Pro-Trump death threats prompt bills in 3 states to protect election workers
[ad_1]
Donald Trump, former President of the United States, points during a rally held in Florence, Arizona on January 15, 2022.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
Vermont lawmakers are looking at bills that would make it simpler to bring charges against people who have threatened election officials. Maine lawmakers are considering legislation that would make it easier to prosecute people who intimidate election officials. Washington state senators approved this month making threatening electoral workers a felony.
These measures are based on a series of Reuters investigative reports that documented a national wave of harassment and threats against election officials by Donald Trump supporters. The allegations were rooted in a series of Reuters investigations. All three states’ sponsors and supporters of the bill cited Reuters reports as a reason for recommending tougher enforcement.
Washington State Senator David Frockt (a Seattle Democrat) said that the reports provided “more evidence” for lawmakers to hold those responsible for threats to election officials accountable.
Maine Democratic state representative Bruce White has introduced a bill to increase the penalties for people who “intentionally interfere by force violence or intimidation” in election administration. The testimony of Secretary Shenna Bellows supporting the bill cited the Reuters report.
“This is unacceptable,” she stated, noting that in Maine two municipal clerks were under threat of violence.
Reuters has documented over 50,000 records in total 850 threats and hostile messages to U.S. election officials and workers. Nearly all communications echo Trump’s absurd claims that he lost 2020 elections due to fraud. Law professors and lawyers who looked at them said that more than 100 could have been considered federally eligible for criminal prosecution.
In such cases, prosecutions have been rare. However, on Friday, an U.S. Department of Justice taskforce on electoral threats made its announcement first indictmentTexas man charged for making threats to three Texas officials online Georgia. The case was mentioned by an assistant attorney general as one of “dozens” under investigation by the task team, formed soon after Reuters published its June report. first in the series of reports on election-related threats.
In Vermont, menacing voicemails to Secretary of State Jim Condos and his staff – and a decision by police and prosecutors not to seek charges – spurred lawmakers to reconsider state laws that enshrine some of America’s oldest and strongest free-speech protections. These two new measures would allow suspects of criminal threats to be brought to trial faster and increase penalties for those who target public officials.
Jim Condos, Vermont Secretary of State, poses for a portrait at Montpelier (VT), U.S.A, 2021.
Linda So | Reuters
Unidentified men left hostile messages to Condos’ office in the first round shortly after 2020 elections. The same man then left voicemails threatening Condos’ office and his staff last fall. Two Reuters journalists had also been interviewed about the threats.
In an October message, the man stated that justice was coming. “All you dirty c‑‑‑suckers are about to get f‑‑‑ing popped. I f‑‑‑ing guarantee it.”
Condos claimed in an interview that the threatened caller was unlikely to face consequences. The caller had already sent earlier messages to Condos, which police and prosecutors determined were protected speech.
Condos became frustrated, and wrote to about a dozen legislators to urge them to think of legislation to better align state law with federal laws, and set clearer standards for prosecution.
Condos said in an email to lawmakers on October 27, “These voicemails cross the line,” which was examined by Reuters.
The threats were serious enough for federal officials to investigate. After Reuters asked Vermont authorities about their October threats, the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched an inquiry, according to two law enforcement officers.
Condos claimed that Condos’ email was a reflection of his fear that intimidation might escalate into violence. He said it was about recognising the reality of our current world and understanding that we must do something.
After Reuters published the October threats to Vermont, public calls for Vermont’s stronger legislative framework emerged. Nov. 9 story along with details of the caller’s earlier messages. According to state authorities, the anonymous calls are protected speech. The callers can’t be tracked down. Reuters journalists managed to reach the man to interview him. The man admitted that he made the threats, but declined to be identified. The man said that he was sure he did nothing wrong.
A week later, Vermont Governor Phil Scott (a Republican) and Richard Sears (a Democrat), were both elected to office. told reporters that they would consider changes to state laws governing criminal threats.
New legislation was also advocated by newspaper editorials. In a statement, the Manchester Journal declared that “This case shows it is clear Vermont law has to be changed.” Nov. 11 editorialCondos’s staff and the threats made by Reuters are referred to as “The Threats”.
Richard “Dick” Sears (Venezuela State Senator) attends a Senate Session virtually from North Bennington Vermont on January 20, 2022.
Cindy Schultz | Reuters
Free speech and threats
Vermont’s and other state bills wouldn’t affect free-speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for all Americans. The Vermont bill’s supporters claim that the intention is to align state laws with federal standards. This makes it simpler to prosecute violence threats.
Vermont legislation would increase the criminal threat definition. It also removes several barriers to prosecution. A threat must be directed at a particular person. Additionally, the burden is on the accused to show that they have the ability and means to commit any violence. A second measure would increase the penalties for public officials who make threats.
Rory Thibault (a state attorney who assisted lawmakers with the creation of legislation) says, “This is not about tying ourselves hands”.
The delicate task of finding that balance can be difficult in Vermont. Vermont’s extensive freedom-of-speech protections were codified almost 250 years before the U.S. Constitution.
In 1777, the independent Vermont Republic enacted a constitution that guaranteed “a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments” – language that remains in the state’s constitution today. Matthew Lyon, who was one the state’s first legislators, was elected to Congress in 1798 while being held under Sedition Act. Lyon described Lyon as “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp” and was jailed.
The legislation that was proposed by state legislators to ease criminal threat prosecution failed to pass several years back amid concern about its impact on speech rights. However, Vermont has struggled with violence anti-government sentiments, white nationalism, and political extremism in recent years, straining the country’s free-speech traditions.
The conviction of two Ku Klux Klan members on charges of disturbing the peace was overturned by Vermont’s Supreme Court in 2018. Two women (one Black, and one Hispanic) were targeted by pro-Klan flyers that the defendant placed on their cars. The Vermont court declared that the flyers constitute protected speech.
Bennington, a town in Black America, paid $137.500 for the services of a legislator. The municipality also apologized to publically that it failed to adequately respond to racist harassment by an unidentified white nationalist. In 2018, Kiah Morris was elected as a legislator.
Proponents of the criminal-threats bill have not seen significant public opposition to it so far. However, they expect this will change after hearings open. American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont indicated that they are monitoring the bills and have not made a decision.
Sears is the Chairman of Judiciary Committee and plans to hold hearings this month on the legislation. Sears who was the sponsor of one bill said that passing the legislation would not guarantee that those threatening public officials will be sent to prison. “But, we are certain that we will not see any change if these things don’t get done.”
[ad_2]