Time To Increase The Penalty For Disrupting Voting Processes

[TempesT68]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

Where is your proof?

Ah yes, the world famous right wing "proof proof proof!" cries

Republicans fielding fake candidates for primary race - WITI (http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-20110606-primary-controver-story,0,907490.story - broken link)

Republicans send fake absentee ballots to democrats in Wisconsin recall elections

Koch Bros. Post Fake Eviction Notices On Houses, To ‘Startle People’

Proof again beyond any doubt the extreme right will do everything they can to crap all over the constitution, the electoral process, and liberty to force through their anti-american fascist agenda.

[Chi-turtle]

The tricky part about this is that there's a shady line between protesting/1st amendment right and voter intimidation.

If the Occupyers are just there protesting, making their voice heard in a non-threatening and non-violent manner then we can't take away that right.

However, if threats are made, verbal violence, physical violence acts are committed then that would be considered voter intimidation and would have to be handled on an individual level. You cannot deny an entire group the right to have their voice heard because a couple people go out of hand.

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by LauraC

It's voter intimidation when people stay home because they fear thuggery at the polls or at places where a candidate speaks especially considering that the biggest group of voters are old...isn't that what they are really up to? Let's think about which candidate would benefit.

Which candidate benefits? Which candidate - in the Iowa caucus for the Republican presidential nomination - benefits? Please, tell us.

In terms of "thuggery at the polls", according to the article you linked to:

Organizers are encouraging activists who live in Iowa to show up on caucus night and vote "no preference" as a protest but say they have no plans to interfere with the voting itself.

Are you saying that Iowa voters can't vote the way they want to?

In terms of "at places where a candidate speaks", did you speak up against the Tea Party when their members disrupted such meetings?

Or are Constitutional freedoms to be exercised only by people who share your political views?

[LauraC]

There doesn't have to be violence. There just has to be the threat of it based on past behavior to scare people.