this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
265 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5157 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, was compelled by a court order to release the names of about 218,000 voters to lawyers representing right-wing activists.

The appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision, which requires disclosing voter information due to a coding error that incorrectly classified some voters’ ballot access.

Fontes, who expressed serious concerns over potential harassment and violence against these voters, unsuccessfully tried to block the request.

The court ruled that Fontes had not provided sufficient proof that releasing the list posed a danger to voters.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 3 points 23 minutes ago

Get ready for the night of long knives now.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 2 points 54 minutes ago

They are serving appetizers, enjoy

[–] Roopappy@lemmy.world 54 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The court ruled that Fontes had not provided sufficient proof that releasing the list posed a danger to voters.

(24 hours later)

Holy crap! They're going after the voters! Nobody could have seen this coming!

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 20 points 10 hours ago

A reasonable court would have said “that’s a totally legitimate concern” and maybe suggested options for reviewing election integrity concerns without exposing PII to third parties.

This court would probably have waved off public statements by neo-nazis that they would hunt these people for sport as “insufficient cause for concern.”

[–] drdiddlybadger@pawb.social 156 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Release the names of every single person in the righrwing group. Its only fair.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It's nowhere near as far. The odds of someone on the right intimidating voters because of a foreign looking last name has been proven to be near 1 whereas there are no reported instances of the left doing the same.

There are no "both sides" on this issue. Only one side who wants to hurt the other.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

You know the saying; be the change you want to see in the world. Get out there and start punching some Nazis for sport.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 76 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

So if right wing nuts target the voters it will be treated as premeditated, right?

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 34 points 14 hours ago

Of course not. They're just lone wolfs who had a bad day.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 95 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

The court ruled that Fontes had not provided sufficient proof that releasing the list posed a danger to voters.

Will he have enough proof after people on the list find threats in their mailboxes, their houses catching on fire, their car's tires slashed?

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 19 points 14 hours ago

Oh, they won't do anything as crass as that.

They'll just kill 'em.

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

That will all just be ruled coincidence and unrelated.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

If someone is harmed an enormous lawsuit against the state will follow and the reputation of the court and judge will collapse.

Welcome to sovereign immunity

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

We keep talking about reputations of courts and judges, “legitimacy”, but I’m just not seeing it matter.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That’s part of the fall into fascism. We can hopefully head that off today.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io -1 points 9 hours ago

Kick the can*

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 13 hours ago

But that will have already been too late. The information will be out there, intimidation and silencing of people in fear will do it's job and keep them quiet, and out of polling booths.

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 22 points 12 hours ago

Did he try gesturing broadly at the general situation as proof?

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 41 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

From the wording it sounds like it wasn't made public, just presented to the lawyers. It's similar to how jehovah witnesses tried to pierce anononimity for the antijw reddit posters to identify defendants in a copyright lawsuit and the judge said something akin to "It's understandable that you don't want your name publicly associated with this post, but the court system imparts trust on lawyers to act as good stewards of this information and so plaintiffs council may have access to your identity." If this information is leaked they should be disbarred on the spot for mishandling the data.

[–] SoupBrick@yiffit.net 6 points 15 hours ago

I would hope so.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 43 points 16 hours ago

Hopefully the appeals court judges are on the list.

I am curious why he didn’t appeal the ruling further.