The state recently sent local elections supervisors a list of more than 40,000 Florida residents who could be disqualified from voting because they have been linked, at least tentatively, to felony conviction records. The state Division of Elections also sent out a memo advising supervisors to send a letter to those listed, explaining that they must, essentially, prove they are not felons. It is difficult to prove a negative, of course, and those targeted incorrectly could still lose their vote for failing to respond because of a bad address, misunderstanding or intimidation.
Is this the best way to remove felons from the voter rolls? Many supervisors of elections don't believe so, and we agree with them. "I think there is something broken in the process," said Bill Cowles, Orange County's elections supervisor.
Admittedly, the Division of Elections has improved the felon database over the woefully flawed list compiled by a private company in 2000, but it is still not accurate enough. The state calls the names on the list a "potential match" to criminal records, but the serious act of disenfranchisement should be based on more than maybe.
What the supervisors have in mind is a process to closely screen the current database for more conclusive proof that those named are actually felons before mailing out letters. "We're going to do this responsibly," said Deborah Clark, Pinellas County's elections chief. They plan to discuss the process at their association's upcoming conference and hope to get cooperation from all the state's 67 supervisors. "That's what tends to get us in trouble, when we have 65 (supervisors) going in one direction and two in another," said Pasco County supervisor Kurt Browning.
A responsible, statewide screening process would be best for all Florida voters. While such investigation is admittedly beyond the supervisors' expertise, some would consider hiring outside experts to do the work. And accuracy rather than speed is their main goal. If they err, Cowles said, "many of us will probably err on the side of the voter."
That is refreshing talk after the shame of the 2000 election, when many legitimate voters were removed from the voter rolls because of bad information or even bad intentions. Too many of the mixups occurred in the minority community. In another tight race, those votes could be enough to determine the outcome, and Florida's reputation cannot afford a repeat performance of 2000.
All of this would be unnecessary if felons who have served their time had automatic restoration of their voting rights, as occurs in many states. In Florida, however, felons who have done their time must go through a lengthy process that is little understood. Given the current political environment, the law isn't likely to change soon.
So that puts the pressure back on the local supervisors of elections. State officials agree that there is nothing in the law prohibiting supervisors from doing additional research on the felon database. So they should stick together and not feel pressured into making premature decisions that could wrongly deny hundreds, maybe thousands, of Floridians their votes. The credibility of the 2004 election could be riding on their decision.
