[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 4 (Saturday, January 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H46-H47]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPLANATION OF PROCEEDINGS OCCURRING DURING JOINT SESSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes to
speak about what took place here in joint session today and to talk
about what has led us to this point.
Today, here in this Chamber, we had a joint session to count the
electoral votes; and, of course, there were some of us, mostly
represented by Members from the Congressional Black Caucus, who chose
to come to the floor in an attempt to object to the acceptance of the
electoral votes from Florida. We did that, despite the fact we
understood the rules. We knew that in order to object, we had to have
in writing the objection, signed by both a House Member and a Member of
the Senate.
We did not have one Member of the Senate who had signed any
objection, but we came to the floor of this House and we said to the
Vice President, who presided over the joint session, each time that we
objected we said that, no, we did not have a signature from a United
States Senator, that we only had our signature, we had the signatures
of some of our colleagues, and we had the support of our constituents.
It was important for us to do this. It was important because we have
just experienced one of the most traumatizing and devastating
elections, particularly as it played out in Florida, that this country
has ever been involved with.
{time} 1345
I would like to cite to you some of what happened in Florida that has
caused us so much concern. I am going to quote from an article that was
done by Laura Flanders. I will not be quoting all of the article, but I
will be submitting the rest of this for inclusion in the Record.
On day one after the election, there was a story in the
Florida papers about an unauthorized police roadblock,
stopping cars not a mile from a black church-turned-polling-
booth. NAACP volunteers reported being swamped with
complaints from registered voters who found it impossible to
vote. They heard stories of intimidation at and around
polling places; demands for superfluous ID; people complained
about a pattern of singling out black men and youth for
criminal background checks, and in call after call, would-be
voters complained they had been denied language
interpretation and other help at the polls.
By now it is clear that overwhelmed election workers made a
mass of mistakes, but those mistakes were laced through with
some clear intent to suppress some votes.
A full 3 weeks after the election, The New York Times
finally took a serious look and reported that, anticipating a
large turnout in a tight race, Florida election officials had
given laptop computers to precinct workers so they would have
direct access to the State's voter rolls, but the computers
only went to some precincts and only one went to a precinct
whose people were predominantly black. The technology gap in
the no-laptop precincts forced the workers there to rely on a
few phone lines to the head office. Voters whose names did
not appear on the rolls were held up, while workers tried to
get through on the phone, for hours, or until they gave up.
For those who voted, there was another technology glitch.
Mr. Speaker, 185,000 Floridians cast votes that did not
count. Theirs were the ballots that had been punched too few
or too many times, or were otherwise flawed. Flaws too, seem
to have followed race lines. In an election that turned on a
few hundred votes, Floridians whose ballots failed to
register a mark for President were much more likely to have
voted with computer punch cards than optical scanning
machines. In Miami Dade, the county with the most votes cast,
predominantly black precincts saw their votes thrown out at 4
times the rate of white precincts. According to the Times,
one out of 11 ballots in predominantly black precincts were
rejected, a total of 9,904.
Urban, multi-racial Palm Beach, home of the infamous
butterfly ballot and Duval, where candidates' names were
spread across 2 pages despite what the published ballot had
shown, produced 31 percent of Florida's discarded ballots,
but only 12 percent of the total votes cast in Duval, which
has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the Nation, more
than 26,000 votes were rejected, 9,000 from precincts that
were predominantly black.
Many Floridians who found themselves ``scrubbed'' off the
voting rolls were not purged accidentally, reports Gregory
Palast for Salon.com. Florida Secretary of State Katherine
Harris paid a private firm, ChoicePoint, $4 million to
cleanse the voting rolls, and the firm used the State's
felon-ban to exclude 8,000 voters who had never committed a
felony. ChoicePoint is a Republican outfit. Board members
include former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir, and
billionaire Ken Langone, chair of the fund-raising committee
for Mayor Giuliani's aborted New York Senate bid.
I cannot complete all of what I would like to share, but I will be
submitting this for the Record. Let the record show that we were here
today, that we participated and we voiced our objection, and the fight
will continue for justice and equality. People were disenfranchised,
and that must be stopped and corrected.
The erroneous data wasn't their doing, ChoicePoint
complains, the names came, raw, from the state of Texas. They
were supposed to be reviewed locally, but they were
distributed un-reviewed. African Americans dominate. (The
8,000 wrong names were ``a minor glitch'' ChoicePoint told
Palast; a glitch fifteen times the size of the Texas
Governor's lead.)
As for that election morning police checkpoint, near
Tallahassee, Robert Chamber, a Black resident, told the
Guardian UK he knew what it was about: ``putting fear in
people's hearts. . . . '' The Florida panhandle is home to
the largest concentration of neo-confederate white
supremacist groups in the US. But this problem is no neo-nazi
plot--it's racism of the institutional, not the exceptional
kind, and even more devastating than the statistics has been
Democratic leadership's silence. While African Americans in
huge numbers know there was massive voter fraud, harassment
and intimidation a la Jim Crow, the Democratic Party's white
top-dogs have resolutely refused to talk about voting rights,
race or racism--Why? For fear it will hurt them in the court
of public opinion? Among white swing voters and southern
Democrats? Already hurting in all of those places, they're
trifling with one of the few solid voting blocks they've got
left, (Blacks, Latinos, Jews.)
The NAACP came out strong, the weekend after the election,
holding public hearings and gathering 300 pages of legally
sworn testimony from 486 people who say they were denied
their right to vote. With the Congressional Black Caucus the
NAACP wrote to Janet Reno seeking a Justice Department
investigation into possible violations of the Voting
Rights Act. That was back on November 14th. Since then,
the Gore campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits--not one
deals with violations of voting rights. The Justice
Department has initiated what officials go out of their
way to characterize as a preliminary inquiry, not an
investigation. (Alligator-wrestler Reno is scared to stir
the waters in her home-state, where she's hoping to retire
any day now, some say.)
The Gore team has chosen to try to eke some votes out of
three counties with manual counts, and to make much of
butterflies and chards, but nothing of race. (Recently, Gore
told a reporter he was ``very troubled'' by the ``serious
allegations.'' That's it.) His racist denial of the
seriousness of racism makes nonsense out of US politics.
The Electoral College is a tool of racism. As Yale's Akhil
Reed Amar wrote in the New York Times, ``the College was
designed at
[[Page H47]]
the founding of the country to help one group--white Southern
males--and this year, it has apparently done just that.''
In the years after the forced-end of slavery, former slave
states like Florida imposed those felon-disenfranchisement
laws, precisely to disempower freed-but-impoverished Blacks.
The political parties crafted the statewide primary system
into what amounted to a white-man's private club to keep the
newly enfranchised under the old establishment's control.
Then came literacy tests and poll taxes--voters had to keep
their tax-receipts on file--anything to keep electoral power
in white hands. For an idea of what those tackling literacy
tests faced, consider: under Jim Crow, Florida required that
textbooks used by the public school children of one race be
kept separate from those used by the other--even in storage.
After the 1965 Act was passed, states did everything they
could to dilute Black influence. Winner-take-all systems, or
absolute majority vote requirements were embraced to keep
black candidates from winning over split fields of white
candidates in local races--in just the same way as winner-
take-all works in the presidential contest. More offices were
filled by appointment. Legislative and congressional district
lines were redrawn to keep black voting strength submerged.
None of this requires looking back very far: the same House
Speaker, Tim Feeney, who wants the Florida legislature to
select a Bush slate of Electors no matter what the vote-
counters count, suggested reintroducing literacy tests just
two weeks ago: ``Voter confusion is not a reason for whining
or crying or having a revote,'' said Feeney. ``It may be a
reason to require literacy tests.'' (Palm Beach Post, 11/16.)
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who may well be the
final arbiter of which votes get counted and which (white)
man gets the White House, is William Rehnquist, a
segregationist from way back.
In 1962, Republican activist William (then ``Bill'')
Rehnquist was the leader of Operation Eagle Eye, a flying
squad of GOP lawyers that swept through polling places in
south Phoenix to question the right of minority voters to
cast their ballots. As Dave Wagner reported in the Arizona
Republic last year, Rehnquist defended keeping African
Americans out of stores and restaurants in Phoenix. In 1964,
at the Bethune Precinct, (which was 40 percent Hispanic
and 90 percent Democratic) Rehnquist and Operation Eagle
Eye activists challenged every Black and Mexican voter's
ability to read the Constitution of the United States in
the English language (then a requirement.)
The result, according to one witness, was ``a line a half-
block long, four abreast . . . They wanted people to become
frustrated and leave.'' In his testimony to a US Senate
hearing on his appointment to the Supreme Court, Rehnquist
denied that he officially challenged anyone's right to vote.
Just as today's defenders of Bush, argue that voter error,
not bias, disproportionately shrank the counted vote,
Rehnquist argued that he broke no rules, he was just
following the law.
Trying to wage politics in the US while tiptoing around
racism is like sidestepping an elephant. It's dangerous, it's
not smart, and it won't work, What suppresses the Black and
minority vote suppresses the Democratic and liberal-
progressive vote. The majority of white male voters haven't
pooled Democratic since 1964 and only women of color create
the gender gap for Gore. Yet the unequal distribution of
resources and bias that created a practically apartheid
voting system in Florida was sustained by the Democratic
Party--who approved of the process, try as they might to
blame the Governor's cronies. And Democratic pro-drug war,
pro-death penalty, pro-felon disenfranchisement policies
stoked the racist atmosphere in which this election was held.
The conditions are ripe for a pro-democracy movement. A
moment, at least: this is it. Some things have changed in the
nation since 1964, and when the pubic has heard (or seen on
CSPAN) the witnesses who gave the NAACP testimony, they have
been shocked. Voter protests in Florida have built a multi-
racial coalition, that is advocating the kind of electoral
reform the whole nation could get behind. Among their
demands: a non-partisan election commission, standardized
voting procedures and federal enforcement of the Voting
Rights Act. Add to that, the longer-term structural changes
some advocate: instant run off voting, or some form of
proportional representation, so that small parties (and
minority constituencies) could build support for their issues
without throwing elections to their foes.
The public has seen the Electoral College in its worst
light: for the first time, the tyranny of a minority may
contradict the popular will. Perhaps something will come of
the shared experience of disenfranchisement. But not if we
don't talk about what's at the root of it: racism. Not ``the
system,'' but this particular, racist one. And those who've
been marginalized must occupy the center. People of color are
central to why our electoral system is set up this way;
likewise, they must be at the heart of any movement for real
democracy. We can get rid of the racism, but only if we all
shove that elephant out at once.
[Important Note: The views and opinions expressed on this
list are solely those of the authors and/or publications, and
do not necessarily represent or reflect the official
political positions of the Black Radical Congress (BRC).
Official BRC statements, position papers, press releases,
action alerts, and announcements are distributed exclusively
via the BRC-PRESS list. As a subscriber to this list, you
have been added to the BRC-PRESS list automatically.]
____________________