An attorney hired by the state Democratic Party told Secretary of State Mark Martin's office that the latter's explanations for withholding records about the statewide voter database were "farcical," "disingenuous" and ultimately "unlawful" in a letter delivered Friday.
The letter was written by David Mitchell of the Rose Law Firm. He was hired by the party to represent Chris Burks, general counsel for the party, who had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the secretary of state's office on Aug. 3. Although Martin's office responded with some documents, Burks said Friday's letter was intended to point out there were still matters outstanding in the original Freedom of Information Act request.
The Democrats sought information about flawed data that Martin's office had entered into the statewide voter database used by county clerks. County clerks use the data to determine which voters are felons whose names should be struck from voter rolls, but the data included felons who had regained the right to vote and others who had never been convicted of a felony.
Chris Powell, a spokesman for Martin, a Republican, initially denied the Freedom of Information Act request.
"We do not believe we are under an obligation to disclose these records," Powell said in an email on Aug. 8.
Then, after Attorney General Leslie Rutledge's office stepped in, Martin's office said Aug. 10 that it would produce the records, according to the state Democratic Party. The office provided documents, totaling several thousand pages of mostly identical emails, on Aug. 12.
Mitchell wrote Friday that the response was inadequate.
Powell declined to comment. Martin has yet to agree to any of several interview requests from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Burks has said the party was concerned about the lateness of the response, which is supposed to be provided in three days under the state Freedom of Information Act. Powell referred to "your extension of time" in one part of a letter to Burks on Aug. 12. Burks said he never provided one.
Also in the letter, the secretary of state's office had said "many" of the requests were not specific enough to comply with the request, but the letter did not say which requests were insufficiently specific. Burks said his request was "specific, lawful and very clear."
On Friday, Mitchell provided additional arguments.
The office provided printouts of computer records, rather than "the form in which the information was originally created, used and stored," as the state Democratic Party had requested, he said.
The state Freedom of Information Act states: "A citizen may request a copy of a public record in any medium in which the record is readily available or in any format to which it is readily convertible with the custodian's existing software."
Mitchell said Martin's office redacted state government email addresses and file names throughout the emails provided. Email addresses for county clerks were also redacted. The office did not provide a statutory exemption to justify the redactions.
The work email addresses for state employees -- including those in the secretary of state's office -- are publicly provided at www.arkansas.gov/directory.
Mitchell also said Martin's office did not provide attachments to which emails referred.
Because of the missing information, "it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to perform a meaningful review of the public records Mr. Martin has provided to determine if r̶e̶s̶p̶o̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ responsive* public records were provided for each of the specific requests," Mitchell wrote.
In an interview, Burks said he has questions for Martin.
"Why did they request all of the records from [the Arkansas Crime Information Center]? Whose idea was it? Who told them to do that? Why did they do that? Once they got the records from ACIC, how did they chop it up in their system? How did they manipulate the list? How did they code the system? And why won't they give us any of that information?" Burks said.
In June, the secretary of state's office notified county clerks that it had updated the statewide voter database by flagging registered voters convicted of felonies.
The data used were previously generated by Arkansas Community Correction, but when the Community Correction employee who normally processed the data died, updates lapsed.
After reading Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution, Martin's office determined that it should request the information from the Arkansas Crime Information Center.
It requested and received the complete database of people convicted of felonies -- which contained 193,549 names -- and merged the information into the statewide voter-registration system.
There were 7,730 people in the voter database flagged as felons as a result. Peyton Murphy, assistant director of elections, sent a letter to clerks on July 6 stating that "there is the potential for some errors to occur" with those voters identified as felons. Some individuals had felony convictions but have since been pardoned or had their felonies discharged. Others never have had felony convictions, Murphy said.
County clerks have been left to figure out whether each of the 7,730 people is a felon and, if so, whether each had already gone through the process to restore voting rights.
Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution allows felons to regain the right to vote when they "provide the county clerk with proof from the appropriate state or local agency, or office that the felon has been discharged from probation or parole, has paid all probation or parole fees, or has satisfied all terms of imprisonment, and paid all applicable court costs, fines, or restitution."
The Arkansas Crime Information Center data -- with convictions dating to the 1970s -- does not note whether felons had gone through that process.
Metro on 08/20/2016
*CORRECTION: This article misquoted a letter by David Mitchell of the Rose Law Firm to Secretary of State Mark Martin about a state Freedom of Information Act request made by the state Democratic Party. The quote should have read: “[I]t is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to perform a meaningful review of the public records Mr. Martin has provided to determine if responsive public records were provided for each of the specific requests,” Mitchell wrote.