info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can the election be overturned?
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Roy
Oct 30, 2022, 12:33:32 AM10/30/22
to
People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or more
from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing these
observers to stop their activities.
The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups are
appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
could the Arizona election results be declared invalid and the election
ordered to be held again? An Arizona Senate seat is up for election so
it could matter a great deal.
micky
Oct 30, 2022, 10:18:40 AM10/30/22
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 29 Oct 2022 21:33:28 -0700 (PDT), Roy
> and the election
>ordered to be held again?
No.
> An Arizona Senate seat is up for election so
>it could matter a great deal.
How would prohibiting people from watching ballot boxes change the
results of an election? Neither their presence nor their absence
changes the results**, and there has to be connection between a problem
and a proposed remedy. That is, it's not a remedy if it doesn't relate
to the problem. **Unless their presence did or would
intimidate voters and prevent them from coming, in which case the order
should have been granted. But the court in its infinite wisdom decided
that was not the case. And this would be the opposite situation from
what you are suggesting. But under any case, while allowing the
watchers might intimidate voters, banning the watchers would neither
intimidate nor encourage voters, so the only problem is if they were not
banned when they should have been, the opposite possibility from what
happened.
What is it these watchers do anyhow? They apparently don't inspect the
ballots being deposited. They stay 75 feet away. So why do they bother
to be there? I think it's clear: They have binoculars or cameras with
zoom lenses with which they photograph the voters and their license
plates. In order to intimidate voters. In which case they shouldst'
be there even if they are 75 feet away. 75 feet is one rule but
stopping intimidation is another.
Sadly, even though the order was not given, like maybe it should have
been, even if it should have been, that would not overturn the election
either. Intimidators know this***, that even were they to found to be
committing a crime and punished, they would still have accomplished what
they wanted, voter intimidation.
What I'd like to see is groups of 4, for their own self-protection,
going to all these locations, daily and nightly, and photographing the
license plates and cars of those who are trying to intimidate voters.
There is a law against intimidating voters but don't think there is one
about intimidating intimidators. They should photograph the driver and
passengers too. Is it assault if you don't touch the person but you
pull his mask away from his face to photograph him? (I'll bet these
people aren't vaccinated and don't wear masks, except when they are
trying to intimidate voters.) And after the pictures are taken, talk
to them and explain if there is trouble, your log and the pictures will
be given to the police. They can dish it out; let's see if they can
take it too.
***There are lots of ways to lessen the number of legal votes for one's
opponents. There are others being used this year but here's just one
that I learned about directly: When I was in Chicago in 1967, there was
a special election for a city counsel vacancy. "Official" looking
letters were sent out saying which lever to pull to vote for the
independent candidate. But the lever number was intentionally wrong, it
was the number of the machine candidate. Some percentage of the voters
would not notice and would vote based on that number. Was that grounds
for overturning the election? I'm sure it was not.
By the way, I was an official poll watcher and I had my tire slashed
that election day because I had a bumper sticker on the car for the
independent candidate. Yes, I was parked more than the required
distance from the voting place.
Another personal story omitted.
AIUI, most of the dirty machine politics were cleaned up not long after
I left Chicago. I haven't heard about downstate.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
<monta...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
>people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or more
>from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing these
>observers to stop their activities.
>
>The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups are
>appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
>
>If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
>could the Arizona election results be declared invalid
No.
>
>People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
>people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or more
>from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing these
>observers to stop their activities.
>
>The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups are
>appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
>
>If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
>could the Arizona election results be declared invalid
> and the election
>ordered to be held again?
> An Arizona Senate seat is up for election so
>it could matter a great deal.
results of an election? Neither their presence nor their absence
changes the results**, and there has to be connection between a problem
and a proposed remedy. That is, it's not a remedy if it doesn't relate
to the problem. **Unless their presence did or would
intimidate voters and prevent them from coming, in which case the order
should have been granted. But the court in its infinite wisdom decided
that was not the case. And this would be the opposite situation from
what you are suggesting. But under any case, while allowing the
watchers might intimidate voters, banning the watchers would neither
intimidate nor encourage voters, so the only problem is if they were not
banned when they should have been, the opposite possibility from what
happened.
What is it these watchers do anyhow? They apparently don't inspect the
ballots being deposited. They stay 75 feet away. So why do they bother
to be there? I think it's clear: They have binoculars or cameras with
zoom lenses with which they photograph the voters and their license
plates. In order to intimidate voters. In which case they shouldst'
be there even if they are 75 feet away. 75 feet is one rule but
stopping intimidation is another.
Sadly, even though the order was not given, like maybe it should have
been, even if it should have been, that would not overturn the election
either. Intimidators know this***, that even were they to found to be
committing a crime and punished, they would still have accomplished what
they wanted, voter intimidation.
What I'd like to see is groups of 4, for their own self-protection,
going to all these locations, daily and nightly, and photographing the
license plates and cars of those who are trying to intimidate voters.
There is a law against intimidating voters but don't think there is one
about intimidating intimidators. They should photograph the driver and
passengers too. Is it assault if you don't touch the person but you
pull his mask away from his face to photograph him? (I'll bet these
people aren't vaccinated and don't wear masks, except when they are
trying to intimidate voters.) And after the pictures are taken, talk
to them and explain if there is trouble, your log and the pictures will
be given to the police. They can dish it out; let's see if they can
take it too.
***There are lots of ways to lessen the number of legal votes for one's
opponents. There are others being used this year but here's just one
that I learned about directly: When I was in Chicago in 1967, there was
a special election for a city counsel vacancy. "Official" looking
letters were sent out saying which lever to pull to vote for the
independent candidate. But the lever number was intentionally wrong, it
was the number of the machine candidate. Some percentage of the voters
would not notice and would vote based on that number. Was that grounds
for overturning the election? I'm sure it was not.
By the way, I was an official poll watcher and I had my tire slashed
that election day because I had a bumper sticker on the car for the
independent candidate. Yes, I was parked more than the required
distance from the voting place.
Another personal story omitted.
AIUI, most of the dirty machine politics were cleaned up not long after
I left Chicago. I haven't heard about downstate.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
Roy
Oct 30, 2022, 11:03:30 AM10/30/22
to
On 10/30/2022 7:18 AM, micky wrote a long note that I am not including
Some more info:
1) AFAIK, it would be illegal (assault?) to forcibly remove the mask of
another person. Obviously exclusions for police, etc
2) Arizona gun laws allow open and concealed carry (with restrictions).
No permits are needed.
3) One video showed someone uncovering the license plate on a vehicle.
It was covered by an American flag. Arizona doesn't require a front
plate. If the vehicle was parked on private property, an exposed plate
not be required. On a public area it would be.
4) In 2016, Arizona passed HB 2023 to restrict ballot harvesting unless
the person collecting the ballot is a family member, a person living in
the same household, or a caregiver. A few days ago (10/13), someone was
convicted of ballot harvesting. As an example someone putting in 20
ballots would be a bit suspicious and might be reported to law enforcement.
I guess the a legal question would be if a person were photographing
people at the ballot box from more than 75 feet away, would the police
be violating his/her rights by stopping and questioning them. Note that
I used "stopping". A friendly hello and some innocuous questions from
the officer would be fine. Example: what sort of camera is that?
Some more info:
1) AFAIK, it would be illegal (assault?) to forcibly remove the mask of
another person. Obviously exclusions for police, etc
2) Arizona gun laws allow open and concealed carry (with restrictions).
No permits are needed.
3) One video showed someone uncovering the license plate on a vehicle.
It was covered by an American flag. Arizona doesn't require a front
plate. If the vehicle was parked on private property, an exposed plate
not be required. On a public area it would be.
4) In 2016, Arizona passed HB 2023 to restrict ballot harvesting unless
the person collecting the ballot is a family member, a person living in
the same household, or a caregiver. A few days ago (10/13), someone was
convicted of ballot harvesting. As an example someone putting in 20
ballots would be a bit suspicious and might be reported to law enforcement.
I guess the a legal question would be if a person were photographing
people at the ballot box from more than 75 feet away, would the police
be violating his/her rights by stopping and questioning them. Note that
I used "stopping". A friendly hello and some innocuous questions from
the officer would be fine. Example: what sort of camera is that?
Barry Gold
Oct 30, 2022, 12:22:40 PM10/30/22
to
> 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 Place of Chusing Senators.
(US Constitution, Article I, Section 4)
AFAIK Congress has not (yet) made any rules about election observers.
I should note that most states have a system that looks something like this:
1. Voters line up (if needed) and are called forward one at a time.
2. The voter states their name, and a poll worker looks them up in a
large book of voter names and addresses.
3. The voter goes on to a second poll worker, who has a similar book,
with a column for signatures. The voter signs their name in the spot
reserved, and the first poll worker crosses their name off.
4. They are issued a ballot and (in the case of a primary), directed to
a booth with a device (e.g., punch holes or an actual machine) suitable
to their registered party, if any. In a general (or "non-partisan)
election, the voter can use any booth.
5. They mark their ballot according to the instructions.
6. They drop their ballot in a box. (In some states, they vote on a
machine that displays options on a touch screen. AFAIK, these machines
then generate a ballot that can be read both by the voter and by a
machine. The voter inspects the ballot, then slides it back into the
machine which registers their vote. Thus, the count can be cross-checked
in case of a dispute.)
AFAIK each party can send a number of poll watchers (specified by the
state law) to observe, but they must not interfere with or attempt to
intimidate or "assist" voters. (One or more poll workers are available
for voters who request assistance.)
If the observers are the required distance -- again set by the state
legislature -- I don't see any reason why they should be banned.
If a court were to issue such an order, I would expect a higher court to
act swiftly if it were against state law. At the moment I don't think
the US Constitution has any requirements in that area. Congress could
enact such laws (see above), but AFAIK they have yet not done so.
Whether another election could/would be held is, again, entirely up to
state law.
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
Roy
Oct 30, 2022, 1:49:07 PM10/30/22
to
The process you mention is typical for when you are voting in person.
The ballot box being discussed is a the one for absentee voting. These
are usually located around the area to make it convenient to drop off
your completed ballot. They are unmanned and are available 27x7.
I was able to register for permanent absentee voting in both California
and Arizona.
In Arizona, I would take my wife's and my ballots to a ballot dropbox
located next to a local city hall.
Here in Oregon it is similar except Oregon doesn't have any in-person
voting. It is all done by mail. I follow the same procedure dropping
my ballot off at a local city hall.
I don't want to take a chance with the post office.
Barry Gold
Oct 31, 2022, 1:14:54 AM10/31/22
to
On 10/30/2022 10:49 AM, Roy wrote:
> > People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or more
from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing these
observers to stop their activities.
> > The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups
are appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
> > If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
could the Arizona election results be declared invalid and the election
ordered to be held again? An Arizona Senate seat is up for election so
it could matter a great deal
> > People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or more
from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing these
observers to stop their activities.
> > The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups
are appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
> > If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
could the Arizona election results be declared invalid and the election
ordered to be held again? An Arizona Senate seat is up for election so
it could matter a great deal
> The process you mention is typical for when you are voting in person.
>
> The ballot box being discussed is a the one for absentee voting. These
> are usually located around the area to make it convenient to drop off
> your completed ballot. They are unmanned and are available 27x7.
That changes my opinion on the original question (quoted above).
>
> The ballot box being discussed is a the one for absentee voting. These
> are usually located around the area to make it convenient to drop off
> your completed ballot. They are unmanned and are available 27x7.
Let's assume that an order were issed forcing the observers to stop
"observing" people depositing their ballots.
Removing the observers seems unlikely to affect the outcome in a legally
significant way. That is, if they were to continue their observation,
they might discourage some legitimate voters from voting, but that's not
a reason to redo the election.
The "observers" might make an argument thaht by sitting there they are
discouraging cheating (people voting who shouldn't have). But I can't
see any honest judge ordering a new election. The system already methods
for detecting/preventing cheating built in. At least in CA, the voter
must sign the envelope. The signature is then compared with the
signature on the affadavit of registration, and if it matches the
envelope is opened, the still folded ballot transferred to a box, and
the fact that that person voted is recorded.
So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
to intervene.
Roy
Oct 31, 2022, 10:49:04 AM10/31/22
to
On 10/30/2022 10:14 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
> ...
to remove the observers.
One more important fact:
In most states there are multiple dropoff boxes. Someone could go to
another box.
In addition, since these are absentee ballots then they can be mailed
via USPS. One can drop them into a USPS mailbox somewhere, deliver them
to the post office, or put them in your own mailbox, raise the flag, and
the mailperson will pick it up.
>
> ...
>
> So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
> start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
> winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
> and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
> becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
> to intervene.
If there is no reason to overturn the election then there is no reason
> So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
> start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
> winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
> and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
> becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
> to intervene.
to remove the observers.
One more important fact:
In most states there are multiple dropoff boxes. Someone could go to
another box.
In addition, since these are absentee ballots then they can be mailed
via USPS. One can drop them into a USPS mailbox somewhere, deliver them
to the post office, or put them in your own mailbox, raise the flag, and
the mailperson will pick it up.
>
Elle N
Oct 31, 2022, 1:07:38 PM10/31/22
to
Get enough state secretaries of state and election commissioners to be unreasonable and undermine actual vote totals, perhaps with some support from the courts, and elections can be overturned.
Once enough chaos ensues; and the mob is burning down the homes of election deniers and lynching said deniers' parents; and the courts are staffed by unreasonable people who refuse to prosecute anyone; and the deniers have seen enough violent death that they realize the path to their grandchildren surviving is narrow indeed; then the deniers will start to become reasonable.
I call this the cycle of history. Something that college students seem to absorb less and less in their classes. Something that the 60+% of 25+ year olds who did not graduate with a bachelor's degree may not know at all.
I predict a rough ride in the coming decade.
Once enough chaos ensues; and the mob is burning down the homes of election deniers and lynching said deniers' parents; and the courts are staffed by unreasonable people who refuse to prosecute anyone; and the deniers have seen enough violent death that they realize the path to their grandchildren surviving is narrow indeed; then the deniers will start to become reasonable.
I call this the cycle of history. Something that college students seem to absorb less and less in their classes. Something that the 60+% of 25+ year olds who did not graduate with a bachelor's degree may not know at all.
I predict a rough ride in the coming decade.
micky
Nov 1, 2022, 10:05:46 AM11/1/22
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Roy
no matter how small, but I think he means "good and sufficiently big".
If that's what he means, your line above doesn't follow. And if that's
not what he means, it should be. :-)
There are endless situations where something is wrong and/or prohibited
but doing it anyway is often or even always not sufficient reason to
overturn an election or undo whatever else is being done. I can't
manage to think clearly of an example right now but I'll try harder if
you want. (I know this sounds flaky, but I've postponed answering for a
day and I want to express my position even if I can't think of examples
now, other than the one being discussed.)
De minimus non curat lex. Not sure what is mean by curat. If it
means not stopping a mininmal wrong, that would help you but if it means
not applying a remedy *after* a minimal wrong has been done, I think it
helps me. I think "cure" means the latter.
BTW, the DOJ is not done with this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/31/doj-drop-box-monitoring-arizona/
>One more important fact:
>
>In most states there are multiple dropoff boxes. Someone could go to
>another box.
What if there is someone watchlng it too? And you are right about
"most" because I read about one city where only one box was left after
they removed all the others.
>In addition, since these are absentee ballots then they can be mailed
>via USPS. One can drop them into a USPS mailbox somewhere, deliver them
>to the post office, or put them in your own mailbox, raise the flag, and
>the mailperson will pick it up.
Yes there are other ways to vote, but if someone is tryiung to
intimidate voters, shouldn't they still be stopped? If there are
muggers at one grocery store but I can go to another, sholdn't the
muggers be stopped anyhow?
<monta...@outlook.com> wrote:
>On 10/30/2022 10:14 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
>> start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
>> winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
>> and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
>> becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
>> to intervene.
>
>If there is no reason to overturn the election then there is no reason
>to remove the observers.
Maybe that seems to follow if one takes Barry's word "good" to mean good
>On 10/30/2022 10:14 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
>> start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
>> winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
>> and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
>> becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
>> to intervene.
>
>If there is no reason to overturn the election then there is no reason
>to remove the observers.
no matter how small, but I think he means "good and sufficiently big".
If that's what he means, your line above doesn't follow. And if that's
not what he means, it should be. :-)
There are endless situations where something is wrong and/or prohibited
but doing it anyway is often or even always not sufficient reason to
overturn an election or undo whatever else is being done. I can't
manage to think clearly of an example right now but I'll try harder if
you want. (I know this sounds flaky, but I've postponed answering for a
day and I want to express my position even if I can't think of examples
now, other than the one being discussed.)
De minimus non curat lex. Not sure what is mean by curat. If it
means not stopping a mininmal wrong, that would help you but if it means
not applying a remedy *after* a minimal wrong has been done, I think it
helps me. I think "cure" means the latter.
BTW, the DOJ is not done with this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/31/doj-drop-box-monitoring-arizona/
>One more important fact:
>
>In most states there are multiple dropoff boxes. Someone could go to
>another box.
"most" because I read about one city where only one box was left after
they removed all the others.
>In addition, since these are absentee ballots then they can be mailed
>via USPS. One can drop them into a USPS mailbox somewhere, deliver them
>to the post office, or put them in your own mailbox, raise the flag, and
>the mailperson will pick it up.
intimidate voters, shouldn't they still be stopped? If there are
muggers at one grocery store but I can go to another, sholdn't the
muggers be stopped anyhow?
Bernie Cosell
Nov 2, 2022, 3:43:16 PM11/2/22
to
Roy <monta...@outlook.com> wrote:
} In Arizona, I would take my wife's and my ballots to a ballot dropbox
} located next to a local city hall.
}
} Here in Oregon it is similar except Oregon doesn't have any in-person
} voting. It is all done by mail. I follow the same procedure dropping
} my ballot off at a local city hall.
}
} I don't want to take a chance with the post office.
Here in Virginia there is "early voting" from something like a month before
} In Arizona, I would take my wife's and my ballots to a ballot dropbox
} located next to a local city hall.
}
} Here in Oregon it is similar except Oregon doesn't have any in-person
} voting. It is all done by mail. I follow the same procedure dropping
} my ballot off at a local city hall.
}
} I don't want to take a chance with the post office.
election day. You go to the local registrar of election's office and you
get to vote. No fuss , no muss. And you _know_ your ballot made it in
time. Do other states offer that convenient and secure option?
[side note: I live in rural VA where the voting precincts span quite a
large area. My precinct is over a half-hour's drive away. So an hour+
of commuting to spend two minutes voting has always rankled. BUT: the
registrar's office is in town -- right across from the gas station and
super market I use -- so it was a wonderful discovery that I could vote
with just a five minute diversion while I'm running about doing chores]
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
ber...@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
Rick
Nov 2, 2022, 8:26:56 PM11/2/22
to
"Bernie Cosell" wrote in message
news:sdq4mhdu1nkgod7tp...@4ax.com...
I have been voting by mail in Florida for literally the last 20 years, which
means filling out the paper ballot from home and mailing it through the US
Postal Service. In the early days it was referred to as "Absentee Voting",
but unlike other states at the time, you did not require any special excuse,
such as not being in town on election day. Anyone could request a ballot
without having to specify a reason, and the request was never denied if you
were a registered voter. I believe you did have to put proper postage on
the envelope and I don't recall that there was an easy way to verify that
your vote was actually received.
At some point in recent years (I don't remember when, exactly) they stopped
calling it Absente voting and it simply became Voting by Mail. It also
changed that the provided envelope already had postage on it so you could
mail it for free. Also, for the past several cycles (again, I don't recall
when this started), you could log onto the voter site a few days after
mailing the ballot and confirm that the vote was actually received. It's
such a clean and easy process, I honestly wonder why more people don't do it
this way.
--
news:sdq4mhdu1nkgod7tp...@4ax.com...
means filling out the paper ballot from home and mailing it through the US
Postal Service. In the early days it was referred to as "Absentee Voting",
but unlike other states at the time, you did not require any special excuse,
such as not being in town on election day. Anyone could request a ballot
without having to specify a reason, and the request was never denied if you
were a registered voter. I believe you did have to put proper postage on
the envelope and I don't recall that there was an easy way to verify that
your vote was actually received.
At some point in recent years (I don't remember when, exactly) they stopped
calling it Absente voting and it simply became Voting by Mail. It also
changed that the provided envelope already had postage on it so you could
mail it for free. Also, for the past several cycles (again, I don't recall
when this started), you could log onto the voter site a few days after
mailing the ballot and confirm that the vote was actually received. It's
such a clean and easy process, I honestly wonder why more people don't do it
this way.
--
micky
Nov 3, 2022, 9:26:19 PM11/3/22
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT), micky
for one from a different situation.
In the instant situation, imagine that the observers are without a doubt
intimidating voters. They have guns (as the current ones do in real
life), they show the guns to the voters (I don't know if that is
happening now), they point them at them or in the general direction.
They have cameras. They post signs by the boxes that voters licenses
are being recorded as described below***. And in addition to what's
listed below, let's assume they actually stop cars sometimes, but more
than 75 feet away, and tell them threatening things. But they can only
show that 10 people were frightened away and ended up not voting at all.
And the winning guy later won by 1000 votes, far more than 10. And even
those 10 could have voted some other way.
Do you still think that "then there is no reason to remove the
observers." just because there is not enough reason to overturn the
election?
Seems to me improper, illegal acts should be stopped, whether they are
sufficient to steal an election or not. One more reason is that if you
don't, there will be 4 times as many people doing it for the next
election.
***
https://www.governing.com/now/king-county-to-investigate-gop-ballot-box-surveillance
The signs in question were posted near ballot boxes in several Seattle
and Eastside locations, with red letters warning the boxes were "under
surveillance" and implying criminal consequences "for harvesting or
depositing ballots" for pay.
The signs included a scannable QR code that linked to a King County
Republican Party website and form encouraging people to submit "incident
reports" documenting allegedly suspicious activity.
>but doing it anyway is often or even always not sufficient reason to
>overturn an election or undo whatever else is being done. I can't
>manage to think clearly of an example right now but I'll try harder if
>you want. (I know this sounds flaky, but I've postponed answering for a
>day and I want to express my position even if I can't think of examples
>now, other than the one being discussed.)
-----
<mis...@fmguy.com> wrote:
>In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Roy
><monta...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/30/2022 10:14 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
>>> start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
>>> winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
>>> and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
>>> becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
>>> to intervene.
>>
>>If there is no reason to overturn the election then there is no reason
>>to remove the observers.
>
>Maybe that seems to follow if one takes Barry's word "good" to mean good
>no matter how small, but I think he means "good and sufficiently big".
>If that's what he means, your line above doesn't follow. And if that's
>not what he means, it should be. :-)
>
>There are endless situations where something is wrong and/or prohibited
The best example was right before my eyes and instead I was searching
>In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Roy
><monta...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/30/2022 10:14 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
>>> start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
>>> winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
>>> and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
>>> becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
>>> to intervene.
>>
>>If there is no reason to overturn the election then there is no reason
>>to remove the observers.
>
>Maybe that seems to follow if one takes Barry's word "good" to mean good
>no matter how small, but I think he means "good and sufficiently big".
>If that's what he means, your line above doesn't follow. And if that's
>not what he means, it should be. :-)
>
>There are endless situations where something is wrong and/or prohibited
for one from a different situation.
In the instant situation, imagine that the observers are without a doubt
intimidating voters. They have guns (as the current ones do in real
life), they show the guns to the voters (I don't know if that is
happening now), they point them at them or in the general direction.
They have cameras. They post signs by the boxes that voters licenses
are being recorded as described below***. And in addition to what's
listed below, let's assume they actually stop cars sometimes, but more
than 75 feet away, and tell them threatening things. But they can only
show that 10 people were frightened away and ended up not voting at all.
And the winning guy later won by 1000 votes, far more than 10. And even
those 10 could have voted some other way.
Do you still think that "then there is no reason to remove the
observers." just because there is not enough reason to overturn the
election?
Seems to me improper, illegal acts should be stopped, whether they are
sufficient to steal an election or not. One more reason is that if you
don't, there will be 4 times as many people doing it for the next
election.
***
https://www.governing.com/now/king-county-to-investigate-gop-ballot-box-surveillance
The signs in question were posted near ballot boxes in several Seattle
and Eastside locations, with red letters warning the boxes were "under
surveillance" and implying criminal consequences "for harvesting or
depositing ballots" for pay.
The signs included a scannable QR code that linked to a King County
Republican Party website and form encouraging people to submit "incident
reports" documenting allegedly suspicious activity.
>but doing it anyway is often or even always not sufficient reason to
>overturn an election or undo whatever else is being done. I can't
>manage to think clearly of an example right now but I'll try harder if
>you want. (I know this sounds flaky, but I've postponed answering for a
>day and I want to express my position even if I can't think of examples
>now, other than the one being discussed.)
Roy
Nov 4, 2022, 1:23:20 AM11/4/22
to
On 11/3/2022 6:26 PM, micky wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes there are other ways to vote, but if someone is tryiung to
>> intimidate voters, shouldn't they still be stopped? If there are
>> muggers at one grocery store but I can go to another, sholdn't the
>> muggers be stopped anyhow?
>>>>
>
>
From what I can tell, the "observers" were sitting quietly and filming
>
>>
>> Yes there are other ways to vote, but if someone is tryiung to
>> intimidate voters, shouldn't they still be stopped? If there are
>> muggers at one grocery store but I can go to another, sholdn't the
>> muggers be stopped anyhow?
>>>>
>
>
things. They had guns and body armor (all legal). If asked they may
have said they are there to observe and document possible voting fraud.
The guns and stuff were for personal protection.
A few months ago pro abortion protestors loudly demonstrated near homes
of the Supreme Court justices and harassed then at dinner in a
restaurant. They were trying to in intimate the votes in violation of
Federal law but they were no prosecuted.
Why the difference in how these incidents were handled?
Stuart O. Bronstein
Nov 4, 2022, 6:09:58 PM11/4/22
to
Roy <monta...@outlook.com> wrote:
> From what I can tell, the "observers" were sitting quietly and
> filming
> things. They had guns and body armor (all legal). If asked they
> may have said they are there to observe and document possible
> voting fraud.
> The guns and stuff were for personal protection.
>
> A few months ago pro abortion protestors loudly demonstrated near
> homes of the Supreme Court justices and harassed then at dinner in
> a restaurant. They were trying to in intimate the votes in
> violation of Federal law but they were no prosecuted.
That was improper as well. Demonstrating peacefully nearby but not
> From what I can tell, the "observers" were sitting quietly and
> filming
> things. They had guns and body armor (all legal). If asked they
> may have said they are there to observe and document possible
> voting fraud.
> The guns and stuff were for personal protection.
>
> A few months ago pro abortion protestors loudly demonstrated near
> homes of the Supreme Court justices and harassed then at dinner in
> a restaurant. They were trying to in intimate the votes in
> violation of Federal law but they were no prosecuted.
close enough to cause physical harm is generally OK. But you are
referring to something that was more intimidating than that. It's
not OK.
> Why the difference in how these incidents were handled?
elections and guns. The other involves showing an objecting to a
single vote, and no guns.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
0 new messages