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.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

“VERY DISAPPOINTED”

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

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

“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.

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)


Report typos and corrections to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
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
 

Elections 2016

Conservative Ben Shapiro tweeted something many found offensive — so now he’s calling his critics ‘garbage’

Published

on

Right wing "thought leader" Ben Shapiro appeared today to say not using the "N" word is nearly impossible as he defended conservative, pro-gun teen Kyle Kashuv, one of the Parkland survivors who just had his acceptance to Harvard rescinded over his racist remarks, which included repeated use of the "N" word.

To be clear, Shapiro denies that's what he meant.

Here is Shapiro on Twitter, in what many took as him appearing to call not using the "N" word – in Kashuv's case, repeatedly, over and over and over again, "an insane, cruel standard no one can possibly meet."

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

close-image