United States | News & Politics

1927 readers

465 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

simsymbiote@midwest.social

Type1@midwest.social

150

Texas bars federal election monitors from state polling stations (www.rawstory.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/usa@midwest.social

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Texas’ top elections official told the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday its election monitors aren’t permitted in the state's polling places after the federal agency announced plans to dispatch monitors to eight counties on Election Day to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Elections in America are run by and certified by the States. The Federal government has laws on campaign finance (FEC) when the elections are held and to be certified by, and who is eligible to be elected.

If a state wants to refuse access to monitors they can. It's absolutely ignorant to refuse monitoring as it would only help to prove a fair election to have them there. However, under the constitution it is the right of a state to verify their own electoral process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The idea, this year, is to prevent certification. Then they can manipulate the system through a compliant Speaker of the House to finagle a Trump win. If federal monitors are there, it will undermine this plan.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Oh I understand the motive, I'm just stating the nature of the problem. Essentially that we don't have an enforceable unified framework for federal elections. There is the ECRA which would prevent unfaithful electors and other issues, also removes SCOTUS from the initial review.

However I don't think it goes far enough. The Senate blocked any meaningful legislation to require voter access and combat vote suppression when they didn't pass the FtVA.

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/biden-signs-electoral-count-reform-act-into-law/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

It’s absolutely ignorant to refuse monitoring as it would only help to prove a fair election to have them there.

That's exactly why they're kicking them out: they want to cast doubt on the fairness of the election, so that they can manufacture excuses to throw out votes in Democrat-leaning ares, make it easier for Trump's lawsuits challenging the results to succeed, etc.

[–] leverage@lemdro.id 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Plenty of precedent for federal government to get involved. Voting rights act (1965) would be the most recent significant example that comes to mind. Constitutionality at that time was challenged and upheld as the states were violating the constitution by disenfranchising African Americans.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If we currently had a voting rights act that pertained to voter attendance or required monitor access I'd agree with you. But we don't, so here we are.

I one hundred percent agree that Merrick Garland (or Biden even) could absolutely send agents down there to force compliance with federal monitoring. However I don't see that happening for a few counties in Texas.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181131584/in-a-surprise-decision-the-supreme-court-reaffirmed-the-1965-voting-rights-act

https://www.britannica.com/event/Voting-Rights-Act