On Friday night, I saw on Facebook a news story that a group called Election Justice USA had released a report that claimed that the Democratic Primary had been stolen from Bernie Sanders, and that without this fraud he would have won the primary "by a landslide." These are big accusations.
But I've never heard of Election Justice USA before. So I looked into it. The website was not very comprehensive (It has actually since been substantially updated, which is alluded to in the interviews to follow). Here is how they describe themselves, in part:
"We are a non-partisan organization advocating for voters'
rights and standing against election fraud and voter suppression
in all forms. Throughout the 2016 Presidential Primaries, Election Justice
has been working to combat unprecedented levels of fraud and voter suppression
through legal battles in several states and at the federal level. We are also
striving to educate the public about voter rights and election integrity issues."
Seems like a top-notch organization. Also, how old are they? The website doesn't say. Their Facebook and Twitter goes back only to April 2016. Seems less top-notch. Any organization can claim to be anything, all the moreso a new organization. What do they do?
I notice on Twitter they've retweeted Green Party Presumptive Nominee Jill Stein naming her VP. Seems like a weird choice - if they're an election watchdog, why promote any one candidate's news. I quickly check, anything about the Republican or Democratic VP? Nope. But Jill Stein is retweeted a few times. Doesn't seem so non-partisan any more. I check and see who they follow. Jill Stein. The Green Party. Gary Johnson. Ralph Nader. Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders. Definitely not a diverse group of politicians. But they also follow Russia Today, which is Russian state propaganda, Wikileaks, which similarly is accusing the DNC of corruption, a bunch of people who describe themselves as Bernie or Bust, and also quite a few socialist Twitter feeds. This place is looking a lot less nonpartisan. I should ask around. So I do. What follows is my extensive interview with Election Justice USA's Facebook account. The account controller would not give their name, and at some point alluded to the possibility I had been talking to several different people. I also later email them about their Twitter account.
First, the Facebook conversation (Which spans several days, as you'll see). My side is blue. Then the emails.
Election Justice came together this year as many that have been working on election and voting issues for years decided that coming and working together as a team to address the many problems and issues was needed.
Great, thank you. I have some more questions, when you have the opportunity.
Who are these founders you refer to?
What motivated them to come together this particular year?
Your social media accounts begin in early April. Is that about when your organization began?
Hopefully the web site will be up soon and the answers to the questions will be there. I know it is being worked on with hopes to have it up soon. All with EJUSA are volunteers.
If you read the two reports, you will get an idea as the the motivation for coming together to address the problems and irregularities in the primaries. The reports also have the names of those that worked on them.
Issues with voting, vote counting and elections are not new but many realized the issues for the first time this primary season.
EJUSA was organizing before the social media account was established and many if not all were closely watching the primaries/caucuses from the start of the cycle as they have done with previous elections. EJUSA is nonpartisan and not pro or anti a candidate and/or party and both parties results were looked at and evaluated for issues. When so much was discovered, it was decided that working together to report and address what was discovered was the best approach to advocate for the voters.
Thank you for your time so far, I appreciate the chance to get this information directly from you
I have some questions about things you have said.
"All with EJUSA are volunteers." I noticed you have a donation link on your website, which goes to a GoFundMe page, which cites "Court costs, filing fees, research data and other operating expenses." What do you mean when you say 'other operating expenses'? I assume this means things like gas for travel, renting out rooms for meetings, food for volunteers, etc. Is that it?
Also, why is $25k your goal?
Next question: I am still curious on the names of people who founded Election Justice. The report ("Democracy Lost,") lists some names, but doesn't say who founded the organization. Could I get that information?
Follow up: You mentioned two reports I should look at. I found the DL one - what's the other?
This is a tougher question, but one I hope you'll try to answer
You said, "Issues with voting, vote counting and elections are not new but many realized the issues for the first time this primary season."
This strikes many as difficult to comprehend. Voting issues have been a pretty consistent problem in the United States, and it's recently been regularly in the news with voter ID laws and the Supreme Court striking down parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
These two issues disproportionately affect racial minority voters and the working poor.
How would you respond to the charge some would levy at you that when you say "but many realized the issues for the first time this primary season" it sounds disingenuous. Not only are these things not new, but they've been getting active media attention, and there are many organizations dedicated to addressing these problems, at the local, state, and national level.
Follow up, what about "this primary season" caused the formation about EJUSA. Was there a particular event that spurred so many individuals to decide to come together? Or was it the taking of many events together?
Again, thank you for your time, and respond when you have the chance. I know I threw a bunch of questions at you just there.
"Other operating expenses" now are covering some of the cost of printing the report for distribution. Many volunteers cover expenses out of pocket.
There are many issues around voting and vote counting. Yes, voter suppressing ID laws have been in the news but there has been little if any coverage concerning the possible problems with the machine counts. Also, in this primary season there were more issues such as long time voters being removed from the voting rolls and in some areas a great reduction in polling locations. You are correct about the striking down of parts of the 1965 voting rights act getting a lot of media coverage as it is discovered how that actually influenced elections.
Yes, the two issues do disproportionately affect racial minority voters and the working poor. I think that was pointed out to some degree when the judges recently ruled against the NC voter ID+ law.
I hope that the other information you ask for will soon be available on the web site. We are working on it because we know it is important.
Some other questions I thought of: Is Election Justice USA a registered non-profit? Or, if you haven't yet (Because you just started earlier this year), are there plans to do that?
Is there a way for volunteers to be reimbursed for covering their own expenses?
Do you have a board or some kind of governing body?
I'm not sure it's fair to say "as [parts of the 1965 voting rights act getting struck down are] discovered how that actually influences elections." This was written about extensively as soon as the decision came down, and I believe is cited somewhere within the opinion of the dissenting Justices, though I'd have to double check that. This is something many people predicted and were trying to mitigate even in 2015.
And, again, who founded EJUSA? Are you a founder?
I'm gonna take a closer look at the reports, and then I'll come back with some questions about that, and then likely we'll wrap this up. Thank you again for your time and attention, I really do appreciate it
I agree that dissenting Justices wrote concerns about what would happen when sections of the Act were struck down but like you would need to go back and read the dissenting opinion. And, yes, many did write about it and those that closely follow voting and elections issues were well aware of the potential for problems. Yes, it was written about extensively but that does not mean that many took the time to read what was written. I think many voters were not that aware or didn't think about it that much or were aware but had no idea what they could do about it. It is my opinion that the primaries showed those expressed concerns to be valid and what happened in the primaries awakened many that had not been aware of what the ruling would mean in practice. I agree that many were trying to mitigate the effects of the Supreme Court ruling.
EJUSA has several founders and hopefully the website will be back soon with that information.
Alex, I would think that you have read EJUSA's Mission Statement but if you haven't, here it is.
Election Justice USA
Working for:
- Free and Fair Elections for All
- Accurately Counted
- Open to All Voters
Working against:
- Voter Suppression
- Election Rigging
- Election Fraud
EJUSA is nonpartisan and not pro or anti any candidate. We are pro voter and that is all the voters no matter their party affiliation or not being party affiliated. We think all votes should be counted as cast period. We think vote counting should be transparent where there is no question if the votes were counted as cast. We think that all that have the right to vote should be able to do so without obstacles. We look at election information and data and report about what is discovered and what happened.
I have definitely read the mission statement. It is a very good mission.
So I'm not sure what you mean by "many [did not take] the time to read what was written." That would seem to put the blame on the voters. If voters "were not aware or didn't think about it that much," that's no one's fault but there own. And if they did not know what they could do about it, there are lots of organizations trying to help they could have reached out to.
But I'm sure you're not trying to blame voters, that's just how I read what you've said. But please restate if you didn't mean that
But again, you say "what happened in the primaries awakened many that had not been aware of what the ruling would mean in practice." But minority and working poor populations have known about this for decades.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, the Advancement Project, as well as many local organizations, did pay close attention to that Supreme Court case, and took immediate action on behalf of at-risk voters - and have been working on this issue for a long time before this court case anyway. Even before the 1965 VRA was gutted, these organizations were working to ensure it was implemented correctly and completely.
Thank you
Now occurs to me another angle on a previous question: Why did EJUSA get formed? But this time I mean: Why didn't the founders/volunteers join those long-standing and prestigious civil rights organizations.
I’ve also read through the reports. I have some questions about some of the content. I'm happy to ask you, but maybe it would be better if I spoke to someone directly involved in the creation of the report, since the questions are about the methodology.
Oh hi!
Oh, thought you were there
Ok well I'm turning in for the night. Respond when you can, no rush
I agree that many did know there would be problems and did all they could to address potential issues such as helping voters get IDs, having voter registration drives and providing voter education. However, I think that many were not prepared to find that they were no longer on the voting rolls or that their long time polling location was closed. I think there is a difference between knowing the fire is hot and actually having you hand in the fire. Voters and voting rights advocates saw their concerns were valid and those that knew there could be problems but didn't really give it much thought because they are so busy trying to get by every day learned first hand about what gutting the voting rights act did in practice.
Alex, I think that many are just trying to get by, day to day get by and take care of their families. Yes they may hear about the Supreme Court ruling but that does not mean they have the time to do extensive reading about it. And no, I do not blame the voters. It is the system that creates these obstacles to voting and the system that does not count the votes in a transparent way that is the problem. Voters should not have to be worried about an ID or polling location or voting hours or the vote counting being transparent and accurate. Voters should be able to focus on finding the candidate that best represents them and voting for that candidate (or issue).
Also, it seems that you are picking out phrases written to suit your personal agenda here. I disagree with what you said about "seem to blame the voter".
Hopefully the information in the reports will help other organizations and groups as they look at and address election and voting issues.
Yes, questions about the reports need to go to the authors of the reports.
I'm unsure what agenda you're citing. I took something you said and told you "here is what I'm hearing. I'm sure you didn't mean that. I'm giving you a chance to say it again."
Apology but there are many messages needing to be addressed and I know I may have, probably did miss something. Please ask again.
Well you did answer it again
And the second time makes more sense
I'll restate it to ensure I understand
It's not that voters didn't read all the legal stuff, it's that they have lives to live and shouldn't have to be up to date on legal things to do something as fundamental as vote
EJUSA believes voting is an essential right of our Democracy, and that voters should be able to do it with no hassle
It should be as easy as buying milk from the store
My own words, but is that aligned with what your saying?
I took some artistic license with the words. I'm feeling poetic and patriotic
I think so, but on a personal note, it is the end of the month and I know a lot of people that would have difficulty buying anything now so while I know what you are saying, the fact that, (and this is personal, not EJUSA,) I delivered food today and yesterday gives me pause about the "easy as buying milk from the store". It is just a personal reaction though.
That's a good point. Milk costs money. Voting should be free
Yes, voting is an essential right and it should be easy.
Poetry and reality often clash
Two more questions
Actually I appreciate you poetic words, gave me a much needed smile.
Happy to help
The report authors are on the report, yeah?
Any in particular you recommend contacting? There are a bunch of names on each report
yes they are on the report
Great, and recommendations? Or should I inquire everyone and just see who's the most responsive?
lulu Fries'dat is the lead author of the first report so is probable the best one to contact. For the second report, it probable depends on your question. Different parts of the report have different authors so it would probably be best to contact the one that that wrote the section of the report where you have a question.
Got it
2nd question, then I think I'm done actually
You've been very helpful, thank you
Anyway, EJUSA is non partisan. But their Twitter only seems to follow left politicians. Sanders, Warren and Stein were those that stood out to me. I saw no one on the right
I'm curious why that is the case
Alex, that is a good question and point and I don't know the answer because I do not twitter and have nothing to do with the twitter account. But now that you have brought it up, I am going to ask. I also think that may evolve because of the end of the primary and on to the general election.
However, the bottom line is that all with EJUSA are committed to votes being counted as cast - period. We are pro all voters and encourage all that can vote to vote.
I can also message your Twitter account and talk to whoever is in charge of that
Anyway, thank you for your time and help. I'm glad we were able to push on each other and still be respectful
Would you mind giving me your name and/or title at EJUSA? You can absolutely say no, but I'd like it so I can be as transparent as possible about whom I spoke with.
I just asked about the twitter account but have no idea when I may get an answer and I do not know who is on the twitter team.
You are the first one to ask about a name and I do not know what other team members think about giving out names. I think would be okay with giving you my name but other team members may not so I will have to ask. I have asked other team members to look at our messages and because they may have other thoughts to share but EJUSA really is working on getting the web page up.
Thank you for clarifying and helping me understand what you are asking and hearing. I know there are still some unanswered questions but they are not forgotten.
Best and Kind regards
It's hard to answer all questions. We do our best
Feel free to reach out to me if you ever want to clarify something or if some of your team members have anything to add
I'll reach out to you if I need to follow up on any details
Thank you!
Hi there! Hope you're doing well
Your Twitter person gave me an email and I sent them questions Monday night but have heard nothing since
ElectionJusticeUSA@gmail.com
Is thst the right address?
Yes Alex, that is the correct email address. I will pass your message to the team to see if I can get some follow up for you.
Hope you are doing well too!
I have passed your message to the team and hope you will hear back soon.
Great, thanks
Hi! Ok all set on my end, going to publish soon
One last time I'll ask for a name, I don't know if you've had a chance to check with your team about the rules around that
I did ask but have not heard. Also, as we work in teams, replies can come from several.
Did you ever get anything from the Twitter team? Did you get a response from email(s)?
Ok, are you saying I've been talking to several different people over the course of these days through this one account?
And I did, but honestly it felt like a brush off. I had asked about the political alignment of who was followed, pointing out the Twitter really only follows those on the left
I was told EJUSA is non partisan, but that they don't support candidates who 'subvert election integrity.'
Which doesn't answer my question in any substantive way
I have not seen or even been aware of the responce to you concerning Twitter. And, I did ask other team members to look at your messages but have not gone back through the thread so right now I do not have an answer for you.
I am the one that delivers food and am out doing deliveries now. If you would like more follow up, please ask but it may take some time to get an answer and other team members may see the message and answer, just don't know.
OK. When you're able to, please review our conversation and let me know if you see anything that you don't recall writing yourself. Just like to verify how many people I've been talking to
As for the Twitter email, I assumed that's a different person entirely from you and whoever does your Twitter
or the team that does the Twitter
And here is the email exchange I had I refer to at the end:
Hi there, my name is Alex Maslow. I had an extensive and productive conversation with whoever runs your FB group. I have some questions about EJUSA's Twitter feed, though, that s/he was unable to answer. So I've decided to ask them here. Please respond at your convenience:
1. Elect Justice USA states it is a non-partisan organization. However, it only follows left-of-center politicians. Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. Jill Stein. The only exception I see is Gary Johnson. You follow many socialist feeds, Anonymous, and the Green Party. Why don't you also follow President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, etc? Why don't you follow US Congress, The White House, and the Democratic & Republican Parties. Why not the Libertarian Party?
2. You recently retweeted that Jill Stein announced her VP pick. Why didn't you retweet Clinton or Trump's or Johnson's announcement? You once retweeted Jill Stein when she said:
In 2012, I was arrested for trying to enter the @debates & held in a dark site with 16 guards. That's how scared they are of our message.
Clearly that is an egregious thing. I wonder what evidence you have to back her accusation up? I've been unable to find much information about this event.
Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you Alex for reaching out to us. EJUSA is a nonpartisan organization because it is solely dedicated to restoring complete integrity and access to all voters to our election system. This favors no party or candidate, unless the party and candidate want to subvert election integrity.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Alex Maslow <armaslow@gmail.com> wrote: To whom it may concern,
What you wrote answers neither of my questions. I did not ask why EJUSA is non-partisan. I acknowledged that it was. Then I asked why does it only follow a narrow group of politicians? That is at odds with a non-partisan mission. Unless you mean the DNC, Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, the US Congress, the White House, the RNC, and Donald Trump each "want to subvert election integrity." If that is the case, please explain why this is so for each.
Also, since I sent my email your Twitter now follows Julian Assange, but none of the other politicians/organizations I mentioned across the political spectrum. Why did you add Assange, and yet no American politicians?
My original questions are below. Your answers will help me, and others, better understand your organization.
Thank you,
-Alex
1. Elect Justice USA states it is a non-partisan organization. However, it only follows left-of-center politicians. Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. Jill Stein. The only exception I see is Gary Johnson. You follow many socialist feeds, Anonymous, and the Green Party. Why don't you also follow President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, etc? Why don't you follow US Congress, The White House, and the Democratic & Republican Parties. Why not the Libertarian Party?
2. You recently retweeted that Jill Stein announced her VP pick. Why didn't you retweet Clinton or Trump's or Johnson's announcement? You once retweeted Jill Stein when she said:
In 2012, I was arrested for trying to enter the @debates & held in a dark site with 16 guards. That's how scared they are of our message.
Clearly that is an egregious thing. I wonder what evidence you have to back her accusation up? I've been unable to find much information about this event.
I will update this post when I get another email response from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment