Did Hillary Clinton Violate New York Electioneering Law?
A Prima Facie Case

Mugging for the cameras this morning (embedded video, below), Senator Hillary Clinton displays her personal disregard for the New York State electioneering law, by stumping for Democrats visibly within a few feet of where people are casting ballots in voting booths in Chappaqua, NY.

New York State Law specifically prohibits any such activity within 100 feet of a polling place. A violation is a misdemeanor offense.

What would clearly seem to be the pertinent section of New York State law provides as follows:

§ 17-130. Misdemeanor in relation to elections. Any person who:
. . .
4. Electioneers on election day or on days of registration within one hundred feet, as defined herein, from a polling place. Said prohibition shall not apply to a building or room that has been maintained for political purposes at least six months prior to said election or registration days, except that no political displays, placards or posters shall be exhibited therefrom. For the purposes of this section, the one hundred feet distance shall be deemed to include a one hundred foot radial measured from the entrances, designated by the inspectors of elections, to a building where the election or registration is being held.

You can download the full election law at the New York State Board of Elections website (it is a large pdf file), or you can examine a much more convenient (unofficial) version of the specific section, §17 - 130, at the Justicia website, located here.



According to a recent piece in the NY City News Service, and reposted at Huffington Post, in New York State even "passive" advocacy for political candidates at a polling place could be a "misdemeanor" offense. The NY City News Service is a student publication at CUNY.

The writers of the piece were cautioning Obama supporters not to engage in "passive" electioneering by wearing campaign paraphernalia, such as Obama tee shirts, or buttons when they go to vote because they might be challenged. The story even notes that the New York Civil Liberties Union has said that they were going to include information about that law in their voter information packets.

The New York Civil Liberties Union plans – for the first time – to include a similar warning in its voter information materials.

Hillary's apparent violation, however, is not passive.

Here's betting, however, that there will be no charge for what seems to be her rather obvious violation of the state's election law.

Clinton Supporters: "McCain Will Win"

Harriet Christian, from New York City, an obviously frustrated supporter of both Hillary Clinton, and of the effort to count all votes of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, was reportedly tossed out of Saturday's meeting of the Democrat Rules Committee in Washington (H.T. DrudgeReport, 06/02), and she stopped to express her strong views as she left the meeting room. Her expressed views also included a comment that the Democratic Party has passed over the nomination of Hillary Clinton, "for an inadequate black man."

At the end of the video, she predicts a McCain win in the fall. You can also hear her obviously embarrassed son in the background telling someone that, "My mother gets a little exorcised." Here's betting he gets a little piece of her mind when she views this video on YouTube!



Yesterday, in one of several updates to a prior post, we also posted a link to a video (H.T. Powerline, here) of a female protester from California, also a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, and, as well, of the need to count 100% of the vote.

She said her support was for the "rights of the Democratic Party," but she did not refer in any way to race. But she opposes the nomination of Barack Obama. Her strong view that the 2.35 million votes should count 100%, is what she said distinguishes Democrats from Republicans, that "democrats are obsessed with everyone's vote counting," She also said that, though Obama looked good at first, that the controversial personalities surrounding Obama -- Reverend Wright, William Ayres "the bomber," and Rezko, the embezzler -- amounted to what she termed "food for the Republicans," that would ensure a Republican victory in the fall. And, she said she would vote for McCain as well, if Hillary did not get the nomination.

As you can see, she was outside during a demonstration on behalf of Clinton's challenge to the ruling earlier this year, that had stripped both Michigan and Florida from seating the delegates selected in their primaries. Note that she says she travelled all the way to Washington from her home on the West Coast, just for the protest. The outside protest was later interrupted by a downpour.

Here is the clip of this voter again, this time embedded in the post.



Also posted on YouTube by firedoglake is a clip of a third protester, Deborah Foster, a phys-ed school teacher from Long Island, New York, who shows bruises on her arm she said she received when she was forceably removed from the meeting for chanting "Denver, Denver!" Unlike the others, her frustration was almost exclusively reserved for the "party bosses." As she put it, "Those idiot bosses in there have given me two winners in forty years!" And then, jabbing her finger in the air for emphasis, but with a little smile on her face, "The party elite sucks!" Obviously, she believes that Obama is far less likely to win in the fall.



How typical are these voters? How strong are their views? For example, how much of their views are driven by their adherence to the principle underscoring the protest -- that every vote should count? And how much is driven by loyalty their to Hillary Clinton, who they support for the nomination?

Are we witnessing a phenomenon that will resonate to the benefit of Senator McCain in the fall general election?

As we post this, Hillary is announcing that her post-primary speech will be delivered tomorrow evening in New York, rather than in South Dakota, perhaps laying the groundwork for ending her quest for the nomination.

Will she make a strong effort to bring these voters back to the Democrat fold?

Why Mitt?

Many folks have endorsed Mitt Romney for President, and for a variety of reasons.

My reasons really can be reduced to a connection. Few agree 100% with the positions on issues of a candidate they support, so I am sure I'm no exception. But, having evaluated the views and the approach of the candidates, for some time now I have felt a solid connection to his approach. Mitt Romney's real world career successes, both in business and in the public sector, are far and away the most impressive of any of the candidates. And the manner in which he and his family have lived their lives is notable as well. But it was his approach, the way he talked about how he would govern, that won my support and my vote.

To me, the best Presidents have a few solid qualities, ones which can oddly seem somewhat contradictory on occasion. But the Presidency demands several qualities because a President fills several roles. And the best Presidents do so in a relatively seamless manner.

Constitutionally, a President is our nation's chief executive and the military Commander in Chief. A President is also the head of state. All three roles demand unique qualities, and for me Mitt Romney would best fill all three. In fact, his grounding in the business world is a particularly significant factor now in dealing with economic turbulence, including avoiding an over-reaction that would hamstring us on the back end.

Here in New Jersey, I am reminded that a few successive Democrat administrations have literally destroyed the economic viability of our State government -- not of our economy quite yet -- but certainly of our State Government. At the same time they have bloated the size of government all out of proportion. New Jersey has become a certifiably obese state Government. The current governor's "solution," however, is to mortgage the future with enormous toll road increases, which will simultaneously ruin whatever remains of our quality of life by driving traffic off onto local arteries. And he'll be long gone before the piper even begins to tune up!

In short, New Jersey has permanently adopted the J. Wellington Wimpy model of governance, "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." So, I want a president who will not continually be knocking on Democrats' doors looking for ways to compromise and grow the government, all while enabling personal dependence and diminishing our individuality, just so he can prove he is an independent.

A president must have extraordinarily strong convictions to successfully pursue a political agenda, but those should be coupled with an inherent modesty of purpose, an understanding that in promoting and protecting and ultimately preserving our representative democratic polity and our free society, the framework for pursual of a political agenda is, and should be, limited indeed. He or she leads, but not without being fully connected, and not without understanding that at the end of the day, our core values of freedom and liberty not only remain intact, they should ideally be enhanced.

Just because of the nature of the game, many candidates this year seem to exude much of that first quality -- strong convictions -- but too little of the latter, that inherent modesty of purpose.

Anyone who truly values and cherishes freedom and liberty knows that they both inform our national soul, and can be mighty messy as well! Nothing good usually comes out of the kitchen without a sink full of pans and dishes!

Good leadership, therefore, ought to arise out of energetic engagement in public debate, and succeed only through persuasion. Good politics is the fight for the right tomorrow, employing the means that preserve our political inheritence. Finding ways to tamp down or cut off politically motivated speech and debate, therefore, is inherently wrong. McCain/Feingold was and is an abomination. And when I hear a politician opine -- as several leading Democrats have threatened since eeking out a bare majority in Congress nearly two years ago -- that talk radio may need to somehow be reigned in, that is it for them. Where was the classic liberal who stood up and said "no" to that rubbish?

I often suspect that progressives -- that's what they like to be called these days --really believe that free speech and expression are merely means to the imposition of their ends, and that once their ends are being achieved, those means can just "whither away." "Political correctness" is a demonstrable current precurser of that end game. Just think of the perfectly legitimate things you're no longer "allowed" to say, and the new euphemisms you are now expected to employ! Nuts to that!

Some "progressive leaders" even exhibit a tendency to equate, or should I say conflate their own power-seeking ambitions, with our national zeitgeist. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. It is, and always has been all about her. Well, I say, "go garnish your own wage, lady!" And she really ought to lay off the bogus tears, too!

Finally, I like the idea of a President who, like Mitt, proved he could win and govern in a blue state, in some ways, the bluest state of all -- at least then! And this year, I was impressed by his ability to go into what will undoubtedly be a battleground state of Michigan, and win as well.

Lest anyone point to current polls, however, to suggest that only McCain scores against Democrats, I'm not impressed. As at other times in the past, John McCain has gotten a free primary-length pass from the main stream media outlets, including being endorsed for the primary by both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. But that honeymoon will not last for one single second, should he secure the Republican nomination. If he does win, the media-wide spigot will be abruptly turned off.

Then there will be a lot of cheerleading for Clinton or Obama. And, as in the past few cycles, there will be some significant breaking through that filter here on the internet. I predict, more and better.

So, HERE, as with some other notable locations elsewhere on the internet, I'm for Mitt Romney for President.

Now I think I'll go vote!