If the goal is to observe election procedures, why would anyone need tactical gear, camo, or weapons…???
I have yet to see any right-wingers explain.
Clearly to anyone of good faith, the goal is something other than merely observing or monitoring.
To be fair, those who don’t consider it to be intimidation would also be fine with the same group of armed, masked men engaging in the exact same behaviors outside the posters’ homes.
You are correct. Those arguing it is allowable rely on the supposed “constitutionality” of said behavior. I for one didn’t think they are arguing in good faith because as you state, the goal is something other than merely observing or monitoring.
Proud Boys facing charges for storming the capitol as poll workers? Okay, that is a bit much. BUT, I think run-of-the-mill MAGA fraud-claimers SHOULD work the polls (with proper training, of course). Then they’ll see first-hand how it’s nearly impossible to pull off any kind of election-changing-scale voter fraud.
Or they’ll just fuck everything up to cast suspicion on all the votes at that location (and by extension, everywhere).
Yeah, that’d only work if they actually wanted to learn anything.
Yes. Sometimes common sense is worth the extra work it takes to introduce it into the discussion.
Once evidence of intimidation was submitted. You can’t just say “Hey, there are dudes carrying guns (in an open carry state, where that is common) and wearing masks” (still covid around) and say that means it has to be intimidation. You need some evidence that those dudes were acting in an intimidating manner, and that evidence was supplied.
I suspect most of the posters here that were appalled at the very idea of the guns are not from open carry states. I have been to AZ and dudes carrying six-guns etc are in evidence. Probably jerkwads with AK47s in the Walmart too. (You wanna carry around a pistol in a holster- fine, but a AR15 is just fucking stupid).
I suspected they were trying to intimidate, but you need more evidence other than “guns= bad”.
They had more than that from go.
These folks were yelling at people. They were following people back to their cars after those people voted.
An armed man, wearing body armor, yelling, and following someone is on its face intimidating. There’s a lot more to this than “guns = bad”, and it’s a bit silly to keep insisting that that’s all this is about.
I have never said anything that remotely resembles “guns=bad”. I have gone target shooting throughout my life and have no particular fear of guns. HOWEVER, anyone who parades around in public with a long gun strapped to them is doing so for one of two reason only - to intimidate others or to make up for what they view as shortcomings in their “manliness”. Concealed or open carry of a pistol is not what we are talking about and not what these buffoons are doing for the most part.
There is no reason to walk around in public with a rifle. Period.
What if it’s a RINO?
Was that provided to the Judge in the first case? From what I heard- there was no such evidence provided.
Yes. You could read the articles instead of relying on what you’ve heard.
The judge in the first case, who declined to issue an injunction, is the same judge who later issued a restraining against the exact behavior I described, in the same case.
One judge. One case.
Pay attention.
I know that it was the same judge, but from what I read the judge changed his decision after getting evidence.
But it was NOT one case. TWO cases.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, in an unexpected reversal of an earlier ruling in a related case, granted a motion Tuesday for a restraining order in a case consolidating a lawsuit brought by the nonprofit advocacy groups Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino with a similar suit brought by the League of Women Voters of Arizona.
*
## MORE: 10 cases of alleged Arizona voter intimidation referred to DOJ
*
Both lawsuits accused Clean Elections USA and the group’s founder, Melody Jennings, of carrying out surveillance of voters in a “coordinated vigilante intimidation campaign” at ballot drop box locations, “with the express purpose of deterring voters … from depositing their ballots.”
The earlier case:
In his ruling, the judge said he found that “defendants’ conduct does not fall into any traditionally recognized category of voter intimidation” and that the plaintiffs lacked “evidence that Defendants’ conduct constitutes a true threat.” plaintiffs lacked "evidence
Two groups, two related cases, first one dismissed for lack of evidence, thus it appears that the second suit submitted evidence.
Same plaintiffs in both lawsuits and the same evidence. The motion requesting an injunction was denied. The motion requesting a restraining order was granted.
“brought by the nonprofit advocacy groups Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino with a similar suit brought by the League of Women Voters of Arizona.”
And have you seen what evidence was provided in both suits?
The first was dismissed for lack of evidence, and the second succeeded- which means more and/or better evidence.
It wasn’t dismissed. The motion requesting an injunction wasn’t granted.
It’s weird that you quoted part of a sentence. Why would someone do that? I wonder what the whole sentence says.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, in an unexpected reversal of an earlier ruling in a related case, granted a motion Tuesday for a restraining order in a case consolidating a lawsuit brought by the nonprofit advocacy groups Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino with a similar suit brought by the League of Women Voters of Arizona.
And here are two paragraphs from the article about the Judge denying the motions.
Voto Latino and Arizona Alliance also filed motions asking the court to grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bar the defendants from “gathering within sight of drop boxes; from following, taking photos of, or otherwise recording voters or prospective voters, those assisting voters or prospective voters, or their vehicles at or around a drop box; and from training, organizing, or directing others to do the same.”
In his order denying both motions, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi said he “acknowledge[d] that Plaintiffs and many voters are legitimately alarmed by the observers,” but ultimately ruled that the requested preliminary injunctive relief “implicates serious First Amendment considerations.”
Voto Latino and Arizona alliance filed two motions. One requesting am injunction and a second requesting a restraining order. Initially the judge denied both requests.
Later he reversed his decision on one of those requests and granted the request for a restraining order. Same lawsuit. Same motion. Same evidence.
And out of Wisconsin, there is a lawmaker suing to stop the counting of military ballots.
MADISON, Wis. – A Wisconsin lawmaker who often promoted false election claims is suing to stop the immediate counting of military ballots in her state after she received three ballots under false names.
The lawsuit, filed on Friday, was brought by a group of veterans and three people, including Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R), chair of the State Assembly Elections Committee.
Last week, Brandtjen received three military ballots in fictitious names allegedly sent to him by Kimberly Zapata, a Milwaukee election official. Election officials criticized Brandtjen for spreading false claims about the system, and Zapata later told prosecutors she was trying to alert Brandtjen to a real weakness in the state’s voting system that should be fixed.
Unlike most states, Wisconsin allows service members to vote without registering to vote or providing proof of residency. Military ballots make up a tiny fraction of votes in Wisconsin — about 1,400 so far for Tuesday’s election.
Read the rest of the article; it’s very short.