Uphold the Voting Rights Act
Some people claim that Barack Obama’s election has ushered in a “postracial” America, but the truth is that race, and racial discrimination, are still very much with us. The Supreme Court should keep this reality in mind when it considers a challenge to an important part of the Voting Rights Act that it recently agreed to hear. The act is constitutional — and clearly still needed.
Section 5, often called the heart of the Voting Rights Act, requires some states and smaller jurisdictions to “preclear” new voting rules with the Justice Department or a federal court. When they do, they have to show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against minority voters.
When Congress enacted Section 5 in 1965, officials in the South were creating all kinds of rules to stop blacks from voting or being elected to office. Discrimination against minority voters may not be as blatant as it was then, but it still exists. District lines are drawn to prevent minorities from winning; polling places are located in places hard for minority voters to get to; voter ID requirements are imposed with the purpose of suppressing the minority vote.
After holding lengthy hearings to document why the Voting Rights Act was still needed, Congress reauthorized it in 2006 with votes of 98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House. Now, a municipal utility district in Texas that is covered by Section 5 is arguing that it is unconstitutional, and that it imposes too many burdens on jurisdictions covered by it.
If the Supreme Court — which is expected to hear arguments in the case this spring — strikes down Section 5, it would be breaking radically with its own precedents. The court has repeatedly upheld the Voting Rights Act against challenges, and as recently as 2006 it ruled that complying with Section 5 is a compelling state interest. It would also be an extreme case of conservative judicial activism, since the 14th and 15th Amendments expressly authorize Congress to enact laws of this sort to prevent discrimination in voting.
A perennial criticism of Section 5 is that it covers jurisdictions it should not, or fails to cover ones it should. There is no way to construct a perfect list, but Congress has done a reasonable job of drawing up the criteria, and it has built flexibility into the act. Jurisdictions are allowed to “bail out” if they can show that they no longer need to be covered, and courts can add new jurisdictions if they need to be covered.
In last fall’s election, despite his strong national margin of victory — and hefty campaign chest — Mr. Obama got only about one in five white votes in the Southern states wholly or partly covered by Section 5. And there is every reason to believe that minority voters will continue to face obstacles at the polls.
If Section 5 is struck down, states and localities would have far more freedom to erect barriers for minority voters — and there is little doubt that some would do just that. We have not arrived at the day when special protections like the Voting Rights Act are not needed.
$100,000 Reward For Election Rigging Information
Velvet Revolution (“VR”), a non-profit dedicated to clean and honest elections, today offers a $100,000 reward for hard information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person or persons who helped to rig the 2002 Senate race in Georgia in favor of Saxby Chambliss. That election pitted the war hero Max Cleland, a popular incumbent, against far-right novice Saxby Chambliss. The pre-election polls showed Cleland with a comfortable lead–and yet Chambliss “won” by a wide margin.
To date, the truth behind that upset “victory” (and the equally surprising win by Sonny Perdue, the rightist candidate for governor) has been confirmed by three different whistle-blowers–including Chris Hood, who worked for Diebold in 2002.
Election Integrity Advocate Jailed
A candidate for Supervisor of Elections in Broward County, FL, was arrested yesterday, following threats and orders from her opponent, the current Broward SOE, Dr. Brenda Snipes.
Ellen H. Brodsky, the county’s first non-partisan candidate for SOE, had previously been barred from public counting and oversight on a number of occasions, at the county’s official Canvassing Board site and voting machine warehouse in Lauderhill, Florida.
After being taken into custody yesterday afternoon by three uniformed police officers, Brodsky was held overnight at the Broward County Jail even though the $25 — that’s twenty-five dollar — bail had been posted for her by her son by 8pm last night. She was finally released well after 5am this morning.
(Note: An account of the arrest posted this morning on the South Florida Sun Sentinel’s blog incorrectly reported that Brodsky was “released on bail Thursday evening.” A report later filed on their website by the same reporter correctly noted that she “was released from jail at 5:40 a.m. Friday.”)
Brodsky is a longtime member of a number of election integrity advocacy groups in Florida, including the Broward Election Reform Coalition, which she also founded. Earlier this year, she determined to run against Snipes as a non-partisan candidate.
Brodsky is the latest in a string of election integrity advocates around the country who have been arrested in the course of attempting oversight of our election procedures — although she is the first, to our knowledge, who also happens to be a candidate on the ballot.
The action has brought condemnation from a number of other election watchdogs and even other election officials in Florida who have characterized the arrest to The BRAD BLOG as an outrage and an abuse of power by Snipes and her office…
“Outrageous”
“For a candidate, or a member of the public who wishes nothing more than to observe the process, to be taken into custody would be outrageous absent really extraordinary reasons — none of which I’ve heard articulated in this matter,” Leon County (Tallahassee) Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho told The BRAD BLOG this afternoon.
“I’ve been an election official for twenty years. Not even one time has it become necessary to even threaten someone’s removal by law enforcement at any kind of meeting that I’ve ever attended,” said Sancho who has spoken with Brodsky “on many occasions” and met her “a couple of times in face to face meetings.”
Ellen Theisen, of the non-partisan election integrity watchdog organization VotersUnite.org, was similarly troubled by the arrest.
“It’s outrageous that Ellen Brodsky was arrested and kept in jail overnight,” Theisen wrote via email today. “Her work toward election integrity in Broward County has been dedicated, creative, effective, and respectful to the law. The idea that she would be ‘disruptive’ is nonsense. I’m convinced that was fabricated by those who appear to be threatened by her requests for transparency and accountability in the Broward County election process.”
Filmmaker David Earnhardt, who earlier this year released the award-winning documentary Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections, calls Brodsky “a remarkable woman who has dedicated the better part of the decade to demanding fair and honest elections.”
He told us that she hosted a screening of his film in Fort Lauderdale in late September. “It’s offensive that she was arrested for this and kept in jail overnight. I have no doubt that she was assertive in demanding her rights – but it’s ridiculous they would have even called the police in the first place, much less arrest her,” he said.
Brodsky was arrested, according to the inmate summary she was given upon release (on which her name is misspelled as “Bordsky”), for “TRESPASS/STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE” and “DISORDERLY CONDUCT.” The bond for the trespass claim was set at $25, no bond amount was attached to the disorderly conduct charge, according to the summary.
“A total abuse of power”
“It was horrible,” Brodsky told us by phone today, concerning “the whole process of being in jail overnight.”
“The arrest was a total abuse of power on Brenda Snipes’ part. She had given the orders. The buck stops with her.”
“I didn’t do anything. They just want to eliminate any kind of critics,” she explained, following a number of weeks when she had occasionally been allowed to monitor testing, counting and recount processes by the county Canvassing Board.
“They wanted to eliminate me from the process, because I’m the only one who is on top of these things. I go out of my way to be an expert on this, to watch what’s going on,” she said in a detailed recounting of the problems she’s faced with Snipes and her deputies over the last several months.
At times she was barred from oversight of testing and counting, other times she was allowed in under strict rules, often accompanied by a number of armed guards, she told us. In the meantime, a number of public records requests she’s made have gone unanswered, including information she sought after noticing that voting machines had been opened for use beginning on October 1, even though early voting was not scheduled to begin until weeks later.
During her last visit to the Canvassing Board to monitor counting and the processing of ballots of November 7th, she was evicted after asking a number of questions to Canvassing Board judges, even though she raised her hand, as instructed, and even waited a full hour and a half before being allowed to ask her questions, according to her account.
“The first question I asked on the 7th,” she says, Lauderhills officer C.Y. Bell “jumped on me.” Literally, she says. “She was standing there the whole time ready to pounce on me. Her taser thing was right in front of my face. It was very scary. She jumped on me, grabbed my arm, she was ready to throw me out then and there.”
“Then I screamed ‘Help, canvassing board, I didn’t do anything.’ This was like that ‘Don’t tase me, bro’ thing.” she explained. “That got their attention. I then waited an hour and a half, and then they took a break and I reminded her [Judge Zeller, President of the canvassing board] that I was told I could ask a question.”
She asked three questions, the last of which concerned why she was not allowed in the building the night before, at 7pm, when she believes the counting board was in session, which should have required the ability for public oversight under Florida’s Sunshine Law.
She then says she was ejected from the counting room, and told by Officer Bell, “if If you ever come back here, we’ll have a warrant for you. If you ever come back to this voting machine warehouse or canvassing board, we’ll have you arrested.”
After discussing the matter with her attorney, Brodsky returned yesterday with a friend for a 1pm counting that was listed on the county’s website. She says she recorded much of what occurred on her cell phone’s recorder.
“We saw the notice on the door, proceeded to ask, ‘can we come in?’ because the Canvassing Board was supposed to meet at 1pm. But the first thing I was told was ‘we don’t want you in the building, you’re not allowed in the building.’ Next I was told the canvassing board is not meeting, even though it was posted on the door, and on the website.”
“While I’m trying to inquire about the canvassing board meeting,” she says, Snipes deputy Fred Bellis “is busy photographing me, calling on his cell phone to who knows where.”
Soon two officers arrived and suggested there was a warrant out for her arrest. But “after they researched, they said ‘yeah, there is no warrant out for your arrest.'”
Then Officer Bell arrived, met with the other officers, and “all three, in a concerted effort, handcuff me and throw me into the back of a police car.”
Latest in a string of such arrests
Brodsky’s arrest is the latest such detention of an election integrity advocate.
In September, activist John Brakey of AuditAZ was arrested during a mandatory post-election “audit” in Pima County (Tucson), AZ, after questioning officials about dozens of ballot bags that had missing or broken security seals.
In August, Phil Lindsey of ShowMeTheVote.org was arrested and thrown in jail in Jackson County, MO, when he refused to show a photo ID to pollworkers who had wrongly insisted he could not vote without one. The demand by the election officials was in violation of state law.
“I will tell you, my feeling from a lot of officials is they don’t like being questioned,” explained Tallahassee’s Sancho, who was chosen by the Florida Supreme Court to oversee the 2000 Presidential recount in the state.
“I would caution officials over the removal of any observer from the elections process, because only by keeping the process as open as possible can we maintain credibility within the elections process,” he says.
“Elections officials in Florida,” he continued, “really are uniquely placed, because of the power we have over the process — and it’s pretty immense — so there’s a tendency, a lot of times, for election officials to act in an autocratic manner. I’m not saying [Snipes] did, but it wouldn’t surprise me.”
“The power that we as elect officials have, has to be used very, very, veryjudiciously,” he added.
“What this has to be about is, fundamentally, the process. Quite frankly, I’ve never found the use of police powers an effective answer to people who are looking for the truth,” Sancho told us.
For Brodsky, she now wonders what will become of her ability to oversee her own election which, according to the results reported by officials, show that she lost in a landslide. “It was a difficult time to run as an independent, with Barack Obama on the ballot,” she noted. Her opponent, Snipes, ran as a Democrat.
But it’s now virtually impossible for Brodsky to know if her election was conducted fairly. “I’m gonna have a hard time auditing my own election if I’m not allowed to be there, and if my public records requests aren’t getting answered,” she said.
LATE UPDATE: Brodsky joined us for our weekly guest appearance on the Peter B. Collins Show today to discuss her ordeal. The interview (app. 16 mins) follows, or can be downloaded (MP3) here.
Additional note, it was too late this afternoon on the West Coast to contact Snipes for her point of view on all of this, but we refer you again to the Sun-Sentinel’s coverage for some of that here and here.
ATTN Pennsylvania. Misleading Calls Say Vote Nov. 5
A registered Democrat in Pennsylvania writes the Huffington Post to report that she has received an anonymous phone call telling her she should go to the polls on Wednesday.
“I received a phone call from an unidentified caller yesterday telling me that because of the expected high voter turnout, Democrats will need to vote on Wednesday, November 5th,” she writes.
The calls are obviously misleading, as voting ends on Tuesday. And apparently they have been going on for quite some time. This past Friday the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported“robocalls making the rounds in Pittsburgh region” disseminating the misleading information. The reader who contacted Huffington Post was from the Philadelphia suburbs, at the opposite end of the state.
Contacted by the Huffington Post, a spokesman for the Obama campaign’s Pennsylvania operations said he was aware of the misleading calls but “not worried about” their impact.
If you hear anything more about this or other last-minute election tactics, please contact the Huffington Post.
leave a comment