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.

Comments

Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[fustakrakich]

When the government fails to help, we have to help ourselves. So get out your cameras and keep them rolling. On the other hand, the electronic machines with no paper printout kinda makes the issue moot. Too bad there is insufficient demand for real paper ballots. We never will really know the true count, mostly due to lack of interest.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

So get out your cameras and keep them rolling.

And don't forget your nightsticks — can't have the crackas voting the wrong way, can you?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Friday the Justice Department's ability to deploy election observers had been "severely curtailed"

Funny, how Obama's Justice Department dropped the only voter-intimidation/suppression case documented in recent history — as if that was curtailed by something too...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Link please.

The link was in the original posting. Here it is again, for the benefit of the slow children in the audience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, how Obama's Justice Department dropped the only voter-intimidation/suppression case documented in recent history — as if that was curtailed by something too...

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated, making the case difficult to impossible. And in fact, throughout the history of the act, prosecutions have been rare to non-existent.

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist, as well as death threats about a Mosque being used as a polling station in Florida.

But heck, even if we pretend all of that isn't a problem, the fact that voter turnout in 2014 was outright abysmal should make everybody take notice.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated

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.

making the case difficult to impossible

False. Says Wikipedia:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered

The Justice Department has won their case already — and then asked the court to dismiss the default judgment in their favor. Whatever the problem was, it was not the difficulty of actual prosecution.

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist

Ah, and here we go redefining terms — as if asking for a proof of eligibility is "suppressive". Nice try, but fail...

well as death threats about a Mosque being used as a polling station in Florida.

Completely off-topic.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated

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:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered

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?

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist

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

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

Yes, of course they are... to you.

Oh, no, not just to me — Attorney General Lynch seems to concur. Otherwise, she would've been prosecuting those cases, would she not have? I mean, if she is actively complaining about being unable to send monitors to certain places, the issue of voting irregularities must be high on her list of priorities.

And yet, she is not prosecuting anything you (and that "stop Trump" site you linked to) rather indignantly list as manifestations of same.

Fail.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[rtb61]

We have already seen the pattern of the fraud to take place. Electronic voting will be cooked, either at the vote or during file transfer or during the count. Reduced number of polling stations, especially in opposition areas with added things like no parking, no shade, not food or drink and no toilets, the longer the waiting line the better. Scrubbing of voter roles, to force uncounted provisional votes (really help to slow up the whole voting process to a crawl, and ensure those in bad lines never get to vote). ID games to stop people voting will be the smallest action taken. Not to forget of course the wild biases of main stream media, huge politically corrupt biases but then so what, the White House is just another media channel, with the decisions really being taken behind doors in corporate boardrooms and then passed onto the White House to disseminate to the public, with the US Congress and the US Senate than aligning with the corporate instructions (the chaos comes from different competing corporations forcing their own biases into the system and those biases destructively competing against each other, creating chaos).

Really what you have to do is empower the FBI to take on the top end of town and prevent the chaotically corrupt decision making (after the Hillary Clinton debacle that seems impossible, laws need not apply for insiders).

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[davide marney]

You need to volunteer as a poll worker before you opine any further on this topic. The system does not work the way you imagine, at all. Literally every scenario you describe is impossible, because the people who count your votes are not idiots.

For example, do you know that votes are counted by volunteers in this country? Did you know that voting procedures are written by volunteers, too, and that the authority to run elections isn't even vested in a locality or a state, but in volunteer-staffed local and state boards of elections? There are a few paid administrative people who run the back office, but your votes are counted by your fellow citizens, not by employees, and certainly not by political parties.

You think for a moment that we're going to try and make voting more difficult and less open? That's ridiculous. And insulting. You think there are smoke-filled back rooms where big-wig politicos "decide" everything? Maybe in a B movie. Not in real life.

I have been counting votes for about 10 years now. The procedures we follow in Virginia are intelligent and comprehensive. There are multiple, simultaneous contemporaneous records of everything we do, and everything is done in the open where the voting public can see it. I have read so many wild scenarios where someone opens up a voting machine during the vote and inserts some circuit board, etc. and that's all just complete BS. What, you don't think we have seals on our equipment? You don't think we keep them where everyone can see them, precisely so that kind of thing can't be done?

Go volunteer, and learn how we do it.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

you'd be less ignorant (and less racist, but hey, thats probably a stretch for you) if you stopped to realize that while yes there was once case brought against the BP...none at all were brought against the good patriotic white folks who posted themselves at majority minority polling stations to ensure "the integrity" of minority voters. and then there's the cases of the polling stations that were moved or closed in majority minority neighborhoods.

or this list of incidents from 2008:

Voter Intimidation and Deceptive Practices

In recent elections, robo-phone calls and misleading flyers, often targeting minority and low-income communities, have spread false information regarding elections and voting qualifications. For examples of such documents, click here.
New Mexico. Two families reported visits by a private investigator inquiring about relatives that the state Republican Party alleges voted fraudulently in the June primary. The private investigator requested identification for relatives in question as proof of their eligibility, potentially in violation of federal law. The Bernalillo County Clerk confirmed both individuals' legitimate registrations. On October 27, 2008, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop further intimidation.
Virginia. A phony State Board of Elections flier was posted around the Hampton Roads area, stating that Republicans vote on Tuesday, November 4th, and Democrats vote on Wednesday, November 5th. The Virginia State Police determined that flier was an "office joke" and not intended to deceive voters.
Philadelphia fliers. Deceptive fliers about the consequences of voting were distributed in a predominantly African American neighborhood in Philadelphia.
Greene County, Ohio. A law enforcement officer in Greene County, Ohio sought the names of 300 voters who registered and voted at the beginning of Ohio's early voting period in a town made up largely of students. The effort, which was later withdrawn, was criticized as an effort to intimidate student voters and deter others from voting.
Hamilton County, Ohio. In a move that could intimidate and deter voters, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters recently requested, via subpoena, personal information for 40% of the voters who registered and immediately cast a ballot during the weeklong period in which Ohio allows same-day registration and voting.
California. Dozens of voters reported that a firm hired by the California Republican Party tricked them into registering with the GOP when signing a petition they believed to toughen penalties against child molesters. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder is reviewing 9,000 registration affidavits submitted by the firm to determine if any of the party affiliation changes were involuntary.
Travis County, Texas. County officials are looking for a man who may be providing misleading information regarding the state's straight-party voting option, telling voters that in addition to a straight-party vote, they must also select the name of the candidate they would like vote for president. In actuality, doing this would de-select the mark automatically made by the straight-party vote.
Madison County, North Carolina. Residents have complained of misleading calls that provide inaccurate information regarding absentee ballot deadlines. The State Board of Elections is investigating.
Kern County, California. A radio host announced that Republicans are being urged to vote on November 4 and Democrats on November 5. Although the host has said he meant it as a joke, the county elections chief has asked the radio station to stop providing misleading information.
Baltimore City, Maryland. In Maryland, people with felony convictions can register to vote when they have completed the terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. The Baltimore city elections board sent letters to 422 people with felony convictions who registered to vote asking them to verify that t

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

and lets not also forget the facts of the case you mentioned:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.c...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c...

The incident was investigated by the Department of Justice and, before Barack Obama became President

It turns out that the decision not to pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panther Party for it’s actions at Philadelphia polling places during the 2008 election was made when George W. Bush was still President.

(1) the original NBPP controversy really was small potatoes, as Abby Thernstrom and Jonathan Adler concluded. This was a tiny incident in a single polling place about which there was not proof of a single intimidated voter.

1 minor case as opposed to how many hundreds of polling places True The Vote showed up to, recording which black person voted, claiming to be security to check their ids and write down info? and how many "True The Vote" volunteers were investigates? Zero.

So once again: you ignore actual rampant intimidation, to point one case by the skin color you don't like.
And you claim youre not racist.

The questions that must be asked ...

[Alain Williams]

(1) what have they got to hide by not being transparent ?

(2) who gains by restricting observers ?

Re:Not a surprise

[WindBourne]

and yet, it is the in the GOP areas that the observers are being denied.

Probably Trump

[Okian Warrior]

(1) what have they got to hide by not being transparent ?

(2) who gains by restricting observers ?

At a guess, from recent political decisions (disjoint from the election), it will benefit Republicans. Indirectly, that means Trump. I'm not suggesting that Trump has anything to do with this, only Republicans in general.

Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups. Those groups typically vote Democratic.

This election there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, lots of voter fraud, but nothing will be done about the election results. The people in charge will publish boilerplate politically correct statements about things being "regrettable", no one will take responsibility or blame, everyone will promise to fix the problems for the next election, and the issues will be dropped.

Such as the Democratic primary voter fraud (unrelated to Hillary or her campaign).

I remember 8 years ago, people wanting to vote fro Ron Paul in my state were told that he'd dropped out of the race (this was for the actual election).

Then some town published vote tallys showing 0 votes for Ron Paul, seven people called in and complained that they had voted for Ron Paul, the town released a statement saying "oops, it was a typo, the correct number is seven".

There's a ton of voter fraud in the US, and the only reason it stays anywhere near fair is because the winner wins by more than the margin of fraud.

At least, statistically that seems like it's *probably* the case...

Re:Probably Trump

[Okian Warrior]

Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups.

What restrictions would those be? I'm not American, but from a quick google, it seems that all you need are:

1. Citizen of at least 18 years old
2. Driver's license # or last 4 digits of SSN

Why would this be troublesome for any particular group of people?

Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.

The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35, a state-issued ID is around $30, and a passport costs $100.

When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.

Social security cards are given out and replaced at no charge, but aren't generally accepted as an ID because they lack pictures.

Re:Probably Trump

[blindseer]

"There's a ton of voter fraud in the US, and the only reason it stays anywhere near fair is because the winner wins by more than the margin of fraud."

Which makes me wonder why a political party would work so hard to commit fraud. Are they so afraid that the people are so opposed to what they stand for that they cannot win by compromise? The art of compromise is an entrenched aspect of our political system. One might argue that every law ever passed is due to the art of compromise.

Let's assume that these people do get the people they want in office by fraud. Do they expect this to continue indefinitely? In a less connected world it may have been possible to win with fraud by small margins and get away with it. Now we have polling with considerable accuracy. People can communicate with an ease and speed that has been unheard of before.

For such fraud to go unnoticed it must be at such a small margin that it can be explained away by a margin of error. If that margin is that small then would not the energy expended on fraud be better spent on making their case to the people? Or, compromising on small matters that people vote on so that larger matters can go their way?

"Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups. Those groups typically vote Democratic."

Everything in life affects the poor and minorities disproportionately. That's effectively the definition of what it means to be poor and/or a minority. That does not mean we should make elections in a way that they are open to fraud. I believe that it makes a case to make elections as fair as possible. If the poor and minorities want to make sure that their vote counts then they should want to know that their vote counts just as much as any other vote.

What party they vote for should be irrelevant.

Re: Probably Trump

[Okian Warrior]

New Hampshire DL renewal costs $50, and lasts 5 years IIRC (couldn't find the expiry term in a quick search).

Note that presidential elections happen every 4 years, so that comes out to $40 to vote in any one election.

Using your numbers, voting in any presidential election would be either $35 for that year, or $7 x 4 = $28 for each election.

Re: Probably Trump

[LynnwoodRooster]

Using your example of NH an ID card is $10 and lasts for 5 years. That's $2 per year for voting. That's really cheap. And to go further, how does one live in a modern society WITHOUT a Government issued ID? I guess you never travel on an airplane. You do not set up utiltities. You never rent a car or tool. You don't have a bank account. You have no cell phone nor mailbox. Basically - you live in the woods as a hermit - probably not too interested in politics to start with.

Re:Probably Trump

[TroII]

Why would this be troublesome for any particular group of people?

Consider you're a relatively poor person who doesn't own a car. You rely on public transportation (riding the bus) to get around. Now suppose your state decides to close down a bunch of its DMV offices due to "budget constraints" or "low demand." Coincidentally, the ones being shut down are almost exclusively in areas with a population that's mostly poor and black. Suddenly, the closest DMV office where you can go and renew your photo ID is 30 miles away. Even if the public transportation would take you there, which it won't, it would be a 3 or 4 hour round trip, which is time you don't have because you're working two 35-hour-a-week jobs for minimum wage and no benefits.

Re: Probably Trump

[Alypius]

A photo ID is used for much more than simply voting (e.g. banking) so it's not quite accurate to make "per election" charges.

Re:Probably Trump

[Texmaize]

Even when it is proposed that the ID be offered for free, the democratic party still opposes the idea. See, that would be political compromise between two rational groups, the way the founders intended. This has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with tampering with the election. The sad thing is, you are so busy playing team sports instead of honestly pursuing ideas for the betterment of all, that you will likely not see or understand what the modern democratic party has turned into--until it is too late.

Before reflexively lashing out like a tribal two year old, the above statement in no way forgives the republicans of their sins. Instead of merely looking for evil and being skeptical of one side, haven't current events shown that perhaps, just perhaps, you may want to be paying attention to both sides? How about demanding honesty from everyone?

Re:Probably Trump

[davide marney]

Please do not go to a Department of Motor Vehicles office to register to vote. Go to your local Board of Elections Registrar instead. The DMV just forwards whatever it gets to the Registrar, because it is not responsible for registering voters.

This is exactly how voter suppression works

[macsimcon]

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. With the polls this close, it doesn’t take much cheating to ensure Trump wins The White House.

Remember, every Republican president after Ike has cheated to win, and this time will be no exception. Thanks, John Roberts! Clearly racism is gone in your white world, and we can just throw the Voting Rights Act on the trashheap of history.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: they just lost the ability to be bossy

[queazocotal]

If you can be denied entry to a place, or asked to leave, you're not really an effective observer.

Can you cite a source or reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your post got modded down because you didn't provide any proof of what you said is true or not.

Was it a rant or was it the truth?

Back it up with something.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder what language these Americans were speaking while living inside America for so long?

Keres and Navajo, according to this.

I call bullshit on this.

That's nice, but they went to court, and provided evidence.

Re:Not a surprise

[sumdumass]

No observer has been denied. What happened is that a state changed it's voting laws and the justice department said they couldn't. The state took them to court and it was ruled that so much has changed that the feds have to justify preemptive interaction. They have not done so either by inaction or inability to demonstrate a pattern of discrimination that would meet the legal definition.

What this means is that they can send only voluntary observers and court appointed observers. The voluntary observers are fed employees who can be kicked out. The court ordered observers have full reign of the polling operations. What the article is talking about is that so far, the justice department has only been able to meet the legal requirements for court ordered observers in five states to date.

No observer has been denied access to anything yet. And it certainly hasn't been denied based on any political party affiliation or political party's safe areas.

Re:WTF?

[techno-vampire]

The Cherokee tribe adopted a written form of their language (a syllabary, not an alphabet as such) developed by Sequoyah in 1825, and their literacy rate rapidly outpaced that of their European neighbors. The really remarkable thing about this is that he was completely illiterate when he started, although unlike most of his people he didn't think that reading and writing were a form of sorcery.

The Timing

[nehumanuscrede]

is most amusing.

Easily going to be the most controversial election in the history of our country and we're going to further limit the ability to catch any bullshit that is likely to happen.
Not that it matters, no matter who wins, ( Ego A or Ego B ) we all lose anyway.

I think it would shock folks more if the election happened without any sneaky, underhanded bullshit.