So how much time and resources beyond an investigation* which resulted in an injunction based on the charges that could be supported being issued against the one person in possession of a nightstick (you’ll have prove “brandishing” here) and spouting racist language would you like to see expended here?
An investigation which I might add began during the Bush administration, with charges reduced from criminal to civil even then, and did not result in even one voter coming forth complaining that the were intimidated into changing their vote or not voting at all because of it. While he was wrong to have been there doing that, it is sometime a matter of degree and priorities.
The only report of “spewing racist garbage” we have is from GOP poll watchers and was directed at them, not actual voters. That doesn’t make it okay, but it does mean it wasn’t voter intimidation. I’m not thrilled about the idea any men of any color standing in some kind of paramilitary garb outside a polling place but I have to wonder if we can enforce a polling place dress code. Can Eagle Scouts wear their uniforms outside a polling place. Civil war buffs? Army reservists?
I agree the weapon was out of line but that was dealt with both by the police and the DOJ. They didn’t dismiss it they acted on it.
Watching the video I don’t see any clear intention of voter intimidation. They are simply standing there. Did they approach voters and speak to them? Did they ask “Who are you voting for?” How were they intimidating voters and influencing the vote? I heard on Fox that that polling place was in a majority Democratic district. What is the point of intimidating voters to vote for who they are probably already going to vote for?
The accusation from one of the poll watchers is that they were there to somehow allow bogus voters to vote for Obama. Well that’s a serious charge. I’m a Democrat I don’t want that to happen. I take voters rights pretty seriously.
So where is there one tiny shred of evidence that anything like that is happeneing?
All I hear from Fox and blogs is OMG it’s voters rights and those are sacrosanct. I completely agree. The real problem is when you look at the actual details and the actual evidence there just isn’t much there. It’s being blown way out of proportion for pretty obvious political reasons, which is a pretty obvious pattern with Fox and the the blogasphere.
I’m happy to look at any real information and evidence that some horrible miscarriage of justice has occured but I’ve looked at it since I started this thread and most of what I see is overheated rhetoric with no real evidence to back it up.
If you’ve got anything I’ll be glad to check it out but please don’t give me opinions with no backing facts.
This is the cognitive dissonance I’m referring to. Those guys, spewing comments to poll watchers like, “get ready to feel the boot of the black man, cracker” (or whatever the hell he said) is intimidation, to anyone in the vicinity. It sends a message, to anyone in earshot. There were reports of elderly voters who turned around, saying “I’ll come back later.” There were fearful reports from voters who went to that polling place that prompted calls to the poll watchers. And, by the way, what exactly do you think the role of a poll watcher is? Do you suppose it some kind of partisan scam? I don’t. Democratic poll watchers need to keep the other guys honest as well, and I’m glad they do.
We’ll never know the extent of the impact of these two assholes, because by its nature, it is an offense that simply won’t be reported. People who are fearful and intimidated, tend not to want to make waves. And we have fucking video of two thugs, one of them brandishing a weapon, standing on the top step of the polling place. This was voter intimidation. God almighty, I find it incredible that anyone needs this explained.
Bartle Bull, a man whose efforts and sacrifice in the name of voters’ rights holds just a little more weight to me than all the participants in this thread, thinks otherwise as well. No one need turn their lefty team card in if they actually review the simple details of this case and respond, as they should, that this sucked, that it was disgusting behavior. We should NOT tolerate this, not from anyone, not for any political persuasion. It is unacceptable in a democracy. I don’t care if the poll watchers subsequently made unsupported speculation, and I don’t care if Fox News misrepresents it. That’s irrelevant. None of that will change the fact that voter intimidation occurred, and decent people should be outraged.
Um, no it doesn’t. Attempt is all you need, brother. That violates Federal law, nothing more required. Judges have ruled it voter intimidation if someone writes down the fucking license plate number of somebody’s car, without saying a word. But two thugs, spewing racist crap and brandishing a weapon on the steps of the polling place–nope, that doesn’t rise to the level of intimidation. Stop it, you’re making me laugh.
Well, it’s your assertion. Cite that they attempted to intimidate voters? The tirade on tape was not directed at a voter, and did not constitute an attempt at intimidation in any case.
Yes, I’m asserting that two thugs in paramilitary outfits, spewing angry racist shit while brandishing a weapon, all while standing on the top step of the polling place, is a de facto attempt to intimidate. I know that sounds crazy, but dammit, I have this hunch.
It’s already legislated. I already pointed out to you that judges have ruled something as innocuous as writing down someone’s license plate as being voter intimidation. You seem to think there’s some standard that says someone needs to point a machine gun at someone and shout, “Hey, you, you better vote for Obama, or I’ll kill you. And by the way, just to be clear, this is intended to intimidate you.” There is not. Those two thugs, to anyone not in complete denial, intended to intimidate people. It’s laughable to assert otherwise.
That’s why you’re congratulating Obama and his Department of Justice for having the first and only successful prosecution under the voter intimidation section of the Voting Rights Act in its entire 45 year history against the armed perpetrator of these actions, right?
I mean, such an impressive and unprecedented accomplishment, something no other administration’s Department of Justice had ever managed to do when voter intimidation was alleged during the past half-century, has shown you how ridiculous Adams’ claims of anti-white bias in the Obama DoJ’s handling of voter intimidation cases really are, right? Especially when combined with further actions by the Obama DoJ in similar cases, such as the Ike Brown thing mentioned above where they actually filed for an extension to the penalty handed down in a Bush-era case of voter intimidation by an African-American man against whites.
The whole excercise was political theater as costume drama. These assholes are trying to cop some of the mystique of the original Panthers, who dressed in militant garb and stood about polling places in black neighborhood and risked their lives to reassure black citizens that they could vote without fear. Keep in mind, this was a recent development in many parts of the country as late as 1969.
The Newbies are trying to cop this mojo with a theatrical pretense. But the pretense is that they are protecting black voters from intimidation, not that they can frighten white voters away or change their mind with a stick.
Still bullshit political theater, but you misread the script.
While there is an element of truth to this, it’s a real stretch to turn one overheard comment into a prosecutable case of voter intimidation. It’s also a matter of intent. One off hand angry comment doesn’t really demonstrate an intent of voter intimidation. That may be why the Bush DOJ chose civl charges over criminal ones.
I have no problem with pol watchers from either party. I just want accuracy of language and there is a significant difference in claiming they were making racist comments to voters and what actiually happened. I don’t condon the actions at all but I think the huge deal being made out of it by the right is overblown political bullshit.
Reports of voters walking away may or may not be true but that’s not evidence which is what is needed to prosecute.
One of them was a poll watcher who lived in that neighborhood. Is he not allowed to be there? Is he under some dress code? Yes, one guy had a baton, nightstick, whatever you call it I agree that was wrong. The police made him leave and the DOJ filed an injunction making sure he couldn’t do that again through 2012. That seems reasonable to me based on the actual evidence.
Yes, the video of them outside the polling booth tells me that people might find them intimidating. There is a difference between looking intimidating to some voters and purposeful voter intimidation. Yes, there was a problem and it was dealt with. You may not agree that the injunction they got was enough but that boils down to opinion and doesn’t indicate one bit of wrong doing by the DOJ.
Bull confuses me. He has a right to his opinion and I don’t disregard his contributions to civl rights but I find it hard to believe that this was seriously the worst case of voter intimidation he ever saw. When he goes far beyond the details of this case and makes outrageous claims about the Black Panthers helping bogus ACORN registered voters and offers not one single shred of evidence to back up such a serious claim I am forced to really question his motives about this specific issue. Why would a man who’s been a lawyer his whole life and fought for civil rights make such serious claims publicly and repeatedly without offering any evidence? I don’t have the answer but it raises some doubts in my mind about his motives.
But sir; It wasn’t tolerated and isn’t being tolerated by anyone. So what’s your problem?
I didn’t like it and was very glad they got Baton carrier out of there. I’m glad they got the injunction against him carrying anything like a weapon near a polling place. I’d be okay if they decided he personally couldn’t go near a polling place through 2012 but that’s a judgement call either way. That said, I obviously have a different standard of what actually constitutes voter intimidation than you do, and as a supporter of the law I find it takes certain factual details and evidence to actually prosecute a case.
In the process of reading this case I discovered the one from AZ in which a group of men from the Minuteman group were actually appraoching and questioning latino voters near polling places. ONe of them was carrying a pistol. Open carry is okay in AZ but I find that a much more aggregious case of voter intimidation than the one in Philly.
from here
and the DOJ didn’t pursue that either. Not that one justifies the other but the specific details differ and matter. In the Philly case we have a random racist comment aimed at a non voter by a guy with a stick. That guy was taken away by the police and the Obama DOJ did get an injunction against him. The other guy was a poll watcher from that neighborhood. I’d say that gives him every right to be there.
IN the AZ case we have thrree guys appraoching voters , taking their picture, with one carryng a pistol. I hope you see a pretty serious and significant difference. In the AZ case no charges were brought. since we got an injunction in a less serious case that indicates the DOJ is making progress rather than failing in it’s duties.
Thoughts?
That’s your opinion and I honestly understand your point.
The fact is that the one guy who carried a baton and spewed racist garbage did have action taken agsinst him to prevent it from happening in the next two election cycles. So what’s your beef? You don’t think the action was enough?
Has anybody defended his actions? There may be a disagreement on what actually consitutes voter intimidation as there evidently was in the DOJ. If trained lawyers and the civil rights commision can have honest disagreements then maybe it’s not quite as obvious as you seem to think.
No, for the third time in this thread, it is not. There’s a very good reason that one need only attempt to intimidate to violate this law–because we will NEVER know for sure who was intimidated. That’s the nature of such thuggery. We will never know if some elderly person turned around and went home, because he didn’t want any trouble. There is NO requirement that there be evidence that a single specific person was intimidated, and if we think about this for even a second, we would understand why that is a very wise portion of this legislation.
None of the defendants showed up–they failed to respond to the lawsuit. That includes Mr. “Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth” Democratic Committeeman, who just happened to be dressed like a Black Panther and who had the enormous bad luck to unknowingly be standing shoulder to shoulder with the guy waving the nightstick around. Would you apply your same dress code standard to a KKK robe in a different setting? Anyway, normal procedure is to file for a default judgment, not for the DoJ–the friggin’ steward of the voters’ rights–to file a notice for voluntary dismissal of the charges, and a weak default judgment against Mr. Nightstick. They ignored their own protocol. Why? Do you understand that this is tantamount to the prosecuting attorney, in response to defendants not showing up for a hearing, reacting by asking the judge to toss out the charges for one and provide a weak summary judgment for the other?
My point being that your reaction seems to miss this point. The case was not weak against either of the defendants–it was made STRONGER by virtue of them blowing off the hearing. What was the DoJ’s reaction? Let’s dismiss the charges, and ask for a weak default judgment for the other. Can you see how people might react with a WTF to such a sequence of events? Can you see why it’s not an issue of evidence–the DoJ brought the lawsuit, so they apparently thought there was enough evidence, but when confronted with defendants who ignored the lawsuit,* that* convinced them there was insufficient evidence? Again, WTF? It is tolerating the intolerable, by the very group charged with guarding against such bullshit.
It is, again, laughable that anyone could see that video and hear the simple facts of this case and wonder if those guys were trying to intimidate anyone.
And, since you asked, I think the Arizona guys should have been prosecuted. That is disgusting as well.
I know, I know! They were just providing a little security and order to the voting process. They even did it on a volunteer basis: no public election funds were paid to them! All this trouble started way back when the government stopped those nice gentlemen down South who used to conduct the literacy testing for black voters. Can you believe there are people in this country who think you should just be able to walk up and vote however you please, just like that? The Chinese are so far ahead of us in this area, as in many others.
When I told my city council that voters should have to run a gauntlet of Old Order Amish Rakesmen and then solve a problem chosen at random out of Sokolnikoff’s Advanced Calculus, Chapter 8 on Power Series, the chairman called me a “totalitarian numskull” and threw me out of the meeting. He lost the next election due to excess voting. Which just goes to prove my point.