A reform of the flaws in the voting process? But these flaws are (as far as news reports have it) being examined nationwide, with an eye toward achieving multiple goals, some of which are nearly mutually exclusive. Such as preventing fraud, reducing expense, reducing error rate, reducing the difficulty of registration, and so on. Many investigations are underway in most states, though the NAACP is not involved, nor are the courts.

Now, do you mean to say that this lawsuit will make such reform more likely, or that the courts will require it somehow? If so, this isn't a bad goal by any means. There really ARE problems with our voting procedures, and errors and fraud (and misunderstandings) are common. Maybe the process should be examined and changed.

But in that case, why the NAACP? Historically, nearly all the systemic disenfranchisement efforts have been targeted against the *party out of power*. That is, fraud has been political far more than racial in intent. Furthermore, any genuine reform of the voting procedures (which is needed, I agree) falls across racial lines by necessity. Our polling places are not segregated, and from what I've read that subset of efforts to undermine the voting process against the Democrats falls more heavily on blacks simply because blacks tend to vote heavily Democratic. Of course, that equally large subset of efforts to harm the Republicans, which really exists, is not mentioned in this suit.

So everything considered, what are the NAACP's purposes here? Do you know? I don't know, but I suspect that among the primary purposes are (1) To add to and illustrate the chosen role of victimhood (i.e. to more clearly define the NAACP's constituency); (2) To attract new membership; and (3) to attract more contributions. I believe that the issue of voting reform is an excellent (and legitimate) vehicle to carry forward a publicity campaign.

Even if the case is thrown out of court immediately, therefore, so long as the members and contributions flow in the lawsuit will have *served its purpose*. Already we see that it is polarizing us -- I believe in working within the system to fix what's wrong, and the NAACP believes in publicity, demonstrations, symbolic acts, martyrs, and the like. Maybe the NAACP is right and this is what it takes. And if so, the lawsuit can be *legally* frivolous but *politically* useful and powerful.

[They would be laughed out of countenance, and their suits in the future will be regularly bounced out of the courts.]

This is simply false. Every case is considered on its own merits by the legal system. We have what amounts to a profession in this countro of "professional litigant", people who sue for fun and profit. Nearly all their suits are silly, but the system is required to consider each one. And some of them have real merit, enough to keep this profession in business. I doubt if you could find me even one single instance where anyone was bounced *solely* on the grounds of why they were, rather than on the merits of their argument. Not one.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 2001.

dubby was never elected. Plain and simple. The Supremes gave him the right-wing coup. We are no longer a democracy. why can't you people understand this?

-- Not My President (not@my.president), January 23, 2001.

Not My President,

Your thinking skills appear to be both "plain and simple".

Bush was indeed elected. The U.S. Supreme Court squelched the Florida Supreme Court's attempt to rewrite Florida election law, which, had it succeeded, would have resulted in a left-wing coup.

By the way, we never were a democracy. We have always been a constitutional republic.

Why can't you understand this?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 23, 2001.

"That is, fraud has been political far more than racial in intent."

Say what? You're pretending there's some kind of division between race and politics that just ain't so.

Racism, by its nature, treats members of a targeted race as the same. The essence of racism is to grant or deny privileges based on membership in a race. Consequently, racism, just by existing, unites political interests of those affected by it along racial lines. Party politics and race have been joined at the hip since the Abolitionists and Know-Nothings in the nineteenth century. Criminy!

You think this is theoretical or abstract? You think this is pulling ideas out of a hat? Just take a freaking look around you! Polls showed that nearly 90% of blacks voted for Gore. This isn't just evidence that party politics and race are inseperable. It is overwhelming evidence - undeniable, slap-in-the-face, 500-pound-rock-in-the-road evidence.

I mean, could you honestly think that all those people are clueless about their own interests - that they voted wrong? That they don't know the score? That they can't judge reality for themselves? (Or just can't judge reality as well as you do?)

If you think that (note the "if"), then you are hopelessly stupid. Dumb-as-a-post stupid. None-so-blind-as-those-who-won't-see stupid. Really, really stupid. Or just possibly... plain-old-down-home-racist stupid.

Are you that dumb? Huh? Are you?

-- Say What? (you_said_what?@clues_for_sale.net), January 23, 2001.

And while I'm at it...

"Historically, nearly all the systemic disenfranchisement efforts have been targeted against the *party out of power*."

Do take a moment from your busy day and check out which party is *in power* in Florida, dearie. Ole Jeb Bush is the gubner and the Republicans control the Legislature by a whopping big margin. Now, honeylamb, don't you recall how the Florida State Legislature done went and elected their own slate of electors... Republican electors... just cuz they could?

How do you explain that, anyway?

-- Say What? (you_said_what?@clues_for_sale.net), January 23, 2001.

say what:

Perhaps you should think first, then write. Highly recommended.

Party and race are not the same thing. That's what I said, and that's what I meant. Not all blacks are democrats, and not all democrats are black. You might find that hard to believe, but it's true. Indeed, blacks for several generations voted overwhelmingly Republican in deference to the party of Lincoln. It's a fairly recent historical trend for blacks to move away from the party that freed the slaves and toward a party that offers to reward lack of productivity.

Your second error is one of scope. Mayor Daley didn't control all of Illinois, which often voted Republican as a state. But he had huge influence within his jurisdiction. The party out of power applies at the booth level, not the state level. Check it out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 2001.

"Party and race are not the same thing. That's what I said, and that's what I meant."

You realize, of course, anyone can simply scroll up to your screed to find out what you said. I suggest people with short memories do so. I believe they will find something more written there than the "party and race are not the same thing."

Of course, if you now want to reduce your point down to that simple truism, then by all means do so. When you poke at a snail, it retracts, too.

"The party out of power applies at the booth level, not the state level. Check it out."

The alleged disenfranchisement took place at the state level not the local level. You remember now, don't you? Felons? Voter rolls? Purging the list? Felons who weren't felons? Felons whose voting rights were restored by the state where the felony conviction occurred?

Is it coming back to you, yet? Good.

It seems that those clever Floridians went and did the impossible - they figured out a way to be corrupt at the state level! Call the Nobel Prize committee!

-- Say What? (you_said_what?@clues_for_sale.net), January 23, 2001.

The bull snorts and paws the earth. Clots of grass fly up. Rocks fly up. Dust flys up. The sparrows look on.

Across the pasture, the other bull snorts and paws the earth. More grass, more rocks, more dust.

My! Such an abundance of grass, rocks and dust!

The sparrows resume hopping from branch to branch. They have seen grass, rocks and dust before.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), January 23, 2001.

Flint, I just reread the suit(I did post a link). I have re-read all your posts and can only draw the conclusion that you have not read it all the way through, if you read the link at all.

You claim to be statistic driven, claim to be logical, and then a long way into the debate you ask the question "What do they hope to gain?".

Well, by golly, it says exactly what they hope to gain at the end of the filing. Had you read the document, you would have never asked this question. Had you read the document, you might actually see why the suit was filed. And since when is filing a law suit not "working within the system?".

Hey, I can relate to cynicism-bit of a cynic myself you know, but your comments about the motives of the NAACP and other co-plaintiffs are laughable at best. More money? Notoriety? Publicity? Victimhood?

I guess it could not be that the folks listed in the suit(and there are many more other than the examples I originally posted) are pissin mad about being denied the right to vote FOR NO GOOD REASON-because they were on a felon list and they were non-felons, because they presented changes of address in a timely fashion and never received new cards, because 10 predominatly white precints in one of the counties were supplied lap top computers to check ineligible rolls, and none of the black precints in that county were supplied with a laptop, and in another county, of 18 laptops supplied for the same reason, 17 went to predominantly white precints.

Hey. Wake up! These people WERE VICTIMS of a system that was broken. They WERE disenfranchised. And if we are to believe you, Flint, we should just believe that this is some kind of publicity stunt, a fundraising campaign, when true, honest to goodness americans, were denied their voting rights. People who followed the letter of the law in their actions.

It really startles me that you do not care, but then maybe it does not.

I think the biggest error you have made, Flint, is that you did not read my link, or least it appears that way. And this, in my opinion, is unforgiveable. I never join a debate without checking out the sources presented by adverseries and proponents alike.

In fact, I no longer wish to continue this debate unless you do or have read my original link all the way through.

Without doing that, you are exposed as a fraud on this topic. For someone who thinks I SHOULD BE LOOKING at the other side, it sure seems curious that you yourself would not read the whole law suit.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 23, 2001.

FS:

Please don't reduce this to binary thinking. I am quite sure the NAACP has many reasons for bringing this suit. I consider all of these reasons legitimate. What am I to make of your position that their purpose is *either* legal *or* it is political, implying that these are mutually exclusive. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

And many cases have been brought into court *partially* for publicity value. Do you sincerely expect them to explicitly state, *in the legal documents*, that this is one of the purposes of the suit? Lawyers know better.

Nor am I saying that the case being brought is without merit. There is a difference between waiting to see what the legal system makes of it and declaring in advance that the alleged systemic and deliberate disenfranchisement actually happened as specified. There are two sides to any lawsuit. You presume the accuracy and justification of every claim made by your preferred side, *in advance*. That's the entire purpose of this thread -- to get us to agree that the NAACP is completely correct in every allegation, and aren't those awful racists in Florida terrible for setting out to corrupt this election by robbing these people of their rights, why, how awful!

FS, what we have here is a legal case or controversy, to be heard and adjudicated by the courts. That's fine with me. If the courts find genuine wrongdoing and correct it, that's fine with me also. But if I understand you correctly, you have read only one side (the NAACP's side), fully agree with it, and won't discuss the case with anyone uless they ALSO read only one side and fully agree with it.

So if the NAACP wins this case, I'll be satisfied that their claims had merit and were correct. I trust the court system. I sincerely do not wish any systematic disenfranchisement of anyone. I'm just trying to point out that the NAACP's claims do not constitute legal findings, regardless of how strongly you may be willing to credit them. Furthermore, if they DO win the case, they DESERVE more members and more contributions. Even from me.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 2001.

Flint, how come you keep stealing from me?

I know you know these concepts, so it's not exactly stealing... I guess it's just being opportunistic, but right after I introduced "x is code for y" you used it, and now you're juxtaposing "mutually exclusive" concepts... C'mon, your IQ must harbor some new talking points! ;^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 23, 2001.

Bemused:

I admit I haven't read your versions (and can't find them, sorry to say), but I'm not surprised either. Great minds think alike, right?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 2001.

Umm... The contenet of some of the latest couple posts in this forum is what I was talking about. It's OK, I'm starting to think it wasn't deliberate. Which tells me a lot about you, BTW.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 23, 2001.

contenet == content

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 23, 2001.

And of course, I need to provide the meaning : You read what people write, and... you "use" it.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 23, 2001.

"I have re-read all your posts and can only draw the conclusion that you have not read it all the way through, if you read the link at all."

FS, you do not undertand Flint. He has an ideology. It is an ironclad, airtight ideology. It enables him to discern the truth with having to bother with gathering information. Whatever facts he gathers only serve to confirm that he was right all along. This becomes tedious, therefore he no longer needs to examine the facts, only interpret them. Interpretation of a fact can be tricky when you have not actually come into contact with it, but Flint manages to find a way. He is resourceful.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), January 23, 2001.

"cookies and milk" = Syd Barret?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.

Flint, what do you think? Lazineses in writing? No shame there.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 23, 2001.

...."cookies and milk" = Syd Barret? ....

He snatches fiercely at the mosquito. Opens his fist. Looks for the dead body. Damn! A miss is as good as a mile.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), January 24, 2001.

Cookie--

Methinks thou dost protest too much. A simple "no" would suffice.

No matter, I am submitting a sample of your posts and Syd's posts to the Linguistic Forensics Lab at MIT. You can run but you can't hide.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.

There were not meetings with intricately defined actions specifically spelled out. All that needed to be done was to put the word out- give the state to Bush-do whatever it takes. Plenty of people knew what they could do in their own area, plenty of winks and nods, plenty of half sentences, lots of sly little ideas thrown around.

Of course there wasn't much of anything documented, word of mouth was good enough to get the message across. The goals were known, the message understood, and everything that could be done was. Hiding in plain sight.

The scary thing is that all these different little improprieties are being acknowledged, yet shrugged off as business as usual.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 24, 2001.

Cherri,

It's worse than just winks and nods. Watch Bush closely---he is constantly blinking! The blinks are encrypted messages to his handlers at the Unification Church, the NWO and the USSC. It is frightening.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), January 24, 2001.

Cookies,

Damn! A miss is as good as a mile.

Not in horse-shoes or hand grenades.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 24, 2001.

Or not in spotted blue dresses.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), January 25, 2001.