Threatening or intimidating

08 Dec

(Click here for the letter.)The letter is a blatant and broad sweeping attack on citizen’s rights to freedom of association and free speech.It demands citizens who have written, spoken, or organized against Taylor City Charter violations must surrender their private communications on the issue.In twisted logic, Councilwoman Lopez is claiming those who disagree with her interpretation of the Taylor City Charter are defaming her business and are thereby responsible for City Council members voting against a renewal of the contract between her business and the City.But, there is no evidence presented that anyone defamed or complained about the nature or quality of service her business provides.Before Donald Trump’s stunning victory on November 8, liberals called for acceptance of election results.

According to Buzzfeed, Maddie Deming, a strategist for the group, said they wanted to put electors in the spotlight and “to hold them accountable for their decision.” Whatever the intent, the initiative has produced a deluge of threats. 6, 2017 in joint session to count the Electoral College votes (3 U. The obvious conclusion is that the Justice Department has done nothing to enforce Section 11b against those who have tried to intimidate and who have threatened electors with bodily harm if they vote for Donald Trump. Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the Civil Rights Division had the open-and-shut case dismissed because its “progressive” new leaders did not believe the Voting Rights Act should be used against black defendants to protect white voters.Electors across the country report receiving not only a flood of emails and phone calls to change their vote to Hillary Clinton but death threats as well. This radical position ignores the fact that the law is race-neutral and protects all voters.Alex Kim, a Texas Republican elector, reported that he and other electors had “receiv[ed] thousands of emails a day” urging them to vote for Clinton, including threats of harm and death. §10307) makes it a crime for anyone to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.” While this has been applied in the past to ordinary, everyday voters in federal elections, the language does not limit it only to such voters. Seriously, if Hillary Clinton had won and Donald Trump supporters were threatening Clinton electors with bodily injury, does anyone doubt that the Justice Department would have acted immediately to enforce Section 11b? Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately.Arizona’s electors have reported harassment as well. Electors who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b since the Electoral College is an essential part of the federal voting process. §7) requires electors to cast their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which this year is Dec. These are recorded as “certificates of vote,” signed, sealed, and delivered by December 28 to the president of the Senate and the archivist of the United States (3 U. Making threats and attempting to intimidate electors is as anti-democratic as it gets. Failure to do so will just be further evidence that this Justice Department does not believe in equal protection under the law.Michael Banerian, a Michigan GOP elector, received some of the most extreme threats according to The Detroit News. This is supported by Section 14(c) of the VRA, which says that “voting” includes “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.” Obviously, the votes cast by Americans on Nov.