HAVA; Jim Crow in Disguise
...ters may have lost their right to vote based on a flaw-ridden list of purported “felons” provided by a private firm with tight Republican ties. Initially the company, Choice Point, of Atlanta Georgia, gave Florida officials the names of 8,000 ex-felons to ‘scrub” from their list of voters. But it turned out that none of the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors. The allegations of possible illegal activity have been strong. It has been suggested that “…You can argue all night about the number ultimately purged, but there is no argument that this electoral racial program ordered by Jeb Bush’s operatives gave the White House to his older brother.” Some have even referred to this activity as “Florida’s Ethnic Cleaning of the Voter Rolls”. As a result of these allegations, and taking advantage of the confusion and hysteria the HAVA legislation was introduced by the Republican administration and passed into law by the Republican controlled Congress. One critic described HAVA in the following way: “On October 29th, 2002, George W. bush signed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Hidden behind its apple-pie-and motherhood nature lies a nasty civil rights time bomb.” HAVA – Terms & Provisions: The stated purpose of HAVA is found in the inaugural paragraph of the Help America Vote Act. The purpose is as follows: “To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, and for other purposes.” To date the focuses of HAVA seem to be to replace mechanical voting, with computerized, touch screen voting, as opposed to addressing the issues of racial profiling and discrimination. During the 2000 elections there was an illogical and sometimes comical focus on “dangling chads”, which are less than totally perforated voting cards. At the time many were confused. However, in retrospect the diversion seems to be more a prelude to what has now become the HAVA legislation. It served as means to sensitize America to “new-age” voting, computerized voting. The two suspect aspects of HAVA seem to be, the provisions to provide billions of dollars to private corporations for computer, touch screen voting machines and the suggestion that they with review and establish standards for who will be allowed to vote. This is reminiscent of the racially bias reading test applied during the Jim Crow era, and other qualifications for voting that required federal implications to cease, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 USCS, Sect. 1971) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act specifically quotes that, “…no voting qualifications or pre-requisites to voting, standards, practice, or procedure, shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision to deny or bridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or membership in a language minority group.” The first critical issue is to evaluate the source and direction of the funding established by section 101 in the Help America Vote Act. Who is going to receive this funding? If the funding is based solely on who accepts the computerized voting method, than no company or individual involved in the 2000 presidential election debacle in Florida, Georgia, Chicago and other states should receive funding. The reason that it is unwise to give money these companies is because they have already demonstrated their inclination to provide flawed information, with the result and possibly the intent to racially profile, and thereby disenfranchise African American and minority voters. A billion dollars is substantial incentive to racially profile and to provide flawed information. The likelihood of states ceasing the opportunity, regardless of inequities or injustices, is great. The second critical issue is allowing states to develop standards for voting. This has in the past traditionally led to Jim Crow type laws, remedied by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent Amendments. “The act is aimed at the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race. In addition to civil enforcement proceedings which may be instituted by the attorney general whenever any person has engaged, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage, in any prohibited act or practice, the act provides for criminal penalties and imprisonment for various acts and practices.” Legal Challenge “The right of suffrage is not an absolute, natural, or vested right, and is not a property right, but is, rather, a political right or privilege which is regarded as fundamental under our constitutional structure. The right to vote is regarded as fundamental because it preserves all other rights; other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined…” The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no individual shall be denied their right to vote as a result of he or she’s previous conditions of servitude, or past acts. To classify this right as a “fundamental” right is to identify it as worthy of special Constitutional protection. It is more than simply a due process property right, which can be taken if the process is followed, but less than a god given inalienable right, such as life and the pursuit of happiness. Stating that the right to vote and have one’s name remain on a registration list is a right that transcends property rights. Because it is fundamental many sections of federal law were promulgated to protect the right to vote. In the 2000 presidential elections “scrub” lists were issued to prevent non-qualified voters from voting. “Scrub” lists document convicted felons and other individuals that have committed acts that bar them from voting. Purging an individuals right to vote because of past actions, such as felony crimes or any other act, is completely contradictory to the 14th Amendment. The NAACP challenged the legality of the scrub lists, with a positive result. The fundamental right to vote includes the right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction, as well as the right to cast an effective vote. In addition, the right to vote necessarily includes the right to be free from restrictions that deny the franchise or render its exercise so difficult and inconvenient as to amount to the denial of the right to vote...