Voter Intimidation - Prosecution
At a recent council meeting, the city manager inquired of the city attorney whether citizens that signed the recall petition could be forced to pay for the legal fees incurred by the city to fight the petition. In the constitutionally protected opinion of this blog and of several citizens, raising the specter of penalizing citizens for exercising their right to vote is voter intimidation. Hence, the city manager is considered as having committed voter intimidation. By not refuting the inquiry, and further propagating the threat by stating that the matter would be researched, the city attorney is also considered as having committed voter intimidation.
The city council of Marco Island for all practical purposes acknowledged the voter intimidation by calling an emergency meeting on September 28, 2006. In that meeting, the city council recognized that voter intimidation had occurred by virtue of the claim made by the council that a number of citizens contacted the council with concerns to this effect. The city council then voted unanimously to not seek retribution from its citizens.
By then the damage had been done and further buttressed by the retreat.
It is again in the constitutionally protected opinion of this blog, the city’s action of voting to not seek retribution/fees from the citizens that signed the petition confirms that a crime has been committed, and that such backpedaling does not negate prosecution.
Voter intimidation is a crime. State and federal laws specifically prohibit voter intimidation of any type. In a previous article, this blog denotes the state statute. The federal law is part of the Voting Rights Act and subsequent legislation.
In a legal opinion:
Edward B. Foley, Director, Election Law @ Moritz &Amber Lea Gosnell, Class of 2006, Moritz College of Law
The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person […] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote." Although other provisions of the Voting Rights Act concern racially discriminatory practices, this provision outlaws intimidation regardless of motivation.
Those voters believing to have been intimidated are free to request state and federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute.
Citizens wishing to file a state complaint may be in for a surprise. Calls to the attorney general’s office of Florida were treated with disdain and ignorance. Calls to Florida state attorney’s office were similar, finally terminating at the Ft. Meyers office. There, a paralegal (that incredibly wished to remain anonymous) stated clearly a crime had been committed and suggested that the only way by which the state attorney’s office would pursue the matter was if the citizens did all of the investigation, then called the local police department and filed a complaint. Welcome to the “good-ol boy network”, and good luck.
Citizens wishing to file a federal complaint can complete the United States Department of Justice form Citizens Complaint PDF or Citizens Complaint DOC.
It continues to be the misfortune of this community in its entirety when citizens that disagree with certain policies and pursue a legal and peaceful recourse are entreated to intimidation, threats and slurs. Some will merely accept the zeitgeist, while others will welcome the attacks on those that they disagree with, while still some will pursue a legal and peaceful redress. Some will allow their civil liberties to continue to erode, while others don’t realize that one day it will be them that are threatened, and while others will attempt to stop that erosion.
It’s a choice citizens of a democracy will always face.
The city council of Marco Island for all practical purposes acknowledged the voter intimidation by calling an emergency meeting on September 28, 2006. In that meeting, the city council recognized that voter intimidation had occurred by virtue of the claim made by the council that a number of citizens contacted the council with concerns to this effect. The city council then voted unanimously to not seek retribution from its citizens.
By then the damage had been done and further buttressed by the retreat.
It is again in the constitutionally protected opinion of this blog, the city’s action of voting to not seek retribution/fees from the citizens that signed the petition confirms that a crime has been committed, and that such backpedaling does not negate prosecution.
Voter intimidation is a crime. State and federal laws specifically prohibit voter intimidation of any type. In a previous article, this blog denotes the state statute. The federal law is part of the Voting Rights Act and subsequent legislation.
In a legal opinion:
Edward B. Foley, Director, Election Law @ Moritz &Amber Lea Gosnell, Class of 2006, Moritz College of Law
While there is no set formula for classifying acts of vote suppression, the following three categories help to distinguish the different techniques. Voters can be prevented from potentially voting for the other candidate (1) by direct threats of intimidation, (2) by suppressing turnout through disinformation and scare tactics, and finally, (3) by efforts to keep the other candidate's message from being communicated.
The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person […] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote." Although other provisions of the Voting Rights Act concern racially discriminatory practices, this provision outlaws intimidation regardless of motivation.
Those voters believing to have been intimidated are free to request state and federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute.
Citizens wishing to file a state complaint may be in for a surprise. Calls to the attorney general’s office of Florida were treated with disdain and ignorance. Calls to Florida state attorney’s office were similar, finally terminating at the Ft. Meyers office. There, a paralegal (that incredibly wished to remain anonymous) stated clearly a crime had been committed and suggested that the only way by which the state attorney’s office would pursue the matter was if the citizens did all of the investigation, then called the local police department and filed a complaint. Welcome to the “good-ol boy network”, and good luck.
Citizens wishing to file a federal complaint can complete the United States Department of Justice form Citizens Complaint PDF or Citizens Complaint DOC.
It continues to be the misfortune of this community in its entirety when citizens that disagree with certain policies and pursue a legal and peaceful recourse are entreated to intimidation, threats and slurs. Some will merely accept the zeitgeist, while others will welcome the attacks on those that they disagree with, while still some will pursue a legal and peaceful redress. Some will allow their civil liberties to continue to erode, while others don’t realize that one day it will be them that are threatened, and while others will attempt to stop that erosion.
It’s a choice citizens of a democracy will always face.
posted by Mario R. Sanchez, Ph.D. at
9:30 AM
|
Number of Comments: 0
CLICK HERE TO VIEW&POST COMMENTS
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home