Feds rip Georgia voter system, from AJC:
In a six-page letter issued last week, and released Monday, Justice Department lawyers said Handel's office had created a system that "does not produce accurate and reliable information and that thousands of citizens who are in fact eligible to vote under Georgia law have been flagged."
But the system that was created, the federal lawyers found, was flawed and of the 7,000 individuals flagged as potential "non-citizens," more than 50 percent were actually U.S. citizens. Furthermore, the department found, those flagged as non-citizens were overwhelmingly black, Asian or Hispanic.
It would seem that Handel has finally been called on her cynical tactic to make it through the Republican Gubernatorial primary. And that's a good thing. Here's hoping it bites her in the ass in the General.
43 Responses to “DOJ smacks down Karen Handel”
There needs to be a review of both sides methodology.
Yes grift, but to paraphrase President Obama, we won.
Beyond that, it's already too difficult to vote in this state. The last thing we need is the SOS throwing up more barriers to citizens.
I'm convinced this was nothing more than PR for Handel's political career, at the expense of thousands of legitimate voters.
Remember Shirley Franklin's mother's story? Just imagine if there was yet another barrier overcome. Just like Voter ID, this scheme is not fair to certain segments of the population. It's called disenfranchisement. Plain and simple.
Karen Handel is a tool and as far as I am concerned she can go to hell with gasoline drawers on.
Mel, politicizing the DOJ is a very dangerous thing. We won isn't good enough for that particular branch.
I know I'm about to be called "Karen's boyfriend" here, but like many things (WAY TOO MANY THINGS) involving voting, we really don't know anything about the methodology used except the SOS says its fine and the DOJ says it's not.
If it takes a court case then so be it, but let's have the method and the scrutiny exposed to the air where it can be judged beyond (forgive the poor metaphor), he said/she said.
If it's shown that the DOJ accusation holds water, then I don't necessarily agree that it's racist or even political to the degree that is argued here. But it would definitely go far towards showing a lack of competence as an administrator which has always been where Handel has swayed independents.
"it's already too difficult to vote in this state."
Quoting for entertainment value.
A 51% error rate is unacceptable. I am curious as to who the other 49% are (that are supposedly non-citizens trying to register), but Handel needs to find a better way to check that out.
From reading about stuff like this in previous years, I highly doubt that so many non-eligible voters are trying to register. There may be timing issues with their citizenship or any number of other innocent explanations that are far more likely than wholesale felony voter fraud.
Of those 49% a decent chunk are probably actual citizens, but people whose paperwork was legitimately in error (i.e. different spellings of name, different birth dates listed, SS# did not match on driver's license, etc.) such that there was reason to question their identity at the time of registration. I think the 51% were people who had easily verifiable reasons why their registrations should not have been rejected. But that is just my ready of the DoJ letter, which is admittedly very convoluted to understand particularly since the state will not give the public many details of their methodology.
The Republicans are trying to take everyone's eyes off the ball of the fact for the last 8 years they'd been doing everything they can to disenfranchise voters, which has been well documented by John Conyers' report, Greg Palast, etc.
And it gives them a chance to do the boogeyman thing with the nefarious "illegal aliens" trying to vote.
"Mel, politicizing the DOJ is a very dangerous thing."
OK Grift, check out what Handel sent to her email list today. BTW, I don't recall signing up for the "Karen Handel for Governor" email list, but very clearly recall signing up for the Secretary of State's email list for voting related news:
Oh, Mel.
Wasn't the banner of this site once something about politics not being for softies?
Look for something from me tonight about this mess.
With the usual potshots at both sides.
This is nothing more than typical political babble on behalf of the "oh, it's a she" Karen Handel.
She must have received the GOP talking points of the day. On the positive, if she keeps talking about non-voting issues and making videos about the "OX" nobody will notice she is completely unqualified for this position (she still doesn't have a college degree, correct?????!!!!).
I have a serious question here for my leftward brothers and sisters.
An ID is perhaps, the single most important document one needs in society. They are also very cheap. They are also available without any real effort. They are available throughout the state at many places, and from many federal agencies.
Does anyone here truly think that not having an ID is the product of anything other than pure, unadulterated laziness?
Well, there are those crazies who refuse to get IDs because of distrust of the government...
Yeah and I'm perfectly content not wanting them to have any role in our civil governance.
So cheap they're free
Well, there are people who are very poor, very old, or sometimes confused. They may not have computers, so can't easily figure out where to get an ID or how to get there. They may not have extra Marta fare, or may not have the ability to take off during the work day. They may have disabilities that prevent them from easily leaving the house. And they may not have family or friends who can help them out. There are lots of legit reasons people have trouble getting their IDs.
Then how do they get to the polls?
We're back to the fundamental question that tossed out the, I believe it was, the Rome case. The judge asked granny if she could get to the ID office and much to the chagrin of the plaintiffs, she replied, oh yes my daughter takes me out to get groceries and what not.
I'd also like to point out that Judge Bedford, a major opponent of the original Voter ID law, showed that having identification does not prove citizenship. I can't remember exactly how he described it, but there were at least two points at which the current system allows the chain of identification to be broken and the system used to register non-citizens as voting citizens.
Considering that there isn't much evidence for an actual problem with individual voter fraud, and that the "cure" has a less than 50 percent accuracy rate, there doesn't seem to be much reason to go the expense of this system.
So yeah, it's a cynical game. The Republicans want to make voting as difficult as possible (since their demographics have greater resources to overcome the difficulty) and the Democrats want to make voting as easy as possible.
The fact that Handel's program snagged blacks (which you'd pretty well assume are actually from this country) seems to suggest that she wants to be sure that Georgia is subject to supervision under the VRA for quite some time to come. Which really doesn't bother me all that much.
Re: How do they get to the polls.
The fact is that some of the people affected by these types of laws have been voting in the same location (some in the lower level of their senior housing center) for decades without having to show ID or prove citizenship.
There are elderly Americans who do not have "birth certificates" of the type many of us have. Birth records were family bibles, church records, etc.
Additionally, it seems to me that the Voter REGISTRATION process is supposed to flesh out all these details. I've said it again and again - it sounds to me like Ms Handel doesn't have much confidence in the registration process - maybe that's where the focus should be.
How do they get to the polls? You may have heard about this thing called "get out the vote". Churches, civic groups, and campaigns organize rides, van pools, etc. to help these folks get to their polling places, which are often very near them (in what is known as their "precinct").
There's also this very interesting thing called "absentee voting".
Paula, you realize your making my arguments for me.
They may not have computers, so can't easily figure out where to get an ID or how to get there.
Good the thing the white pages everyone still gets has that information then."
"They may not have extra Marta fare, or may not have the ability to take off during the work day. They may have disabilities that prevent them from easily leaving the house."
If one uses MARTA to the point where it is a legitmate form of transit, then "extra Marta fare" isn't really a problem as they will have monthly unlimited cards. And good thing you can go to Walmart and get fishing license damn near 24 hours, Post Office is open on Saturday, federal IDs can be obtained just about any time via mail, etc. etc. etc.
"There are lots of legit reasons people have trouble getting their IDs."
Yeah, and with the slightest, most minuscule, insignificant amount of effort, they can be dismissed. Not having an ID is a case of sheer stupidity or laziness. FFS, I can't even procure Blockbuster's services without an ID!
"There are elderly Americans who do not have "birth certificates" of the type many of us have. Birth records were family bibles, church records, etc. "
What is this? 1900?
"Additionally, it seems to me that the Voter REGISTRATION process is supposed to flesh out all these details."
It is. However, that concern only matters if you think there is only one opportunity where something fraudulent could with voting. Surely you don't believe that.
"The judge asked granny if she could get to the ID office and much to the chagrin of the plaintiffs, she replied, oh yes my daughter takes me out to get groceries and what not."
/thread
Can we not confuse the Voter ID issue with this citizenship/identity check at registration issue? They are very different and I think the merits of DoJ's objection are getting lost in discussion of an old fight. (That, like it or not, SCOTUS has decided for once and for all.)
It looks like SoS's identity and citizenship check process has 2 problems: 1) their flagging criteria/process is flawed and is disproportionately flagging minorities who do legitimiately qualify to register to vote and 2) the procedures for correcting erroneous flagging are so unduly burdensome on the registrants that they serve to prevent qualified voters from being able to register and vote.
Given this understanding, I think I agree with the DoJ's determination. You don't have to prove discriminatory intent if you have proof of discriminatory impact of a policy, and DoJ's letter indicates that the over-flagging of Black, Asian and Hispanic voters was statistically significant. With the added bonus of making it very hard for people who are unfairly flagged as non-citizens to correct that status and become properly registered, the impact is that minority registrants are more likely to be kept from registering or voting than whites. This is exactly what the VRA and the 15th amendment are intended to prevent.
However, I think that rather than throwing out the citizenship requirement altogether, or ascribing a racist purpose to it (it might be there, but we don't have evidence of intent that I'm aware of, just impact), Handel could conceivably change the procedure for checking the citizenship status of new registrants to one that does not have such a discriminatory impact. She can change the criteria for which non-conforming registrations are flagged, or she can change the procedure for notifying a registrant of a failed attempt to register and giving them an easier way to fix the problem. She doesn't need to huff and puff about how unfair this all is when she could just fix the flaws in the current policy. And if she did those things, such that the discriminatory impact was reduced below statistically significant levels, then I don't think requiring citizenship checks at registration is necessarily a bad thing. We keep saying in response to whining about ACORN and registration fraud that it is the job of the states and counties to find and stop the fraud. Now we should let them find non-discriminatory ways to do that job.
Yep
Can I just remind everyone that there is no evidence of any voter fraud relating to citizenship or ID in Georgia.
None.
Catherine,
An excellent point. Which is the part that keeps the door open to the "Handel wants the Ken Blackwell GOP SoS award" line of allegation.
The new ways don't need to absolutely prevent people from voting - they just need to add more burden to the individuals and support systems (as in requiring not just a GOTV ride volunteer call, but a registration / ID getting call) of a constituency that is unlikely to vote for the party currently in charge.
Now, we can have a discussion as to whether we want people that can't / won't take on the requirements of the new system in order to vote, but it will end up with a bit of an elitist slant.
You know, grift, while at the grocery store I remembered that absentee doesn't require any ID, which I always forget because it strikes me as truly strange that it would be considered so all-fired important for in-person voting but not absentee voting, which goes to show something, no? But even with the availability of absentee voting, there may still very well be people who have difficulty getting their IDs for whatever reason, but want to or have to vote in person (perhaps they forgot to request the absentee ballot? I did that one year when I was in college and had to drive home to vote.).
As to you IRE, I am once again astonished at your lack of empathy for people with real world problems. Your easy dismissal of these barriers indicates to me that you've never actually met an poor, elderly or disabled person.
Although, as sara points out, it's sort of a moot point.
Yeah. I got no empathy. Keep telling yourself that.
Keep telling yourself anything you want. It makes me LOL.
PaulaG, one of the chief complaints (coming from me as well) on the initial voter id front was the lack of action on absentee ballots. By ignoring the one area where there was proven fraud and hammering an area where there is virtually no fraud, Handel came off looking like a political shill. To her credit (and whatever her motivations) she began pushing to tighten absentee ballot verification after that.
But it is all moot. And I do have empathy for people who have a hard time. But 45 days of voting? Polls open for 12 hours a day? What else are we supposed to do? Carry them into the polling place and place their hand on the touch screen?
Then again, as you pointed out, get out the vote is something in which the parties are well practiced. I'd rather see more action on that end than the government end.
IRE, perhaps you can tell me how having to show a photo ID helps anything.
We're going to task a minimally trained poll worker in photo-recognition, with no real procedure for what to do in the event of a dispute? (My last ID photo was taken 10 years ago.)
Or, are we just leaving it up to the judgment of the poll worker? Is that really an improvement?
This isn't a business transaction in which a company can choose to not offer service if they don't want to. This is a basic right.
Because you are able to have some level of basic proof that the person voting is actually who they say they are? If you think getting a $10 ID that is practically a necessity for life is onerous then I say, nut the f*ck up.
But it's not proof of anything. You're actually ADDING a randomness factor. The "onerous" argument is separate. The issue for me is that you are giving this level of judgmental authority to poll workers. How do you even train someone in facial recognition? If I show up 30 lbs. heavier and less hair and a dark tan, is that OK? Does whatever the assumed standard is only apply to someone who looks "Mexican" or something?
But there is no standard, there is no training, and if there is a procedure, I am not aware of it. Consensus of poll workers? That's not right. Either you are eligible or not. It's not an opinion.
It's easy to say "so what, it's easy", but it's NOT easy to do right, and since photo ID doesn't solve the alleged problem- which doesn't even exist in the first place- one has to wonder about the motivation.
Dude, y'all are seriously worried about issues that can be fixed. Easily. You have to be trained to work the polls. Throw in some time about how to do facial recognition. Done. People will mess up, that is of course the case. But I'm not sure why the most important thing here is somehow human error rather than ensuring we have a more accurate system of voting.
And you're right JT, it doesn't prove anything per se. But let's consider this. My ID says I am innerredneckexposed (lost the indie_rock_elitist one). I have a much better chance of proving I am me than if I don't. It is the same reason when I go to the bank and they ask for my ID to cash a check (which I didn't have a couple weeks ago, and couldn't get money), or when I used my debit card yesterday in Nassau they asked for my ID, or when I cleared customs they asked to see my passport. It is because you have a verifiable way of knowing who that individual is.
Now, I refuse to think you are saying IDs are a bad way of proving who you are and that there is a level of mistrust you have when presenting yours, or having to have someone show theirs (for whatever reason).
I have explained this "it hasn't happened yet" theory a lot of times and I'll do it one last time. There are plenty of things that haven't happened yet, but we still prepare for them in the hopes of preventing them or whathaveyou. I haven't been in a catastrophic car accident, yet I still wear a seatbelt. I haven't been paralyzed by the flu, yet I get a flu shot. I haven't been laid off from work yet I still save up JIC, etc etc etc. What is the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Imagine if there is nothing in place for example, and an active GOP candidate gets elected through some form of fraud at the ballot box that could have been prevented. Oopsies on us.
BTW: Here is a pretty good video in defense of my position.
http://is.gd/MwWs
"Throw in some time about how to do facial recognition"?
Like what? Even the FBI doesn't rely on crap like this. It's silly/paranoid/reactionary/overly simplistic. You can't "do facial recognition". And you don't get "more accurate". You get more legitimate voters having to appear before some board to prove who they are because some poll worker needs new glasses.
I get money from the bank all the time without a photo ID.
Sometimes there is a good reason why a problem isn't occurring IRE: Because we already have sufficient controls in place. Just think for a minute about what it would require for someone to vote fraudulently. It's practically impossible. And it's a felony if you get caught trying. Who would do that? If you're going to go down the "ounce of prevention" route, at least show an ounce of probability of the problem actually occurring.
It's just a result of the Republicans paranoid delusion that massive amounts of illegal immigrants are stealing library cards and voting for Democrats. (Why else would they not be winning 90% of the vote?) But elderly, urban, minority folks get caught up in the vortex because they haven't had to have a drivers license in the past 30 years and many don't have a birth certificate either. But they've been voting legitimately for all that time.
Has anyone read the questionanaire from Ms. Sotamayor? (Of course Drew will no doubt tell you that I am opposed to women and minorities ever ascending to power)
It is pretty interesting but it seems like one would forget a lot the panels you've been to the reason for going etc.
And then how would she remember even most of the reason she recused herself from cases? Do judges keep a log or something like that?
And what is the purpose for admitting people to practice in certain courts? As a layman it seems like if you are a lawyer you can just practice. What happens if your client keeps appealing and it goes to the SCOTUS? Do you have to take a test or something?
The legal world seems byzantine and bizarre. :/
BTW Jerry, I'll say I agree with you all points! ^_^
PS: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/...uestionnaire-2009.pdf
I love all y'all!
Jay Bookman weighs in.
http://tinyurl.com/o8zp2fog
And I respond.
My Afternoon Jay
*ducks*
"And then how would she remember even most of the reason she recused herself from cases? Do judges keep a log or something like that?"
There's an order of recusal generated (or should be) when a judge takes that action, so it would have been a matter of some poor research assistant looking through the dockets of all of her cases and finding every one she was recused from.
"And what is the purpose for admitting people to practice in certain courts? As a layman it seems like if you are a lawyer you can just practice."
When you pass the bar exam in a state, you are generally only admitted in the state courts at the trial court level. For example, I was admitted in January 2007 to Georgia trial courts. I was admitted in April 2007 to the Georgia Supreme Court. I have never bothered to get admitted to the Appeals Court (though I probably should). In most states it works this way.
Federal courts have entirely different admissions procedures, and they are set district-by-district (or circuit by circuit, and yes SCOTUS has its own admission procedures.) I just got admitted in April to the Northern District of Georgia federal court. I had to fill out paperwork, have a sponsor, and show up to be sworn. Some districts make you take a test. Some make you be admitted to the underlying state court, while others don't. Every lawyer who litigates generally has a list of where they have been admitted. There's also pro hac vice (temporary for the purposes of one case) admissions to keep track of.
"What happens if your client keeps appealing and it goes to the SCOTUS? Do you have to take a test or something?"
No test, but you have to be sponsored by someone who is admitted to practice before SCOTUS and submit paperwork and be sworn. One of my coworkers had a case appealed to SCOTUS and was recently going to go through that whole process, but thankfully the Court bounced the cert petition before she bothered.
"The legal world seems byzantine and bizarre."
Try practicing in it!
Thanks for the answers! And I do mean that.