Florida

Bumped. --Mike

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Reports and exits polls this entire political season have built a narrative of tremendous, even record-breaking voter participation, pushing us to believe that voter turnout in November will exceed all expectations.

Maybe.

The dirty secret of elections in America is that getting on the rolls, casting a ballot, and having that ballot counted is a complicated system adjudicated and carried out by more than 3,000 counties and towns and regulated by a complex mix of state and federal laws. In order for the expected record-shattering turnout to occur in November, all aspects of the system, from registration procedures to polling place systems to ballot counting procedures all need to work properly. However, those with an interest in suppressing turnout may disrupt the process at any one of those points. The biggest impact comes by preventing people from making it onto the voting rolls in the first place since no one can cast a ballot without being registered.

Unsurprisingly, politicians with partisan interests at heart are pushing states to raise barriers to the democratic process by enforcing laws that restrict voter registration drives and violate the Voting Rights Act. These election-related policies have disproportionately negative impact on young people and minorities – two groups that have historically suffered underrepresentation in the electorate. However, in an encouraging move aimed at lowering these kinds of barriers, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would help enfranchise all voters on Election Day.

Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives
During presidential election years, efforts to register more citizens increase dramatically. However, several states impose various restrictions on voter registration drives, which in turn has a disproportionate impact upon youth and people with disabilities – two communities that commonly register to vote through such drives, according to Ben Adler of the Politico.

The swing state of New Mexico is under the most scrutiny for their drive policy and has recently been sued for unconstitutionally hindering the right to collect voter registrations under a 2005 election reform law.

“The activists contend that because the law creates criminal penalties for failing to meet its requirements – which even supporters acknowledge are stringent – it discourages groups from collecting registrations,” Adler wrote. New Mexico's excessively short 48 hour time frame to turn in a completed application and subsequent misdemeanor charge if the collector is late has reportedly stopped students who “'simply want to get out on campus and register their friends to vote.'” The Federal government recognizes the challenges imposed by short time lines: Under the National Voter Registration Act, state agencies are provided 10 days to turn in new applications.

Violations of the Voting Rights Act
Other voting rights issues that have recently been battled involve violations of the Voting Rights Act.
The U.S. Justice Department recently announced an agreement to protect Latino voters in New Jersey after a complaint was filed involving discrimination in the voting process. Puerto Rican voters in the Penns Grove borough had complained they were subject to racial comments and hostility as well as disproportionately asked for voter ID and turned away at the polls. It was the third lawsuit of this nature this year. The suit also alleged that Spanish-speaking voters were not provided Spanish-language election materials or enough aid from bilingual poll workers, also requirements of the Act. The agreement must still be approved by the court, the Justice Department press release said.

“The right to vote is a fundamental guarantee for all American citizens,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Christopher Christie. “The Division is committed to vigorously enforcing federal civil rights laws during the important election year and commends the county and borough for promptly and constructively resolving the matter.”

Asian voters in Massachusetts were not as successful in getting the state to provide fully sufficient bilingual ballots, according to a column by Adrian Walker of the Boston Globe. Advocates recently attempted to meet with Secretary of State William Galvin to gain his support for a proposed law requiring ballots be translated into Chinese and Vietnamese. The bill passed the Boston City Council earlier this year, but still requires legislative approval in order to ensure elderly Asian residents with limited English skills are not denied the right to vote in November.

“Voting is as American as apple pie,” said Boston City Councilor Sam Yoon. “This is something everyone should want to protect.”

However, Galvin - who the legislature looks to when considering election law - denied the group, as he has for the last year, according to Walker.

Despite swelling interest and rising registration rates among youth and minorities, there are significant and persistent barriers to their increased participation. The identification of these barriers should serve as a wake-up call in each state, pushing them to take steps to address the barriers and equip themselves to handle the influx of new voters this coming Election Day.

Voter Registration Surge and Election Day Chaos
An example of this swelling interest can be seen in one county in Florida where minority voters are beginning to balance their share of the electorate. This year alone in Lee County, Florida, black and Latino voters have increased by as much as 22 percent – more than double the increase among white voters, according to local publication, Fort Meyers News-Press.

“The increase in minority voter registration gives voice to people who haven't always been represented at the table,” the News-Press editorialized. “Whether it's the presence of a nontraditional candidate, the pressing economic conditions, or the war in Iraq, anything that inspires citizens to participate in the political process is beneficial.”

The unprecedented surge of voters expected to turn out in November could pose a major challenge for states, according to Stateline.org. The online news site, run by the Pew Research Center, raised concerns about poor ballot design and even last minute voter registration drives that could swamp understaffed offices, making it more difficult for voters to get on the rolls, let alone cast a ballot.

“People know it's going to be a historically high turnout. Whether they can do anything about it is another question,” said Dan Seligson of electionline.org, a Pew Center on the States project that provides analysis on election reform.

Smart Election Reform
While other states scramble to figure out how to accommodate the influx of voters and advocates ensure voting rights are protected, one state is pushing one of the most effective measures to expand access to democracy for all American citizens – Election Day Registration. On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would allow voters to register and vote on Election Day. The bill, SB 2807 is currently in the House Ways and Means committee. If passed, Massachusetts would join the ranks of eight other EDR states, which have average turnout rates that exceed non-EDR states by as much as 12 percent. Three other states are considering EDR bills: New Jersey, New York and Ohio. To view these bills, visit www.ElectionLegislation.org.

Lots of stuff about McCain and Obama, but also a few movement-oriented pieces as well. Enjoy.

• Barack Obama authored an op-ed in today's New York Times in which he lays out his Iraq strategy. Here's my favorite part:

  As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

  In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

• This weekend, the New York Times did a hit-piece on Obama, looking to drive a wedge between him and his youthful supporters in the media narrative. Tim Fernholz has the proper response over at Tapped. Also at the Prospect, Courtney Martin has a slightly different take on Obama's "tacking to the center."
• David Frum is the latest conservative to try to make hay about young voters supposed-support of privatized accounts for Social Security.
• The LA Times profiles Joel Flatow. If you want to bring big-name musicians into politics, apparently he's the go-to guy. Only problem, he's also one of the dudes behind the RIAA's awesome strategy of suing its fans. This sucks, big time, and it's why groups like MFA losing their funding sucks even worse. I want musicians involved in politics to support smart copyright reform, not be reactionaries advocating on behalf of a dying business model. As such, getting rid of people like Flatow and delinking the two seems pretty important.
• Rock the Vote says that 3,100 bands signed up for their DemROCKracy contest. If each band registered only 25 fans, that would be 77,500 registrations. Bad ass.
• The Hip Hop Caucus Blog has a great look at the Jesse Jackson/Obama scandal framed as a generational issue within the black community and civil rights movement.
• Finally, John McCain calls college students "spoiled children. Awesome. Here's what I say to that:

While I was in Nashville, I didn't get a chance to watch the RBC meeting (seemingly streamed live via every broadcast and independent media outlet on the planet). Everyone at the conference was buzzing about it - making phone calls, checking their email and trying to keep up with the latest twist and turn.

Since I missed the whole thing, I'll turn you over to two very capable people who did watch it. First, watch Joe's always interesting take:

Then go read Emptywheel at FireDogLake, who was at the RBC meeting and live blogged the whole event. She has a great recap on exactly what the Michigan delegate compromise means and how it was reached.

At The Washington Post, Chris Cillizza takes a look at the new top ten swing states. This idea of a "swing state" is a little dated, especially since the Democrats adopted the "50 State Strategy" and saw positive results in 2006. But at the end of the day, even if we do compete in all states, a few will be more competitive than others, and it is inevitable that these states will receive an inordinate amount of attention from the media, the campaigns, and 527 organizations looking to influence the outcome.

That said, here are your new swing states. Learn them well.

This looks somewhat familiar. Remember this from November 2004? These are the states where John Kerry would have won the election if only voters under 30 had cast their ballots:

I can't prove any direct connection or major demographic shift in these states at this point, but it definitely bears more looking into. It's also nice to see some states with active youth organizing making the list of "new" swing states (Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico).

So here's a question. If Florida and/or Michigan hold new contests for the Democratic nomination, will those contests take into consideration the special needs and circumstances of young voters?

For instance, if Florida were to send out mail-in ballots as their chosen method for a re-vote, how would those ballots be distributed? Young people move frequently - and many may even move between now and June, when most colleges and universities let out for the summer. As such, address information in the voter file will likely be inaccurate and could result in tens of thousands of students being disenfranchised. Some of those students may not even reside in the state over the summer, but they will have missed their chance to vote in the state where their parents live.

The mobility of young people will also be a problem should the states opt for a caucus process or a new primary with physical polling locations. Thousands or tens of thousands of young people may be away on vacation or living elsewhere for the summer. That could require long drives, hotel stays, or even more expensive plane rides if they wish to exercise their right to vote. That's not acceptable.

The details of these new contests (if they happen at all) are still being worked out, but the campaigns, the DNC, and the state parties should do all in their power to make sure that any solution does not overly burden and disenfranchise younger voters.

Ralph Nader, appearing on Meet the Press this morning, declared his intention to run for President on the Green Party ticket.

I always get nervous when I hear Nader is jumping in the race. In part it's a reaction to 2000, and in part it is because third party candidacies tend to attract idealistic younger voters discontent with the two party system. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was first elected, Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate and attracted 22% of the 18 - 29 year old vote. Back in 2000, when Nader first ran under the Green Party banner against Al Gore and George Bush, his third party candidacy also appealed to a certain segment of young people. In 2000, Ralph Nader garnered 5% of the 18 - 29 vote. (Full disclosure, I was part of that 5% who voted for Nader). That wasn't anywhere close to the amount of support that Perot received, but nevertheless, it was enough to cost Gore the election.

I don't think Nader will have as substantial an impact in 2008 as he did in 2000 - he's created too much ill will among some of his core constituency with these hopeless runs at the Presidency. It also helps that Obama has a huge lock on the youth vote and his "post-partisan" message swipes the rug out from under the kind of third party outsider rhetoric we're likely to hear from Nader. Nevertheless, I'd like to lay out the case for why I think this is not only a fools errand, but bad politics.

On Meet the Press, Nader delivered a number of rationalizations for his candidacy, some of which I heard out of the mouths of young voters in 2004:

Nader claimed that "people are sick of the two parties," which are all but the same. We need to promote a third party and break the two party system.

The lesson of the last 8 years is that the parties, which seemed very similar in 2000, are vastly different. It seems like a lot of people are pretty interested in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns, and in the Democratic Party. Almost 1 million people have donated to the Obama campaign along - that's a revolution in party building. Turnout is unprecedented in this primary season - it's up in almost every single state. The youth vote is doubling, tripling, even quadrupling. People are paying more attention and are more engaged than ever. This is not an apathetic electorate turned of by the parties, and Nader's recycled rhetoric shows that he has not come to grips with the new political playing field.

I sympathize Nader and with those who want to see a viable third party in the US, but running hopeless bids for the Presidency is not the way to do it. On Meet the Press, Nader quoted the success of the Greens in Europe as a rationale/justification for his actions, however the European Greens didn't start at the top of the ticket, and the comparison is apples to oranges at best. The European Greens built themselves up from the bottom up. They were aided in this by the presence of proportional, parliamentary systems in Europe, not the winner take all system we have in America. If Nader and the Greens were serious, rather than sabatoge the electoral prospects of fellow progressives, they would devote all of their resources to building strongholds at the state and local level as a first step toward building a nationally competitive party.

Nader's candidacy allows him to voice dissent and drive the parties to the left on the issues.

Not really. Nader's quixotic presidential runs have had at best a minimal impact on the policies of the Democratic Party. John Edwards, however, did set the agenda for Obama and Clinton on the Iraq War, poverty, and corporatism run amok. And he did it all within the context of the Democratic Primary. Movement is possible within the two party system - more so than from quixotic third party bids that split voters who essentially agree on 95% of the issues.

Nader did not cause Gore's defeat in Florida, rather, Gore was defeated by himself and a poorly run campaign.

In 2000, Nader himself stated that his campaign was solely for the purposes of building up the Green Party, not of competing with Vice President Al Gore. Nader even went so far as to make a promise not to campaign in battleground states, a promise he broke. Having broken that promise, it's hard to argue that Nader didn't draw votes from Gore in the crucial state of Florida, effectively granting Bush the presidency.

Worse, this showed an incredible lack of political savvy. As we've seen during Bush's tenure, Nader's campaign worked at cross purposes to his own stated policy goals. Eight years of Bush did nothing to move America closer to the vision of Mr. Nader or the green party. In fact, it moved us further away. Nader was not only a spoiler for Gore and the Democrats, but he sabotaged his own policy goals.

As I said, I don't foresee Mr. Nader catching a youth wave, or even stripping many votes from the Democrats this time around. But if anyone is thinking about giving Nader the time of day - think about these things first and ask yourself if Mr. Nader is the most effective vehicle for accomplishing your political goals.

After putting out the question of Hillary's youth "victory" to a number of smart youth organizers, I'm getting a better picture of what I think happened in the state and how to interpret Florida youth turnout. First the final numbers from CIRCLE (pdf):

• 151,599 young voters participated in the Florida Democratic primary.
• They were 9 percent of the Democratic electorate, an increase of 3 percentage points from 2004, when young voters were 6 percent of the electorate.
• The actual turnout rate in the Democratic contest was 13 percent, up from 4 percent in 2000.
• Young Democrats once again out performed Young Republicans. 134,412 young voters participated in the more competitive Republican Primary, and they made up 7 percent of the Republican electorate.

The organizers I spoke to gave a number of reasons for Hillary's victory among young voters:

• Higher name ID
• Clinton's big lead among Latino voters
• Clinton spoke about Florida enough in the final week to have "virtually" campaigned in the state
• Clinton's blow-out lead discouraged Obama voters
• W/r/t to the Michigan comparison, there was a concerted effort in Michigan on behalf of "uncommitted." No such grassroots push existed in Florida for Obama

These are all plausible enough, and to be honest I don't think we can get much more clarity at this point.

There are a few things Florida does tell us, though. Tony Cani, the Political Director of YDA dragged me out of the horse-race narrative I've sunk into, and pointed out that Florida tells us a lot about what's going on with the youth vote sans the Obama campaign.

Even though Obama is capitalizing on a huge wave of youth support, increased voter turnout among youth was occurring even before his campaign. Obama may be riding the youth wave, and he is certainly amplifying it, but in no way did he create it. It existed before him, as we saw in 2004 and 2006. As I noted above, youth turnout in Florida yesterday tripled over turnout rates for 2000, without any outreach by the campaigns, and it did so more for the Democrats than the Republicans.

Second, this offers further proof of what youth vote advocates have been saying for literally years now: reaching out to young voters works. In all the states where the campaigns have made an effort, youth turnout has risen dramatically, nowhere more so than in Iowa and New Hampshire where the campaigns invested the most effort. Putting resources into the youth vote works. That's a lesson for all Democratic campaigns - national, state and local - to take away from yesterday's results.

Update II: CNN has updated the numbers. They now say Clinton carried the overall youth vote 44 - 43 percent. Obama won 18 - 24 year olds 49 - 39 percent. Clinton won 25 - 29 year olds 48 - 37 percent.
---------------------------------
Update: The Republican youth vote was pretty evenly split. McCain won with 26%, but Romney snagged 24%, and both Huckabee and Giuliani each nabbed 20%. Oh, and Romney actually won among 25 - 29 year olds.
----------------------------------

CNN Exit polling says that Hillary Clinton captured the youth vote in Florida, beating Senator Barack Obama 45 to 42 percent.

Needless to say, this is a shocker. Even in Michigan, where Clinton ran unopposed, she lost young voters to "uncommitted" 48 to 43 percent. Clinton owes her victory tonight among young voters to 25 - 29 year olds, the same group she carried in New Hampshire. Among that older demographic, Sen. Clinton won 50 to 36 percent. Among the younger 18 to 24 demographic, Obama won 48 to 41 percent.

As I mentioned earlier today, because the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates, no campaign actively worked to court voters in the state. Conventional wisdom was that, at least among young voters, this would be a boon to Sen. Obama, who has carried young voters in every other state by double digits. Honestly, I've got no explanation at this point.

The fact that none of the candidates campaigned in the state showed in the turnout. For the first time this cycle, more Republicans turned out than Democrats.

Among Democrats, 18 - 29 year olds only made up 9 percent of the electorate - the same share as in 2004. In the Republican race, young voters made up 7 percent of the electorate. We'll have to wait for the parties to release final turnout numbers before we can see whether more young voters (in terms of actual turnout) participated in the Republican or Democratic contests.

Probably Republicans, but you never know.

Today is the Florida Primary. Mostly this will be a Republican affair, with Romney and McCain vying for the momentum and bragging rights to usher them into the GOP nomination, but 9u11iani is also making a last stand in the state by forgoing the NYC sunbirds and retirees that are his base and appealing instead to young Floridians.

There are two problems with that strategy - Florida is one of the only states in 2006 that actually saw a decline in youth turnout, and there are more Democratic youth than Republican youth in the state. According to CIRCLE, even though overall turnout among young voters rose by 3% in 2006, turnout in Florida fell by 5%, and young voters made up only 8% of the Florida electorate, a decrease from 9% in 2002. Also working against 9ui11ani is the fact that 38% of young Floridians identified as Democrats in 2006, vs 35% Republican, a gap that has likely increased since the midterms.

In the race for the Democratic nomination, Florida is something of a controversial state. Much like Michigan, the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates after the state moved up it's primary in a bid for more influence over the nominating process. Since then, the Democratic candidates swore-off campaigning in the state. Without targeted outreach by the campaigns, it's unlikely that the youth vote will increase its turnout in substantial numbers. I'm actually going to guess that while turnout overall will increase, we won't see huge turnout increases among 18 - 29 year olds tonight like we did in some other states. Who really knows, though. Florida is a hugely contested battleground state, and maybe Floridians will motivate themselves this time around.

Turnout certainly can't get any worse than the baseline numbers from 2004. Last cycle, young voters made up only 6% of the primary electorate. It should be noted, however, that the 2004 Florida primary occurred when 80% of all Florida students were on spring break.

As of now, the Florida delegates won't be seated at the convention, but should we head towards a brokered convention, I expect both the Clinton and Obama camps will start to play hardball on the issue. At that point, every delegate will count. Should the Florida delegation actually be seated at a brokered convention, low young-voter turnout today would be bad news for Obama in August. He needs every young voter possible to go to the polls to cut into Clinton's delegate count.

A few stories Around the Tubes:

• The Miami Herald reports on the "apathetic streak" in young Florida voters. Despite the national trend that 18- to 29-year-olds are taking an increased interest in voting, Florida saw DECLINING youth voter turnout last year. According to one Floridian, many "are very preoccupied. Some people don't think it's very important." I totally get that -- I mean, what's important about the future of our counrty? Plus, it's not like Florida ever determines elections...The incredibly interesting site Republican Youth Majority represents the pro-choice, pro-environment, and fiscally conservative future of the Republican party. The site seems to suggest a clear ideological shift in young conservatives, who may be able to work with young progressives in the future.
• Julianne Malveaux of USA Today discusses the inherent unfairness of unpaid internships towards low-income students. Internships are an increasingly important part of resumes, putting working kids, who can't afford to work for free, at yet another disadvantage in the business and political worlds.