Fewer U.S. Vote Monitors to Be More Spread Out on Election Day
(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department will deploy 500 personnel to polling stations on Election Day to help protect voters against discrimination and intimidation, down from 2012 as the result of a Supreme Court ruling that gutted part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The monitors, down from about 780 who were sent out in 2012, will be more spread out than four years ago, the department said in a statement Monday. Monitors will be sent to 67 jurisdictions in 28 states this year, compared with 51 jurisdictions in 23 states in 2012.
The department's goal is “to see to it that every eligible voter can participate in our elections to the full extent that federal law provides,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement. “The department is deeply committed to the fair and unbiased application of our voting rights laws and we will work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible person that wants to do so is able to cast a ballot.”
The reduction comes as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been trying to rally his base with claims that the election will be rigged. He has called on his supporters to go to the polls and watch voters. It also occurs amid concerns that hackers could create chaos as voters head to the polls.
For a QuickTake on U.S. voter rights fights, click here
The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder eliminated a part of the Voting Rights Act that required states to get approval from the Justice Department before changing election laws. The department interpreted the ruling as limiting a process it has used to justify sending specialized observers inside polling places.
Like previous years, the department will deploy both election observers and monitors.
In the world of U.S. election enforcement, observers differ from monitors because they are specially designated officials with the legal authority to enter polling places. Monitors don't have the same authority. They generally watch for intimidation or voting irregularities from outside, such as lobbying by supporters of a party or candidate too close to the voting site.
Without the full authority of the Voting Rights Act, the department can send observers inside polling places only where there is an existing court order to do so. For general elections, that applies to certain areas in only four states: Alaska, California, New York and Louisiana. Additionally, a court order permits observers for municipal elections in one jurisdiction in Alabama.
By comparison, the department was able to send observers to 13 states in 2012. However, the department expects state and local election officials to allow specially trained monitors into polling places to compensate.
This year, personnel from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division will be in Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
"We enforce federal statutes related to voting through a range of activities -- including filing our own litigation when the facts warrant, submitting statements of interest in private lawsuits to help explain our understanding of these laws, and providing guidance to election officials and the general public about what these laws mean and what they require," Lynch said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Strohm in Washington at cstrohm1@bloomberg.net. To contact the editors responsible for this story: Bill Faries at wfaries@bloomberg.net, Larry Liebert
-
Navigating Friction And Energy Realities: An Analysis Of Marco Rubio's October Visit To India
Occurring at a critical juncture marked by stalled trade negotiations and escalating geopolitical pressures over global energy supplies, the visit offers a profound window into modern US-India relations.
-
India Exports Capital. Why Not Export Trusteeship?
The big question, then, is whether India can build an institution that global borrowers, investors, banks, and lawyers can trust, even without an Indian connection.
-
France's Economy & Politics Are In Crisis | The Reason Why
Let's look at how the French economy and politics evolved under Nicolas Sarkozy, Franois Hollande and Emmanuel Macron.
-
You May Inherit The Business. You Must Earn Its Credibility.
Succession tests the founder's ability to share authority as much as it tests the next generation's readiness to assume it.
-
Signing Deals Is One Thing; Making Them Work Is Another | The Week In Whys
Sometimes, things don't turn out as planned. Indian companies have lost some bids to rivals, some projects won't produce until 2030.
-
FOMC Wall, PERM Suspension, Hospital Stocks | Talking Points This Week
A PERM suspension would directly affect green-card sponsorship rather than H-1B visas, so the near-term earnings impact could remain relatively limited. The key question is whether this marks a new phase in US scrutiny of Indian IT.
-
Everything, Everywhere, All At Once: Dalal Street's Week To Forget | Joining The Dots
Visa curbs, a Starlink spat and cancer drug caps: what connects this week's shocks for Indian markets
-
India Is Going Abroad For Critical Minerals. But It May Take Years To Pay Off | The Reason Why
Although India's steps are in the right direction, they remain modest compared with India's growing dependence.
-
When Everyone Has AI, What Gives You An Edge?
India's young workforce is entering an uncertain world of work where powerful AI tools are becoming widely accessible. The advantage will belong to those who combine deep expertise with digital fluency, and the distinctly human capabilities that technology cannot manufacture.
-
Wrong Labels, High Pesticide Residues Holding Back Agri Exports | The Reason Why
India needs stronger domestic food-safety and labelling standards, with best practices becoming part of everyday business for farmers, traders and food companies.