Democrats Engage In Illegal Voting Behavior In Ohio

Hey, Democrats, if you can't engage in an honest election, it's really not democracy, is it? Stop the Nazi tactics!!!

Ohio official: 'Extremely questionable, if not illegal behavior' outside polling station

November 6, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: An unidentified male on Sunday potentially violated Ohio election law by standing outside a polling station to hand out invitations to an event touting appearances by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and NBA star LeBron James.

“It is clear that this is extremely questionable, if not illegal behavior,” a spokesman for Secretary of State Jon Husted’s office said after reviewing a video of the incident taken by the Fox News Channel.

Husted told Fox last week that his office would investigate any allegation of fraud or tampering that is brought to his attention by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who warns of election “rigging” regularly, or anyone else.

James is appearing with Clinton at a rally in Cleveland.

Fox News first spotted the unidentified male Sunday making contact with dozens of people in the voting line, handing out small pieces of paper with instructions about how to RSVP for the event at the nearby Cleveland Public Auditorium, several hours later.

The bottom of the flyer stated: “Printed in House, Paid for by the Ohio Democratic Party.”

Multiple signs posted outside the polling place state: “ATTENTION: No person shall loiter, congregate or engage in any kind of election campaigning within 10 FEET of any elector in line to vote. Ohio Revised Code Section 3501.35.”

A review of the code shows that violating this law can result in either being sued or put in jail for 30 days, depending on the severity of the offense.

The man handing out the invitations within the 10-foot boundary declined to give his name or say whether he was working for the Clinton campaign.

“You’re not cute enough to get my name,” he said. “Hillary and LeBron after you’re done voting.”

Secretary Husted’s office contacted the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections about the incident. The office spokesman said he was “assured” that officials are "walking up and down the line to preserve the 10-foot barrier that voters are guaranteed by Ohio law.”

However, a board spokesperson declined to review the video or following up to see whether the incident was in violation on any laws.

“We are doing the best we can to enforce the law,” the spokesperson said. “When our staff sees people getting too close to the line, we try to correct their behavior.”

The Ohio Democratic Party has yet to respond to several requests for comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...illegal-behavior-outside-polling-station.html

 

Playing fair? Democrats don't believe in fairness for everyone . . . only for those who support their stupid, short-sighted, unsustainable Utopian vision.

 

It does sound like a violation of the Ohio law, and assuming the report is accurate, this individual should be prosecuted. That said, the title of the thread is over the top. Again, assuming the report is accurate, one person who is apparently a Democrat violated the law by getting too close to voters in line when he was handing out flyers; his actions had nothing to do with the actual process of voting itself. So one Democrat, not "Democrats" and not "illegal voting behavior," but illegal interaction with voters in line. I don't see any way that this could be construed as interference or intimidation, however.

 

Right, that is why Democrats pass laws to restrict early voting, reduce the number of voting days, demand specific types of voter ID, and close polling places causing long lines in the remaining voting sites...Oh wait, that's Republicans.

 

The individual in the original post was steering voters in favor of one party . . . the restrictions you cited apply to all voters across the board . . . as well they should.

Voting should be restricted to one day, and to those participants who are demonstrably US citizens. Everyone has to deal with the lines in one way or another. All of these "inconveniences" test our resolve, but are the price we pay for the control we are supposed to have over our government.

Unfortunately, we are making voting all too convenient for those who lack both the physical and mental inclination to do more than crawl from their sofa to the fridge for another beer, and for those who, from some remote location or by some programming alteration, can hack into databases or ballot counting machines and cast the votes of others.

Bring it back to what worked well . . . bring it back to voting in person with the paper ballot on election day . . . bring it . . . Back to the Future.

 

So I have to ask....Why are Republicans afraid of the American voters to the point that they feel they must restrict as many voters as possible, even to the point of surgically disenfranchising Democrats using state laws?

Court: North Carolina Voter ID Law Targeted Black Voters
JULY 29, 2016
by SARAH CHILDRESS Senior Digital Reporter, FRONTLINE Enterprise Journalism Group

A Federal appeals court panel struck down North Carolina’s voter ID law on Friday, overturning what’s considered the broadest piece of restrictive voting legislation passed in recent years.

This is the second voter ID law to be overturned in as many weeks, while another was weakened. A separate federal appeals court struck down Texas’ last Wednesday, ruling that it discriminated against black and Latino voters by presenting an undue burden to accessing the ballot. A day earlier, a federal judge curbed Wisconsin’s voter ID law, allowing voters who don’t have identification to cast a ballot if they swear to their identity.

North Carolina’s bill extended beyond requiring a state-issued photo ID at the polls. The law cut early voting days and banned same-day voter registration, eliminated straight-ticket voting, which allows voters to choose all candidates from a single party by checking one box; and introduced more restrictions on casting provisional ballots. It prohibited pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who previously were allowed to indicate their intent to vote when applying for a driver’s license. The law also allowed for more poll watchers and made it easier to challenge voters or their ballots.

On Friday, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. found the law not only had a discriminatory effect, but that lawmakers did so on purpose.

Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”

In North Carolina, African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. They came out to vote in record numbers in 2008 and 2012 for President Barack Obama, and helped to turn the traditionally Republican-leaning state into a swing state. North Carolina went to Obama in 2008, and was narrowly won by Mitt Romney in 2012.

 

He was "steering" them to a campaign rally. There's no indication that he was trying to influence their actual votes. As if some clown handing out rally flyers is going to make a Trump voter suddenly decide to vote for Clinton. Do you have that little belief in your fellow Trump voters? He should be prosecuted for breaking the law, but the silly in the title of this thread is nothing but nonsense, and I question the judgment of anybody who's taking that narrative seriously.

What are you recommending here? The fact is that voting procedures are determined by the states. In the absence of a nationwide law, it's extremely unlikely that you're going to get the states to conform to your fantasy voting system. So it seems like you'd like the feds to dictate to the states what their voting procedures should be. Is that right?

 

Yes, since that's exactly what the Democratic Party has done to the states to get us where we presently are.

 

The racist dimocrats believe minorities are too stupid or too lazy to go about getting an ID?

 

Democrats believe minorities, the elderly, the poor, shouldn't have to jump through unnecessary hoops just to exercise their constitutionally protected right to vote. Repukes do not believe that everyone has this voting right. So they throw up as many barriers as possible. What are Repukes afraid of? A fair election?

For example...

In Nevada, Trump campaign files its first election lawsuit
11/08/16 02:28 PM

By Steve Benen
In recent days, Donald Trump and some of his allies have complained bitterly about voting precincts in Nevada remaining open last week to accommodate those who were in line when the polls closed. It’s an odd thing when a presidential campaign is outraged by voters being able to cast a ballot, but the Republican ticket has been quite animated on the matter.

Today, as NBC News reported, Team Trump filed a lawsuit to contest last week’s developments.
Donald Trump’s campaign has filed a lawsuit in state court accusing Clark County, Nevada, of keeping the polls open beyond closing time Friday, the final night of early voting.

Both Trump and Nevada GOP chairman Michael McDonald complained Friday night that a polling location in a Hispanic neighborhood in Las Vegas was kept open improperly. Trump called it evidence of a “rigged system.”

On the merits, the lawsuit appears unlikely to succeed. As is true in most states, Nevada law requires voting precincts to remain open to accommodate those who were in line to vote when the polls closed. By all appearances, that’s precisely what happened in Clark County last week.

“Nothing happened that wasn’t supposed to happen,” Dan Kulin, a spokesman for Clark County, told NBC News on Sunday. “Voters who were in line by the scheduled closing time were allowed to vote.”

Trump and his team are nevertheless outraged – enough to file a lawsuit that alleges a conspiracy between local officials and Democrats. (The suit requires the county to preserve early-voting records, which the county was already doing.)

Why bother with litigation that’s probably not going to change anything? It’s speculative, of course, but given the GOP candidate’s rhetoric in recent months, it’s likely Trump and his team are looking for excuses to contest the election results, keeping the fight going if it appears Hillary Clinton has prevailed.
didn’t rule out the possibility of additional lawsuits elsewhere.

It’s going to be one of those days.

 

Obviously we should let Mrs. Crites and Mrs. Dunham vote, right?