FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Monitoring a Broken System

by DAVE LINDORFF

Tuesday’s national election in the US is shaping up to be a bruising affair, with both parties hiring armies of lawyers to fight over likely contentious battles over voter access to polling stations, dealing with long lines that could prevent people from voting after polls officially close, the counting of votes cast, and now, the right of international inspectors from the respected Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor the process.

The OSCE, a 56-member international organization (including the U.S.) which routinely sends observers to monitor and oversee elections in countries around the world, has been monitoring US elections since the highly controversial presidential election of 2000, which ended up having the presidential race decided by a split 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. (The OECD was invited to start monitoring US elections in 2004 by none other than President George W. Bush, who was handed the presidency in 2000 by the Supreme Court.) Until this year, its monitors have had no problems doing their job, but this year hard-right officials in at least two states — Texas and Iowa — have threatened to have the international observers arrested and criminally charged if they attempt to monitor any polling places in those two states. Other states may join them.

 

“The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by state law to enter a polling place,” said Texas Attorney General Greg Abott, an activist in the right-wing Tea Party movement who is in his first term as the state’s top law enforcement officer.  “It may be a criminal offense for OSCE representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution.”

 

Abbot’s threat to arrest OSCE poll watchers was echoed a few days later by Iowa’s secretary of state, Matt Schultz, who warned that any international monitors who came within 300 feet of voting stations in his state would be “criminally prosecuted.”

 

Meanwhile, in Florida, Congressman Connie Mack, the Republican candidate for US senate in that state, playing to widespread antipathy among right-wingers towards the United Nations, which the more fevered among them believe is trying to take over the US, angrily denounced the monitors saying, “The very idea that the United Nations — the world body dedicated to diminishing America’s role in the world — would be allowed, if not encouraged, to install foreigners sympathetic to the likes of Castro, Chávez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin to oversee our elections is nothing short of disgusting.” (Mack needs to do his homework: The OSCE is a European-based organization, not a UN organization, and in any case, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran are not members. Only Russia is, and it allows monitors — including US monitors — at its elections.)

 

Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, director of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, has fired back an angry letter to the US Department of State and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the threats. She wrote, “The threat of criminal sanctions against international observers is unacceptable. The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite observers to observe its elections.”  She added, “Our observers are requested to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way. They are in the US to observe the elections, not to interfere in them.”

 

The US State Department has issued a statement saying that “in general we give monitors protected status, as we expect of our people when we participate in OSCE delegations.”  It is not clear, however, how state and federal courts would rule in a dispute between state and federal authorities over a state’s arrest of monitors who are charged with violating state election laws. Under the US Constitution, voting is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government, although the US Supreme Court has said the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that states do not deny people the right to vote.

The OSCE was asked to come and observe this election by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other organizations this year especially to monitor a range of voter suppression efforts being implemented in dozens of US states where the state legislatures and governor’s officers are in the hands of the Republican Party. An organization of Republican state officials, known as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), has over the last two years sent out a number of boiler-plate laws related to voting and elections designed to suppress the votes of those groups — particularly minorities, students and the elderly who tend to vote for the Democratic Party’s candidates — and many of the states currently being run by Republican Party officials did adopt some of them, although no study has found evidence of voter fraud involving the use of false identities in any state.

 

One particularly controversial law proposed by ALEC, and passed into law by such states as Texas, Pennsylvania , Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Kansas and Florida, requires that anyone going to their neighborhood polling station to cast a vote has to provide a state-issued photo ID — either a drivers license or a state ID. Experts estimated that these laws, if applied on November 6, could reduce the number of Democratic voters allowed to cast votes by several million.

 

In Pennsylvania alone, where one very strict version of the law was passed last summer, it was estimated that 800,000 of the state’s 8 million voters, mostly blacks and elderly citizens who do not drive cars, could be blocked from voting.  In that state, opponents went to court and got the law blocked, at least for the current election, but the Republican-run state government is still  running advertisements warning voters — incorrectly — that if they don’t have a state photo ID they will not be allowed to vote on Nov. 6.

 

It is this kind of chicanery (as well as others, such as conducting computerized “purges” of voter lists that attempt to remove convicted felons, who are barred from voting in some states, but that then remove all people with common last names like Jones, Thompson or Freeman, or running fake “voter registration” efforts in which the collected registration forms are then tossed in the trash instead of being filed with election authorities) that the international observers are being asked to monitor and expose.

 

There will, of course, also be lawyers and activists from the Democratic Party on hand at most polling stations to try to make sure that those who show up to vote who are registered but do not have photo IDs, do get to cast their ballots.

 

It is ironic that the US, which has been dispatching its military to invade far-flung countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, claims to be “bringing democracy” to their people, while at home one of its two main political parties is openly trying to prevent millions of Americans from exercising the basic right to vote. Ironic too that the US government, through the so-called National Endowment for Democracy, sends funds to other countries allegedly to help encourage democracy (a dubious claim, to be sure, as it generally funds opposition groups that have been linked to coup attempts as in Venezuela).

 

Most ironic of all, of course, the US itself regularly sends election monitors under OSCE auspices to countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela and other states to monitor the fairness of their elections, but when it comes to monitoring elections at home, it threatens other countries’ monitors with arrest and jail for trying to do the same thing.

 

Even the conservative magazine the National Review acknowledges that foreign monitors are justified. As the magazine’s national columnist John Fund notes, “Representative Mack claims that election monitoring ‘should be reserved for third-world countries, banana republics, and fledging democracies.’ Well, no. The 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case exposed to the rest of the world the fact that Florida and some other U.S. states have sloppy election systems that are far less advanced than, say, countries such as Mexico.”

 

The truth is that the whole election process in the US is badly broken. Not only has the country moved backwards over the past 12 years in terms of making it easier for people to vote. It has also put the whole process in jeopardy by pushing for electronic voting, substituting computers, which leave no paper trail to audit them for accuracy or for recounts, for mechanical voting machines or paper ballots.

 

The computer voting machines are produced, maintained, run and even tallied up by the private companies that make them, not by elected or civil servant officials of municipal or county or state elections departments as in years past. Some of the companies that make the machines and do this counting are directly linked to Republican candidates. For example, Hart InterCivic, one company that has supplied computer voting machines to the state of Ohio — seen as the crucial “swing” state in the current presidential election — is run by executives who have made $195,000 in financial contributions to the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. That this kind of thing can be allowed to happen makes a joke out of the whole election process.

 

The OSCE says it has sent 57 monitors to the US to monitor voter suppression, campaign finance, and new voting technologies in the US election. It looks like they will have their hands full, even if they aren’t locked up for their efforts.

Dave Lindorff is a  founder of This Can’t Be Happening and a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He lives in Philadelphia.

This article was originally published by Press TV.

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 21, 2017
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Finance as Warfare: the IMF Lent to Greece Knowing It Could Never Pay Back Debt
CJ Hopkins
Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution
John Wight
Firestarter: the Unwelcome Return of Tony Blair
Roger Harris
Lenin Wins: Pink Tide Surges in Ecuador…For Now
Shepherd Bliss
Japanese American Internment Remembered, as Trump Rounds Up Immigrants
Boris Kagarlitsky
Trump and the Contradictions of Capitalism
Robert Fisk
The Perils of Trump Addiction
Deepak Tripathi
Theresa May: Walking the Kingdom Down a Dark Alley
Sarah Anderson
To Save Main Street, Tax Wall Street
Howard Lisnoff
Those Who Plan and Enjoy Murder
Franklin Lamb
The Life and Death Struggle of the Children of Syria
Binoy Kampmark
A Tale of Two Realities: Trump and Israel
Kim C. Domenico
Body and Soul: Becoming Men & Women in a Post-Gender Age
Mel Gurtov
Trump, Europe, and Chaos
Stephen Cooper
Steinbeck’s Road Map For Resisting Donald Trump
February 20, 2017
Bruce E. Levine
Humiliation Porn: Trump’s Gift to His Faithful…and Now the Blowback
Melvin Goodman
“Wag the Dog,” Revisited
Robert Hunziker
Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?
David Smith-Ferri
Resistance and Resolve in Russia: Memorial HRC
Kenneth Surin
Global India?
Norman Pollack
Fascistization Crashing Down: Driving the Cleaver into Social Welfare
Patrick Cockburn
Trump v. the Media: a Fight to the Death
Susan Babbitt
Shooting Arrows at Heaven: Why is There Debate About Battle Imagery in Health?
Matt Peppe
New York Times Openly Promotes Formal Apartheid Regime By Israel
David Swanson
Understanding Robert E. Lee Supporters
Michael Brenner
The Narcissism of Donald Trump
Martin Billheimer
Capital of Pain
Thomas Knapp
Florida’s Shenanigans Make a Great Case for (Re-)Separation of Ballot and State
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail