voting by mail – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Our democracy is broken. H.R. 1 can combat voter suppression and fix it

David Posnett — Sun, 14 Mar 2021 17:00:14 +0000

Mondaire Jones

Special to the USA TODAY Network: link here.

March 9, 2021

Our democracy is badly broken. Right now, Republicans in Arizona, Georgia and elsewhere are working hard to break it even further. But last week, my Democratic colleagues and I rose to repair and reconstruct it.

The For the People Act (H.R. 1), which passed the House of Representatives last week, will be the most significant improvement to our democracy since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. My colleagues in the Senate should act swiftly to send this bill to President Biden’s desk. It is required to save our democracy from the people who incited the violent insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th.

The For the People Act is a comprehensive bill that establishes automatic voter registration, combats voter suppression, protects our elections from foreign interference, and ends partisan gerrymandering — a process by which representatives choose their voters rather than voters choose their representatives.

But I want to focus on how H.R. 1 changes how campaigns are funded, amplifying the voices of everyday Americans.

Our current campaign finance system gives the wealthy a megaphone and silences the rest of us. In 2016, just 400 mega-donors contributed a total of $1.5 billion – more than every small donor combined. Those donors are predominantly wealthy white men, and they predominantly contribute to white candidates.

Congress isn’t just funded by wealthy people — it’s full of them. More than 50% of lawmakers in the 116th Congress have a net worth of more than $1 million, compared to just three percent of the population. This is not by accident: our campaign finance system is rigged to favor wealthy candidates. They can fund their own campaigns. They’re more likely to have nest eggs they can rely on while campaigning. And when they need extra funds, they can lean on networks of affluent family and friends.

I experienced our broken campaign finance system firsthand in my own run for Congress. When I was considering running for office, the first question insiders asked me was not what I would fight for, not whether my community was behind me, but how much money I could raise.

My leading primary competitor never had to answer that question. As the son of a pharmaceutical billionaire, he didn’t have to raise any money at all. Instead, he spent $5.4 million of his inherited wealth to blanket the airwaves with TV commercials three months out from the primary election. In the general election, I faced yet another self-funding candidate who outspent me by pumping $1.5 million into his campaign.

Against these long odds, I was elected to Congress. As an openly gay, Black, working-class candidate whose community sent him to Congress, I’m an exception. But I shouldn’t be. With the small-donor matching system in H.R. 1, candidates like me could be the norm.

Small-donor matching is simple: for every dollar a regular person donates up to $200, public financing matches that dollar with $6. A $50 donation becomes a $350 donation. As a result, small donors would matter — fixing the toxic power dynamics that threaten our democracy.

Small-donor matching has already transformed New York politics for the better. The donors in New York City elections, which have a matching program, are by far more racially and socioeconomically diverse than the donors in New York State elections, which do not. H.R. 1 would take that transformation nationwide.

The same goes for candidates. Candidates of color disproportionately rely on small donations. But because big money drowns out small donors’ voices, we typically raise less money than our opponents. Thus, we are often prevented from even making the ballot. By multiplying the power of the people candidates of color rely on most, small-donor matching empowers more people to take their seats at the table.

When we can elect people who really represent us, we get a government that really serves all of us — not just the wealthy and well-connected. If Congress had more ordinary Americans, it surely would not be so indifferent to the needs of working families. My Democratic colleagues and I in this Congress are already proving that by passing real COVID-19 relief in the American Rescue Plan. And we’re just getting started.

For at least a decade, Democrats have promised that when we had the chance, we would fix our broken campaign finance system. It’s taken over 10 years, but we’re here. It’s time. If the Senate fails to follow through — if we compromise with corruption — we risk confirming many Americans’ beliefs that billionaires and corporations have captured both parties, that our elections offer no real choices, and that our democracy is a swamp in need of a strongman to drain it.

So let’s fight for H.R. 1 and its small-dollar matching program like our democracy depends on it — because it does.

Rep. Mondaire Jones represents New York’s 17th Congressional District, which includes most of Westchester County and all of Rockland County.

“Hyper-partisan and hypocritical nonsense” (Katie Vincentz, Zeldin Spokesperson)

David Posnett — Sat, 30 Jan 2021 22:36:34 +0000

Excellent reports on the topic:

Rep. Zeldin’s Backtrack on Fraud Claims Fails to Silence His Critics
EH Star: Attorneys urge investigation of ZELDIN.
Twenty-two lawyers file ethics complaint against Zeldin in connection with presidential election:

By Denise Civiletti – Jan 26, 2021, 8:29 am. RIVERHEAD LOCAL

Lee Zeldin speaking on the House floor during debate on objections to Arizona election results. Image: C-Span screenshot

Twenty-two New York lawyers have filed a complaint against Rep. Lee Zeldin, accusing him of violating “the most fundamental ethics rules, including participating in frivolous litigation, making false statements regarding the presidential election, and committing, arguably, a criminal act that reflects on his trustworthiness.”

The complaint asks the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, where Zeldin was admitted to the New York Bar in 2004, to initiate an “immediate investigation of Rep. Zeldin’s actions and consider sanctions for his conduct, up to and including revocation of Rep. Zeldin’s license to practice law in New York.”

The complaint says Zeldin participated in “frivolous” litigation and engaged in “professional misconduct” involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” by signing on to an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought in the U.S. Supreme Court by the State of Texas Dec. 8 that sought to invalidate the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — four battleground states won by Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

Zeldin was one of 126 House Republicans who signed the amicus brief in support of the Texas lawsuit, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on Dec. 11 for lack of standing, the legal right to sue.

The complaint to the grievance committee, a copy of which was obtained by RiverheadLOCAL Monday night, says Zeldin signed on to the brief “despite the fact that numerous courts in eight different states, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, had already dismissed such meritless claims.”

Beyond that, the complaint states, “In the absence of any evidence of systemic malfeasance or fraud, he made public statements questioning the results of the presidential election and has spent weeks undermining confidence in the credibility and integrity of our election process.”

Zeldin — a staunch, outspoken supporter of President Trump — continued to question the presidential election results “without proof,” despite the Electoral College’s ratification of the results, the complaint states.

The Trump campaign and Trump supporters brought a series unsuccessful legal challenges to the results of the election in those states.

In a series of about two dozen tweets since Election Day, Zeldin has questioned the election results, calling changes to election procedures in battleground states “unconstitutional irregularities.” He has tweeted frequently — most recently two days ago — about the need to protect “ballot integrity,” criticizing, as Trump has, mail-in voting.

Some states, including New York, changed voting procedures in 2020 to allow, as Zeldin put it in his tweet on Monday, “no excuse mail in balloting” because of the pandemic. Some of those changes, including New York’s, were made by executive orders during the state of emergency declared in the states in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Zeldin and others object to changes made to voting procedures established by state legislature — by what they characterize “executive fiat” and settlements of “friendly lawsuits” — as unconstitutional.

On Jan. 2, Zeldin tweeted: “Some insist everything President Trump & his supporters claim about the 2020 election is ‘evidence free’. That lie may be easy to rattle off, but it’s still a massive, destructive lie that will haunt them on Jan 6th & far into the future.”

On the afternoon of Jan. 6, the lawyers’ complaint states, Zeldin announced on Twitter that he would formally object to the Electoral College’s determination.” By making that announcement, according to the complaint, “Zeldin not only engaged in dishonest conduct, but also contributed to the incitement of the Jan. 6 insurrection.”

On the House floor on Jan. 6, Zeldin spoke in support of objections to the election results in Arizona in a statement he labeled in a Jan. 6 tweet was made “in defense of the republic.” He voted to sustain objections to the election results in both Arizona and Pennsylvania.

His statement and both votes came on Jan. 6 after a large mob of Trump supporters violently attacked the Capitol while Congress was in a joint session to certify the Electoral College, as required by the Constitution.

The mob stormed the Capitol following a 90-minute “Save America” rally in the Ellipse park at which Trump aired his grievances about the election he claimed was stolen by Democrats and “weak” Republicans. Trump urged the crowd to go to the Capitol, where Congress was beginning to count and certify the Electoral College ballots.

The Trump mob stormed the Capitol, breaching barricades, overwhelming Capitol Police, breaking doors and windows and entering the building as lawmakers met in both chambers. The sessions were cut short as the mob could be heard in the corridors. The lawmakers were evacuated and staff members and reporters barricaded themselves in offices.

The chaotic scenes were broadcast live on television and circulated on social media, capturing Trump supporters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” — someone had erected a gallows outside the Capitol during the riot — and searching for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. Members of the mob broke into offices and into both chambers of Congress.

Zeldin issued a statement that afternoon urging “everyone to please cooperate with the Capitol Police who need to gain control of this situation immediately.” He said the violence being witnessed by America “should never be the scene at the US Capitol” and said there should be “ZERO tolerance for violence in any form!”

The riots resulted in the deaths of five people, including a uniformed Capitol Police officer who was beaten to death by the mob. Scores of other officers were injured, some seriously.

Seven hours later, after the building was secured and the crowd was dispersed, Congress resumed its constitutionally mandated count. Some shaken Republican senators withdrew their support for objections after the riot, which left only two objections supported by senators to be brought to the floor of each chamber for a vote. (Without support in the Senate, there is no vote in either chamber.) A planned objection to Georgia’s results was withdrawn, and no senators signed onto the House’s objection to results in Michigan and Nevada.

“Even after the bloodshed and terror at the Capitol, Rep. Zeldin again asserted his baseless objections to the election results,” the lawyers complaint to the grievance committee states.

“He took to the floor of the House of Representatives, and in a speech riddled with misinformation and misrepresentations, challenged the results of the Arizona and Pennsylvania elections…” the complaint states.“Disregarding the will of the people, Rep. Zeldin sought to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, which is particularly egregious conduct for an attorney who has been elected to high office and sworn an oath to uphold the constitution,

In a brief interview Monday following a news conference he held in Manorville, Zeldin said he had not heard anything about the complaint and could not comment on it.

Asked if he was willing to state that the 2020 presidential election was a free and fair election and constitutionally valid, Zeldin replied, “This was a free election. And we did go through the entire constitutional process.” That process includes a certification of the Electoral College vote, he said.

“After every Republican presidential win over the last generation, there have been objections that have been followed,” Zeldin said.

“At the end of that constitutional process, the first thing I did was put out a statement that says, regardless of whether you supported President Biden or or President Trump, regardless of your the opinions and passions everyone has, once Congress certifies the results, it’s over,” Zeldin said.

On the evening of Jan. 7, Zeldin issued a statement acknowledging Biden’s election.

“Moving forward, there will be continued debate and there will be disagreement, but out of that must be a healthy, guarded and even thriving republic,” he said in the Jan. 7 statement. “Right now, I am not going to dwell on any doubt, but to recommit to working towards a vigorous defense of lady liberty at all costs, and the pursuit of unity whenever possible,” he said.

The congressman reiterated Monday he still has “an issue with” changes made by executive order or otherwise to the electoral process established by state legislatures.

The lawyers’ complaint was filed with the court in Albany, where Zeldin was admitted to the New York bar in January 2004. The Shirley resident earned his law degree at Albany Law School in 2003.

The lawyers in the complaint urge the New York bar to “send a powerful message to the public that the legal profession is committed to the defense of our democratic institutions and will not tolerate the conduct of attorneys who seek to subvert the will of the people, undermine our elections, and recklessly contribute to the incitement of violence.”

RiverheadLOCAL provided Zeldin’s office with a copy of the complaint Tuesday morning, seeking additional comment from the congressman. Tuesday night, Zeldin spokesperson Katie Vincentz dismissed the complaint as a partisan attack.

“Nearly every single one of these attorneys is a registered Democrat and half have donated to Congressman Zeldin’s opponents,” Vincentz said in an email. “One even ran as a Democrat in the Town of Brookhaven and another was chairman of the East Hampton Town Democratic Committee for almost 20 years,” she said.

“The eagerness of these partisan Democrats to further divide our community and country is despicable,” Vincentz wrote.

She reiterated Zeldin’s statements Monday that Democrats have raised objections to Electoral College vote counts after the election of Republican presidents.

“It’s an incredible double standard that if Republicans object as well on the same date in the same place as part of the same process, then that makes them all seditious traitors,” Vincentz said.

“Anyone who wants to call out a Congressional Republican for supporting an objection on January 6th needs to put up their past statements calling out every Congressional Democrat who objected in the past,” she said. “If those public calls don’t exist, their calls now are just hyper-partisan and hypocritical nonsense.”

Editor’s note: This article was amended post-publication to add further comment from Rep. Lee Zeldin’s office provided Tuesday night.

Zeldin, your name is Shame

David Posnett — Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:27:56 +0000

Mr. Zeldin, your name is shame.

You are either with our constitutional system of government, or you are not. And then you are for mob rule. Which is it?

Are you a leader? – def. “a leader is someone who rallies people to move toward a better vision.”

Are you continuing to promote sedition? – def. “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the state.”

Are you a Conspiracy Theorist? – def. “promoting a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.”

Our American Constitution is a better vision. Why are you inciting rebellion against it? Why are you continuing to lie to us about the circumstances of the 2020 election? Why are you confusing people about the election and spreading lies? Did you not take an oath to uphold the Constitution?

We Americans want our American Democracy to work. Impeach Trump Now and get to work for a better vision for us all, or Resign.

Signed,

A daughter of America, daughter of a family who has served to form and preserve our country from the Revolution through the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Viet Nam.

Assault on America

David Posnett — Thu, 17 Dec 2020 19:33:38 +0000

Democracy has taken a beating during the past four years. From the day Trump was sworn in, the moral yardstick we use to measure presidents by morphed into a moral slide rule, constantly adjusted by obsequious Republicans anxious to cover for the lies Trump spewed nearly every time he opened his mouth. We’ve been inching our way toward this crisis ever since.

And now, when Americans handed Donald Trump a resounding seven-million-vote defeat, Trump is doing what he has done his entire life — threatening friends and enemies alike to do his bidding and flooding the courts with frivolous cases. The lawsuit filed by Texas, a mixed salad of lies, debunked claims, and crackpot conspiracy theories that had already been rejected by state and local courts, was a frightening attempt to have the Supreme Court throw out the legal votes of 20 million people in four states.

Lee Zeldin joined in on the assault on America, signing a brief backing the lawsuit, along with 125 of his fellow House Republicans. That so many in the Republican Party have revealed themselves to be willing to steal a presidential election is a warning to us all: American democracy may still be standing, but it is on very shaky ground.

Sincerely,

CAROL DEISTLER

Printed as Letter to the Editor, The East Hampton Star, December 17

The Days After Election Day

David Posnett — Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:30:32 +0000

As our democracy hangs by a rapidly fraying thread, it is critical that each of us do everything we can to ensure that Donald Trump is voted out of office, and once voted out of office, that he actually LEAVES office.

“The Day After Election Day,” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/opinion/trump-election-officials.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage an article in The New York Times, is an account of officials and aides who are worried the president will use the power of the government to keep himself in office. Following are highlights (lowlights is probably a more accurate term) from the article for those who can’t access it:

“Even though they can’t predict exactly what will happen, their concerns range from the president welcoming, then leveraging, foreign interference in the election, to encouraging havoc that grows into conflagrations that would merit his calling upon U.S. forces.

“I think the biggest shock he had — ’cause his assumption was the generals, ‘my generals,’ as he used to say and it used to make us cringe — was he …just assumed that generals would be completely loyal to the kaiser….And when we weren’t, that was a huge shock to him….

“This shock, and his first two-plus years of struggle with seasoned, expert advisers, led to an insight for Mr. Trump. It all came back to loyalty. He needed to get rid of any advisers or senior officials who vowed loyalty to the Constitution over personal loyalty to him. Which is pretty much what he proceeded to do.

“….Having loyalists at both the Department of Justice and D.N.I….allows him, potentially, to coordinate two key agencies of the government — secret intelligence and prosecution — toward his own political ends.

“Key officials in several parts of the government told me how they thought the progression from the 3rd to the 4th might go down.

“…Disruption would most likely begin on Election Day morning somewhere on the East Coast, where polls open first….A group could just directly attack a polling place, injuring poll workers of both parties, and creating a powerful visual — an American polling place in flames, like the ballot box in Massachusetts that was burned earlier this week — that would immediately circle the globe.

“Violence and conflict throughout that day at the polls would surely affect turnout, allowing Mr. Trump to claim that the in-person vote had been corrupted….There are many scenarios that might unfold from here, nearly all of them entailing weeks or even months of conflict, and giving an advantage to the person who already runs the U.S. government. There will likely be some reckoning of the in-person vote drawn from vote tallies and exit polls. If Joe Biden is way ahead in these projections…Mr. Trump may find himself having to claim fraud or suppression that amounts to too large a share of votes to seem reasonable. Inside the Biden campaign they are calling this “too big to rig.

“No matter how the votes split, there’s an expectation among officials that Mr. Trump will claim some kind of victory on Nov. 4, even if it’s a victory he claims was hijacked by fraud….If the streets then fill with outraged people, he can easily summon, or prompt, or encourage troublemakers among his loyalists to turn a peaceful crowd into a sea of mayhem.

“…But across the government, another official argues that citizens may yet manage to rise to the challenge of this difficult election, in a time of division.

“The last line of defense in elections is the American voter,” he told me. “This is the most vulnerable phase,” now and the days immediately after Election Day, “where we’re so eager to have an outcome, that actors both foreign and domestic are going to exploit that interest, that thirst, that need for resolution to the drama.”

And there you have it. The days and weeks after the election are likely to be a referendum – not on Donald Trump, but on each and every one of us. When everything is on the line, it’s time to do everything you can. Stay tuned.

Voters Should Not Be Intimidated

David Posnett — Fri, 09 Oct 2020 13:43:45 +0000

Submitted by Francesca Rheannon:

There are strict limits on what the military, law enforcement, and private militias or other vigilantes can do at the polls.https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voters-should-not-be-intimidated

By Sean Morales-Doyle ,

From The Brennan Center

Last Updated: October 7, 2020 Published: October 6, 2020

As Election Day nears, President Trump has increasingly threatened to instigate voter intimidation. First, he has insinuated that he will deploy law enforcement officers or call up the National Guard to root out election-related crimes at the polls or call up the National Guard. (Spoiler alert: voter fraud is vanishingly rare). The president has abused his authority over law enforcement before, most notably when he deployed federal agents — and threatened to deploy the military — in response to domestic protests earlier this summer.

On top of this, in the first nationally televised presidential debate the president called for his supporters to “go into the polls and watch very carefully,” especially in Philadelphia. The Republican National Committee (RNC) claims to be gearing up for an aggressive “ballot security” operation involving 50,000 poll watchers, which many worry could include plans to intimidate voters. In 2017 a court freed the RNC from a 35-year-old consent decree that required the committee to obtain judicial approval of any such operations to ensure that they would not illegally intimidate or discriminate against voters or interfere with their right to vote.

There is a shameful history in parts of the country of armed officers, on duty or off, targeting Black voters and other voters of color for intimidation. Their mere presence in polling places could raise reasonable fears among groups that are frequently the target of racial profiling and police misconduct.

But the law is crystal clear: it is illegal to deploy federal troops or armed federal law enforcement officers to any polling place. State and local laws and practices place limits on the role of law enforcement and poll watchers. And a host of federal and state laws, many of which also carry severe criminal penalties, prevent anyone — whether a law enforcement officer or a vigilante — from harassing or intimidating voters.

The U.S. Military

Bottom Line: It would be illegal — and in many cases a federal crime — for the president to deploy the military to interfere with the election.

The Concern: President Trump has threatened to deploy the military to U.S. cities in response to protests; these threats have often been linked to his partisan attacks on Democratic mayors and governors. Although Trump has not explicitly said he would deploy troops to the polls, his threats to send in law enforcement echo his recent response to those protests. These threats, and Trump’s politicization of the military in other contexts, recently prompted two members of Congress to ask Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley whether he would obey an order to send active duty military to polling places.

Why It’s Illegal: Any deployment of troops or other armed federal agents to a polling place is a federal crime (unless the country is literally being invaded). The law, which dates back to 1948, says:

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. footnote1_pbthrbt 1

Other federal statutes also prohibit the military from interfering in our elections. footnote2_9e40ia2 2 And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bars troops from being deployed on U.S. soil generally. footnote3_kdryp8q 3 There are exceptions to the law that Trump has tried to exploit, but they do not allow him to circumvent the explicit prohibition on using the military to interfere in elections.

In short, the president cannot deploy the military for any purpose connected to an election. The military knows this. A 2018 Defense Department directive confirms that military personnel “will not conduct operations at polling places.” footnote4_4asq9ar 4 Likewise, when asked by the two members of Congress whether he would send troops to polling places, General Milley made clear, “I do not see the U.S. Military as part of this process.” Any officers who try to cross this line could be prosecuted.

The Department of Homeland Security

Bottom Line: As with the military, it would be a crime for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deploy any of its agents — including those from the Federal Protective Service, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — in connection with an election.

The Concern: Over the summer, in response to civil unrest accompanying the wave of peaceful protests that followed the murder of George Floyd, the Trump administration recklessly deployed agents from the Federal Protective Service and Customs and Border Protection to Portland, Oregon, and other U.S. cities over the objections of state and local officials (a number of whom have filed lawsuits that are pending in federal court). The administration claimed that the agents had been deployed only to protect federal property, but they allegedly assaulted protesters and carried out arrests far from federal buildings. This history, coupled with the president’s recent threats, raises understandable fears that DHS forces might be deployed to intimidate voters.

False rumors are also now spreading about plans for ICE agents to patrol the vicinity of polling places and even arrest voters they suspect of being undocumented. Some of these rumors appear to have come from groups that are intentionally trying to suppress the vote among Latinos and other people of color. These rumors create real fear in communities ICE has targeted with increasingly aggressive tactics.

Why It’s Illegal: Any deployment of DHS agents in the vicinity of a polling place or any place where votes are being counted would violate the same criminal statute that applies to all armed federal officers. The Department of Justice’s own election crimes manual confirms that the statute bars any armed federal agent from election sites. footnote5_a81tngb 5 Indeed, when asked about the president’s threat to send agents to the polls, the acting head of DHS responded point-blank: “We don’t have any authority to do that at the department.”

It is also illegal for anyone to intimidate or threaten voters, disenfranchise voters, or target voters based on their race or ethnicity — federal agents included. The use of federal agents to intimidate voters is a crime under section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). footnote6_kr4w7zk 6 Courts have held that the law forbids tactics such as following alleged suspects, recording license plate numbers, and brandishing weapons. footnote7_ojs1pyq 7 The consequence for an intentional violation? Up to five years in prison. footnote8_zt6hq83 8

Federal law also makes it a crime for people (including government officials) to conspire to deprive someone of the right to vote or the right to be free from discrimination. footnote9_eg4sn4p 9 For this offense, violators face up to 10 years in prison. The Constitution too prohibits government officials (including ICE and other federal agents) from targeting voters of color for enforcement actions. footnote10_sd5sjdy 10

Even aggressive DHS operations unconnected to an election may be out of bounds during the election. The Constitution limits otherwise legal federal law enforcement activities if they interfere with areas of fundamental state concern. For example, federal courts have blocked ICE agents from entering state judicial facilities to arrest undocumented immigrants because it disrupts states’ ability to operate their own court systems. footnote11_t4jfary 11 The same logic would bar operations by ICE (or other parts of DHS) that could significantly interfere with a state’s ability to conduct a free and fair general election. footnote12_cq1hexe 12

The Department of Justice

Bottom Line: At the polls, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is limited to observing elections for compliance with federal voting rights laws for subsequent enforcement efforts. It cannot interfere with the voting process or send agents to investigate other laws.

The Concern: Attorney General Barr, who has frequently repeated the president’s lies about purported voter fraud, has asserted the right to send DOJ agents to the polls for a variety of reasons, including to investigate potential election crimes. His statements, coupled with the president’s own threats to have U.S. attorneys at the polls, have led to fears that Trump and Barr will seek to use DOJ’s authority to meddle in the election.

Why It’s Illegal: DOJ is subject to the same restrictions as other federal agencies, including the absolute bar on deploying armed agents to polling places or other locations where an election is being held. As the department’s own election crimes manual states, prosecutors have “no authority to send FBI special agents or [U.S. marshals] to polling places.” footnote13_2dadkyu 13 Even investigative activities anywhere near polling places require special permission. footnote14_o5e05w5 14

In short, Attorney General Barr, to the extent that he is asserting a right to deploy armed agents to the polls or other election-related sites while voting is ongoing, is simply wrong. If he did try to send armed agents to polling places during an election to investigate potential crimes or “enforce civil rights” (two pretexts he’s mentioned), he would be committing a federal crime. Legitimate election crime investigations should be conducted only after voting is complete, as typically happens, including most recently in the wake of revelations of absentee ballot tampering by a GOP operative in a 2018 North Carolina congressional race. Election Day disturbances should be handled by state officials.

While armed DOJ agents are not allowed at the polls, the department may under certain circumstances send unarmed representatives under its election observation and monitoring programs. These unarmed civilian federal employees are tasked only with observing and monitoring voting processes for compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act and the Help America Vote Act and reporting back to a court or DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. footnote15_9h3i7qb 15 They have no power to enforce the law. footnote16_6wy6jf0 16 In fact, monitors do not even have the authority to enter polling places without permission from state or local election officials. footnote17_76gi9yx 17 The federal observer program, which was severely limited by a Supreme Court decision that gutted a core provision of the Voting Rights Act, footnote18_6k9uh36 18 is now restricted to a small number of places where a court has ordered it (right now, just Evergreen, Alabama, and Pasadena, Texas). footnote19_5nx244x 19

State and Local Law Enforcement

Bottom Line: State and local law enforcement can sometimes be at polling places, but never under orders from the president and always subject to numerous restrictions.

The Concern: The president’s threat to send law enforcement to the polls included local officials such as sheriffs. Even without such threats, the long history of discriminatory policing and official voter suppression in many places provides ample reason to worry that the presence of any law enforcement at the polls may intimidate some voters, especially voters of color.

What’s Legal and What Isn’t: The federal government, including the president, has no authority whatsoever over state and local law enforcement, footnote20_eszyxqh 20 and certainly no power to call them to the polls.

State and local law enforcement officers may have the right to be at the polls for the purpose of helping election officials ensure a safe voting environment. If, for example, private citizens try to interfere with the right to vote, election officials may call law enforcement in to protect the public and ensure no one is deterred from voting.

But there are a variety of legal restrictions placed on state and local law enforcement. In some states, including Pennsylvania and California, officers who show up to the polls without being called there by election officials have committed a crime. footnote21_bennng3 21 In a number of other states, including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin, officers at the polls must obey orders from election officials. footnote22_iy8omtz 22 And under no circumstances may state or local police intimidate voters, prevent people from voting, or target particular racial or ethnic groups. These are all violations of federal law. footnote23_1nnbis9 23 Many states also have their own robust voting rights protections. footnote24_lxctrkk 24

In practice, election officials and law enforcement typically develop plans ahead of elections to ensure that voting processes will be orderly and fair, including through intrastate working groups coordinated by election officials to game out and plan for a variety of scenarios.

The National Guard

Bottom Line: The president cannot deploy armed National Guard units to the polls or exert any control over units at the polls. There are also limits on states’ use of the National Guard, including the general prohibitions on intimidation and discrimination.

The Concern: As with the military and federal law enforcement, President Trump has misused his authority over the National Guard. His June deployment of eleven states’ guard units to counter protests in Washington, DC, was widely criticized. Given this history and the president’s recent statements, some worry about guard units being deployed to harass or intimidate voters or election officials.

What’s Legal and What Isn’t: National Guard units under federal command are part of the U.S. military, footnote25_x0jejnn 25 and so deploying them to the polls would be a federal crime, just like it would be for the other military branches. Moreover, using them for law enforcement purposes would in most circumstances violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

These prohibitions do not apply to guard units under the command of a state government. Some states, however, have laws of their own prohibiting the deployment of guard units to the polls. In California, for example, it is a misdemeanor for active-duty guard members (like other law enforcement officers) to enter voting locations in many circumstances. footnote26_u2gott0 26 In every state, guard units under state command are also subject to the same federal and state voting rights and antidiscrimination laws as state and local law enforcement, which means that they would be subject to criminal penalties for voter intimidation or other forms of election interference.

During the primaries, in the face of a nationwide poll worker shortage due to Covid-19, several states did deploy guard units to serve as emergency election workers. Those units were generally unarmed and served as ordinary poll workers or performed other administrative tasks. Such a deployment, while appropriate in the case of last-minute emergencies, is generally a last resort; during the primaries the deployments came at the request and direction of election officials. There should be less need for similar deployments this November, as election officials have been working hard to recruit new poll workers. (In the event that guard members are needed to fill staffing gaps, they should wear civilian clothes and their duties should be limited to those of poll workers.)

Guard units may also be deployed in “hybrid” status, in which they serve a federal mission set by the president or secretary of defense (and are paid with federal funds) while remaining under state command and control. footnote27_s9kbqz7 27 State governors, however, must consent to use their guards for the mission in question. footnote28_s8wkfyd 28 Moreover, guard units in this status arguably act under the authority of the president or secretary of defense and therefore would still be subject to the criminal prohibition on federal military officers stationing “armed men” at the polls. Guard units in hybrid status are still subject to state laws limiting their use at polling stations, as well as all federal and state voting rights and antidiscrimination laws.

Off-Duty Law Enforcement

Bottom Line: Off-duty members of the military, National Guard, and law enforcement are entitled to vote in person, serve as poll workers, and engage in other democratic activities at the polls, but they must follow the same rules as other members of the general public.

The Concern: Decades ago, the Republican Party recruited off-duty police officers to show up to the polls armed and wearing official-looking uniforms to engage in so-called “ballot security” efforts targeting Black and Latino communities. As a result of the Democratic Party suing to challenge the practice, the GOP’s operations were monitored by a federal court for 35 years. In 2017 the court order that provided for that monitoring expired. This year, in the lead-up to the first presidential election free from such oversight, the Republican National Committee is reportedly preparing to send out tens of thousands of poll watchers. The concern is that history will repeat itself.

What’s Legal and What Isn’t: Poll watchers are allowed to monitor elections in most states. Off-duty military members and law enforcement may generally take part in such activities, and of course may also be at the polls to vote themselves.

But, as noted, voter intimidation and discrimination are illegal and often criminal. Many laws, such as the VRA, apply to private as well as governmental actors, and so would cover individuals who are off duty and acting in their personal capacities.

Many states also flatly prohibit openly carrying a gun into a polling place. footnote29_fcz7waj 29 Some states, including Texas, prohibit carrying concealed weapons as well. footnote30_odelmpa 30 Many states prohibit weapons in specific types of polling places, such as government buildings. footnote31_kifh1gz 31 Others have specific rules against brandishing a firearm in a way that could intimidate voters. footnote32_htpn1zt 32

The tactics that the RNC used to intimidate Black and Latino voters are just as illegal today as they were in the 1980s. Anyone who knowingly engages in such tactics can and should face legal consequences.

Private Militias and other Vigilante Poll Watchers

Bottom Line: Voter intimidation by poll watchers is illegal, and there are legal restrictions on who can engage in poll watching and rules in place to ensure accountability.

The Concern: During the first presidential debate, President Trump called for his “supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully,” and specifically suggested that they do so in Philadelphia. In the same debate, he told the Proud Boys, a violent extremist organization, to “stand by.” Especially in light of the expiration of the consent decree restricting the Republican Party’s “ballot security” operations, these statements have led to concerns of vigilante poll watchers engaging in voter intimidation.

Why It’s Illegal: Not just anyone can show up and watch the polls. Most states limit who can serve as a poll watcher, often to appointed representatives of a candidate or a party and, in some cases, to neutral, nonpartisan observers. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, poll watchers must be registered to vote in the county where they seek to observe the polls. These limits help deter misconduct and ensure accountability. In addition to limiting who can serve as a poll watcher, most states have strict limits on what poll watchers can do. States including Georgia, Florida, and Michigan prohibit poll watchers from speaking to voters. footnote33_n5tpzya 33 Many states allow poll watchers to challenge voter eligibility, but they must follow specified procedural and substantive limits. Poll watchers who abuse their roles may be ejected from the polling place.

State and local laws also restrict armed militias from appearing at the polls. Most states have laws or constitutional provisions prohibiting private groups from engaging in unauthorized paramilitary or law enforcement activities. Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) published a 50-state guide documenting the laws that state and local governments can use to stop private militias from engaging in paramilitary activities in public spaces. footnote34_p5qp5pj 34

Armed groups or individuals who claim to offer security services at polling stations will also be in violation of state and local laws. Virtually all states have laws that strictly regulate the provision of private security services, particularly armed security services. These laws typically establish licensing and firearms-permitting procedures to ensure security guards are properly vetted, trained, and insured. Depending on the state, providing security services without a license can result in civil fines and/or criminal penalties. footnote35_7098qfq 35

Even apart from all of these limits, both federal and state laws outlaw voter intimidation and conspiracies to prevent eligible Americans from voting, and election officials are prepared to respond and remove bad actors. State and local election officials also have plans and protocols in place to address any disruptions at the polls. Most have strengthened those plans as the threat level has increased. They will not be caught off guard.

Conclusion

Federal and state laws clearly prohibit any deployment of the military, law enforcement, or vigilantes to the polls to intimidate voters or engage in any operation unrelated to maintaining the peace while elections are being held. The president’s suggestions that law enforcement should act inappropriately or that vigilantes will storm the polls are simply designed to discourage voters, particularly voters of color, from voting and to undermine faith in our elections. It is important to call out Trump’s comments for what they are: not just calls for illegal action but also attempts at voter suppression. Voters should not be intimidated.

Endnotes

footnote1_pbthrbt 1. 18 U.S.C. § 592.
footnote2_9e40ia2 2. See 18 U.S.C. § 593 (punishing any officer of the military who seeks to “prescribe or fix . . . voter qualifications,” intimidate voters, or impose election regulations on a state “different from those prescribed by law”); 52 U.S.C. 10102 (“No officer of the Army, Navy, or Air Force of the United States shall prescribe or fix, or attempt to prescribe or fix, by proclamation, order, or otherwise, the qualifications of voters in any State, or in any manner interfere with the freedom of any election in any State, or with the exercise of the free right of suffrage in any State.”).
footnote3_kdryp8q 3. 18 U.S.C. § 1385.
footnote4_4asq9ar 4. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), Directive No. 3025.18, Mar. 19, 2018, 7, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/302518p.pdf?v.
footnote5_a81tngb 5. Richard C. Pilger, ed., Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, 8th ed., U.S. Department of Justice, December 2017, 9, https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download.
footnote6_kr4w7zk 6. 52 U.S.C. § 10101(b) (2018); see also 18 U.S.C. § 594 (2018) (“Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”).
footnote7_ojs1pyq 7. Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee, No. 81-3876 (DRD) (NJ 2009).
footnote8_zt6hq83 8. 52 U.S.C. § 10308.
footnote9_eg4sn4p 9. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
footnote10_sd5sjdy 10. U.S. Const. Amend. I, V, XV.
footnote11_t4jfary 11. See, e.g., State v. U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement, 431 F.Supp.3d 377, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
footnote12_cq1hexe 12. One note of caution: if ICE agents try something illegal, poll workers and others should not take it upon themselves to call them on it. Anyone who tries to prevent an ICE agent from apprehending someone who may be in the United States unlawfully can themselves be held criminally liable, even if the agent is acting illegally. Anyone who witnesses ICE agents near the polls should immediately contact state and local election officials and immigrant and voting rights organizations — including by calling 866.OUR.VOTE, a nonpartisan voter protection hotline staffed by trained volunteers.
footnote13_2dadkyu 13. Pilger, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, 9.
footnote14_o5e05w5 14. Pilger, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, 9.
footnote15_9h3i7qb 15. Pilger, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, 85–86; and 52 U.S.C. §§ 10302(a), 10305(d).
footnote16_6wy6jf0 16. Pilger, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, 85n40.
footnote17_76gi9yx 17. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, An Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access in the United States, 2018, 268, https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/Minority_Voting_Access_2018.pdf; cf. 52 U.S.C. § 10305(d) (authority to enter polling places granted to observers).
footnote18_6k9uh36 18. See Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 557 (2013) (declaring coverage formula in 52 U.S.C. § 10303(b)); and 52 U.S.C. § 10305 (providing for observers in jurisdictions covered by the formula in § 10303(b)).
footnote19_5nx244x 19. Patino v. City of Pasadena, 230 F. Supp. 3d 667, 729-30 (S.D. Tex. 2017); and Allen v. City of Evergreen, Civil No. 13-107, 2014 WL 12607819, * 2 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2014).
footnote20_eszyxqh 20. Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997) (“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”); see also New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992).
footnote21_bennng3 21. 25 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3520 (West 2020); Cal. Elec. Code § 18544 (West 2020); John Tanner, “Effective Monitoring of Polling Places,” Baylor Law Review 61 (2009), 60–61.
footnote22_iy8omtz 22. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.031(2) (West 2019); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 163-48 (West 2020); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3501.33 (West 2020); and Wis. Stat. Ann. § 7.37(2) (West 2020).
footnote23_1nnbis9 23. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 18 U.S.C. § 594.
footnote24_lxctrkk 24. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. §104.0615 (West 2020); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 168.733 (West 2020); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.710.
footnote25_x0jejnn 25. 10 U.S.C. §§ 10105, 10106 (2018) (“The Army National Guard while in the service of the United States is a component of the Army.”). Note that parallel statutes apply to the Air Force National Guard.
footnote26_u2gott0 26. California makes it a felony for any “person in possession of a firearm or any uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel or any person who is wearing a uniform . . . in the immediate vicinity of . . . a polling place without written authorization of the appropriate city or county elections official.” Cal. Elec. Code § 18544 (West 2020); and Tanner, “Effective Monitoring of Polling Places,” 60–61.
footnote27_s9kbqz7 27. See, e.g., 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
footnote28_s8wkfyd 28. See 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) (providing for duty on “operations or missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense”).
footnote29_fcz7waj 29. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Polling Places,” Aug. 18, 2020, https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/polling-places.aspx.
footnote30_odelmpa 30. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.03(a)(2) (West 2020).
footnote31_kifh1gz 31. Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Location Restrictions,” accessed Sept. 28, 2020, https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/location-restrictions/.
footnote32_htpn1zt 32. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Department of State, “Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day,” 2016, 3 https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/DOS%20GUIDANCE%20ON%20RULES%20IN%20EFFECT%20AT%20THE%20POLLING%20PLACE%20ON%20ELECTION%20DAY%2010-16.pdf (“Individuals inside or outside the polling place who behave aggressively with a firearm or who ostentatiously demonstrate that they are carrying a firearm and that behavior either is intended to or has the effect of intimidating voters will be removed, reported to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution.”).
footnote33_n5tpzya 33. Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-408(d); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.131(1); and Michigan Department of State Bureau of Elections, The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers (Sept. 2020), 12, https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf.
footnote34_p5qp5pj 34. “Prohibiting Private Armies at Public Rallies: A Catalogue of Relevant State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions,” Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, September 2020, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public-Rallies.pdf. ICAP has also published fact sheets for every state with recommendations for the public regarding what to do when private militias are observed near polling places. “State Fact Sheets,” Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection website, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/.
footnote35_7098qfq 35. Links to each state’s licensing procedures and regulations can be found at websites promoting security guard licensing and training courses, such as securityguard-license.org and securityguardtraining.com.

The Home Stretch

David Posnett — Thu, 08 Oct 2020 17:46:58 +0000

Just 25 days left to do everything we can to defeat Donald Trump, flip the Senate, and kick Zeldin out of office! And, if that weren’t enough, we must protect and grow the Democratic majority in the NYS Senate. (Fellow NY01 resident Ron Lauder is investing huge sums to defeat Dems! More info below.)

Let’s not wake up on Nov. 4 and think we could’ve done more…

If your inbox is overflowing as much as mine, you are overwhelmed with volunteer options. So I whittled it down and created an election to-do list for myself, which I hope is of use to you!

1. Make a Voting Plan Now! We have three options:
Vote in Person Early
When: Saturday, 10/24 through Sunday, 11/1
Hours: Listed here
Where: Any early polling site in Suffolk Co. listed here. (On the East End: Windmill Village in EH, and Southampton Stony Brook U. in Southampton).

Vote Absentee (by mail)
Request Ballot ASAP: Online Portal here (Deadline is 10/27 but with PO situation, don’t wait!)
Cast Ballot ASAP: By mail, postmarked no later than 11/3; or drop off at any early polling site between 10/24 and 11/1, or at a regular polling site on Election Day. Remember to sign the security envelope! Details here.

Vote in Person on Election Day
When: Tuesday, Nov. 3
Hours: 6:00 am – 9:00 pm
Where: Your regular polling site–all slated to be open as of now

And to make sure our elections are fair and that every vote counts:
Be a Poll Watcher: Email here or contact Biden campaign
Be a Poll Worker: Apply here

(For info on your voting rights at the polls, visit ACLU site.)

2. Send Zeldin Packing!
Outside Help is here!
314 Action Fund, The House Majority PAC, and Emily’s List’s PAC are all spending money in our district to help elect Nancy Goroff. Clearly they must think our district is flippable! Check out HMP’s anti-Zeldin ads here.

State of the Race
“Most recently, the DCCC dropped its own numbers from Tulchin Research that had Goroff in the lead 48-46 with Biden out front by a 51-45 margin. We have yet to see any contradictory numbers from the GOP.” Daily Kos

Volunteer
Make Calls—contact David Goldstein
Write postcards—contact Tina Jacobowitz
Other volunteer opportunities: here

For everything you need to know about Zeldin’s awful record and his unwavering support for Trump, check out the Lee Zeldin Record website and please share widely!

3. Elect Biden and Harris to Restore our Democracy!
In New York
A huge margin in the national popular vote (as well as in swing states) is the fastest way to short circuit Trump’s nefarious post election plans. Blue states like NY have an important role in running up the popular vote, so let’s also work locally!
Suffolk for Biden: FB page
Make Biden calls with EH or SH Dems: here

In Swing States
Make calls: here
Adopt a swing state: here
Help Wisconsin this weekend: here

4. Four More Seats!
At our September PEER meeting, The Nation’s investigative journalist
John Nichols cautioned that without a Dem Senate, Biden is a lame duck.(Watch his informative and inspiring comments here)
Adopt a Key Battleground State here
Make calls with DSCC here
If you can’t decide which candidates most need your money,
Donate to Get Mitch or Die Trying Fund, (split among 10 key senate races) here .

5. Protect the Results
When we win, let’s be prepared to protect the results! Join the coalition of more than 80 groups ready to mobilize if Donald Trump refuses to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election.

6. Join us on Oct. 20 at 6:30 pm (on Zoom) and hear from LI Progressive candidates for the NYS Senate: Christine Pellegrino, and for the NYS Assembly: Joe Sackman, Steve Polgar, and Dylan Rice. We need only one more vote to pass the NYHA! Register here.

7. Protect and Grow NYS Senate Majority
Our Senate seat
NYS Senate District #1has been in Republican hands for 30 years! With LaValle out of the picture, now’s the time to flip it. Please help Dem candidate Laura Ahearn!

Preserve and Grow Dem Majority in NYS Senate
Ron Lauder is going all out to win back the Senate for Republicans through the nastiest, lying attack ads that take a page from the “Big Lie” that all GOP candidates out here, including Zeldin, are pushing: Democrats are anti-police, and because of bail reform and “defund the police” violent criminals are about to take over our streets (law enforcement just announced that violent crime is down in Suffolk!)
Read more here and please help these incumbents:
Monica Martinez (Suffolk)
Jim Gaughran (Nassau)
Andrew Gounardes (Brooklyn)
Kevin Thomas (Nassau)

The attacks on Martinez and Gaughran are especially outrageous. Even before she became a state senator Martinez was working hard with community leaders and law enforcement in her hometown of Brentwood to end the scourge of MS13 and both she and Gaughran tried to act as a bridge between bail-reform advocates and (sane) law enforcement.

It’s been an incredibly long four years and we’ve all worked so hard…But let’s find the energy for one final push—during these last 26 days— and wake up on Nov. 4 free of this national nightmare and his #1 enabler, Lee Zeldin!

Onward to Victory!

Best,
Amy

Rigged Elections?

David Posnett — Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:17:35 +0000

Submitted by John Tepper Marlin, originally from

Heidi Fiske: heidifiske@hfiske.com, 212-721-0140

Trump and his enablers complain about “rigged elections.”They should know. They’re doing their best to rig them.
Since it looks as if we have the votes to keep the House and elect Biden, and may well regain control of the Senate, to make sure those votes count our most urgent job now is to counter these R shenanigans.
How do we do that? Overview

Above all, vote! early! in person, where available. Everything you need to know about deadlines and how to vote can be found on this superb site from NBC News, which is updated daily for all 50 states: Best site for PLAN YOUR VOTE

Urge every young person you know to be a poll worker to replace the now COVID-cautious seniors who traditionallyly have served. The more polls are open, the easier it is to vote. And where R Secretaries of State are in control, if they have to close polls because there aren’t enough workers, they will close the ones in D-leaning districts. Everything you need to know about poll-working can be found on this other superb site from Power the Polls, by zip code — which is important, because qualifications are extremely local, sometimes down to the precinct level: Best site for WORK THE POLLS

work in, find workers for, or contact voters in these states in particular, which are swing states and/or have endangered incumbent R senators. ( **= state with a particularly vulnerable incumbent R senator): AZ (**), CO (**), FL, GA (**), IA (**), ID, KS, KY, ME (**), MI, MT (**), NC (**), PA , SC, TX, WI

sign this moveon petition to put pressure on those vulnerable R senators not to confirm a Supreme Court nominee now: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/do-not-fill-ruth-bader-ginsburg-s-supreme-court-seat-until-after-the-2021-inauguration
DetailPlan your vote. Vote early, ideally in personHere’s the site again: Best site for PLAN YOUR VOTE
Early voting is essential this year. Post office delivery is being purposely slowed by such things as removing 600 mail sorting machines, just as more people than ever will be voting by mail to avoid COVID. Rs will try to stop the count early after November 3rd, because they know that historically more late absentee ballots come from Ds, so the earlier a vote can be counted, the better. And the more D votes are counted on or by Election Day, the harder it is for Rs to challenge our victories.
Thus, here are the best ways to vote, in order, the best first:

Early in-person, where available: Many states allow you to vote in person before Election Day. This means putting your ballot through a voting machine, exactly as you would on November 3rd. Early in-person voting has started in Virginia and will start in Illinois this week. Do this if you possibly can because it:
1. reduces lines on Election Day, allowing more people to vote
2. doesn’t use the kneecapped and in some places possibly corrupted USPS
3. allows you to vote among relatively few people, avoiding COVID
4. means your ballot definitely will be counted on or by Election Day and thus
5. will reduce R challenges of the totals.
in-person, on Election Day: As you may face daunting lines, here are three other options — but please, do any of them early so your vote will be counted early.
Early, absentee, dropped off at a designated B of E site, where available: The otherwise excellent NBC website calls this, confusingly, “early in-person absentee.” This is an oxymoron. It is an “absentee” vote full stop, no matter how early or where it is delivered, if the voter doesn’t put it through a voting machine. But dropping it at a designated B of E site is as good as it gets, absentee-wise. Goes to the endpoint. No shenanigans will stop it. Allows you to check that you’ve done everything your state requires to make it valid.
Early, absentee, in a drop box, where available: Better than mailing. because the ballot goes through fewer hands, speeding its delivery, and it avoids the USPS
Early, absentee, by mail: In states that count ballots before Election Day, voting early ups the chances that you’ll be part of the November 3rd tally. And doing this early reduces the chance that a slowed USPS fails to get it there by your state’s deadlne.

If you can’t do any of this, be sure to vote anyway!
Become a poll worker and recruit poll workersHere’s the site again: Best site for WORK THE POLLS

rules about who can work at polls can be specific to units as small as a precinct. Sometimes the localness restrictions will be eased if they can’t find enough workers, expanding from precinct to county or even to state.
SO: apply even if you aren’t sure you qualify
states may require poll workers in certain functions to be matched by one of another party,
SO: recruit your R, Libertarian or Green Party friends too
Most encouarge students or other young people to work, sometimes as young as 16
SO: urge every student you know to apply, especially in those 16 states. Young people are particularly valuable because
- they have less to fear from COVID
- they bring new eyes, energy and ideas to our antiquated election systems
most states badly need workers.
SO: if you know a retiring poll worker urge them to find their replacement.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. If this was forwarded to you, please send your email if you’d like to get them in the future. And if you want to be taken off this list, say so and you will be. Thank you.
My great thanks to Craig K, Evan K, Deb S, Chris B and my sister Susan M for their insights and help with this.

Early Voting

David Posnett — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:22:36 +0000

I can’t wait. Voting in NY State and Suffolk county starts on October 24th, a little over 1 month from now!

In contrast to absentee ballots and voting by mail, there seems less risk of your vote not being counted if you choose Early Voting. Your vote is counted when the vote is cast, not weeks later when the mail-in ballots are finally opened, well after Nov. 3rd. You can avoid potential problems. For instance a mail-in ballot could be flagged and not counted because of a technicality, like a signature deemed invalid.

One month or more, between now and October 24th, is an eternity in terms of predicting the Covid-19 situation. Could there be a mini-outbreak? Perhaps even an outbreak related to a polling station? Just in case, you might want to request an absentee ballot. You don’t have to use it if you decide to vote in person by Early Voting.

Note: I am not suggesting that you vote twice!

In June when 6 of us voted early for the primary election in East Hampton, the experience was seamless. There were no lines. We were all done in less than 5 minutes. The poll workers were friendly and helpful, and everyone was masked and mostly 6 feet distanced. All windows and doors to the polling station were open to allow a breeze to circulate. It felt like outdoors. In June there were few voters who chose to vote early. Perhaps this method of casting your vote is still new and unfamiliar to voters. This really needs to change.

Pick your date and time now (!) and make sure you know where the polling station is. It may not be your familiar polling station if you are voting early.

Here is some relevant information from the Suffolk County Board of Elections:

Sowed Discord

David Posnett — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:01:42 +0000

Trump ‘s lackey boy, Lee Zeldin

Springs
August 24, 2020

Dear David:

The past three and a half years have been a master class in the havoc that can be wrought when a president is constrained by neither truth nor decency. Starting with the size of his inauguration crowd, it’s been brazen lie after brazen lie (20,000 and counting), and a never-ending assault on the rule of law.

He has sought to end health-care coverage for millions of Americans (and continues to do so during a pandemic), encouraged violence against journalists and political opponents, attempted to extort the president of Ukraine, re-tweeted preposterous and vile QAnon conspiracy theories, actively sown discord whenever he thinks it’s to his political advantage, and most recently he installed an unqualified lackey to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service. The list goes on and on.

But Trump couldn’t have inflicted so much damage on his own; he needed help from those willing to excuse his corruption and incompetence, and in that respect, our congressional representative, Lee Zeldin, has been a standout. Parroting any number of the president’s ridiculous talking points — from how confessed felon General Flynn has been treated unfairly to decrying that Lt. Col. Vindman “is no martyr” (No, he’s a Purple Heart recipient who served his country for 20 years and came forward when he witnessed wrongdoing), to lauding the president’s “phenomenal” handling of the coronavirus. Zeldin is an embarrassment.

Nancy Goroff, a distinguished scientist with years of experience tackling difficult problems and finding solutions, is running against Zeldin in November. The choice is ours. Do we want a sycophant who has spent the better part of his last two terms supporting the worst instincts of a dangerous president, or a woman who will represent and fight for the interests of her constituents with dignity and intelligence?

Sincerely,

CAROL DEISTLER