Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How to separate poll watching from voter intimidation

Contributor Tammy Patrick, a senior advisor at the Democracy Fund, went on NPR on Thursday to explain how one of the mechanics of the election — poll watchers — do their work in most states. Her explanation stood in contrast to what President Trump seemed to be calling for in Tuesday's presidential debate. While warning about potential voter fraud, he asked his supporters to "go into the polls and watch very carefully."

Almost every state has some sort of system set up so political parties can send observers inside polling places, explained Patrick, who was previously an elections official in Maricopa County, Arizona (which includes Phoenix). But there are clear rules and limitations about what these observers can do — how close they can be to voting equipment, who they can talk to and what they can challenge. Poll watchers have to sign up ahead of time and work with election officials, she said.


Trump supporters responding to the president's call are likely to be treated as "electioneers," and that means they'll be restricted from how close they can get to a polling place. If they yell or try to intimidate voters, they'll be breaking the law, Patrick said. It's urgent that election officials have the training to de-escalate potential conflicts, how to report them and where to seek help.

"There is a tactic here that can be used to make sure that individuals start to question whether or not it is safe to even go to the polling place," Patrick said. "Unfortunately, in this moment, we need to make sure that our elections are protected from adversaries, both foreign and domestic."

Listen to Patrick's full interview on All Things Considered last week:


Read more from The Fulcrum's Election Dissection blog or see our full list of contributors.


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less