Texas Attorney General Warns International Election Observers 817
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.”'"
Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's what the law states, then I'm glad the Texas AG is doing his job and upholding it since that the law that the democratically elected legislature passed. Additionally, why should there be unsupervised "observers" standing around a polling place and potentially intimidating voters? There are already plenty of limits to regulate campaigning in and around polling places, and I see no reason why unelected "observers" should be given more access to polling places that legitimately registered voters are.
Non-local government is a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Over time, this principle has been reinforced: the more land a government oversees, and the more remote it is from a local area, the more likely it is to misunderstand the specific needs of that locality.
It's bad enough that the federal government makes laws that might work on the coasts but ignore the needs of people in the flyover states, but trust the UN to treat Texas like New York or Brussels and thus completely miss the point.
I'm not calling for Texas Secession [texassecede.com] yet, but it's tempting some days... and not just for Texas. Washington and New York are too far from most places to understand local needs.
This is nothing more than a declaration of intent (Score:5, Insightful)
...of election officials to fix the vote.
Hypocracy at it's bestest (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how Americans go around the world telling other countries how to do "fair" elections, when they can't even following their own laws and do fair elections themselves.
Tell me again who should have won the last election?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet there are americans 'observing' elections in the middle-east and africa, but there it is normal because those regimes are corrupt. The fact that Europe is willing to send observers to the USA elections is maybe a sign that they think there is no real democracy there.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know that the legislature was democratically elected if there's nobody outside that legislative body watching for election fraud?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:3, Insightful)
The OSCE is the Black Panther party? I didn't realize the BP's started over seas then moved here. And why did your boy Bush not prosecute those "observers" for voter intimidation? I know, you are frothing at the mouth yelling "It was Barrack Hussein Obama that did that!!!!" No, it wasn't. The Bush administration decided not to press criminal charges.
But don't worry you to lovely Republicans. You guys just keep sending out incorrect voting information and putting up billboards telling minorities that if they vote they'll likely be arrested and put in jail. You are doing this country a great service by making sure Americans can vote. Thanks,
Re:Non-local government is a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody talks about how dangerous it is for elections observers to be sent to Afghanistan.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that this keeps being brought up. It keeps being brought up because it's the only counter example the far right has.
Putting forth all the electoral manipulations since 2000, in contrast, would take up pages.
In Indiana it was found out over the past couple of days there is a county that purged *20%* of it's voter rolls. According to the Republicans involved, it was an accident. Is the same thing going on across the country all accidents? When does that excuse become non-credible.
Re:What obligation is there to allow these observe (Score:5, Insightful)
Moral obligation to fairness. A concept we're forgetting by the day.
Re:Non-local government is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
but trust the UN to treat Texas like New York or Brussels and thus completely miss the point.
What point are the UN missing, how is that point differentiating from New York or Brussels and how exactly are they missing that point?
What local need is being served by not letting objective election observers observe elections and how is the federal government responsible for the UN wanting to send those observers?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Failing Democracy can only be caused by citizens.
We are failing our Democracy.
Re:How the mighty have fallen (Score:5, Insightful)
I want you to just substitute the word "Texas" for the word "Syria" in the article summary and tell me how it sounds. Here, I'll do it.
Huh, that's funny: if you change the location there, it sounds almost like a declaration of intent to rig the election of some third-world fake democracy! But no, it's Texas so everything must be fine.
Re:Non-local government is a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a proud Texan but I'd personally rather see washington DC seceed.
Re:How the mighty have fallen (Score:5, Insightful)
The world looks to America to set a good example, and America leads by example.
Sadly no, that ship sailed quite some time ago. In fact it never really docked in the first place. That the world looks up to America is a happy little fantasy americans entertain to keep themselves feeling all warm and fuzzy while they fuck everyone else over.
Re:Non-local government is a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Texas has been targeted specifically is because of its history of voter abuse.
I know Texas likes to toot it's own horn about how they're all big and tough and don't need no nobody, but really they're really ruining the US's image by doing this and being defiant pricks for no reason. Everyone likes to point out how terrible the federal government is, but that's turning a blind eye to how much worse state governments are.
Okay well maybe if it were a local election, or state only election, they could get away with this. But we're talking about a presidential elections, the future of the national government rests on this. So no, Texas can't just isolate themselves: they're beholden to the federal government in this matter. And it's definitely of concern to the UN who the next president of the entire US will be, so it isn't like this is some trivial matter.
Re:Non-local government is a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
He's talking about a far-right fantasy that the UN is coming to take our rights.
He's a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, in other words.
Re:This is nothing more than a declaration of inte (Score:2, Insightful)
yea not like thugs standing outside a polling place holding bats.
Re:Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way I can respond to "this isn't Chicago" is that you're right... it's the right doing the intimidation rather than the left.
Both are wrong.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet there are americans 'observing' elections in the middle-east and africa, but there it is normal because those regimes are corrupt. The fact that Europe is willing to send observers to the USA elections is maybe a sign that they think there is no real democracy there.
Or more simply, that the OSCE treaty, which was signed by the US, obliges its members to invite observers...
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it does since despite this lame characterization there are fundamental differences between the policies and actions of the two parties.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
I see... when there's voter fraud accusations on the Democrats, it's merely sour grapes and "the only counter-example", but if someone levies a claim that Republicans are shooting prospective voters as they get to polling places, somehow that becomes a "disturbing trend of voter fraud and intimidation." Uh-huh. Let's peel back the curtain oh, 50 years and view the "accidents" that got JFK elected, or the "misunderstandings" that got LBJ his first (of many) political positions (the dead voting in alphabetical order, anyone?) What about the missing voter boxes in Minnesota? There were some that were missing as a "hoax", but still others that ensured Al Franken's win were "actually found and overwhelmingly favored Al over his opponent", uncharacteristically bucking the statistical trend seen in the statewide vote. (For you slow people, that means the box was padded with votes for Al Franken).
It's not about "party" or what side of the political spectrum you are on. This is about the elite keeping their seat, so to speak. It has little to do with the "evil right wing" oppressing the "good and lovable left wing", but it has everything to do with convincing sheeple like you that it is an "us v. them" bout. Yes, it is us v. them... but "them" are not Republicans or Democrats alone... it's all of them.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean one working for big oil, and the other for big media, while they perform a swirlie on the military-industrial complex?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
The presence of such laws enhances the legitimacy of an election. Most local jurisdictions have exceptions allowing for registered neutral observers to observe the polling. But you have to fill out the appropriate forms first, crossing the t's and dotting the i's as a way to insure that you're really observers and not just kooks setting out to unduly influence an election. More than likely, the observing organization failed to file the appropriate paperwork.
And this is not one of those situations where you want local authorities to use their best judgment and let slide just because it's a "good" organization. That used to happen in the South too. And any complaints by blacks about intimidation at the polls were summarily dismissed, while complaints about voting irregularity on ballots cast by blacks were thoroughly investigated. You don't want that. You want this to be done by the book, no exceptions.
Re:What obligation is there to allow these observe (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be noted that they did NOTHING along these lines when the Black Panthers did what they did. However, the same bunch that's doing the asking is the one that allowed that to be done and nothing to be done about it. They've caught 30k fraudulent registrations in Houston, again done by the same bunch doing the asking for this. Most of the purges were not legit registrations. Even much of that 20% that people were ranting on and on about.
Ask yourself something. Why? It's not to ensure the vote if you look at the facts. This is another ploy and Abbott's right about this. If it were a Federal agent instead of the OSCE, they'd get arrested as well- if you legally don't have authority (Treaties carry the same force as the Constitution, but do NOT trump it... Don't forget that this isn't a power delegated to the Federal Government but to the States by the Constitution...) you CAN get arrested by the group that does.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have nothing to hide . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
then there shouldn't be a problem with letting people observe the process to make sure nothing funny is going on.
Right?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
So if Abbott really cared about voter intimidation why didn't he come out and warn the Tea Party when they announced they would be sending observers to polling places? Yep, that's because this is just political grandstanding.
Re:Hypocracy at it's bestest (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how Americans go around the world telling other countries how to do "fair" elections, when they can't even following their own laws and do fair elections themselves.
Tell me again who should have won the last election?
It's better than that. The complaint against other regimes is often specifically that they don't allow independent observers.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Legitimately registered voters are allowed to show up, vote, and then leave in an orderly manner. They are not allowed to loiter around the polls all day trying to influence the outcome of the election. And "observers" who aren't even legally registered to vote sure as hell shouldn't be doing that either.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, his state's laws mean jack and shit in comparison to agreement made by the US with the OCSE. It's this thing called the "Supremacy Clause". Abbott is waving his dick around to grandstand and nothing more.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
After the hanging-chad debacle and dodgy voting machine scandals are you saying US democracy doesn't need some external oversight?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad you're not a lawyer.
1. The Supremacy Clause clearly states that federal law trumps state law wherever they conflict.
2. Treaties trump federal law wherever they conflict.
So if you have a state law that says you can't do X, and a treaty that says you must allow X, then X is allowed.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's what the law states, then I'm glad the Texas AG is doing his job and upholding it since that the law that the democratically elected legislature passed. Additionally, why should there be unsupervised "observers" standing around a polling place and potentially intimidating voters? There are already plenty of limits to regulate campaigning in and around polling places, and I see no reason why unelected "observers" should be given more access to polling places that legitimately registered voters are.
You are assuming that the legislature was actually democratically elected which is, in fact, what the observers are there to attempt to ensure.
Watching around the world it seems to me that only people fucking with the voting process are afraid to have monitors watching them.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
I may be mistaken but I believe these billboard messages were primarily posted in areas of low income and that would likely support the Democrats. So not a lie, Voter Fraud is a crime but intended to intimidate minorities, quite likely.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
OSCE is not a treaty. Why must people base arguments of false facts? OSCE is a "political commitment" which state law cannot legally be subjugated to.
God Bless Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole bruhahaha over voter rights and disenfranchising voters is what elections have been about in this country since it was founded. It's been a tug of war ever since the constitution was signed.
Remember that Women weren't allowed to vote? That was in the constitution as well, not in a state law. Poll Taxes weren't abolished until the 1960s! [wikipedia.org]
T
Now all of this voter "deletion" and other unscrupulous acts cause people to take notice? I just ask those people "Where the fuck have you been? Under a rock?"
Look, people in power don't like to give up power, that's why we have really two parties in the US. They've come to write the laws including voter registration laws and the oh so popular redistricting battles that come around every 10 years with the Census. They agree that when one party is in charge that the other will cause no end of fighting and finger pointing to say how fraudulent the process is, no matter how fair people try to make it. Don't like a congressman? We'll redistrict his ass out to the pasture by bringing in more voters of one racial or bias group that will vote more the way we like it.
It's been going on since the country was founded and simply put, it's not fair to some but it's always fair to the politicians who want to hold onto office despite their deplorable voting records and obstructionism.
What's also lost on a lot of people is that Texas picked up a few seats in the house at the loss of predominantly Democratic States. Remember Congressman "I didn't take lude pics of my weiner" Weiner? His seat went *poof* because of the Census and more people moving to Texas. And the Democrats are worried that these 4 extra seats may just go Red. That's why there's been constant legal challenges to the redistricting going on in the state and every left and right wing fringe element is coming to the party. It's just wonderful to watch our courts and our processes get drug into the mud with all this Gerrymandering but it's a fact of life and ultimately the guys who make the laws could fix it but again they have agreement with their counterparts across the aisle to keep the status quo because it keeps them both gainfully in power and employed. You also have a white house with AG Holder that has been playing whack-a-mole with ever voter registration change or requirement that has come along in the last four years to weed out voter fraud. All the while Holder is playing up to every racial minority and pulls the race card out at every opportunity. [examiner.com] Having an Picture ID? That's a minimal requirement nowadays even if you want to cash a check, get a bank account or even travel on a train or airplane and this whole bunch of bullshit around this in Texas and in Pennsylvania is another smoke screen to make sure that voter fraud can continue. You see we have to maintain that status quo.
Oh and if you don't think that voter fraud actually exists, how about something that was smoothed over recently. A woman and a democrat, suddenly withdrew from running for Congress when it was alleged that she voted in Maryland and in Florida during the 2006 and 2008 elections. [baltimoresun.com] So if you think that voter fraud doesn't exist, here's a woman, running for office with the ethics of a crack dealer. Now it's alleged but her own party called her out! Maybe she can do some arts and crafts [wendyrosen.com] when she's in prison?
So who represents you? That's why you vote and that's why every vote does count and I don't care if you're black, white, green or brown but if you're here in the US, are a citizen op age and a resident of the state where you're voting, you should be able to vote. Each state can come up with requirements to assure that
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:0, Insightful)
Were the Democrats caught altering absentee ballots in 2000?
No.
Were the Republicans?
Yes.
Which state?
Florida
Knowing that they were altered, were they thrown out?
No
What was the reason?
Disenfranchising voters.
And now who is trying to keep people from voting and have registered voters bumped off the registration list and creating voter ID laws to prevent others from voting?
The same party who knowingly committed voter fraud back in 2000.
Re:This is nothing more than a declaration of inte (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Gore should have won his own state, thus rendering Florida and any alleged shenanigans there irrelevant. If you can't convince the voters who know you best to send you to the White House.....
Are you suggesting that if Romney loses Mass. and Michigan he SHOULD lose the White House? Because he surely will be losing those states.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the U.S. government that agreed to that constitutionally has little to do with how voting is done on the ground level unless they pass a law that does not conflict with the constitution,the 15th, 19th, 26th, or any other amendment. If they wanted to constitutionally enable the states to follow the agreement then it should have been made a treaty, then it would have become the law of the land.
Re:How do we know? (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite story about the 2000 presidential election: Fidel Castro offered to send Cuban election observers to ensure the FL elections were free and fair. That guy sure has a sense of humor.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Any party can send observers to polling places in Texas if they follow the rules. The law just won't let anyone hang around a polling place without being a registered observer. Since most polling places are at schools, I'm happy about that. I don't want a bunch of people getting in fights and stuff outside my kids school any more than "I" want to get picked on at a polling place.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, even if (and I'm not saying it is the case that) it is technically legal for Texas to refuse observers access to the voting stations, it would be an utterly dickish anti-democratic and third world country thing to do.
There is no valid fucking reason to deny international observers access and everybody who claims otherwise knows there isn't. Hell, if any other country were to do something similar, you'd say they were sneaky corrupt bastards. And that would hold for countries that hadn't even agreed to be transparent when it comes to their democratic process in the first place. American exceptionalism indeed.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't have a meaningful democracy without law. In the USA states not the federal government run elections.
There is nothing democratic about allowing some international body to violate state laws because the federal government made some treaty agreement that dealt with activities outside their jurisdiction.
I don't care what your opinion is on if its a good idea to have 'theoretically' disinterested election monitors, or not that is not what is at issue here really.
Texas should enforce Texas elections laws universally until we use our Constitutional process to change how elections are run and who runs them or until Texas using its own Constitutional or legislative process agrees to hand such authority to anther body.
There is way to much bending and stretching of law going on across the entire political spectrum, and it will lead to tyranny of one kind or another unless we all stand up demand the laws be executed as written or changed by the prescribed legal method if we don't like them.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
These Republicans are projecting and showing what's in their heart. They are projecting onto others an honest image of themselves that they might not otherwise expose.
The attitude of ANY American election official or party official should be: "Bring it on. Let us show you how it's done."
Transparency is an integral part of democracy.
This kind of cowardice is really embarrassing.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how those billboards were all posted in minority neighborhoods in swing states. Probably just a coincidence.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Texans aren't interested in breaking the law to satisfy political correctness
yeah, well, put a black man in office and you and I both find out how much law gets broken to reverse that.
we all get it. he's black. and you racists absolutely hate this, way down deep. WE GET IT. but we have to insist there be a real election and not another republican stunt.
simply put: we don't trust you, texas. we don't trust many of the southern states. but we surely don't trust YOU.
sorry, but you earned our distrust. over many years.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. Minority's and people in poverty get intimidated all the time. Billboards intimidate people in those areas.
And since there is almost 0(ZERO) voting fraud in the US, what other reason is there to put billboard in places that will intemedate voters into not voting? what is the purpose of Voter ID laws when 11% of the population doesn't have ID? Why are they also exclusively in dem voting areas?
voter fraud by state:
http://tinyurl.com/9e2q7lm [tinyurl.com]
Let me know when thousands and thousands of people are dying when they vote. Until then, you are committing the Fallacy Fallacy.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx [theskepticsguide.org]
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:2, Insightful)
The billboards in question claim voter fraud is illegal. Are you claiming they aren't intelligent enough to understand what that means and somehow mistakes it for they will be arrested? That is the only way you can make sense here. I happen to think they are NOT that freaking stupid. And if they are, I'm not sure I would be happy with them voting anyways as I doubt they would carry any understanding of anything they are voting for.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. Perhaps you are just covering your basis or something. Your links mean nothing because it only counts what was caught not what wasn't. We know that people attempt this from monitoring chat rooms, message boards, and even the campaign workers themselves.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story [latimes.com]
In case you can't bother reading a story hosted at the conservative LA times.. It's about a Virginia candidate's own son having to resign from the campaign for instructing someone how to cast votes for people planning on not voting.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Treaties are not subordinate to the constitution. I know in America the constitution is like the bible and you worship it and think it's the single most important document in existence, but that's not the way things work in the real world, in the real world no one else gives a fuck about some tatty old document that you think is the pinnacle of politics.
The fact is your government is your official representative to the world, chosen by you. What it does or doesn't adhere to is neither here nor there to the rest of the world, the fact is your representatives have given external organisations the right to do something in the state of Texas, and note also that the rest of the world doesn't really give a fuck what the state of Texas thinks either, because again, it's not the US' representative to the world.
Now, you may argue that your government shouldn't have given such permission, and you may want to take your government to court, impeach the president or whatever else you get upto in your own borders when someone does something you shouldn't.
But it doesn't matter, the fact is your representative to the world has given permission to an international organisation to enter and do something in the country, and in the rest of the world, under international law, that's simply all that matters.
You may think your constitution matters to the rest of the world, you may think your state lawmakers matter to the rest of the world, but they really don't. If you have a problem with what your government has authorised that's between you and them, if you don't like it deal with it and get rid of your government on a countrywide basis and pull out of the international treaty, or seccede and become independent of the US, but right now, your constitution and state laws are irrelevant to an international organisation that has been given permission to do something by your government- your internal governance is not their concern, only that the representative to the rest of the world for your country has given them the permission they need to do what they need to do.
Constitutions and local government structures like those at state level in the US are entirely internal concepts and although most countries have something similar they are not recognised internationally as entities that have the power to go against the permissions granted or denied to international bodies by the primary leadership of a nation.
This is why despite Assad in Syria having fuck all support, he still matters, because he's still the official leader of the country. Any law written by the rebels despite holding large swathes of the country and having a large percentage of popular support is irrelevant and unenforcable until there is an officially recognised change of leadership. Some countries may unilaterally recognise that change, but the point is, no one is suddenly going to recognise Texas as an overriding authority of the US government I'm afraid.
You may not like it, and that's fine, I actually sympathise somewhat with being overruled if you have strong sentiment towards localised government, it's not nice, but it is the way it is I'm afraid so the choice is to put up with it, or change it and/or become independent.