December 2000/
January 2001

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

NAACP Hearing on Voting Rights of People of Color in Florida

Susan Guberman-Garcia, is an attorney who lives in California

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000. I spent several hours this morning watching the NAACP public hearing on the Florida vote on C-SPAN. It is very clear to me that there was a systematic and calculated effort to lessen the Gore vote by denying the franchise to as many African Americans as possible.

The hearing was orderly, well run, and transcribed by a court reporter and was presided over by NAACP President (and former Congressional Black Caucus chairman) Kweisi Infumi. The hearing was much like a Congressional hearing (but without the wordwaste and puffery that usually dominates Congressional hearings).

There were several panels of witnesses, two to four people per panel. Witnesses included voters who were denied the right to vote, NAACP activists who worked the get-out-the-vote effort all day, NAACP phone-standby volunteers who worked the phones fielding election-day complaints, poll workers, and news media people. The witnesses were all credible and impressive, their information detailed and often accompanied by notes with names, dates, places. I would not hesitate to call any of these people as witnesses if I were handling a lawsuit on their behalf.

Witnesses testified that they (and family members and others in their presence) were denied the right to vote because they "were not on the rolls" even though some of them had their voter registration cards as well as identification showing their names and addresses.

This violates Florida law. In many cases, the poll workers who refused them declined to make any effort to validate their status and told them to "come back later." Some poll workers were sympathetic and attempted to get approval for the voters to go ahead and vote but were denied by "headquarters."

Two poll workers testified that they had been instructed by "headquarters" that they should apply "qualification" procedures very strictly and if there is the slightest doubt, deny the request to vote. They were also told to refrain from giving out any written verification of the refused voters' requests, including affidavits. This is illegal; the law requires that any voter whose attempt is challenged be given an affidavit of challenge signed under oath by the poll worker.

Many of the denied voters asked for an affidavit or something in writing to prove they had attempted to vote and all such requests were refused. None were given the chance to cast a "challenge ballot" (which I gather is similar to the "provisional ballot" that is used in California when there is a dispute as to whether someone is entitled to vote or not).

Witnessses testified that they and others who were African American (but not white) voters were asked to provide both photo ID and a current voter registration card, and many who could not do so were denied the right to vote even though the law does not require that the voters present both ID and voter registration cards.

A newswoman who spent all day at various polling places testified that at one polling place in Healdsberg County, there were numerous police cars who were stopping African American voters and asking for ID and "what are you doing here?" She saw them stop one elderly man after he left the polls, order him to "assume the position," and question him as he tried to explain he had just voted (and was wearing a button that said "I voted"). When she tried to intervene, she was told to move on or she would be arrested, and when she did so out of fear for her safety, she was followed for several miles by a police car. This newswoman, who is white and a former policewoman, broke down in tears because she was ashamed that she left the scene.

The newswoman testified that she was leaked a list of more than a thousand absentee voters by an election official. This was a list of absentee voters who were disqualified for being "felons" (their votes were not counted but they were not informed of the rejection of their vote or the opportunity to challenge it; the Republican commissioner who leaked the list told the newswoman that the instructions were to not notify the rejected absentee voters of their disqualification. The newswoman knows one of the people on the list--someone she knows has never been convicted of a crime, let alone a felony.

Many witnesses testified that people who came in to vote were required to answer a litany of questions even though they were on the rolls and had ID, the questions had to do with whether they had been convicted of a felony since the last time they voted, was their address correct, etc. Only African Americans appeared to be asked these questions.

A police lieutenant testified that a box of ballots was sitting in the police station. Someone called in that it had not been picked up. The police department claimed that they had tried to call the election commission on Friday but nobody answered because it was a holiday. As of now, the box is still sitting in the police evidence room, sealed with evidence tape. A minister testified that nobody ever came to pick up the box at his church (a polling place for his precinct) and still has not done so!

The president of Haitian Women of Miami testified that she was threatened with arrest for attempting to enter the polling booth to help first time Haitian voters who needed translation assistance. Even though she presented a copy of the statute that permits such assistance inside the booth, she was told that she would be arrested if she did not leave, and the police were actually called.

None of the Creole speakers who asked for Creole ballots (which were printed for the first time this election) were given them, and although there were Creole-speaking volunteers present to assist those voters, they were denied the right to do so. Handicapped people were able to get into some polling places, but the polling booths were not acceptable to them and requests for special ballots or other assistance was denied in African American precincts, according to the witnesses.

I could go on...but is it necessary?

Presidential Pause--Don't Push

Shepherd Bliss is an organic farmer in Sonoma County, CA. He can be reached at shepherdb@mail.com. The following is taken from a letter he wrote us.

Americans tend to be impatient. We want our instant breakfasts NOW. Perhaps this presidential pause can be an historic opportunity, rather than merely a threat, especially if we don't push. We could use this time to think about what is happening with our political system at the begining of a new millenium and consider how to improve it. Democracy needs to slow down at times, which is what seems to be happening now, like it or not.

Waiting for the president has transformed America into a giant classroom, with students from around the world. The US is accustomed to lecturing the world on democracy, but now foreigners can draw their own lessons from what is happening. Our action-oriented, quick-fix approach does not seem to be working.

The dangers in our current presidential situation have been well-articulated in the corporate media. The benefits have recieved virtually no attention in the US. I was sad on the day after the election. The gloom lifted as I considered the potential benefits of a weakened US presidency, whichever candidate prevails.

I lived in Chile during the democratic government of President Salvador Allende and watched the Chilean military topple it--with US support--and kill thousands of people. This Nov. 13 the CIA finally released 16,000 new documents detailing the agency's massive interference in Chile's electoral process 30 years ago. As things open up here and we gaze into our own electoral problems, it is important to remember what the US does around the world.

The rest of the world can teach us about who we really are. Some laugh at us. Others speak of a "stolen election." African and Latin American leaders have graciously volunteered to send in observors. Perhaps we should invite the UN to assist. The Japanese find our presidential problems "exciting," whereas the French, who tend to see Americans as too organized, "are having fun at the US's expense."

I welcome a weakened presidency, even given the uncertainty that it brings. That one white man on top has too much power. When the clothes drop, we can look at not only the emperor but also the empire in its nakedness. The closeness of this election exposes the irregularities, fraud, and corruption that have kept many people--especially African Americans--from voting for years. Many Americans are still blocked at the polls. Why vote, if your ballot may go to a racist or anti-semite?

Now people have to consider what democracy really means. Though the corporate state wants a quick decision on the presidency, it is in the interests of democracy that we keep this matter open. May we be able to look back years from now and see the 2000 presidential election as a turning point, deepening and maturing our democracy.

Previous Article    Next Article