Quantcast
Connect with us

Federal election observers will only be allowed in five states in November

Published

on

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, a signature legislative achievement of the 1960s civil rights movement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Voting rights advocates told Reuters they were concerned that the scaling-back of observers would make it harder to detect and counter efforts to intimidate or hinder voters, especially in southern states with a history of racial discrimination at the ballot box.

The Supreme Court ruling undercut a key section of the Act that requires such states to obtain U.S. approval before changing election laws. The court struck down the formula used to determine which states were affected.

By doing so, it ended the Justice Department’s ability to select voting areas it deemed at risk of racial discrimination and deploy observers there, the fact sheet said.

Eleven mostly Southern states had been certified as needing federal observers by the department.

ADVERTISEMENT

Federal observers can still be sent to monitor elections but only when authorized by federal court rulings. Currently, courts have done so in five states: Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, and New York, according to the Justice Department.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the fact sheet or say how many people will be deployed to monitor voting until closer to the Nov. 8 election pitting Republican Donald Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

In recent presidential elections, the Justice Department has sent more than 780 people to watch elections around the country. They were split into three categories. The Supreme Court ruling reduced that to two, according to the document.

ADVERTISEMENT

One category is Justice Department staff, who have no statutory authority to access polling sites but still monitor voting nationwide. They must rely on local and state authorities to grant them access to polling locations.

A second group are federal observers trained by the Office of Personnel Management with unfettered access to polling sites. They are only deployed by federal court order.

A third group — which the document said has been eliminated by the Supreme Court decision — are federal observers deployed to jurisdictions that the attorney general selected based on evidence of possible racial discrimination. They were also trained by the Office of Personnel Management and had full access to polling sites.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

Since Congress passed the 1965 Act, federal observers have gathered evidence of unlawful activity and prepared reports from polling sites that can be used as evidence in court.

In the November 2004 presidential election, the last for which the Justice Department provided numbers of federal observers, about 840 federal observers and more than 250 department personnel were dispatched to polling sites in 86 jurisdictions in 25 states.

ADVERTISEMENT

“VERY DISAPPOINTED”

“The mix of tools has shifted,” said Justin Levitt, who oversees the Justice Department’s voting section.

The department still has the ability to send in personnel and take legal action against election officials where necessary, he said in an interview.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Justice Department staff who monitor elections have significantly less authority than federal observers.

At any point on Election Day, Justice Department staff can be denied entry to a voting area or asked to leave, unlike a federal observer. That could make it more difficult to gather evidence of voting problems and potentially make it harder to prosecute cases of suppression, say voting rights advocates.

Suppression can take a number of forms, such as intimidating or misinforming voters, or denying them access to voting materials in their own language.

ADVERTISEMENT

Relying on Justice Department personnel to monitor elections is “a far cry” from federal observers who are statutorily authorized to be inside the polling place, said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based non-profit Campaign Legal Center.

Hebert, a former senior Justice Department voting rights official, oversaw teams of federal observers in the U.S. South before leaving the department in 1994.

Federal observer reports have been cited in court cases by groups alleging voter fraud.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

“We’re very disappointed by the decision of the Justice Department,” said Ho. The Supreme Court ruling did not mention the federal observer program specifically, “so I don’t think this decision was inevitable,” he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Anita Earls, the executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice and a former senior official in the Justice Department’s voting section, said the guaranteed ability of federal observers to examine voter registration rolls and remain inside polling stations makes them more effective than Justice Department staff at catching voter suppression.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan in Washington; Editing by Jason Szep and Mark Trevelyan)

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from billionaires and corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. Unlike other news sites, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.



Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump approves of North Korea missile tests: ‘I have no problem’ because they’re just ‘short-range missiles’

Published

on

On Thursday, in conversation with reporters, President Donald Trump said that he had 'no problem' with North Korea's new round of missile tests.

"Short-range missiles, we never made an agreement on that," said Trump. "I have no problem, we'll see what happens, but these are short-range missiles. They're very standard."

The thought that short-range missiles would still be capable of hitting our allies in the region, like South Korea and Japan, does not seem to have occurred to him.

Watch below:

Trump says he has "no problem" with North Korea testing missiles because they are just "short-range missiles" that are "very standard." pic.twitter.com/fdKtQ6yrBE

Continue Reading

Elections 2016

Russian Twitter propaganda predicted 2016 US election polls

Published

on

When Robert Mueller completed his long-awaited investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, he left many questions unanswered.

But one conclusion was unequivocal: Russia unleashed an extensive campaign of fake news and disinformation on social media with the aim of distorting U.S. public opinion, sowing discord and swinging the election in favor of the Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Continue Reading
 

Elections 2016

Beto O’Rourke calls for a ‘war tax’ in release of health care plan for veterans

Published

on

The Democratic presidential candidate uses his eighth policy announcement to focus on an area that he prioritized in Congress.

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke on Monday morning released a plan to improve the lives of veterans, returning to an area of priority during his time in the U.S. House for his latest 2020 policy rollout.

In keeping with measures he supported in Congress, the plan calls for a "responsible end" to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — reinvesting $1 out of every $2 saved in veterans programs — and the creation of a Veterans Health Care Trust Fund for each future war. The fund would be paid for by a "war tax" on households without service members or veterans.

Continue Reading
 
 

Thank you for whitelisting Raw Story!

As a special thank you, from now until August 31st, we're offering you a discounted rate of $5.99/month to subscribe and get ad-free access. We're honored to have you as a reader. Thank you. :) —Elias, Membership Coordinator
LEARN MORE
close-link
close-image