387
Gee, that's not suspicious at all...
How the hell is this not "Roll up with the FBI/National Guard/Whoever and take the needed measures to get the DOJ observers into the polling station" level shenanigans?
Because democrats decided to go with a Republican AG to show that they're not 'weak on crime'.
Ah I read the article now. Seems there may be actual legal justification in at least some cases.
Federal law is supposed to supersede state law. Although States are supposed to be free to run their elections how they choose.
This makes the whole situation a gray area that the DOJ hasn’t seemed to feel the need to clarify.
Isn't the "legal justification" they used not including 'Federal officers' on their list of 'category of persons' allowed to be present during voting?
So they intentionally passed an (illegal) law that forbids the DOJ from overseeing the election process because oopsey daisy we totally didn't mean to write a law that breaks the law!
But if you could honor our intentionally broken law while we're committing the specific crimes you are here to prevent, that'd be super lawful of you.
Well you see they have nothing to hide so they have nothing to inspect! The Republican states are just trying to save the Federal government money!
/s but only slightly
On the contrary: they want you to think it's suspicious because casting doubt on the election's integrity is their goal. They want to manufacture justification for Trump's lawsuits and coup attempts.
So fucking arrest them.
Somebody posted the text of the law the other day, and as dumb as it is, it's legally within the rights of states to deny federal monitoring of their polling sites. However, I do believe that if the feds have a warrant or whatever the equivalent document is, they can ignore the state's dissent. I'd like to think the people pulling the strings knew this was going to happen and prepared accordingly.
Have you read the voting rights act & the Supremacy Clause?
Nope. I'm just giving some additional context referencing something I read yesterday. I would love to see these dirty fuckers arrested if they are in fact breaking the law. Ianal.
They should lose federal funds then. You know that every state on that list relies on them.
Officials in Florida and Texas have said they won’t allow federal election monitors into polling sites on Tuesday. And on Monday, Missouri filed a federal lawsuit seeking a court order to block federal officials from observing inside polling places.
The Justice Department announced last week that it’s deploying election monitors in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states on Election Day. The Justice Department declined to comment on Monday on the Missouri lawsuit and the moves by other Republican-led states.
So, not being blocked yet, just announcing that they will try. How much do you want to bet that this is grandstanding by the state AGs? When the feds rock up to the volunteer county election officials with federal court orders to monitor polling and counting, you think the locals will refuse, in the face of felony charges? A few may, like that Kentucky county clerk who tried denying gay couples a marriage license post-Obergefell, but most won’t, despite what their state AG says, because they know they will be the ones facing charges, not the AGs.
Yeah yeah I know something something republicans don’t give a shit, but assuming we lived in a somewhat normal world and Donald Trump never existed, can they do that? I thought federal officials superseded state ones?
Are they basically just pulling the “I dare you to try to do something about it” because they know the shit that will go down if so won’t really make them look bad, even if they lose in court?
It's a bit of a win-win situation for these nuts. If the election officials force their way in, they'll get to shriek about how corrupt Biden-Harris officials are trying to force their way into polling sites to steal the election. If it goes to court, they'll declare victory before the lawsuit is decided, and then Trump-loving muppets will start spamming lawfare, psy-op, or whatever the new word of the day is for trying to dismiss everything that would prevent them from illegitimately seizing power as the result of an insidious Democratic plot all over social media again once the lawsuits turn out in favor of the feds. Wild what you can get away with when you've got this rabid a death cult going for you.
can they do that? I thought federal officials superseded state ones?
Federal law supercedes state law. That doesn't mean federal officials can go where they want.
IIRC, the issue is that the Voting Rights Act gave DoJ the power to observe elections, but the SCOTUS partially nuked the VRA. So now it's not clear whether the DoJ still has that power, and the usual suspects are taking advantage of this ambiguity. Possibly hoping to give the SCOTUS a chance to nuke more of the VRA.
But they let Neo Nazi poll watchers in to intimidate voters.
We'll have none of your "law and order" nonsense here - we believe in FREEDOM!!!
BiG GubMiNt KeEp OuT!
{we still get disaster money tho right?}
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
387 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19126 readers
1592 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