A Republican committeeman has asked a judge to stop early voting in Missouri’s third-largest county until it allows “watchers” or challengers” to observe the polls.
It’s neither fair nor reasonable unless he is placed behind a two way mirror so that voters cannot see him and keeps to himself. Otherwise it’s politicking and intimidation. States have rules about having to stay certain amount of feet from polling places with political signs, t-shirts, etc. The candidate is nothing but a living breathing “vote for me” billboard if they’re allowed to sit in a polling place.
If he’s really concerned about it, he should hire someone to observe who meets neutral observer qualifications (doesn’t talk to voters, sits a certain distance from the public, wears neutral clothing, etc.).
I’ve not seen anything to suggest that the candidate wants to personally observe things.
Rather, as per the St Louis Post,
Travis Allen Heins, of St. Peters, filed for the injunction on Wednesday, saying that official “watchers” or “challengers” were wrongly being kept from observing inside polling places during early voting in St. Charles County.
His suit requests that early voting not be allowed to continue without watchers or challengers. Such observers had been disallowed by Bahr, because he said they’re only allowed in when ballots are being prepared for counting, or being counted, on election day.
I.e. he’s fine with meeting all the requirements you list, but he wants the observers to be able to observe the early voting tabulation on the days of early voting, not just the checks or tabulation that happens only starting on election day.
The story and headline are confusing because they repeatedly say HE should be allowed to observe. Not that he should be allowed to hire observers (even though that’s probably what’s being discussed).
The ones I’ve dealt with in the US in past elections were volunteers. 99% were great, but one was a former candidate and caused all kinds of problems. The clerk ended up removing him in the end.
Also in most states challengers/poll watches are not allowed to speak to voters. If they have concerns they need to talk to the actual poll workers
It’s neither fair nor reasonable unless he is placed behind a two way mirror so that voters cannot see him and keeps to himself. Otherwise it’s politicking and intimidation. States have rules about having to stay certain amount of feet from polling places with political signs, t-shirts, etc. The candidate is nothing but a living breathing “vote for me” billboard if they’re allowed to sit in a polling place.
If he’s really concerned about it, he should hire someone to observe who meets neutral observer qualifications (doesn’t talk to voters, sits a certain distance from the public, wears neutral clothing, etc.).
I’ve not seen anything to suggest that the candidate wants to personally observe things.
Rather, as per the St Louis Post,
I.e. he’s fine with meeting all the requirements you list, but he wants the observers to be able to observe the early voting tabulation on the days of early voting, not just the checks or tabulation that happens only starting on election day.
The story and headline are confusing because they repeatedly say HE should be allowed to observe. Not that he should be allowed to hire observers (even though that’s probably what’s being discussed).
To be fair, I think it’s more typical for these kinds of partisan poll observers to operate on a volunteer basis.
Here’s a nice YouTube that describes one experience representing the interests of Count Binface in the recent UK election.
The ones I’ve dealt with in the US in past elections were volunteers. 99% were great, but one was a former candidate and caused all kinds of problems. The clerk ended up removing him in the end.
Also in most states challengers/poll watches are not allowed to speak to voters. If they have concerns they need to talk to the actual poll workers
Letting him secretly watch people vote somehow seems even worse to me.