The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) has been observing elections in its 56 member nations starting in 2002. This article describes the OSCE reaction to recent news that Iowa will not allow international observers to be closer than 300 feet to any polling place. OSCE says it will not violate state laws, but reminds the U.S. that the U.S. already signed agreements that it would allow such observers.
The OSCE, twenty-two years ago, promulgated standards for free and fair elections, which the United States signed. The U.S. agreed “to respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations, without discrimination.” The U.S. already agreed to “respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Use treaties (done by the minority rule gerrymander Senate and Prez) to totally wipe out the States ??? Duh.
See the pending Bond case in SCOTUS —
woman used some chemicals to injure another person – got convicted by the Feds of violating a Chemical Weapons Treaty and a U.S.A. law.
Texas permits each candidate and each party to appoint two poll watchers for each precinct.
Do the OSCE observers follow any protocol, are do they just drive up in their Mercedes and starting walking around and interfering with voting?
New OSCE (NYS observers) litigation based upon repeat of 2004 USCA2C (Sotomayor et al) decision.
“The appellants dispute the district court’s conclusion that the claims based on the November 2004 election were not, at that time, ripe for review. We do not, and cannot, express any opinion on the correctness of this decision. Because we can no longer alter the conduct of
the November 2004 election, and appellants requested only injunctive relief, these claims are
now moot and we are therefore without jurisdiction. See Church of Scientology v. United States,
506 U.S. 9, 12–13 (1992). Of course, an exception to the mootness doctrine exists where the claim is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Lerman v. Board of Elections, 232 F.3d 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2000). Here, the appellants election claims have obviously evaded review, but appellants have made no showing that the issue is capable of repetition. We therefore dismiss
the appeal as to the election claims.
…
Appellants have also made numerous motions before this court, all of which we deny.The motion to supplement the complaint should be made before the district court on remand, and we leave it to the district court to decide whether to permit such amendment. The motions to
enjoin the New York Secretary of State to enforce civil rights law protection and to restrain persons elected to the state legislature from taking office are based on the November 2004 election and are now moot. The motion to remand to a three-judge panel is disposed of above by remanding to the district court for consideration of the requirements of Section 2284. The motion for in banc review is denied as it is not clear at this stage that the case implicates the uniformity of our precedent or is of exceptional importance. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).