People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or more
from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing these
observers to stop their activities.
The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups are >appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
could the Arizona election results be declared invalid
and the election
ordered to be held again?
An Arizona Senate seat is up for election so
it could matter a great deal.
People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or more
from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing these observers to stop their activities.
The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups are appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
could the Arizona election results be declared invalid and the election ordered to be held again? An Arizona Senate seat is up for election so
it could matter a great deal.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators andRepresentatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
On 10/29/2022 9:33 PM, Roy wrote:
People are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or
more from the box. A number of organizations are suing to forcing
these observers to stop their activities.
The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups are
appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.
If such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
could the Arizona election results be declared invalid and the
election ordered to be held again? An Arizona Senate seat is up for
election so it could matter a great deal.
That would be up to the laws in Arizona. According to the Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators andRepresentatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
(US Constitution, Article I, Section 4)
AFAIK Congress has not (yet) made any rules about election observers.
I should note that most states have a system that looks something like
this:
1. Voters line up (if needed) and are called forward one at a time.
2. The voter states their name, and a poll worker looks them up in a
large book of voter names and addresses.
3. The voter goes on to a second poll worker, who has a similar book,
with a column for signatures. The voter signs their name in the spot reserved, and the first poll worker crosses their name off.
4. They are issued a ballot and (in the case of a primary), directed to
a booth with a device (e.g., punch holes or an actual machine) suitable
to their registered party, if any. In a general (or "non-partisan)
election, the voter can use any booth.
5. They mark their ballot according to the instructions.
6. They drop their ballot in a box. (In some states, they vote on a
machine that displays options on a touch screen. AFAIK, these machines
then generate a ballot that can be read both by the voter and by a
machine. The voter inspects the ballot, then slides it back into the
machine which registers their vote. Thus, the count can be cross-checked
in case of a dispute.)
AFAIK each party can send a number of poll watchers (specified by the
state law) to observe, but they must not interfere with or attempt to intimidate or "assist" voters. (One or more poll workers are available
for voters who request assistance.)
If the observers are the required distance -- again set by the state legislature -- I don't see any reason why they should be banned.
If a court were to issue such an order, I would expect a higher court to
act swiftly if it were against state law. At the moment I don't think
the US Constitution has any requirements in that area. Congress could
enact such laws (see above), but AFAIK they have yet not done so.
Whether another election could/would be held is, again, entirely up to
state law.
people depositing their ballots. They are the required 75 feet or morePeople are sitting in view of ballot boxes in Arizona and observing
are appealing to the 9th Court of Appeals.The district court judge declined to issue the order so the groups
could the Arizona election results be declared invalid and the electionIf such an order were issued and then found to be unconstitutional,
The process you mention is typical for when you are voting in person.
The ballot box being discussed is a the one for absentee voting. These
are usually located around the area to make it convenient to drop off
your completed ballot. They are unmanned and are available 27x7.
...
So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
to intervene.
Get enough state secretaries of state and election commissioners to be unreasonable and undermine actual vote totals, perhaps with some support
from the courts, and elections can be overturned.
Once enough chaos ensues; and the mob is burning down the homes of
election deniers and lynching said deniers' parents; and the courts are staffed by unreasonable people who refuse to prosecute anyone; and the deniers have seen enough violent death that they realize the path to
their grandchildren surviving is narrow indeed; then the deniers will
start to become reasonable.
I call this the cycle of history. Something that college students seem
to absorb less and less in their classes. Something that the 60+% of 25+
year olds who did not graduate with a bachelor's degree may not know at
all.
I predict a rough ride in the coming decade.
On 10/30/2022 10:14 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
...
So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
to intervene.
If there is no reason to overturn the election then there is no reason
to remove the observers.
One more important fact:
In most states there are multiple dropoff boxes. Someone could go to
another box.
In addition, since these are absentee ballots then they can be mailed
via USPS. One can drop them into a USPS mailbox somewhere, deliver them
to the post office, or put them in your own mailbox, raise the flag, and
the mailperson will pick it up.
Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
} In Arizona, I would take my wife's and my ballots to a ballot dropbox
} located next to a local city hall.
}
} Here in Oregon it is similar except Oregon doesn't have any in-person
} voting. It is all done by mail. I follow the same procedure dropping
} my ballot off at a local city hall.
}
} I don't want to take a chance with the post office.
Here in Virginia there is "early voting" from something like a month before >election day. You go to the local registrar of election's office and you >get to vote. No fuss , no muss. And you _know_ your ballot made it in >time. Do other states offer that convenient and secure option?
[side note: I live in rural VA where the voting precincts span quite a
large area. My precinct is over a half-hour's drive away. So an hour+
of commuting to spend two minutes voting has always rankled. BUT: the >registrar's office is in town -- right across from the gas station and
super market I use -- so it was a wonderful discovery that I could vote
with just a five minute diversion while I'm running about doing chores]
/Bernie\
In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Roy ><montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/30/2022 10:14 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
...
So there is no good reason for a court to overturn the election and
start over. (That's even allowing for the fact that by the time this
winds through the courts the new state Senator will have been seated,
and legislatures are reluctant to "unseat" a member. At that point it
becomes a "political" question, in which the courts are very reluctant
to intervene.
If there is no reason to overturn the election then there is no reason
to remove the observers.
Maybe that seems to follow if one takes Barry's word "good" to mean good
no matter how small, but I think he means "good and sufficiently big".
If that's what he means, your line above doesn't follow. And if that's
not what he means, it should be. :-)
There are endless situations where something is wrong and/or prohibited
but doing it anyway is often or even always not sufficient reason to
overturn an election or undo whatever else is being done. I can't
manage to think clearly of an example right now but I'll try harder if
you want. (I know this sounds flaky, but I've postponed answering for a
day and I want to express my position even if I can't think of examples
now, other than the one being discussed.)
De minimus non curat lex. Not sure what is mean by curat. If it
means not stopping a mininmal wrong, that would help you but if it means
not applying a remedy *after* a minimal wrong has been done, I think it
helps me. I think "cure" means the latter.
BTW, the DOJ is not done with this >https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/31/doj-drop-box-monitoring-arizona/
One more important fact:
In most states there are multiple dropoff boxes. Someone could go to >>another box.
What if there is someone watchlng it too? And you are right about
"most" because I read about one city where only one box was left after
they removed all the others.
In addition, since these are absentee ballots then they can be mailed
via USPS. One can drop them into a USPS mailbox somewhere, deliver them
to the post office, or put them in your own mailbox, raise the flag, and >>the mailperson will pick it up.
Yes there are other ways to vote, but if someone is tryiung to
intimidate voters, shouldn't they still be stopped? If there are
muggers at one grocery store but I can go to another, sholdn't the
muggers be stopped anyhow?
Yes there are other ways to vote, but if someone is tryiung to
intimidate voters, shouldn't they still be stopped? If there are
muggers at one grocery store but I can go to another, sholdn't the
muggers be stopped anyhow?
From what I can tell, the "observers" were sitting quietly and
filming
things. They had guns and body armor (all legal). If asked they
may have said they are there to observe and document possible
voting fraud.
The guns and stuff were for personal protection.
A few months ago pro abortion protestors loudly demonstrated near
homes of the Supreme Court justices and harassed then at dinner in
a restaurant. They were trying to in intimate the votes in
violation of Federal law but they were no prosecuted.
Why the difference in how these incidents were handled?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:49:57 |
| Calls: | 6,690 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 12,225 |
| Messages: | 5,344,715 |
| Posted today: | 1 |