Caught On Tape: Poll Watcher Intimidates Black Voter in Florida, Witness Steps in To Protect the Man’s Vote

It was practically written in the stars that the Republicans were going to win the election on Tuesday. All the Republican voters had to do was turn out, and may of them did. What I find wholly pathetic, however, was the inability of the Republicans to win without the specter of foul play hanging over their head. What started with 40,000 missing voter registration forms in Georgia, or flyers out in Kentucky, now turns its attention towards Florida, where foul play appears to have been caught on film.

The relationship between Florida and election BS doesn’t need reinforcing; following 2000, it should be obvious that there are Banana Republicans capable of running cleaner elections. It should be no surprise that Florida, then, is once more is back in the spotlight after questionable behavior on Tuesday. Broward County, a strong Democrat county that could have carried Crist to victory with a strong turn out, is the epicenter this time.

A number of issues in Broward came to Crist’s attention on Tuesday: there were issues with the voting machines, including malfunctions, and voters being sent to different polling locations. In at least one situation, a polling location was not operational for over an hour on Tuesday morning, which prevented voters from casting ballots before work. Crist filed an emergency motion to keep those polls open at least another hour, but despite ample evidence and large number of voters, a Circuit Court judge denied Crist’s requests. While those in line at 7 PM ET were allowed to cast their ballots, nobody else was able to go back in line, even if they had to previously leave or had been given bad info regarding their polling location.

And there were instances of poll workers giving bad information. Izak Pratt of Miami-Dade county noticed just such an incident; the man, who was Black, had his US passport as his identification. According to Pratt’s testimony in a piece for the Gaily Grind, the poll worker told the man that he needed a driver’s licenses with his current home address on it to vote. Eventually, the man gave up, and Pratt interviewed the man as he was walking out:

Flabbergasted and speechless, I stopped the man and asked him if his passport was expired. The gentleman pulled out his passport and showed it to me, it was valid with a signature and clearly had the gentleman’s face on it. I went back inside the polling station and told the poll workers that it was not a legally acceptable reason to deny somebody the right to vote if they presented a valid US passport. 

The poll worker said that the gentlemen could not vote because the passport did not have his “home address on it”. That is when I asked to speak with the supervisor of the polling station. The supervisor came over and told me the exact same thing. I pulled out my phone and showed her that she was mistaken and that the law clearly states that a US passport is a valid form of identification in order to be allowed to vote. The supervisor said that she would have to call the elections department to get clarification, but I told her that I conducted a simple Google search to show her all the acceptable forms of ID which are allowed to vote in the state of Florida. She did look them up and after consulting with two poll workers, finally relented and let the man vote. 

The gentleman came up to me and told me, as he shook my hand, “Thank you for protecting my right to vote”

Pratt returned for a confrontation that he captured on film with the poll workers and the supervisor. The supervisor maintained that it was just a misunderstanding and a “clerical error.” Pratt posted the confrontation on his Facebook page:

Pratt also attempted to speak with another poll worker outside of the polling station, but was told to leave. Why? Because he was “intimidating the voters.” I’m sure they know all about that, huh?

The sad thing about this is that the GOP would likely have still won without all of this chicanery. It seems like there was a concerted effort to attack voter turn out, and who knows how many “clerical errors” played out on Tuesday as a result.

WATCH:

We Just Witnessed One of the Saddest Days for Democracy We’ve Seen in Decades

Since election night Republicans have been on cloud nine. They’re walking around like a proud peacock strutting its feathers for all the world to see. And all I’ve seen or heard from many conservatives is how this election was a “clear message from the American people” and that “it showed just how powerful democracy can be.”

That’s all bullshit.

This election was one of the saddest days for democracy in quite some time. Not because Republicans won so many elections, but because voter turnout was abysmal.

Take this chart, for example, that shows we just had the lowest voter turnout this election than during any other midterm election year since 1982 (that’s as far back as the chart goes). Not just that, but turnout was down in 40 states.

Even a survey done by Gallup showed that voter interest this year, especially with those classifying themselves as independents, was drastically down from previous years. In fact, when it came to independent voters, only 41 percent said they were definitely going to vote. That’s down from 60 percent in 2010.

Now some people might say to themselves, “Well, those could be flawed results. You’re just mad that Democrats lost and now you’re trying to make it seem better for your side!” You’re right, any poll or survey has the potential to be extremely flawed. But then I’d simply encourage those folks to do a quick Google search for “low voter turnout 2014″ and see the plethora of articles from South Carolina, New Jersey, Hawaii, California, Texas, Vermont, Indiana and a whole host of other states reporting embarrassingly low voter turnout.

This election wasn’t some kind of “celebration of democracy,” it was the mourning of it. Millions of Americans have become so frustrated with our government that they didn’t even try to vote. To them, what was the point?

Colin Powell Condemns GOP For Voter Suppression, Points Out Voter Fraud Doesn’t Exist

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is somewhat upset with the GOP, as evidenced by his remarks during a recent speech at the CEO Forum in Raleigh, North Carolina. Just moments after Gov. Pat McCrory (R-NC) gave the opening remarks, Powell, as the keynote speaker, attacked a bill recently passed by the North Carolina legislature and signed by McCrory that includes broad, sweeping voting “reforms” that aim to disenfranchise voters that are typically Democratic, all under the guise of preventing voter fraud.

As Raw Story reported, “In what appeared to be a direct rebuke of the Governor’s claim that such fraud is widespread but difficult to detect, Powell said ‘You can say what you like, but there is no voter fraud. How can it be widespread and undetected?’”

Here’s more:

Powell ridiculed the notion that IDs are needed because of rampant election fraud.

“What has come out of the legislature is that fraud is widespread and undetected,” he said. “How is fraud widespread if it’s undetected? How can it be undetected if it’s widespread?”

The moderate Republican, who worked under former President George W. Bush, said the law will ultimately hurt the GOP by pushing key groups of voters away. (Source)

And Colin Powell isn’t unique as a Republican calling these laws out for what they truly are — nor are Democrats alone in the fight against voter suppression. From Politico: 

Republicans lawmakers who backed the measure said it was meant to prevent voter fraud, which they allege is both rampant and undetected in North Carolina. Independent voting rights groups joined Democrats and libertarians in suggesting the true goal was to suppress voter turnout, especially among traditional Democratic constituencies such as blacks, the young, the elderly and the poor.
“It is a trampling on the blood, sweat and tears of the martyrs – black and white – who fought for voting rights in this country,” said the Rev. William Barber, president of the state chapter of the NAACP, which is pressing its own legal challenge. “It puts McCrory on the wrong side of history.”

The push for suppressive policies is happening across the country in a blatant attempt by certain factions within the GOP to disenfranchise voters that don’t hold to their regressive ideology. And it’s coordinated — they know exactly what they’re doing. If you want to combat their attempts to stop Democratic and leftist constituencies from voting, please call your state representatives and ask them what they plan to do in order to ensure everyone’s equal right to vote. Also, make sure that you are aware of the laws in your state and prepared for the 2014 election periods well in advance; procrastination is the friend of those who would rather have you stay home on election day.

The newest reality show!

Editorial Cartoons of the week.

Dear GOP:

Jim Crow Returns

Could You Pass The Literacy Test Given To Black Voters In The 1960s?

Last week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a key provision in the law that mandated nine states with a history of racial discrimination, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before they could change their voter laws. 

Below are scans of an actual “literacy test” given to black voters by the state of Louisiana in the 1960s. As Slate points out, “There was little room for befuddlement. The test was to be taken in 10 minutes flat, and a single wrong answer meant a failing grade.” Careful readers will note the irony of the typos in this test.

John Lewis: Supreme Court stabbed civil rights law “in its very heart”

Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), who was a key civil rights leader during the 1960s alongside Martin Luther King, spoke out today about the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby v. Holder.
Shelby, explained in more detail below, gutted a key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, leaving it to Congress to “fix” it.

As if the Republicans in the House, or even those in Senate, would lift a finger to help blacks and other minorities ensure their voting rights.

“What the Supreme Court did today is stab the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in its very heart.” – Cong. Lewis, today.

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog explains:

Four years ago, in a case called Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (NAMUDNO) v. Holder, the Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  As I explained in an earlier post, that portion of the Act was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring a list of state and local governments identified by Congress in the 1960s as having a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures – both major changes and even for something as seemingly innocuous as moving a polling place across the street.  In that case, the Court ultimately dodged the constitutional question, handing the utility district a victory on another ground.  But at the same time, the Court fired off a cautionary shot to Congress, admonishing it that “[t]hings have changed in the South,” where most of the state and local governments that have to comply with the preclearance requirements are located, and that the burdens imposed by the preclearance requirements “must be justified by current needs.”
Today’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, a new challenge to the preclearance requirements, boils down to a new message to Congress: we warned you, you didn’t listen, and now it’s your problem to fix. The Court did not invalidate the actual preclearance provision of the statute. But it did something just as significant: it struck down Section 4 of the Act, which contains the formula that is used to identify the state and local governments that have to comply with the preclearance requirements. The upshot is that although the preclearance requirement survives, none of those jurisdictions have to comply with it unless and until Congress can enact a new formula to determine whom it covers – a prospect that, given the current state of gridlock in Congress, might not happen for a while or even forever.