LinIsStrong

LinIsStrong t1_jefk1s5 wrote

Reply to Stoner by John Williams blew me away by BroncoAccountant

I dunno. Certainly the prose is clean and elegant, but it was hard for me to care about any of the characters, as Stoner seemed so passive. No “captain of my soul, master of my fate” stuff here. He came across to me more like a man seeking refuge and solace in his own dreamworld and the ideas of others, to the detriment of his own life. I did not walk away from that book with any deep insights or feelings beyond an inchoate sadness.

Well-written and beautifully crafted, yes. A place on my own personal top-ten list, no.

0

LinIsStrong OP t1_ivwch9r wrote

Reply to comment by Redlar in One poll worker’s report from the front lines of Pennsylvania voting by LinIsStrong

That is not normal procedure.

It sounds like the poll worker was hiding your voter registration signature so that you could not see it as you signed, perhaps thinking that way you could not "forge" the signature and thus "cheat" the system. Did you get the sense she was comparing your signature to the one in the book? Did you feel intimidated?

Because she absolutely should not be attempting signature verification. There is even a unanimous Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling buttressed by a ruling by a Trump-appointed Federal District Court Judge that "...the Election Code does not permit county election officials to reject applications or voted ballots based solely on signature analysis..."

Further, if she was making an attempt to check signatures, her behavior falls dangerously close to voter intimidation. From the vote.pa.gov site under "Examples of Voter Intimidation": "Routine and frivolous challenges to voter's eligibility by election workers or private citizens that are made without a stated good faith basis."

It all comes down to, did you feel intimidated by her behavior? Because if you did, you can file a complaint - again on vote.pa.gov under "Your Rights/Report Election Complaints".

Here is a great CNN fact check article that has links to the judicial rulings. It is mostly about checking signatures for mail-in ballots, but it applies to in-person ballots as well. https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_70c9f1b1-352d-405e-b625-f204161fd55a

tldr: Poll workers are not handwriting experts and shouldn't pretend to be.

3

LinIsStrong OP t1_ivqfml5 wrote

Reply to comment by NotNowDamo in One poll worker’s report from the front lines of Pennsylvania voting by LinIsStrong

If this was your first time voting in that precinct, I am guessing that the “paper” you gave her was some sort of identification? In PA, when you vote in a precinct for the first time, the voter roll book has “ID needed” next to your name so that we can verify you as a legitimate voter in our precinct.

If this was the case for you, it sounds to me like the poll worker was rude or thoughtless with her comment but not necessarily obstructionist.

Poll workers are just everyday people - some make voters feel uncomfortable which stinks! I’m lucky, I work with a group that works hard to make every voter feel comfortable, welcomed and appreciated. Sounds like yours was just an unpleasant person, unless there is something I’m missing.

Thank you for voting!

4

LinIsStrong OP t1_ivq2txl wrote

Reply to comment by BFreeFranklin in One poll worker’s report from the front lines of Pennsylvania voting by LinIsStrong

Was it just one person, or all the poll workers at your polling station? We have to look for party affiliation in primary elections because PA has closed primaries, but poll workers should not be asking affiliation during a general election. If the official poll worker with the voter roll was asking during a general election, they were either poorly trained or purposefully intrusive. That question should not be asked during a general election and a complaint should be filed with the person in charge of the polling station (the Judge of Elections in our precinct).

Now I’m super curious why that person was doing that.

16