
New York Times Keep Them Out! By Bob Herbert The tactics have changed, but the goal remains depressingly the
same: Keep the coloreds, the blacks, the African-Americans —
whatever they're called in the particular instance — keep them
out of the voting booths. Do not let them vote! If you can find a way to stop them,
stop them. So here we go again, this time in Florida. It turns out that the state of Florida is using a private
company with close ties to the Republican Party to help
"cleanse" the state's voter registration rolls. Would it
surprise anyone anywhere to learn that the cleansing process
somehow managed to improperly prevent large numbers of
African-American voters from voting in the presidential
election? Gregory Palast, a reporter with the online magazine Salon,
has done a number of articles on this. He noted that the
company, ChoicePoint, and its subsidiary, Database Technologies
Inc. (DBT), came up with a "scrub list" of 173,000 names. These
were the names of people registered to vote in Florida who,
according to ChoicePoint, could be knocked off the rolls for one
reason or another. There was good reason for Florida to be concerned about the
integrity of its voter registration rolls. In 1997 the mayor of
Miami was removed from office because widespread fraud had
occurred in the election. The following year a law was passed
requiring counties in Florida to purge the rolls of duplicate
registrations, the names of deceased persons and felons. So far, so good. The problems developed when the state turned
to ChoicePoint, which compiles and sells vast amounts of
frequently shaky information about individuals. (ChoicePoint,
which acquired DBT last May, was fired by the state of
Pennsylvania for breaching the confidentiality of driving
records.) With this private outfit in the picture it soon became
clear that top Republican officials would be trying to reap a
partisan political advantage from a law designed to correct an
egregious wrong. And that partisan advantage would be realized
in large part by trampling on the voting rights of minorities.
Over the spring and summer ChoicePoint was forced to
acknowledge that 8,000 voters it had listed as felons had in
fact been guilty only of misdemeanors, which would not have
affected their right to vote. What is maddening is that when
such an erroneous list of names gets into the hands of county
election officials, as this one did, it is very difficult —
often impossible — to find out what's correct and what's not
correct. That snickering you hear is from Republican operatives who
know that these kinds of foul-ups, because they are based on
criminal records, will disproportionately affect minority
voters. ChoicePoint eventually came up with a "corrected" list of
173,000 names of people it targeted as ineligible because they
were deceased, or were registered more than once, or had been
convicted of a felony. But it was a lousy list, riddled with mistakes. And in an
interview with me yesterday, Marty Fagan, a ChoicePoint vice
president, said there had never been any expectation that the
list would be particularly accurate. Remember now, we're talking
about a list that would be used to strip Americans of the
precious right to vote. Mr. Fagan said the list focused on people who "might" have
been deceased, or might have been listed twice, or "possible
felons." He said it was "important to know" that the information
needed to be "verified" by county election officials. That was interesting, because ChoicePoint came up with 58,000
people — people registered to vote — who would fall into the
category he calls "possible felons." How in the world were
county election officials supposed to check out each and every
one and find out if they were felons or not? They couldn't. They didn't. The horror stories about perfectly innocent black voters
being turned away from the polls because they had been targeted
as convicted felons started coming in early on the morning of
Nov. 7, Election Day. And they're still coming in. Blacks turned out to vote in record numbers in Florida this
year, but huge numbers were systematically turned away for one
specious reason after another. The tactics have changed, but the goal remains the same.
Copyright © 2000 New York Times. All rights reserved.
December 7, 2000
