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.”'"
Europeans, beware! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Europeans, beware! (Score:5, Funny)
Chuck "Walker" Norris himself will watch over this and will roundhouse-kick you until you learn to respect democracy!
He's just doing his part to prevent "1000 years of darkness" [youtu.be].
Re:Europeans, beware! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Europeans, beware! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Europeans, beware! (Score:5, Informative)
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."
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.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Funny)
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: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)
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, Informative)
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 [osce.org] - page 2)
The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304 [osce.org] [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)
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
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, Informative)
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.
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:4, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Informative)
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: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)
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:5, Insightful)
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: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: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, Informative)
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.
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, Funny)
and I see no reason why unelected "observers" should be given more access to polling places that legitimately registered voters are.
You mean Texas' legitimately registered voters aren't allowed to come closer than 100 foot from a polling place either?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
It's not necessary (Score:5, Funny)
In Texas it is seen as a sign of weakness if you have to get closer than 100 feet to cast your vote.
That's because Texans vote by shooting at their ballots. "If you have to get closer than 100 feet, you need to practice your shooting more. YEE-HAW!" *bang* *bang* *bang*
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: (Score:3)
International agreements and treaties trump state law. It's this little thing called the Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Maybe re-read your Constitution?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see a legitimate argument against that. Specifically that it applies only to things the Federal Gov't has jurisdiction over.
10th 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.
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.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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) T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now IANAL but I think you shot yourself in the foot there.
Your quote from the OSCE document clearly states that participating states [ie the US] invites observers to observe the election "to the extent permitted by law". If the law says they're allowed to observe, but from no closer than 100 feet, then how is that in disagreement with international agreements?
Admittedly you could argue about how much observation can be done from a distance, but it doesn't appear to be in disagreement to me.
Having said that
Re: (Score:3)
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)
IANAConstitutionalL, but I'll play one on slashdot.
With having said that I'll say, then the agreement is illegal
The Constitution states that the states, that make up the country, have control on how elections are handled, except for a few details such as dictating when the elections can happen, but for the most part every state has control over how they handle elections. For the federal govt. to enter in an agreement that defines any procured or policy not dictated by the Constitution is effectively void a
Re: (Score:3)
For the federal govt. to enter in an agreement that defines any procured or policy not dictated by the Constitution is effectively void and cannot be enforced.
Well, you know, except for that obscure, little Supremacy clause, right?
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:4, Interesting)
Funny because he didn't seem to give a flying fuck about the Tea Party people [huffingtonpost.com] who announced that they will be doing the same thing. I guess the major difference is these are "dirty, Socialist Europeans" rather than "true patriots" aligned with his political beliefs.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine if you like being in the same category as Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and everywhere else the US has whinged about not having verifiably free and fair elections.
Re: (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 the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The billboards read, "Voter fraud is a felony", you liar.
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:4, Informative)
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? [usnews.com] 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. [slate.com]
Have fun with that.
You people are just plain losing it.
Waddayamean, "you people??"
LOL
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: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:5, Informative)
1. Bush did prosecute.
2. BP bargained and a conviction was all set.
3. Eric Holder and Obama dropped all the charges.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Informative)
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".
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that just a few days earlier, a Republican staffer in the same state was arrested and charged with voter fraud for discarding the voter registration cards of Democrats [nbcnews.com], the fraud probably balances out....
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: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: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)
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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Does it really matter if both existing parties are essentially the same thing and obeying the hand(s) that feel them?
Yes, because it's more distraction from the fact that the two party system is in fact a one set of interests system.
Voters get confused by the distractions, the broken promises, and the layers of hate these sides pile on each other. People don't see that the complexity of the world can't be reduced down to two parties.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
How do the Blank Panthers, or any other group, intimidate voters? The ballot is secret, no? How can someone intimidate you into making a certain choice when they will never know what choice you made?
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Looks like the AG actually read the law (Score:4, Informative)
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).
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.
This is nothing more than a declaration of intent (Score:5, Insightful)
...of election officials to fix the vote.
Re:This is nothing more than a declaration of inte (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:This is nothing more than a declaration of inte (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:This is nothing more than a declaration of inte (Score:5, Informative)
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:
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.
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?
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:3)
There are independent observers sent to elections all over the world, to ensure there aren't any problems. Some of these observers are American. Why should it be any difference in the homeland?
I want to be able to say that our elections are fair, but only by having a bit of humility and letting some external observer in can we be sure. If observers of any form are being excluded, then who is to say that the process is being respected and they very act of exclusion causes suspicion.
so proud of my country (Score:5, Interesting)
In terms of elections we now have less credibility than Venezuela.
It took real effort to break down confidence in the fairness of U.S. elections within 10 years.
What obligation is there to allow these observers? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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:What obligation is there to allow these observe (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:What obligation is there to allow these observe (Score:5, Funny)
First you say
then you link to a wikipedia article where the first sentence reads:
Care to explain your thought process a bit further?
Re: (Score:3)
The obligation comes from being a participatory member of the organization.
Is Electioneering Different from Witnessing? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Is Electioneering Different from Witnessing? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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?
Legal alternatives? (Score:3)
While there may be no provision for outside organizations, in many states there are provisions for campaigns to designate authorized observers. I've done that in Massachusetts (I was marking off the names of the voters who voted on my own list so that we would not call them in the afternoon get-out-the-vote campaign). Assuming there are similar rules in Texas, it just takes one candidate to designate the observers as official representatives.
Political grandstanding at its finest (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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: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: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.
Nobody talks about how dangerous it is ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... for elections observers to be sent to Afghanistan.
Oh Yes They Do
I've done OSCE election missions, and if I proposed going to Afghanistan my wife would most certainly have something to say about how dangerous it is.
Re: (Score:3)
UPDATE: It#s not about UN observers. It's about OSCE observers.
Re: (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: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, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Then the UN should be sending their observers to Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, or Colorado. Texas is not going to determine the outcome of this race.
They should be sending their observers everywhere. Or a random sample, if they lack resources. Are they not doing that?
Re:Non-local government is a bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an interesting statement as the National Government in the U.S. has almost been totally dominated by corporate interests.
That must mean the state and local governments are rotten through and through. And that sounds about right.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
An inferiority complex that demands they be mollycoddled.
"Yes, you are the biggest state (that counts). Yes you are! You're so important! Don't you worry, we won't let those mean old international observers hurt you! No one is going to hurt my baby Texas!"
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.
There is no reason TO require ID to vote (Score:4, Informative)
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 [youtube.com] 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.