Do you think there should be armed patrols at polling places? (see details for very important historical context for this question)

Asked by Strauss (23829

) August 23rd, 2020

In 1981 in New Jersey, about 200 members of the “National Ballot Security Task Force” were deployed statewide at or near polling places, many of them uniformed and carrying guns. Using various tactics (ID, veiled threats, etc.), they discouraged or prevented Black and Latino voters from casting their votes. Weeks later, after a recount, Republican Thomas Kean won the election by fewer than 1,800 votes.

Democrats and civil rights activists later discovered that the “ballot security” operation was a joint project of the state and national Republican committees. They filed suit in December 1981, charging Republicans with “efforts to intimidate, threaten and coerce duly qualified black and Hispanic voters.”

In November 1982, the case was settled when the Republican committees signed a federal consent decree – a court order applicable to activities anywhere in the U.S. – agreeing not to use race in selecting targets for ballot security activities and to refrain from deploying armed poll watchers. This decree expired in 2018 after Democrats failed to convince a judge to renew it. The 2020 presidential election will be the first in nearly 40 years conducted without the protections afforded by that decree.

edited for typos

Observing members: 0

Composing members: 0

8 Answers

There won’t be enough people there to make it worthwhile. Most will vote by mail in ballots.

kritiper (25757

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…

No, there shouldn’t. I like to think the United States is better than a third world dictatorship where that kind of thing is common.

Demosthenes (15304

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…

No armed patrols, though having a police presence might be nice in some places. Remember the New Black Panthers threatening voters in Philadelphia? They were armed with clubs and were threatening white voters. So having armed people can be bad, but having someone to keep the peace and enforcing the law might be nice.

seawulf575 (17091

)“Great Answer” (2

) Flag as…

Confronted with the realities of shifting demographics, the right thrashes ever more desperately to restrict and intimidate access to the polls. With each election these tactics grow ever more egregious and ramp up in intensity. If nothing else, these galloping transparent attacks on the voting process serve to accelerate the incentives to expand the expedient of mail in ballots.

stanleybmanly (24153

)“Great Answer” (4

) Flag as…

Absolutely not. There is no reason to have such an intimidating presence at polling places. It’s just another attempt to suppress the vote. Nobody wants to stand in a line with armed whoevers standing watch over them while they exercise their right to vote. We do not live in a police state yet.

lastexit (2470

)“Great Answer” (4

) Flag as…

^I agree.
Plus. A bunch of armed patrols, could just ramp up tension, and/or lead to the possibility of confrontation.

MrGrimm888 (19480

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…

I hope our country has not come to that, yet.

chyna (51599

)“Great Answer” (3

) Flag as…

@stanleybmanly You need to get out more. Or maybe just look at what people on the right actually say and do. ”Confronted with the realities of shifting demographics, the right thrashes ever more desperately to restrict and intimidate access to the polls. ” Didn’t I just say restricting was bad and that maybe having police presence to ensure things are peaceful and lawful was a good thing? You do consider me a right winger, correct?

seawulf575 (17091

)“Great Answer” (0

) Flag as…