Source: https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch3.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:58:52+00:00

Document:
Chapter 3: Responsibility Without Accountability?
In the first paragraph of the Declaration [of Independence], is the assertion of the natural right of all to the ballot: for how can the “consent of the governed” be given, if the right to vote be denied?
Article I, section 1, of the Florida Constitution provides that “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people.” The right to vote is the most obvious exercise of this inherent power. The Florida state election laws should be guided by this constitutional mandate. Further buttressing this constitutional mandate is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 in which Congress emphasized “the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right [and] it is the duty of the federal, state and local governments to promote the exercise of that right.” State election laws should be drafted and interpreted in such a manner that every citizen’s right to vote is cherished and protected. Instead, there are several provisions of the Florida election law that appear to impede rather than foster this precious right.
Provisions impeding the right to vote include those that permit top government officials to plead an alleged “lack of authority” to evade any responsibility to ensure that elections are fairly and uniformly conducted. The governor of Florida claims moral authority over election matters but claims the legal authority rests with the secretary of state. The secretary of state, who has obvious legal power, claims no practical authority stemming from a lack of enforcement authority, limited power to promulgate administrative regulations, and shared constitutional authority with county supervisors of elections in overseeing elections. The supervisors of elections have the constitutional authority to conduct elections, but maintain they are not given the resources necessary to ensure that every legal voter can exercise that right should he or she choose to vote. In addition, supervisors of elections, by default, perform responsibilities assigned by law to the governor and the secretary of state.
Under the Florida Constitution, the governor is charged with ensuring that “the laws be faithfully executed,” a responsibility Governor Bush apparently delegated to others with respect to elections. Under Florida election law, the governor is also specifically empowered to “appoint special officers to investigate alleged violations of the election laws . . .” Governor Bush testified that he had not appointed any officers to do any investigation of alleged irregularities surrounding the November 2000 election but would “[i]f there was a reason to do so.” As of the date of this report there is no indication that the governor has exercised this authority by appointing special officers to investigate the widespread allegations of violations of the Florida election law.
maintain a voter fraud hotline and provide election fraud education to the public.
It is obvious that the county supervisors do not have unilateral authority over the administration of elections and that the secretary of state has substantial authority over the process. For example, the secretary of state is required to adopt rules establishing standards for voting systems, but the county supervisors are to establish written procedures to ensure the accuracy and security of voting systems and procedures used in their county. The voting systems must be certified by the secretary of state, but decisions about which system to use are made by the supervisors of elections.
The secretary of state’s testimony before the Commission describing her authority over election matters as “ministerial” and, therefore, limited, is in sharp contrast to the position she took before the Supreme Court. The secretary of state’s view of her role as limited in election matters also seems to be in conflict with the legal power given to her and as enunciated by the Supreme Court. Finally, her views expressed at the Commission hearing contrast with the power she wielded over election matters when she chose to exercise her authority.
In Bush v. Gore, the secretary of state, in arguing against further manual recounts, rather than downplaying her authority over election matters as limited or merely ministerial, maintained that it was her office’s Division of Elections that was “charged with interpreting and enforcing the Florida Election Code.” In effect, the secretary of state argued that because the legislature gave the secretary of state such broad authority over election matters, her office’s interpretations of the Florida election law should be given deference.
There is no doubt that the secretary of state has power over election matters. Indeed, the secretary of state’s actions over the past election demonstrate this authority. Her office issued binding mandates as to when vote totals were to be submitted, whether they could be amended after submission, and what would constitute “[a]n error in the vote tabulation” that could trigger a manual recount of the votes.
The Florida Election Code gives the secretary of state broad authority over election matters. However, the secretary of state has the discretion to exercise this authority. Jim Smith, co-chairperson of the Governor’s Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, and former attorney general and secretary of state for Florida, provided examples of acting in a proactive manner to attempt to ensure that all citizens of the state could be in a position to vote. His number one priority as secretary of state was election reform. While in office, he pushed for initiatives on voter education and voter registration, e.g., same day registration.
There is no evidence that in preparation for the November 2000 election the secretary of state focused on similar initiatives. Rather, the evidence leads to the disturbing conclusion the secretary of state chose to exercise authority to ensure the vote count was discontinued and the vote was canvassed after the election, but did little to ensure that eligible Floridians were able to access the polls, be permitted to vote, or have their votes counted.
I have delegated to Mr. Roberts [director of the Division of Elections] a high level of authority to operate the Division of Elections and to implement the statutory duties of the Division of Elections and the chief election office. Historically and at present, the day-to-day responsibilities for implementing the duties outlined in the Florida Election Code are assumed by the elections division director.
To meet his or her statutory duties, the secretary of state, through the Division of Elections, is to provide statewide coordination and direction for interpretation and enforcement of election laws. The Division of Elections issues advisory opinions to supervisors of elections and prescribes rules and regulations in the Florida Administrative Code. In practice, the Division of Elections carries out the secretary of state’s statutory responsibility as chief election officer.
The county supervisors of elections’ statutory responsibilities are specified throughout the election code. Unlike the secretary of state, county supervisors’ statutory duties are not set forth in one statute. County supervisors are guided by various statutes in the election code and opinions issued by the Division of Elections. Opinion DE 98-11 entitled “Voting Systems and Standards for Ballots Used with Such Systems” advises that supervisors are allowed to use their discretion on matters not covered by the election code or the administrative code, as long as their elections are conducted in an efficient manner with “controls, procedures, and audit parameters” in place so the election is “accurate, fair, and capable of being reconstructed in the face of a protest or contest.” County supervisors may also enact election-related county ordinances provided the ordinances do not conflict with the election code.
Efforts to educate voters are left totally up to the counties, with some supervisors of elections doing great jobs if they can get funding from their county commissioners, but with the great majority of supervisors of elections doing the minimum required under the law, buying one newspaper ad the Sunday before the election, which is all that Florida law requires that a supervisor of elections do to educate the voters as to the voting process on Election Day.
Supervisors suggested simplifying and standardizing the Florida ballot and called for better guidance from the secretary of state’s office on election matters. The supervisors of elections are charged with the election in their counties, but their legal requirements do not mandate that they be provided with the resources necessary to meet these obligations.
has been adjudicated mentally incompetent and whose mental capacity with respect to voting has not been restored.
Other state agencies have obligations regarding voter list maintenance requirements. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles must annually provide a list of individuals who have been “purged from its driver’s license database because they have been licensed in another state” to the appropriate supervisor of elections. On a monthly basis, the Department of Health must provide each supervisor of elections with a list of all deceased persons 17 years of age and older who were residents of the supervisor’s county.
Conduct a biennial “general registration list maintenance program to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of accurate and current voter registration records.” The U.S. Postal Service may supply change-of-address information. Supervisors may determine change-of-address information from “returned nonforwardable return-if-undeliverable” mail sent to registered voters in the county, and “returned nonforwardable return-if-undeliverable” mail sent to voters who have not participated in two years or from jury notices signed by the voter indicating a new address. Voters who have not responded to an address confirmation final notice within 30 days are placed on an inactive list.
Require Floridians to produce evidence at a show cause hearing if the supervisor believes that the individual is under 18 years of age, not a U.S. citizen, is a fictitious person, or has listed an address other than his or her legal residence.
Receive from each clerk of circuit court a list of persons convicted of a felony and a list of persons adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting during the previous month.
Receive from the Department of State any listing of persons convicted of a felony in federal court upon receipt of the information from the United States attorney.
The use of the purposefully crafted double negative in the list maintenance provision of the Florida Election Code created an obvious impact on the voter. It is noteworthy that inaction by an eligible voter triggers his or her removal from the registration list. Once a voter’s name appeared on this list, even if by gross error, the burden was shifted to the voter to prove his or her right to vote. In some cases this could result in the voter being subject to fingerprinting in order to prove that he or she was erroneously placed on this list. Even without considering the practical impact of how these lists are compiled, the statute on its face renders the eligible voter vulnerable to disenfranchisement because it placed the burden of attempting to verify proper placement on the purge list on already underfunded county supervisors.
In practice, this authority can be either delegated to the point of constructive nonexistence or exercised on such a discretionary basis as to be arbitrary. The end result is a system that delegates to the county supervisors of elections, who are subject to the budgetary and political constraints placed upon them by 67 separate county governments, the duty to ensure statewide uniformity in election matters—a system that was so devoid of effective checks and balances that it failed many voters in the 2000 presidential election.
Similarly, while the duty for developing and maintaining a “centrally maintained database”containing voter registration information for the entire state is placed upon the state, the responsibility for verifying that the database is accurate is delegated. Florida state law shifted the responsibility for identifying individuals to be purged from this list initially to a private contractor and then placed it on the shoulders of the county supervisors of elections. Yet, this law provided no requirement to ensure the accuracy of the data provided in these purge lists. Florida state law ultimately placed the burden of ensuring the accuracy of these purge lists on the voter.
Chapter 1 demonstrates that persons of color stand a greater chance of appearing on the purge list than other persons and, more disturbingly, persons of color stand a greater chance of appearing on the purge list in error.
The Florida process ensures that some voters will be wrongfully placed on the purge list and, ultimately, denied their right to vote. Further, it provides that these denials of the right to vote will fall most squarely on persons of color. These statutory provisions that mandate responsibility without accountability are obviously key ingredients in a statutory recipe for voter disenfranchisement.
 Susan Brownell Anthony, Is It a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote, speech given in 1873 prior to her trial for voting. At that time, laws prohibited women from voting.
 Fla. Const. art. § 1 (1968).
 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg (2001).
 This is not an exhaustive analysis of all Florida election law provisions that may serve to disenfranchise voters. Those discussed here were the subject of significant testimony during the Commission hearings.
 Fla. Const. art. IV, § 1(a).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 97.012 (1999). See Fla. Const. art. IV, § 5(a). Florida’s secretary of state is an elected cabinet position.
 Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(d); Fla. Stat. ch. 98.015(1) (1999). There are 67 supervisors of elections; 66 are elected. The Miami-Dade County supervisor of elections is appointed under a county charter.
 John Ellis Bush, Testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Tallahassee, FL, Jan. 11, 2001, Verified Transcript, pp. 97–100, 106.
 Ibid., pp. 99–100. Governor Bush testified he was aware of an increase in voter registration. He did not, however, think that the increase in voter registration was greater than in previous years. Ibid., p. 100. Governor Bush also believed he should “show leadership” with respect to the felony purge issue, although he had “no direct responsibility” to do so. Ibid., p. 116.
 John Ellis Bush Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 11, 2001, pp. 99–100.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 102.091 (1999).
 John Ellis Bush Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 11, 2001, p. 117.
 See chaps. 1, 2, and 6.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 97.012 (1999).
 Katherine Harris Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, p. 244.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 101.015(4)(a–b) (1999).
 Brief of Florida Secretary of State at 10, Bush v. Gore, No. 00-949.
 Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 525, 534 (2000).
 Jim Smith Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 11, 2001, p. 138.
 Ibid., pp. 164, 169–70, 179.
 An example of what could have been done to attempt to ensure that all legal voters would be permitted to vote is illustrated by the actions of the previous secretary of state and director of the Division of Elections. When confronted with inaccuracies in the voter purge lists being prepared by a private contractor that were used by some county supervisors of elections to remove voters, the then director of the Divisions of Elections in a memorandum to all supervisors of elections said, “In short, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a person to vote.” Ethel Baxter, director, Division of Elections, “Central Voter File Update,” memorandum, Aug. 14, 1998. Despite continuing problems with the accuracy of these lists, discussed in detail in chapter 5 of this report, there is no evidence of any comparable attempt made by the secretary of state or the director of the Division of Elections during the 2000 presidential election to ensure that supervisors of elections were aware of continuing problems with these lists and to permit individuals to vote if there were reasonable doubts as to the accuracy of the information on the lists.
 Katherine Harris Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, p. 240.
 Ibid., p. 243. See also Florida Department of State, Division of Elections, “Director’s Office,” n.d., <http://election. dos.state.fl.us/about/director.shtml> (accessed May 24, 2001) (providing a description of the director’s responsibilities in the Division of Elections).
 Katherine Harris Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, pp. 64–65.
 See generally Fla. Stat. ch. 98–106 (1999).
 Opinion of Florida Division of Elections “DE 98-11: Voting Systems and Standards for Ballots Used with Such Systems,” Formal Opinions of the Division of Elections, July 31, 1998, <http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/de1998.shtml# 9811> (accessed May 24, 2001).
 Opinion of Florida Division of Elections, “DE 00-07: The Florida Elections Commission’s Duty to Enforce Violations of Election-related Provisions of Local Charters and Ordinances,” Formal Opinions of the Division of Elections, Sept. 14, 2000, <http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/de2000/de 00-07.shtml> (accessed May 24, 2001).
 Linda Howell, supervisor of elections, Madison County, Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, p. 25.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 97.012(6) (1999).
 Ion Sancho, supervisor of elections, Leon County, Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, p. 18.
 Harry Sawyer, supervisor of elections, Monroe County, Response to Commission’s Interrogatory 13, Apr. 13, 2001.
 Harry Sawyer, supervisor of elections, Monroe County, Response to Commission’s Interrogatory 14, Apr. 13, 2001.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 97.012(5) (1999).
 Linda Howell Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, Jan. 12, 2001, p. 32.
 Harry Sawyer, supervisor of elections, Monroe County, Response to Commission’s Interrogatory 12, Apr. 13, 2001.
 Denny Hutchinson Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, pp. 22, 102. Mr. Hutchinson was the supervisor of elections during the November 2000 election; his term expired in January 2001. Ibid., pp. 9, 21–24.
 Ion Sancho Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, p. 35.
 L. Clayton Roberts Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, pp. 269–70.
 See app. VI, Charles T. Canady, general counsel, Office of the Governor for the State of Florida, letter to Edward A. Hailes, Jr., general counsel, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 6, 2001, pp. 6–7.
 See Ion Sancho Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript, Jan. 12, 2001, p. 23.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.097 (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.0975(1) (1999) (emphasis added). The list contains the name, address, date of birth, race, gender, and any other information identifying the voter. Id.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.0975(2)–(3)(a) (1999) (emphasis added). This provision of the law was changed by the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001. See Epilogue.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 97.057(7)(1) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.093(1) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.055(2)(c)(1) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.055(2)(b) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.065(1)–(3) (1999). The registration list program must be conducted in each odd-numbered year and no later than 90 days prior to any federal election.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.065(2)(a) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.065(2) (1999); Fla. Stat. ch. 98.065(4) (1999). See also Fla. Stat. ch. 98.075(2) (1999) (providing that supervisors may send address confirmation requests to voters believed to have moved from their legal residences).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.065(5) (1999). Voters on the inactive list should be allowed to vote and change their names and addresses at the polls. Id.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.075(3) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.093(2) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.093(3) (1999).
 The double negative was found in the Florida Election Code language that provided, “If the supervisor does not determine that the information provided by the division is incorrect, the supervisor must remove from the registration books by the next subsequent election [the voter’s name].” Fla. Stat. ch. 98.0975(4) (1999) (emphasis added). This provision was changed by the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001. See Epilogue.
 See David Leahy, supervisor of elections, Miami-Dade County, Testimony, Miami Verified Transcript, Feb. 16, 2001, p. 315. David Leahy has been the supervisor of elections for Miami-Dade County since 1981. Ibid., pp. 312–13. See also David Leahy, supervisor of elections, Miami-Dade County, Response to Commission’s Interrogatory 8, Apr. 10, 2001 (explaining that if name is on the felon list erroneously, voter must provide response or proof).
 Linda Howell Testimony, Tallahassee Verified Transcript Jan. 12, 2001, p. 43. David Leahy, Response to Commission’s Interrogatory 8.
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.0975(3)(a) (1999).
 Fla. Stat. ch. 98.0975 (1999).

References: v. 
 § 1
 § 1973
 § 1
 § 5
 § 1
 v. 
 v.