'Or' could stop release of state felon voter lists

[Snazzy]

'Or' could stop release of state felon voter lists

By Jim Ash, Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau
Thursday, June 10, 2004



TALLAHASSEE -- A single word in the Florida Constitution could be enough to block Cable News Network and journalists across the state from investigating a controversial list of 47,000 suspected felons on the state voter rolls.

Attorneys for CNN and a handful of Florida media outlets appeared before Leon County Circuit Judge Nikki Clark on Wednesday and asked her to strike down a 2001 law that election officials cite as a reason for restricting access to the list.

...

But Joseph Klock, an attorney for the state, said there is no constitutional conflict. Lawmakers weren't creating a public records exemption when they passed the election reforms package, Klock insisted, because the public is still able to view the records, even though it can't make copies of them.

And the law follows the constitutional provision that gives everyone the right to inspect "or" copy public documents, Klock said. He pointed out that the provision does not say inspect "and" copy them.


....

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/thursday/news_047c7eb176ef30de0093.html

[0rganism]

What a fucking crock of Klock

Like someone could inspect such a document without copying it? Feh. State attorney Klock should be disbarred for even flirting with this argument. How about we copy it but don't inspect it? That makes just as much sense. :crazy:

Sadly, the frazzled Florida courts will probably let this stand so as not to be accused of "legislating from the bench", codespeak for the traditional judiciary task of "interpreting intent".

[soup]

15. If the State 'wins' this one,

we should all walk in to our County Supervisor of Elections offices and ask for copies of the county list.

If they deny the right because the act is not supported by Florida law - I suggest don black blindfolds, DEMAND a copy and refuse to leave until we have the list.

[bluestateguy]

1. If that definition flies, Clinton's definition of "is" must be allowed.

Legal hair-splitters! I thought these guys opposed that kind fo stuff.

[tkmorris]

2. Seems to me.....

That the law as written lets the examiner do EITHER, at their choice. As in, they can examine OR copy. So, the plaintiffs choose to copy. I really don't think this can be misconstrued that easily. If the Leon county judge rules against he's clearly going against the spirit of the law.

[TahitiNut]

6. Precedent would support the interpretation that it's the examiner's choice

Such a precedent should easily override Klock's zealously anal interpretation. At most, they could require the examiner(s) to bear the actual costs of making copies.

Indeed, to argue that no right to both copy and inspect exists would be to infer that those who obtained copies could be prohibited from actually inspecting those copies ... an interpretation wholly consistent with Klock's stance and a reductio ad absurdum that should easily inform the judge to rule against Klock.

One must reasonably interpret that language as an accommodation and recognition of the examiner's legitimate functional intent: disclosure or validation.

[PATRICK]

20. "Or" more simply

Look at all other legislation with "or" in it and see where this novel precedent will lead us.

[mandyky]

3. Better get rid of Jeb and the GOP in FL

or there will be little sunshine left of the sunshine laws!

[sniffa]

4. i don't understand

what is the reasoning behind keeping the List a secret? i know, it's so they can puLL some shenanigans, but what's the reason given to the pubLic? that feLon's need privacy?

[soup]

17. suspected felon's privacy

Phooey. Here's their idea of protecting a suspected felon's privacy...

If there is cause for doubt that the person should be on the list, the state is required to send a letter to the person so they can fight it. If they don't respond to the letter, the state then has to publish the person's name publicly for so many days to give them a chance to respond.
(I'll look it up if you'd like verification.)

I don't understand it either, sniffa. But this whole set-up makes me absolutely LIVID.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Unbelievable. He said this with a straight face?

OK, for a start, 'or' in boolean logic (ie precisely defined logic, not the fuzzy crap that state attorneys come out with) includes 'and'.

Secondly, all this means is you need to employ someone who cannot read English characters (blind, or from another country with a different character set for their language) to load the photocopier; and then we can get on with inspecting the copies.

[Justice]

7. It is really says everyone has the right to inspect OR copy, who gets

to make the choice, the state or the person seeking access.

To me, that is the key.

[Justice]

16. Correction

I meant to say If it is really that it says everyone....

Sorry about that.

[soup]

22. I'm not an attorney, but Article I, Section 1

of the Florida Constitution (or Chinese restaurant menu - whichever you prefer) reads:

SECTION 1. Political power.--All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

Wouldn't that mean that when in doubt, the individual prevails? :shrug:

[Guy_Montag]

8. As many people as possible should insist on copying

the documents. Then they will never know who actually inspected the document and distributed the information.

[jpgray]

9. Get a logic professor up there--that will put this one to bed

'Or' includes 'and' in logic, so if both the disjuncts are true, the disjunction is still a true statement. They can copy and inspect without violating any part of the document.

[Voice_of_Europe]

10. Mathematical logic

agree.... "OR" allows "the one", "the other", "both"

What we are talking about here is "X-OR"...
the excluding OR where only "the one", "the other" is allowed but not "both".


In Language "or" means mostly a situational decision, "Tea or Coffee?", but rarely allowing you both options.



But X-OR does hardly make sense here as:
1. Im allowed to read the list, but not copy it. (makes some sense)
2. I'm allowed to copy the list, but not read it later. (makes no sense)

[jpgray]

12. Yes, the exclusive or does exist, but as you say doesn't appear to apply

In this case, anyway. And I don't think the main systems of logic need X-OR to be complete or sound, if I remember--took the classes a while ago. :)

[LizW]

13. Correct analysis, but

in law the only thing that matters is what party the judge belongs to. Reducing an argument to hairsplitting over one or two words is always just a means to allow a judge to rule the way he always wanted to, anyway. :(

Nikki Clark is the judge who refused in 2000 to throw out the applications for absentee ballots that had no voter identification numbers on them, even though Republican operatives came into the office and put the numbers on them, but the Dems were not offered the same opportunity. For those keeping score, this decision is one which, if she had gone the other way, would have given Gore Florida and the presidency.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/8/161731.shtml

I believe Clark was also on a short list for a judicial appointment by Jeb Bush, too, but I don't know if that was before or after the ballot decision.

[never cry wolf]

25. I agree, it was not preceeded by the word "either"

If it read you may either inspect OR copy he would have a clear point, the absence of that clarity confirms your analysis, in this case the OR is not exclusive but inclusive.

[TahitiNut]

21. "Paper or plastic?"

Yes, please. :shrug:


Klock is XOR-ignorant and NAND-challenged.


I submit that the conjunction should be NAND (rather than XOR) under Klock's interpretation since the "neither" option is afforded to the vast majority. (XOR would imply that "neither" isn't an option.)

[meg]

11. The mistake Klock is promoting is in 'who has the choice'?

The choice to inspect or to copy belongs to the citizen of Florida, NOT the state! The state MUST provide the citizen the OPTION to inspect or to copy.

[soup]

14. Welcome to the tea party everyone. Shall I serve?

Using the state's argument, how would these snippets from the FL Constitution be interpreted?

ARTICLE I

Section 1. >The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.<

Section 2. >No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.<

Section 3. >There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof.<

Section 4. >No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.<

---------------

These are my favorites. Can't decide between the one in section 9. or section 14., which leaves me in a quandry, since (according to the state's argument,) I must choose one. Due to my inability to choose one or the other, would I be acting in violation of the Constitution of the state of Florida?


Section 9. >No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.<

Section 14. >If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.<

--------------

Article II.

Nah. I think everyone gets the idea...

The Florida Constitution or Chinese menu is here, if anyone else wants to share the fun or likes playing with words as a means of stress relief or personal amusement.

OK, I'm done. For now. :mad as a hornet:

edit to add 'or Chinese menu' to link.
Help me. I've fallen and I can't quit.

[TahitiNut]

18. Well, if someone can "shit or get off the pot" ...

... does that mean they can never get off the pot if they shit? If so, someone should glue that state lawyer's ass to a toilet for life.
:grr:


On reflection, the judge should tell Klock to "put up or shut up" ... and then cite him for contempt of court should he ever fall silent. :evilgrin:

[soup]

24. Hear! Hear! All rise (or bow) to honor your post!

Would that be one of them-there leftover $600 toilet seats?

I'm loving the hell out of your post, TahitiNut. It's beautiful.

[stickdog]

39. Nice post.

Concerning Klock's idiotic "legal" "argument".

[TexasBushwhacker]

19. Simple solution

From the article:

"Kast said he was merely following the law, which allows only politicians, political action committees, political parties and government officials to obtain copies. Anyone else can view the list, but cannot make copies or take notes while doing so."

They should just cut to the chase. The DNC and every other Democratic PAC should just request copies and then allow CNN and the other journalists to do the "inspections". Let them do some of the legwork. The big problem with THE LIST is that the people on it are "guilty until proven innocent". If the precinct supervisor can't PROVE that the person isn't a felon, that person gets their voting rights yanked.

I don't understand how this can be so iffy anyway. Doesn't the Florida voter's registration have some kind of identifying number that's cross referenced to a driver's license or social security number? And can't those numbers be easily checked by computer, for felony convictions. As it is, my guess is it's just this list of "potential felons" is full of Hispanic surnames, "dead presidents" and unique first names like "Beyonce". Sure, there's probably a man named Mario Gomez who's a felon, but I'm sure there are many Mario Gomez's that AREN'T felons.

The Republican party should be ashamed that this is being done AGAIN. There is no way that anyone in their right mind can see this as anything but discrimination.

I found this particularly rich - "Klock argued that the state wants to restrict access to protect anyone who may be mistakenly identified as felons." Yeah, right.

[soup]

29. About the 'iffy' paragraph in your post

The new list was compiled using felony ARREST records, which makes absolutely no sense to me. (but then very little of this does)

here's one cite for verification:
>At issue is a list of 47,687 registered Florida voters who have been identified as possible felons through a match with a law-enforcement arrest database.<
from:
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/8884904.htm

As far as coordinating computer systems, I think I read somewhere that they're working on that.

[TexasBushwhacker]

34. Thanks for the info

Even so, one would think that they would get a list of Felony CONVICTION RECORDS, ya know? I mean how many men get arrested for DWB (Driving While Black)? That shit happens all the time.

[stickdog]

40. Exactly. How many people are arrested for felonies who are found innocent

or guilty of misdemeanors?

This is nothing more an nothing less than a Jeb Crow law.

[LuminousX]

23. If one person can't do both, can one person Copy while another Inspects?

[dansolo]

26. Not an exclusive 'or'

Mr. Klock has it wrong. The logical usage of 'or' allows for either OR BOTH actions to occur.

[LittleApple81]

27. Are you a programmer? This is one of the basic logical operator

used in programming. So it is VERY CLEAR to programmers what bunch of crock their use of a regular or is.

[Whoa_Nelly]

28. IMO, at the very least FL has a responsibility

to inform each and every voter on that list that their name appears and may be purged unless they can show cause as to why this should not happen. There will most likely be those on the list who wouldn't seek to view it as they are not felons, and have no reason to consider that their voting rights are in jeopardy. After what happened in 2000, the state of Florida should take greater care to not disenfranchise any voter.

[stickdog]

41. No. They have a much greater responsibility.

Voters should not be taken off the rolls unless their felony convictions are verified.

Any other action is Jeb Crow.

[Bandit]

30. It says you can copy it

You can inspect them or you can copy them. That is plain. It specifically says can copy public documents.

[John_H]

31. Relax. "Or" usually means it's the choice of the copier/inspector

in sentences like this, according to most decisions. Also Remember this will go to the FL supreme court and the Fat Tony et. al wouldn't touch this for a million Chimp Bucks.

[TahitiNut]

32. Ambiguities are, as a rule, decided against the state.

Under the theory that the state had the chance to make it clearer in writing the law, the longstanding rule is to decide in favor of the petitioner who was not empowered to choose the language in any case where ambiguity is seen to exist.

I still don't believe it's ambiguous. It's a non-exclusive "or" since a similarly-placed "and" could be argued to require both inclusively (including copying at a fee) with the same hypo-analytical, fallacious logic.

[Carolab]

33. It appears that public can only view, not copy

Kast said he was merely following the law, which allows only politicians, political action committees, political parties and government officials to obtain copies. Anyone else can view the list, but cannot make copies or take notes while doing so.

Thomas argued that lawmakers failed to follow a constitutional mandate that requires them to state a specific reason when they pass laws closing public records.

But Joseph Klock, an attorney for the state, said there is no constitutional conflict. Lawmakers weren't creating a public records exemption when they passed the election reforms package, Klock insisted, because the public is still able to view the records, even though it can't make copies of them.

And the law follows the constitutional provision that gives everyone the right to inspect "or" copy public documents, Klock said. He pointed out that the provision does not say inspect "and" copy them.

[yellowcanine]

35. I'll bet a lawsuit based on the 1965 Voting Rights Act would pry those

records loose - regardless of what the state constitution says.

[TLDHOME99]

36. What can we Floridians do to help? I would like to hear suggestions!

Maybe Florida should secede from the union . . .Might be the only way to get rid of Jeb & W . . .

I am not all that familiar with activism, but is there anything we can do, like getting up a petition to copy the records, or writing our state senator, or writing to this guy Klock?

Forgive me, I'm a novice activist, so I would really like to hear some solid suggestions from those of you who are experienced in this kind of thing.

I'll do whatever it takes!

:grr:

[sofa king]

37. I certainly wouldn't advocate this, but....

...Some of our country's more important documents were "leaked" against the law. For example, the Pentagon Papers were technically illegal until a Congressman read their entirety into the Congressional Record. Then it became public domain.

If I remember correctly, the http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwej.html">Senate Executive Journal remained secret for nearly forty years before it was made public in 1828; I think that documents leaked to the press were part of the pressure that forced the Senate to make the Journal public.

The best way to get that list may be to have someone steal it, hand it off to a sympathetic Member of Congress, and get it published in the CR. At that point, it's open to everyone. The offending Member of Congress may face the prospect of not being seated by a vengeful Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The leaker, if identified, potentially faces dire consequences for the theft. Anyone in a position to do so had better know that the only thing separating him or her from the soap-on-a-rope in ass-pounding prison may well be a politically dangerous pardon from a future President Kerry.

[TLDHOME99]

43. thanks for the suggestion!!! Now, what can we do without going to jail?

Sheesh! Awful to think that it might come to that . . .

Living in FL is getting to be like living under a dictatorship. Our votes don't count, if we win the election we really lose, if we protest we get arrested, and if we protest getting arrested we get detained indefinitely . . .

I may as well move to Cuba. I hear Castro doesn't like Bush that well . . .
:scared:

[stickdog]

38. This is known as the

"Scalia parse."

[Forkboy]

42. Who cares,Nader is running!

and there he goes ---------------->