Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Curtails Federal Election Observers (fortune.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune:
Federal election observers can only be sent to five states in this year's U.S. presidential election, among the smallest deployments since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to end racial discrimination at the ballot box. The plan, confirmed in a U.S. Department of Justice fact sheet seen by Reuters, reflects changes brought about by the Supreme Court's 2013 decision to strike down parts of the Act...
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Friday the Justice Department's ability to deploy election observers had been "severely curtailed" by the Supreme Court's decision... Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, said federal observers are especially needed this year because 17 states have tightened restrictions on voting since the last presidential election.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Friday the Justice Department's ability to deploy election observers had been "severely curtailed" by the Supreme Court's decision... Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, said federal observers are especially needed this year because 17 states have tightened restrictions on voting since the last presidential election.
First, remove federal observers so any irregularities go unreported.
Second, make sure there is no paper trail.
Third, the fewer votes counted, the more likely Republicans will win. The more votes are counted, the more likely Democrats are to win.
Access to voting should be uniform and everyone should be able to vote in about the same amount of time, within reason, including the time it takes to get to the polling place. You should be automatically registered to vote when you do things like get a drivers license. It isn't that difficult to work out the details. The presumption should be on allowing someone to vote. Actual cases of voter fraud by people say walking into two different polling booths appear to be very low, and just a bit of database searching can make sure you're only one one roll.
The second part is information. We are inundated with utter crap. Ballots can contain some basic information that is reasonably agreed upon. It is a start.
The third part, as sad as I am to say it is to get rid of any party affiliations on the ballot and maybe randomize the choices. The reader can still easily identify which form variation you had. If people end up picking randomly on some things, then that will mostly cancel each others. If people want to bring in a 1 page sheet of notes, that is fine. You have to be reasonable, even if that is your party telling you what to pick. At least you have to think a bit. Of course you can't leave your 1 page sheet of notes there.. Basically the government should not enable the perpetuation of political parties. They can live well enough on their own.
I invite you to imagine, David Duke and friends standing in front of a polling place somewhere, pointing a weapon at non-White would-be voters and telling them: "You are about to be ruled by a White man." This is precisely, what happened in Philadelphia.
Ah, but such speculation would invite far too many problems without an actual voter complaining. Criminal convictions are rarely pursued simply on imagination.
Take here. Nobody did anything.
Why not?
Of course, I've had weird encounters at polling places myself. One time, a guy came up to me for some reason, and I still can't figure it out, but was somehow wondering why I didn't have my ID or voter card out. Given that I had yet to go inside the building, I'm still baffled to why I was even approach. I don't know how he acted towards anybody else though. Still, I can imagine somebody being bothered by it. I suppose I should have done something like called the police, but I didn't bother.
False. Says Wikipedia:
I'm afraid you aren't paying close attention, your example is a poll watcher, offering his opinion, not a voter saying "I was too intimidated to vote" which is what would make a successful criminal complaint.
He just made statements regarding his opinion. But again, the question of such speculation is a perilous path to walk, and well known to be circumscribed in legal courts. You didn't even quote him saying "And I saw somebody walk away" but he'd never be allowed to testify to his opinion in court, as that'd be grossly prejudicial.
The Justice Department has won their case already — and then asked the court to dismiss the default judgment in their favor.
Yes, eventually they refused to pursue a default. Because apparently for some reason, nobody responded to the DOJ. That meant that the DOJ had a problem since a court would be extremely leery as they had not won their case in a contested fashion. I can't even believe an attorney in a criminal case would try to do that. It's one thing if you don't show up to a bounced check claim, but a case like this?
Nope. Bad policy there. It'd just be appealed, and I can't imagine an appellate court not rejecting it. Hell, do you want the government winning legal cases against you in that fashion? I know I don't.
Whatever the problem was, it was not the difficulty of actual prosecution.
Maybe the problem was that elements in the DOJ wanted to make a prosecution out of nothing due to their own partisan biases, and they eventually got stopped, but remained bitter about it. Prosecutors can run rampant, you know?
Ah, and here we go redefining terms — as if asking for a proof of eligibility is "suppressive". Nice try, but fail...
You mean the documented and recognized practice of refusing to register people unless they comply with onerous requirements is not suppression in your book?
Even after a judge saw it in a court of law? With the opposing side given a chance to present evidence?
This sort of response raises my eyebrows. You freak out ov