Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government The Courts United States Politics

U.S. Curtails Federal Election Observers (fortune.com) 180

Posted by EditorDavid from the change-for-votes dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Curtails Federal Election Observers More

U.S. Curtails Federal Election Observers

Comments Filter:

  • they just lost the ability to be bossy (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    they lost no ability to send people to watch, they just lost the ability to take over and boss the local people around

  • Let's send out Independent Election Observers. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @04:53PM (#52529619) Journal

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      So get out your cameras and keep them rolling.

      And don't forget your nightsticks — can't have the crackas voting the wrong way [wikipedia.org], 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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 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 [ivn.us] voter suppression do exist, as well as death threats about a Mosque [pbs.org] 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.

        • 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 [ivn.us] 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 [pbs.org] being used as a polling station in Florida.

          Completely off-topic.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by 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 [tucson.com]. 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 d

      • Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dywolf ( 2673597 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @08:11AM (#52532857)

        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. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dywolf ( 2673597 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @08:34AM (#52532985)

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

        http://www.outsidethebeltway.c... [outsidethebeltway.com]
        http://www.outsidethebeltway.c... [outsidethebeltway.com]

        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.

        • 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.

          How many true the vote members were pointing weapons at people and shouting racist remarks?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Holi ( 250190 )
        Funny how the Right did the exact same thing yet you fail to mention it, Why is that? Oh and their were guns involved. I am sick and tired of shitheads cherry picking their outrage. If you are outraged about these actions then be outraged by them all or shut your racist trap.

        http://mediamatters.org/blog/2... [mediamatters.org]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          If MediaMatters calls the circumstances of the crimes "identical", you can rest assured, the Right's "crime" is nothing but jaywalking compared to the Left's aggravated murder. Indeed, those Minutemen were "guilty" of:

          • recording people in a public place;
          • asking them, whether they are eligible to vote;
          • possessing a weapon (one pistol for three men)

          . Sorry, but there is just "no there there". No weapon was ever pointed at anyone, and no derogatory remarks about anybody's race were said.

          Ah, and your link cites

    • Federal observers have a right to be there, and cannot be denied entry or required to leave.

    • Because so much happened to Clinton's camp when they were taped doing stuff like this during the primaries.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Salgak1 ( 20136 )

      . . . and yet, when sketchy results are reported (example, electronic voting machines visibly changing ballots, or preventing votes from registering for a candidate [thepoliticalinsider.com]. . .), nothing seems to get done about it .

      This is why I take my phone into the voting booth. That way, I have an independently-corroborated record of what I am reporting to have occurred. (Note: I have not observed such results personally. But, if it occurs, I will damned sure get a record of it. . . )

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      oh don't worry.

      the tea baggers will be out in droves to make sure minorities feel right as home as they try to vote.

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

    (2) who gains by restricting observers ?

    • Probably Trump (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @05:22PM (#52529729) Homepage Journal

      (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 [thepoliticalinsider.com] (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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@noSPAm.earthlink.net> on Sunday July 17, 2016 @06:02PM (#52529859)

        "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: (Score:2)

        by TroII ( 4484479 )

        There's a ton of voter fraud in the US

        You've got that right. This guy voted 7 times in one election [salon.com] and at least 12 times in total over two years.

    • You're asking the wrong question. The question that must be asked is how do you expect the federal government to independently audit an election for federal office? That's not independent. Do you ever wonder why the federal government doesn't just run elections? What would the federal government gain by being able to control who gets elected? Everything. Which is why we don't let them do that. Not even the states run the elections. Elections are run by volunteers.

      • Other countries manage to have independent government elections monitors. It's perfectly doable.

        No, the issue here is that the Constitution doesn't specify how the states vote, so there's not much for the Feds to monitor.

        Well, the REAL issue here is that the US system didn't work out the way it was intended, and has evolved into a weird chimera system of 'independent states' with a powerful Federal government. But you get my point.

  • If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind severe scrutiny and observation!

    Right? Isn't that how it works?

  • This is exactly how voter suppression works (Score:3)

    by macsimcon ( 682390 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @05:24PM (#52529735)

    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 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

      • what about dead people who still on the rolls some times for years.

      • You should be automatically registered to vote when you do things like get a drivers license.

        Legal residents who are citizens of foreign countries can get driver's licenses, generally speaking. You are proposing that they automatically be allowed to vote.

    • You can't let the government audit the vote, because it would be auditing itself. You can't have an audit without independence.

      Fortunately, we already have the answer to this problem: votes are counted by voter-volunteers, not by government employees or politicians or appointees. Were you aware of that? Every single vote that is counted is done by one of your fellow citizens. It's hens guarding the hen house, not foxes.

  • WTF? (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by blindseer ( 891256 )

    [quote]In Sandoval County, New Mexico, federal observer reports showed that Native-American voters had difficulty getting voting information in their native languages during the decade between 1994 and 2004, according to a 2011 court order in a case the United States brought against the county.[/quote]

    To me "Native-American" means that this person descends from a people that lived on the land now known as America before it became known as America. America has since the beginning been a place where English

    • That's what I get for hitting "submit" before "preview".

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

      Keres and Navajo [justice.gov], according to this.

      I call bullshit on this.

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

      • Which is insane given that the Navajo language [wikipedia.org] was not put into written form until the 1930s. Well after English was "standard" throughout the US.
        • The Cherokee tribe adopted a written form of their language (a syllabary, not an alphabet as such) developed by Sequoyah [wikipedia.org] 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 change in the law was to require the DoJ to actually have a current factual basis to micro-manage and oversee elections in that state. That there were problems in particular states pre-1965 doesn't mean the federal government will forever observe elections there. Basically the law inserted federal officials into state elections based on historical events that occurred prior to the signing of the bill, once signed into law, there was no path for a state to come off the 'watch list'.

  • The Timing (Score:3)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @08:52PM (#52530671)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )

      Not that it matters, no matter who wins, ( Ego A or Ego B ) we all lose anyway.

      You realize there are more options than Hillary or Trump, right? I understand that any of those candidates or parties are an absolute long shot for the presidency, but if you think we're fucked if either Hillary or Trump get in, why not "waste" your vote on one of the other candidates, and get a few of your friends and relatives to join you. It may not happen this election, but if the "outsider" parties start gaining traction we may be able to get out of the two-party-system hellhole.

  • Doesn't every polling place have observers? In Canada (and other British Commonwealth countries), every political party is entitled to have an volunteer observer called "scrutineer" present at the registration table, and that person also assists in the ballot count.

    Does this happen in the US?
    If not, it seems reasonable to have somebody watching what goes on.

    Without neutral observers asserting that the process is fair, it seems pretty certain that it isn't.

  • Just like Jim Crow. Even when they couldn't even show 0.01% of the votes were fraud. Even when they only had 17 cases the previous year out of several million votes.

    Maybe the Carter Foundation will send out observers.

                  mark

  • Our federal government has One Job. Defend the public, and adhering to the constitution ensure the sacred institution of government for the people by the people remains as such.

    Elections are fraught with voter fraud attempts.....

    How is it that there are BILLIONS to throw away on the most absurd things..... and yet not a single Million$ or two to spare to make sure there are eyes on every single polling place: and abuses or interferences are not occurring that could undermine election processes?

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close