(Florida) Responds to CNN Lawsuit Seeking List of Names

[CShine]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - The list of approximately 47,000 registered voters who are potential felons is preliminary and should not be released publicly, the Florida Division of Elections argued in court papers Tuesday. The agency filed a response to a lawsuit by CNN challenging the statute that prevents copying the list of names that could be purged from voter rolls. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson joined the lawsuit Monday. A hearing was scheduled for Wednesday in Leon County Circuit Court.

The list technically is a public record, but state law allows only certain people and groups, such as political parties or candidates, to get copies. Anyone else may look at the list, but can't copy it. Florida is one of seven states that does not allow convicted felons to vote until their voting rights have been restored.

"This preliminary list is merely a precursor to further scrutiny," the response read, adding that it will be further reviewed before anyone is at risk of being declared ineligible to vote in the November 2004 election.

Secretary of State Glenda Hood said Tuesday that the 1998 law prevents her from releasing the list to protect registered voters from having personal information distributed. "We need to balance an individual's right to know with people's right to privacy," Hood said. "It's important that Florida's 9 million voters know that the state is not going to be an agent to make their personal information available."


http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGB09Y0K8VD.html

[htuttle]

1. Jeb Bush to CNN: Drop Dead

I'd say there's a 60% chance CNN will end up shrugging this off. They would do it in such as way as to provide an overtly reasonable conclusion, though. Like, "Oh, yes, of course, the right to privacy is very important (in this case)."

[aquart]

3. They wouldn't have spent the money to sue if they bought this.

This was an easy argument to anticipate.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. Nope...CNN has publicly stated via lawsuit that they want...

...the list, and they will not drop the case. My bet is that they will either GET the list, or at the very least prevent Florida from using the list to disenfranchise legitimate voters like they did in 2000.

[robbedvoter]

2. And the voters' right to appeal starts when?

[Don_G]

4. It Hasn't Started Yet

For the people left out in 2000.

[Merlin]

14. Immediately after Bush is officially certified the winner. n/t

.

[Rebellious Republican]

5. I told ya, they have two lists, see my reply to...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x610907

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. What bullshit

"We need to balance an individual's right to know with people's right to privacy," Hood said. "It's important that Florida's 9 million voters know that the state is not going to be an agent to make their personal information available."
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGB09Y0K8VD.html

I'd find that a lot more credible if they were informing the people they are purging from the rolls so they could challenge it if there is an error.

[struggle4progress]

7. kick

:kick:

[salin]

8. second that kick

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. But public humiliation of these "felons" should be part of the penalty

They are so full of shit I bet Archibald Cox can smell them at this very moment.

I'm glad Bill Nelson has stepped up to the plate.

Glenda is definitely not the good witch.

[dusty64]

10. Preliminary my ass.

What could they possibly be hiding?

[Leilani]

11. NYU is now suing them, too!

A group at the Law School is suing. (posted elsewhere at DU)

Keep up the pressure.

[Jane Eyre]

13. If they really are felons, they have lost certain rights

Among the rights that an honest-to-God felon would have lost is the right to keep his or her criminal record private. Actually, there has never been a right to privacy as far as criminal records go. Criminal records are public, not private, matters.

The only people whose rights would be violated if the lists were made public are those who are not felons and are on the felon list. In that case, the so-called "right to privacy" being argued here is detrimental to the individual because it is to the benefit of the government, not the individual, to keep the inaccurate records private.

(on edit) The government could be held liable for violating an individual's rights by releasing the list. The individual has the right to know if the government is falsely accusing him or her of being a felon, and may have a case against the government should Jeb's government release the information. That is the real reason that the lists are being kept private.

[Merlin]

15. "Only certain people and groups, such as political parties or candidates"

They are the only ones allowed to see it.

Giving the list to political parties is a very special way to make sure a person's "right to privacy" is well guarded. Political parties are known to use enormous discretion in such matters.

:evilgrin:

[UTUSN]

16. Oh, "Preliminary" and Will Stay That Way Until IMPLEMENTED on Election Day