Federal appeals court sides with former Broward election supervisor on voter roll cleanup

[mfcorey1]

A federal appeals court has sided with a controversial former Broward County elections supervisor in a legal battle about whether she took proper steps to remove ineligible voters from election rolls.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower-court decision that said former Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes had adequately complied with requirements in federal elections laws.

In doing so, the panel ruled against the Virginia-based American Civil Rights Union, which filed the lawsuit in 2016 and contended that Snipes had not properly made efforts to remove ineligible voters such as people who had felony convictions.

The 39-page ruling focused heavily on a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act, which includes requirements for elections officials to remove ineligible voters. The ruling said the law only requires elections officials to remove voters who become ineligible because of death or change of address — though it allows them to remove ineligible voters for other reasons such as criminal convictions or mental incapacity.

The Atlanta-based appeals court said the American Civil Rights Union incorrectly argued that Snipes was required by the federal law to go beyond removing voters because of death or change of address.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-federal-court-brenda-snipes-20190826-kfdospyajzee5dygbpdwujdjpy-story.html

[Eugene]

1. This is better than it looks at first glance.

The "American Civil Rights Union" the anti-ACLU, a right-wing activist group that is inseparably close to Big Pharma.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Thanks. I originally read it as the ACLU

I expect that their similar looking/sounding name is absolutely no coincidence.

[gratuitous]

3. It's a LOT better

Reading through the Sentinel story, it's unclear why Brenda Snipes was a "controversial" elections supervisor other than the American Civil Rights Union was honked off at her for not disenfranchising citizens aggressively enough to suit their warped view of who should have the privilege of voting, instead of the affirmative right to vote.

The appellate court's ruling took the plain language of the statute, found that the lower court had ruled correctly, that Snipes had followed the statute correctly, and that the ACRU was utterly wrong. The Sentinel story fumbles around with language in what should be a very straightforward story: Snipes was and is right, and the ACRU (not the ACLU) is all wet.