The Harassment and intimidation was not proven, which was the big issue. Mind you- it is pretty damn obvious, but they needed evidence.
I asked if you think voter intimidation and harassment is constitutional. Rather than answer with a yes or no you dodged the question. Your position is clear.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
You are poisoning the well by stating, without any solid evidence, that these actions are indeed “voter intimidation and harassment”.
Voter intimidation and harassment is illegal. But the plaintiffs were unable to show convincing proof that the actions constituted “voter intimidation and harassment”.
This is like slamming a poster who is pro-choice by asking if he is "pro murder. "
How can a judge issue an injunction prohibiting people from showing up, or wearing masks, or taking photos, or recording license plates? Any of those things? Just because they’re bearing arms doesn’t change the underlying calculus.
Your right not to be ascared of men with guns (not that such a right exists), doesn’t trump the right to assembly, speech, or expression.
Well, as it is, I will be putting my early ballot in an Arizona early ballot center, and looking to despise those useless masked assholes.
Sorry, it is pretty clear this is voter intimidation, whether the judge sees it that way or not. If they aren’t trying to intimidate people then what are they doing there? People showing up at a polling place wearing masks and covering their license plates are clearly trying to hide their identities. If what they are doing is on the up and up, why would they do that? This isn’t just them watching people but actually confronting them and accusing them of being “mules”.
Why is it that is just fine but in 2008 when a couple of black guys behaved similarly, Republican were up in arms about the horrible voter intimidation? And you should note, they weren’t wearing masks or carrying guns.
Further, going out in public with a ski mask type of face covering would be considered suspicious at the least. If you don’t believe me go stand on the sidewalk in front of a bank or school with a ski mask on and carrying a rifle. I’m fairly certain that won’t go very well.
I suppose the question is, if I go armed to one of these polling places, take pictures of the “watchers”, and their license plates, and keep an eye on them, will I be breaking any laws?
They are masked, and have covered their plates, but I assume that they need to uncover their plates before they drive off, and I don’t think that you are allowed to drive with a face covering like that.
Well, in their propagandized minds they maybe think they are protecting the boxes from tampering or stuffing. Those are ballot drop boxes, not technically “polling places”.
Mind you I think part of it is indeed trying to intimidate the “illegals” from voting, but the plaintiffs did not produce enough evidence to convince the Judge. Opinions are not evidence.
Curious. A bunch of armed, masked men showed up outside your home, not entering your property but staying on the public easement. They take pictures of your house, and of you and your family or friends as they enter or leave, would you feel perfectly comfortable with that?
The ballot drop boxes are on public property.
This question is meaningless.
There is quite a line between what you, me or anyone may thing is wrong and what constitutes enough evidence for a judicial order.
I concur that I think this is wrong. That does not mean it is illegal.
Yes, yes, I know the “I’m not touching you defense.” I’m fully aware of how fascists twist the law to their own ends. Weaponizing the law against the lawful is the very first page of their playbook.
But that wasn’t the question. @D_Anconia is making fun of people for being “scared” of masked armed men stalking in a public place where people have to go to perform their civic duty. I’m just asking if he would be as complacent about it if someone played “I’m not touching you” outside his home.
And I would add, I’m not “ascared” of people with guns in public. But I do think 90% of the people that do this do so because they are trying to be intimidating to someone or some group. The other 10% I suspect do it because of how inadequate they feel about their genitalia.
There is NO reasonable purpose to parading in public with a long gun. None.
Are we still pretending that for the most part the incredible effort to appoint and elect judges that support the right was a massive failure?
I’m certainly not.
The question wasn’t directed at you, of course, but more towards those that think that “barely getting away with it legally” is the goal to strive for.
Sorry but my reading of this page from the Arizona Secretary of State refers to “voting locations” and appears to me to consider the 75-foot limit applies equally to polling places and ballot drop off boxes. So yes, they technically are polling places subject to the same restrictions on electioneering, taking photos and vides and displaying weapons.
@Czarcasm Oh I knew who you meant. 
Many on the right cite this concept of “stuffing”–which is at the heart of the “mules” theory.
How is that supposed to work, exactly?
Can anyone name a jurisdiction in the USA in which a ballot that does NOT have a one-to-one correspondence with a fully-identified voter–one voter, one address, one signature, etc.–is accepted as being a valid vote?
If not–if the concept of ‘mules’ dropping off multiple fake ballots (ballots which have no one-to-one correspondence with an identified registered voter) is nonsense–then isn’t the rationalization for ‘drop-box monitoring’ also…nonsense?
Isn’t that fake rationalization easily shown to be a cover for intentional intimidation of voters of the “wrong” color or religion or party?
My bolding in the quote.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If this shitty intimidation is legal, then armed progressives should go stake out the intimidaters, take their pictures, and do everything to them that they’re doing to voters. Bully the bullies. Intimidate the intimidaters. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Everything legal should be on the table, and apparently this is legal.
As already stated - sucks that there has to be something in the neighbourhood of head-stoving for it to be empirical or whatever, but would you be ok with being photographed and followed afterwards?
As too often, do you have a brown paper bag handy?