Voters' Intimidation And Protection - Research Paper Example

Voters' Intimidation And Protection Introduction Fraudulent practices prior to and during the elections period are responsible for deterring eligible voters from exercising their democratic right to vote. These misleading acts seek to prevent a certain class of voters from casting their votes thus increasing the chance of failure for their preferred political candidate, whereas increasing winning chances for the candidate(s) supported by the fraudsters. Some of these deceptive actions include: conveying false or deceptive information regarding qualifications of voters; disseminating bogus information in regard to the timing, location, or approach of ballot voting; in addition to intimidating or threatening voters in polling stations (LCCRL 5-7). However, with advancement in technology, these fraudulent tactics have adopted a more complicated dimension, since they utilize contemporary technology in targeting specific voters. The targeted classes of voters mainly include African Americans and other minorities; the aged or recently registered young voters; individuals in the low-income bracket, disabled persons and naturalized citizens. Efforts must be made to curb these deceptive practices and consequent infringement of target populations’ democratic right to vote. Topic Justification Frequent occurrence of deceiving election practices is a worrying trend in the modern American society. Occurrence of such fraudulent or intimidating acts negates the credibility of our democratic processes. It is only when these practices are effectively addressed, that America can serve as an exemplary example of mature democracy for the rest of the world, as well as, guarantee election of responsible leaders to public offices. I, therefore, chose to study this trend, in order to propose potential mitigation measures. Background Close to half a century after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, voter clusters in traditionally voiceless communities are still open targets of intimidation and deceiving election exercises. While in the past the tactics utilized a direct approach, like threatening voters in polling stations and distributing printed flyers with threats or misleading information, the modern technology age has increased sophistication of the process. This not only makes it possible to trace the source of the deceptive information, but it is also more effective. For a fair and transparent electoral process, a person’s voting right should not be impeded by either intimidation or deception. However, the liberty to practice this right gets endangered when voters come across fraud, intimidation or trickery before, as well as, in the course of voting. These deceiving election exercises primarily take place when organizations or individuals affiliated to a particular political party, and political operatives purposely convey false or misleading information regarding the elections that deters voters’ participation (LCCRL11-17). In the modern environment, majority of the American population receives information through the internet and, particularly, platforms of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Given the far reaching effects of these instruments of communication, there is a great likelihood of deceptive information reaching voters and preventing them from casting their votes. For this reason, lawmakers at the federal and state levels are obliged to establish strong legislative measures, which guard voters from intimidation and fraudulent election practices. This will prevent such practices from derailing the electoral process, thus defending people’s right to vote. Some states and congress have, in the past, made efforts to deal with deceiving election practices. However, a limited number of laws enacted, directly and effectively tackle the negative conduct. For instance, few states disallow behaviour that interrupts a person’s voting ability. This leads to ambiguity in regard to the laws’ application to the deliberate conveyance of substantially misleading information concerning crucial aspects like voting place, approach and time. Some other states only just prohibit specific types of misleading practices like disseminating false information about a ballot initiative or a political candidate. Majority of states, therefore, lack laws addressing voter intimidation or suppression, and to worsen the situation, law enforcers do not usually investigate or even, put perpetrators of these deceptive and intimidating practices on trial (LCCRL 18-20). Types of Deceptive Election Exercises Examples of deceptive election exercises are as described hereunder: Flyers showing false election guidelines This is a deceptive practice, which occurred in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in the year 2004. Unknown people calling themselves “Milwaukee Black Voters” distributed flyers in neighborhoods primarily occupied by minorities. These printed leaflets stipulated that, if individuals had cast their votes in any elections during the year, then they had no right to vote during presidential elections. The flyers also indicated that, if one had family members found to be guilty of a crime, then such a person was not a legible voter in the presidential elections. The intimidating part was the stipulation that violation of any of these “rules” would lead to incarceration for a period of ten years. Flyers showing a false date for elections In the year 2008, unknown people, hiding under the guise of Virginia State Board of Election (VSBE) distributed bogus flyers, which misleadingly indicated that, elections for Republican candidates would take place on 4th November due to the large voter turnout. The false leaflets also stated that supporters of the Democratic Party would vote on 5th November. Deceiving internet messages In the year 2008, staff and students of the George Mason University (GMU) received an email, supposedly from the university’s administrator, falsely indicating that elections were to take place on Wednesday, a date further than the actual voting day (Pascal 908-912). Current Legislative Measures against Election Deception Deceptive Exercises and Voter Bullying Prevention Act In 2007, legislation seeking to prevent deceptive exercises and voter Intimidation got enacted, after Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and the current president of the U.S, Barack Obama, who was then a senator (D-IL), lobbied for support from others. The legislative was an improved version of a bill that had been proposed in the year 2005 by senator Obama. This legislation emphasized on the importance of making sure that voters were given access to accurate and appropriate information, so as to protect the election process’ integrity, while ensuring that each eligible voter’s ballot counted in final decision making (Daniels 346-350). Deceptive exercises and Voter Prevention on intimidation Act of 2011 This piece of legislation was a modification of prior Acts. Amongst the adjustments made, the revised Schumer-Cardin bill improved the general legislative findings and specified that, certain conduct was prohibited in the election process. For instance, utilization and communication of false information be it, telephonic, electronic, and written is punishable by the Justice Department (Daniels 351-360). First Amendment Concerns There have been major worries, regarding declaration of deceptive election information. Many get concerned that, the practice of criminalizing deceptive election conduct could unconstitutionally restrict the freedom of speech. However, the first amendment should not be abused by people to value their low value speeches. The Supreme Court jurisprudence warns against such issues. For this reason, deceptive election exercises are not protected by the First Amendment (Daniels 361-369). Additionally, defamation, obscenity, fraud and defamation are all unworthy of protection provided under the First Amendment. Recommendations/ Model Legislation Election deception strategies in many cases target particular voters and the end consequence is depriving these nationals of their basic right of voting. However, perpetrators of such malicious types of voter suppression should be held accountable for their actions. In order to address the ongoing suppression activities, the state election laws should be amended in order to directly target any malicious and dirty tricks that deprive voters of their rights to vote soundly in any election period. Therefore, in order to bring to an end these heinous acts, the following is proposed: it should be explicitly made unlawful, to intentionally communicate or fortify data within ninety days of any election. This information can talk about a place, time or any other kind of information in order to prohibit any person from exercising their right to vote. This necessitates the Attorney General of the state to: • Conduct an investigation on all sorts of claims of any misleading voter practices; • To utilize all efficient measures in providing the correct election information to the affected voters. Such information should be made available by holding public service announcements, as well as, giving emergency alert message systems. • The AG should also ensure that the problem has been forwarded to the appropriate, state, federal and local authorities for the right prosecution. The AG is also supposed to give a well detailed report in ninety days describing any allegations of deceptive election practices. There should be a summary of the counteractive measures, and other imperative information. Nevertheless, there have been improvements of the voting affairs. Forms of reform that could effectively address deceptive activities include: Civil and criminal penalties deterring, preventing, and penalizing any deceptive election practices. Appropriate law authorization that enforces authority pursue, as well as, prosecution of people that knowingly provide to voters communicate falsified election information with the aim of deterring them from voting. The appropriate state or federal agencies should take corrective action in providing the affected voters or any other person with correct election information. There should be a private right to take legal action, in order for the victims to protect themselves from such heinous actions. There should be transparency in the electoral process. The AG is required to combat any deceptive election practices immediately via a public education campaign which should use all available and efficient methods. The Attorney General must have the mandate to investigate any claim of deceptive election practices. Conclusion Despite the fact that numerous states have enacted laws that possibly address some of the intense campaigns, which have been designed to confuse voters, there are extremely few states that have unambiguous statutes prohibiting the utilization of deception information on elections’ place, time, and the voting manner, or any other forms of election process interference. Some of the states have scarcely enacted laws that prohibit impersonation of election officials or the use of documents that have been fraudulently acquired, yet appear to be from official government sources. Therefore, election administrators are supposed to use their regulatory authority in order to formulate and execute policies that have the capability of curbing misleading election practices and guaranteeing conveyance of correct information to the voters on time. It is the opportune time that the leaders make sure that all voters’ right gets protected without any ambiguity in order to ensure that democracy upholds its role of selecting credible and accountable leaders. Works Cited Daniels, Gilder. Voter Deception. Indiana Law Review 43.343(2010): 346-385. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law (LCCRL). Deceptive Election Practices and Voter Intimidation: The Need for Voter Protection. 2012. 23 April, 2013< http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/DECEPTIVEPRACTICESREPORTJULY2012FINALPDF.PDF > Pascal, Nicole. Online behavioral Advertising and Deceptive Campaign Tactics: Policy Issues. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 19.4(2011): 908-925. Read More