Slashdot Mirror
Texas Attorney General Warns International Election Observers
First time accepted submitter mescobal writes "Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott warned international election observers not to come closer than 100 feet from a polling place; otherwise, they could be subject to criminal prosecution. The warning was addressed to a group of international observers who intend to monitor polls. The OSCE, an UN affiliated organization of observers, was concerned about voter ID issues among other things. From the article: '“The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections — including representatives of the OSCE,” Abbott wrote. “The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.”'"
Janez LenarÄiÄ, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), stated that "The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.â (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96639).
Where does this obligation come from?
Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)
The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.
"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)
Where does this obligation come from?
As a signing member of OSCE, the US must comply to the treaty's terms. This is irrespective of what Texas' AG quacks, since the legalese in international treaties supersedes national laws where applicable -- or at least that's how it's supposed to work anyway.
In PA police are not allowed within 100 feet of a polling place unless voting or responding to a call.
The US federal government signed and ratified the OSCE Copenhagen charter, and the US Constitution states that federal law and international treaties supersede state law (a provision that Texas has historically had problems with).
Son. This is Texas. The fix has been in for the past sixty years. Just because the machine doesn't call itself a "machine" doesn't change the effect. Just because the machine changes party does not mean it changes its stripe.
-
Repost because of idiotic troll mod:
Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." ( http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)
The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304 [osce.org]
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.
"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)
LOL. The US is a participant and founder member of the OCSE. When they joined they agreed to certain obligations such as allowing observers to come in. There is no "subversion of democracy" here anymore than the US observers subvert democracy during the elections they monitor. Get your fucking head out of your ass.
The Gore election was fixed, but it was done way before the vote was taken. There were massive voter purges in Florida done by the Jeb Bush administration. The number of Democratic voters taken out was several times Bush's margin of victory.
This is well documented (with REAL FACTS!) but it isn't talked about.
The billboards read, "Voter fraud is a felony", you liar.
It's not "Europe" that is sending the observers. It's the OSCE, an organization that the US ARE A MEMBER OF!
And all members agreed to send observers to each others elections on a regular base.
bickerdyke
Texas State Election Code, Title 3 "Election Officers and Observers", Chapter 33 "Watchers", Subchapter B "Eligibility", Section 33.031: "GENERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS"
(a) To be eligible to serve as a watcher, a person must be a qualified voter:
(1) of the county in which the person is to serve, in an election ordered by the governor or a county authority or in a primary election;
(2) of the part of the county in which the election is held, in an election ordered by the governor or a county authority that does not cover the entire county of the person's residence; and
(3) of the political subdivision, in an election ordered by an authority of a political subdivision other than a county.
(b) The Alcoholic Beverage Code supersedes this section to the extent of any conflict.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986."
So, technically, unless the international observers are local residents, they would be in violation of the law. Legitimately registered voters may observe their LOCAL
elections, either by County or possibly State-wide depending on which election it is.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
yes.
why do you hate america?
"By treaty, the CSCE can observe the election to the extent permitted by law. By law, observers cannot maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place."
I don't know if you're being obnoxious for the sake of it or not, but that's not the law it refers to. It refers to the treaty law itself which defines what the observers can and can't do, not a lower level law specified by a bunch of little upstarts that think they have more power than they do.
The OCSE is not the UN nor has any ties to the UN. It is an inter-governmental organization like NATO. The UN bogeyman isn't everywhere and out to get you despite what you believe.
"Sec. 33.001. WATCHER DEFINED. In this code, "watcher" means a person appointed under this subchapter to observe the conduct of an election on behalf of a candidate, a political party, or the proponents or opponents of a measure."
International observers are none of these things, and thus not 'watchers' under the definition of this law, and thus not subject to those eligibility requirements.
Grandstanding akin to calling a press conference to state the sky is blue.
FTA: “I have specifically informed the Texas team that Chapter 61 of the Texas Election Code would not allow them into actual polling places, and they understood this limitation,” per the election authority.
So the observers were told of the limitation, accepted it, and understood it, but the AG in an effort to bolster his own image couldn't resist the urge to make a scene.
Texas as usual.
I was under the impression that the 100 foot radius (in California--Ianal) was created to prevent campaigners from trying to sway voters to their side and prevent the ensuing emotional chaos created from interfering with the voting process when the voters were making a decision at the polling booth. Witnesses, OTOH, can be anyone, for whatever purpose, watching and learning about the voting process in the voting area as long as it's peaceable and reasonably practical. (An example: students not of voting age.)
Same situation here: poll watchers are allowed in Kansas. Sometimes one or both parties have a poll watcher at the voting places. Usually they just count the voters coming in. Sometimes they have a checklist to look for voters they know are solid supporters to make sure they've voted (much rarer these days with advance voting and mail-in ballots). It's not considered electioneering, since they're not talking or wearing buttons or shirts or handing out pamphlets, just sitting there silently. If, on the other hand, they were "electioneering", the election judges would make sure they stayed behind the "no electioneering" signs. I assume (with no proof) that Texas also has a definition of "electioneering" on the books, and I speculate that the AG is just grandstanding a little.
I am not a crackpot.
please use correct grammar when calling someone a moron or else its less credible - its "you're" a moron
In the case of the Black Panthers in 2008, they were just standing outside the precincts with billy clubs, trying to scare off anybody who wasn't black. It was caught on video. It's hard to think of a more blatant case of voter intimidation in recent memory than that one.
And then AG Eric Holder decided not to prosecute what would have been a slam dunk case. He should be ousted from office for that decision alone.
Dude - get your Damn story straight! The Bush DOJ DID prosecute them. Then the new appointee from the Obama administration canceled the prosecution, i.e. interfered with the process. Several career prosecutors quite over the affair. I LOVE how you guys try to rewrite history.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Citations:
http://emergingcorruption.com/2010/11/black-panther-agitation-erupts-at-houston-polling-places/
And that was after the prosecution from their behavior during the last Presidential election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
When a partisan wearing paramilitary gear and waving a billy club is in your face that seems like an effective way to intimidate folks in that particular district into not voting. Very much like the aims when KKK in full gear stood outside polling places. The goal isn't to intimidate you into voting for a certain candidate, it's to intimidate YOU out of voting.
More than that, they agreed to *invite* observers to their elections.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Wow, and yet Gore STILL got more votes than Bush in Florida, only to have them not counted by a conspiracy between corrupt election officials and corrupt Supreme Court justices.
My thanks go to the Washington Post and other fine newspapers for establishing this fact, so that nobody in the future will ever consider Bush 's first term to be legitimate:
1. Bush did prosecute.
2. BP bargained and a conviction was all set.
3. Eric Holder and Obama dropped all the charges.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Because the tea party is using local people registered to vote at that polling place as Texas law requires. OSCE could do that as well, so could a socialist party, or the flying spaghetti monster party.
Except the US has this thing called The Constitution. Specifically the tenth amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Without an amendment to the constitution stripping the states of their power the state law trumps the international one in the US.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
So, I can see a legal argument that the Feds can only dictate the admission of election observers in places under Federal jurisdiction. Places like Washington, DC, overseas military bases and embassies, etc.
After all, the elections are called and run by the States and their delegated authorities.
Nope. See Article 1, Section 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Would putting up a bill board in South Central LA that says Drive By Shootings are a Felony, would that be racist?
No, and if South Central LA has a lot of drive-by shootings, I would say it's appropriate.
Are you trying to imply that there's a lot of voter fraud that goes on in poor, minority-populated neighborhoods?
Have you ever even looked up voting fraud statistics? You should - knowing what you're talking about is a great way to avoid saying stupid things.
Tell ya what, I'm a nice guy in a good mood, I'll make it easy on you: here's a map of all "known" voter fraud cases since 2000.
Have fun with that.
You people are just plain losing it.
Waddayamean, "you people??"
LOL
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The Supremacy Clause establishes that treaties shall override state's laws, but does not make any such provision for agreements between international bodies, of which this case is an example. As such, the state's laws do indeed have authority in this matter.
don't you have feet? How do you manage to walk?
Also length can be measured in noses, arm lengths, finger phalanges, football fields, soccer fields, WV beetles. The more advanced among us can measure it in male sex organs of-course.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Yes, Bush possessed satanic powers that let him in on things nobody else knew. But if you want to be an idiot, go right ahead.
Speaking of idiots... did you know only Congress can declare war on another nation? You might want to brush up on your recent history, since it's a well known fact (among those of us who don't suffer from selective memory) that Bush invaded Iraq prior to getting a Congressional declaration of war. So, you know, pot, kettle, all that jazz.
Which is well within the powers granted by the "War Powers Act".
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
FTFY
You have that exactly backwards. A quarter of black Americans do not have ID. Those "free" ID's can cost $200 for older Americans born at home without birth certificates, and expensive trips to the DMV for the poor.
And all to address a problem that simply does not exist .
All the "voter fraud" cases that people like you point to are either:
1) Actually voter registration fraud, not preventable by any ID law
2) Voting absentee and then in a polling booth - also not prevented by any ID law
You know how many cases of in-person voting fraud there are in the United States? About a dozen over a 10 year period, out of more than 600 million votes cast across the country. Ten times that many people were killed by vending machines in the same time period. So unless you're running around screaming for laws to protect us from this vending machine menace, why on earth are you demanding ID's to vote?
Voter ID solves a problem that does not exist, while raising considerable barriers to voting for poor Americans. If the laws you demand were in place in the 80's, Ronald Reagan would not have been able to vote in either of the elections he won for the presidency.
Because he was born at home without a birth certificate, and didn't get one until the 90's.
First, a question: why should foreign nationals working on behalf of an international organization have more access to proceedings than United States citizens - whether civilian, or state or federal authorities -- are currently allowed by law?
Second, there is no such thing as "technically legal". There is legal and there is illegal. It is illegal for the observers to be within 100'. It is illegal for pretty much anyone to be within 100', except for voters and designated, trained administrators.
Third, let's look at the sections quoted by dinifinity above:
"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law."
And they are. The extent permitted by Texas State law is "so long as you keep 100' away, just like everyone else doing exit polls, campaigning for specific candidates/propositions/constitutional ammendments, and and anyone else who might influence the election by mere proximity.
They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)
The United states is endeavoring to the extent they are able. As a matter of Constitutional law, there' not much more they can do. Federal election laws do not provide for strong federal oversight of state elections. Nor should they as a matter of federalism, since one would expect the federal government to have more power to coerce voters and influence state elections than any one state has of coercing voters to influence national elections. The issue the OSCE complains of in the linked document amounts to saying, "the United States is not organized like other countries, and that's a nuisance for us from a regulatory perspective." It would be simpler to enforce uniform requirements if the U.S. were like, say, England or France, with a strong central government and provincial governments in all cases subservient to that central government. Then they could apply nation-wide sanctions to effect a national change. But it's not, and they can't.
The OSCE could always try to sue in federal court if they feel the law is in error. So far, they have not done so. So far, this comment from Abbot is little different from the AG pre-emptivly reminding any group to obey the law, and there will be no special treatment. No different that a protestor rally.
But the sheriff's feet may be of a different length from the observer's. Who is right, then?
Measuring in dicks may work. The sheriff would mark any arbitrary distance and the observer would be too ashamed of claiming it to be less than the sheriff said it was.
You got that backwards. Sheriff says "that's 150 dicks length." Observer says "it's only 75 according to mine."