
Originally Posted by
ThinkingBig
Absolutely not. And just to make sure, let's have the most over-reaching and overzealous purging of the polls. I mean, it's not like we're executing a innocent person. We're just preventing them from voting... just in case.
Except, of course, that we aren't. Florida is only seeking verification of specific individuals, whose status is in question. From the article, which it appears only one of us has read:
So far, Florida has flagged 2,700 potential noncitizen voters and sent the list to county elections supervisors, who have found the data and methodology to be flawed and problematic. The list of potential noncitizen voters – many of whom have turned out to be lawful citizens and voters – disproportionately hits minorities, especially Hispanics.
About 58 percent of those flagged as potential noncitizens are Hispanics, Florida’s largest ethnic immigrant population, a Miami Herald analysis found. Hispanics make up 13 percent of the overall 11.3 million active registered voters.
Now, let's do the math. The Hispanic 13% of 11.3 million voters is 1,469,000 voters. The list of 2,700 potentially erroneous voters is 58% Hispanic, which means that Florida is looking at 1,566 voters, or 0.001066%. Hardly a mass attempt at disenfranchising Hispanics. And, let's remember that the purpose of the purge is to remove non-citizens from the rolls. The largest group of non-citizens in Florida is Hispanics, so they will naturally be over-represented in an investigation of citizenship status, just as descendants of the Mayflower passengers will be under-represented. It's not bias, it's logic (which is a form of bias, against stupidity, hence your objection to it).

Originally Posted by
ThinkingBig
FAIL. (you seem to be good at that)
is reading not your strong suit?
See above.

Originally Posted by
ThinkingBig
The state made a list and submitted it to counties. The letters instruct the voter to prove they are legal. Your statement "disputed names are being reviewed" is false. The legal voters are having to waste their time with some convoluted bureaucratic process--it's not even clear who they go to. In other words, they were betting the disenfranchised voter would be to dismayed and frustrated to go though the process.
The response is part of the review process. The voters respond with their documentation (no different than registering by mail), the state then reviews the response and either keeps them on the rolls or strikes them. This is the process. Admittedly, the state could go to the expense of sending agents to each home for the purpose of verifying their status in person, and save them the trouble of mailing an envelope, but even that could be construed as some sort of intimidation by those who oppose any attempt at maintaining voter integrity.
Now, let's discuss your reading skills. The article said nothing about betting that voters wouldn't go through the process. If anything, an eligible voter would be more motivated to respond, in order to keep his eligibility and participate in the process. The persons most likely not to respond are ineligible voters, who would want to avoid scrutiny of their false registrations. The article assumes, without evidence, that Democrats and independents would be most affected, but doesn't state the party affiliations of the 2,700 names. An odd omission, don't you think? And Obama is tanking among independents, so purging them would be counterproductive for Republicans.

Originally Posted by
ThinkingBig
As far as a suggestion: a) Do not violate federal law, numb nuts.
Ooh, then you know the law, do you? Okay, let's look at it. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/42usc/subch_ih.php
This section is referred to in sections 1973gg-1, 1973gg-2, 1973gg-6 of this title.
Sec. 1973gg-6 Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration
(a) In general
In the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, each State shall -
(1) ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election -
>snip<
(3) provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except -
(A) at the request of the registrant;
(B) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity; or
(C) as provided under paragraph (4);
(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of -
(A) the death of the registrant; or
(B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section;
>snip<
(b) Confirmation of voter registration
Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office -
(1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.); and
(2) shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person's failure to vote, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) of this section to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters if the individual - (A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then (B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.
(c) Voter removal programs
(1) A State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4) of this section by establishing a program under which -
(A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and
(B) if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that -
(i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or
(ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) of this section to confirm the change of address.
(2)(A)
A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters. Nothing in this act or the 1965 Voting Rights Act is violated by an attempt to get voters to respond to a mail request for updates on their status. Fail, Spicoli.

Originally Posted by
ThinkingBig
How many illegals have gone to the trouble to get a fake drivers licenses AND then registered to vote, giving their real name and address. This is a non-problem. This is Fox-fear fantasy problem. Bo-oooo, acorn is gonna get you, gonna get you. Please O'keef, come save us!!
Well, since you asked:
TOP NEWS
Florida says 180,000 non-citizens may be on voter rolls
Fri, May 11 17:02 PM EDT
By Kevin Gray
MIAMI (Reuters) - Florida election authorities are examining about 180,000 people who they say may not be U.S. citizens but are registered to vote in the state, an official said on Friday.
State officials are updating Florida's voter rolls ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. Florida is home to a large Latino population and is expected to be a critical swing state in the contest between Democratic President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Florida's Division of Elections said it is checking the citizenship of voters by comparing its databases with those of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which keeps track of whether a licensed driver is also a U.S. citizen.
Similar efforts have been carried out by state authorities in Colorado and New Mexico, which also have large Latino communities.
"We're going to vet a list of 180,000 people to try to come up with a real number," said Chris Cate, a spokesman for Florida's Division of Elections. "We don't want to jump to conclusions without a thorough investigation."
Officials in Florida have so far identified more than 2,600 potential voters who may not be U.S. citizens and sent their information to local election authorities, Cate said.
Drivers in Florida are required to show proof of their legal status when they get a driver's license or renew an old one.
Cate said cross-referencing voter rolls with the highway department information could help better determine whether voters are U.S. citizens, but he added the information was sometimes incomplete.
"Their last contact with the highway department may have been four or five years ago and they could have had the chance to become a citizen since then," he said.
Potential non-citizen voters are notified by mail and given 30 days to respond.
Nearly 1,600 of the voters identified up until now reside in Miami-Dade County, Florida's most populous county, which includes the city of Miami.
Cate said some Florida officials have asked the Obama administration to grant the state access to databases maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to help determine who is a citizen.
"We've been requesting access, but have so far been denied," he said.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...20511?irpc=932 So, this whole thing could have been avoided (or at least significantly reduced) if the Obama administration had permitted Florida to compare its voter registration rolls with the immigration database. One would think that the DHS would want to ensure that legally registered citizens were not inconvenienced by having to mail in a form, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by
ThinkingBig
Just because many citizens in FLA are goddamn retards that will let their state officials bugger them every which way, doesn't mean the rest of us can't see an obvious Karl Rovian dirty trick, poorly executed albeit.
Who said Arizona is the new Florida? The "In God We Trust" state still knows how to hedge their bets better than anyone.

Wow. Nice rhetorical flourishes there. Utterly false and idiotic, mind you, but still impressive in a kind of monkey-flinging-feces sort of way. Let me know when you can research your opinion and provide some facts.