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

[esskreemr]

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1975 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1975

To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 8, 2005

Mr. OBAMA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

A BILL

To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN ELECTIONS.

(a) Civil Action-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)) is amended--

(A) by striking `No person' and inserting the following:

`(1) No person'; and

(B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall knowingly deceive any other person regarding--

`(A) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession; or

`(B) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any election described in subparagraph (A).'.

(2) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (c) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(c)) is amended--

(i) by striking `Whenever any person' and inserting the following:

`(1) Whenever any person'; and

(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (b)(2) may institute a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application in a United States district court for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.'.

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(i) Subsection (e) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(e)) is amended by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (c)(1)'.

(ii) Subsection (g) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(g)) is amended by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (c)(1)'.

(b) Criminal Penalty- Section 594 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `Whoever' and inserting the following:

`(a) Intimidation- Whoever'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Deceptive Acts-

`(1) PROHIBITION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly deceive another person regarding the time, place, or manner of an election described in subparagraph (B), or the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election, with the intent to prevent such person from exercising the right to vote in such election.

`(B) ELECTION- An election described in this subparagraph is any general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.

`(2) PENALTY- Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REPORTING FALSE ELECTION INFORMATION.

(a) In General- Any person may report to the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or the designee of such Assistant Attorney General, any act of deception regarding--

(1) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, primary, run-off, or special election for Federal office; or

(2) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any general, primary, run-off, or special election for Federal office.

(b) Corrective Action-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than 48 hours after receiving a report under subsection (a), the Assistant Attorney General shall investigate such report and, if the Assistant Attorney General determines that an act of deception described in subsection (a) occurred, shall--

(A) undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct information to voters affected by the deception, and

(B) refer the matter to the appropriate Federal and State authorities for criminal prosecution.

(2) REPORTS WITHIN 72 HOURS OF AN ELECTION- If a report under subsection (a) is received within 72 hours before the election described in such subsection, the Assistant Attorney General shall immediately investigate such report and, if the Assistant Attorney General determines that an act of deception described in subsection (a) occurred, shall immediately undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct information to voters affected by the deception.

(3) REGULATIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations regarding the methods and means of corrective actions to be taken under paragraphs (1) and (2). Such regulations shall be developed in consultation with the Election Assistance Commission, civil rights organizations, voting rights groups, State election officials, voter protection groups, and other interested community organizations.

(B) STUDY-

(i) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission and the Election Assistance Commission, shall conduct a study on the feasibility of providing the corrective information under paragraphs (1) and (2) through public service announcements, the emergency alert system, or other forms of public broadcast.

(ii) REPORT- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report detailing the results of the study conducted under clause (i).

(c) Reports to Congress-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after any primary, general, or run-off election for Federal office, the Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report compiling and detailing any allegations of deceptive practices submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and relating to such election.

(2) CONTENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(i) detailed information on specific allegations of deceptive tactics;

(ii) any corrective actions taken in response to such allegations;

(iii) the effectiveness of any such corrective actions;

(iv) any suit instituted under section 2004(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)(2)) in connection with such allegations;

(v) statistical compilations of how many allegations were made and of what type;

(vi) the geographic locations of and the populations affected by the alleged deceptive information; and

(vii) the status of the investigations of such allegations.

(B) EXCEPTION- The Attorney General may withhold any information that the Attorney General determines would unduly interfere with an on-going investigation.

(3) REPORT MADE PUBLIC- The Attorney General shall make the report required under paragraph (1) publicly available through the Internet and other appropriate means.

(d) Federal Office- For purposes of this section, the term `Federal office' means the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession of the United States.

(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

[esskreemr]

Oh yeah, introduced by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) co-sponsored by Senator John Kerry.

[Inquartata]

Fingers in ears, everyone---brace for the cries of "An attack on free speech! Our civil liberties are in jeopardy!" from the posters who have taken that tack about, say, the Patriot Act.

Oh, no, never mind---the bill was sponsored by Democrats, hence it must be a good thing. Fingers out of ears, no screams will be forthcoming after all.

[Slim]

Otherwise known as the "Sour Grapes Act"

Sounds to me like an attempt at blocking unfavorable 2006 and 2008 results by claiming deception, triggering an injunction against the election results.

[jessicasimpson]

Would this effect the winter king/queen elections on f-net?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

Would this effect the winter king/queen elections on f-net?

What elections?

Oops. I'm going to jail.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Good idea, but I think that the punishment is too lenient. I think that it shall carry a mandatory loss of voting, and running, rights for life. Furthermore, the list of punishment ought to include loss of citizenship combined with prohibition to leave the country for a time depending on the gravity of the crime, in addition to a maximum sentence of up to 5 years. The minimum jail sentence should be at least 6 months. While in jail, the perpetrator should be forbidden to have any conversation, or contact with (including letters and phone calls), anyone else than his legal counsel. Close relatives should be forbidden to act as legal counsel. Unless there are special mitigating circumstances, the perpetrator should serve the entirety of the sentence in isolation cell.

This would probably necessitate an amendment to amendment #4, but I think that those who commit crimes while acting in official power should be treated much more harshly than now. Much more.

Inq points to a potential problem, though: Should ordinary people - that is, those not serving in an offical function - be punished for lying? That would open up for all sorts of thorny consequences, and clog up the court system much more than now.

That in consideration, I think that the law should be limited to those acting in official function.

When is the law due to be voted on?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

So, some people here think punishing voter intimidation is somehow an infringement of free speech, instead of protection of democracy's most central right? Or, that complaints about this is whining? Or, that this has the remotest relationship to complaints about the Patriot act?

Unfortunately, voter intimidation and deceptive practice are a real problem that is widely observed and complained about. A very brief search gives:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16373 The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/95123/325
http://www.commonblog.com/section/Elections
http://www.sundayherald.com/45159
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

[Slim]

I didnt notice anything that mentions voter fraud in this bill. Isnt that also a problem? How about making people produce a picture ID at the polls? Or is that considered a form of intimidation?

[jeff]

That's considered a form of poll tax. Catch up on the news, willya?

Actually, voter fraud is considered a big problem, and again it's the people you dislike fighting it - see the controversy over the Diebold machines and their forgeable and unauditable contents. Guess which party Diebold management is aligned with... People showing up with phony id doesn't at this time appear to be in use as a meaningful way to defraud elections at this time.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

That's considered a form of poll tax. Catch up on the news, willya?

Actually, voter fraud is considered a big problem, and again it's the people you dislike fighting it - see the controversy over the Diebold machines and their forgeable and unauditable contents. Guess which party Diebold management is aligned with... People showing up with phony id doesn't at this time appear to be in use as a meaningful way to defraud elections at this time.

There is no reason city hall cant issue an ID to someone when they register to vote. The poll tax cry is a lame excuse.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by jeff

[ ... ] Unfortunately, voter intimidation and deceptive practice are a real problem that is widely observed and complained about. A very brief search gives:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16373 The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/95123/325
http://www.commonblog.com/section/Elections
http://www.sundayherald.com/45159
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

A few more examples...

http://www.electionprotection2004.or...ppression.html

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/31/005259.php
http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011255.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008277.php

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Slim

There is no reason city hall cant issue an ID to someone when they register to vote. The poll tax cry is a lame excuse.

This is not about ensuring people own legit ID, it's about imposing an additional fee on poor people before they can vote. By and large the individuals targeted already have ID; this is just a well-known ploy to reduce their voting. This has been amply documented and studied as a common tactic to drive down voting from demographics expected to vote against a particular candidate or party. Come on, Slim, put away your knee-jerk responses and learn something about the situation.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

This is not about ensuring people own legit ID, it's about imposing an additional fee on poor people before they can vote. By and large the individuals targeted already have ID; this is just a well-known ploy to reduce their voting. This has been amply documented and studied as a common tactic to drive down voting from demographics expected to vote against a particular candidate or party. Come on, Slim, put away your knee-jerk responses and learn something about the situation.

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.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

So, some people here think punishing voter intimidation is somehow an infringement of free speech, instead of protection of democracy's most central right? Or, that complaints about this is whining? Or, that this has the remotest relationship to complaints about the Patriot act?

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

[esskreemr]

Hmmm... I should have included Barack's letter with this. It explains why the act was introduced. http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7...ON11-29-05.PDF

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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

Hint: It's about spreading deliberate false information such as fliers with the wrong date and timees for elections.

Hint: It's about deliberately misleading people such as, for example, telling them that they can't vote if they have unpaid parking tickets.

Hint: It's about ensuring that valid voters are not purged from voter lists that erroneously include thousands of legitimate voters.

Hint: It's about phone calls providing false polling information.

Hint: It's about letters 'informing' registered voters that their registrations were cancelled because they registered through a particular group.

Hint: It's about partisan organizations tossing voter registrations that don't meet their criteria.

[Epee_Pox]

I have dealt with elections-fraud matters here in NYC in years past, and can assure all that it is alive and well here. You name it, it happens. I'd have a hard time believing it doesn't happen in lots of other parts of the country as well. Significant numbers of votes are cast that should not have been counted.

So to me, ensuring that people casting a vote actually are registered to vote, and that they only vote once, would be a huge step forward. And ought to be the first priority.

Voter intimidation is, in my experience, a much lesser problem. It's not as if anyone ever finds out how an individual voted, after all. Secret ballot and all that. So threats can't be carried out. And people who are so easily fooled as to be tricked into not voting, just aren't all that numerous. So the amount of vote error this can cause is significantly less than the huge amount of error caused by outright fraud.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Fingers in ears, everyone---brace for the cries of "An attack on free speech! Our civil liberties are in jeopardy!" from the posters who have taken that tack about, say, the Patriot Act.

Oh, no, never mind---the bill was sponsored by Democrats, hence it must be a good thing. Fingers out of ears, no screams will be forthcoming after all.

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?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

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.

Why not provide them for free then?