Voter Fraud (Election Fraud)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Lawyer Tells Judge a Georgia Trial Would Be ‘Election Interference’

      by

      Arguments in court on Friday offered clues to Donald J. Trump’s legal strategy in fighting state charges of conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election.A lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump argued in an Atlanta courtroom on Friday that putting his client on trial in the final stages of the 2024 presidential contest would be “the most effective election interference in the history of the United States.”Steven H. Sadow, Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer in Georgia, also asserted that if his client were to win the election, Georgia could not try him in the case until after he left the White House again. He cited the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law “supreme” over contrary state laws.Whether a president would in fact be shielded from prosecution while in office is not a settled legal matter.Mr. Sadow’s comments, which were challenged by prosecutors, came during a hearing in the election interference case against Mr. Trump and 14 co-defendants that was brought in August by Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga.Ms. Willis wants the defendants to go on trial in August, but the presiding judge, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, did not set a date on Friday. Mr. Trump is seeking to delay the trial, while another defendant, John Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump after he lost the 2020 presidential election, is seeking to speed it up.Judge McAfee scheduled the hearing to address motions not just from Mr. Trump, but also from a number of his co-defendants. He did not make any rulings from the bench, and gave few clues as to what he thought of the various arguments.All 15 defendants in the case face conspiracy charges related to attempts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results and subvert the will of voters. Four other defendants have pleaded guilty in the case and have agreed to cooperate with the government.The arguments from Mr. Sadow, a veteran Atlanta defense lawyer, were the main event at the hourslong hearing on Friday, offering some of the first hints about Mr. Trump’s legal strategy in the case.“Can you imagine the notion of the Republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is in some form or fashion in a courtroom defending himself?” Mr. Sadow asked during the proceeding.That led Judge McAfee to ask what the prosecution thought of the idea “that having this trial on Election Day would constitute election interference?”Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor in the case, rejected it.“This is moving forward with the business of Fulton County,” he said. “I don’t think that it in any way impedes defendant Trump’s ability to campaign.”Mr. Sadow also argued that to have a fair trial on state charges in Georgia, Mr. Trump needed access to lists of the government’s evidence in a related federal case against him.Last month, Mr. Sadow sent an email to members of the former president’s legal team who are handling the federal election interference case. In the email, Mr. Sadow said he wanted an inventory of “relevant material” that is “common to both of our cases” — specifically, F.B.I. reports and federal grand jury transcripts.The F.B.I. reports and federal grand jury transcripts stem from the separate federal investigation into election interference following the 2020 election.It is not unusual for a lawyer to ask for broader access to evidence, but Mr. Sadow’s motion is complicated by the fact that it seeks material from a different jurisdiction. The motion is being interpreted by many legal analysts as an effort by Mr. Trump to delay the Georgia proceedings.In response to Mr. Sadow’s email, the lawyers in the federal case pointed to a protective order that “appears to restrict our ability to share information with others.” Mr. Sadow then filed a motion seeking Judge McAfee’s assistance.The federal case is being brought by Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. It relates to Mr. Trump’s broader efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election despite losing to Joseph R. Biden Jr.On Friday, Mr. Sadow told Judge McAfee that there was “remarkable overlap” between the Georgia case and Mr. Trump’s election interference case in Washington. He said that if he were unable to get his hands on the federal discovery, “the remedy is dismissal of the case.”One possibility, Mr. Sadow said, would be for the Georgia court to wait until the Washington case was “completely over,” at which point, presumably, the information would be free for him to request. Or, he said, he could prepare a subpoena.A solution to the conundrum, he said, “is going to take some time.”For the bulk of the hearing, defense lawyers, including Mr. Sadow, argued motions challenging many of the charges in the 98-page indictment. A lawyer for Robert Cheeley, a defendant and pro-Trump lawyer, argued that the indictment was an assault on the First Amendment rights of the defendants to engage in political speech.The lawyer, Chris Anulewicz, said that defendants’ statements challenging the 2020 election result had been rebutted “by a ton of counter-speech” in the public sphere and in the courts, a sufficient remedy in itself.Will Wooten, a deputy district attorney for Fulton County, said that some of the crimes listed in the indictment pertained to expression and speech, but that others did not.For example, he said, conspiracy to commit racketeering — the central crime that all the defendants are charged with — was not about speech, but rather “a crime involving a corrupt agreement.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Judge Dismisses Felony Charge in ‘Ballot Selfie’ Case

      by

      The debate over a candidate’s photo reflects concerns among states over selfies of ballots and of people showing how they vote. A Wisconsin judge on Monday dismissed a felony charge against a school board candidate who had posted a photograph on Facebook of a ballot with his name filled in.In his ruling, the judge, Paul V. Malloy of Ozaukee County, threw out the count of voter fraud against the man, Paul H. Buzzell, 52, a former school board member in Mequon, a suburb of Milwaukee, who was voted back onto the board during an election in April, online court records show. Judge Malloy ruled on a motion to dismiss by Mr. Buzzell’s lawyers, who argued that the state law prohibiting so-called ballot selfies was overly broad and violated the constitutional guarantee of free expression. “What is at stake is branding a politician a felon for declaring to the world that the politician displayed” a marked ballot “showing a vote for himself in an election,” the motion said. Mr. Burrell would have faced a maximum possible sentence of three and a half years in prison and a $10,000 fine had he been convicted. He would also have been barred from running for elected office.The case reflects the debate among states over selfies of ballots and of people showing how they vote. Some legislators have argued that public displays of marked ballots can be used to influence voters in an election or to promote vote buying. Others, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say such laws banning voting selfies on social media restrict free speech.Under Wisconsin law, it is an election fraud violation for a person to show his or her marked ballot to someone else, or to mark a ballot so that it is identifiable as his or hers. It is one of at least 18 states that have laws prohibiting selfies displaying a voter’s marked ballot.In 2020, the Wisconsin Senate passed a bill to legalize ballot selfies, but the State Assembly failed to pass a bill that would eliminate the statute, The Associated Press reported.According to a criminal complaint, Mr. Buzzell, 52, published a photograph on Facebook of a marked ballot on March 27 ahead of an election for the Mequon-Thiensville School Board. Witnesses reported the post to the Mequon Police Department as a case of possible election fraud, the complaint said. The photograph of the ballot showed the oval next to Mr. Buzzell’s name filled out as well as that of another candidate, Jason P. Levash, court documents show. Mr. Levash serves as the school board’s vice president, and Mr. Buzzell serves as treasurer. “He displayed a marked ballot showing a vote for himself,” Mr. Buzzell’s lawyer, Michael Chernin, said on Tuesday, adding that Mr. Buzzell indicated that the ballot in question was his daughter’s. Mr. Buzzell, when contacted by the police on April 2, said that “his understanding was that it was not illegal to post a photo of a ballot with his name on it,” the complaint said. He cast his own ballot in person on April 5, according to the complaint.While the dismissal means that the prosecutors’ case cannot move ahead, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which reported on Monday that the charges had been dropped, quoted the Ozaukee County district attorney, Adam Gerol, as saying that he would ask the attorney general to decide whether to file an appeal or issue an opinion. “It’s in the A.G.’s hands,” said Mr. Gerol, a Republican. He did not immediately reply to a message left at his office on Tuesday.The office of Josh Kaul, the attorney general, said in a statement on Tuesday that the Wisconsin Department of Justice would review the district attorney’s request and “proceed appropriately.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Judge Weighs Revoking Bail for a Trump Co-Defendant, Harrison Floyd

      by

      Prosecutors say the defendant, Harrison Floyd, has been intimidating potential witnesses in the racketeering case with his social media posts.In a fiery courtroom presentation, the prosecutor overseeing the Georgia racketeering case against former President Donald J. Trump argued on Tuesday that one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants had intimidated potential witnesses on social media and should be sent to jail.But Judge Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court chose not to revoke the bond of Harrison Floyd, the co-defendant. Instead, he signed off on modified terms prohibiting Mr. Floyd from posting further comments about witnesses in the case.Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., took the unusual step of personally arguing on behalf of the prosecution, a few days after she filed a motion accusing Mr. Floyd of intimidating an elections worker and other witnesses for the state — including Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger — through his posts on X, formerly known as Twitter.Mr. Floyd’s lawyers noted that Mr. Trump himself had issued provocative social media posts about the Georgia case, and that no action had been taken against him. That, they argued, made “the state’s decision to go after Harrison Floyd hard to justify.”They also argued that Mr. Floyd had not been trying to intimidate or threaten anyone with his posts. But they acknowledged by the end of Tuesday’s hearing that he had “walked up close to the line” of violating the terms of his bond.Mr. Floyd, once the head of a group called Black Voices for Trump, was paid by the 2020 Trump campaign. He is one of 19 people, including the former president, who were named as defendants in a 98-page racketeering indictment in August.The indictment charges them with orchestrating a “criminal enterprise” to reverse the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. Four of the defendants have pleaded guilty and have promised to cooperate with prosecutors.In addition to a state racketeering charge, Mr. Floyd faces two other felony counts in the case, for his role in what the indictment describes as a scheme to intimidate Ruby Freeman, a Fulton County elections worker, and pressure her to falsely claim that she had committed electoral fraud.Ms. Freeman and her daughter were part of a team processing votes in Fulton County on election night in November 2020. Soon after, video images of the two women handling ballots were posted online, and Trump supporters falsely claimed that the video showed them entering bogus votes to skew the election in President Biden’s favor.Ms. Freeman became the target of so many threats that she was forced to leave her home.Her lawyer was a witness for the prosecution at Tuesday’s hearing, producing a report that he said showed a recent “spike” in online mentions of Ms. Freeman. That spike led her to adopt a fresh set of security measures, her lawyer said.Mr. Floyd’s lawyers, John Morrison and Chris Kachouroff, called the effort to revoke his bond “a retaliatory measure” — in part, they said, because Mr. Floyd recently turned down a plea agreement offered by the state. They argued that “tagging” people in posts did not constitute contact with witnesses, and was no different from yelling “a message to someone else sitting on the opposite side of a packed Mercedes-Benz stadium during the middle of an Atlanta Falcons football game.” Ms. Willis responded that “this notion that tagging someone doesn’t get a message to them is really lunacy,” She also called Mr. Floyd’s posts “disgusting,” adding that “what he really did is spit on the court.”And she was explicit about the stakes as she saw them: Election workers, she said, should not be intimidated for doing their jobs.Judge McAfee said that it appeared that Mr. Floyd had committed a “technical violation” of his bond by communicating with witnesses in the case, but seemed reluctant to take the step of jailing Mr. Floyd. “Not every violation compels revocation,” he said.Ms. Willis’s forceful stance on Mr. Floyd’s posts could have repercussions for Mr. Trump, who is enmeshed in battles over gag orders in other civil and criminal cases against him. Mr. Trump’s bond agreement in Georgia specifies that he “shall perform no act,” including social media posts, “to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a co-defendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.”Mr. Floyd was the only one of the original 19 co-defendants in Georgia to spend days in jail in August while waiting to make bond. At Tuesday’s hearing, he cut a colorful figure at the defense table, wearing a green blazer adorned with polo horses. Before the hearing began, he appeared to be reading a book about the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius.As the two sides worked out the new terms of the bond agreement, Ms. Willis made a reference to “Trump,” prompting Mr. Floyd to interject, “President Trump.”The judge told Mr. Floyd that it was not his place to talk. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Jan. 6 Defendant Pleads His Case to the Son Who Turned Him In

      by

      The trial was over and the verdict was in, but Brian Mock, 44, kept going back through the evidence, trying to make his case to the one person whose opinion he valued most. He sat at his kitchen table in rural Wisconsin next to his son, 21-year-old A.J. Mock, and opened a video on his laptop. He leaned into the screen and traced his finger over the image of the U.S. Capitol building, looked through clouds of tear gas and smoke and then pointed toward the center of a riotous crowd.Listen to This ArticleOpen this article in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.“There. That’s me,” he said, pausing the video, zooming in on a man wearing a black jacket and a camouflaged hood who was shouting at a row of police officers. He pressed play and turned up the volume until the sound of chants and explosions filled the kitchen. “They stole it!” someone else yelled in the video. “We want our country back. Let’s take it. Come on!”A.J. shifted in his chair and looked down at his phone. He smoked from his vape and fiddled with a rainbow strap on his keychain that read “Love is love.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Las denuncias de fraude electoral de Milei emulan las estrategias de Trump y Bolsonaro

      by

      El economista libertario de extrema derecha Javier Milei podría ganar la presidencia de Argentina el domingo. Si no lo consigue, ya ha planteado que sería por fraude.Las denuncias de Donald Trump sobre fraude electoral ya habían ayudado a inspirar a un líder sudamericano, el expresidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, a sembrar dudas sobre la seguridad de las elecciones de su nación, lo que provocó disturbios en la capital de Brasil este año.Ahora, a 2400 kilómetros al sur, hay un nuevo político latinoamericano que denuncia un fraude electoral con escasas pruebas, socavando la fe de muchos de sus partidarios en las elecciones de su país de este domingo.Javier Milei, economista libertario de extrema derecha y personalidad televisiva, compite en una segunda vuelta electoral para convertirse en el próximo presidente de Argentina. Durante la campaña, ha aceptado con beneplácito las comparaciones con Trump y Bolsonaro y, al igual que ellos, ha advertido repetidamente de que si pierde, podría ser porque le hayan robado las elecciones.Milei ha afirmado, sin pruebas, que papeletas robadas y dañadas le costaron más de un millón de votos en las elecciones primarias celebradas en agosto, es decir, hasta el 5 por ciento del total.Milei afirmó que un fraude similar podría haber amañado también la primera vuelta de las elecciones generales del 22 de octubre, en las que quedó segundo con el 30 por ciento de los votos. “Hubo irregularidades de semejante tamaño que ponen en duda el resultado”, declaró en una entrevista televisiva la semana pasada.El miércoles, su campaña intensificó las acusaciones. La hermana de Milei, que dirige su campaña, presentó una denuncia ante un juez federal en la que alegaba un “fraude colosal” y afirmaba que, en las votaciones previas, funcionarios argentinos anónimos cambiaron papeletas de Milei en favor de su oponente. Dijeron que la información procedía de fuentes anónimas.El ascenso de Milei de incendiario comentarista de televisión a líder político a las puertas de la presidencia de Argentina ya ha sacudido la política de este país de 46 millones de habitantes. Sus promesas radicales de sustituir la moneda argentina por el dólar estadounidense y cerrar el banco central del país han hecho que los argentinos se preparen para lo que podría ocurrir si gana.Pero ahora, con sus alegaciones preventivas de fraude, los argentinos también se preparan para lo que podría ocurrir si no gana.Milei ha prometido modificar radicalmente el gobierno y la economía de Argentina, al eliminar el banco central del país y reemplazar su moneda por el dólar estadounidense.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesLas encuestas apuntan a un empate técnico entre Milei y su oponente, Sergio Massa, ministro de Economía de centroizquierda.Muchos de los partidarios de Milei ya han empezado a quejarse, culpando al fraude de su segundo lugar el mes pasado y saliendo a la calle al menos tres veces para protestar lo que según ellos son planes de la izquierda para robar las elecciones. El jueves, sus partidarios anunciaron planes para protestar ante la autoridad electoral del país el día de las elecciones.Hasta ahora, las protestas han sido relativamente pequeñas y pacíficas, pero los observadores electorales señalan que podría deberse a que Milei sigue en la contienda.“No me preocupa que el sistema electoral argentino esté en riesgo”, dijo Facundo Cruz, politólogo argentino que ha seguido de cerca las denuncias de fraude. “Pero sí que ciertas prácticas que vimos en Estados Unidos y en Brasil se repitan”.El aprieto de Argentina sugiere que los esfuerzos de Trump para revertir las elecciones estadounidenses de 2020 no solo dejaron una marca duradera en la democracia estadounidense, sino que también siguen reverberando mucho más allá de las fronteras de EE. UU., donde algunos líderes políticos están recurriendo al fraude como una nueva excusa potencial para la derrota electoral.“En 40 años de democracia, nunca hemos tenido críticas serias ni idea alguna de fraude como la que se denuncia ahora”, afirmó Beatriz Busaniche, directora de la Fundación Vía Libre, una organización argentina sin fines de lucro que ha trabajado para mejorar los sistemas de votación del país. (Argentina estuvo bajo el control de una dictadura militar de 1976 a 1983).“Todas las personas que creen en el sistema electoral, la democracia y la transparencia están muy preocupadas”, añadió Busaniche.Las autoridades electorales argentinas afirman que no hay pruebas de fraude. En la votación del 22 de octubre, recibieron un total de 105 denuncias de papeletas perdidas o dañadas, una cifra habitual.Las autoridades electorales afirmaron que tampoco han recibido ninguna queja formal de la campaña de Milei en relación con un posible fraude. La autoridad electoral argentina, en un comunicado, calificó sus declaraciones de “invocaciones de fraude sin fundamento que en estos días desinforman a la opinión pública y socavan a la democracia como sistema de creencias compartidas”.En Argentina, los ciudadanos votan introduciendo una papeleta del candidato de su preferencia en un sobre y depositando el sobre cerrado en una urna. Las campañas distribuyen sus papeletas en los centros electorales. Milei y sus aliados afirman que algunas personas han estado robando sus papeletas de los centros electorales, impidiendo a sus partidarios votar por él.Sin embargo, cuando se les ha presionado, Milei y su campaña no han presentado muchas pruebas. Después de que el fiscal electoral argentino pidiera a la campaña de Milei que presentara pruebas, esta declaró que había respondido con videos y fotos de las redes sociales.El hombre que coordina la respuesta de Milei a los funcionarios electorales, Santiago Viola, director jurídico nacional de la campaña, dijo en una entrevista que había recibido entre 10 y 15 quejas por escrito de personas que afirmaban que en sus centros electorales habían faltado papeletas con el nombre de Milei.Viola dijo que creía que funcionarios de campaña de otras partes del país habían recogido otras quejas, pero que él no las había visto. No pudo verificar la afirmación de otro funcionario de la campaña el mes pasado de que había 4500 denuncias de papeletas desaparecidas. El mes pasado votaron más de 26 millones de personas.“Javier maneja los números mejor que yo”, dijo Viola refiriéndose a Milei.Milei afirma que hay “estudios” que demuestran que le robaron el 5 por ciento de los votos en las elecciones primarias, pero no los ha compartido.Argentina utiliza boletas de papel en las elecciones.Daniel Jayo/Associated PressMilei ha dicho que un indicio de fraude es que, al votar, algunos centros electorales no reportaron ningún voto a su favor. Milei afirma que eso es estadísticamente imposible. En realidad, los tres candidatos más votados el mes pasado obtuvieron cero votos en casi el mismo número de centros electorales —aproximadamente 100 cada uno—, sin contar los centros que no registraron ningún voto. Existen 104.520 centros de votación.“No salí a denunciar fraude”, dijo en una entrevista Massa, oponente de Milei. “Puede que haya mesas o urnas donde nadie te vote”.Massa dijo que Milei está siguiendo un manual ya conocido. “Es la misma metodología de Bolsonaro, la misma metodología de Trump”, afirmó.Milei se ha mostrado proclive a las teorías conspirativas. Ha calificado el cambio climático de complot socialista. Ha dicho que duda de los resultados de las elecciones de 2020 y 2022 en Estados Unidos y Brasil. También ha afirmado que los subsiguientes ataques de manifestantes contra edificios gubernamentales de EE. UU. y Brasil no tuvieron nada que ver con Trump o Bolsonaro.En septiembre, Milei dijo a The Economist que se había demostrado que lo ocurrido en Brasil fue organizado por el propio gobierno brasileño. Sin embargo, hay pruebas claras y abundantes de que los partidarios de Bolsonaro asaltaron la capital de Brasil en un intento de revertir la derrota electoral de Bolsonaro.Partidarios de Bolsonaro saquearon el Supremo Tribunal Federal y otros edificios gubernamentales durante un motín en enero.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesComo candidato presidencial, Milei tiene mucho menos poder del que tenían Trump y Bolsonaro como presidentes en ejercicio cuando denunciaron fraude. Sin embargo, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Brasil, las instituciones gubernamentales que controlaban resistieron en gran medida las acusaciones de fraude.En su lugar, fueron sus partidarios —quienes habían escuchado durante meses denuncias de fraude electoral— quienes asaltaron los edificios del poder.Tras conocerse los resultados de la primera vuelta el mes pasado, Julián Ballester, trabajador de construcción de 21 años, se plantó ante el cuartel general de la campaña de Milei la noche de las elecciones, convencido de que los números estaban amañados. “Tiraron muchas boletas”, dijo, afirmando que había visto fotos en grupos de WhatsApp. “Es evidente el fraude”.La situación en Argentina se ha vuelto más tensa en el último año a medida que la economía se ha ido desmoronando. La inflación anual supera el 140 por ciento, mientras que la pobreza y el hambre han aumentado. Milei ha construido su campaña en parte sobre la afirmación de que una secta oculta de la élite, liderada por Massa, está robando a los argentinos de a pie.El año pasado, un hombre movido por teorías conspirativas apretó el gatillo de una pistola a escasos centímetros de la cara de la vicepresidenta argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, aliada política de Massa.El arma tuvo un desperfecto y no disparó.Milei dijo esta semana que su campaña planeaba combatir el fraude el domingo armando a los 103.000 supervisores electorales de su campaña con boletas, para que pudieran reponer las existencias en los centros electorales en caso de que se robara alguna.Milei afirmó que era una tristeza que su campaña tuviera que recurrir a esas medidas. “¿Te das cuenta las locuras que estamos discutiendo?”.Jack Nicas es el jefe de la corresponsalía en Brasil, que abarca Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay. Anteriormente reportó de tecnología desde San Francisco y, antes de integrarse al Times en 2018, trabajó siete años en The Wall Street Journal. Más de Jack Nicas More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Ahead of Argentina’s Presidential Election, Milei Is Already Pointing to Fraud

      by

      Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian economist, could be elected Argentina’s president on Sunday. If he is not, he has already pointed to fraud.Donald J. Trump’s claims of election fraud already helped inspire one South American leader, former president Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, to sow doubt about the security of his nation’s elections, leading to a riot in Brazil’s capital this year.Now, 1,500 miles to the south, there is a new Latin American politician warning of voter fraud with scant evidence, undermining many of his supporters’ faith in their nation’s election this Sunday.Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian economist and television personality, is competing to become Argentina’s next president in a runoff election. On the campaign trail, he has embraced comparisons to Mr. Trump and Mr. Bolsonaro, and, like them, has repeatedly warned that if he loses, it may be because the election was stolen.Mr. Milei has claimed, without evidence, that stolen and damaged ballots cost him more than a million votes in a primary election in August, or as much as 5 percent of the total.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Letters With Suspicious Substances Sent to Election Offices Spur Alarm

      by

      Letters, some apparently containing fentanyl or other substances, were sent to local election offices in Georgia, Oregon and Washington State.Local election offices in at least three states were sent letters containing fentanyl or other suspicious-looking substances, the authorities said on Thursday. The letters come at a time when election offices are seeing a growing array of threats and aggressive behavior that has followed baseless charges of election fraud in recent years.The letters targeted election offices in Fulton County, Ga., which includes much of Atlanta; Lane County, Ore., which includes Eugene; and King, Spokane, Pierce and Skagit Counties in Washington. At least two of the mailings were reported to include messages, but beyond an apparent call to stop the election sent to the Pierce County Elections office in Tacoma, their nature was unclear.The Pierce County mailing included a white powder later identified as baking soda. A preliminary analysis of letters sent to King and Spokane Counties in Washington identified the presence of fentanyl, law enforcement authorities said. The letter sent to Fulton County was identified and flagged as a possible threat but had not yet been delivered, said Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state.Fentanyl can be fatal if ingested even in small doses, but in general, experts say, skin contact such as might occur when opening a letter poses little risk. None of the affected election offices reported injuries to employees.The F.B.I. and the U.S. Postal Service are investigating the letters, most of which arrived in Wednesday’s mail. In Washington State, they arrived only days after at least two synagogues in Seattle, the largest city in King County, received packages containing white crystalline or powdery substances.Officials in the affected states called the mailings threats to the democratic process. Mr. Raffensperger called on candidates for political office to denounce them.“This is domestic terrorism and needs to be condemned by anyone who holds elected office and wants to hold elected office,” he said. “If they don’t condemn this, then they’re not worthy of the office they’re running for.” He said his own son died five and a half years ago of a fentanyl overdose.While the mailings drew national attention, intimidation and threats of violence against election officials have become commonplace since former President Donald J. Trump and other Republican officeholders began raising baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.The Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections, singled out early by Mr. Trump and others claiming fraud, has been a frequent target, but hardly the only one. It was not clear whether the mailing to Atlanta had any connection to the racketeering trial playing out in Fulton County court. But election offices nationwide have tightened security, screening visitors and sometimes even installing bulletproof glass, in recent years.Jena Griswold, the Colorado secretary of state, said on Thursday that she had received more than 60 death threats since she was named as a defendant in September in a lawsuit challenging Mr. Trump’s right to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot. Threats against officials statewide are common enough that her office has established a process for detecting them.“We’re seeing a high threat environment toward election workers,” said Ms. Griswold, a Democrat. In Oregon, “the very charged interactions with patrons, voting or not, the aggressive pursuits of staff — we’re starting to see that here as well,” said Devon Ashbridge, the spokeswoman for the Lane County Elections office. “This has been a frankly frightening situation.”Nationally, the tide of threatening behavior toward election workers is a factor in the growing number of people leaving the profession and the difficulty in recruiting replacements.“We do see trends in retirements, but this is on a much grander scale than we’ve ever seen before,” said Tammy Patrick, the chief executive officer for programs at the National Association of Election Officials.The Justice Department has filed criminal charges involving election-related threats against at least 14 people since it formed a task force on the issue in June 2021. Ms. Griswold and others say, however, that both the federal and state responses have fallen short of what is needed.And they say they worry that the supercharged atmosphere surrounding the coming presidential election will only make matters worse.Election workers are “our neighbors, our grandparents, Republicans, Democrats together,” Ms. Griswold said. “They didn’t sign up for a really hostile environment for participating in American democracy.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Ballot-Stuffers Caught on Camera Have Upended a Race for Mayor

      by

      In Bridgeport, Conn., a judge found evidence of mishandled ballots in the Democratic primary for mayor and ordered a revote. But first, the city will hold a general election. After that? Stay tuned.Residents of Bridgeport, Conn., are preparing to cast their ballots in what may be the most confusing election in the country.A judge this week tossed out the results of the Democratic mayoral primary, citing surveillance video that appears to show significant voting irregularities. He ordered election officials to hold a new primary but had no authority to postpone the general election in the meantime. And so, on Tuesday, the general election will go on as planned.What happens after that is uncertain.“Obviously, we’re in very uncharted legal waters here,” said State Rep. Steven Stafstrom, a Democrat from Bridgeport and a co-chair of the legislature’s judiciary committee.The city finds itself in this mess after videos surfaced that showed suspicious activity at absentee ballot drop boxes. In clip after clip, two women are seen stuffing wads of paper into the boxes.“The videos are shocking to the court and should be shocking to all the parties,” Judge William Clark of the Superior Court in Bridgeport wrote in his ruling. He added, “The volume of ballots so mishandled is such that it calls the result of the primary election into serious doubt and leaves the court unable to determine the legitimate result.”Although voting fraud is rare across the country, Bridgeport, a city of about 150,000 people in the southwest part of the state, has been dogged by election improprieties in recent years.In June, the State Election Enforcement Commission, which is investigating the primary, said there was evidence of possible criminality in the 2019 mayoral primary. Last year, a judge ordered a new Democratic primary in a state representative race over allegations of absentee ballot fraud. In 2017, a judge ordered that a Democratic primary for City Council seats be rerun after a single absentee ballot, which was improperly handled, decided the race.The incumbent mayor, Joe Ganim, was first elected in 1991 and served until 2003. He was convicted on federal corruption-related charges, resigned and spent seven years in prison. In 2015, he mounted a comeback and has been mayor ever since.“We’ve been faced with a lot of disappointment, just over and over and over and over again,” said Joel Monge, 23, who runs Bridgeport Memes, a popular social media page.The current legal fight started after the September primary in which Mr. Ganim beat his opponent, John Gomes, by 251 votes. Mr. Gomes challenged the outcome in court, citing the video clips, which were taken from municipal surveillance cameras stationed near the city’s four absentee ballot drop boxes. A clip appeared on social media days after the primary, leading Mr. Gomes’s lawyers to file a lawsuit to get all 2,100 hours of tape on the drop boxes.Judge Clark ruled that just two women made or were directly involved in 15 incidents of drop boxes being stuffed with ballots. He wrote that the videos showed “credible evidence that the ballots were being ‘harvested’” — a process by which third-party individuals gather and submit completed absentee ballots in bulk, rather than individual voters submitting them for themselves, in violation of election laws.Both women, the judge wrote, were “partisans” for Mr. Ganim.Bill Bloss, Mr. Gomes’s lawyer, said his own review of the surveillance videos showed that no more than 420 people submitted ballots at Bridgeport drop boxes, but at least 1,253 ballots were submitted there.Mr. Ganim denied any involvement. “I was as shocked as everyone when the video came out,” he said.Both candidates said they were dismayed by the videos, and both men acknowledge that some of their supporters submitted multiple ballots.“On both sides, there is video of the irregularities,” Mr. Ganim said. He added: “That’s not acceptable. We all want everyone’s vote to count. We all want fair elections.”Mr. Gomes said his supporters had acted legally and had been submitting ballots for family members. The entire scandal is unfortunate, he said, adding, “Another black eye for Bridgeport.”But the judge’s order focuses on Mr. Ganim’s supporters, some of whom appear to have submitted many ballots, many times.“These instances do not appear to the court to be random,” Judge Clark wrote. “They appear to be conscious acts with partisan purpose.”As a result of the primary confusion, choosing the city’s next mayor has become exceedingly complicated.On Tuesday, the general election ballot will feature four candidates: Mr. Ganim; Mr. Gomes, now running as an Independent; David Herz, a Republican; and Lamond Daniels, an unaffiliated candidate.If Mr. Gomes wins the general election, he intends to withdraw his complaint about the Democratic primary and, if necessary, formally ask the judge to cancel his order for a new vote. In that scenario, presumably, Mr. Gomes would just become mayor.If Mr. Gomes does not win on Tuesday, but does win the second primary, he would advance to a second general election as the Democratic nominee. (Mr. Ganim would still be on the ballot, this time with the New Movement Party, according to Rowena White, his campaign spokeswoman.)Alternatively, if Mr. Ganim wins the general election on Tuesday, and then wins the second primary, there would be no second general election, Mr. Bloss said. Mr. Ganim would be re-elected.If one of the other two general election candidates wins on Tuesday, Bridgeport would hold a new Democratic primary and then a new general election.Officials have yet to decide when a second primary would occur. Mr. Ganim or the city could still appeal the judge’s order calling for the new vote. And both campaigns would need time to get back into gear, even for a do-over vote.For voters, the bizarre election spectacle has been dispiriting.“There’s just not the checks and balances,” said Anthony L. Bennett, the lead pastor of Mount Aery Baptist Church, adding, “It’s a great city, with great people, that has had a troubling history with unchecked and unaccountable governmental leadership.”Officials are trying to regain voters’ confidence. This week, Stephanie Thomas, the Connecticut secretary of state, appointed a temporary election monitor to oversee the mayoral election.“The public should know that everything that can be done is being done,” Ms. Thomas said.But critics noted that many absentee ballots have already been submitted for the general election — and questioned how one person could appropriately monitor the whole election.And election skeptics across the country, who have long pushed to restrict voting by absentee ballot, have seized upon Judge Clark’s ruling.They argue that Bridgeport — a historically Democratic city in a deeply Democratic state — is just one of the first places that absentee ballot fraud has been caught on camera.“That this happened here is beyond reasonable doubt,” Elon Musk wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “The only question is how common it is.”That worries many Democrats in Connecticut, including Mr. Ganim, who noted that many of his constituents struggle to access voting places on Election Day and need the option of absentee ballots. They may have health concerns, he said, or cannot get enough time off work to vote.Many would-be voters in Bridgeport believe they have been let down by the government once again.“A lot of people in Bridgeport just don’t vote in general just because they always assume Joe Ganim is going to win,” said Mr. Monge, who runs Bridgeport Memes.But, he said, the videos had angered many of his friends, perhaps spurring them to participate: “I think a lot of people are going to go out and vote.” More