Opinion: Felon lists show how flawed the election was

I read this article by Christopher Goffard about many of our fellow citizens being victimized the general election in November. It is absolutely chilling to imagine getting a letter from the elections supervisor of your county stating that you are being removed from the voter registration list because you have committed a felony, when in fact you know that this has not occurred.

Then you are told that you must prove that you are innocent. Not innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until you can prove you are innocent. When was the law changed? The majority of people who had this happen are black. They also vote Democratic. According to this article, there were enough people turned away by this method to have turned the election around.

I'm sure the Bush brothers know about this, but George Bush moves into the White House just as though he had won the office fairly and squarely while making pronouncements about how he is going to restore dignity to the White House. I'm sure if it was the other way around, the Republicans would raise plenty of hell, and this mock election just would not stand.
-- Joan Morris, St. Petersburg

The repairs come too late

Two recent Times articles on the state's illegal "felon lists" stated that the rules were being quietly changed to make it easier for ex-felons, whose rights had been restored, to vote and that the Legislature was considering changing the law that precipitated the problem.

Clay Roberts, the director of elections, said, "There was no conspiracy I know of."

To Clay Roberts I say, "A child caught with his hand in the cookie jar will say that he did not see anybody take any cookies." Roberts' fingerprints are all over the Florida 2000 Election cookie jar, which had many problems, including what smells like a conspiracy to deny thousands of eligible black and Hispanic voters their rights.

Sandra Mortham, as secretary of state, first directed election supervisors to remove from the rolls and to deny registration to thousands of supposed felons identified by a computer search by a Republican-connected company funded by $4-million of Florida taxpayer money. In addition to their illegality, the lists were full of errors. Despite two clear rulings by Florida courts that it was illegal, Mortham, Roberts, and Katherine Harris continued to tell election officials, who questioned the action, to continue to "scrub and block" eligible voters, most of whom were black, Hispanic, and/or poor, and dangerously likely to vote Democratic.

Now the state promises to fix the problem. Too late! The wrong horse is already out of the barn and in the White House. Oh, was that the whole idea in the first place?
-- Joseph F. Bohren, Tampa

Stand up to legislators' tyranny

Re: Legislators ignores judge's order on labor talks, April 4.

These guys (Florida state legislators) are unbelievable! We are truly witnessing a coup. The Florida Legislature is acting as though the Constitution means nothing, the laws of the state do not apply to them. Their respect for the views of the people of Florida, its employees or its judiciary is nil! Labor (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in this case) as well as the people of Florida need to stand up to these ruffians in noble garb.

They were ready to ignore the will of the good people of the state in the past election by using an archaic constitutional provision to override the vote of the people if necessary. They are now defying a court injunction intended to keep them in compliance with a Florida statute. Why? They say separation of powers. I say consolidation of power. They should be jailed for it! This is tyranny!

Also, our state employees work on behalf of the people of this state to provide us with health-care-related services, environmental protection and a vast array of critical services that we (the people) have decided to grant ourselves. Their union's right to a fair hearing, including the 20 day pause after the Special Master's report, is just plain ol' American fair play. Something they seem to think archaic.
-- John Howes, county member, Green Party of Pinellas County, St. Petersburg

A one-sided view of Israel

Re: Toward an uneasy peace, editorial, March 30.

You wrote, "Before becoming prime minister, Sharon helped to precipitate the latest violence when he and his bodyguards made a provocative visit to an Arab section of East Jerusalem."

Since when is the Temple Mount, the historical and religious site of the First and Second temples, "an Arab section of East Jerusalem"? In adopting that position, you are agreeing with the Palestinian distortion to deny any Jewish claim to the Temple Mount, despite 3,000 years of history and archaeology. Sharon visited that site precisely to emphasize that it is the right of every Israeli to visit there. When the Arabs controlled the Temple Mount, prior to 1967, Jews were prohibited from visiting and praying at their holiest site. No such restriction has existed against the followers of Islam since Israel regained sovereignty.

Israel did not turn its guns against young Arabs armed only with stones. It turned its guns against the terrorist armed snipers who fired weapons among the stone-throwers.

It is difficult to take your editorial seriously when your facts are so deficient and one-sided.
-- Lloyd A. Tabb, Clearwater

Blocking criticism of Israel

Re: U.S. vetoes resolution on Mideast observers, March 28, and Sharon strikes at Palestinians, March 29.

During Ariel Sharon's recent visit to Washington, D.C., President Bush advised the Israeli prime minister that the United States would no longer take a leading role in bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together for peace negotiations. It sounded as though we planned to play a more passive role.

However, on March 27, we vetoed a Security Council resolution that backed a United Nations force to observe and report on violence between Israelis and Palestinians. This resolution had the support of the majority of council members. If we did not like the resolution, we might have voted against it or abstained. Instead we took more aggressive action by using our veto power to protect Israel from independent observation of its actions.

The very next day, the Israelis launched a military attack, firing missiles from helicopter gunships at Palestinian targets.

This sequence of events indicates that our new approach to the Middle East leaves Israel free to do as it wishes. There will be no U.N. personnel to observe and report, and we will apparently use our veto power to block any U.N. criticism of Israel's actions.
-- Joseph A. Mahon, St. Petersburg

Faiths' crushing foundations

I was appalled when I read of the destruction of pre-Islamic Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. I was appalled when I read of a mosque built over the birthplace of Rama, who died over a thousand years before Mohammed, and the Golden Dome and mosque built atop Solomon's Temple and another built over Sarah's tomb. She died almost 5,000 years ago!

Then I remembered my visits to Mexico and Peru where I saw the cathedrals built from the stones of Aztec, Mayan and Inca temples.
-- Robert Topper, St. Pete Beach

Butterfly releases not a good idea

Re: On the Flutter Farm, March 22.

The release of butterflies at the conclusion of a wedding ceremony may seem like the perfect symbol of a loving couple's hopes for their future but it may not be such a wonderful statement for the butterflies themselves. Your article is a well written advertisement for butterfly farmers, right down to the owner's goose bumps at her mother's own funeral. The issue of butterfly farming and shipment across state lines is not as innocent as your article presents.

The North American Butterfly Association (NABA) and other butterfly organizations have come out against the release of commercially raised butterflies and the interstate shipment of these butterflies for environmental reasons. Commercially raised butterflies may spread diseases to native butterfly populations. The shipment and release of diseased butterflies could devastate local populations of butterflies by introducing organisms previously unknown in the geographic area.

Raising butterflies commercially can also concentrate harmful organisms or create new diseases as has been shown in other areas of agriculture. Interbreeding with released butterflies can weaken local butterfly populations. Local populations may have adapted genetically to environmental conditions not known to the commercially raised butterflies shipped from far away locations. Scientists studying butterfly migrations and individual butterfly enthusiasts will have conflicting information due to the release of butterflies outside their natural range or during unusual times of the year. For all these sound reasons, the "benefits" to nature of releasing butterflies is at best questionable.

This does not take into account the short-run impact to the butterflies involved in the ceremonies. The inhumane treatment of these beautiful creatures by placing them in envelopes, chilling them and then subjecting them to handling by untrained individuals should also be considered.

If your readers really want to contribute to the conservation of butterflies, a more lasting tribute to nature would be to plant butterfly plants and caterpillar host plants in a garden. Butterfly gardens are perfect for our Florida environment as many of the plants are drought tolerant. Butterfly gardens also demand low or no use of pesticides, another benefit for the environment.

As in marriage, let's focus on the long-range goals and not get caught up in the momentary illusions created by the one big day. Please do not buy and release butterflies at your wedding. Instead, think about planting butterfly plants in your garden. The butterflies will bless your marriage over and over again, nurturing your love for them long after your wedding day is over.
-- Karen Lanese, member of the Manasota Chapter of NABA, Palmetto

Put specialty plates in front

Re: License plates.

A solution for the many different license plates in Florida is to have the special plate put on the front of the vehicle and have all of the rear plates be the same. Some of these plates are hard to identify as being from our great state. Also annoying is the bracket advertising the dealer that the vehicle was purchased from. In many cases the county name can be obscured. By seeing the entire plate it would be helpful to identify a possible vehicle involved in a crime. Please consider this.
-- George Schuster, Holiday

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page