Constitutional Implications of “True the Vote”
posted by Frank Pasquale
The New York Times posted an editorial on voting harassment on Friday, describing these troubling scenarios:
In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, True the Vote, descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout. . . .
In 2009 and 2010, for example, the group focused on the Houston Congressional district represented by Sheila Jackson Lee, a black Democrat. After poring over the records for five months, True the Vote came up with a list of 500 names it considered suspicious and challenged them with election authorities. Officials put these voters on “suspense,” requiring additional proof of address, but in most cases voters had simply changed addresses. That didn’t stop the group from sending dozens of white “poll watchers” to precincts in the district during the 2010 elections, deliberately creating friction with black voters.
The group also “used inaccurate lists to slow down student voting” in Wisconsin. This is part of a much larger strategy, as Elizabeth Drew explains:
[T]he current voting rights issue is . . . a coordinated attempt by a political party to fix the result of a presidential election by restricting the opportunities of members of the opposition party’s constituency—most notably blacks—to exercise a Constitutional right. . . . In the aftermath of the 2004 election, which was characterized in Ohio by lines at voting places in black districts so long as to discourage voters, Ohio Democratic officials made voting times more flexible; after the Republicans took over the state they set out to reverse that.
Iowa, Florida, and Colorado tried to purge the voting rolls of suspected unqualified voters, but their lists turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Florida officials compiled a list of 180,000 people whose qualifications were questioned, but after voting registrars checked (some protesting the unfairness of the purge) only 207, or .0002 percent of the state’s registered voters, were found to be unqualified to vote.
When I mentioned these concerns to University of Toronto Law Professor Simon Stern, he noted the following by email:
The editorial describes a scenario that appears to fall under 42 USC § 1985(3). As the editorial explains, True the Vote identifies “largely minority precinct[s] and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error.” These details are used “to challenge voters at the polls” so as to “frustrate those in line and reduce turnout.” Section 1985(3) addresses conspiracies that use “force, intimidation, or threat” to attempt to stop “any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote.”
A series of confrontations at the polls, choreographed to take place in minority precincts, and ostensibly based on the voter’s eligibility, fits within the core of this provision (as the editorial explains, one of the group’s leaders hopes that their “poll watchers” will make the targeted voters feel as if they are “driving and seeing the police following you”). Where the group, rather than acting directly, seeks to have election officials challenge these voters, this conduct falls within another provision in section 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies aimed at “depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws.” Both forms of voter intimidation are aimed at creating the kind of irreparable injury that justifies a preliminary injunction.
In his book The Voting Wars, Rick Hasen worries about a “fraudulent fraud squad” distorting elections. Is a targeted effort to suppress minority turnout permissible in our constitutional order?
September 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Posted in: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law
Print This Post
Responses (43)
Brett Bellmore - September 23, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Given the relative demographics of the Republican and Democratic parties, doesn’t this amount to an argument that only Democrats may constitutionally have poll watchers? I don’t see how that’s going to fly.
The operating presumption here seems to be that since, (of course!) there isn’t anything improper going on in Democrat dominated districts, (Which, again, given the demographics of the parties will likely be minority districts.) “poll watchers” can only be a disguised effort at voter intimidation. This amounts to a presumption of guilt.
Is presuming that activities one party is permitted are an effort to suppress minority turnout if the other party engages in them permissible in our constitutional order? Remember, this is the face of what the current administration denies is voter intimidation. Unless True the Vote is going to be handing out batons, they’re not remotely engaged in voter intimidation by this standard.
Shag from Brookline - September 23, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Brett’s:
“Unless True the Vote is going to be handing out batons, they’re not remotely engaged in voter intimidation by this standard.”
suggests a Rip Van Winkle who slept through the civil rights battles of the 1950s-60s, and continuing. No, batons are not the only way to intimidate. Sounds like Brett is suffering from the demographics as stated by Sen. Lindsay Graham, about not enough angry white men.
Peter - September 23, 2012 at 10:57 pm
@ Prof. Bellmore: counsel, as your approach is scattershot, it’s hard to tell which pellet is meant to clinch the argument. Section 1985(3) applies both to (1) conspiracies to violate equal protection, directly and indirectly, and (2) direct efforts to prevent people from voting. Presumably the idea that “if Democrats can do it without liability, so can Republicans” relates to (1), while the supposed account of intimidation applies to (2), as otherwise the comments are completely incoherent.
(1) on “it’d be ok for Democrats to ‘monitor’ white precincts, so it must be ok for Republicans to ‘monitor’ black precincts”: (a) neither is ok, if pursued in the way the newspaper article describes; (b) if this is meant to be a BFOQ, there are plenty of white-majority precincts in the US, so no ‘BF’, and in any case, the BFOQ applies to disp. impact claims, not to intentional discrimination; (c) is the idea is that there’s no Equal Protection violation under the first part of s.1985(3), as it couldn’t possibly be intentional discrimination based on race, because it’s intentional discrimination based on political affiliation, and as everyone knows, you can’t possibly have both at the same time? If so, it’s more plausible to attend to the words of the organizers, in their regular sense, to determine whether there is intentional discrimination based on race.
(2) on “the DOJ dropped the New Black Panther Party case, so that necessarily bars all private parties from raising claims themselves until they’re beaten with batons,” that doesn’t sound worth trying in court.
Also, this talk about the “presumption of guilt” is off base. This is a civil claim, not a criminal one. The only presumption that is words mean what they are normally taken to mean.
Brett Bellmore - September 24, 2012 at 7:41 am
1. The newspaper doesn’t describe what True the Vote is doing. (Obviously, since the election hasn’t arrived yet, True the Vote isn’t doing anything yet.) They’re describing what they expect, which is to say, “presume”, True the Vote will do.
But there is such a thing as legitimate poll watching. Yes, even in minority districts! And True the Vote is entitled to the presumption that legitimate poll watching is what they will do. At least until they do something else instead.
This is nothing more than an attempt to deny one party in a two party system the use of poll watchers.
I agree the Black Panther argument won’t get you very far in court. It does, however, demonstrate what the current administration, by extension Democrats in general, views as NOT being voter intimidation: Standing at the polling place in paramilitary uniforms armed with batons, spouting racial threats.
It’s very relevant to an accusation of a double standard, which is what I’m levying here.
Shag from Brookline - September 24, 2012 at 8:25 am
Brett’s:
“It’s very relevant to an accusation of a double standard, which is what I’m levying here.”
may be getting close to a baton by “levying.”
Regarding the Black Panthers, is Brett aware of the context that gave rise to their activities? Perhaps the date of such activities has some relation to the post-Brown v. Bd. of Education resistance and the civil rights movement, combined with the Richard Nixon/GOP Southern Strategy..
What Brett is “levying” is plain and simple bigotry as he falls in step behind Sen. Lindsay Graham – they’re both “crackers.”
John Tanner - September 24, 2012 at 9:56 am
A much better tool – the one almost always used for attacking misconduct at the polls – is 42 USC 1973 (section 2 of the Voting Rights Act), which has a result standard rather than an intent requirement which, alas, is harder to prove in court than in a newspaper. The defendant in a section 2 case is the county or other local authority responsible for the conduct of the election. They have a duty to prevent discrimination by controlling poll watchers (and poll workers), as by kicking them out of the polls. Section 2 also provides comprehensive, programtic relief county-wide rather than against individuals who can be easily replaced.
42 usc 1973(i)has been used a few times, including the Black Panther case, but it actually turns out to be very hard to prove intimidation.
Joe - September 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Congrats on BB joining the professoriat.
Joe - September 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Seriously. First, “the current administration” isn’t the only one who didn’t find the NBP actionable. The LAST administration didn’t either. (see link provided by Brett) Also, as Rick Hasen notes in his new book, the actual voters there didn’t bring a claim, which is why federal voting rights personnel in the government saw it as such a weak case, again, in both administrations.
Meanwhile, per NYT:
“That didn’t stop the group from sending dozens of white “poll watchers” to precincts in the district during the 2010 elections, deliberately creating friction with black voters.”
What group? The one Brett said is not “doing anything” yet as if it is all supposition. Well, no. Also, if you read the account, we don’t just have two black guys hanging outside a mostly black precinct here but a sizable number of people who actual voters have voiced concerns about, partially since they were actually inside taking notes and so forth.
The claim is made that this is “is nothing more than an attempt to deny one party in a two party system the use of poll watchers.” The “New Black Panther Party” is not the second party in the two party system. The scope of the effort here, whomever does this sort of thing, is key. Brett’s sense of perspective is a tad off. See also, the Demos link cited at the NYT article.
“Standing at the polling place in paramilitary uniforms armed with batons, spouting racial threats.”
Referencing Rick Hansen (the election law expert) and his new book again, the claim there arose when two black people from some obscure group was hanging outside a black precinct and a “reporter” came up and instigated an incident.
If the two were seriously harassing people with racial threats outside a polling station, particularly if the actual voters complained, the case would be a lot more serious. The false “double standard” alleged here by citing this petty incident a compared to more extensive effort cited in the OP (valid or invalid it might be) is a lack of perspective that as noted in an earlier comment is Brett building a false narrative.
Maryland Conservatarian - September 25, 2012 at 8:28 am
Wherever could they have learned such tactics?
“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”
Shag from Brookline - September 25, 2012 at 8:47 am
It is amazing that Mary-land Conservative focuses on the municipality of Chicago and ignores the many municipalities in the deep South (as well as in Mary-land) for ever so many decades, perhaps as much as over a century, AFTER the Civil War and its Amendments in denying rights to African-Americans. A little perspective, please, instead of marching behind Graham and Brett.
Maryland Conservatarian - September 25, 2012 at 9:40 am
Actually, I was just focusing on a certain Democrat from Chicago…besides, if I took Shag’s advice and instead looked to the history of rights denials in the deep south…
….I’d just be focusing on different Democrats.
Shag from Brookline - September 25, 2012 at 10:17 am
Mary-land Conservative’s:
” … besides, if I took Shag’s advice and instead looked to the history of rights denials in the deep south…….I’d just be focusing on different Democrats.”
describes the current conservatives’ views (David Brooks notwithstanding with his NYTimes column today). Yes, indeed, our Mary-land Conservative is walking in lockstep behind Graham and Brett, three (3) crackers at a Tea Party.
[Note: Mary-land Conservative may have blocked out Thurgood Marshall's role in bringing Mary-land into the 20th Century.]
WiseFather - September 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Folks, the pretextual “hunt for voter fraud” goes beyond registration purging and poll watchers. In states where poll watchers are more heavily regulated, True the Vote and their affiliates/allies are recruiting and training people to be actual election judges. One organizer went so far as to say “Being an election judge is even better than being a poll watcher as you are actually running the election.”
So do you think that driver’s license makes your vote safe?
Any liquor store clerk knows how easy it is to get a fake. Do we expect TTV not to be aware of this fact in their training? Does the state provide adequate guidance for election judges in determining whether an ID’s picture sufficiently matches the person staning before them? What about the signature matching requirements?
These subjective judgment calls concerning a person’s right to vote a regular ballot may end up in the hands of someone trained to be paranoid rather than reasonably vigilant. See http://www.ragingwisdom.com/?p=1146 for some of the flaws in Ohio’s laws protecting voters on election day.
nitpicker - September 25, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Never mind, everybody. Maryland Conservatarian has a quote from a conservative Chicago columnist (who’s been caught lying about Obama in the past) that proves it’s all Obama’s fault, so just move along.
Cassandra - September 25, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Democrats need to call the police if they are harassed at the polls by racists. There is no way that Blacks have fought with their sweat and blood for the right to vote and are going to be intimidated to not exercise that right. NO WAY.
Good to see that Obama probably is going to win this election easily. We’ll see what tactics the Republicans come up with 2016 to try to suppress the minority vote and steal that election.
Thank God I live in the very blue state of Maryland and don’t have to worry about this nonsense. The Democrats have to fight back at this obvious voter intimidation. Glad that the NY Times is highlighting this issue.
Brett Bellmore - September 25, 2012 at 7:58 pm
ANYONE needs to call the police if they are harassed at the polls, whether by racists, or anybody else. What I object to here is the notion that the ordinary conduct of poll watchers can be declared “intimidation”, just because the precinct in which the poll watching takes place is a minority precinct, or somebody doesn’t like the presence of poll watchers.
Poll watchers aren’t expected to be liked, or welcomed. The very presence of poll watchers is an accusation, a statement that you’re not trusted to follow the law unless somebody is watching.
But we can not conduct elections on the honor system. We stupidly have a system of partisan election administration in this country, where elections are run locally by whichever party dominates an area. This is practically an open invitation to corner cutting, if not worse. Poll watchers are an essential check on partisan excesses.
By all means, if genuine harassment takes place, land on the people who commit it, and who may have organized it, like a ton of bricks. But don’t use the mere possibility of intimidation as an excuse to remove a fundamental check on the honesty of our elections.
We’ve got little enough reason to trust each other, when we can watch each other. Kick out the poll watchers, and that last bit of trust will die.
And quite properly so.
Shag from Brookline - September 25, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Brett continues to grasp at straws with the demographics making him an even angrier white man who believes that the Second Amendment should have no limits on the number of guns, and types, permitting open carry and otherwise, not limited to the home, that an angry person might own. Was Brett so riled up with prior elections, or is it this particular one where the demographics are breathing down his neck? Did Brett have his head in the sand or up his derriere in prior years, especially 2000 and 2004? Trust the poll watchers of the ilk Brett supports who probably would support a poll tax?
Brett Bellmore - September 26, 2012 at 1:46 am
Shag, the argument for poll watchers has nothing to do with demographics. It’s this specious argument against them which relies on demographics to deny them to one party.
My belief in the necessity of poll watchers isn’t new, I’ve *been* a poll watcher. I’ve seen first hand the people running elections violating the law. I’ve canvased a district with a list of registered voters in my hand, and seen how many were registered to fictitious addresses.
I suppose it would be possible to design an election administration system which would remain honest without partisan poll watchers. Ours does not in any way resemble such a system. You don’t want poll watchers, the system needs a serious overhaul from the ground up. This is something where we could learn from the newer democracies.
I suppose you’d claim dying voters fingers purple was intimidation, too, though…
In the mean time, if the Democratic party continues to find pretexts for denying Republicans the use of poll watchers, you will only continue to feed the conviction that Democrats rely upon ballot fraud. The light has to shine, or there will be no trust.
Maybe you think trust isn’t necessary in a democracy? That the winners having an army is enough? I see that a lot on the left, the belief that controlling the military will substitute for the perception of legitimacy.
Shag from Brookline - September 26, 2012 at 8:05 am
Here’s Brett’s not so subtle Second Amendment bottom line:
“Maybe you think trust isn’t necessary in a democracy? That the winners having an army is enough? I see that a lot on the left, the belief that controlling the military will substitute for the perception of legitimacy.”
Yes, Brett, it is the demographics, just like it was the demographics for the slaveowners who were outnumbered but had overwhelming arms and governmental support. Now there is some balancing.
As for trust, Brett should go back to the Bush/Cheney years, during which Brett was in lockstep with that administration. It is no coincidence that Brett now reaches deep in the demographic bag for poll watchers. Where is the evidence of significant voter fraud? We have the history of Jim Crow on voting by African-Americans, which has been well documented. All Brett can point to is anecdotal evidence that he focuses on the demographics – like the slavemasters seeking control.
But the bottom line is that Brett is a dyed-in-wool bigot, looking over his shoulder (to the left?) at the demographic changes. Yes, Brett surely would like to bring back those Jim Crow laws and the poll tax.
Brett Bellmore - September 26, 2012 at 12:42 pm
You see, Shag, this is why civility between the parties is becoming impossible. You don’t know me from Jack. All you know is that I disagree with you politically. And on that basis, you feel entitled to declare me a “dyed-in-wool bigot” who wants to bring back Jim Crow.
Why? Because I think Republicans are entitled to have poll watchers?
You know how Democrats define “racism”? Disagreeing with a Democrat. That’s all it means to you anymore, which is why the accusation doesn’t even sting anymore.
Shag from Brookline - September 26, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I seem to recall Rehnquist’s role as a Republican poll watcher some years back (1960s). As such, was he entitled to harass African American voters?
Brett has a history more extensive at the Balkinization Blog demonstrating his bigotry.
By the way, all parties are entitled to poll watchers. But Brett seems to favor the wave method of challenging voters with demographics in mind. Yes, Brett is an angry white man, perhaps fearful of his own inadequacies.
Brett Bellmore - September 27, 2012 at 7:00 am
I keep getting reminded how pointless it is to talk with you about anything, you can’t resist making it personal and leveling insults.
Given the demographics of the Democratic party, if you put poll watchers in precincts dominated by the Democratic party, (Which is where you rationally want to put them if you’re a Republican.) you’re going to be putting them in minority precincts. Call it disparate impact all you like, the phrase has been as emptied of meaning as “racist” by over-use.
Shag from Brookline - September 27, 2012 at 8:07 am
Brett’s:
“Given the demographics of the Democratic party, if you put poll watchers in precincts dominated by the Democratic party, (Which is where you rationally want to put them if you’re a Republican.) you’re going to be putting them in minority precincts. ”
concedes that Republican poll watchers of Brett’s ilk do indeed look to the hue of minority voters in making challenges, e.g., racial profiling, automatically.
I don’t know if Brett is insulted by describing him as an angry white man. Does he deny this? He seems to worship at the altar of Pat Buchanan.
Patrick S. O'Donnell - September 27, 2012 at 8:54 am
OK gentlemen, let’s call an end to the pissing contest, because it tends to cloud over any substantive points being made (or that you attempted to make).
Peter - September 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“Call it disparate impact all you like, the phrase has been as emptied of meaning as “racist” by over-use.”
see #3 above. It’s not called disparate impact when the plain language of the organizers, uttered to express their intentions, conveys what normal speakers of the language understand as intentional discrimination. As to whether there’s some kind of presumption, prediction, imputation, etc: easier simply to see leave it to the courts to determine whether the natural and probable understanding of the quoted language, uttered to explain the poll-watching effort and to motivate recruits for this Nov., amounts to the expression of an intention. no amount of “no it’s not!” / “yes it is!” here is going to have any effect on that determination.
Brett Bellmore - September 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm
“It’s not called disparate impact when the plain language of the organizers, uttered to express their intentions, conveys what normal speakers of the language understand as intentional discrimination.”
And if it did, the newpaper wouldn’t have used the word, “ostensible” to indictate that they thought their intentions were other than what their plain language conveyed.
Organizers have expressed the intention to do something which is legal, constitutional, and non-racist: Send poll watchers and election judges to majority Democratic precincts to see to it existing laws are complied with.
Democrats are presuming that this is just a pretext for doing something else. Understandably so, having to comply with the law can be irksome.
Peter - September 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm
“ostensible” does not modify a direct quotation from the organizers. Look at the language in quotation marks. That is the only part that would have any significance in a court. That was the only part referenced earlier.
Brett Bellmore - September 27, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Could you be specific about the direct quotation you’re talking about? The closest thing to a direct quote from the organizers I noticed was “driving and seeing the police following you.” Which, conspicuously, is not even a complete sentence, let alone in context. And hardly indicates criminal intent.
Peter - September 27, 2012 at 10:08 pm
The quoted language, far from being a “clos[e] thing to a direct quote,” *is* a direct quote (or claims to be, and if not, its falsity could be contested in court). Read that quotation, in the context provided by the link associated with it. It is hard to see why this must be pointed out, given that the original post points specifically to this quotation, and does so precisely with respect to the question of intent, so that it would hard to miss that point, and thus looking to the left and right of the quotation, and hunting for the word “ostensible” in another part of the article, seems deliberately to miss the point. Nothing is proven by merely insisting repeatedly that no reasonable normal speaker and hearer of the language could possibly ever think that it conveys anything about intention, when read in the context of its utterance — nor is anything proven by repeatedly insisting on the reverse. As already noted (see #25), no amount of “No it’s not!” / “Yes it is!” here is going to have any effect on a court’s determination or the assessment of a normal speaker of the language. But a court would have a view on this, which would be more interesting and significant than a few assertions on a blog. Moreover — as already noted — this is not a criminal claim (see #3 above).
Brett Bellmore - September 28, 2012 at 6:56 am
Peter, that’s not what I call “specific”. I identified no such quote in either the post above, or any of the subsequent comments. Going back to the NYT editorial, I found the partial quote I related. Following the link in that partial quote, I found the same partial quote, along with a few actual isolated sentences, and massive use of scare quotes. I was halfway expecting to see “and” and “the” in scare quotes by the end of the work.
But I didn’t find anything in the way of a quote which was remotely an indictment of these people. Nor did I find any quotes “in context”, which means quotes which include the speaker’s words before and after, not somebody else’s pejorative description of what was going on.
I’m not going to branch out recursively, reading the entire internet in the hope I’ll spot what you regard as a damning quote. Please just put up: Relate the actual quote that’s got you in a tizzy, rather than urging me to try to find it.
Peter - September 28, 2012 at 4:07 pm
You didn’t find something that clearly amounted in your view to language evidencing intent — that is, which, in your perception, “was remotely an indictment” (or would amount in others’ eyes to an indictment). Previously, despite a clear and unequivocal statement that the issue is not one of disparate impact (see #3), you felt free to understand the issue as one involving disparate impact. Despite a clear and unequivocal statement that the issue is not one of criminal law (see #3 — specifically in response to your own characterization of this issue in terms of criminal law), you felt free to understand the issue as one involving criminal law. One begins to wonder whether the terms of discussion proceed on the basis that “if it hasn’t been said in the immediately preceding post, it hasn’t been said at all, and so old assertions may be revived in the hope that earlier comments will have been forgotten.” Despite an explicit reference in an earlier post to the original context of the utterance, you felt to free to understand this as a reference to the last context in which the utterance was quoted. One would be forgiven, under the circumstances, in not automatically deferring to your linguistic intuitions about how a normal speaker and hearer of the language would understand the quoted language. And rather than assuming the burden of attempting to persuade a person with those linguistic intutions as to how others would understand that language, one would be forgiven for concluding that a court is a better forum reaching an assessment on that issue.
Shag from Brookline - September 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm
If Brett deigns to Google and read “So These Ten Nuns Walk Into …” by Greg Palast at The Progressive (9/28/12), I trust that his “Depends” are in place..
Brett Bellmore - September 28, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Peter, you’ve now refused, at great length, to identify the quote which has you in a tizzy. I see no reason to attempt to read your mind, I’m going to just assume you’ve got jack, and move on.
Joe - September 29, 2012 at 3:01 am
There is confusion regarding quotes and Shag is ornery but not seeing #8 refuted.
“What I object to here is the notion that the ordinary conduct of poll watchers can be declared “intimidation”, just because the precinct in which the poll watching takes place is a minority precinct, or somebody doesn’t like the presence of poll watchers.”
The concern is that certain conduct of poll watchers is problematic and it isn’t “just because” it is taking place in a minority precinct. If faux voting fraud rules harm old whites, e.g., as they can and do, that would be a problem too. And, not merely “doesn’t like,” but actually feels pressured, particularly if they have due reason to.
Of course, though Brett repeatedly resists admitted that we still really have racial discrimination in this country (“Brown was over 50 years ago!” repeated resistance to admitting even black immigrants continue to deal with discrimination in this country, which factors in affirmative action plans, which Brett compares to the KKK attacking people … this is why people like Shag lash out, perhaps), there is specific concerns about actions that burden black voting given history and practice.
The 15A is specifically there to address discrimination against racial minorities. If white voters are harmed because they are white, sure, they too are protected. But, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and later amendments are generally applied in the real world to deal with burdens on minority voting. Like general discrimination laws.
Brett’s concern for reverse racism is unconvincing, a conclusion helped by his myopic vision, which I covered before and which Shag and I have seen repeatedly, which also influences our replies.
Brett Bellmore - September 29, 2012 at 8:28 am
I don’t resist at all admitting we have racial discrimination in this country. It’s obvious that there’s racial discrimination in this country. I don’t want the government adding to it by mandating some of it.
Are some voters going to feel “intimidated” if they see poll watchers not of their own race at their polling place? Yeah, sure, what of it? Some voters are going to feel intimidated if they see a police car on the way to their polling place. Are we supposed to terminate traffic law enforcement on election day?
This sort of “intimidation” is painfully subjective. Voters are not entitled to be free from anything at all they happen to chose to be “intimidated” by, to be treated like hothouse flowers which must be spared anything at all they find objectionable.
Poll watchers are a part of normal election administration. Unless they act outside the normal parameters of poll watching, their actions can not count as “intimidation”.
In short, my advice to anyone who feels intimidated by the presence of a poll watcher? “Grow a thicker skin.”
Shag from Brookline - September 29, 2012 at 10:11 am
Brett’s “Grow a thicker skin” brings to mind Louis Armstrong’s:
(what Did I Do To Be So) Black And Blue lyrics
*****
Old empty bed…springs hard as lead
Feel like ol’ Ned…wished I was dead
What did I do…to be so black and blue
Even the mouse…ran from my house
They laugh at you…and scorn you too
What did I do…to be so black and blue
I’m white…inside…but, that don’t help my case
’cause I…can’t hide…what is in my face
How would it end…ain’t got a friend
My only sin…is in my skin
What did I do…to be so black and blue
How would it end…ain’t got a friend
My only sin…is in my skin
What did I do…to be so black and blue
*****
Brett gets angrier and angrier as a surrogate for the colorful Pat Buchanan.
Joe - September 29, 2012 at 11:27 am
Brett, yes, you “at all” resist by belittling discussions of how bad things are, citing how long ago Brown is, or saying the discrimination being responded to is “history” or (though repeatedly reminded of how they too are discriminated against) wondering why immigrants w/o such “history” benefit etc.
I refer in part to repeated Balkinization comments though the trend is also seen at Volokh Conspiracy. Your “at all” is more of you going overboard, creating a narrative, instead of trying to more objectively look at things. Comparing, yes he did this, AA to the KKK beating someone up also “at all” resists what really is happening here.
The “intimidation,” this is ironic coming from someone who rails against “racists” who support AA, is not arising because of the color of the skin of the pollwatchers. His refuted NBP example is a case in point — if two paramilitary guys with nightsticks who are white and supporting some party was outside of a polling place in a white neighborhood, that too might be a concern. The fact the two guys were black was not the reason they were red flagged. It was their gear and actions.
Brett ignores the whole picture, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to him. He paints of picture the focuses on race and party and I pointed out how it is skewered. The analysis is not against every type of “poll watching,” but specific things. As to the discrimination being subjective, so what? Discrimination often is subjective. We still have laws to address it. If only the blatantly obvious voting discrimination is addressed, lots of stuff historically and currently a problem would be not addressed.
I appreciate that Brett takes the time to respond, but the net result is not much more productive in some ways than the recent poetry.
Peter - September 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“Peter, you’ve now refused, at great length, to identify the quote which has you in a tizzy.” No, I’ve already identified it. It was the one quoted in the original post — though apparently having been quoted there, you missed it, even thought it was expressly linked to a legal theory, and so you were forced to go hunting for the same language in the NYT article, only to declare it not quite a direct quotation (somehow) and in any case not evidence, in your view, of any intent. This coming from someone whose linguistic intuitions lead him, after reading that “this is a civil claim, not a criminal one,” (see #3) to conclude this means “this is a criminal claim” (see #28). And someone whose linguistic intuitions lead him, after reading that disparate impact isn’t the relevant concept (see #3), to conclude that it’s being argued under disparate impact (see #22). A person with those linguistic intuitions, who “can’t see” in the language expressly cited before, that there’s anything to do with intent, is someone who can’t plausibly expect others simply to approve, without further thought, his intuitions about how ordinary hearers understand words in their ordinary sense.
Shag from Brookline - September 29, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Joe, that “recent poetry” was versed in 1929, sending a message during the Great Depression combined with continuing Jim Crow. It sent – and continues to send – a strong message. Together with other musical verses (“Strange Fruit” and “We Shall Overcome” come to mind), it contributed to the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s. No one challenges Brown v. Bd. of Educ. directly, but indirectly efforts continue to challenge its progeny. As Satchmo became a U.S. Ambassador internationally, his version of that “recent poetry” struck a chord that the U.S. had to realize in addressing the Cold War. So let’s give that “recent poetry” some respect.
Brett Bellmore - September 29, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Peter, and yet again you refuse to identify the quote, insisting on merely giving me vague directions, and expecting me to pick out what you’re talking about. I’ve looked at every word found between quotation marks there, and I have not identified what you could be talking about.
How’s this: Just cut and paste the damned quote, so we can stop these games?
Brett Bellmore - September 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm
bla
bla
Brett Bellmore - September 29, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Heh. The three year old strikes again.
Peter - October 6, 2012 at 8:03 pm
What is ambiguous about the reference to the line “The closest thing to a direct quote from the organizers I noticed was ‘driving and seeing the police following you.’ ” Perhaps someone who thinks “this is a civil claim, not a criminal one,” means “this is a criminal claim,” and who thinks “disaparate impact is not the relevant concept” means “disparate impact is the relevant concept” is also likely to find ambiguity where normal speakers of the language wouldn’t, and is likely to assume, conversely, that where he can’t find any implication of intent, others can’t possibly, either. Most ordinary speakers of English do not routinely interpret “is not” to mean “is.” No court would agree with these odd interpretations of ordinary language. Similarly, there is no reason to think that a court would agree with that person in finding no evidence of intent in the language quoted here: “As Ouren declared during the group’s national summit in April, and repeated again in Boca Raton, his recruits’ job is chiefly to make voters feel like they’re ‘driving and seeing the police following you.’ ” Having already discredited himself through his other nonsensical interpretations of English, that person’s insistence that “this time, everyone must, of course, agree with him,” is unlikely to find any takers.
Leave a Reply