I told a friend literally yesterday that Trump was gonna send ICE to swing districts to supress the vote of poc and Steve Bannon comes out today and says as much : Steve Bannon calls for immigration agents at polling sites during midterms | Steve Bannon | The Guardian
How can we defend against this? This will suppress not only the Latino vote but the black vote as well. I think it could do so considerably. God this country sucks.
Polls are run by States, not Feds I believe. So States should very quickly prevent this via there State and local police.
This strategy won’t help in the south overall, but should be effective in most states.
While states conduct elections according to the US Constitution, I’m not sure it prevents the federal government from allocating its resources wherever it wants, as long as it doesn’t disrupt the voting process. Trump mentioned taking over the voting process in 15 places, but that would be clearly unconstitutional; however, I don’t see a problem with putting ICE agents on the street corners where people are casting their ballots. If they did that, and someone felt intimidated about voting in person, in most jurisdictions, they could still vote by mail.
Also this may lead to issues with the upcoming passage of DHS funding, such as a demand for language excluding DHS resources from being used in elections security.
I think the problem is bigger than ICE at the polls in two ways:
In Minneapolis, you have lots of different types of federal agents, and American citizens are afraid to go get groceries/send kids to school (much less vote) because of the risk of getting detained.
It’s hard to counter fear other than to not be afraid of it; show people there is nothing to be afraid of; or the more afraid you are means the more you need to vote. You’re literally voting to get rid of what is causing the fear. But this is hard.
Federal law prohibits this exact thing, so that’s one big hurdle.
Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.
So, any anti-fa carrying a firearm, then?
This won’t necessarily prevent it from happening, it’ll just ensure that it gets dragged out in the courts afterward, like every other illegal thing they’ve done.
So, they do it anyway, and what happens? They get sued after? The only people who can enforce federal law are federal agents – will they be arresting each other?
I’d say that targeted states should activate their national guard to protect polling places, but the Guard’s presence might be just as intimidating, so I don’t really know how to counteract this.
You mean all those times they either ignore the court order, or take it to mean “Well, apparently we can’t do it that way this time…so our only choices are to just ignore the ruling and do it again, or find some other way to do it.”?
Or any person identified (by them) as “Antifa” and rumored (by them) to be armed?
Last time Trump was in power, he claimed voter fraud due to foreign (Venezuelan) interference. Or something like that. So this is not my conspiracy, it’s Trump 2.0. I am reading tea leaves of recent events:
Venezuelan President in jail (I wonder what he’ll say to cut a deal)
DNI (foreign intelligence) seizing 2020 ballots
Trump claiming elections need to be nationalized (spelling it out)
whatever else I’m just not aware of because I’m barely trying
Maybe it’s unrelated. I don’t think so because it’s what Trump already claimed happened last time - he’s just still “fact-finding”. And while I know they are all bing-bongs and might not be able to pull it off, it’s not like they aren’t trying to “secure” the elections using whatever means necessary.
Late: To be clear, they’ll come at this in many ways like they tried in 2020 - most visibly with J6. This is just one way. Immigration fraud will be another. And I’m sure many other over-the-top stupid ways.
Then we (“we” being the relevant combination of state, local, and Democratic party officials in that juriadiction) file a complaint with one of the many judges pulling extra duty on election day and a restraining order is enacted within minutes.
The law is blatantly on our side here and there’s no compelling argument against it.
Except reality and past experience, of course.
Great, so assuming a restraining order is procured with minutes (hah!), they just go and stand a block away. Or they decline to move at all. Who’s going to make them move?
You seem to be answering as though the feds are going to follow the rule of law just because a judge tells them to. If you read the Minneapolis or Chicago daily newspapers, you’ll see that’s absurd.
It was answered just above, but it’s lawyers. You anticipate every angle they can take and make sure Judge’s and lawyers and whoever is ready to go. Lots of the polling/voting laws are State laws, so that will come into place. This is done months, weeks, days, in advance. You are filing an injunction to stop them from doing what they are trying to do (or soon will do) because their actions are clear violations of the law.
It becomes a real separation of powers and States rights issues.
I’m sorry, I thought this was the “How can we counter Trump” thread, not the “We can’t counter Trump” thread.
Sometimes the answer is “Maybe we can’t”.
Not if you declare defeat nine months in advance on the basis of a hypothetical, you can’t.
And, while that’s all happening, hundreds of voters might decide to just go home instead of waiting to see if a war breaks out. So the votes are still suppressed.