Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What About The Freedom To VOTE? | Ballot Box Bullies

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 19, 2012, 11:29 p.m. EST by WSmith (1904) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Bullies At The Ballot Box: Protecting The Freedom To Vote Against Wrongful Challenges And Intimidation

Are you ready to defend your freedom to Vote?

http://www.demos.org/ Ideas and Action to promote the common good

September 10, 2012 | Liz Kennedy, Tova Wang, Anthony Kammer, Stephen Spaulding, Jenny Flanagan

Protecting the freedom to vote for all eligible Americans is of fundamental importance in a democracy founded upon the consent of the governed. One of the most serious threats to the protection of that essential right is the increase in organized efforts, led by groups such as the Tea Party affiliated True the Vote and others, to challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls and through pre-election challenges. Eligible Americans have a civic duty to vote, and government at the federal, state, and local level has a responsibility to protect voters from illegal interference and intimidation.

As we approach the 2012 elections, every indication is that we will see an unprecedented use of voter challenges. Organizers of True the Vote claim their goal is to train one million poll watchers to challenge and confront other Americans as they go to the polls in November. They say they want to make the experience of voting “like driving and seeing the police following you.”1 There is a real danger that voters will face overzealous volunteers who take the law into their own hands to target voters they deem suspect. But there is no place for bullies at the ballot box.

Even in states with clear legal boundaries for challengers and poll watchers, too often these boundaries are crossed. Laws intended to ensure voting integrity are instead used to make it harder for eligible citizens to vote – particularly those in communities of color. Moreover, the laws of many states states fall short when it comes to preventing improper voter caging and challenges. This should concern anyone who wants a fair election with a legitimate result that reflects the choices of all eligible Americans.

Clear rules that protect voters from improper removal from the rolls by voter caging and challenging, as well as from intimidating behavior at the polls, can help prevent interference with voter rights. This report describes the threat posed by potential voter challenges in the 2012 elections, and assesses the extent to which ten key states — Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia — are prepared to protect the rights of eligible voters to cast a ballot in the face of such challenges. The ten states examined here include states where races are expected to be competitive, which makes voters in those states particularly vulnerable to challenges. We also survey states where a history of aggressive voter challenge programs in recent elections threatened to intimidate voters or interfere with their access to the ballot.

Overview

This report first provides background on the current threat of overly aggressive voter challenge tactics and the history of such efforts in previous elections. The report then details what is permissible and legal when it comes to challenging a voter’s eligibility, both before and on Election Day and inside and outside the polling place. We analyze laws in ten states governing:

The process for challenging a registered voter’s right to vote before Election Day and the use of voter caging lists;

The process for challenging a registered voter’s right to vote on Election Day;

The behavior of poll watchers or observers at the polls on Election Day; and

Protections for voters against intimidation, outside and inside the polls.

The report measures the extent to which each state’s laws protects voters’ rights in these areas, and assesses them in a set of comparative charts as satisfactory, mixed, or unsatisfactory. Each section includes recommendations for best practices in each of the areas we examine.2

Findings

In examining the ten states’ laws governing challenges to voters’ right to vote before Election Day, including the use of voter lists created through caging or other unreliable practices, we find Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio are satisfactory, North Carolina and Texas are mixed, and Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia - five out of the ten states - unsatisfactory.3

In assessing these states’ laws governing challenges to voter’s right to vote on Election Day, and procedures for determining those challenges, we find that while some of the ten states have practices that protect voters’ rights, other states need improvement.4 Texas does not allow for any voter challenges on Election Day, and Ohio only allows challenges by election officials; Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina also have satisfactory protections for voters from improper Election Day challenges.

Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia have laws that are mixed, with some provisions that protect voters’ rights but also room for improvement.

Florida and Pennsylvania have laws with unsatisfactory protections to guard against inappropriate Election Day challenges to voter eligibility.

Our analysis of these states’ laws governing poll watchers or observers and their conduct at the polls shows they are also mixed in the extent to which they protect voters’ rights. The laws of Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia are satisfactory; Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire are mixed. However, Pennsylvania and Texas allow behavior by poll observers or poll watchers that could endanger voting rights.5

We also summarize these states’ laws protecting voters from intimidation, both outside and inside the polls. State and federal laws barring intimidation of voters can be used to protect voters from harassment.6 However, the efficacy of these protections depends on robust enforcement by election administrators and law enforcement officials.

We call upon election administrators and officials with the Department of Justice to take steps in advance of and during the elections to protect voters from bullying at the ballot box. Our intent is to help minimize the level of activity that moves from positive civic engagement to voter intimidation and suppression. There must be zero tolerance for bullying behavior that stands between an eligible voter and her ballot.

Glossary

Caging – the practice of compiling a list of voters based on returned mail for the purpose of challenging their eligibility to vote. A caging list is compiled by conducting a mass-mailing and collecting the names of voters where the mail was returned. Lists may also be built by comparing different databases. Although many caging lists contain inaccuracies or are based on unreliable data, the list is often used to purge voters from registration rolls, or to challenge voters’ eligibility.

Challenge – a formal assertion that a person is not eligible to vote. Depending on the state, challenges may be made during a pre-election period or made in person on Election Day. States vary in terms of who may challenge a voter’s eligibility and the process for determining a voter’s eligibility once it is challenged. The potential for abusing voter challenges is high, particularly where organized groups seek electoral gain.

Challenger – anyone who challenges a voter’s eligibility to vote, whether on or before Election Day. Many states allow any registered voter in the appropriate jurisdiction to serve as a challenger, whereas other states have specific criteria and an official process for designating challengers.

Deceptive practices – the intentional dissemination of false or misleading information about the voting process in order to prevent an eligible voter from casting a ballot, such as by providing misinformation about when or where to vote.

Electioneering –...

Poll watcher – ...

Provisional ballot – ...

Purging – ...

Voter intimidation –...

Introduction

Elections in America should be free, fair, and accessible. Eligible Americans should not have to overcome burdensome barriers to cast their ballots. Unfortunately voters in recent elections have encountered wrongful challenges and intimidation as partisan groups have launched organized efforts in key battleground states and targeted counties. Given the high stakes, voter challenges also are expected to be a major tool used by partisans in the November 2012 elections.

Unwarranted challenges to voters’ eligibility can lead to problems at the polls for everyone seeking to cast a ballot by depleting resources, distracting election administrators and leading to longer lines for voters. Such activities present a real danger to the fair administration of elections and to the fundamental freedom to vote.

Wrongful Challenges and Intimidation in 2012: Reasons for Concern

CONTINUED:

http://www.demos.org/publication/bullies-ballot-box-protecting-freedom-vote-against-wrongful-challenges-and-intimidation

11 Comments

11 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1904) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

New site

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1904) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

We need an Utne Reader of sane websites.

Oh, I hear it coming...

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 2 years ago

voting machine fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T32eRtxEiRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDbnzpXvTkQ


If you are not a computer programmer, you have no idea how easy this is

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1904) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

It's the only way Republicons can win.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1904) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Voter Suppression Should Be A Bigger National Story: Bob Herbert on Rachel Maddow

http://www.demos.org/video/voter-fraud-should-be-bigger-national-story-bob-herbert-rachel-maddow

[-] -2 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

Are you including the New Black Panther party?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1904) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Yes, and the Tooth Fairy, too.

[-] -3 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

Romney 2012