the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Trenton NJ, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal today issued guidance to New Jersey’s law enforcement leaders to ensure that voters can cast their ballot in the upcoming election safely and without fear of intimidation. The guidance marks the latest step by the Attorney General’s Office to bolster public confidence in New Jersey’s election process.
Since New Jersey is a vote-by-mail state we are not sure were the voter intimidation is going to come from?
Today’s guidance—addressed to the state’s police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors—emphasizes both specific rules regarding law enforcement activity at polling places, as well as the importance of protecting the state’s voters from intimidation and coercion as they exercise the right to vote. The document expresses concern about reports of voter interference in other states, while noting that significant incidents of similar conduct have not been verified in New Jersey.
“As Election Day approaches and voting has begun across the country, we already have begun to hear allegations of voter intimidation in other states,” said Attorney General Grewal. “Today we clarify how law enforcement leaders across the state can best support local and state officials in maintaining the integrity of our voting system, and protecting the right to vote, in accordance with the highest ideals of our democracy.”
In New Jersey, at the county and local levels civilian election officials, not law enforcement officers, are in charge of administering elections, and at the state level, the Division of Elections within the Office of the Secretary of State is entrusted with election-administration responsibilities—not the Department of Law & Public Safety or the Office of the Attorney General.
During an election, responsibility for preserving the peace and maintaining order in polling places lies principally with the district board officials—poll workers—for the polling place. In addition, county superintendents of elections and their staff have the authority under state law to remove from any polling place or other place where an election is being held any person who violates the state’s election laws or in any way unlawfully interferes with the conduct of an election. In rare cases where such action is necessary, these election officials may call upon police officers to assist with the arrest or removal of individuals who refuse to comply with the election laws or the lawful commands of election officials.
Among other things, the Attorney General’s guidance reiterates that existing New Jersey laws limit the role of both on- and off-duty law enforcement officers in elections to activities necessary to maintain public safety, and to the enforcement of laws securing the right to vote and protecting voters from intimidation and harassment. The guidance further notes that federal as well as state laws protect all members of the public from intimidation and coercion, interfering with the right to cast a vote, or tampering, mutilating, or destroying a ballot box, and that individuals engaged in voter intimidation or obstruction also may be in violation of laws that do not pertain specifically to elections.
Official challengers (sometimes called poll watchers) appointed by the parties have a legally defined role in ensuring that elections are conducted fairly and honestly. However, challengers may not challenge a voter directly; only the elections officials may ask the voter questions. Challengers also may not harass or intimidate voters, engage in electioneering, cause disturbances at polling places, or challenge voters based on their race or ethnicity or how they are expected to vote. Individuals who have not been formally appointed as challengers are not permitted to play that role.
The Attorney General is also requesting that each County Prosecutor designate an Assistant Prosecutor to serve as the principal point of contact on matters relating to the upcoming election, and to facilitate effective communication across law enforcement agencies — including with the designated points of contact for election-related matters in the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability.
Why does nobody think that mail – in ballots run a HUGE risk for people living at home in a violent or abusive relationship to be intimidated by somebody at home? Voting at a booth (the old way) is far far safer and the person voting does not have to share how they voted with their partner or if need be they can verbally say what the violent partner wants to hear.
the statistics are very likely that a large number of ballots will be effected by this negative factor.
https://www.thehotline.org/stakeholders/domestic-violence-statistics/
https://joetorre.org/our-work/powerful-results/
it is quite easy to envision how an abusive person could force others in the house to vote as directed by the abusive person rather than how they choose.
Sir, have you ever heard of concern trolling? You are a natural.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/?itm_source=parsely-api
Sorry Trolly I have real concern with this. Maybe you don’t think this is an issue but I do. I always and every time I vote in the booth, am thankful for the fact that I get to vote anonymously. People lose that protection if the ballot is mailed to the household. On the other hand I suspect you think it favors your candidate (currently) but sometime in the future you may not feel the same.
I’m not saying it is not an issue for victims of DV. Even if a DV victim is being coerced to vote a certain way, the vote itself is still being submitted anonymously, so you being thankful that that ballot is anonymous has nothing to do with the issue you’ve raised. So, thus, I equally suspect that you think *not* allowing in-person voting favors *your* candidate, and on and on we go with this disingenuous issue-raising.
In any event this is America: people who are too lazy to vote will continue to not do so, whether they can mail it in or not. And in the case of your “issue”, I’d be shocked if many DV victims are not just voting the way their partner tells them to, even if they were doing so in-person — and regardless, that issue is not making or breaking this election. Turnout never seems to change in this country, despite how galvanized people allegedly are about issues/candidates. And if you happen to subscribe to the belief that there will be rampant voter fraud with mail-in ballots, well you can refer back to the last sentence in the previous paragraph.
Trolly, I hope you are right but I fear you are not. Also, anonymity is lost not only when you sign it. I say this because somebody in your house can lean over you and make you fill it out and then take it and drop it off for you. Real, and has happened. As you prefer to believe that it is insignificant, fine and I have no view one way or another, only that I prefer a booth with nobody in it with me.