S 1975 - Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005

[Slim]

Why not provide them for free then?

Works for me.

[Inquartata]

Simple yes or no question: Do you consider sending false information about the time and place of elections speech that is protected by the right to free speech?

Yes. As written, the bill is appallingly broad and could cover statements such as the one I jokingly made above. Don't like that your wife plans to "cancel out" your vote, so you tell her the election is tomorrow instead of today? Go to jail, $100,000 fine.

And notice that the law turns on words such as "knowingly" and "intent". With guys like you and Jeff arguing that any false statements are de facto evidence of intentional deceit ( see the "Fundamentalism" thread ), that could mean that even mistaken statements could be criminalized.

You also make the argument that laws like the Patriot Act confer powers which will and must eventually be abused, given the nature of authority. If so, this law too is guaranteed o be abused.

There is no "untruth" exemption to the First Amendment.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Yes. As written, the bill is appallingly broad and could cover statements such as the one I jokingly made above. Don't like that your wife plans to "cancel out" your vote, so you tell her the election is tomorrow instead of today? Go to jail, $100,000 fine.

As an unmarried man, you appear to be unaware that a wife can administer other kinds of punishment, of a nature that some men would classify as "cruel and unusual".



Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Philistine]

Yes. As written, the bill is appallingly broad and could cover statements such as the one I jokingly made above.

Not really.

Don't like that your wife plans to "cancel out" your vote, so you tell her the election is tomorrow instead of today? Go to jail, $100,000 fine.

Well, I suppose. In the same sense that if you tell her you will beat her up (or divorce her) if she goes and votes, you'd be guilty of violating already existing law. Should we repeal that one?

And notice that the law turns on words such as "knowingly" and "intent". With guys like you and Jeff arguing that any false statements are de facto evidence of intentional deceit ( see the "Fundamentalism" thread ), that could mean that even mistaken statements could be criminalized.

Like any other law that uses "knowingly" and "intent" (which would be most laws)--mistakes aren't criminalized. They may be prosecuted under the theory that they aren't mistakes--but they're not criminalized.

Again--is the danger of overzealous prosecution for this crime more apparent then for other crimes?

You also make the argument that laws like the Patriot Act confer powers which will and must eventually be abused, given the nature of authority. If so, this law too is guaranteed o be abused.

This law, unlike certain provisions of the Patriot Act, does not confer powers. It criminalizes conduct. I haven't seen any cogent complaints from anyone about the sections of the Patriot Act that similarly only act to criminalize conduct. (Other than one fairly esoteric section that was a little too loosely worded).

There is no "untruth" exemption to the First Amendment.

Not as such--but knowingly untrue speech has always been subject to much less protection. E.g. libel, fraud, perjury etc.

--Philistine

[Epee_Pox]

Not as such--but knowingly untrue speech has always been subject to much less protection. E.g. libel, fraud, perjury etc.

More accurately, untrue speech is unprotected when it causes harm to another. Libel when falsehood unjustly harms a person's reputation. Fraud when deception is used to deprive someone of property, rights or privileges. Perjury when falsehood subverts the justice system.

That said, why is a new law required to criminalize the fraud of deceiving people in an attempt to deprive them of their vote? Isn't that already covered by existing criminal fraud statutes? If not, why not merely expand the definition of fraud in the existing statute, instead of creating a whole new crime with possibly inconsistent sentencing?

[jeff]

Gimme a break. Take a few pennies out of the SSI or welfare each week. How much does a digital picture and a laminated ID cost? A dollar? Two dollars? It's probably less than a scratch ticket for sure. How often? Once a year? Oh, that will push them even deeper into poverty.

It's a lame-a$$ excuse.

And the actual price quoted for the "official ID" is what, Slim? One dollar or a lot more? And the fact that it's carried out by specific party campaign workers makes no impression on you, eh?

[jeff]

Note that the bill is about TWO things, Jeff. What is the FIRST thing mentioned in its title? Hint: It's not "Intimidation".

So, you're in favor of deceptive practices to prevent people voting against your candidate, so long as it doesn't actually involve intimidation?

[jeff]

Works for me.

Good for you, Slim, as this would indicate that you don't endorse using an added price to prevent people from voting, On that, and on having people vote once and only once, and only if they are people who legally should be voting, we can agree. No irony intended.

Now, if only this was the intention of those introducing these measures in the first place - but "follow the money" and who is doing this work on behalf of whom - shows that these are partisan efforts to influence election results by preventing votes from the "wrong" demographics (people that would vote against them). Something that any person who defends honest and fair elections should not want.

[YankeeRebel]

This proposed law is moot because it would be impossible to enforce. Dirty tricksters are smart enough to use a bogus address on any sort of misleading flyer. At that point, the flyer becomes virtually impossible to trace.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

This proposed law is moot because it would be impossible to enforce. Dirty tricksters are smart enough to use a bogus address on any sort of misleading flyer. At that point, the flyer becomes virtually impossible to trace.

There are a lot of laws that are difficult to enforce. However, the mere threat of jail will deter many would-be criminals. The goal is not to wipe out a crime, it is to reduce it to a tolerable prevalence.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Well, I suppose. In the same sense that if you tell her you will beat her up (or divorce her) if she goes and votes, you'd be guilty of violating already existing law. Should we repeal that one?

"Beat up" I understand, but "divorce"? Can there be any law against filing for divorce, for any reason at all? If that guy wants to divorce for that reason, I say go ahead, but be prepared to suffer the consequences when the judge is awarding the assets in the marriage.

Can you point to a law which prohibits filing for divorce under any given curcumstances?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Philistine]

"Beat up" I understand, but "divorce"? Can there be any law against filing for divorce, for any reason at all? If that guy wants to divorce for that reason, I say go ahead, but be prepared to suffer the consequences when the judge is awarding the assets in the marriage.

Can you point to a law which prohibits filing for divorce under any given curcumstances?
{snip}

The law isn't against actually divorcing--but rather arguably prevents threatening to divorce (threatening to do anything, actually) in order to coerce a person not to vote.

The law (which is the one which the bill cited in the first post seeks to add to) is:

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

42 U.S.C. § 1971(b)

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Not really.

Yes, really.

Well, I suppose. In the same sense that if you tell her you will beat her up (or divorce her) if she goes and votes, you'd be guilty of violating already existing law. Should we repeal that one?

Fallacy of composition, with a hint of dicto simpliciter thrown in for seasoning.

That conduct A is criminalized does not imply that conduct B should be criminalized, even if they share some attributes. Nor does arguing against a given policy necessarily imply any argument about another policy, again even if they share some common attributes. Especially in law.

If you think that anything one spoue does which prevents another from voting ought to be criminalized, does that mean you'd support legal penalties for planning a Caribbean vacation or a surgery during an election period? No? Maybe all situations aren't alike?

Like any other law that uses "knowingly" and "intent" (which would be most laws)--mistakes aren't criminalized. They may be prosecuted under the theory that they aren't mistakes--but they're not criminalized.

And again, a lot of people seem to fail to recognize the difference.

Again--is the danger of overzealous prosecution for this crime more apparent then for other crimes?

It doesn't have to be more apparent, just apparent.

This law, unlike certain provisions of the Patriot Act, does not confer powers. It criminalizes conduct.

It criminalizes ANOTHER conduct. This gives power to all potential users of the law, including but not limited to agents of the state such as prosecutors. If you cannot charge Person X with any existing crime, then a new crime is created for which you CAN charge him, that is an increase in your power. Every extension of the law strengthens the powers of those tasked with enforcing the law.

Not as such--but knowingly untrue speech has always been subject to much less protection. E.g. libel, fraud, perjury etc.

Some forms of it have been. Not all, or even most. That some are is not a good argument for extending the restrictions to others.

[Inquartata]

That said, why is a new law required to criminalize the fraud of deceiving people in an attempt to deprive them of their vote? Isn't that already covered by existing criminal fraud statutes? If not, why not merely expand the definition of fraud in the existing statute, instead of creating a whole new crime with possibly inconsistent sentencing?

Off the top of my head, I can think of:

1) Because a legislator is measured by the number of bills he introduces.

2) Because anyone resisting the passage of the bill can be villified for it in, among other things, campaign ads.

3) Because certain factions would like to convince us that a given practice is more widespread and dangerous than it is, in order to advance a deeper agenda.

4) Because some influential constituencies are encouraging it.

Etc.

[Inquartata]

So, you're in favor of deceptive practices to prevent people voting against your candidate, so long as it doesn't actually involve intimidation?

Jeff, buddy...name me a practice in politics that ISN'T deceptive. Trying to squelch deception in politics is like trying to forbid people to breathe. It's doomed to failure, and only extends the power of the state a little further. I'm sure the intentions are noble, but will still be used to widen the road to Hell.

[Philistine]

{snip}That conduct A is criminalized does not imply that conduct B should be criminalized, even if they share some attributes. Nor does arguing against a given policy necessarily imply any argument about another policy, again even if they share some common attributes. Especially in law.

While I'd agree that it doesn't necessarily follow that acts similar to things that are criminalized should also be illegal--the fact that one act is illegal certainly supports an inference that another act, which shares a number of attributes, and causes the same harm as the first act, should also be criminalized. Not conclusively, to be sure, but it's surely a point in favor of the new law.

If you think that anything one spoue does which prevents another from voting ought to be criminalized, does that mean you'd support legal penalties for planning a Caribbean vacation or a surgery during an election period? No? Maybe all situations aren't alike?

No, I wouldn't criminalize the vacation or surgery. There all, after all, absentee ballots. Now if the husband (or anyone) intercepted the absentee ballot and threw it away--I'd criminalize that. Do you disagree?

I was more pointing out the unlikelihood of prosecutions of spouses under the new law--by pointing out that prosecution of spouses is already possible under existing law without apparent wholesale jailing of husbands and wives around the country....

It criminalizes ANOTHER conduct. This gives power to all potential users of the law, including but not limited to agents of the state such as prosecutors. If you cannot charge Person X with any existing crime, then a new crime is created for which you CAN charge him, that is an increase in your power. Every extension of the law strengthens the powers of those tasked with enforcing the law.

Yes--but that's true of any new law. This law doesn't seem to me to be as broadly applicable as you fear. At bottom, the law criminalizes the deprivation of the right to vote by the use of false information.

Is your objection to the law that you feel it shouldn't be illegal (like a type of permissable ruse de guerre) to attempt to prevent people from voting by misinforming them of the date/time/place to vote or by misleading them about their qualification to vote? Or is it that you feel that conduct could be criminal--but the law is too broad? (Or something else?)

--Philistine

[jeff]

Jeff, buddy...name me a practice in politics that ISN'T deceptive. Trying to squelch deception in politics is like trying to forbid people to breathe. It's doomed to failure, and only extends the power of the state a little further. I'm sure the intentions are noble, but will still be used to widen the road to Hell.

Sorry Inq, but I view that point of view as cynical and defeatist, and falsely smears those in politics who aren't deceptive while excusing those who are. There are many things in politics that are not deceitful, and protecting voters' rights goes to the front of the list. Attempting to squelch deceit is not futile (and is frequently successful - eventually, when people keep at it), and is part of the responsibility of a democratic society. Far from "extending the power of the state", what this measure does is reduce "the power of those already possessing power to keep it permanently".

[Inquartata]

While I'd agree that it doesn't necessarily follow that acts similar to things that are criminalized should also be illegal--the fact that one act is illegal certainly supports an inference that another act, which shares a number of attributes, and causes the same harm as the first act, should also be criminalized. Not conclusively, to be sure, but it's surely a point in favor of the new law.

Depends on the degree and types of similarities. Personally I don't think that deception" and violence are in the same ballpark.

What about this: you deliberately sabotage the cable TV ( "I'll call the guy next week, honey. Read a magazine or something" ) and intercept the incoming mail, and so your spouse just doesn't ever find out there's even an election scheduled. This is worth jail time and bankruptcy? This is of a piece with beating her up and threatening her?

No, I wouldn't criminalize the vacation or surgery. There all, after all, absentee ballots. Now if the husband (or anyone) intercepted the absentee ballot and threw it away--I'd criminalize that. Do you disagree?

No. What if she simply forgets to mail in her ballot, and later decides to accuse you of intercepting her ( fictitious ) absentee ballot? All the evidence supports her---you scheduled the trip, you bought the tickets, took the steps, and you have no way to counter her claim that you burned her ballot as well. Can't prove a negative, and all the circumstantial evidence looks damning.

See what I mean? It's too easy to imagine abuses of such a vaguely written statute.

Not that I imagine a prosecutor is likely to go randomly charging people in such cases. But if there's an agenda to be served, an enemy to be gotten, a political outcome to be gained...

Yes--but that's true of any new law. This law doesn't seem to me to be as broadly applicable as you fear. At bottom, the law criminalizes the deprivation of the right to vote by the use of false information.

Again, define "false"? How do you define intent in this matter? What is the level of chargeability? There do not seem to be any limits but the opinion of those enforcing the law.

Is your objection to the law that you feel it shouldn't be illegal (like a type of permissable ruse de guerre) to attempt to prevent people from voting by misinforming them of the date/time/place to vote or by misleading them about their qualification to vote?

I am tempted to say that people gullible enough to be duped thus probably aren't the people we want deciding matters of national policy. But no, I guess every nation gets the government it deserve, and that means letting the stupid vote.

Or is it that you feel that conduct could be criminal--but the law is too broad? (Or something else?)

--Philistine

I think it's too vague, too broad and without sufficient safeguards. And unnecessary into the bargain. And I suspect that the real motive behind its introduction are not really to protect people's voting rights at all but to grandstand and make political statements about the wicked opposition oppressing poor Democrats and robbing them of their rightful electoral victories...

[Inquartata]

Sorry Inq, but I view that point of view as cynical and defeatist, and falsely smears those in politics who aren't deceptive while excusing those who are.

No wonder you're a liberal! You retain vestiges of idealism, such as the naive belief that there are some good, honest politicians out there somewhere.

I do not buy that possibility at all. IMO politicians are either corrupt and venal when they enter politics or are corrupted soon after election. The art of compromise and of serving a narrow constituency, the proximity to money and power and the venality of those surrounding them on every side, the drive to get re-elected---I cannot see how any human being could possibly resist those pressures and retain his integrity. Any more than anyone could dive into a septic tank and remain clean and fragrant.

There are many things in politics that are not deceitful, and protecting voters' rights goes to the front of the list.

I cannot agree. I cannot think of any practice in the art of politics itself which is noble or honorable. Sometime good policy can emerge from the acts of politicians, but politics itself is inherently corrupting, IMO.

Attempting to squelch deceit is not futile (and is frequently successful - eventually, when people keep at it), and is part of the responsibility of a democratic society.

You have not convinced me of it. But you are an optimist, and who can argue with an optimist?

Far from "extending the power of the state", what this measure does is reduce "the power of those already possessing power to keep it permanently".

Not so...because it criminalizes the use of "deception" not only by incumbents and existing power blocs but by would-be challengers---some of whom you seem to feel might be admirable. And as I have already argued to Philistine, it confers powers on the agents of the status quo---the servants of "those already possessing power". They are after all the ones who will enforce the law...

Plus, it's overly vague, unnecessary except in the minds of disgruntled activists and the minority party, and likely to have unfortunate consequences currently not considered, IMO. It's a public relations gambit; or in other words, a deception. Like everything in politics.

[achilleus]

No wonder you're a liberal! You retain vestiges of idealism, such as the naive belief that there are some good, honest politicians out there somewhere.

I do not buy that possibility at all. IMO politicians are either corrupt and venal when they enter politics or are corrupted soon after election. The art of compromise and of serving a narrow constituency, the proximity to money and power and the venality of those surrounding them on every side, the drive to get re-elected---I cannot see how any human being could possibly resist those pressures and retain his integrity. Any more than anyone could dive into a septic tank and remain clean and fragrant.

It's amazing, you say this blanket, general unproven statement, yet argue endlessly that the Bush administration was not deceitful about the invasion of Iraq.