Texas AG Threatens To Arrest U.N. Elections Observers

Post Reply New Topic

"If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections," he writes. "However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons -- including persons connected with OSCE -- are required to comply with these laws."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/greg-abbott-texas-un-elections_n_2010081.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

GOD BLESS TEXAS!! !

Do you see the word "arrest" anywhere above?

ruveyn

Read the linked article. It's in the original title.

Outside Agitators?

No need to arrest, a couple of warning shots throught he chest will convince them.

No objections here. This state doesn't make any attempt to ensue the integrity of the elections and will vote for almost all democrats, so there won't be anybody questioning the procedures and results.

In my precinct, the odds of someone voting in place of someone else is rather slim. Our election judges know every person in the precinct, whether they are registered to vote or not and greet everyone by name as they enter the polling place.

If someone were to show up and try to pass themselves off as a registered voter, they would be spotted as bogus immediately.

That's how it was with my late Mom, when she had worked as a precinct committee person at the polls. And there was actually one case that comes to mind that I know she had turned away an unregistered voter.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Wow, I actually agree with Texas on this one. Doesn't the U.N. have to be invited or at least given permission by a government to do this sort of thing? Why would the U.S. gov't. allow this?

Because that same US government is in bad odour with the rest of the world
after the Florida recount debacle of 2000 and suspicions of a second scandal
in Ohio in 2004.

The United States is a member of the OSCE and is under a positive obligation to permit the ODIHR to monitor its elections.

Furthermore, individual states have no authority to interfere with representatives of foreign states recognized by the United States or of international organizations of which the United States is a member. If Mr. Abbott is going to cite the law, he might do well to remember the entirety of the law.

It should be obvious to even the most partisan commentators that access to voting is controversial. Whether voter fraud is rampant or not, the efforts taken by some states to address it have raised sufficient questions that courts have seen fit to restrain them. This should give any citizen pause.

What part of the US Constitution gives the federal government the power to trump state government on this issue?

What debacle?

In any election with that many votes cast that has a vote count that close, any recount could easily go either way. You don't just keep having recounts until you get the results you want. We had a recount and accepted the results. In any election, finality is important.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

As it turns out, Gore had actually won the vote. But the count was stopped when Bush had been ahead. That, and all the hanging chads crap, and how minorities had had their right to vote denied.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That is just a guess. It was never established that Gore was ahead, one the invalid ballots had been eliminated.

At no time did the legally official count put Gore ahead in Florida. In Florida, when there is less than one half percent difference in the vote, the law calls for a review and recount. Once the "hanging chads" were eliminated plus felons voting (mostly in the majority black areas of Florida) the count was with the Republicans, but just barely.

I hope we learn a lesson from this and go back to good old paper ballots clearly marked with a soft lead pencil. To hell with these punch card abominations. And we surely do not need computerized voting. Why? As sure as sh*t hits the fan, such a system will be hacked.

ruveyn

How about Article I, Section 10, "No State shall enter into any Treaty," and Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

The foreign relations of the United States are an exclusively federal jurisdiction. States may not violate diplomatic immunity conferred by the federal government, and states may not take actions that violate treaty obligations validly entered into by the United States.

I scanned through the document earlier and nowhere was it referred to as a treaty. Furthermore, it had plenty about agreeing in principle, but I could find nothing about implementation of anything.

It appears to me to be an organization that the US has joined, but not a treaty.