69
The only thing he he should be allowed to do is retake whatever high-school civics course he failed that covers how laws protect anonymous and uncoerced voting.
Watch bofa deez nuts
To be fair this is a reasonable request. Already parts of the process allow for "challengers" from parties to observe. He just thinks there's a gap missing and an additional part of the process should be covered.
I don't know the candidate at all, but from the referenced St Louse Post Dispatch ( https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/early-voting-to-continue-thursday-in-st-charles-county-official-says-despite-court-order/article_676c7a2c-971b-11ef-bab2-436acacb7089.html / https://archive.is/Mo5WA ) it sounds like he's actually quite reasonable. After all,
He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he has no suspicion of wrongdoing and simply wants to be able to observe.
The only thing is that I wish he had done so earlier, say a year and a half ago. Then there would have been enough time then to fix this and get things approved without needing to stop anyone from early voting as the injunction he requests requires.
It’s neither fair nor reasonable unless he is placed behind a two way mirror so that voters cannot see him and keeps to himself. Otherwise it’s politicking and intimidation. States have rules about having to stay certain amount of feet from polling places with political signs, t-shirts, etc. The candidate is nothing but a living breathing “vote for me” billboard if they’re allowed to sit in a polling place.
If he’s really concerned about it, he should hire someone to observe who meets neutral observer qualifications (doesn’t talk to voters, sits a certain distance from the public, wears neutral clothing, etc.).
behind a two way mirror so that voters cannot see him
Letting him secretly watch people vote somehow seems even worse to me.
I've not seen anything to suggest that the candidate wants to personally observe things.
Rather, as per the St Louis Post,
Travis Allen Heins, of St. Peters, filed for the injunction on Wednesday, saying that official "watchers" or "challengers" were wrongly being kept from observing inside polling places during early voting in St. Charles County.
His suit requests that early voting not be allowed to continue without watchers or challengers. Such observers had been disallowed by Bahr, because he said they're only allowed in when ballots are being prepared for counting, or being counted, on election day.
I.e. he's fine with meeting all the requirements you list, but he wants the observers to be able to observe the early voting tabulation on the days of early voting, not just the checks or tabulation that happens only starting on election day.
The story and headline are confusing because they repeatedly say HE should be allowed to observe. Not that he should be allowed to hire observers (even though that’s probably what’s being discussed).
To be fair, I think it's more typical for these kinds of partisan poll observers to operate on a volunteer basis.
Here's a nice YouTube that describes one experience representing the interests of Count Binface in the recent UK election.
The ones I've dealt with in the US in past elections were volunteers. 99% were great, but one was a former candidate and caused all kinds of problems. The clerk ended up removing him in the end.
Also in most states challengers/poll watches are not allowed to speak to voters. If they have concerns they need to talk to the actual poll workers
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
Wiki: reliable - The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://apnews.com/article/early-voting-missouri-watchers-444592008237449c13727ad85727fcbc
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
69 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3492 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS