From the New York Times..
He then showed up at a library in Newton, Mr. Galvin said, and the poll workers were flummoxed.
“We had to remind everybody what the rules are, that there is no campaigning within 150 feet of the voting booths because people are entitled to their privacy,” Mr. Galvin said. “And it’s not just him but his media entourage.”
Because of the situation in Newton, Mr. Galvin said that his office called ahead to Mr. Clinton’s next stop, in New Bedford, to remind those poll workers of the rules.
“He can go in, but he can’t approach voters,” Mr. Galvin said. “We just took the extra precaution of telling them because this is not a usual occurrence. You don’t usually get a president doing this.”
The TAB’s Jonathan Dame tweeted this…
The TAB’s Jonathan Dame tweeted this…
Another example of “The rules don’t matter for the people who do!”
Another example of “The rules don’t matter for the people who do!”
150 feet from booths.
He’s a political lifer, unless this is only a state law and not a federal law, he knows better and Sallee’s comment is right on.
150 feet from booths.
He’s a political lifer, unless this is only a state law and not a federal law, he knows better and Sallee’s comment is right on.
It doesn’t say booths. It says “in the building where it is located” and “on the premises where the building stands” and “within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building.” Unless I am reading incorrectly, I think it’s pretty clear he violated this. These are the Mass regs. I have no idea about federal.
“Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR 53.03(18)(c)”:
(c) Campaign Material. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building. As used in this paragraph and M.G.L. c. 54, § 65, the “premises” where or on which the building stands means only the grounds in the immediate vicinity of the building, and does not include the entirety of a large parcel of real property. No person shall collect or solicit signatures on nomination papers or petitions of any kind within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building. The police officer shall enforce this rule under the direction of the warden. Access to the polling place must be open and unobstructed and the voters may not be hindered.
(d) Activities at Polling Place. Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR 53.03(18)(c), no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election.
It doesn’t say booths. It says “in the building where it is located” and “on the premises where the building stands” and “within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building.” Unless I am reading incorrectly, I think it’s pretty clear he violated this. These are the Mass regs. I have no idea about federal.
“Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR 53.03(18)(c)”:
(c) Campaign Material. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building. As used in this paragraph and M.G.L. c. 54, § 65, the “premises” where or on which the building stands means only the grounds in the immediate vicinity of the building, and does not include the entirety of a large parcel of real property. No person shall collect or solicit signatures on nomination papers or petitions of any kind within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building. The police officer shall enforce this rule under the direction of the warden. Access to the polling place must be open and unobstructed and the voters may not be hindered.
(d) Activities at Polling Place. Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR 53.03(18)(c), no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election.
The question really is whether or not he was campaigning? With no buttons or signs supporting Hilary, and no known (as of now), direct campaigning with folks at the Library, his stance could easily be that he was just visiting a public building to see the people. Sounds like a grey area, but easily defended if need be.
The question really is whether or not he was campaigning? With no buttons or signs supporting Hilary, and no known (as of now), direct campaigning with folks at the Library, his stance could easily be that he was just visiting a public building to see the people. Sounds like a grey area, but easily defended if need be.
It depends on what your definition of is is!
It depends on what your definition of is is!
The Massacusetts Secretary of State said that campaigning is restricted within 150 feet of the polling booths. According to Heather’s good research, even he is fuzzy on the law. Does no one care about it? Is this like jay walking? Or zoning in Newton? Move on, nothing to see here…
The Massacusetts Secretary of State said that campaigning is restricted within 150 feet of the polling booths. According to Heather’s good research, even he is fuzzy on the law. Does no one care about it? Is this like jay walking? Or zoning in Newton? Move on, nothing to see here…
Randy, except that all the places he visited were polling places. Hard to make a case for a coincidental stroll around MA when you’re only visiting places where people are voting and your wife happens to be on the ballot. With that said, do I think anything will come of this? Probably not. The Clintons, like most politicians, appear to be above the law. Frustrating.
Randy, except that all the places he visited were polling places. Hard to make a case for a coincidental stroll around MA when you’re only visiting places where people are voting and your wife happens to be on the ballot. With that said, do I think anything will come of this? Probably not. The Clintons, like most politicians, appear to be above the law. Frustrating.
Definitely a shady area. Our mayor and state representatives were there waiting to greet him. If anyone should know state law it is those 3. I’m still sorry I missed him.
Definitely a shady area. Our mayor and state representatives were there waiting to greet him. If anyone should know state law it is those 3. I’m still sorry I missed him.
The law bans activity, not an individual. So long as he did not engage in any prohibited conduct, there’s nothing wrong with a former President saying hello to poll workers. Now, if he’s wearing vote for Hillary buttons and soliciting votes – that’s another story.
The law bans activity, not an individual. So long as he did not engage in any prohibited conduct, there’s nothing wrong with a former President saying hello to poll workers. Now, if he’s wearing vote for Hillary buttons and soliciting votes – that’s another story.
Lisap – But what else would he be doing besides soliciting votes? What other purpose would his visit serve, even if he is not explicitly soliciting? He knew his very presence would put Hillary in the forefront of the voters’ minds as they enter the polling place. I have read varying reports where some say he was thanking those who “voted for [his] wife” in his polling place speeches. Surely, people entering the station to vote heard that? And who knows what he was actually talking about up close with voters? There is nothing wrong with a former President saying hello to poll workers…unless his wife happens to be on the ballot that day. Then it sort of insinuates something different than just stumping for the democracy process.
I also read that his presence at the New Bedford polling station created quite a stir, and that a large enough crowd gathered, potentially preventing voters or at the very least inconveniencing them while he held a 2 hour (?) event. (It was said the traffic and parking difficulties around the polling station were greatly increased by his presence. Whether that discouraged anyone from voting or not, who knows?) Initial reports stated the New Bedford polling place closed down for 2 hours, but I have not seen that corroborated anywhere.
The whole thing seems like a sticky wicket to me. He was definitely skirting the edge of the law, if not actually breaking it. It honestly makes me question his integrity that he would even do something that might give the appearance of impropriety, and that Hillary would allow that. Not once have I had to question Bernie Sanders’ integrity in this process. To be honest, I would LOVE to have a woman president. But this kind of stuff really sticks in my craw.
Lisap – But what else would he be doing besides soliciting votes? What other purpose would his visit serve, even if he is not explicitly soliciting? He knew his very presence would put Hillary in the forefront of the voters’ minds as they enter the polling place. I have read varying reports where some say he was thanking those who “voted for [his] wife” in his polling place speeches. Surely, people entering the station to vote heard that? And who knows what he was actually talking about up close with voters? There is nothing wrong with a former President saying hello to poll workers…unless his wife happens to be on the ballot that day. Then it sort of insinuates something different than just stumping for the democracy process.
I also read that his presence at the New Bedford polling station created quite a stir, and that a large enough crowd gathered, potentially preventing voters or at the very least inconveniencing them while he held a 2 hour (?) event. (It was said the traffic and parking difficulties around the polling station were greatly increased by his presence. Whether that discouraged anyone from voting or not, who knows?) Initial reports stated the New Bedford polling place closed down for 2 hours, but I have not seen that corroborated anywhere.
The whole thing seems like a sticky wicket to me. He was definitely skirting the edge of the law, if not actually breaking it. It honestly makes me question his integrity that he would even do something that might give the appearance of impropriety, and that Hillary would allow that. Not once have I had to question Bernie Sanders’ integrity in this process. To be honest, I would LOVE to have a woman president. But this kind of stuff really sticks in my craw.
@Heather, re-read the sections you posted and tell me what he specifically did that is forbidden. I think your argument is that his presence violated the spirit of the law. He is a star – if you will – and his presence attracts people wherever he goes. It would have been no less if his wife were not on the ballot.
@Heather, re-read the sections you posted and tell me what he specifically did that is forbidden. I think your argument is that his presence violated the spirit of the law. He is a star – if you will – and his presence attracts people wherever he goes. It would have been no less if his wife were not on the ballot.
Lisap – “Access to the polling place must be open and unobstructed and the voters may not be hindered.”
See: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/01/bill-clinton-new-bedford-video/
“I haven’t seen one person be able to come in and be able to vote in here,” says one woman narrating a video of the scene, posted Tuesday afternoon. “It’s completely blocked off. No cars can park here. They are affecting the voting at this poll. It’s ridiculous. This should be fraud, and illegal.”
“Paul Feeney, Massachusetts state director for the Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign, says he received 12 calls in half an hour from voters who said the polling place was blocked by Clinton’s appearance. “Folks were calling the hotline saying they wanted to vote but couldn’t,” he says.”
Sounds illegal to me.
Lisap – “Access to the polling place must be open and unobstructed and the voters may not be hindered.”
See: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/01/bill-clinton-new-bedford-video/
“I haven’t seen one person be able to come in and be able to vote in here,” says one woman narrating a video of the scene, posted Tuesday afternoon. “It’s completely blocked off. No cars can park here. They are affecting the voting at this poll. It’s ridiculous. This should be fraud, and illegal.”
“Paul Feeney, Massachusetts state director for the Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign, says he received 12 calls in half an hour from voters who said the polling place was blocked by Clinton’s appearance. “Folks were calling the hotline saying they wanted to vote but couldn’t,” he says.”
Sounds illegal to me.
@Heather, by that reasoning, every curious person who crowded into the polling locations to glimpse a former president violated election laws by hindering others from voting. The law is very clear: it prohibits individuals from actively trying to influence or discourage how individuals exercise their right to vote within 150 feet. It addresses passing out materials and taking actions intended to obstruct voters from getting into the voting station. The ill it seeks to address is the act of purposely thwarting voters from exercising the vote, not the unintended consequence of individuals being inconvenienced because a former president visited a public place and attracted followers. His mere presence may have influenced how some voted, as the presence of any candidate or candidate’s spouse is apt to do. You cannot premise finding a violation of law based upon who he is, but only upon what he individually did.
@Heather, by that reasoning, every curious person who crowded into the polling locations to glimpse a former president violated election laws by hindering others from voting. The law is very clear: it prohibits individuals from actively trying to influence or discourage how individuals exercise their right to vote within 150 feet. It addresses passing out materials and taking actions intended to obstruct voters from getting into the voting station. The ill it seeks to address is the act of purposely thwarting voters from exercising the vote, not the unintended consequence of individuals being inconvenienced because a former president visited a public place and attracted followers. His mere presence may have influenced how some voted, as the presence of any candidate or candidate’s spouse is apt to do. You cannot premise finding a violation of law based upon who he is, but only upon what he individually did.
Absent evidence that Clinton actively tried to influence or dissuade voters within the polling places, distributed literature or intentionally blocked access, I see no violation. Not by a long shot.
Absent evidence that Clinton actively tried to influence or dissuade voters within the polling places, distributed literature or intentionally blocked access, I see no violation. Not by a long shot.