Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

The judge said Democrats painted some evidence of "voter suppression" efforts undertaken by the Donald Trump campaign in a misleading light. | Getty Judges refuse voter-intimidation orders against GOP and Trump in Pennsylvania, North Carolina

Federal judges in North Carolina and Pennsylvania have turned down Democratic Party requests for orders barring their Republican counterparts from harassing voters at the polls.

In their rulings Monday, both judges said there was insufficient evidence to justify the injunctions Democrats sought against state GOP officials, Donald Trump's campaign, Trump backer Roger Stone and his group Stop the Steal.

"While the statements of the defendant Roger Stone, the defendants’ presidential nominee, and the nominee’s surrogates, taken in context, may be susceptible to the interpretation that Mr. Stone and the Trump campaign are encouraging their supporters to intimidate voters, there is little evidence that supporters are acting on these indirect suggestions," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles, who sits in Greensboro, N.C. "There have been only a handful of hearsay reports that purported supporters of the defendants’ presidential nominee may have threatened or intimidated voters in North Carolina during several weeks of early voting."

Philadelphia-based U.S. District Court Judge Paul Diamond said the Democrats failed to produce any real evidence that pro-Trump groups were planning to intimidate those intent on exercising their right to vote.

"Plaintiff has not shown that any Defendant has engaged or will engage in voter intimidation in this District," Diamond wrote in a 16-page opinion issued Monday afternoon. Both judges held hearings on the Democrats' motions earlier in the day.

Diamond was harshly critical of the Democrats for approaching the court with so few days to go before the election.

"Plaintiff has not explained what it learned in the last month or even the last week that created emergent conditions. On the contrary, Plaintiff has long known of the acts and statements on which it bases its claims," wrote Diamond, an appointee of President George W. Bush. "I am thus compelled to base a ruling that could restrict Defendants’ Election Day speech and conduct on media reports because Plaintiff has contrived to transform this litigation into a mad scramble."

Diamond said the Democrats painted some evidence in a misleading light, such as a Bloomberg News report about "voter suppression" efforts undertaken by the Trump campaign. He said it was clear from the context that the Trump official was talking about highlighting storylines or themes that would undercut Hillary Clinton's support

"In context, these are not 'suppression' efforts at all, and they do not appear designed to threaten or intimidate voters. Rather, they are coarse efforts to convince Secretary Clinton’s likely supporters not to vote for her," the judge wrote.

Eagles, an appointee of President Barack Obama, contended in her four-page order that Trump and Stone's statements were capable of various interpretations.

"These statements by the nominee and others are also susceptible to the interpretation that these defendants are encouraging their supporters to report potential voter fraud. There is nothing inherently intimidating about persons observing spaces outside polling places and reporting possible fraud to appropriate officials or to a hotline in a peaceful, non-threatening, and non-disruptive manner," Eagles wrote. "Supporters of particular candidates have long been allowed to encourage persons coming to the polls to vote a particular way, subject to reasonable space restrictions applicable to all."

Eagles said Democrats were welcome to come back to the court on Tuesday if there are actual incidents of voter intimidation.

"Voters are entitled to cast their ballots without fear of reprisal or threat of physical harm," she wrote. "On Election Day, if it becomes apparent that agents of any defendant or supporters encouraged by any defendant are making an effort to intimidate minority voters or to further incite intimidation of voters, the plaintiff may renew the motion."

Earlier Monday, Diamond quashed a subpoena the Pennsylvania Democrats issued to GOP State Chairman Rob Gleason. The judge called the subpoena, served Sunday, "vexatious and abusive."

The Pennsylvania and North Carolina suits are two of six similar suits Democrats filed in swing states across the country. So far, only the judge handling the Ohio case has granted the anti-intimidation order sought. That order was lifted by a federal appeals court and on Monday afternoon the Supreme Court declined to act in that case.