Justice Dept. says ballot drop box monitoring in Ariz. is likely illegal

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

The Justice Department stepped in to an ongoing Arizona election lawsuit Monday, supporting a claim by the League of Women Voters of Arizona that monitoring ballot drop boxes can amount to illegal voter intimidation.

The department said such “vigilante ballot security measures,” including filming voters at drop boxes, probably violates the federal Voting Rights Act.

“When private citizens form ‘ballot security forces’ and attempt to take over the State’s legitimate role of overseeing and policing elections, the risk of voter intimidation — and violating federal law — is significant,” the department said in a “statement of interest” filed in the case.

The League of Women Voters alleged that several organizations planned “widespread campaigns to surveil and intimidate Arizona voters at ballot drop boxes and baselessly accuse them” of voter fraud.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/31/doj-drop-box-monitoring-arizona/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_politics

[Grins]

1. Then get your ass in gear and go after them! NM

[JudyM]

2. +1 Maybe we need to get the national guard ready in some precincts.

[riversedge]

7. QUICKLY.

[calguy]

3. What do they mean.... it MAY be illegal?

If anyone knows, the justice department knows!
WTF?

[BumRushDaShow]

5. That pesky "First Amendment"

(which is what those rogue groups have asserted)

The states are responsible for elections and this is where the problems and roles of "state" vs "fed" gets muddled.

Justice Dept. says ballot drop box monitoring in Ariz. is likely illegal


By Tom Hamburger and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez

October 31, 2022 at 9:22 p.m. EDT

(snip)

The Arizona lawsuit is one of many claims from battleground states that voters are being intimidated when they place ballots in drop boxes. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) referred a report of voter harassment at drop boxes to the Justice Department on Oct. 20. Attorney General Merrick Garland last week stated that the department “will not permit voters to be intimidated” during the midterm elections. But Monday’s filing marks the first time this election cycle that the department has entered an ongoing case involving drop boxes in this way.

(snip)

The filing comes after a federal district court judge in Arizona, Michael Liburdi, on Friday refused in a related case to block groups from monitoring drop boxes. He said in a case brought by the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans that there was insufficient evidence to warrant court intervention of an activity protected by the First Amendment. The department in its filing did not offer a specific prescription in the case but argued that it is possible to craft an injunction blocking threatening activity consistent with the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and assembly.

“While the First Amendment protects expressive conduct and peaceable assembly generally, it affords no protection for threats of harm directed at voters,” the department’s lawyers wrote. Voting rights advocates applauded the department’s action. “The filing acknowledges the serious threat that voter intimidation, like we are seeing in Arizona, has to our democracy,” said Jessica Marsden, counsel to Protect Democracy, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters.

Danielle Lang, senior director for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, said the statement of interest was a strongly worded, significant addition to the case. “It’s notable that this compelling brief was filed in such a short time frame,” following Liburdi’s decision not to intervene, Lang said. The League of Women Voters is asking for a court order to ban armed vigilantes from gathering near the drop boxes and a hearing on that request is scheduled for Tuesday.

(snip)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/31/doj-drop-box-monitoring-arizona/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_politics

This is reminiscent of the anti-choice extremists blocking the walkways and entrances to clinics providing abortions and hearkens back to all the court cases that ensued to protect access. It all devolves into an oddly expanded version of the "First Amendment". Past precedent has often resulted in court orders to keep these "protestors" some "x" amount of distance away so as not to hinder.

[FBaggins]

12. Not the federal courts?

A federal court (TFG-appointed of course) was unwilling to block the group's activities.

DOJ can't just ignore that - they would have to appeal to the 10th circuit (a coin-flip if we just look at partisan makeup of the court).

Whether that could happen quickly enough to make a difference is an open question - but if DOJ thought so I would have expected this announcement to include plans for such an appeal.

[Grokenstein]

4. Blatantly-illegal intimidation and harassment MIGHT be illegal!!?

Golly!

[EarthFirst]

6. Perhaps a lengthy investigation might be in order...

After which; will become irrelevant following the mid term elections next week.

[reACTIONary]

9. A judge ruled that the activity is protected free speach..,

.. the DOJ filing is explaining why that is not necessary the case, in pursuit of an injunction against the activity.

Observing at a drop box might be protected free speech. It might also be voter intimidation. The DOJs filing states it correctly.

[SouthernDem4ever]

18. People sitting there with guns, faces and license plate covered

are not observers, they are there to intimidate. How stupid do you have to be not to recognize that?

[reACTIONary]

19. Did I say it is protected free speach? No, a judge said that...

.... which is why the DOJ filing replied that such behavior is "likely" intimidation. Which seems to be upsetting to people posting here.

The DOJ is making a legal argument about a range of behaviors in order to establish that, while some of that range is obviously protected free speech, some of it isn't, and this is likely not.

Another reason they may have used the word likely is that they are seeking an injunction in advance of judgement, and to get an injunction you have to show that you are "likely" to win the case when all is said and done.

Please try to remember that the DOJ is on our side and is fighting for us, and has skilled and knowledgeable lawyers who actually know what they are doing. Quit with the nit picking and back seat lawyering.

[SouthernDem4ever]

22. Sorry to be vauge, I was talking to the judge

I wasn't assuming you agreed.

[reACTIONary]

23. +10 nt

[reACTIONary]

20. Looks like the DOJ got results....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142989099

[reACTIONary]

21. Looks like the DOJ got results...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142989099

[reACTIONary]

8. Voting rights advocates applauded the department's action.

“The filing acknowledges the serious threat that voter intimidation, like we are seeing in Arizona, has to our democracy,” said Jessica Marsden, counsel to Protect Democracy, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters.

Danielle Lang, senior director for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, said the statement of interest was a strongly worded, significant addition to the case.

“It’s notable that this compelling brief was filed in such a short time frame,” following Liburdi’s decision not to intervene, Lang said.

[gab13by13]

11. It will have the same effect

that the sternly worded letter had that DOJ sent to the Cyber Ninjas.

[reACTIONary]

17. That sternly worded letter had the intended effect...

... It stopped the cyber ninjas from contacting voters to ask them who they voted for in order to compare it to how their ballot was marked.

Outside of that, however stupid it was, the cyber ninjas did not do anything illegal or unauthorized. And they pretty much made fools of themselves.

[gab13by13]

10. The fascists have a well-orchestrated plan

and are working it to perfection. The road to autocracy will be paved by beliefs that our elections are corrupt. We won't have to worry about dropping off ballots in ballot boxes, we won't need elections.

If I remember right, it was in Arizona that DOJ allowed a pro-Trump fake Cyber Ninja group have access to ballots, voter information and election material and equipment which should have remained in the possession of election officials for 22 months.

DOJ allowed this bogus company to violate federal law, Title 52, which flamed the Big Lie.

Autocracy will not be pretty.

[kimbutgar]

13. I would be recording on my phone these thugs as I exit my car and deposit my ballot and return

If they mess me with I’d have it on camera to use against them.

Then post on social media the videos to Expose them.

[republianmushroom]

14. Is likely, and the DoJ doesn't know if it is or isn't.

Well who does ? Just asking ?

[Quanto Magnus]

15. So start arresting those...

$%^@#$ traitors

[bluestarone]

16. Seriously i would like to see someone from our side there, just

To record EVERYTHING these assholes are doing! Just for protecting our voters! They will surely pull some shit sometime.