Report

ICE has erroneously issued a staggering number of detainers against U.S. citizens.

Miami-Dade County’s records show that between February 2017 and February 2019, ICE sent the jail 420 detainer requests for people listed as U.S. citizens, only to later cancel 83 of those requests—evidently because the agency determined, after the fact, that its targets were in fact U.S. citizens. The remaining individuals’ detainers were not canceled, and so they continued to be held for ICE to deport them.

The U.S. government enforces immigration law through an agency called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Although ICE is one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the United States, in recent years it has relied heavily on state and local assistance to help carry out deportations. Each month, ICE sends local police thousands of detention requests, known as “detainers,” which ask police to extend a person’s detention in local jail in order to give ICE time to arrive at the jail and take custody.

This report surveys recent evidence that ICE may be regularly lodging detainers against U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens cannot be deported or detained to facilitate deportation. Yet in the last decade, ICE has erroneously issued a staggering number of detainers against U.S. citizens, asking sheriffs and police departments across the country to extend their jail time so that ICE can put them in immigration jail and eventually deport them. This disturbing pattern has been documented many times over.

These errors can have profound consequences, both for the people who are wrongly held and for the state and local agencies that hold them. As recent cases illustrate, U.S. citizens have been kept in jail away from their jobs and families, and they have faced the terror of being told they would soon be deported from their only home. Many have spent time in immigration jail, and some have even been deported. Local police and sheriffs, in turn, have faced immense litigation costs and damages liability to the U.S. citizens they have held for ICE.

Communities across the country have been deeply harmed by ICE’s detainer system. In the last decade, a number of studies have examined how regularly ICE targets U.S. citizens with detainers. Lawsuits have produced further data, as state and local law enforcement agencies have produced records showing how many U.S. citizens ICE has asked them to hold. Together, these data points paint a troubling picture of ICE’s detainer practices.

Recommendations

Floridians should oppose bills like Senate Bill 168, which aim to prohibit local law enforcement agencies from placing any limit on their compliance with detainers and would therefore amplify the consequences of ICE’s mistakes.
State and local law enforcement agencies should avoid holding people based on ICE detainers, and should instead focus their limited resources on protecting public safety.
If state and local law enforcement agencies choose to hold people on ICE detainers, they should require a judicial certification of probable cause, to safeguard against the unconscionable risk of error in ICE’s detainer and warrant practices.
Before holding any person on an ICE detainer, state and local law enforcement agencies should give them an opportunity to contest the basis for the detainer, and the agencies should immediately investigate any indications that the person is not subject to removal.

Date

Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - 10:30am

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Override site-wide featured content

Know Your Rights: If you are approached or arrested by law enforcement (police, immigration agents, or FBI)

Related issues

Documents

ACLUFL Report - Citizens on Hold - A Look at ICEs Flawed Detainer System in Miami-Dade County.pdf

Show related content

Tweet Text

Share Image

Type

Report

Menu parent dynamic listing

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Read more about Citizens on Hold: A Look at ICE’s Flawed Detainer System in Miami-Dade County

In our new report "Vote-By-Mail Ballots Cast in Florida,” we found that vote-by-mail ballots cast in the 2012 and 2016 general election had a higher rejection rate than votes cast at assigned precincts on Election Day and at early voting sites. We also found that younger voters and racial and ethnic minority voters were much more likely to cast mail ballots that were rejected and were less likely to have their ballots cured.

This report contrasts the rates of rejected vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots in the 2012 and 2016 general elections—statewide broken down by age cohorts and racial and ethnic groups, and across counties.

For Florida to have free and fair elections, all eligible voters must have equal opportunity to vote, including those casting (and curing) VBM ballots.

In addition, drawing on available county-level records, it highlights variations in cure rates of VBM ballots received by Supervisors of Elections in the 2016 general election that initially were deemed invalid because they were contained in return envelopes with mismatched signatures. It finds that younger voters, as well as voters from racial and ethnic minorities, are much more likely to cast VBM ballots that are rejected, and are less likely to cure their VBM ballots if SOE staff flag them for having signature problems.

The report also found that Florida’s counties do not use standardized coding when documenting the reasons for VBM ballots to be initially rejected, processed, or cured.

All voters who choose to VBM should take the extra steps to track their mail ballot and, if there is a problem with the voter’s signature, to use the cure process to ensure that their vote is counted and their voice is heard. If your ballot was rejected because your signature was missing on the return envelope or it does not match the signature on file, you are permitted to mail, fax, email, or hand-deliver to your SOE your signed affidavit, along with a copy of a permissible form of identification. Click here for more step-by-step instructions on how to ensure your vote-by-mail ballot counts.

Download the report

Summary

This report contrasts the rates of rejected vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots in the 2012 and 2016 general elections—statewide broken down by age cohorts and racial and ethnic groups, and across counties. In addition, drawing on available county-level records, it highlights variations in cure rates of VBM ballots received by Supervisors of Elections in the 2016 general election that initially were deemed invalid because they were contained in return envelopes with mismatched signatures. It finds that younger voters, as well as voters from racial and ethnic minorities, are much more likely to cast VBM ballots that are rejected, and are less likely to cure their VBM ballots if SOE staff flag them for having signature problems.

Principal Findings

Mail ballots (commonly referred to as “Vote by Mail” or VBM) have had a higher rejection rate than votes cast at assigned precincts on Election Day and at Early Voting sites;
There is a lack of uniformity in the Vote by Mail process as well as procedures to cure invalid ballots across Florida’s 67 counties, leading to considerable variation in rejection rates and cure rates by counties;
Younger and racial and ethnic minority voters were much more likely to have their VBM ballots rejected, and less likely to have their VBM ballots cured when they are flagged for a signature problem;
Younger and racial and ethnic minority voters casting VBM ballots were at least twice as likely as older and white voters to have their VBM ballot rejected in the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016;
The likelihood of younger and minority voters casting a mail ballot that was rejected increased in 2016 compared to 2012 while the rejection rate of VBM ballots cast by white voters decreased;
Florida voters were more likely to have their vote tabulated and validated if they cast their ballot in person at an Early Voting site or at their assigned Election Day polling location.

Policy Recommendations

To ensure that all eligible voters have an equal access to the voting process and to have their vote processed, tabulated, and accepted as valid:

There should be greater statewide uniformity in the design of mail ballots and the return VBM envelope;
There should be greater uniformity in the procedures employed by Supervisors of Elections, their staff, and canvassing boards to process, validate and, if necessary, cure VBM ballots;
The Florida statewide voter history file (the FVRS database) should include information about why a voter’s mail ballot was rejected, including whether it was rejected because it lacked a signature or the voter’s signature was mismatched, and if the voter attempted to cure the VBM ballot if it was flagged as invalid;
The October 17, 2016 Memorandum to Supervisors of Elections (SOEs) from Secretary of State Ken Detzner should be revised to include specific procedures that county election officials should follow when notifying voters of a rejected VBM ballot and the cure process for missing and mismatched signatures;
The Florida Division of Elections should study procedures for processing VBM ballots as well as procedures in place for voters to cure an invalid mailed ballot, promoting “best practices” from those counties with the lowest rejection and highest cure rates;
The legislature should create guidelines for how SOEs shall notify voters of their rejected ballot status and how voters can cure their VBM ballot prior to Election Day.

Download the report

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Daniel A. Smith is Professor and Chair of Political Science at the University of Florida. He is the President of ElectionSmith, Inc., and a former Senior Fulbright Scholar in Ghana, West Africa. He has served as an expert witness in numerous voting rights lawsuits in Florida and across the country, working closely with the ACLU, the NAACP, Demos, the Campaign Legal Center, Mi Familia, SEIU, and numerous other voting rights groups. Dr. Smith holds a M.A. and a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison; he went to Penn State for his undergraduate degrees in Political Science and History. Dr. Smith’s research broadly examines how political institutions affect political behavior across and within the American states. In addition to publishing over 100 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and research reports on voting and elections in the American states, his authored and coauthored books include Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (Routledge, 1998), Educated by Initiative (University of Michigan Press, 2004), and State and Local Politics: Institutions and Reform (4th edition, Cengage, 2015). He is widely quoted in the Florida and national media.