Judge rules for media on Florida voter list

[desdemona]

Judge rules for media on Florida voter list

Upholds both 'right to inspect' and 'right to copy'

Thursday, July 1, 2004 Posted: 5:01 PM EDT (2101 GMT)

(CNN) -- A state court judge in Florida ordered Thursday that the board of elections immediately release a list of nearly 50,000 suspected felons to CNN and other news organizations that last month sued the state for access to copies of the list.

The list is used to determine who will be eligible to vote in November's presidential election in the state.

In a statement issued shortly after the ruling was announced, Secretary of State Glenda Hood accepted the ruling as final.

"Now that the court has ruled that statute to be unconstitutional, we will make these records accessible to all interested parties," she said.

Florida bars people convicted of felonies in that state from voting.

In 2000, a similar list was the center of controversy when state officials acknowledged after the election that it contained thousands of names in error, thus barring eligible people from voting.

Many of the barred voters were African-Americans, who traditionally tend to vote Democratic.

Bush won the state by a 537-vote margin and, with it, the presidency.

The lawsuit, filed by CNN and joined by other news organizations, challenged a 2001 statute passed by the Republican-controlled legislature that limited the public's access to the list.

News organizations were allowed to inspect the list, but not make copies of it or take notes from it. (CNN asks Florida court for ineligible voters list)

"The right to inspect without the right to copy is an empty right indeed," said Leon County Circuit Judge Nikki Clark, in her six-page order.

"Whether the public chooses to inspect or copy [the list] is not the choice of the governmental agency which has custody of the record. It is the choice of the person who has requested access."

The judge went on to declare the statute unconstitutional because it failed to comply with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing public access to the state's public records.

The state has a right to an automatic 48-hour stay, if its lawyers appeal.

They would have to show cause why the information should continue to be withheld, said Tampa attorney Gregg D. Thomas of the law firm Holland & Knight, which is representing the news organizations.

"I think the long-term impact is that the citizens of Florida will have access to the interactions of their government to make sure that the government, particularly with regard to the right to vote, is conducting itself appropriately."

The list contains the names of 47,763 suspected felons.

The voter-exclusion list was compiled from state clemency reports, lists of felons and other databases, Thomas said.

The ACLU applauded the decision.

"This is good news for voters because now these records will be open and available for public inspection to help protect the right of every eligible voter in Florida," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which also joined the case. "Our interest in this case is to analyze the information on the list to prevent eligible voters from being wrongfully purged from the rolls."

Miami lawyer Joseph Klock Jr., representing the state, did not return a call Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/...ions/index.html

[DudeAsInCool]

:good job:

[Kooperman]

:read this: :reallymad:

[DudeAsInCool]

Why are you angry, Koop? Arent you happy that we are finally going to see the records?

[Kooperman]

I'm still angry that that purposely flawed list ever existed...that list cost hundreds of servicemen and women their lives, not to mention the death or maiming of many, many hundreds of innocent men , women and children of Iraq.

[NullsRevenge]

I'm still angry that that purposely flawed list ever existed...that list cost hundreds of servicemen and women their lives, not to mention the death or maiming of many, many hundreds of innocent men , women and children of Iraq.

I think your baseless accusations is wrong, the fact that you say that the war on terrorism would have never happened under gore. Even though there were 4 terrorist attacks on the US during the clinton-gore era, and they did not do enough to stop the next one from happening. And its pure speculation. Why you believe that doing things the same as they were before which cost thousands of innoicent civilians their lives as well as servicemen in terrorist attacks is beyond me.

I also dont know why you seem to think that Florida is a heavy democrat state when its not. There is a republican governor who was reelected last year by a wide margin, and a republican state congress. Other than a few areas all of which are amoung the richest areas of the state and liberal northerners who move down there the state is not a democratic stronghold at all. Not only that but the democrat party has shifted to the extreeme left, and is not longer really moderate like in 2000 and no longer represent many people in the middle.

To also assume that Florida is the only state that had problems in the last election would also be foolish, the other states most likely has similar mistakes that prevented some from voting but i dont see you getting all "outraged" over that.

[DudeAsInCool]

...the fact that you say that the war on terrorism would have never happened under gore. Even though there were 4 terrorist attacks on the US during the clinton-gore era, and they did not do enough to stop the next one from happening.

Kooper never said "that the war on terrorism would have never happened under gore." My pov is that the war on Iraq is not the same as the war on terror--Al Queda is not Iraq, yet the Bush administration used 911 as a switch and bait tactic to fulfill their policy agenda on the middle east to get rid of Hussein and invade Iraq, which Wolfowitz, the policy originator, now admits, may have been a mistake.

Clinton did try some things, and although his adminstration faile to contain Al Queda, I believe he was more active than the Bush Administration was before 911.

[Kooperman]

I think your baseless accusations is wrong, the fact that you say that the war on terrorism would have never happened under gore.

If you're going to try to respond to what I say, that's fine. But when you invent statements and claim that I said them, that shoots down any credibility you might have. Inventing quotes might work for Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh because they're smooth, but I've heard those guys Nulls, and you ain't in that league just yet. But I'm sure you'll keep practicing....

[Kooperman]

I also dont know why you seem to think that Florida is a heavy democrat state when its not. There is a republican governor who was reelected last year by a wide margin, and a republican state congress. Other than a few areas all of which are amoung the richest areas of the state and liberal northerners who move down there the state is not a democratic stronghold at all. Not only that but the democrat party has shifted to the extreeme left, and is not longer really moderate like in 2000 and no longer represent many people in the middle.

Once again, you invent quotes that don't exist. Do I see a trend in your approach?

Apparently this doesn't bother you, but I always prefer for people to actually say something before I quote them. If you're happy with that technique though, by all means continue to use it in all facets of your life....you'll do well, I'm sure.

And to occupy you for a few moments, here's the Bloomberg Presidential poll report:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...=top_world_news

[NullsRevenge]

If you're going to try to respond to what I say, that's fine. But when you invent statements and claim that I said them, that shoots down any credibility you might have. Inventing quotes might work for Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh because they're smooth, but I've heard those guys Nulls, and you ain't in that league just yet. But I'm sure you'll keep practicing....

I see, because you dont say it outright say it and instead say the exact opposite that somehow makes it complete different. In other words 2+2 != 3-1

You claim the lists are "purposely flawed" which again would be a criminal act and therefore that would make it a accusation.

Then you claim the "list" caused the deaths of serviceman and the deaths of iraqis which is what is a reference to Bush. Therefore the only way you make any sense is if the "list" means the electing of Bush whom you deemed killed those people which by itself is wrong.

It was you who said "servicemen" you did not specific where, servicemen have also died in Afganistan, which is in the war in terror, rather than claming that im out to distort your post because of your failure to be more specific.

And since you reference that Bush was only elected because of this list and the fact that it was Bush alone who killed servicemen and iraqis. The opposite would mean that gore would be elected and none it would have happened.

Of course all this assumes that you actually meant your post and it wasnt just another thoughtless bush bashing post. If thats the case then i apologize for thinking that you actually the capacity for anything above partisan cheap shot and i assure you that i will never make that mistake again.

As for my rant about how Florida was not referring to you. And again i was talking more in general and not one specfic race so the link you give really doesnt mean anything.

[Kooperman]

i apologize for thinking

A simple apology isn't enough for all that senseless and rambling prittle prattle