Archives for category: Minorities

“New State Voting Laws II: Protecting the Right to Vote in the Sunshine State”

Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights
DATE: January 27, 2012
TIME: 01:00 PM
ROOM: Hillsborough County Courthouse
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:

January 12, 2012
NOTICE OF SUBCOMMITTEE FIELD HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a field hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights entitled “New State Voting Laws II: Protecting the Right to Vote in the Sunshine State” for Friday, January 27, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. at the Hillsborough County Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, FL 33602.

Chairman Durbin to preside.

By order of the Chairman.

Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

On

“New State Voting Laws II: Protecting the Right to Vote in the Sunshine State”
Friday, January 27, 2012
Hillsborough County Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, FL 33602
1:00 p.m.

Panel I

Michael Ertel
Supervisor of Elections, Seminole County
Sanford, FL

Ann McFall
Supervisor of Elections, Volusia County
DeLand, FL

Hon. Bruce Smathers
Former Secretary of State of Florida
Jacksonville, FL

Panel II

Daryl Parks
President
National Bar Association
Tallahassee, FL

Sara Pemberton
President
Florida College System Student Government Association
Clearwater, FL

Dr. Daniel A. Smith
Professor of Political Science
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL

Brent A. Wilkes
National Executive Director
League of United Latin American Citizens
Washington, DC

Here’s a link to the official announcement

 

Florida state senator, Andy Gardiner, might want to bone up on his constitutional law.

The Republican Leader from Orlando was quoted in the Miami Herald that, “If a particular district is at a percentage, I think it’s very important, across the minority district, that it stays within that percentage.”

Of course, Gardiner’s redistricting rationale, which is predicated on “packing” racial and ethnic minorities into so-called “majority-minority” districts, is exactly what a super-majority of Florida citizens, who approved Amendments 5 & 6 in 2010, want to eliminate.

Lowering the percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in legislative districts (both state and federal) is perfectly legal and does not necessarily violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act–even the 2006 Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Amendments–which requires the preclearance of voting and election rules in five Florida counties.  The reason is straight-forward: Minorities across the state do not necessarily have a lesser chance of electing minority representatives when the proportion of minorities living in a district is lowered.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in  Georgia v. Ashcroft that shifting African American voters from completely safe majority-minority districts to “coalitional” or “influence” districts, in which blacks did not constitute a majority of voters in a district, was not necessarily “retrogressive.”  That is, the conservative majority ruled that the new federal and state senate legislative districts created by the Georgia state legislature did not violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits eroding “the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise,” in select counties and states, mostly in the South.

Although not all African American and Hispanic elected officials in Florida support “unpacking” majority-minority districts so as to make them less concentrated, which in turn, dilutes the surrounding districts that have higher concentrations of whites, many do.  As the Miami Herald reports, state senator Arthenia Joyner, a black Democrat from Tampa who “was elected to Senate District 18 with a black voting age population of only 39 percent,” responded to Sen. Gardiner’s faux legal analysis: “I don’t need a district with 60 percent black registration to win.”

Senator Gardiner might want to read the court’s opinion in Georgia v. Ashcroft, specifically page 16 of the majority opinion.

The ability of minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice is important but often complex in practice to determine. In order to maximize the electoral success of a minority group, a State may choose to create a certain number of “safe” districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice.  Alternatively, a State may choose to create a greater number of districts in which it is likely–although perhaps not quite as likely as under the benchmark plan–that minority voters will be able to elect candidates of their choice.

The Court continues: “Section 5 does not dictate that a State must pick one of these methods of redistricting over another.”

Florida’s Constitution, however, does. It states, in part

No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice.

Rather than continuing to pack minorities into lopsided, majority-minority districts, which diminish their voting rights, the Florida legislature should abide by Amendments 5 & 6 and create “coalitional” or “influence” districts across the state that enhance the rights of minorities “to participate in the political process” or “elect representatives of their choice.”

It’s time, Senator Gardiner, for the Florida legislature to listen to the citizens of the Sunshine State, follow the Florida Constitution, and create Fair Districts, rather than ones that excessively pack minorities into overly safe districts.

November 3, 2011

Dear Attorney General Holder:

I have just written a letter to U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois who chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. I have asked Sen. Durbin’s subcommittee to conduct a congressional investigation to see if Florida’s new election law is linked to the efforts to pass similar voting restrictions in 14 states so far this year.

The changes mostly involve new ID requirements, shorter early voting periods and new restrictions on third parties who sign up new voters. In Florida, the League of Women Voters considered these restrictions so egregious it abandoned its registration drives after 72 years, and teachers there are running afoul of the law for the way they sign up students to vote.

According to the first comprehensive study of the laws’ impact, just completed by The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, these voting changes could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters in numerous states to cast their ballots in 2012. Both The Washington Post and New York Times have reported such measures could keep young people and minorities away from the polls.

If the Brennan Center is correct in its assessment that five million voters could be disenfranchised, that would be more than the all the registered voters in any of 42 states in this country.

In short, indications are mounting of an effort to suppress the national vote. In Florida, the Justice Department continues reviewing how the voting law changes would affect certain voters, particularly minorities, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. I believe more should be done.

The Justice Department should investigate whether new state voting laws resulted from collusion or an orchestrated effort to limit voter turnout. The Department needs to determine whether or not there was broad-based motivation to suppress the vote—and, if so, whether any laws were violated.

I look forward to your prompt response on this most serious of issues.

Sincerely,

 

Here’s the link to Sen. Nelson’s letter to Attorney General Holder.

I’ve written a considerable amount about the negative impact HB1355 likely will have on early voting in Florida. But the regressive law also affects the ability of Florida citizens to register to vote.

The Republican-controlled legislature’s rationale for the law–steeped in the anti-democratic rhetoric of making voting a privilege, not a right–continues to conjur up vestiges of Jim Crowism. “We’re going to have a very tight election here next year, and we need to protect the integrity of the election,” said Rep. Dennis Baxley, a Republican from Ocala. “When we looked around, we saw a need for some tightening.”

With respect to the severe restrictions placed on “third parties” (including individual citizens) interested in helping fellow citizens to register to vote, Republican lawmakers are surely cognizant of the surge of African Americans who registered to vote in Florida prior to the 2008 general election.

As I write with my co-author, Stephanie Slade (who works for The Winston Group, a Republican pollster based in DC) in a recent article on the 2008 election in Florida, “Obama to Blame? African American Surge Voters and the Ban on Same-Sex Marriage in Florida,”

Between December of 2007 and October of 2008, an additional 233,130 black Floridians registered to vote, a group of citizens we have referred to as the Obama-inspired African American surge. If these voters turned out at the same rate as the Florida electorate as a whole in the 2008 presidential election (74.6 percent), black surge voters would have constituted 173,915 of 8.39 million total votes cast for all the presidential candidates.

The numbers speak for themselves.

This spring, Republican lawmakers changed the rules to try to ensure that there will be no African American “surge voters” in 2012.

It will be up to the US Justice Department, as well as several interveners (including the ACLU, NAACP, and the League of Women Voters)–but ultimately the federal courts–to determine whether they ultimately succeed in their effort to suppress the vote in Florida.

Derrick Bell, the first African American dean of a non-historically black school of law, and long-time professor at Harvard and NYU law schools, passed away yesterday at age 80.

In addition to pioneering “critical race theory,” Bell penned a seminal essay in 1978, on the dangers of direct democracy towards minorities.  Bell, in his Washington Law Review article, “The Referendum: Democracy’s Barrier to Racial Equality,” argued that ballot measures could perpetuate racial discrimination, increasingly so as racial barriers are simultaneously being lowered in representative democracy.  As such, the courts, Bell contended, should use heightened scrutiny assessing whether the civil rights of minorities are diminished via plebiscite.  Concerned with the populist tropes of some ballot measures, Bell warned, “Although the racial motivation is hidden, its effects are not; and the damage to minorities and to the integrity of a representative government can be as severe as that of the overtly racist laws existing in the country before 1954.”

For more empirical research on direct democracy and minority rights, see my review essay with Caroline Tolbert, as well as this article by Don Haider-Markel and his coauthors.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 997 other followers