Republican mailer misleads voters (but what else is new?)

A recent direct mail piece ostensibly sent by the Republican Party of Orange County to District -2 independents claims that moving local elections from the August primary to the November general election would disenfranchise voters if passed. “Independents like YOU will not be able to vote for the County Commission candidate of your choice,” reads the postcard, imploring voters to turn down Charter Amendment Question C.

If there were a prize for political bad faith, this mailer would slither away with it. It’s a deliberate attempt to mislead voters, which might not be too difficult because almost everyone is confused by our current primary/run-off system. Republicans have it good under this system and they’re terrified they might lose it in a popular vote.

So what are they talking about that Independents can’t vote? Well, they can’t vote in a primary. Instead they vote in the general — same as with every other office voted on: President, Senate, Congress. Everything. Indeed, moving the local elections to the November ballot will disqualify a No Party Affiliate [NPA] to vote in a Republican or Democratic primary. Instead they’ll vote between the two in the General, which is a far cry from being disenfranchised.

Here are the facts:

The ballot initiative is actually designed to bring more independent voters into the process. Signed by more than 50,000 Orange County voters, there does seem to be popular support behind the idea. And it’s no wonder because our current system is a confusing mess.

The Orange County Commission election is held in August on the Primary ballot which few independents care about. In 2010 only 8.5 percent of NPAs voted in August compared to 33 percent who cast ballots in November. That’s four times the independent voter turnout: 11,750 in August versus 47,013 in November.

Deciding these races in the General Election with candidates chosen in primaries would engage many more Orange County voters in our local government. This should be a good thing.

Likewise, knowing whether a candidate is a proud Republican, Democrat, or Independent is our primary way of communicating political viewpoint. If you’re not speaking in terms, then no one really knows what you stand for. Why are Republicans so determined to keep their identity a secret?

One possible answer that is always mentioned is that there’s a strategic advantage for them. Here’s the breakdown of voters in Orange County from the Supervisor of Elections website.

Dem. 302,762
Rep. 205,314
Other 44,571
NPA 168,533

But there’s another more nuanced feature to the current system that favors patrons of deep-pocketed big business which tend to be . In this “primary” system, the race goes to a runoff only if no one garners “50 percent plus one.” A candidate “wins it all” and does not have to face voters in the fall, if they grab a simple majority of votes.

Local politicos have figured out that running a spoiler in a close race is an effective strategy to peel votes away from a convincing challenger. This happens naturally when there’s multiple candidates from the same party running for the same seat. But, if a local party wanted to increase their chance of winning a tight race in the primary, they can run a spoiler candidate to peel off votes from the serious challenger. This is made all the easier in this so-called “non-partisan” election where party affiliation doesn’t have to be disclosed.

All of this nuance and nastiness turns people off from our already Byzantine local elections. Do we want more people to be engaged in local government, or don’t we?

In a county that is solidly blue, the fact that there’s only one Democrat on the county commission shows how wildly unrepresentative this system is. If it were the other way around, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. Democrats and Independents should be freaking out about this because they’re actually fighting for real people.

Knowing which party your county commissioner belongs to does not make your government “partisan.” It makes your government transparent. Right now we have “non-partisan” elections for county government, and our Mayor plus five commissioners take marching orders directly from the Republican Party chair and big business lobbyists via text messages, and possibly via Dropbox exchange. Governing by lobbyist agenda makes our government partisan AND corrupt. That is the real problem.

It’s time to demand transparency and accountability from this body, and voting yes on Charter Amendment “Question C” is a great first step in that direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Familiar ALEC tactics used in Dropbox controversy

Yesterday the First Amendment Foundation joined forces with Organize Now to sue Orange County government for information pertaining to a secret Dropbox account in use by the Mayor. The main questions at hand are “What was the Dropbox was used for?” and “Who had access to it?”

The whole affair might seem strange to those of us who use Dropbox to exchange movies or to create a public link to share information with large groups of people. We use Dropbox to make our materials more accessible to the public.

But what’s interesting is that Dropbox has actually been identified by the American Legislative Exchange Council as a preferred method for exchanging draft legislation between lawmakers and lobbyists, under a legal conceit that the Dropbox shields them from public records laws. ALEC also has a history of providing draft legislation to abolish ballot initiatives, much like the POWER GRAB Charter Amendments that were quickly passed last month.

These two data points taken together should be enough for any reasonable person to wonder if the Mayor’s use of the Dropbox is a continuation of TEXTGATE where ALEC-allied lobbyists provided step-by-step instructions for impeding the Earned Sick Time initiative as the Mayor texted, “Pls help me with a written explanation of my position.” With regard to using Dropbox, ALEC has a preposterous legal theory that as long as the legislation is in draft form, and as long it’s stamped ‘private’ then the Dropbox shields lawmakers from public records laws. ALEC put this theory into action last year when they established the practice of using Dropbox for “exchanging” draft legislation with lawmakers.

Here’s ALEC’s Senior Director of policy and strategic initiatives, Michael Bowman interviewed in the Wisconsin State Journal, explaining the rationale for using Dropbox: “ALEC began distributing information through Dropboxes — Internet-based files accessible only by invitation — instead of email because the group received advice from an attorney indicating that those files weren’t subject to records laws.” A large part of ALEC’s argument was that the materials being exchanged in the Dropbox were drafts: “This is not a final document, that’s all we are saying,” Bowman said. “Our positions are being misrepresented by groups getting hold of our documents and getting parts of documents and assuming those documents are policy.” This theory didn’t go over so well with Wisconsin courts which ruled that no, Dropbox is not a cooties shot against Sunshine Laws.

ALEC has a long history of actively working with state, and recently local governments to restrict ballot initiatives. In the August 1, 2011 issue of The Nation John Nichols writes, “Horrified by the success of living-wage referendums and other projects that have allowed voters to enact protections for workers and regulations for businesses, ALEC’s corporate sponsors have pushed to toughen the rules for voter initiatives. “The legislative process should be the principal policy-making vehicle for developing state law,” declares one 2006 resolution, which specifically mentions concerns about state minimum wage laws, taxation and “the funding of other government programs and services.” ALEC’s Resolution to Reform the Ballot Initiatives Process recommends making it harder to qualify referendum language and suggests that proposals on fiscal issues should require supermajorities to become law.”

Given that ALEC has identified using Dropbox as a legal tactic to circumvent Sunshine Laws, and given that ALEC has made restriction of ballot initiatives a priority, one has to wonder if the same ALEC-y players who brought us the “killshot” to Earned Sick Time are still working behind the scenes with the same lawmakers caught up in TEXTGATE.

Might the Mayor’s secret Dropbox have been used to exchange recipes? Or was it a “legislative exchange”?

By Dirk Gently and Nashville Brook

Some interesting lines of reasoning have cropped up in response to the controversy over the Mayor’s secret Dropbox. One jaw-droppingly civics-impaired argument goes like this: “if you don’t already know what’s in the Dropbox, then you don’t get to ask for the information.” This might be called the “Boogie Man” argument, and it assumes that the Dropbox was used for exchanging recipes. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, then you don’t get to peek.

Why would anyone think we to have know what public records kept in a secret Dropbox account are before you ask for them?

The whole point of “Government in the Sunshine” is that 1) There isn’t supposed to BE a secret Dropbox that you have to ask about, and 2) If a member of the public wants to see documents used in the course of government business, you just turn them over.

Simple, right?

We don’t have to go over the whole reasoning for public access to government docs, do we? The point is that we don’t have to suspect anything at all. We just get to see, period. If it turns out to be recipes for pumpkin pie, that’s easy enough to turn over and no lawsuits are involved.

So if the response to a public records request is to delete the documents, and redact information as to who had access to them, it’s not just perfectly fair and reasonable to insist we know more; it’s a basic imperative of our transparency laws.

And it’s not like there isn’t precedent for misuse of this kind of technology, specifically to try to skirt Sunshine Laws. In the worst case, obviously, it could be something like that ALEC debacle in Wisconsin, where private interests were actually drafting legislation with government officials in secret, and thought they could argue it was all exempt from public records laws so long as it was just “drafts,” a pretty ludicrous proposition.

There’s no need to assume Orange County officials are doing anything so blatantly disingenuous as that, but until they comply with the law and hand over the docs, we can’t really know either way.

And there was that previous situation where texts were illegally destroyed to try to hide Commissioners’ communications with lobbyists, so it’s not a huge reach to imagine at least the possibility a Dropbox account was being used the same way.

So let’s just see the pumpkin pie recipes or whatever they are and be on our way then, eh?

First Amendment Foundation joins Organize Now to sue Orange County over secret Dropbox

Orlando, FL — Mayor Teresa Jacobs is refusing to provide her constituents with access to basic Orange County public records. Today, Organize Now, with the assistance of the First Amendment Foundation, filed a lawsuit that seeks immediate judicial relief for violations of Florida’s open government laws.

This lawsuit seeks to answer two fundamental questions: Who has access to the mayor’s Dropbox files, and what are its contents.

“The roadblocks that have been erected so far by Orange County are distressing,” said Barbara Petersen, president of Florida’s First Amendment Foundation “Advances in technology should make access to public records easier and cheaper. Instead, technologies such as Dropbox are being used to shield and obstruct access to basic government information. We believe this lawsuit will have statewide implications for how governments utilize this new technology.”

Over the past two weeks, the Mayor’s staff have erected numerous barriers to requests seeking this basic information. A deeper concern, however, is that in the limited release of records so far, evidence exists that documents were deleted immediately after Comptroller Martha Haynie sent a letter to State Attorney Jeff Ashton and again after public records requests were submitted.

“The Mayor has said she would share any and all information related to the Dropbox, yet what little she’s provided so far is rife with deletions and redactions,” said Organize Now director Stephanie Porta.

The people’s business should not be conducted by a shadow government. With this lawsuit, Organize Now seeks to push Orange County’s government back into the Sunshine.

UCF gets early voting site (this is huge)

Tip of the hat to Orange County Supervisor of Elections Bill Cowles for using his “wildcard” to open an early voting site at UCF. This has been long sought after with Rep. Joe Saunders and America Votes getting behind the push. The nearest East Orlando early voting location is the Alafaya branch of the public library which is the second busiest early voting site in the county behind the SOE office on Kaley.

Here’s the Orlando Sentinel coverage by Scott Powers:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-ucf-to-host-orange-county-early-voting-site-20140910,0,7192972.post?track=rss

Get your 2014 student voting guide right here

Every year we see more attempts to discourage students voting. The process can be confusing but with this handy Student Voting Guide, you will have everything you need to know to cast your ballot with confidence this year.

Download the PDF here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/axxbkiav90dhmrj/Florida%20Student%20Voting%20Guide.pdf?dl=0

Congressional investigation set into whether states enacted new laws to suppress voter turnout

Tampa chosen as site for the first U.S. Senate field hearing on Jan. 27 Critics contend laws could block ballots from five million seniors, young voters and minorities

December 12, 2011

TAMPA – Though it won’t be on the same scale as hosting the Super Bowl or an upcoming national political convention, Tampa is where a key congressional panel will hold its first field hearing on whether controversial new voting restrictions implemented this year in more than a dozen states resulted from an orchestrated effort to disenfranchise seniors, young voters and minorities.

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights will hold the hearing on the new voting laws in Tampa next Jan. 27,  U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said today.

In October, Nelson asked for a congressional probe of controversial voting restrictions in Florida and other states.  So far this year 14 states have implemented cut backs on voting either with legislation or via executive order.  Nelson was informed late last week by the subcommittee’s chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), that the first field hearing on the cut backs would be held in Tampa.

Hillsborough County is one of five Florida counties where changes to state voting laws must be cleared by the Justice Department because of past racial conditions that could have undermined voting rights.  And, Nelson said, “The community has many diverse groups of voters that might be affected the most under Florida’s new law, like seniors, young voters and minorities.  One recent and credible study says new laws like Florida’s could suppress millions of votes nationwide in the 2012 election.”

Since its passage earlier this year, the law in Florida already has resulted in the nonpartisan Florida League of Women Voters abandoning its voter registration drive after 72 years.  And two high school teachers have run afoul of the law after trying to preregister some of their students.

Among other changes, the law reduces the time for early voting in Florida from 14 days to eight and requires voters who want to give a new county address at the polls to use a type of ballot less likely to be counted.   Seniors like early voting and college students change their addresses frequently.  The law also requires those who sign up new voters to first register with the state and then submit all voter applications within 48 hours.  It subjects people like the schoolteachers to hefty fines even for inadvertent mistakes.

There are numerous critics of the law, including the League of Women Voters, NAACP and the Hispanic advocacy group National Council of La Raza.  They contend Florida’s new law and similar measures in a number of other states are designed to suppress the votes of people who tend to vote against the GOP – most notably seniors, young voters and minorities.

The hearing in Tampa is expected to seek testimony from state lawmakers who were behind the voting bill and Gov. Rick Scott who signed it into law.  Others witness could include local supervisors of elections and representatives of voter advocacy groups.

News of Tampa as the location for the hearing comes as legal challenges are mounting to some of the new voting laws in a dozen states including Florida, and on the heels of the first major study of the issue.  A study completed in October by The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that these new laws taken together could make it significantly harder for more than five-million eligible voters in numerous states to cast their ballots in 2012.

Florida and other GOP-dominated states’ new elections rules could shut out 5 million voters next year – Palm Beach Post

http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/10/florida-and-other-gop-dominated-states-new-elections-rules-could-shut-out-5-million-voters-next-year/

Florida and other GOP-dominated states’ new elections rules could shut out 5 million voters next year

by Dara Kam | October 3rd, 2011

Florida and more than a dozen other states’ new elections laws intended to clamp down on voting fraud could keep 5 million Americans from voting in next year’s presidential election, a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice found.

As in Florida, the laws require voters to show photo identification before casting ballots, cut back on early voting days or impose restrictions on voter registration drives. Florida’s new election law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in May and signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott includes all of those elements and more.

(snip)

The Brennan Center analysis found that the new laws, including Florida’s, could have a significant impact on next year’s presidential election because the changes will primarily impact minority and low-income voters who tend to vote for Democrats. Florida’s law could also make it more difficult for college and university students – who played a key role in President Obama’s 2008 victory – to vote.

(snip)

See full article here:

http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/10/florida-and-other-gop-dominated-states-new-elections-rules-could-shut-out-5-million-voters-next-year/