U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election

Chapter 9

Findings and Recommendations

The great majority of Americans . . . are uneasy with injustice but unwilling yet to pay a significant price to eradicate it.[1]

OVERVIEW

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission's subpoena power, included three days of hearings, more than 30 hours of testimony, 100 witnesses, and a systematic review of more than 118,000 pages of pertinent documents.[2]

Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in Florida's election was the uncast ballots of countless eligible voters who were turned away at the polls or wrongfully purged from voter registration rolls.

While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude, and inefficiency.

Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic. And state officials failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement.

The Commission does not adjudicate violations of the law, hold trials, or determine civil or criminal liability. Therefore, the recommendations that follow urge the U.S. Department of Justice and Florida officials to institute formal investigations based on the facts in this report to determine liability and to seek appropriate remedies.

The Commission is charged to investigate allegations in writing under oath or affirmation relating to deprivations (A) because of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin; or (B) as a result of any pattern or practice of fraud; of the right of citizens of the United States to vote and have votes counted. . . . [3] The Commission is also charged with reporting its findings to the President and Congress as appropriate.[4] The uncontroverted evidence leads the Commission to the following findings and recommendations.

CHAPTER 1: VOTING SYSTEM CONTROLS AND FAILURES

Voter Disenfranchisement

Findings

• During Florida's 2000 presidential election, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors, and inadequate resources in the Florida election process denied countless Floridians of their right to vote.

• This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election.[5]

• Poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations. For example, in Gadsden County, the only county in the state with an African American majority, approximately one in eight voters was disenfranchised. In Leon County, on the other hand, which is home to the prosperous state capital and two state universities, fewer than two votes in 1,000 were not counted. In Florida, of the 100 precincts with the highest numbers of disqualified ballots, 83 of them are majority-black precincts. 

• Even in counties where the same voting technology was used, blacks were far more likely to have their votes rejected than whites.

• The recently enacted election reform law mandates that a county must use an electronic or electromechanical precinct-count tabulation voting system and that as of September 2, 2002, a voting system that uses a device for the punching of ballots by the voter may not be used in Florida.

• While technology improvements and the adoption of state-of-the-art voting systems statewide should reduce overall ballot spoilage rates and lessen the disparity between the rate that African Americans and white voters ballots are rejected, these enhancements will not, standing alone, eliminate the racial disparity in ballot rejection rates.

• The allocation of adequate financial resources and enhanced, effective training of poll workers, other election workers, educating voters, and accountability standards for state and local officials, as well as technological improvements in voting systems, should reduce the rate at which ballots are spoiled and should lessen the disparity in vote spoilage rates between whites and blacks.

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, prohibits intentional discrimination and forbids practices or procedures that (when considering the totality of the circumstances ) result in people of color being denied equal access to the political process.

• Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, jurisdictions covered under section 5 of the act cannot make voting changes unless and until they obtain approval (preclearance) either from the federal district court in Washington, D.C., or from the U.S. attorney general. Five Florida counties are subject to section 5 requirements: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe.

Recommendations

1.1    The U.S. Department of Justice should immediately initiate the litigation process against the governor, secretary of state, director of the Division of Elections, specific supervisors of elections, and other state and local officials responsible for the execution of election laws, practices, and procedures, regarding their contributions, if any, to the extraordinary racial disparity in the rate that votes were rejected, through their actions or failure to act before and during the 2000 presidential election, in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

1.2    The Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials who violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and/or Title IX of the Florida statutes through their actions or failure to act before, during, and after the November 2000 election. Based on the results of the investigation, appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

1.3    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against all state election officials who through their actions or failure to act violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, by not obtaining preclearance either from the federal district court of Washington, D.C., or the U.S. attorney general. Based on the results of the investigation, appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

1.4    The state of Florida should institute effective monitoring systems to ensure the uniform implementation of any voting system that allows for a precinct count and an opportunity for the voter to correct his or her ballot; annually analyze the rejection rates of the voting systems used in the previous year; consider, based upon that analysis, decertifying any voting system that minimizes the rejection of spoiled ballots; and ensure that there is a consistent ballot rejection rate throughout the state. The funding authorized by the state legislature, but not yet distributed to the counties, must be sufficient to support this mandate. More specifically, the funding should ensure that all counties can obtain the required technology; and can provide appropriate voter education and effective training for poll workers and other election workers and officials. Appropriate administrative rules should be adopted that provide clear guidance and targeted oversight responsibilities for election officials at every level to ensure proper implementation of these requirements.

1.5    The state of Florida should retain knowledgeable experts to undertake a formal study to ascertain the reasons for the disparity in the vote rejection rates between white voters and persons of color and then adopt and publicize procedures to eliminate this disparity. The study should target best practices that ensure comprehensive poll worker training, enhanced education for first-time voters, and the delivery of adequate resources in all counties to resolve problems as they arise on Election Day.

1.6    The five counties subject to section 5 Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe should take immediate steps to determine if certain specifications, particularly the voter responsibilities provisions set forth in the recently enacted Florida election law changes, constitute tests or devices that trigger preclearance action by the U.S. Department of Justice. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Justice should review these concerns.

1.7    Adequate financial resources should be allocated to educate voters, poll workers, and state election officials on all appropriate policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, general voting rights, a voter s rights while at the polling place, how the voter should use the technology to vote for his on her candidate of choice, and the proper procedures to resolve issues that arise at the polling place on Election Day.

The Impact of the Purge List on Persons of Color

Findings

• The state of Florida's statutorily mandated purge list, compiled by a private firm, was provided to county supervisors of elections with names that were inexact matches. The data provided demonstrated that this list had at least a 14.1 percent error rate.

• African Americans had a significantly greater chance of being listed on Florida s mandated purge list. The probability of names of African Americans appearing on the list in error was significantly greater than the likelihood of the names of whites being erroneously included on the purge list. 

• The state of Florida's use of this purge list, combined with the state law that places the burden on voters to remove themselves from the list, resulted in denying countless African Americans the right to vote.

Recommendations

1.8    The U.S. Department of Justice should immediately initiate the litigation process against Florida state officials whose list maintenance activities during the 2000 presidential election discriminated against people of color in violation of federal law or resulted in the denial of people of color to have equal access to the political process. The process should focus on at least the following factors: the rate African Americans appear on the purge list, the rate that African Americans appear on this list in error, the fact that state law places the burden on the voter to prove his or her innocence to be permitted to vote, and the awareness of state officials that names would be placed on these lists in error. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.

1.9    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials who implemented list maintenance activities before, during, and after the November 2000 election that either intentionally discriminated against people of color or resulted in the denial of people of color to have equal access to the political process. The litigation process should include, but not be limited to, the methodology for the compilation of names for the exclusion lists, the burden upon the voter to prove his or her eligibility status before he or she could remain on the voter rolls, the forecast of inexact matches on the exclusion lists, the methodology for data verification, and the criteria for removal of a voter's name from the voter rolls. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

1.10    The state of Florida should swiftly and uniformly implement specific provisions of its recently adopted electoral reform laws, to eliminate the current practice that places the burden on eligible voters to prove they have not lost their civil rights to be permitted to vote. Sufficient funding should be provided to support this mandate. The appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated to ensure implementation of the legislation.

CHAPTER 2: FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS OF VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT 

Voters Not on Rolls and Unable to Appeal

Findings

• Many voters who attempted to register to vote were not notified of alleged application errors until Election Day, or in some instances, after Election Day. These voters were also denied the opportunity to correct the information so that they could vote.

• Other voters in Florida submitted their voter registration applications well before the deadline, but on Election Day were informed by poll workers that there was no evidence of their registrations.

• Many Floridians who were registered and voted in past elections were informed for the first time on November 7, 2000, that their names had been removed prior to Election Day. These individuals were given no opportunity to appeal this determination.

• On November 7, 2000, countless voters in Florida were denied the opportunity to vote because their names did not appear on the lists of registered voters.

• Voters (whose names were removed without notice prior to the November 2000 election) were neither allowed to vote by affidavit nor appeal their removal from the voter rolls.

• During the 2000 presidential election, poll workers in numerous Florida counties confronted significant obstacles to communicating with supervisors of elections offices to verify the accuracy of voters registrations. Because of factors such as insufficient telephone systems in supervisors of elections offices, incorrect use of laptop computers intended to access county voter registration information, and the lack of a computer in each voting precinct, a significant number of eligible Florida residents were denied their right to vote.

• The state of Florida enacted a new provision in the law that permits provisional balloting under restricted circumstances. This law is too restrictive to address the numerous instances caused by governmental inefficiency or error in which eligible voters may be denied opportunities to vote in an election.

Recommendations

2.1    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated relevant federal and/or state laws that required poll workers be able to communicate with election officials or access data to resolve issues during the November 2000 election. The process should include, but not be limited to, insufficient telephone systems in supervisors of elections offices, incorrect use of laptop computers intended to access county voter registration information, and the lack of at least one computer in each voting precinct to access voter registration information. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

2.2    While the newly enacted Florida legislation provides for a provisional ballot to those whose eligibility cannot be determined at the precinct where he or she should be properly registered, the Florida legislature should enact legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation to provide for access to a provisional ballot in every polling place and where the voter executes an appropriate affidavit attesting that he or she is legally entitled to vote on Election Day, even if the voter mistakenly believes it is the precinct where he or she should be properly registered. The state of Florida should also provide an immediate right to appeal the discarding of a ballot with resolution prior to the canvassing of the election or counting of ballots. Sufficient funding should be provided to support this mandate.

2.3    Any voter who is denied the opportunity to vote on Election Day should have an absolute right to appeal this determination, as well as a right to receive resolution of the issue prior to the canvassing of the election or the counting of ballots. Thus, any voter wrongfully denied the right to vote will have an opportunity for his or her vote to count in the same election in which the denial initially occurred.

2.4    Resources should be allocated to create a system of voter reminder cards. These cards should be mailed to voters before every election and inform them of their registration status and the location of their polling place. In addition, an electronic or automated telephone system could be devised that would allow voters to access their registration status and polling place location via the Internet or by telephone.

2.5    Each supervisor of elections should devise systems to process voter registration applications and notify voters of any errors or missing data within a reasonable time to maintain eligibility to vote in the next election.

2.6     The Division of Elections should mandate through legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation proactive measures to verify and update the information received from the supervisors of elections on a regular basis to ensure that all properly registered voters are allowed to exercise their right to vote.

2.7     Supervisors of elections should ensure there is a sufficient number of properly trained staff available at their central offices to answer calls and resolve problems throughout the day during every election. Moreover, supervisors of elections should routinely examine the capability of their respective offices telephone systems to determine whether additional resources should be requested to supplement their communication procedures during elections where a high volume of voters is expected. Accordingly, during those times, supervisors of elections offices should have the capability of increasing the number of available phone lines in order to meet the demand. Supervisors of elections should be provided with sufficient funding to accomplish this mandate.

2.8    Poll workers should be adequately trained to use any available measure under Florida election law that would permit properly registered individuals to vote, including, but not limited to, voting by affidavit, provisional ballot, and all language and special needs assistance. Poll workers should continue to be given training on the use of laptop computers that are designated for accessing current voter registration information. Further, all polling places in each county should have computers for this purpose. Supervisors of elections staff who are thoroughly familiar with computerized methods of accessing voter registration data should be available at each polling site on Election Day to assist poll workers.

2.9    Counties should allocate sufficient resources for the effective implementation of Florida election laws, including, but not limited to, laws that mandate voter education, poll worker training, laptop computers for each precinct, additional phone lines on Election Day, automated registration systems/software, and administrative costs of appeals.

2.10    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act, violated relevant federal and/or state laws that ensure polling places are neither closed during official poll hours nor moved without the required notification to affected voters. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

2.11     The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated relevant federal and/or state laws by denying voters who arrived at a polling place during official poll hours their right to vote. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

2.12     The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated relevant federal and/or state laws by neither uniformly informing drivers of the motor voter registration process nor ensuring that the voter registration applications arrived at the appropriate supervisor of elections office and were processed in a timely fashion. The process should include, but not be limited to, the failure to include the names of drivers who satisfactorily completed voter registration applications to appear on the voter rolls for the November 2000 election, the failure to inform voter registration applicants that a driver s license change does not automatically update voter registration, and lack of a verification system to ensure that the appropriate supervisor of elections received all voter registration applications in a timely manner. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

Polling Places Closed Early or Moved Without Notice

Findings

• The official statewide poll hours on November 7, 2000, were 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time and Central Standard Time. During these times, polls were to be open and anyone present in a precinct prior to 7 p.m. maintained his or her right to vote.

• In several instances, voters who had been standing in line before 7 p.m. were not allowed to vote, because poll workers stopped the voting at 7 p.m.

• In other instances, voters were prevented from entering a polling place when the gates automatically locked at 6:15 p.m.

• Some polling places were moved without prior notice to the affected voters.

• Some voters who reported to their assigned polling places on Election Day neither received notice of the move nor were given further instructions on the location of their new polling place.

• The above voters were not allowed to vote by affidavit or provisional ballot.

Recommendations

2.13     Once a supervisor of elections determines that a polling place should be moved, all affected voters should be promptly notified by mail and the information should be posted on the county's Web site and otherwise publicized in a manner most effective in reaching the voters of that precinct.

2.14     The former polling place should have clearly posted signs throughout the location at a reasonable time preceding the election and on Election Day, which not only identify the new polling place, but also provide clear directions to the polling place.

2.15     Poll workers should also be provided with a list of all polling places, including those that were recently moved and closed. Poll workers should be able to inform voters of the location of the new polling place.

2.16     Poll workers should be educated regarding proper poll closing procedures to ensure that all voters who arrive at the polls before closing time are permitted to vote. Florida election law should be changed to permit those wrongfully denied an opportunity to vote an immediate right to appeal with resolution of the issue prior to the canvassing of the election or counting of ballots. A listing of all polling places should be widely distributed and featured prominently in the print media within one week of the election.

National Voter Registration Act: The Motor Voter Law

Findings

• Many voters who completed voter registration applications at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) when they updated their driver s license information discovered on Election Day that they were not registered or their names did not appear on the rolls.

• DHSMV examiners did not inform voters that changing their address on their driver s license does not automatically register them to vote in the new county of residence. In addition, DHSMV does not retain copies of voter registration applications, which are subsequently transmitted to supervisors of elections.

• Once DHSMV has transmitted voter registration applications to supervisors of elections offices, there is no verification system in place to ensure that the supervisors of elections received this information.

• Once a driver changes his or her driver's license address, the DHSMV is not required to forward voter registration applications to supervisors of elections offices for the new resident county of the driver.

Recommendations

2.17     The DHSMV should be mandated through legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation to forward completed voter registration applications to the supervisor of elections office of the new county of residence for the voter.

2.18     Driver's license examiners should be trained to inform applicants that any change in their driver's license files does not automatically update their voter registration information. Examiners should inform voters that completion of registration applications does not guarantee the appearance of their names on the voter rolls in their county of residence and that applicants should contact local supervisors of elections offices for information on their voter registration status.

2.19     The DHSMV, through enacted legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation, should be required to devise a uniform statewide system of review to verify that supervisors of elections offices received DHSMV voter registration applications in a timely manner. Copies of transmitted voter registration applications should be kept in the DHSMV database or files for a reasonable time after transmission.

2.20     Resources should be allocated to the DHSMV for the additional staff and training required to provide the services recommended.

Police Presence at or Near Polling Sites

Findings

• Florida Highway Patrol troopers conducted an unauthorized vehicle checkpoint within a few miles of a polling place in a predominately African American neighborhood. Several Florida voters reported seeing Florida Highway Patrol troopers and other uniformed law enforcement officials in and around polling places on Election Day.

• The Florida Highway Patrol did not anticipate that the existence of the checkpoint would intimidate voters.

Recommendations

2.21     No law enforcement agency should conduct routine checkpoints or other traffic barriers around polling locations. Checkpoints and other traffic barriers should only occur on Election Day in case of emergencies or exigent circumstances.

2.22     As recommended in previous Commission reports, public forums involving both the community and Florida law enforcement agencies should take place at regular intervals throughout the year. These forums would allow all in attendance including law enforcement officers and officials, elected officials, and community members to learn about and develop a greater respect for the racial, economic, and cultural diversity of Floridians. The dialogue and idea exchange at the public forum should allow concerns to be addressed before they become serious grievances, e.g., the perceived use of checkpoints predominantly in communities of color, the perceived use of checkpoints on Election Day to prevent certain communities from participating in the electoral process, and the perceived intimidation in the use of checkpoints on Election Day.

CHAPTER 3: RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY?

Delegation of Responsibilities

Findings

• Florida s statutory scheme for elections provides responsibility without accountability and contributed significantly to the disenfranchisement of Florida voters.

• The governor chose not to exercise his authority to appoint special officers to investigate alleged election law violations in response to the allegations of impropriety in the 2000 presidential election.

• The secretary of state chose to exercise authority to ensure the vote count was discontinued and that the vote was canvassed after the election, but did little to ensure that Floridians would be able to get to the polls and be permitted to vote. The secretary's office did little to ensure that the state was prepared for the election, adequate resources were available to address problems arising on Election Day, Florida voters received adequate education on voting processes, election precincts were appropriately staffed, and election workers received needed education and training.

• The secretary of state delegated her statutory obligation before and during the 2000 presidential election, to [o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation and interpretation of the election laws (as it relates to ensuring that legal voters would be permitted to vote) to the degree that her duty was exercised on such a discretionary basis as to be arbitrary.

Recommendations

3.1    The U.S. Department of Justice should initiate the litigation process against the governor regarding his failure to appoint special officers to investigate alleged election law violations that discriminated against people of color. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.

3.2    The U.S. Department of Justice should initiate the litigation process against the secretary of state regarding her disregard of statutory obligations (as they relate to ensuring legal voters were permitted to vote during Florida s 2000 presidential election), which either discriminated against people of color or resulted in their denial of equal access to the political process in violation of federal law. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.

3.3    The state of Florida should pass legislation requiring the secretary of state to ensure that the state is prepared for elections, adequate resources are available to address problems arising on Election Day, Florida voters receive adequate education on voting processes, election precincts are appropriately staffed, and election workers receive needed education and training. These changes should ensure that there is an effective process for challenging a secretary if he or she does not fulfill these statutory mandates.

3.4    The governor of Florida should immediately appoint special officers to investigate alleged violations of election laws under the authority vested in him by section 102.091 of the Florida Election Code. If violations are found, then the governor should ensure that the violators are prosecuted as provided for under the law.

3.5    The Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should develop a cooperative relationship with the Florida Elections Commission and the Florida Division of Elections to ensure that all individuals complaining that they were denied the right to vote have their complaints processed by the appropriate agency in an expeditious manner.

CHAPTER 4: RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Voter Education

Findings

• Although the state Division of Elections is mandated to provide voter education assistance to the public, as well as voter education technical support to supervisors of elections, Florida's supervisors of elections generally expect the state to provide limited support (e.g., legislative updates and legal advice) and/or do not anticipate that they will receive direct resources from the division (such as financial assistance for local voter education initiatives).

• The omission of this possible financial resource contributes to the counties lack of success in providing extensive and consistent outreach to first-time voters and those residents with special needs. Currently, it is unclear whether supervisors of elections would receive state financial support to fund local voter education initiatives if they seek the state s assistance.

Recommendation

4.1    The Division of Elections should cooperate with the appropriate state and local authorities (e.g., Florida's legislature and county boards of commissioners) to devise a mechanism for supervisors of elections to request and receive supplemental state funding for essential voter education initiatives that address the particular needs of the residents in their respective counties.

Educating the Public on Voter Fraud and the Mechanics of Voting

Findings

• The Division of Elections expended funds to provide public service announcements and other advertising to fulfill its mandate of educating the public on voter fraud. In spite of these expenditures, it is unclear whether the public was informed of the essential elements of voter fraud, as defined by Florida law. As a result, state estimates of the incidence of voter fraud that are based on public reports of alleged fraudulent voting practices may not be accurate.

• There is no evidence that the Division of Elections spent a comparable amount of funds for voter education and/or instructing Florida residents on how to cast their votes properly.

• The Division of Elections failed to fulfill its obligation to educate Florida residents on the mechanics of voting.

Recommendations

4.2    Future public service announcements and advertisements should plainly define voter fraud, provide succinct examples of when fraud occurs, and suggest measures that members of the public can take to prevent and/or report its occurrence.

4.3    The Division of Elections should also provide an appropriate level of funding for advertisements and public service announcements that educate Florida residents on the mechanics of voting, as well as the importance of voting.

4.4    The Division of Elections should maintain a routine and working relationship with all supervisors of elections, to become familiar with voter education assistance needs of each county, as well as the types of voting systems used in each jurisdiction.

4.5    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated relevant federal and/or state laws through the manner by which funds were distributed to polling places or precincts. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

No Process for Challenging Reduced Supervisors of Elections Budgets

Finding

• Florida s supervisors of elections do not have a specific process to challenge the level of funding approved by their respective county boards of commissioners to update voting equipment, provide relevant voter education resources, and/or supplement poll worker training. Consequently, expected voting needs in various counties remain unmet, since supervisors of elections have limited financing alternatives to augment reduced budget proposals.

Recommendations

4.6     The secretary of state's office, the Florida legislature, county boards of commissioners, and supervisors of elections should jointly create a process for supervisors of elections to challenge local funding decisions. Possible solutions include requiring an amendment to the Florida statutes in order to permit supervisors of elections access to an appeals process (as constitutional officers); or providing state financing to fund proposed budgets of supervisors of elections offices, if specific prerequisites have been met (e.g., the anticipated unavailability of county financing).

4.7    The state of Florida should enact a specific law to authorize use of state emergency funds that are earmarked for elections preparation in order to supplement proposed budgets of supervisors of elections offices. This funding would be accessible to supervisors of elections when adequate county financing is not available. Sufficient funding should be provided to support this mandate, and appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated to ensure meaningful implementation of the law.

Inconsistent Poll Worker Training among Florida's Counties

Findings

• The quantity and quality of training provided to poll workers vary among counties. As a result, poll workers throughout the state do not receive consistent guidance on issues that affect an individual's right to vote (e.g., instructing residents on the mechanics of voting, appropriately assisting voters with disabilities, offering substitute ballots when spoilage occurs, and verifying voters registration).

• The secretary of state and the Division of Elections failed to provide clear and consistent guidance for the training of poll workers.

Recommendations

4.8    Each county board of commissioners should regularly review its respective county's financial allocation for poll worker training. Input from the secretary of state's office may be required to ensure uniform instruction materials and guidance on state voting regulations, as well as funding for supplemental training. To determine the effectiveness of training curricula, supervisors of elections offices should routinely obtain responses from a representative sample of each county's poll workers regarding any difficulties they encountered on Election Day, how prepared they were to solve these problems, and suggestions on improving their training courses. Information derived from these responses should be included in the design of future poll worker training curricula.

4.9     State and county officials should establish certification requirements for poll workers to assure the public that poll workers have recently been instructed in the basics of election law and procedures.

CHAPTER 5: THE REALITY OF LIST MAINTENANCE

Who Are the Disenfranchised?

Findings

• Approximately 3.9 million Americans are disenfranchised or separated from their right to vote in public elections due to their status as former offenders.

• Over 36 percent of the total disenfranchised population of these offenders consists of African American men.

• Thirteen percent of African American men are disenfranchised.

• Thirty-one percent of the Florida disenfranchised population consists of African American men.

• Florida s recently enacted electoral reform law failed to change the state's policy of permanently disenfranchising former felons, which produces a stark disparity in disenfranchisement rates of African American men compared with their white counterparts. The state also failed to reform the laborious and protracted executive clemency application procedures.

Recommendations

5.1    The state of Florida should authorize legal measures to ensure that former felons receive automatic restoration of their civil rights upon satisfaction of their sentences, including probation. Sufficient funding should be provided to support this mandate. Moreover, appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated to monitor the implementation of the law. The governor should issue an executive order to streamline the executive clemency application procedures to provide the swift restoration of civil rights to persons who are so entitled.

5.2    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated relevant federal and/or state laws by permanently disenfranchising voters on the basis of felony conviction. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

5.3    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated relevant federal and/or state laws through the method by which private entities were involved with list maintenance activities. The process should include, but not be limited to, the failure to include persons adjudicated mentally incompetent to vote in the compilation of the exclusion lists, the matching logic prescribing for false positives or inexact matches, the inclusion of criminal history information from states other than Florida, and the failure to prescribe uniform provisions for voters who erroneously appeared on the exclusion lists. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

5.4    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated relevant federal and/or state laws by failing to provide standard training to election employees. The process should include, but not be limited to, whether the Division of Elections provided technical assistance to the supervisors of elections on voter education and election personnel training services; monitored and approved training courses for continuing education for supervisors of elections; and coordinated, on an annual basis, two statewide workshops for the supervisors of elections by reviewing and providing updates on the election laws to ensure uniformity statewide in the interpretation of the election laws. The process should also consider the standards by which names were removed from the voter rolls. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

5.5    The Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and/or Title IX of the Florida statutes through the failure to give full faith and credit to the automatic restoration of civil rights in other states; and the inconsistencies in the Executive Clemency Board's policy statement (that felons who enter Florida with their civil rights need not apply for civil rights in Florida) and its rules (requiring that the felons who enter Florida must apply for civil rights in that state). Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

Data Verification

Findings

• The 1997 Miami mayoral election, with its high incidence of voter fraud, gave impetus to the drive for a statutory requirement for the state to award a contract to a private entity to assist in purging the voter files.

• The Division of Elections solicited bids from private entities through requests for proposals. The first contract was rewarded to Professional Analytical Systems & Services. DBT Online was ultimately awarded the contract through an invitation to negotiate.

• The Division of Elections instructed DBT Online, through a Requirements Document, to use last name, first name, and date of birth as matching criteria for the felon exclusion list.

• Although persons adjudicated as mentally incompetent to vote, in accordance with Florida election laws are to be purged from the voter rolls, DBT Online was not required to include such data in its list. DBT Online provided a list of duplicate registrants, deceased persons, and felons whose civil rights have not been restored.

• The purge list was compiled using certain state-provided databases. DBT Online provided databases in conjunction with the matching logic prescribed by the Division of Elections. The matching logic prescribed by the Division of Elections for compiling the purge list resulted in inexact matches ( false positives ). The Division of Elections contracted for the more inclusive methodology of processing the data and did not require DBT Online to produce a list of exact matches.

• There were no clear guidelines from the governor, the secretary of state, or the director of the Division of Elections to subordinates to employ list maintenance strategies that would protect eligible voters, particularly historically disenfranchised populations, from being wrongfully removed from the voter registration rolls.

• An official of the Division of Elections dictated to representatives of the private firm to employ a strategy that resulted in a disproportionate number of eligible African American voters being removed from the voter registration rolls in error.

• The Division of Elections failed to take the same cautionary steps before the 2000 presidential election that were taken before the 1998 election to alert supervisors of elections to verify the exclusion lists with the greatest of care and to provide opportunities for persons to vote by affidavit ballot in those instances in which the voter makes a credible challenge to his or her removal from the voter registration rolls.

• Weary state officials missed opportunities to provide necessary training to supervisors of elections on verification procedures, even when scheduled or requested.

Recommendation

5.6    The state of Florida should authorize legal measures to ensure that no registered voter is purged from voter rolls or files, unless he or she is an exact match of someone who is deceased, also registered to vote in another jurisdiction, a convicted felon without restoration of his or her civil rights, or someone adjudicated as mentally incompetent to vote. The state of Florida should provide clear guidance to the Division of Elections on how to use information provided from its own state agencies to determine the eligibility of registered voters. Sufficient funding should be provided to support this mandate, and the appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated that establish, with clear guidance, accountability standards and effective monitoring mechanisms to protect voters and the integrity of the voter registration rolls.

Executive Clemency in Florida

Findings

• The Division of Elections required DBT Online to include felony conviction and clemency information from 11 other states. Five of the 11 states have automatic restoration of civil rights for former felons. Thus, there was no clemency board database from which DBT Online could easily match the names of probable felons. Six of the 11 states do not have automatic restoration of civil rights for former felons. DBT Online matched the names of felons against the clemency databases of each of those states.

• The Division of Elections instructed DBT Online that those felons who were convicted outside the state of Florida and restored their civil rights in a state other than Florida should apply for clemency in Florida.

• Florida case law states that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution requires the state of Florida to recognize the restoration of an individual's civil rights from another state(s).

• On February 16, 2001, the Commission questioned the policy of requiring felons whose civil rights were restored in another state to apply for clemency in Florida. On February 23, 2001, the Office of Executive Clemency issued a letter stating that former felons who enter the state of Florida with restored civil rights need not apply for civil rights in Florida.

Recommendations

5.7    The state of Florida should establish clear guidance and monitoring systems to ensure that a practical appeal mechanism exists for those Florida residents whose names appear on a purge list. Sufficient funding should be provided to support this mandate, and the appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated.

5.8    The state of Florida should authorize legal measures, as the Florida legislature appears to have done in recently enacted legislation, to ensure that the policy statement issued by the Office of Executive Clemency on February 23, 2001, is codified through enacted legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation. Sufficient funding should be provided to support this mandate.

5.9    The state of Florida should ensure through enacted legislation and/or other appropriate action that modifications are made in the state's statutes and constitution to comply with the policy statement issued by the Office of Executive Clemency on February 23, 2001.

List Verification and Removal of Names

Findings

• Supervisors of elections had no uniform method to verify the information on the exclusion lists.

• Some supervisors of elections chose not to use the information on the exclusion lists in any manner.

• One supervisor of elections, who has never been convicted of a felony, received a letter stating that she was identified as a convicted felon.

• Former director of the Division of Elections, Ethel Baxter, instructed supervisors of elections that if they had any doubts as to the accuracy of the felony information, they should allow the person to vote by affidavit.

• There is no evidence that in preparation for the 2000 presidential election, the director of the Division of Elections took proper steps to ensure that supervisors of elections were informed about the errors in the exclusion lists.

• The Florida Elections Commission has authority to investigate the wrongful removal of a Floridian from the voter rolls with evidence of a willful violation.

Recommendations

5.10     Although the recently enacted Florida legislation appears to provide some level of instruction on list verification, the Division of Elections should provide step-by-step instructions on how supervisors of elections verify the accuracy of any information that may purge a voter from the central voter file.

5.11     Supervisors of elections should verify the veracity of any information that may purge a voter from the central voter file, prior to the removal of any name from the voter rolls.

5.12     The Florida legislature should broaden the scope of the Florida Elections Commission's authority to investigate the wrongful removal of a Floridian from the voter rolls, with not only evidence of a willful violation, but also negligent removal of a Floridian from the voter rolls.

5.13     The Florida Elections Commission should better advertise the scope of its investigative and enforcement authority to the public, by not only posting information on its Web site, but also by using other forms of media most effective in reaching the voters of each community.

5.14     The Florida legislature should appropriate funding to support the broader scope of investigative authority of the Florida Elections Commission and its additional advertising efforts.

CHAPTER 6: ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES

Special Needs

Findings                       

• In the November 2000 election, countless Floridian voters with special needs were denied their right to vote due to inaccessible precincts and ballots.

• Many precinct managers and poll workers were not properly trained to handle individuals with accessibility needs, including those with physical disabilities and language barriers.

Access to Polling Places for People with Disabilities

Findings

• It is estimated that voter participation for individuals with physical disabilities is 15 percent to 20 percent below that of the general population.

• The inaccessibility of the nation's voting systems means that many individuals with disabilities are unable to vote. In addition, many people with disabilities find themselves forced to cope with inaccessible polling places that fail to provide accommodations.

• In the November 2000 election, Florida voters with disabilities who rely on wheelchairs were forced to negotiate steps and unreachable polling booths or undergo humiliation by relying on others to lift them into the polling places to exercise their right to vote. Others who did not have these options were simply turned away, which denied them their right to vote.

• Some voters with visual impairments found that the precincts did not have proper equipment to assist them in reading their ballots and, therefore, they had to rely on others to cast their votes, which denied them a secret ballot.

• As one supervisor of elections conceded, many precincts are inaccessible. Some require ramps to comply with the accessibility requirements and others should be replaced as they cannot be made accessible.

• Although a 1992 Federal Election Commission study of local jurisdiction data collected through self-reporting found that 86 percent of the polling places in the United States are physically accessible to individuals with disabilities, a recent report using data based on independent surveys and court documents suggests that potentially over 40 percent of polling places continue to pose significant accessibility problems for voters with disabilities.

• Despite the Voter Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, which requires that all polling places be physically accessible to voters with disabilities, numerous Florida precincts are not accessible to voters with disabilities. Thus, many Floridians with disabilities were disenfranchised in the November 2000 election.

Access to Polling Places for People Needing Language Assistance

Findings

• Despite the requirements that non-English-proficient voters be provided with some form of language assistance, many limited-English-speaking voters were denied this assistance at Florida's polling places in the November 2000 election.

• Many poll workers were not properly trained on the requirements of language assistance and thus failed to assist non-English-proficient voters. Even bilingual members of the public were prevented from providing language support. In some instances, bilingual poll workers were directed not to provide language assistance. Thus, these non-English-speaking voters found that their polling places offered ballots that were essentially inaccessible to them.

• Haitian Americans and Spanish-speaking voters were disproportionately affected.

• In some central Florida counties, Spanish-speaking voters did not receive bilingual assistance and some of these counties were subject to section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. This failure to provide proper language support led to widespread voter disenfranchisement of possibly several thousand Spanish-speaking voters in central Florida.

• Numerous Haitian Americans did not receive proper language assistance. Even in precincts where a county ordinance required bilingual ballots, the precincts failed to do so; as a result, many Haitian American voters were denied the opportunity to vote.

• Under Florida law, voters are allowed five minutes to cast their ballots. It is difficult for some limited English proficient voters to cast ballots within this time period. These voters either did not have a complete opportunity to cast their votes or their votes were not counted. As a result, they were denied meaningful participation in the November 2000 election.

Recommendations

6.1    State and county officials should allocate funding and resources to train precinct managers and poll workers on providing required assistance to individuals with disabilities and non-English-speaking voters. This training should not only focus on the mechanics of providing assistance, but it should also include sensitivity training to provide services to better assist and accommodate individuals with special needs.

6.2    The Florida legislature should enact similar legislation to the Voter Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act that directs the state Elections Commission to study and collect data on accessibility of polling places in Florida.

6.3    State and county officials should establish minimum standards for polling places, ensuring that they are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities and that individuals with special language needs receive proper language assistance in order to exercise their right to vote.

6.4    To ensure the uniformity of the application of election laws in Florida, the secretary of state should require that each supervisor of elections submit a report to the secretary of state that certifies that each polling site in the county is accessible to persons with disabilities and individuals with special language needs. In response, the secretary of state should assess the certification no later than 30 days prior to an election. All polling places deemed inaccessible through the above assessment process should be made accessible through a cooperative relationship between the secretary of state, supervisors of elections, and county commissioners.

6.5    The Florida legislature should enact legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation ensuring that the state of Florida complies with the requirements of the Voter Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act and other applicable federal laws.

6.6    All inaccessible precincts should be relocated to buildings that are accessible or made accessible through the use of ramps. At a minimum, curbside voting should be provided to voters with disabilities.

6.7    All curbside voting should be conducted by poll workers or plain-clothed sheriffs when a county law requires that the sheriffs be used for this process. No uniformed law enforcement officers should be required to be present at or near polling places, where this presence may cause intimidation of voters.

6.8    The Division of Elections and the supervisors of elections should provide accessible ballots for non-English-speaking voters. Florida voting machinery should contain the ability to accommodate the language needs of the multilingual population of Florida. The new optical scan voting machines can be programmed in most, if not all, languages, eliminating language barriers that exist with old voting systems (e.g., punch cards).

6.9    The Florida legislature should pass legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation that would allow the secretary of state to mandate that each supervisor of elections submit a report detailing steps and procedures that each county has taken to comply with legal language assistance requirements.

6.10     Supervisors of elections should actively recruit bilingual poll workers to assist bilingual voters. Furthermore, there should be a language assistance mechanism that is readily available for voters who need such support on Election Day.

6.11     The U.S. Department of Justice should initiate the litigation process against state election officials who implemented practices during the 2000 presidential election that either intentionally discriminated or resulted in discrimination against persons with disabilities and language minorities, including, but not limited to, the enforcement of a five-minute voting rule and the requirement to enter the voting booth alone. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, as well as other applicable federal laws. The state of Florida should amend section 101.51 of the Florida statutes through enacted legislation and/or appropriate administrative rule promulgation to affirm (1) that persons with disabilities and those requiring language assistance have sufficient reason to occupy a voting booth for more than five minutes, and (2) that persons requiring language assistance may enter the voting booth with someone to assist them with casting ballots for the candidates of their choice.

6.12     The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, the Voter Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, and other relevant federal and/or state laws by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities and voters with limited English proficiency. The process should include, but not be limited to, whether polling places, polling booths, and ballots were accessible to all voters, including individuals with disabilities; and whether voters with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities were provided with assistance to not only understand the ballot, but also to cast the ballot for the candidates of his or her choice. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

6.13     The state of Florida should require through legislation or appropriate administrative rule promulgation that supervisors of elections consult people with disabilities, people with limited English proficiency, and their advocacy and affected community groups to ensure that ballots are readily understood by voters. State officials should establish strategies to provide adequate assistance for persons with disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency.

CHAPTER 7: CASTING A BALLOT

Voting by Affidavit and Provisional Ballot

Findings

• Florida election law grants supervisors of elections tremendous discretion in determining who will ultimately be permitted to vote.

• The Florida Election Code authorizes voting by affidavit in numerous situations, based on prior approval of the supervisor of elections. An individual may seek to vote by affidavit if there is a change of address, a change of name, the voter requires assistance due to disability, his or her right to vote is challenged, or if the voter's name does not appear in the precinct registration book.

• The Florida Office of the Secretary of State and its Division of Elections failed to provide clear guidance and proper training to ensure supervisors of elections acted uniformly in providing equal opportunities in the use of affidavits.

• On November 7, 2000, some voters who were eligible to vote by affidavit were not informed of that right or were led to believe they did not have such a right by poll workers who did not clearly understand the law or did not convey accurate information.

• One of the key irregularities in Florida during the 2000 election was a near-statewide inability of poll workers to reach supervisors of elections to verify voter eligibility or to obtain authorization to permit the individual to vote by affidavit. Thus, countless citizens were denied the right to vote.

• Provisional ballots protect the rights of eligible voters as well as the integrity of the electoral process by counting the provisional ballot only after election officials have verified the voter's registration status and eligibility. Eligible votes are then added during the final tally.

• The Election Reform Act allows for voting by provisional ballot but specifically holds that if the voter is registered in a different precinct from the one in which the ballot is cast, then the provisional ballot will not be counted.

Recommendations

7.1    The state of Florida must effectively implement the provisions of its recently enacted Election Reform Act and ensure (1) poll workers are no longer required to contact supervisors of elections for authorization to vote by affidavit, and (2) alternative measures to verify voter eligibility are created that would minimize or eliminate the need to contact supervisors of elections on the day of an election.

7.2    Sufficient funding should be provided to support the mandates of the Election Reform Act that relate to affidavit voting and provisional ballots, and the appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated to provide effective monitoring mechanisms that will ensure implementation of the legislation.

7.3    Poll workers should be trained on the use of affidavits and provisional ballots during elections. If a voter's eligibility cannot be immediately determined, poll workers should be instructed to inform the voter of the affidavit procedure and know how to assist the voter in properly casting his or her vote.

7.4    When a person votes by affidavit, the ballot should be distinguishable from other ballots. If it is discovered that information in the affidavit is false, a mechanism should be in place during the verification process that would capture and annul the fraudulent vote, as well as notify the voter of the reason for the rejection of the ballot.

7.5    While the recently enacted Election Reform Act provides for limited use of voting by provisional ballot, the state of Florida should provide an absolute right to a provisional ballot in every polling location where the voter executes an appropriate affidavit attesting that he or she is eligible to vote.

7.6    The state of Florida should provide voters with an immediate right to appeal the discarding of any ballot or the refusal of any opportunity to vote prior to the final canvassing of the election.

7.7    The secretary of state should require each supervisor of elections to submit a report to the Division of Elections providing detailed information on the specific steps that will be taken to ensure that voters are given adequate notice and other information about opportunities and requirements relating to voting by affidavit or provisional ballot. The report must also include detailed information about the training of poll workers and other election officials to implement these provisions. Based on these reports, the secretary of state must assess the voter education and training needs in each county and provide adequate resources as needed.

7.8    The U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Florida Attorney General should initiate the litigation process against state election officials whose actions or failure to act violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and other relevant federal and/or state laws by failing to allow voters to cast ballots through the use of affidavit procedures prescribed in the election code. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure full compliance with the election laws.

CHAPTER 8: THE MACHINERY OF ELECTIONS

Voting Systems and Spoiled Ballots

Findings

• During Florida's 2000 presidential election, different voting systems, with varying error rates, were used throughout the state. The evidence indicates that Florida voters in poorer communities, as well as voters in communities where the majority of residents are people of color, were more likely to use voting systems that cause higher spoilage rates. It is clear that every voter did not have an equal opportunity to have his or her vote counted.

• Florida voters who cast their ballots and then had those ballots tabulated at a central location were more likely to lose their votes through spoiled ballots than were voters who used precinct-based counting (PBC) technology. PBC voting systems can be programmed to kick out invalid ballots and allow voters to correct overvote errors occurring at the polling site. Florida law gives voters three opportunities to cast a correct ballot.

• Even if machines incorporate PBC technology to identify and kick out invalid ballots so voters can try again, it does not guarantee the feature will be used. During the November 2000 election, at least two Florida counties turned off that part of the machine to cut costs and save time. Disabling the kick out feature of this technology, which can easily be done, resulted in thousands of spoiled ballots that otherwise might have been corrected.

• In Florida, 22 of the 23 counties with the lowest spoilage rates used precinct-based optical scan technology. On average, the spoilage rate for counties using the precinct-based optical scan technology was 0.83 percent far lower than the average spoilage rates for either central-based optical scan technology (5.68 percent) or central-based punch card technology (3.93 percent).

Recommendation

8.1    The state of Florida should enact legislation requiring the use of an electronic or electro-mechanical precinct-count tabulation voting system. These technologies will significantly increase the chances that a voter will have his or her vote count. The legislation should specifically prohibit the dismantling of the kick out feature of the machines since the main purpose of the technology is to identify and kick out invalid ballots, allowing voters to try again if necessary. Sufficient funding should be provided for this mandate. The appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated to ensure proper monitoring of each stage of the implementation of the new law.

Ballot Confusion

Findings

• There was substantial voter ballot confusion during Florida's 2000 presidential election. In some jurisdictions this led to unprecedented numbers of invalidated ballots through overvoting. The majority of the complaints were registered in Palm Beach and Duval counties.

• In Palm Beach County, there was massive voter confusion due to the design of the so-called butterfly ballot. The confusion played a role in more than 19,000 Palm Beach County voters punching two separate holes when voting for President, thereby invalidating their ballots with an overvote. The confusion also played a role in Reform Party candidate Patrick J. Buchanan receiving approximately 3,400 votes in Palm Beach County far more than anywhere else in the state despite the fact there were only 337 Reform Party members in the county.

• The Commission concurs with the findings of a representative of the National Organization on Disability, who concluded that the butterfly ballot s design was absolutely irresponsible for use by persons with visual impairments.

• In Duval County, the ballot placed the names of presidential candidates over two pages, leading thousands of voters to invalidate their ballots by voting on both pages. This problem was compounded by the sample ballot s instructions, which explicitly guided voters to vote all pages of the ballot.

Recommendation

8.2     The state of Florida should ensure through legislation or administrative rulemaking that ballot designs are as uniform and as easy to read and understand as possible for all Florida residents, including individuals with disabilities and those with language assistance needs. Because of their instrumental role in creating and/or approving ballot designs, this should include training for supervisors of elections and their staffs including training on how to conduct effective outreach efforts seeking advice and input from disability rights and other community groups. Sufficient funding should be provided for this mandate, and the appropriate administrative rules should be promulgated to monitor the implementation of the legislation.

CONCLUSION

While some of those denied the right to vote in the November 2000 election no doubt were legally denied that right, others who should have been legally entitled to vote were also denied that right. Indeed as this report demonstrates, Florida state law in some instances virtually guaranteed that some citizens who were legally entitled to vote would be denied that right. The statute's silence on other instances provided tacit approval for the denial of some to vote. Not all voices were heard on Election Day, and the law provides no meaningful way for their voices to now be heard. Picking winners and losers is rarely an easy task. Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion in Bush v. Gore opined, Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as the impartial guardian of the rule of law. [6] There are, however, those like Cathy Jackson and Donnise DeSouza who lost the chance to speak through their ballots on Election Day but who now speak to the nation through this report about their Election Day experiences. Voting is the language of our democracy and regrettably, when it mattered most, real people lost real opportunities to speak. [7]

Florida officials have a formidable challenge and responsibility. First, they must hold themselves accountable for the significant array of voting irregularities that occurred on their watch. Second, they must move swiftly to meaningfully implement reform measures signed into law by Governor Bush. They must establish monitoring and control systems to facilitate effective communications among all levels of officials in the electoral system. There must be adequate funding, better training, more voter education resources, increased access for special needs populations, and greater responsiveness to the voting rights of all people.