AS TRUMP’S POLLS DECLINE, HE YELLS “RIGGED ELECTION!”

… ACLU says Sheriff Jon Lopey and his deputies intimidated immigrants and minorities at voting booths in California

 

The RNC once paid off-duty sheriffs and police to intimidate minority voters at New Jersey polling places. 

 

Telling an audience in Altoona, Pa., Donald Trump said that he would seek their help in policing the polls in November to root out voter fraud.  However, voter fraud is something that even the state of Pennsylvania has noted doesn't exist in any meaningful way. 

 

 

But Donald Trump's campaign has now nationalized this effort as of last Saturday.  Eager Trump backers can now go to Trump's website and sign up to be "a Trump Election Observer."  If you do this, you will get an email thanking you for volunteering and assuring you that the campaign will "do everything we are legally allowed to do to stop crooked Hillary from rigging this election."

 

There are any number of problems with this approach, starting with the fact that the frequency of actual voter fraud in today’s elections is at ~ .00002%.  (That’s about 30 illegal votes out of 1,350,000 votes)  But there's a potentially bigger legal problem noted by the election law expert, Rick Hasen of the University of California at Irvine: “Trump's unnecessary effort would be a violation of a prohibition rule against voter intimidation that applies only to the Republican Party.”

 

This goes back to 1981, when the Republican Party started what they called a “voter-integrity program” in New Jersey that mirrors what Trump has now demanded in Altoona.

 

As described in the legal ruling about this program: The RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters.  They also included those individuals whose postcards had been returned as undeliverable.  This became a long list of voters for them to challenge at all of the New Jersey polls.

 

The RNC also then enlisted and paid for the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting hours.  They did this while wearing, “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands.  Some of the officers also wore firearms that were obvious and visible.

Trump stated in the rally in Altoona: "We have to call up law enforcement. And we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everybody watching. ... The only way they can beat us in my opinion — and I mean this 100% — is if in certain sections of the state they cheat, okay?"  (Cheating?  Trump is behind Hillary in double-digits in Pennsylvania.)

 

The Democrats had sued in New Jersey back in 1981, and in 1982, the two parties agreed to a system under which the Republican National Committee (RNC) agreed to refrain from a number of tactics that could be used to intimidate voters. That consent decree, as it is called, has been modified a number of times, often in response to efforts to challenge the ability of Democratic voters to vote, occasionally they targeted black voters specifically.

 

But Rick Hasen points specifically to the fifth prohibition in the decree, Part E, which keeps the party from "undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting."

 

 

Trump's pointed reference to how voters in "certain sections of the state" were likely to cheat, this was almost certainly a reference to a debunked claim that the vote was rigged in predominantly black parts of Philadelphia.

 

Hasen has now explained why Trump's apparent effort could still be legally tricky.

 

"It's at least enough innuendo based on the other things that Trump has said in the campaign, that you could make the case that this would fall under Part E, for that kind of intimidation.”

 

But let's step back a bit. Political campaigns often send observers to polling places as part of get-out-the-vote efforts, since most states often allow campaigns to track who has and hasn't already voted. Campaigns spend months identifying voters who support their candidates, and they also check to make sure they've voted on Election Day.  Campaigns are therefore allowed to then send volunteers to go and encourage those supporters who haven't yet cast a ballot to do so.

 

To track that information though, observers have to abide by certain rules that vary in different states and counties.

 

For example, here are the rules in Los Angeles:

 

Observers can see who's been checked off the already-voted list, but they may not challenge voters. Vote tallying may be observed, but not interfered with.  And: "The use of force, violence, tactic of coercion or intimidation to compel a person to refrain from voting at any election is a felony punishable by imprisonment in state prison for up to three years."

 

The consent decree extends the list of prohibitions for the Republican party. But the question is, “Is Donald Trump the individual candidate considered the same as the Republican party?”

 

That's the question Hasen raises. Yes, Trump is fundraising with the Republican Party. And Trump has spoken in the past of outsourcing his voter-turnout effort to the Republican Party, though it's not clear if he will or if he can outsource.

 

"If I were the lawyer for the [Democratic National Committee], I would try to make the case that Trump is acting as an agent for the RNC and the RNC is acting as an agent of Trump since they have a joint fundraising committee and they are working together," Hasen said. "I can't tell you how a court would rule on this question, but I certainly think the Democrats could make that case."

 

If the Democrats do challenge this effort, and if Trump is determined to be an agent of the Republican Party, the court could find that Trump's efforts violate the consent decree. That would extend the consent decree for another eight years, which currently it expires in December 2017.  Anyone found knowingly in violation of the decree would then be held in contempt of court.

 

At this point, it is not clear, since this effort and direction is not coming directly from the RNC, but from an individual candidate.  Does that consent decree apply to Trump as well as the RNC?  This would probably have to be determined in court.  And if that’s the case, could that be done in time for this election?

 

The real issue that seems to be inevitable is that if Trump’s poll numbers continue in their downward spiral, you can bet the house that Trump will start going after the voters claiming it is a “rigged election”.

 

Stay tuned for what is probably the inevitable.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2016