DOJ Warns Efforts to Stop 2016 Voter Fraud Could 'Violate' Federal Law

a reply to: Greggers

Properly appointed poll watchers are not the problem.

pass that on to your fellow supporters here and in the DOJ for that matter

i guess you missed the video posted earlier in this thread
no problem with that crap eh?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: reldra

Maybe because I can't finish reading your whole posts when you have Glenn in your avatar? I think I am still traumatized from last night

But seriously, I was adding information regarding the national laws and the laws in my state.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

the DOJ who gave out immuinty to anyone in the washington dc area code recently puts out a notice to VOLUNTEER poll watchers FOR NO REASON and you want to spin it like it is not intimidation?

our government is now threatening its citizens
this is absolutely unacceptable

Because it is not? Where is the threat? You are not being clear.

a reply to: Sillyolme

trump supporters can volunteer to be poll wstchers just like hillary supporters can

and with all the voter fraud in the news and now a statement from the doj i would wager many tump supporters would volunteer for this civic duty

a reply to: Profusion

You don't interfere with fellow Americans at the polls. Period.

That's all it "means."

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Greggers

I keep hearing this " Theory " ....Poll Watchers would be Guilty of Voter Intimidation . Who would they Intimidate , Fraudulent Voters ?

Appointed poll watchers following federal law wouldn't intimidate the general public.

However, the following actions (cited in the press release) are generally intimidating:


It also contains special protections for the rights of voters and provides that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them. For example, actions of persons designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them, under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting may violate federal voting rights law. Further, federal law protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice.


What do you think Trump meant when he suggested that HIS SUPPORTERS (who are mostly white) should go into "those neighborhoods" to monitor the polls? This is dog whistle for "If you show up and harass people at the polls, we can suppress voter turnout in traditionally Dem neighborhoods.

Let's not pretend it's something different than that. It's insulting.

a reply to: reldra

The statement does not grant the varying distinctions in which states may allow communication between voters and poll watchers, nor does the DOJ note that some observers in specific states do indeed have the power to challenge would-be voters based on documented ineligibility. As a point of fact, some states—Missouri as an example—specifically call election observers “challengers”, according to local statutes.

is that clear enough?
imo the doj statement was issued to supress americans who volunteer for a civic duty

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

trump supporters can volunteer to be poll wstchers just like hillary supporters can

and with all the voter fraud in the news and now a statement from the doj i would wager many tump supporters would volunteer for this civic duty

It is 2 or 3 per location, per candidate, depending on the state. Sure, apply to be one.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

The statement does not grant the varying distinctions in which states may allow communication between voters and poll watchers, nor does the DOJ note that some observers in specific states do indeed have the power to challenge would-be voters based on documented ineligibility. As a point of fact, some states—Missouri as an example—specifically call election observers “challengers”, according to local statutes.

is that clear enough?
imo the doj statement was issued to supress americans who volunteer for a civic duty

I don't know much about Missouri or Challengers. Possibly you could give a link?

Otherwise, the press release was clear in it's intention. Mainly, do your job, but don;t cross the line and infringe on any voting rights.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

The statement does not grant the varying distinctions in which states may allow communication between voters and poll watchers, nor does the DOJ note that some observers in specific states do indeed have the power to challenge would-be voters based on documented ineligibility. As a point of fact, some states—Missouri as an example—specifically call election observers “challengers”, according to local statutes.

is that clear enough?
imo the doj statement was issued to supress americans who volunteer for a civic duty

You're speaking about people appointed as poll watchers.

Trump is talking about random dudes from other neighborhoods driving around to make sure things are legit.

a reply to: reldra

some states allow as many as apply

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

some states allow as many as apply

After a while, you'd run out of room. Any state that allows as many as apply clearly never expected to run into a hoard of Trump supporters on a mission from Cheetoh Jesus.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

The statement does not grant the varying distinctions in which states may allow communication between voters and poll watchers, nor does the DOJ note that some observers in specific states do indeed have the power to challenge would-be voters based on documented ineligibility. As a point of fact, some states—Missouri as an example—specifically call election observers “challengers”, according to local statutes.

is that clear enough?
imo the doj statement was issued to supress americans who volunteer for a civic duty

I found it.

mo.gov

6. Any challenge by a challenger to a voter's identification for validity shall be made only to the election judges or other election authority. If the poll challenger is not satisfied with the decision of the election judges, then he or she may report his or her belief that the election laws of this state have been or will be violated to the election authority as allowed under this section.

Challengers aren't supposed to communicate with voters.

originally posted by: reldra

I found it.

mo.gov

6. Any challenge by a challenger to a voter's identification for validity shall be made only to the election judges or other election authority. If the poll challenger is not satisfied with the decision of the election judges, then he or she may report his or her belief that the election laws of this state have been or will be violated to the election authority as allowed under this section.

Challengers aren't supposed to communicate with voters.

Looks pretty clear to me.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

some states allow as many as apply

You could never fit them all. Missouri is 1 challenger per polling place per candidate. As for watchers, the limit seems to be 2 per candidate per polling place.

The location I vote in is in a room slightly larger than my bedroom.

LOl, I am imagining if it were unlimited. It would be me, a voting booth, the elderly BOE worker and a huge crowd of Challengers and Watchers.

a reply to: reldra

a press release is needed for someone who volunteers,applies and is appointed

so why the need for the doj to issue a release?
states run elections not the feds
by omitting what responsibilities some poll watchers have the doj is intimidating then
or at the least attempting to muddy the water as to what is legal
either way it is disgusting

a reply to: Greggers

the way hill supporters tell it there is no "hoard of trump supporters"
but why not attempt to supress americans from civic duties

a reply to: Profusion

More Gems from breitbart!!

Voter intimidation is illegal, that is the message put out.

a reply to: WilburnRoach


Voter intimidation is illegal, that is the message put out.

poll watchers are not intimidation

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

a press release is needed for someone who volunteers,applies and is appointed

so why the need for the doj to issue a release?
states run elections not the feds
by omitting what responsibilities some poll watchers have the doj is intimidating then
or at the least attempting to muddy the water as to what is legal
either way it is disgusting

The DOJ does not run elections, but investigates federal election laws and discrimination in regard to those laws.