October 5, Dear Secretary Cascos and Director Ingram,

Similar documents
Ballot Security and Voter Suppression: Information Citizens Should Know. by Wendy Weiser and Vishal Agraharkar

Hancock, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 8/9/2017 (Goldman) Modifying processes and penalties related to voting by mail

for making a frivolous challenge. Colorado could improve its laws by requiring that a challenge be based

SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTIONS DIVISION

POLL WATCHER S GUIDE

Voting Challenges 2010

RE: Preventing the Disenfranchisement of Texas Voters After Hurricane Harvey

TEXAS ELECTION LAWS. Notice Requirement on Political Advertising Signs. The following notice must be written on each political advertising sign:

2. There is no limit to the number of campaigners allowed outside of the prohibited area

POLL WATCHER S GUIDE

Case 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Absentee Voting (Early Voting by Mail)

prohibited expenditures and contributions under , , & of the

STATE PROFILES INTRODUCTION

ALABAMA Frequently Asked Questions

Campaign Speech During Elections 1

Statement of Donita Judge Advancement Project. Ohio Field Hearing on Voting Rights

Case 2:81-cv JMV-JBC Document Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID: Exhibit A-10

ELECTION OFFENCES ACT

Case: 2:16-cv GCS-EPD Doc #: 84 Filed: 10/17/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 23383

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Poll Watchers. Information Packet Published October 10, 2016

FEDERAL STATUTES. 10 USC 921 Article Larceny and wrongful appropriation

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 1 of 18

Campaign Speech During Elections

MEMORANDUM. FROM: Pat Wolfe, Director of Elections Michael Sciortino, President of Ohio Association of Elections Officials (OAEO)

ORDER Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Schenck

Case 4:05-cv TSL-LRA Document 224 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 12

The 2013 Florida Statutes

March 18, Re: Lessons Learned from the 2008 Election Hearing. Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner:

Case 2:13-cv Document 995 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 1 of 6

April 5, The Honorable Peter M. McCoy, Jr. Member, House of Representatives 135 King Street Charleston, South Carolina 29401

BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW:

VIA FACSIMILE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL. January 22, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00193

Alabama Frequently Asked Questions TABLE OF CONTENTS

CITY OF LAGO VISTA ORDINANCE NO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. v. Civil No. 13-cv-129-JD O R D E R

ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND

Poll Watchers T.C.A

American population, and without any legal standards or restrictions, challenge the voter

K N O W Y O U R V O T I N G R I G H T S

CASE ARGUED APRIL 21, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

POLITICAL PARTICPATION: VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND VOTER REGISTRATION REQUIRMENTS 1

Association of Texas Professional Educators

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2009

Scott Gessler Secretary of State

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv RFB-NJK Document 32 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 26

Case 2:07-cv SMM Document 59 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 15

REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS

No. D-1-GN

STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

Case 2:13-cv Document Filed in TXSD on 11/18/14 Page 1 of 10

ORDER MODIFYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DENYING MOTION FOR STAY. The Secretary of State seeks a stay of the preliminary injunction this

A GUIDE FOR SCRUTINEERS (F0411) APPOINTED BY A CANDIDATE

Counter-terrorism Laws, Offences and Other Provisions

From: Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards and Assistant Attorney General Brian Buonamano

INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV- COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF COMPLAINT

CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Assembly Bill No. 45 Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections

Case 1:06-cv PLF-EGS Document 96 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Secretary of State s Election Law Changes HF 2620

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

From: Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards and Assistant Attorney General Steve LaBonte.J..&\~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. vs. Civil Action 1:15-cv RP

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 97. To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain deceptive practices in Federal

I. The Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA)

RULES ON POLL WATCHERS, VOTE CHALLENGES, AND PROVISIONAL VOTING (Effective April 22, 2006; Revised October 28, 2017)

Connecticut Frequently Asked Questions

Absentee Voting Art. I, 1 and 2, Fla. Const., Art III, 11, Fla. Const., Ch , Laws of Fla., Voting Rights Act of 1965

ELECTION CODE TITLE 6. CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS CHAPTER 61. CONDUCT OF VOTING GENERALLY SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

County Referendum Guide

Code of Conduct March 2015 CODE OF CONDUCT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PERSONS ON METRO VEHICLES FACILITIES OR PROPERTIES

Re: Recusal from Voter Registration Duties During Campaign for Governor

Time Off To Vote State-by-State

John G. Barisone Atchison, Barisone, Condotti & Kovacevich 333 Church Street Santa Cruz, CA THE INITIATIVE PROCESS AFTER PROPOSITION 218

Case 2:13-cv Document 1058 Filed in TXSD on 07/17/17 Page 1 of 22

Overview of Selected Federal Criminal Civil Rights Statutes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Summary of the Administration of DEA Elections in 2019

(7 June to date) POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF PARLIAMENT AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES ACT 4 OF 2004

Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 24 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 16

New Hampshire s Response to a National Problem

ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth, Texas, is a home rule City acting under its Charter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, Colorado Secretary of State, in his individual capacity.

Petitioners, * COURT OF APPEALS. v. * OF MARYLAND. MARIROSE JOAN CAPOZZI, et al., * September Term, Respondents. * Petition Docket No.

PREPARE TO VOTE! ACTIVITY

Ch. 171 VOTING RIGHTS Subpart D. ELECTIONS

Colifornio Stote Association of Counties

Case 7:18-cv DC Document 18 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: VOTING & ELECTIONS 2016

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Millions to the Polls

J. KENNETH BLACKWELL Ohio Secretary of State. August 2, 2005 Special Congressional Election

Transcription:

October 5, 2016 Carlos H. Cascos, Secretary of State Keith Ingram, Director of Elections Elections Division Office of the Secretary of State of Texas P.O. Box 12060 Austin, Texas 78711-2060 Dear Secretary Cascos and Director Ingram, We write to you, in our capacity as organizations concerned with protecting the rights of voters, to provide assistance in connection with your efforts to ensure an orderly general election free of voter discrimination and intimidation. As you prepare, we suspect you have been made aware of media reports about possible attempts to mobilize ballot security operations in Texas and elsewhere, including through the use of poll watchers and potentially others at the polls. 1 We are further concerned that some public statements by politicians appear to be calling for private citizens to take actions outside the normal poll-watching process, with potentially discriminatory or intimidating results. We urge your office to issue special instructions and public-education materials on what conduct will be permissible at the polls by poll watchers and any other person showing up at the polls to do anything other than vote, in the upcoming election. We have been unable to identify materials on your website recent instructions, guides, or otherwise prominently and specifically responding to the heightened risk of illegal voter discrimination and intimidation committed by private citizens attempting to police the polls, and believe that special instructions would go a long way to protect the efficiency and integrity of the election. To assist you in your efforts, we first review the federal and state legal framework that protects voters against discrimination and intimidation, including identifying specific limits on permissible conduct by officials and private citizens. We then request that the Elections Division take steps to educate election officials and the public about how the law limits what they can and cannot do. We conclude with additional precautionary steps that we recommend you take to ensure a fair election this year. We very much appreciate the demands faced by election officials at this moment in the election season, and believe that undertaking the appropriate steps to deter and prevent private citizens from engaging in illegal and improper discrimination and 1 See, e.g., Joseph Weber, Trump recruiting election observers to scout for fraud, FOX NEWS, Aug. 17, 2016, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/17/trump-recruiting-election-observers-to-scoutfor-fraud.html; Zachary Roth, Trump Poll-Watching Plan Stirs Voter Intimidation Fears, NBC NEWS, Aug. 15, 2016, http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-poll-watching-plan-stirs-voterintimidation-fears-n631261.

intimidation at the polls will make it easier for election workers to do their job, and preempt situations like the reported voter intimidation in Harris County in 2010. 2 I. Legal Prohibitions Against Discriminatory and Intimidating Conduct a. Discrimination Against Voters We first note that federal law prohibits discriminating against voters. Government officials are prohibited under the Voting Rights Act, 3 the U.S. Constitution, 4 and the Americans with Disabilities Act 5 from discriminating against voters in any way based on race, ethnicity, national origin, language, disability, or religion, or from allowing any discriminatory conduct by private actors to affect voters. Doing so can result in a prison sentence of five years, a fine of $5,000, or both. 6 Courts have made clear that conduct even motivated only in part by impermissible reasons is prohibited, 7 and have gone so far as to prohibit challengers from polling places altogether where the risks of discriminatory challenges have warranted doing so. 8 Moreover, Texas law prohibits discriminatory conduct towards voters, and requires that any pre-election challenges to voter eligibility be well grounded in personal knowledge. 9 Any challenge of voter eligibility can be made only by an elector of the challenged voter s county, and in writing via the required oath, before the registrar. 10 As you know, Texas does not provide for private citizens to challenge a voter s eligibility at the polls. 11 Therefore, anyone at the polls who is not voting, a state or federal official 2 Abby Rapoport, The Battle of Harris County A firsthand look at early voting in Houston and allegations of voter intimidation, THE TEXAS OBSERVER, Nov. 1, 2010, available at https://www.texasobserver.org/the-battle-of-harris-county/ (last visited Sept. 26, 2016). 3 52 U.S.C. 10301, 10303(f)(2), 10503. 4 U.S. Const. Amends. I, XIV, XV; Cf. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 765 (1944) ( This grant to the people of the opportunity for choice is not to be nullified by a state through casting its electoral process in a form which permits a private organization to practice racial discrimination in the election. Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be thus indirectly denied. (citation omitted)). (D.N.J. 2009). 5 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. 6 52 U.S.C. 10308. 7 See generally Democratic Nat l Committee v. Republican Nat l Committee, 671 F. Supp. 2d 575 8 Spencer v. Blackwell, 347 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. Ohio 2004) (granting plaintiffs request to block all challengers from the polls, because otherwise the facts created a serious risk of state officials discriminating against black voters... on the basis of race ). 9 See TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 16.092. 10 TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 16.091-16.092. 11 TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 63.010, repealed by Act effective Jan. 1, 2004, ch. 1315, 57(a). 2

with a legally recognized function to perform, or an appointed poll watcher, is a bystander and under Texas law may not be in the polling place. 12 b. Intimidation of Voters Private actors and government officials are prohibited by the Voting Rights Act from engaging in any efforts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce a voter to vote or not vote, or to vote for or against a particular candidate. 13 That prohibition applies even where there is no intentional discrimination. 14 Texas law similarly prohibits harming or threatening to harm voters. 15 Similarly, poll watchers are not permitted to engage in disruptive behavior and may not converse with voters under any circumstances, 16 as your recently revised Poll Watcher s Guide notes, 17 nor may they use a recording device for audio, visual, or audiovisual recording at any location of service. 18 c. Other Prohibitions Use of Police or Official Garb in Polling Places. The presence of law enforcement officials or poll watchers wearing official-seeming clothing in polling places for ballot security operations has been found to intimidate voters. 19 Additionally, Texas prohibits private citizens from possessing firearms in polling places. 20 Conspiring to Interfere with Voters Rights. Federal law prohibits any person from conspiring with others to deprive a voter of her right to vote or her right to vote free from discrimination or intimidation. 21 Violators can face up to 10 years in prison. Similarly, 12 TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 61.001(a). 13 52 U.S.C. 10101(b), 10307(b). 14 Willingham v. County of Albany, 593 F. Supp. 2d 446, 463 (N.D.N.Y. 2006). 15 TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 276.001; see also TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 61.008 (unlawfully influencing voter). 16 TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 33.058 ( [A] watcher may not converse with a voter; or communicate in any manner with a voter regarding the election. ); Elec. Law Op. No. JH-2 (1991) (election judges have authority to limit disruptive activity). 17 SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTIONS DIVISION, POLL WATCHER S GUIDE 2016, available at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pollwatchers-2016.pdf. 18 John Hannah, Jr., Secretary of State, Election Law Op. JH-2, Nov. 20, 1991, available at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/elo/jh2.pdf. 19 See, e.g., 52 U.S.C. 10102 (prohibiting U.S. military officers from interfering in state elections); Democratic Nat l Committee v. Republican Nat l Committee, 671 F. Supp. 2d 575, 579-80, 610-13 (D.N.J. 2009) (finding presence of individuals in official-seeming attire intimidated voters). 20 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 46.03(a)(2). 21 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) (providing cause of action if two or more persons... conspire... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of 3

election officials are prohibited from engaging in any conduct to deprive a person of her rights under the Voting Rights Act. 22 Texas law similarly prohibits conspiracies to intimidate or coerce voters. 23 II. Requested Election-Official Instructions and Public Education a. Inform All Relevant Parties as to Prohibited Conduct Based on the important legal prohibitions discussed above, we strongly recommend that, in advance of the November 8th general election, all instructions, trainings, reference materials, and public-education materials disseminated to election officials, poll watchers, voters, and other private citizens who may show up at the polls for any purpose other than to vote, reflect the following: i. Discrimination. Discrimination against voters, whether by private citizens or election officials, is prohibited. In particular: Election officials may not treat voters differently in any way based on race or other protected characteristics, including asking voters of only certain ethnic or racial groups to show ID, provide additional proof of a reasonable impediment to obtaining ID, or to answer questions to vote. Election officials and private citizens may not challenge a person s eligibility to vote based on the racial or ethnic makeup of a precinct or polling place. They also may not base challenges on mailings targeted at individuals living in precincts with large concentrations of minorities. Registrars may not accept a private citizen s challenge to a voter s eligibility if the challenge was discriminatory, or based on unreliable information. ii. Intimidation. Private citizens, acting as poll watchers or otherwise, may not directly confront voters. They also may not use raised voices or insulting, offensive, or threatening language. iii. Deceptive Practices. It is unlawful to disseminate misleading information about elections, including flyers or other communications that purposely misstate the time and date of an election, where it will be held, and how voting will happen. iv. Misuse of Law Enforcement. Private citizens may not be at polling places dressed to appear like law enforcement officials or carrying firearms. v. Conspiracy to Violate Voters Rights. Private citizens may not assist others in discriminatory or intimidating conduct. the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws ); 8 U.S.C. 241 & 242 (carrying penalties of fines and imprisonment up to ten years for conspiracies to intimidate a person); 52 U.S.C. 10308(c). 22 52 U.S.C. 10307(a) (b), 10308 (a). 23 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 15.02. 4

b. Additional Helpful Precautions Given the escalating rhetoric on these issues, we urge you to take the following additional steps to protect the rights of voters: Train poll workers specifically on what the rules are for private citizens observing the election, and how to deal with poll watchers and other private citizens appearing at the polls who disrupt the orderly functioning of elections through discriminatory or intimidating conduct, including photography or other recording. Post rules applicable to non-voters in polling places and on your website, in clear language, and educate the public on those rules, including, in particular, Texas s rule that poll watchers cannot talk to voters. Be prepared to protect polling places from disruptive or discriminatory behavior and ensure immediate removal of disruptors that could intimidate voters or deter them from exercising their rights. Be prepared to correct publicly any information disseminated that could mislead or intimidate voters with respect to voting, their right to vote, or the election. * * * Beyond harming individual voters, improperly conducted ballot security operations can disrupt elections and cause longer lines, among other negative consequences. The Division s issuance of clear guidance will help ensure the orderly administration of the coming elections, and we hope you undertake the modest efforts we have suggested. Respectfully submitted, Cinde Weatherby League of Women Voters of Texas Anthony Gutierrez Executive Director, Common Cause Texas Gary Bledsoe President, Texas NAACP Adam Gitlin Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice cc: Mina Cook, President, Texas Association of Elections Administrators 2507 Lee Street Greenville, TX 75401 Celeste Bichsel, President, County and District Clerks Association of Texas 501 Main St. PO Box 369 Panhandle, TX 79068 5

Angela V. Colmenero, Chief, General Litigation Division Matthew H. Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 6