vox--2020-10-23--What poll watchers actually do, and Trump’s troubling rhetoric about them, explained

“ I ’ m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that ’ s what has to happen , ” President Donald Trump said during the first presidential debate last month .
“ I am urging them to do it.
” To facilitate that , the Trump campaign has launched Army for Trump , an effort to mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers for get-out-the-vote efforts , including poll watching .
A Trump campaign spokesperson told Vox that it hopes to fill 40,000 poll-watching shifts , and expects to exceed their goal of recruiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t unique to the Trump campaign ; the Biden campaign is also recruiting tens of thousands of poll observers .
Laws governing what , exactly , observers can do at polling stations , and who can serve as one , vary by state .
Unlike poll workers , who assist and engage with voters , partisan poll watchers are mostly just that — the eyes and ears of the political parties , looking for or documenting potential irregularities that may affect the outcome for their party , candidate , or ballot initiative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic process , but it has gotten even more attention in 2020 because of the rhetoric around the election .
The president has repeatedly made unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud .
Trump ’ s ire is mostly directed toward mail-in voting , but his claims that the election may be stolen from him and calls for people to keep an eye on polls ( if not exactly new ) have whipped up political tensions even more and increased fears of possible voter intimidation at the polls .
Designated poll watchers — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually have to be officially selected by a party or candidate , and often have to be registered voters , or even registered in the voting precinct they ’ re assigned to watch .
In many cases , they are restricted from interacting with voters , but depending on the jurisdiction , they can potentially challenge the eligibility of other voters .
Those kinds of objections can slow down the voting process for everyone , when some voters already face long waits at the polls .
But Trump ’ s rhetoric has raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond these legitimate , designated poll watchers , with private citizens or even armed militia groups taking it upon themselves to police the polls .
Voter intimidation is illegal , and states have strict buffer zones around voting sites .
But , as Nicolas Riley , senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection ( ICAP ) at Georgetown University Law School , told me , “ Simply by virtue of the fact that the more people you put in and around the polls on Election Day , the more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types of shenanigans that lead to all kinds of problems.
” More than 50 million people have already cast their ballots in early voting for the 2020 election .
There have been a few incidents of possible voter intimidation , most notably a report in the New York Times that said the Trump campaign was videotaping voters bringing ballots to drop-off boxes .
But for the most part , Americans are successfully casting their ballots , and that ’ s a reassuring sign ahead of Election Day .
But there ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , “ shenanigans.
” So with that , it ’ s worth it to understand what poll watchers are — and aren ’ t — legally allowed to do .
Here ’ s everything you need to know .
Why America even has poll watchers Poll watchers , in the best of circumstances , are there to guarantee openness and transparency in the democratic process .
In America ’ s early days , elections were kind of free-for-alls , sometimes literally drunken parties , where people got together and cast their ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in the open , which meant everyone could see or hear who their fellow citizens ( then , white men ) voted for .
Even when paper ballots came into fashion , political parties handed them out — basically , you take the party ballot you want , put it in their box , and that was that .
But that began to change in America in the decades after the Civil War , when voting became much more professionalized .
A big part of this was the adoption , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s known as the “ Australian ballot ” — or secrecy ballot — which basically scrapped the old system for something similar to what voters are used to today .
Instead of political parties running the show , state officials designate polling areas and distribute ballots with all the candidates .
And , most importantly , the voter marks it in secret .
This is obviously the condensed version , but as experts told me , this is where you start to see all the different kinds of rules governing polling stations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t .
So the role of poll watchers evolved from here .
Before voter registration systems were adopted , they might ID voters and , after , check their names on a list .
There was also a dark side to this : As Riley told me , some of these laws that allow voters to challenge the voting eligibility of fellow citizens came about as a result of Jim Crow-era policies , and were specifically designed to target Black voters .
But broadly , when it came to partisan poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely that parties or candidates wanted a guarantee against any funny business that might disadvantage their candidate .
Having representatives for different parties also helped ensure legitimacy — if everyone agrees on the outcome , and any potential disputes are resolved , well , that bolsters faith in electoral outcomes .
“ Even though we take for granted that our elections are run according to the rules , ” Larry Garber , an international elections expert and consultant at the Carter Center , told me , “ I think there is still lingering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching , someone can stuff ballots or prevent people from voting or whatever .
And therefore , you need to have your representatives present to prevent that kind of chicanery.
” Beyond possible chicanery , problems do happen at voting sites .
Maybe the printed ballots misspell the name of a candidate ; if voters are confused , the campaign in question may want to know that .
Maybe a polling place runs out of ballots for a few hours ; poll watchers can document how long that lasted and how many voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can communicate with party officials and campaign lawyers .
For example , maybe the polling station was out of ballots long enough that parties might sue to keep the polling place open a little later .
Or , say some votes are discarded because a voting machine can ’ t read them ; poll watchers might be able to note that , actually , you can clearly see what the voter marked and thus the ballots should be counted .
Or if a candidate loses in a close race , they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounds to challenge the results , and maybe demand a recount .
You get the picture .
Political campaigns and parties can ’ t keep track of every voting precinct , so partisan poll watchers are kind of like an on-the-ground liaison for anything that might go awry .
Who is allowed to watch the polls , and what they are ( and aren ’ t ) allowed to do Poll watchers can be nonpartisan , such as members of civic groups , or partisan .
Partisan poll watchers usually represent political parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some states also allow for private citizens to observe polling places and other election processes such as testing voting equipment and examining absentee ballots .
( The US allows for international poll observers , too . )
Each state has its own laws governing who can and can not be at polling stations .
When it comes to partisan poll observers , states have rules about who can be appointed .
For example , many require poll watchers to be registered voters themselves , sometimes in the jurisdiction where they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
Some states limit the number of partisan poll watchers , such as restricting them to one observer per party/candidate , per precinct .
States usually require that observers clearly identify themselves and whom they ’ re representing , and no campaign swag is allowed .
States also have guidelines for which parts of the election process watchers can observe and exactly what poll watchers can do during voting .
Some states may allow poll observers to watch over poll workers ’ shoulders as they check IDs ; others may designate locations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the way of the action .
Most of the time , poll watchers are not permitted to interact directly with voters , or even election officials , unless they have a specific complaint or challenge — and states all have rules on how any challenge can be made .
Poll watchers , of course , can never follow someone into a voting booth .
Some states bar observers from taking photos or videos .
This year , some states have also added guidelines related to the pandemic , such as asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand 6 feet away from others .
Some states also allow private citizens to observe stages of the voting process , sometimes under similar guidelines as partisan observers , other times with slightly different restrictions .
In many states , both designated poll watchers and regular citizens can challenge the eligibility of voters .
States have laws governing these types of challenges .
For example , sometimes the challenger also has to be a registered voter in the precinct , or submit their request in writing .
But you get the gist : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll watchers are a concern , but probably not a huge one There are downsides to this kind of voting transparency .
Overzealous poll workers do have the potential to slow down the voting process at precincts if they ’ re being overly aggressive or , as is allowed in some states , challenging the eligibility of voters .
And in an election year where turnout is expected to be much higher than usual , and where polling places are seeing hours-long waits for early voting , this can just jam things up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for bogus reasons , but it ’ s pretty easy to claim that you ’ re objecting for a legitimate reason , right ?
” Garber told me .
“ And that gums up the process , causes delays , creates lines , creates frustration , makes people feel like the process is somehow not working.
” Garber emphasized that polling officials who are running these sites have the power to intervene if a poll watcher is really overstepping their role or mounting frivolous challenges .
“ State law varies across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll watcher would have to have in order to challenge the person who ’ s getting ready to cast their ballot , ” Julie Houk , managing counsel of election protection at the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , told me .
“ Some states have criminal penalties associated with making invalid or intentionally false challenges to harass or intimidate voters .
But , again , that depends on the state law.
” Such challenges can potentially disenfranchise individual voters .
If , say , a voter waits in line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re being challenged , they may not be able to gather the evidence they need to refute the claims , which sometimes involves providing additional identification or witness testimony .
The concern is that the voter may just give up , said Houk , though she pointed out that organizations like hers are there to intervene if that happens on Election Day , to protect voters ’ rights .
Some voting rights groups are also concerned that partisan poll watchers could single out certain voters for additional scrutiny , something that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a poll watcher is singling out minorities or non-English-speaking voters as ineligible .
Vincent Hutchings , a political science and Afro-American and African studies professor at the University of Michigan , told me this is especially problematic given the geographic and racial divides between the parties .
“ In such a world where you can visually identify — typically — someone ’ s racial or ethnic background , and when there ’ s such a high correlation between race and ethnicity and partisanship , then that is a recipe for potential disaster , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worries over poll watchers in 2020 have less to do with the legitimate ones dispatched to voting places by their party or candidate , and more to do with , well , everyone else .
Trump ’ s calls to watch the polls are what people are really worried about In September , during early voting in Virginia , a group of Trump supporters stood outside a polling place in Fairfax , shouting “ four more years ” as voters entered the polling station .
The laws differ state by state , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in which people who are not in line to actually vote aren ’ t allowed to stand .
Beyond the buffer zone , however , people can more openly electioneer — wave a Trump flag , hand out pamphlets for a Democratic candidate , etc .
In Virginia , that buffer zone is 40 feet , meaning that Election officials said the Trump supporters in Fairfax were about 100 feet from the building , so outside the buffer zone .
But officials still had to open up another portion of the building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent anyone from feeling as if they were being harassed .
To some , this incident looked like a first act in a tense and highly polarized election year , with a potential for a wave of private citizens intimidating voters at polling stations under the guise of poll watching .
Trump ’ s general reluctance to condemn white supremacy , as well as his comments that the far-right Proud Boys group should “ stand back and stand by ” on Election Day , has forced election officials and law enforcement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls .
( Trump later said he meant to say “ stand down.
” ) And some militia groups , such as the Oath Keepers , have already said they will patrol polling sites on Election Day .
The fear over this “ army ” of poll watchers Trump is recruiting , then , might be that there will be a blurring of the lines for poll watchers , or that it might attract regular citizens or militia groups who feel called to patrol or police voting precincts for voter fraud , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhoods .
“ And that ’ s the concern , ” Houk told me , “ where they ’ ve been sort of encouraged to go out and watch the polls but they don ’ t know what they ’ re watching for because they don ’ t know what the law says.
” “ There is a role for poll observers to observe what ’ s going on , and to make sure that elections are proceeding fairly , ” Kathleen Roblez , a staff attorney at Forward Justice , a nonpartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice organization in the US South , told me .
“ But , ” she added , “ I think that some of the concern of the real intimidation will come from people who are outside of the polling places , who have a little bit more power and are less regulated.
” When it comes to carrying weapons , some states bar people from bringing firearms into polling stations , but it varies by state .
However , it is always illegal for an individual to use a firearm to intimidate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside the inflammatory rhetoric of the president — because , of course , it didn ’ t begin with him — this process of sending poll watchers , oftentimes to Democratic neighborhoods , which of course are minority neighborhoods , in many instances , is an opportunity to engage in some of the most egregious violations of people ’ s civil rights , ” Hutchings said .
“ It leaves open the possibility that this could occur because indeed it has occurred before , and it ’ s occurred before in my lifetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a few egregious examples in recent history , but maybe none more relevant to 2020 than what happened during a New Jersey gubernatorial race in 1981 .
On Election Day , about 200 armed men , including many off-duty police , patrolled primarily minority and Democratic-voting neighborhoods like Newark and Trenton .
They wore armbands and identified themselves as part of the “ National Ballot Security Task Force ” ; some also wore Republican Party branding , according to news reports from the time .
And they were the creation of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party .
“ WARNING , ” one of their posters read .
“ This area is being patrolled by the National Ballot Security Task Force .
It is a crime to falsify a ballot or to violate election laws.
” The posters reportedly offered rewards to people who turned in improperly registered voters .
In court documents , one of the plaintiffs , a Black woman from Trenton , said she had been asked to show her voter registration card and told by someone from the task force that she could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actively tried to drive voters from the polls , including , in one instance , chasing voters away from the polls in Newark .
That election was extraordinarily close .
The Republican candidate , Thomas H. Kean , led his Democratic opponent , James Florio , by fewer than about 1,750 votes initially .
A recount still put Kean in the lead , by fewer than 1,800 votes , and Florio conceded .
But even though Democrats didn ’ t challenge the final result , they ultimately did take Republicans , specifically the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican National Committee , to court for voter intimidation .
Plus , before the actual intimidation at the polls , Republicans had been engaged in what ’ s known as “ voter caging , ” where they send mail to registered voters , keep track of what mail is undeliverable , and try to purge those voters from the rolls .
Ahead of the 1981 election , they did this to thousands of voters in primarily Black and brown neighborhoods in New Jersey .
So civil rights activists helped gather testimony and affidavits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Democratic National Committee sued the GOP for voter intimidation and illegal harassment under the Voting Rights Act .
In 1982 , the two sides settled , and the RNC entered into a consent decree that barred the committee from engaging in any ballot security measures that might deter qualified voters from voting .
In practice , this prevented the RNC from coordinating ballot security activities nationally ; the consent decree could be enforced in court if any groups engaged in any such intimidation or harassment and the RNC was found to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1987 and again in 2009 .
But at the start of 2018 , the consent decree expired , despite Democrats ’ attempts to extend it .
Which means that , for the first time in decades , the RNC is not restrained by the limits of the consent decree , including getting prior approval for any poll-watching activities .
“ The expiration of the consent decree looms large in this election , ” Angelo J. Genova , chair and managing partner of Genova Burns and one of the attorneys who represented Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The expiration of the decree meant that an incredibly powerful check on potential voter suppression was now gone .
“ For decades , the consent decree effectively checked the RNC and its agents from engaging in purported ballot security measures whose purpose or effect was to suppress minority voters from exercising their right to vote .
This consent decree was made for this moment , ” Genova said , “ a moment one would think was long gone.
” For Republicans , though , the expiration meant they were finally back on equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t have to follow additional restrictions to their campaign activities and the RNC can coordinate nationally , something the consent decree really hindered .
But as election expert Rick Hasen told NPR in 2018 , there was a reason for the unequal footing .
In recent years , Republicans , not Democrats , have a documented history of trying to make it harder for minority voters to vote .
Mark Krasovic , an expert in US and New Jersey history at Rutgers University , told me that beyond the threat of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that partisan election monitoring activities will be used to just slow down the process — “ to gum up the works as much as you can ” — and to delegitimize the electoral process .
“ That was something that people were saying in ’ 81 : It ’ s not necessarily that they turned people away , but they slowed things down , and people didn ’ t get to cast their votes , ” he said .
“ And then just to delegitimize the entire process — to raise questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process.
” Despite concerns , voters should feel confident about going to the polls Delegitimizing the voting process , as Krasovic said , is not a small thing .
That ’ s partly why Trump ’ s rhetoric is so dangerous .
It ’ s not just about rallying a few die-hards to the polls ; it creates the specter of intimidation .
If voters are nervous or fearful about voting , they may be dissuaded from doing so altogether .
That , in itself , can suppress the vote .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside polling stations , experts said , but it ’ s important to recognize that despite a few tense incidents so far in 2020 , the worst-case predictions are not actually happening right now .
A Trump campaign spokesperson said its “ poll watchers provide confidence in an election when they can say that all rules and laws were applied equally , ” and added that they ’ re all trained in the proper conduct of a polling location or other election facility .
And though not all states require trainings , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
CNN reviewed 17 poll watcher training videos posted by the Trump campaign , and the instructions did not match the rhetoric of the president .
“ Simply because someone has out-of-state plates or they don ’ t speak English , those are not reasons for a challenge , ” the narrator says in the Colorado video , according to CNN .
Another says to be nice to everyone , and makes clear the job isn ’ t to stop legitimate voters from voting .
Although a video of a training in Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group that the “ the main goal is electing the boss , ” he also said watchers shouldn ’ t interfere with voters , and should kick any issues up to the lawyers .
And in any election , there are going to be cadres of lawyers on the lookout for both sides .
The Biden team is also recruiting poll watchers , and there will be tens of thousands of poll observers associated with the campaign deployed across the country , both as designated partisan poll watchers inside precincts and as volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer voter questions .
“ We ’ re making sure that everybody that shows up and wants to cast their vote in person that ’ s eligible is able to do so , and that vote counts .
We do that everywhere and anywhere we can , ” Rachana Desai Martin , director of voter protection and senior counsel for the Biden campaign , told me .
In that sense , 2020 is just like any other election year .
But , of course , it isn ’ t in a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the two candidates at the top of the ticket ( along with many of his allies ) is trying anything and everything in his power to undercut the voting process .
And , again , that includes rhetoric around poll watchers .
In September , unauthorized poll watchers associated with the Trump campaign showed up at satellite offices in Philadelphia , where voters could register or drop off mail-in ballots .
Election officials asked them to leave , because the satellite offices were not official polling locations but were just providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the president , tried to gin up suspicions around the Philadelphia election officials asking the unauthorized poll watchers to leave .
Trump repeated that claim during his debate with Biden in September , saying “ bad things happen in Philadelphia.
” The Trump campaign also sued , but a state judge sided with the Philadelphia officials , and just this week , a higher court affirmed that ruling .
But the damage was sort of done : Right-wing circles had picked up on this idea that somehow Trump campaign observers were being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watchers aren ’ t really the problem , then .
It ’ s the misinformation and rhetoric around them .
And that , more than anything , may be the most potent force in undermining the vote this year .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

“I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that’s what has to happen,” President Donald Trump said during the first presidential debate last month. “I am urging them to do it.”
To facilitate that, the Trump campaign has launched Army for Trump, an effort to mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers for get-out-the-vote efforts, including poll watching. A Trump campaign spokesperson told Vox that it hopes to fill 40,000 poll-watching shifts, and expects to exceed their goal of recruiting 50,000 volunteer poll watchers.
This isn’t unique to the Trump campaign; the Biden campaign is also recruiting tens of thousands of poll observers.
Laws governing what, exactly, observers can do at polling stations, and who can serve as one, vary by state. Unlike poll workers, who assist and engage with voters, partisan poll watchers are mostly just that — the eyes and ears of the political parties, looking for or documenting potential irregularities that may affect the outcome for their party, candidate, or ballot initiative.
Poll watching is part of the democratic process, but it has gotten even more attention in 2020 because of the rhetoric around the election. The president has repeatedly made unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud. Trump’s ire is mostly directed toward mail-in voting, but his claims that the election may be stolen from him and calls for people to keep an eye on polls (if not exactly new) have whipped up political tensions even more and increased fears of possible voter intimidation at the polls.
Designated poll watchers — which, again, both parties have — usually have to be officially selected by a party or candidate, and often have to be registered voters, or even registered in the voting precinct they’re assigned to watch. In many cases, they are restricted from interacting with voters, but depending on the jurisdiction, they can potentially challenge the eligibility of other voters. Those kinds of objections can slow down the voting process for everyone, when some voters already face long waits at the polls.
But Trump’s rhetoric has raised concerns that partisan poll-watching activities will extend beyond these legitimate, designated poll watchers, with private citizens or even armed militia groups taking it upon themselves to police the polls.
Voter intimidation is illegal, and states have strict buffer zones around voting sites. But, as Nicolas Riley, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown University Law School, told me, “Simply by virtue of the fact that the more people you put in and around the polls on Election Day, the more likely you are to have chaos and other types of shenanigans that lead to all kinds of problems.”
More than 50 million people have already cast their ballots in early voting for the 2020 election. There have been a few incidents of possible voter intimidation, most notably a report in the New York Times that said the Trump campaign was videotaping voters bringing ballots to drop-off boxes. But for the most part, Americans are successfully casting their ballots, and that’s a reassuring sign ahead of Election Day.
But there’s still a chance we could see some, well, “shenanigans.” So with that, it’s worth it to understand what poll watchers are — and aren’t — legally allowed to do. Here’s everything you need to know.
Why America even has poll watchers
Poll watchers, in the best of circumstances, are there to guarantee openness and transparency in the democratic process.
In America’s early days, elections were kind of free-for-alls, sometimes literally drunken parties, where people got together and cast their ballots in public. It was all done out in the open, which meant everyone could see or hear who their fellow citizens (then, white men) voted for. Even when paper ballots came into fashion, political parties handed them out — basically, you take the party ballot you want, put it in their box, and that was that.
But that began to change in America in the decades after the Civil War, when voting became much more professionalized. A big part of this was the adoption, in the 1880s and 1890s, of what’s known as the “Australian ballot” — or secrecy ballot — which basically scrapped the old system for something similar to what voters are used to today.
Instead of political parties running the show, state officials designate polling areas and distribute ballots with all the candidates. And, most importantly, the voter marks it in secret.
This is obviously the condensed version, but as experts told me, this is where you start to see all the different kinds of rules governing polling stations, including who can be there and who can’t. So the role of poll watchers evolved from here. Before voter registration systems were adopted, they might ID voters and, after, check their names on a list.
There was also a dark side to this: As Riley told me, some of these laws that allow voters to challenge the voting eligibility of fellow citizens came about as a result of Jim Crow-era policies, and were specifically designed to target Black voters.
But broadly, when it came to partisan poll watchers, the thinking behind it was largely that parties or candidates wanted a guarantee against any funny business that might disadvantage their candidate. Having representatives for different parties also helped ensure legitimacy — if everyone agrees on the outcome, and any potential disputes are resolved, well, that bolsters faith in electoral outcomes.
“Even though we take for granted that our elections are run according to the rules,” Larry Garber, an international elections expert and consultant at the Carter Center, told me, “I think there is still lingering concern that if no one’s watching, someone can stuff ballots or prevent people from voting or whatever. And therefore, you need to have your representatives present to prevent that kind of chicanery.”
Beyond possible chicanery, problems do happen at voting sites.
Maybe the printed ballots misspell the name of a candidate; if voters are confused, the campaign in question may want to know that. Maybe a polling place runs out of ballots for a few hours; poll watchers can document how long that lasted and how many voters might have been turned away. And they can communicate with party officials and campaign lawyers. For example, maybe the polling station was out of ballots long enough that parties might sue to keep the polling place open a little later.
Or, say some votes are discarded because a voting machine can’t read them; poll watchers might be able to note that, actually, you can clearly see what the voter marked and thus the ballots should be counted. Or if a candidate loses in a close race, they can potentially use poll watchers’ testimonies for grounds to challenge the results, and maybe demand a recount.
You get the picture. Political campaigns and parties can’t keep track of every voting precinct, so partisan poll watchers are kind of like an on-the-ground liaison for anything that might go awry.
Who is allowed to watch the polls, and what they are (and aren’t) allowed to do
Poll watchers can be nonpartisan, such as members of civic groups, or partisan. Partisan poll watchers usually represent political parties, candidates, or even ballot initiatives. Some states also allow for private citizens to observe polling places and other election processes such as testing voting equipment and examining absentee ballots. (The US allows for international poll observers, too.)
Each state has its own laws governing who can and cannot be at polling stations. When it comes to partisan poll observers, states have rules about who can be appointed. For example, many require poll watchers to be registered voters themselves, sometimes in the jurisdiction where they’re serving, or at least in the state.
Some states limit the number of partisan poll watchers, such as restricting them to one observer per party/candidate, per precinct. States usually require that observers clearly identify themselves and whom they’re representing, and no campaign swag is allowed.
States also have guidelines for which parts of the election process watchers can observe and exactly what poll watchers can do during voting. Some states may allow poll observers to watch over poll workers’ shoulders as they check IDs; others may designate locations for observers to stand close by but out of the way of the action.
Most of the time, poll watchers are not permitted to interact directly with voters, or even election officials, unless they have a specific complaint or challenge — and states all have rules on how any challenge can be made.
Poll watchers, of course, can never follow someone into a voting booth. Some states bar observers from taking photos or videos. This year, some states have also added guidelines related to the pandemic, such as asking poll watchers to wear face masks or stand 6 feet away from others.
Some states also allow private citizens to observe stages of the voting process, sometimes under similar guidelines as partisan observers, other times with slightly different restrictions. In many states, both designated poll watchers and regular citizens can challenge the eligibility of voters.
States have laws governing these types of challenges. For example, sometimes the challenger also has to be a registered voter in the precinct, or submit their request in writing. But you get the gist: different states, different rules.
Overzealous poll watchers are a concern, but probably not a huge one
There are downsides to this kind of voting transparency. Overzealous poll workers do have the potential to slow down the voting process at precincts if they’re being overly aggressive or, as is allowed in some states, challenging the eligibility of voters.
And in an election year where turnout is expected to be much higher than usual, and where polling places are seeing hours-long waits for early voting, this can just jam things up.
“You can’t object for bogus reasons, but it’s pretty easy to claim that you’re objecting for a legitimate reason, right?” Garber told me. “And that gums up the process, causes delays, creates lines, creates frustration, makes people feel like the process is somehow not working.”
Garber emphasized that polling officials who are running these sites have the power to intervene if a poll watcher is really overstepping their role or mounting frivolous challenges.
“State law varies across the country as to what level of proof the poll watcher would have to have in order to challenge the person who’s getting ready to cast their ballot,” Julie Houk, managing counsel of election protection at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told me. “Some states have criminal penalties associated with making invalid or intentionally false challenges to harass or intimidate voters. But, again, that depends on the state law.”
Such challenges can potentially disenfranchise individual voters. If, say, a voter waits in line for hours only to find out they’re being challenged, they may not be able to gather the evidence they need to refute the claims, which sometimes involves providing additional identification or witness testimony. The concern is that the voter may just give up, said Houk, though she pointed out that organizations like hers are there to intervene if that happens on Election Day, to protect voters’ rights.
Some voting rights groups are also concerned that partisan poll watchers could single out certain voters for additional scrutiny, something that could be intimidating for voters, especially if a poll watcher is singling out minorities or non-English-speaking voters as ineligible.
Vincent Hutchings, a political science and Afro-American and African studies professor at the University of Michigan, told me this is especially problematic given the geographic and racial divides between the parties. “In such a world where you can visually identify — typically — someone’s racial or ethnic background, and when there’s such a high correlation between race and ethnicity and partisanship, then that is a recipe for potential disaster,” he said.
But the biggest worries over poll watchers in 2020 have less to do with the legitimate ones dispatched to voting places by their party or candidate, and more to do with, well, everyone else.
Trump’s calls to watch the polls are what people are really worried about
In September, during early voting in Virginia, a group of Trump supporters stood outside a polling place in Fairfax, shouting “four more years” as voters entered the polling station.
The laws differ state by state, but all voting sites have buffer zones around them in which people who are not in line to actually vote aren’t allowed to stand. Beyond the buffer zone, however, people can more openly electioneer — wave a Trump flag, hand out pamphlets for a Democratic candidate, etc.
In Virginia, that buffer zone is 40 feet, meaning that
During the times the polls are open and ballots are being counted, it is unlawful for any person (i) to loiter or congregate within 40 feet of any entrance of any polling place; (ii) within such distance to give, tender, or exhibit any ballot, ticket, or other campaign material to any person or to solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote; or (iii) to hinder or delay a qualified voter in entering or leaving a polling place.
Election officials said the Trump supporters in Fairfax were about 100 feet from the building, so outside the buffer zone. But officials still had to open up another portion of the building so voters could wait inside, just to prevent anyone from feeling as if they were being harassed.
To some, this incident looked like a first act in a tense and highly polarized election year, with a potential for a wave of private citizens intimidating voters at polling stations under the guise of poll watching.
Trump’s general reluctance to condemn white supremacy, as well as his comments that the far-right Proud Boys group should “stand back and stand by” on Election Day, has forced election officials and law enforcement to prepare for possible voter intimidation at the polls. (Trump later said he meant to say “stand down.”) And some militia groups, such as the Oath Keepers, have already said they will patrol polling sites on Election Day.
The fear over this “army” of poll watchers Trump is recruiting, then, might be that there will be a blurring of the lines for poll watchers, or that it might attract regular citizens or militia groups who feel called to patrol or police voting precincts for voter fraud, particularly in majority Black or brown or Democratic neighborhoods.
“And that’s the concern,” Houk told me, “where they’ve been sort of encouraged to go out and watch the polls but they don’t know what they’re watching for because they don’t know what the law says.”
“There is a role for poll observers to observe what’s going on, and to make sure that elections are proceeding fairly,” Kathleen Roblez, a staff attorney at Forward Justice, a nonpartisan racial, social, and economic organization justice organization in the US South, told me.
“But,” she added, “I think that some of the concern of the real intimidation will come from people who are outside of the polling places, who have a little bit more power and are less regulated.”
When it comes to carrying weapons, some states bar people from bringing firearms into polling stations, but it varies by state. However, it is always illegal for an individual to use a firearm to intimidate a voter.
“Even if one leaves aside the inflammatory rhetoric of the president — because, of course, it didn’t begin with him — this process of sending poll watchers, oftentimes to Democratic neighborhoods, which of course are minority neighborhoods, in many instances, is an opportunity to engage in some of the most egregious violations of people’s civil rights,” Hutchings said. “It leaves open the possibility that this could occur because indeed it has occurred before, and it’s occurred before in my lifetime, not 100 years ago.”
There are a few egregious examples in recent history, but maybe none more relevant to 2020 than what happened during a New Jersey gubernatorial race in 1981.
On Election Day, about 200 armed men, including many off-duty police, patrolled primarily minority and Democratic-voting neighborhoods like Newark and Trenton. They wore armbands and identified themselves as part of the “National Ballot Security Task Force”; some also wore Republican Party branding, according to news reports from the time. And they were the creation of, and very much linked to, the Republican Party.
“WARNING,” one of their posters read. “This area is being patrolled by the National Ballot Security Task Force. It is a crime to falsify a ballot or to violate election laws.” The posters reportedly offered rewards to people who turned in improperly registered voters.
In court documents, one of the plaintiffs, a Black woman from Trenton, said she had been asked to show her voter registration card and told by someone from the task force that she could not vote without it. The NBSTF also actively tried to drive voters from the polls, including, in one instance, chasing voters away from the polls in Newark.
That election was extraordinarily close. The Republican candidate, Thomas H. Kean, led his Democratic opponent, James Florio, by fewer than about 1,750 votes initially. A recount still put Kean in the lead, by fewer than 1,800 votes, and Florio conceded.
But even though Democrats didn’t challenge the final result, they ultimately did take Republicans, specifically the Republican Party in New Jersey and the Republican National Committee, to court for voter intimidation. Plus, before the actual intimidation at the polls, Republicans had been engaged in what’s known as “voter caging,” where they send mail to registered voters, keep track of what mail is undeliverable, and try to purge those voters from the rolls. Ahead of the 1981 election, they did this to thousands of voters in primarily Black and brown neighborhoods in New Jersey.
So civil rights activists helped gather testimony and affidavits about the NBSTF’s tactics, and the Democratic National Committee sued the GOP for voter intimidation and illegal harassment under the Voting Rights Act.
In 1982, the two sides settled, and the RNC entered into a consent decree that barred the committee from engaging in any ballot security measures that might deter qualified voters from voting.
In practice, this prevented the RNC from coordinating ballot security activities nationally; the consent decree could be enforced in court if any groups engaged in any such intimidation or harassment and the RNC was found to be behind it. It was extended in 1987 and again in 2009.
But at the start of 2018, the consent decree expired, despite Democrats’ attempts to extend it. Which means that, for the first time in decades, the RNC is not restrained by the limits of the consent decree, including getting prior approval for any poll-watching activities.
“The expiration of the consent decree looms large in this election,” Angelo J. Genova, chair and managing partner of Genova Burns and one of the attorneys who represented Democrats in the litigation, told me.
The expiration of the decree meant that an incredibly powerful check on potential voter suppression was now gone. “For decades, the consent decree effectively checked the RNC and its agents from engaging in purported ballot security measures whose purpose or effect was to suppress minority voters from exercising their right to vote. This consent decree was made for this moment,” Genova said, “a moment one would think was long gone.”
For Republicans, though, the expiration meant they were finally back on equal footing with the Democrats, as they didn’t have to follow additional restrictions to their campaign activities and the RNC can coordinate nationally, something the consent decree really hindered. But as election expert Rick Hasen told NPR in 2018, there was a reason for the unequal footing. In recent years, Republicans, not Democrats, have a documented history of trying to make it harder for minority voters to vote.
Mark Krasovic, an expert in US and New Jersey history at Rutgers University, told me that beyond the threat of direct voter intimidation, the concern is that partisan election monitoring activities will be used to just slow down the process — “to gum up the works as much as you can” — and to delegitimize the electoral process.
“That was something that people were saying in ’81: It’s not necessarily that they turned people away, but they slowed things down, and people didn’t get to cast their votes,” he said. “And then just to delegitimize the entire process — to raise questions about it, to promote skepticism of the process.”
Despite concerns, voters should feel confident about going to the polls
Delegitimizing the voting process, as Krasovic said, is not a small thing. That’s partly why Trump’s rhetoric is so dangerous. It’s not just about rallying a few die-hards to the polls; it creates the specter of intimidation. If voters are nervous or fearful about voting, they may be dissuaded from doing so altogether. That, in itself, can suppress the vote.
There are very real concerns about what might happen outside polling stations, experts said, but it’s important to recognize that despite a few tense incidents so far in 2020, the worst-case predictions are not actually happening right now.
A Trump campaign spokesperson said its “poll watchers provide confidence in an election when they can say that all rules and laws were applied equally,” and added that they’re all trained in the proper conduct of a polling location or other election facility. And though not all states require trainings, the Trump campaign is providing training for everyone.
CNN reviewed 17 poll watcher training videos posted by the Trump campaign, and the instructions did not match the rhetoric of the president.
“Simply because someone has out-of-state plates or they don’t speak English, those are not reasons for a challenge,” the narrator says in the Colorado video, according to CNN. Another says to be nice to everyone, and makes clear the job isn’t to stop legitimate voters from voting. Although a video of a training in Nevada had a Trump campaign lawyer telling the group that the “the main goal is electing the boss,” he also said watchers shouldn’t interfere with voters, and should kick any issues up to the lawyers.
And in any election, there are going to be cadres of lawyers on the lookout for both sides. The Biden team is also recruiting poll watchers, and there will be tens of thousands of poll observers associated with the campaign deployed across the country, both as designated partisan poll watchers inside precincts and as volunteers outside the buffer zone, who can answer voter questions.
“We’re making sure that everybody that shows up and wants to cast their vote in person that’s eligible is able to do so, and that vote counts. We do that everywhere and anywhere we can,” Rachana Desai Martin, director of voter protection and senior counsel for the Biden campaign, told me.
In that sense, 2020 is just like any other election year. But, of course, it isn’t in a lot of ways — the biggest aberration being that one of the two candidates at the top of the ticket (along with many of his allies) is trying anything and everything in his power to undercut the voting process.
And, again, that includes rhetoric around poll watchers. In September, unauthorized poll watchers associated with the Trump campaign showed up at satellite offices in Philadelphia, where voters could register or drop off mail-in ballots. Election officials asked them to leave, because the satellite offices were not official polling locations but were just providing voter services.
But Trump allies, and the president, tried to gin up suspicions around the Philadelphia election officials asking the unauthorized poll watchers to leave.
Wow. Won’t let Poll Watchers & Security into Philadelphia Voting Places. There is only one reason why. Corruption!!! Must have a fair Election. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 29, 2020
Trump repeated that claim during his debate with Biden in September, saying “bad things happen in Philadelphia.” The Trump campaign also sued, but a state judge sided with the Philadelphia officials, and just this week, a higher court affirmed that ruling. But the damage was sort of done: Right-wing circles had picked up on this idea that somehow Trump campaign observers were being barred from election sites.
The poll watchers aren’t really the problem, then. It’s the misinformation and rhetoric around them. And that, more than anything, may be the most potent force in undermining the vote this year.


vox--2020-10-23--No, Biden did not call Black people “superpredators”

President Trump has been pushing the lie that his opponent , former Vice President Joe Biden , called Black people “ superpredators ” — but there ’ s no record of him doing so .
During the final presidential debate in Nashville , Tennessee , Trump repeated this accusation in response to a question about Black Americans having to have “ The Talk ” with their children about how to safely interact with police .
Trump skipped over answering the actual question and went straight to a critique of Biden ’ s record : “ [ Biden has ] been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did a thing .
Except in 1994 , when he did such harm to the Black community and they were called , and he called them , ‘ superpredators ’ and he said that , he said it , ‘ superpredators , ’ ” Trump said .
It ’ s an accusation Trump has been drumming up in the final weeks of the campaign .
Trump world and conservatives have been circulating 1993 remarks given by Biden on the Senate floor , uncovered by CNN ’ s Andrew Kaczynski in 2019 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predators on our streets that society has in fact , in part because of its neglect , created.
” As Kaczynski pointed out last night and this morning , however , the only reported time Biden has used the term “ superpredator ” is in a 1997 hearing when he said most youth weren ’ t “ the so-called ‘ superpredators.
’ ” A confusing part of the story is what “ superpredator ” even means , or how it ’ s different from “ predator.
” The term was deployed in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime wave .
And on some level , resurfacing “ superpredator ” is just Trump trying to recapture the success of his attacks against his previous opponent , Hillary Clinton , who did use the term .
The term “ superpredator ” and its fraught history , briefly explained Though crime has been at historic lows , excluding the complicated data coming out this year , juvenile violent crime was very high in the 1980s and ’ 90s .
At the time it was considered to be a national emergency .
Violent crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent from 1980 to 1994 according to a March 2002 study by the Urban Institute ’ s Jeffrey Butts and Jeremy Travis .
This figure includes forcible rape , robbery , and aggravated assault , but to underscore the horror of this era , arrests for murder alone “ jumped 99 percent during that time.
” Betts and Travis write that terms “ such as ‘ juvenile super predator , ’ ‘ coming blood bath , ’ and ‘ crime time bomb ’ ” flooded the airwaves as the media , state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feared that the crime wave would continue to rise until there was an “ unavoidable collision with a growing generation of violent youth.
” But the term “ superpredator ” is not just the word predator with super- affixed to the front to make it sound worse ; it is a now-debunked theory of juvenile violent crime popularized beginning in 1995 by John DiIulio , then a political science professor at Princeton University .
DiIulio ’ s article describes offenders as with inhuman imagery , writing he “ foreswore research inside juvenile lock-ups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vacant stares and smiles , and the remorseless eyes were at once too frightening and too depressing.
” He warns America : On the horizon , therefore , are tens of thousands of severely morally impoverished juvenile super-predators .
They are perfectly capable of committing the most heinous acts of physical violence for the most trivial reasons ( for example , a perception of slight disrespect or the accident of being in their path ) .
They fear neither the stigma of arrest nor the pain of imprisonment .
They live by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a code that reinforces rather than restrains their violent , hair-trigger mentality .
In prison or out , the things that super-predators get by their criminal behavior — sex , drugs , money — are their own immediate rewards .
Nothing else matters to them .
So for as long as their youthful energies hold out , they will do what comes “ naturally ” : murder , rape , rob , assault , burglarize , deal deadly drugs , and get high .
He was wrong , of course .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime in America fell for six straight years from 1994 to 2000 .
According to the newest crime data ... the rate of juvenile violent crime in 2000 was lower than at any time in the previous two decades.
” According to a 2015 article from the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange “ juvenile arrests for violent crime have dropped to a 30-year low.
” But at the time , the superpredator theory resonated powerfully .
As Kevin Drum writes for Mother Jones , DiIulio was invited by then-President Bill Clinton “ to attend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House .
Hillary Clinton ’ s remarks a few months after that dinner make clear that his ideas had resonated .
In her remarks at Keene State College in New Hampshire , she talked about “ the kinds of kids that are called ‘ superpredators ’ — no conscience , no empathy.
” My colleague , German Lopez , has reported on how wrong this theory is , pointing out simply that : “ Superpredators didn ’ t exist .
The type of criminal Clinton was describing came from faulty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and even the biggest proponent of the superpredators myth has since apologized for spreading the idea.
” The theory was so harmful because if you accept the premise that the juvenile crime wave was due to dehumanized kids predisposed to the most violent acts without any remorse , you likely wouldn ’ t turn to rehabilitation for a solution .
As Lopez writes , “ the myth was used to push tough-on-crime policies that helped lead to a rise in incarceration.
” Trump probably doesn ’ t know — or care — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to make Black voters less enthusiastic about turning out for Biden Returning to Trump ’ s attack on Biden : Biden used the term predator in 1993 , two years before DeIulio began pushing the “ superpredator ” theory .
So unless he has a time machine , Biden was not referencing the now-debunked theory .
But there ’ s a reason Trump keeps pushing this attack .
During the 2016 campaign , a 1996 video of Hillary Clinton using the term “ superpredators ” circulated widely online .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a depressing effect on Black voter turnout , but it was clear that Black voter turnout was worse for Clinton than it was for President Barack Obama .
Trump seems to be hoping pinning Biden with the term will have a similar effect ; according to FiveThirtyEight , Trump is “ gaining ground ” somewhat with Black voters , especially younger Black men .
This all is not to exonerate Biden for his role in mass incarceration ; he has said that he regrets his support for parts of the 1994 crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disproportionately punished Black Americans a “ big mistake.
” But to have cogent policy conversations , we need to be specific about the criticism that are legitimate and ones that are not .
Biden , and almost every politician active in the 1990s , ascribed to a tough-on-crime approach that is now widely criticized across the political spectrum .
It ’ s a testament to the rapid change in our criminal justice reform politics and likely a testament to the low rates of juvenile violent crime that have defined the last couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Trump has been pushing the lie that his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, called Black people “superpredators” — but there’s no record of him doing so.
During the final presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, Trump repeated this accusation in response to a question about Black Americans having to have “The Talk” with their children about how to safely interact with police. Trump skipped over answering the actual question and went straight to a critique of Biden’s record:
“[Biden has] been in government 47 years. He never did a thing. Except in 1994, when he did such harm to the Black community and they were called, and he called them, ‘superpredators’ and he said that, he said it, ‘superpredators,’” Trump said.
It’s an accusation Trump has been drumming up in the final weeks of the campaign.
Biden made another big mistake. He totally mixed up two Crime Bills. Didn’t have a clue (as usual!). Also, he freely used the term SUPER PREDATOR!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2020
Trump world and conservatives have been circulating 1993 remarks given by Biden on the Senate floor, uncovered by CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski in 2019. In his speech, Biden referred to “predators on our streets that society has in fact, in part because of its neglect, created.”
As Kaczynski pointed out last night and this morning, however, the only reported time Biden has used the term “superpredator” is in a 1997 hearing when he said most youth weren’t “the so-called ‘superpredators.’”
...but the instance was Biden arguing *against* putting youth in adult prisons in a 1997 hearing where he said that most youth *weren't* "the so called 'super predators'." https://t.co/dkFxe4BOMG pic.twitter.com/nOWS9EqdSz — andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) October 23, 2020
A confusing part of the story is what “superpredator” even means, or how it’s different from “predator.”
The term was deployed in a specific context of the late 20th-century juvenile crime wave. And on some level, resurfacing “superpredator” is just Trump trying to recapture the success of his attacks against his previous opponent, Hillary Clinton, who did use the term.
The term “superpredator” and its fraught history, briefly explained
Though crime has been at historic lows, excluding the complicated data coming out this year, juvenile violent crime was very high in the 1980s and ’90s. At the time it was considered to be a national emergency.
Violent crimes committed by juveniles rose a precipitous 64 percent from 1980 to 1994 according to a March 2002 study by the Urban Institute’s Jeffrey Butts and Jeremy Travis. This figure includes forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, but to underscore the horror of this era, arrests for murder alone “jumped 99 percent during that time.”
Betts and Travis write that terms “such as ‘juvenile super predator,’ ‘coming blood bath,’ and ‘crime time bomb’” flooded the airwaves as the media, state and local governments, and every day people feared that the crime wave would continue to rise until there was an “unavoidable collision with a growing generation of violent youth.”
But the term “superpredator” is not just the word predator with super- affixed to the front to make it sound worse; it is a now-debunked theory of juvenile violent crime popularized beginning in 1995 by John DiIulio, then a political science professor at Princeton University.
DiIulio’s article describes offenders as with inhuman imagery, writing he “foreswore research inside juvenile lock-ups. The buzz of impulsive violence, the vacant stares and smiles, and the remorseless eyes were at once too frightening and too depressing.” He warns America:
On the horizon, therefore, are tens of thousands of severely morally impoverished juvenile super-predators. They are perfectly capable of committing the most heinous acts of physical violence for the most trivial reasons (for example, a perception of slight disrespect or the accident of being in their path). They fear neither the stigma of arrest nor the pain of imprisonment. They live by the meanest code of the meanest streets, a code that reinforces rather than restrains their violent, hair-trigger mentality. In prison or out, the things that super-predators get by their criminal behavior — sex, drugs, money — are their own immediate rewards. Nothing else matters to them. So for as long as their youthful energies hold out, they will do what comes “naturally”: murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high.
He was wrong, of course. As Butts & Travis report, “violent crime in America fell for six straight years from 1994 to 2000. According to the newest crime data ... the rate of juvenile violent crime in 2000 was lower than at any time in the previous two decades.” According to a 2015 article from the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange “juvenile arrests for violent crime have dropped to a 30-year low.”
But at the time, the superpredator theory resonated powerfully. As Kevin Drum writes for Mother Jones, DiIulio was invited by then-President Bill Clinton “to attend a working dinner on juvenile crime” at the White House. Hillary Clinton’s remarks a few months after that dinner make clear that his ideas had resonated. In her remarks at Keene State College in New Hampshire, she talked about “the kinds of kids that are called ‘superpredators’ — no conscience, no empathy.”
My colleague, German Lopez, has reported on how wrong this theory is, pointing out simply that: “Superpredators didn’t exist. The type of criminal Clinton was describing came from faulty research that’s been repeatedly debunked — and even the biggest proponent of the superpredators myth has since apologized for spreading the idea.”
The theory was so harmful because if you accept the premise that the juvenile crime wave was due to dehumanized kids predisposed to the most violent acts without any remorse, you likely wouldn’t turn to rehabilitation for a solution. As Lopez writes, “the myth was used to push tough-on-crime policies that helped lead to a rise in incarceration.”
Trump probably doesn’t know — or care — about the social science and is just trying to make Black voters less enthusiastic about turning out for Biden
Returning to Trump’s attack on Biden: Biden used the term predator in 1993, two years before DeIulio began pushing the “superpredator” theory. So unless he has a time machine, Biden was not referencing the now-debunked theory.
But there’s a reason Trump keeps pushing this attack. During the 2016 campaign, a 1996 video of Hillary Clinton using the term “superpredators” circulated widely online. There’s no way to tell if that video had a depressing effect on Black voter turnout, but it was clear that Black voter turnout was worse for Clinton than it was for President Barack Obama. Trump seems to be hoping pinning Biden with the term will have a similar effect; according to FiveThirtyEight, Trump is “gaining ground” somewhat with Black voters, especially younger Black men.
This all is not to exonerate Biden for his role in mass incarceration; he has said that he regrets his support for parts of the 1994 crime bill, calling crack sentencing guidelines that disproportionately punished Black Americans a “big mistake.”
But to have cogent policy conversations, we need to be specific about the criticism that are legitimate and ones that are not. Biden, and almost every politician active in the 1990s, ascribed to a tough-on-crime approach that is now widely criticized across the political spectrum.
It’s a testament to the rapid change in our criminal justice reform politics and likely a testament to the low rates of juvenile violent crime that have defined the last couple of decades.


vox--2020-10-23--A Joe Biden fundraiser offers a new clue into how he might regulate Big Tech

Joe Biden ’ s campaign has signed off on a fundraiser on tech issues being hosted by a series of prominent critics of Big Tech , including Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
The event serves as the latest clue in the challenge to figure out how a Biden administration would govern the tech industry , suggesting that those critics would at least have a line into his White House .
Warren and a half-dozen other big names are set to hold an October 27 event on “ Advancing Innovation , Competition , and Prosperity in the American Tech Sector , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtained by Recode .
The event is one of the closest linkages yet between the most pro-regulation voices in the Democratic Party and the Democratic nominee , who has not publicly pinned down his precise positions on tech regulation .
The speakers at the event include David Cicilline , the Congress member who just led the congressional investigation into Big Tech companies ; Tish James , New York ’ s state attorney general who is leading the states ’ own investigations ; and leading proponents of a tech breakup such as early Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School professor Tim Wu .
And Warren , who made Big Tech issues a cornerstone of her presidential campaign .
Biden , who will not be there , does not necessarily endorse every position espoused by speakers at fundraisers held on his behalf .
But presidential campaigns vet and debate potential fundraiser hosts — and , in this case , it is not just that one or two hosts have a personal , private opinion about the conversation topic and they happen to be organizing a broader pro-Biden event .
Here the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around one point of view — that the tech giants are too menacing and stifling out competition — featuring a lineup of the most high-profile leaders on the issue .
The Biden campaign didn ’ t return requests for comment .
One reason it is particularly revealing is that Biden has proven to be elusive on tech issues .
Activists on the left hope that he will govern in a less tech-friendly way than Barack Obama did .
But while Biden has made scattered critical comments about Facebook in particular , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and has left both the activists and the tech companies themselves largely speculating about what a Biden administration would mean for them .
Another interpretation of that , though , is that Biden is malleable on the issue — and therefore can be influenced by political assets such as campaign fundraising potential .
One objective of the October 27 event hosted by Warren and others may be to raise a large amount and show Biden that there is money to be made — and that there ’ s political upside more broadly — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tickets range from $ 250 to $ 100,000 .
Because Biden certainly knows that there is big money on the other side of the issue .
Some Biden supporters who are critical of Big Tech are concerned about Biden ’ s ties to tech elites , such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt .
And in a sign of just how enigmatic Biden has proven on tech regulation , Biden ’ s campaign has also hosted technology-focused fundraisers with Schmidt , a leading voice against the breakup of companies like his former employer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these fundraisers pose is : Who will have more influence in Joe Biden ’ s administration when it comes to Big Tech : Eric Schmidt or Elizabeth Warren ?
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Joe Biden’s campaign has signed off on a fundraiser on tech issues being hosted by a series of prominent critics of Big Tech, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The event serves as the latest clue in the challenge to figure out how a Biden administration would govern the tech industry, suggesting that those critics would at least have a line into his White House.
Warren and a half-dozen other big names are set to hold an October 27 event on “Advancing Innovation, Competition, and Prosperity in the American Tech Sector,” according to a copy of the invitation obtained by Recode. The event is one of the closest linkages yet between the most pro-regulation voices in the Democratic Party and the Democratic nominee, who has not publicly pinned down his precise positions on tech regulation.
The speakers at the event include David Cicilline, the Congress member who just led the congressional investigation into Big Tech companies; Tish James, New York’s state attorney general who is leading the states’ own investigations; and leading proponents of a tech breakup such as early Facebook investor Roger McNamee and influential Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu. And Warren, who made Big Tech issues a cornerstone of her presidential campaign.
Biden, who will not be there, does not necessarily endorse every position espoused by speakers at fundraisers held on his behalf. But presidential campaigns vet and debate potential fundraiser hosts — and, in this case, it is not just that one or two hosts have a personal, private opinion about the conversation topic and they happen to be organizing a broader pro-Biden event. Here the Biden campaign is blessing an entire event organized around one point of view — that the tech giants are too menacing and stifling out competition — featuring a lineup of the most high-profile leaders on the issue.
The Biden campaign didn’t return requests for comment.
One reason it is particularly revealing is that Biden has proven to be elusive on tech issues. Activists on the left hope that he will govern in a less tech-friendly way than Barack Obama did. But while Biden has made scattered critical comments about Facebook in particular, he has not made tech regulation a campaign priority and has left both the activists and the tech companies themselves largely speculating about what a Biden administration would mean for them.
Another interpretation of that, though, is that Biden is malleable on the issue — and therefore can be influenced by political assets such as campaign fundraising potential. One objective of the October 27 event hosted by Warren and others may be to raise a large amount and show Biden that there is money to be made — and that there’s political upside more broadly — by allying with the tech-breakup crowd. Tickets range from $250 to $100,000.
Because Biden certainly knows that there is big money on the other side of the issue. Some Biden supporters who are critical of Big Tech are concerned about Biden’s ties to tech elites, such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. And in a sign of just how enigmatic Biden has proven on tech regulation, Biden’s campaign has also hosted technology-focused fundraisers with Schmidt, a leading voice against the breakup of companies like his former employer.
So all told, the question these fundraisers pose is: Who will have more influence in Joe Biden’s administration when it comes to Big Tech: Eric Schmidt or Elizabeth Warren?


vox--2020-10-23--Trump might be surprised to learn most Americans want more wind and solar

During Thursday night ’ s debate , President Donald Trump seized on Democrat Joe Biden ’ s comment that he wanted to transition away from the oil industry .
Biden doubled down in response .
“ It is a big statement , ” Biden said .
Their exchange revealed a deep divide among the two parties on what America ’ s energy future looks like .
Biden is running on a bold $ 2 trillion clean energy plan that aims to get the country to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gas , and coal industry during his administration and pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement as one of his early acts as president .
But polling shows that a majority of American ’ s agree with Biden ’ s vision that the future of American energy should be renewable energy .
Energy polling from Gallup shows a growing number of Americans believe the US should put less emphasis on traditional fossil fuels like oil and coal .
The same Gallup poll showed overwhelming enthusiasm for renewable energy sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey showed that the number of Americans who believe the US should put more emphasis on coal and oil has fallen in recent years .
Just 22 percent of Americans said we need more emphasis on coal in March 2019 , a dip from 31 percent who said we should put more emphasis on it in 2013 .
On the other hand , 70 percent of Americans in 2019 said the country should put more emphasis on wind energy ( a number largely unchanged from 2013 ) , and 80 percent said we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( a slight uptick from 76 percent in 2013 ) .
The results were more mixed on natural gas , with 46 percent of Americans saying the country should put more emphasis on that as a form of energy , a dip from the 65 percent who said so in 2013 .
A 2020 Pew Research Center study showed similar numbers .
When the poll asked American adults whether the nation ’ s priority should be oil , gas , and coal or alternative energy sources like wind and solar for the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed 79 percent preferred alternative energy compared to 20 percent who said fossil fuels .
These numbers paint a clear picture : More Americans are willing to embrace renewable energy than they are fossil fuels like coal and oil — already flagging in popularity seven years ago .
Solar production has boomed since 2010 while coal has fallen , according to Pew Research Center .
But natural gas and crude oil production have also increased .
As Vox ’ s David Roberts has explained , the executive branch has a lot of control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president could have a very real impact on America ’ s energy future , as well as on charting the country ’ s course on climate change .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

During Thursday night’s debate, President Donald Trump seized on Democrat Joe Biden’s comment that he wanted to transition away from the oil industry.
“Oh. There’s a big statement,” Trump said.
Biden doubled down in response. “It is a big statement,” Biden said.
Their exchange revealed a deep divide among the two parties on what America’s energy future looks like. Biden is running on a bold $2 trillion clean energy plan that aims to get the country to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Trump has been an ally to the oil, gas, and coal industry during his administration and pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement as one of his early acts as president.
But polling shows that a majority of American’s agree with Biden’s vision that the future of American energy should be renewable energy.
Energy polling from Gallup shows a growing number of Americans believe the US should put less emphasis on traditional fossil fuels like oil and coal. The same Gallup poll showed overwhelming enthusiasm for renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
The Gallup survey showed that the number of Americans who believe the US should put more emphasis on coal and oil has fallen in recent years. Just 22 percent of Americans said we need more emphasis on coal in March 2019, a dip from 31 percent who said we should put more emphasis on it in 2013.
Related The best case for and against a fracking ban
On the other hand, 70 percent of Americans in 2019 said the country should put more emphasis on wind energy (a number largely unchanged from 2013), and 80 percent said we should put more emphasis on solar energy (a slight uptick from 76 percent in 2013). The results were more mixed on natural gas, with 46 percent of Americans saying the country should put more emphasis on that as a form of energy, a dip from the 65 percent who said so in 2013.
A 2020 Pew Research Center study showed similar numbers. When the poll asked American adults whether the nation’s priority should be oil, gas, and coal or alternative energy sources like wind and solar for the nation’s energy supply, the poll showed 79 percent preferred alternative energy compared to 20 percent who said fossil fuels.
These numbers paint a clear picture: More Americans are willing to embrace renewable energy than they are fossil fuels like coal and oil — already flagging in popularity seven years ago.
Solar production has boomed since 2010 while coal has fallen, according to Pew Research Center. But natural gas and crude oil production have also increased.
As Vox’s David Roberts has explained, the executive branch has a lot of control over US energy policy. The next president could have a very real impact on America’s energy future, as well as on charting the country’s course on climate change.


vox--2020-10-23--The US just brokered another peace deal for Israel, this time with Sudan

President Donald Trump announced Friday that Sudan has become the third country to normalize relations with Israel during the Trump administration , underscoring how the president ’ s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term .
Trump , along with the leaders of Israel and Sudan , proclaimed a new agreement during a Friday call .
“ The state of Israel and the Republic of Sudan have agreed to make peace , ” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office .
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying “ We are expanding the circle of peace so rapidly with your leadership.
” Trump responded : “ There are many , many more coming.
” A statement by the nation ’ s three leaders released by the White House provided more details .
“ The leaders agreed to the normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel and to end the state of belligerence between their nations , ” it reads .
In return , “ The United States will take steps to restore Sudan ’ s sovereign immunity and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s debt burdens.
” Furthermore , “ The United States and Israel also committed to working with their partners to support the people of Sudan in strengthening their democracy , improving food security , countering terrorism and extremism , and tapping into their economic potential.
” At its core , then , the deal looks like a trade where the US and Israel give Sudan financial support in exchange for diplomatic normalization .
The announcement follows Trump administration-brokered deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates in August and Bahrain last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal Israel struck with an Arab country was with Jordan in 1994 ( it signed one with Egypt in 1979 ) .
But the deal with Sudan is arguably more significant .
The UAE and Bahrain weren ’ t at war with Israel when they signed their agreements ; Sudan and Israel were .
That means while the first two pacts were normalization deals , this one with Sudan could potentially be described more accurately as a peace deal .
It ’ s yet another win for Trump ’ s foreign policy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bitter reelection fight .
How a Sudan-Israel deal came to be possible It took a bit of maneuvering to make this agreement happen .
On Wednesday , a joint US-Israeli delegation traveled to Sudan for talks with the government .
Two days later , Trump removed the Arab-led North African nation from America ’ s state sponsors of terrorism list .
It ’ s a move he promised to make once the country paid $ 335 million to American victims of terror for the country ’ s harboring of Osama bin Laden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played a role in the negotiations , as Sudan asked the country — and the US — for billions in economic aid as part of signing this deal .
That makes sense , as the country is desperately in need of cash .
Whether the US and UAE start funneling money into Sudan remains to be seen .
A political earthquake in Sudan also made the announcement possible .
A protest movement kicked Sudan ’ s Islamist leaders out of power last year , ushering in a new military-led government that wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amends with the US and saying it is no longer hostile to Israel is one way to do just that .
“ The US-Israel deal promises them the international recognition they crave without the inconvenience of democracy , ” Alex de Waal , an expert on Sudanese politics , wrote for BBC News earlier this month .
And , more broadly , regional politics in the greater Middle East have changed dramatically in recent years .
Whereas the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once served as a major axis around which Middle East and Arab-government politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Palestinians against Israel , that ’ s now changed .
What animates the foreign policies of many Middle Eastern countries these days is the Arab-Israel standoff with Iran — which some have dubbed a “ cold war.
” With less need to bash Israel and back Palestine , Sudan had more freedom to strike the deal .
For Israel and for Trump , that works just fine .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump announced Friday that Sudan has become the third country to normalize relations with Israel during the Trump administration, underscoring how the president’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term.
Trump, along with the leaders of Israel and Sudan, proclaimed a new agreement during a Friday call.
“The state of Israel and the Republic of Sudan have agreed to make peace,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump on the phone for the outcome, saying “We are expanding the circle of peace so rapidly with your leadership.” Trump responded: “There are many, many more coming.”
A statement by the nation’s three leaders released by the White House provided more details. “The leaders agreed to the normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel and to end the state of belligerence between their nations,” it reads. In return, “The United States will take steps to restore Sudan’s sovereign immunity and to engage its international partners to reduce Sudan’s debt burdens.”
Furthermore, “The United States and Israel also committed to working with their partners to support the people of Sudan in strengthening their democracy, improving food security, countering terrorism and extremism, and tapping into their economic potential.”
At its core, then, the deal looks like a trade where the US and Israel give Sudan financial support in exchange for diplomatic normalization.
The announcement follows Trump administration-brokered deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates in August and Bahrain last month. Before that, the last peace deal Israel struck with an Arab country was with Jordan in 1994 (it signed one with Egypt in 1979).
But the deal with Sudan is arguably more significant. The UAE and Bahrain weren’t at war with Israel when they signed their agreements; Sudan and Israel were. That means while the first two pacts were normalization deals, this one with Sudan could potentially be described more accurately as a peace deal.
From 3 NO’s to 3 YES’s:
In 1967, the Arab world infamously declared in Sudan’s capital no recognition, no negotiation, and no peace with Israel. Today, Sudan joins the UAE and Bahrain as the 3rd Arab country to make peace with Israel in 2020.
— Amb. Ron Dermer (@AmbDermer) October 23, 2020
It’s yet another win for Trump’s foreign policy, providing him with good news ahead of a bitter reelection fight.
How a Sudan-Israel deal came to be possible
It took a bit of maneuvering to make this agreement happen.
On Wednesday, a joint US-Israeli delegation traveled to Sudan for talks with the government. Two days later, Trump removed the Arab-led North African nation from America’s state sponsors of terrorism list. It’s a move he promised to make once the country paid $335 million to American victims of terror for the country’s harboring of Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.
GREAT news! New government of Sudan, which is making great progress, agreed to pay $335 MILLION to U.S. terror victims and families. Once deposited, I will lift Sudan from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. At long last, JUSTICE for the American people and BIG step for Sudan! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 19, 2020
The UAE also played a role in the negotiations, as Sudan asked the country — and the US — for billions in economic aid as part of signing this deal. That makes sense, as the country is desperately in need of cash. Whether the US and UAE start funneling money into Sudan remains to be seen.
A political earthquake in Sudan also made the announcement possible. A protest movement kicked Sudan’s Islamist leaders out of power last year, ushering in a new military-led government that wants to end its global pariah status. Making amends with the US and saying it is no longer hostile to Israel is one way to do just that.
“The US-Israel deal promises them the international recognition they crave without the inconvenience of democracy,” Alex de Waal, an expert on Sudanese politics, wrote for BBC News earlier this month.
And, more broadly, regional politics in the greater Middle East have changed dramatically in recent years.
Whereas the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once served as a major axis around which Middle East and Arab-government politics rotated, with many countries aligned with the Palestinians against Israel, that’s now changed. What animates the foreign policies of many Middle Eastern countries these days is the Arab-Israel standoff with Iran — which some have dubbed a “cold war.”
With less need to bash Israel and back Palestine, Sudan had more freedom to strike the deal.
For Israel and for Trump, that works just fine.