Requirements For 17 Or 18 Year Old Election Judges: Fill & Download for Free

Regarding general elections (elections for state offices - including governor, senate, representative, etc.; Congressional seats; and the President of the United States), specifically, no, a judge cannot grant you an exception to allow you to vote. The 26th Amendment, and state law is very clear on this: you must be 18 years old to vote.Even if you somehow became emancipated, you would still be unable to vote. The only legal exception to this, per se, is where people who are 17 years old are permitted to vote in primary elections if they will be 18 years old on or before the day of the general election. If you turn 18 the day after the election, you will not be allowed to vote since it was not before the election. And this exception is only valid in about 20 or 21 states. Minnesota allows people who are 17 years old to vote in presidential caucuses if they will turn 18 on or before the election, but may not participate in any other election.Regarding local elections, I am only aware of one city in Maryland that allows 17 year old people to vote, and it is limited to that specific local office. I also recall seeing somewhere that the District of Columbia wanted to lower the age to 16, which if it passes, being it is the federal district and as such is overseen directly by the federal government, could, hypothetically, send a message to the states to lower the age.Nevertheless, absent a Constitutional amendment, even if states lower the age to 17 or less, the federal elections would remain at 18, as the 26th Amendment specifically states.With all of this said, I would caution against allowing a 14 year old to vote in any election. This is not a reverse-ageist perspective, but one of experience — I was 14 at one point. Voting is an extremely powerful and important tool in our representation. Voting requires, idealistically at least, an understanding and comprehension of the issues being debated or otherwise discussed. It requires familiarization with the duties of the position. It requires that the voter understand their role, beyond the fact that they simply can.While there is a 14 year old running for governor in Vermont, this comes with its own brigade of problems if, on the extremely unlikely chance, he were elected: his employer — the State of Vermont — would automatically be in violation of laws that restrict youth employment, which in Vermont restrict the hours and times of day the teenager may work. As governor, he would always be on duty. Not to mention, how is he supposed to do his job when he has to spend 1/3 of the day in class, that would have to be held at the Governor’s office, at further taxpayer expense? I appreciate his candor and ambition in this, but it is absurd. It also is a direct violation of the duties he would have as governor; not to mention, carries a direct problem of not understanding the legalities and the inability to enter into a contract, which taking office — any office — legally is.I hope this answers your question and helps you understand why it is the way it is.Regarding the teenage/youth employment law: It is not like he, himself, could change the law as governor, as he would be head of the state’s executive branch, and it is the legislative branch that enacts law. So, much like the president cannot enact law without Congressional acceptance, a governor cannot without the state’s congressional approval.

You look at the courts. Evidence matters there, not allegations. No judge acts on mere allegations. Therefore, Giuliani, Pompeo et al can allege whatever they want, but if they are so unwise as to present it to a court, they have to have facts. So far, Trump’s suits are being tossed because the facts have either contradicted the allegations (the ones about observers not being allowed to act went down the drain when it was shown that the “observers” were in the room and just wanted to be less than 6′ from the people counting the ballot).Here’s some actual judicial actions, beginning with state actions to suppress the vote: Democracy North Carolina v. North Carolina State Board of Elections United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. August 4, 2020--- F.Supp.3d ----2020 WL 4484063 (Nonprofit organizations and voters established likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the right to vote absentee in North Carolina was unduly burdened by lack of opportunity to cure an absentee ballot mistake, and that lack of curing procedure violated voters' procedural due process rights, as required for entry of preliminary injunction prohibiting State Board of Elections from disallowing or rejecting absentee ballots without due process, as to those ballots with material error subject to remediation; private interest of voter being able to vote absentee was weighty in light of COVID-19 pandemic, probative value of additional procedures was high, in order to avoid erroneous rejection of ballots, and Board was working on implementing a curing procedure. North Carolina voter, who was 91 years old, blind, and lived alone in nursing home locked down due to COVID-19 pandemic, established substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims alleging both disparate impact and failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act, as required for entry of preliminary injunction against enforcement of North Carolina law prohibiting assistance from nursing home workers, owners, and managers with absentee ballot; voter was explicitly prohibited from seeking assistance, he and fellow residents had mutual vulnerabilities due to pandemic, and strict social distancing measures were in place, such that voter was deprived of “meaningful access” to absentee voting due to his disability, citing U.S. Const. Amend. 5. // Middleton v. Andino United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division. September 18, 2020 --- F.Supp.3d ---- 2020 WL 5591590 (Voters established strong likelihood on merits of their claim that South Carolina statute requiring that witness sign absentee ballot envelope imposed burdens on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that outweighed state's interest in using witness requirement to investigate absentee fraud, for purposes of determining voters' entitlement to preliminary injunction barring requirement's enforcement during COVID-19 pandemic; witnesses and absentee voters ran risk of transmitting or acquiring virus when complying with requirement, state identified only one recent case of alleged absentee fraud, Executive Director of South Carolina State Election Commission recommended that requirement be suspended during pandemic, and state verified each voter's identity before sending absentee ballot, citing U.S. Const. Amends. 1, 14; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-15-380, 7-15-420.) // Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.October 10, 2020--- F.Supp.3d ----2020 WL 5997680 (Background: Plaintiffs in this case are President Trump's reelection campaign, the Republican National Committee, and several other Republican congressional candidates and electors. They originally filed this suit, alleging federal and state constitutional violations stemming from Pennsylvania's implementation of a mail-in voting plan for the upcoming general election. Here were the issues: First, whether the use of so-called “drop boxes” for mail-in ballots is unconstitutional, given the lack of guidance or mandates that those drop boxes have security guards to man them. Second, whether the Secretary's guidance as to mail-in ballots—specifically, her guidance that county election boards should not reject mail-in ballots where the voter's signature does not match the one on file—is unconstitutional. Third, whether Pennsylvania's restriction that poll watchers be residents in the county for which they are assigned, as applied to the facts of this case, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs (Trump and RNC) lack Article III standing to pursue their claims. Standing, of course, is a necessary requirement to cross the threshold into federal court. Federal courts adjudicate cases and controversies, where a plaintiff's injury is concrete and particularized. Here, however, Plaintiffs have not presented a concrete injury to warrant federal-court review. All of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims have the same theory of injury—one of “vote dilution.” Plaintiffs fear that absent implementation of the security measures that they seek (guards by drop boxes, signature comparison of mail-in ballots, and poll watchers), there is a risk of voter fraud by other voters. If another person engages in voter fraud, Plaintiffs assert that their own lawfully cast vote will, by comparison, count for less, or be diluted.*2 The problem with this theory of harm is that it is speculative, and thus Plaintiffs’ injury is not “concrete”—a critical element to have standing in federal court. While Plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud, they must at least prove that such fraud is “certainly impending.” They haven't met that burden. At most, they have pieced together a sequence of uncertain assumptions: (1) they assume potential fraudsters may attempt to commit election fraud through the use of drop boxes or forged ballots, or due to a potential shortage of poll watchers; (2) they assume the numerous election-security measures used by county election officials may not work; and (3) they assume their own security measures may have prevented that fraud.All of these assumptions could end up being true, and these events could theoretically happen. But so could many things. The relevant question here is: are they “certainly impending”? At least based on the evidence presented, the answer to that is “no.” And that is the legal standard that Plaintiffs must meet. As the Supreme Court has held, this Court cannot “endorse standing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors.” // Cook County Republican Party v. Pritzker United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.September 17, 2020Slip Copy2020 WL 5573059 ( Nearly two months after Illinois amended its Election Code in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Cook County Republican Party (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint [1] challenging certain of these amendments and moved for a preliminary injunction [5]. Because election authorities must soon mail absentee ballots, Plaintiff's delay in filing suit and requesting injunctive relief manufactured an emergency of sorts, requiring expedited briefing and ruling. The Court has now considered all briefing on the matter in order to promptly rule on the motion for preliminary injunction [5]. In doing so, the Court recognizes the importance of safely managing a public health crisis and the difficulty faced by chief executives and legislatures in balancing competing interests during such emergencies. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 (1905); Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F.3d 341, 347 (7th Cir. 2020). The Court also is mindful of the critical importance of secure elections to a functioning democracy. Plaintiff's claims raise concerns about election security, but in the end its contentions amount to legislative policy disagreements and unsupported speculation about potential criminal conduct. The “Constitution is not an election fraud statute,” Bodine v. Elkhart Cnty. Election Bd., 788 F.2d 1270, 1271 (7th Cir. 1986), and the May Amendments amount to “quintessentially * * * legislative judgment[s] with which we judges should not interfere unless strongly convinced that the legislative judgment is grossly awry.” Griffin v. Roupas, 385 F.3d 1128, 1131 (7th Cir. 2004). As described in more detail below, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief or that it has some likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.)I could keep quoting, but I’m sure you get the drift. The Republicans have been trying to limit and suppress the vote to prevent Democratic victories, suggesting that only Republican votes were valid, and have been asking that the federal courts assist them in that effort. And they have met with nearly uniform rejection (I found one case from San Antonio, Texas, that went with the Republicans) because they don’t have any evidence, just panic and speculation.

Read this and you be the judge. The FBI’s current director, Christopher Wray, recently said his first priority is to “try to bring a sense of calm and stability back to the bureau.” However, the FBI is facing one of the greatest tests of its 110 year history. It must fix a culture of internal problems and rebuild its trustworthiness with the law enforcement community and public. Worst yet, this comes at the same time many Americans are asking themselves, can we really trust the FBI after the McCabe findings have shaken the Bureau to the core. The FBI has massive power, and as a result, it has strict rules that they must follow to the letter. Lying to FBI investigators is considered a dire breach in an organization built on trust and honesty. The recent criminal referrals sent to the U.S. Attorney’s office, which emerged after the IG report was released will probably result in charges against McCabe of making a false sworn statement. McCabe has challenged the findings, disputing even the most basic elements like the number people who were in the room that are witnesses to his conversations. The IG said it did not find many of McCabe’s objections credible, with some elements contradicted by notes taken by other FBI agents. McCabe previously called his firing a “war on the FBI and the Russia investigation.” However, viewed against the facts of Horowitz reports, McCabe’s lack of credibility and misconduct is part of a much larger internal problem for the Bureau. Horowitz found that bureau investigators had allowed employees with negative polygraph results to keep their top-secret clearances for months and even years, posing “potential risks to U.S. national security.” In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four (4) polygraph examinations and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for his misconduct. Horowitz found that the FBI was getting information it shouldn’t have had access to when it used controversial parts of the Patriot Act to obtain business records in terrorism and counterintelligence cases.Just as troubling are recent FBI misconduct under the IG’s microscope. For example, on Jan. 5, the FBI’s round-the-clock tip center in West Virginia received a chilling phone call. The caller gave her name and said she was close to the family of an 18-year-old in Parkland, Fla., named Nikolas Cruz. Over 13 minutes, the female caller said Cruz had posted photos of rifles he owned and animals he mutilated and that he wanted “to kill people.” She listed his Instagram accounts and suggested the FBI check it for itself, saying she was worried about the thought of his “getting into a school and just shooting the place up,” according to a transcript of the call. The FBI specialist checked Cruz’s name against a database and found that another tipster had reported 3½ months earlier that a “Nikolas Cruz” posted a comment on his YouTube channel saying, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” But neither tip was passed on to the FBI field agents in Miami or local officials in Parkland. After Cruz allegedly killed seventeen (17) students with an AR-15 rifle at his former school just six weeks later, the bureau admitted that it had dropped the ball and ordered a full review. Anyone hearing this can easily say: “You’ve got to be kidding.”The Parkland shooting was only one gross oversight in a string of devastating errors by the keystone cops. After Omar Mateen shot and killed forty nine (49) people at a nightclub named “Pulse” in Orlando in June 2016, the FBI said it had investigated him twice before on terrorism related suspicions, but shut the inquiries down for lack of evidence. The year before, after Dylann Roof shot to death nine (9) African-American parishioners at a South Carolina church, the FBI acknowledged that lapses in its gun background-check system allowed him to illegally buy the .45-caliber handgun he used in the massacre. In 2011, the FBI received a tip from Russian intelligence that one of the Boston Marathon bombers had become radicalized and was planning an overseas trip to join radical Islamic groups. The FBI in Boston investigated him but found no “nexus” to terrorism.The Orlando shooting provoked more problems for the bureau. In late March, when the shooter’s widow, Noor Salman, was acquitted on charges of aiding and abetting him and obstructing justice. The jury foreman pointed to inconsistencies in the FBI’s accounts of the disputed admissions that agents said Salman had made, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The judge also reprimanded the bureau after an FBI agent contradicted the government’s earlier claims that Salman and Mateen had cased the club.There are serious concerns about the FBI and their record of major terrorist prosecutions or lack there of underscore a larger question: Is anyone less likely to believe what the bureau is saying these days? A federal judge threw out all the criminal charges against renegade Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a supporter who had been in an armed standoff over unpaid grazing fees. Judge Gloria Navarro accused the FBI of “outrageous” and “flagrant” misconduct, citing failures by both prosecutors and the FBI to produce at least 1,000 pages of required documents. The judge said the FBI misplaced–or “perhaps hid”–a thumb drive revealing the existence of snipers and a surveillance camera at the site of the standoff.A related case in Oregon, growing out of the 2016 takeover of a wildlife refuge by Bundy’s sons and their followers, has not gone well for the FBI either. An agent at the scene, W. Joseph Astarita, is now charged with five criminal counts after prosecutors say he falsely denied shooting twice at an occupation leader who was fatally shot by police, who said he appeared to be reaching for his handgun during a roadside encounter. The Bundy sons and five supporters who helped in the takeover were found not guilty of conspiracy and weapons charges, in another jarring setback for the government.The on-going string of not guilty verdicts as a sign that jurors and judges are less inclined to take what the FBI says in court at face value. The evidence support that conclusion. The court statistics shows a surprisingly low rate of success for the thousands of cases the FBI investigates and sends to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. The Justice Department has won convictions in fewer than half the cases the FBI referred for prosecution, with a conviction rate of 47% the data showed. That fell well below the average of 72% for all other government agencies. Prosecutors themselves have rejected many of the FBI’s referrals before they ever got to court. The bureau’s low success rate in these cases has remained largely unchanged in recent years.In a national case, Gina Nichols, says she never had strong impressions one way or the other about the FBI until her daughter Maggie Nichols, who was a member of the national gymnastics team, reported three years prior that team physician Larry Nassar had molested her. Gina waited anxiously for the FBI to contact her and interview Maggie. But no one in the FBI did so for over a year as the case languished among different FBI field offices in Indianapolis, Detroit and Los Angeles. Nassar is believed to have molested dozens of additional victims over the course of that same time frame.The FBI had opened an internal inquiry to determine why the Nassar investigations appear to have dragged on for so long. John Manly, a Southern California lawyer representing many of the female victims, says he is angry that no one from the FBI has contacted the victims to explain the delay. “Knowing that the best law-enforcement agency in the world knew exactly what he was up to and did nothing can’t be explain that to them,” Manly says. “You’ve got people who were really hurt here and the FBI took their time until the heat was on them.”Then there is Mueller’s Russia probe has found that Moscow’s operation against the 2016 election first got under way in 2014, but the FBI failed to grasp the scope and danger of what was unfolding. The bureau missed the significance of the damaging 2015 hack of the DNC database. Then when the Russian operation began to heat up in the summer of 2016, the FBI was always a step behind the Russians, struggling to understand intelligence reports they were getting about possible connections between Moscow and Trump aides. The bureau also sat on the disputed “dossier” prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Then now we find out that the FBI knew Carter Page was a CIA agent and intentionality left the exculpatory evidence out of the FISA application thereby duping a FISA Judge. The FBI then sought three additional renewals of the highly classified FISA warrant. To make matters worse, Carter Page was never charged or indicted because he was actually telling the truth that he was spying on the Russians for the CIA and not colluding with them to help Trump win the 2016, election.A report released by the House Intelligence Committee found that the FBI was slow to confront the election meddling, especially in its failure to notify U.S. victims of Russian hacking quickly enough. The committee also charged that the bureau’s decision to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was influenced by politics and biased FBI agents. At the same time, the IG has pointed to text messages between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which were critical of Trump as well as many Democrats to argue the bureau is fundamentally rotten to the core and needs a complete overhaul to fix their serious internal cultural problems.The most important short term goal for America is how can the FBI be fixed when they don’t even follow their own internal regulations they teach new agents at Quantico as noted in their Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide “DIOG. In the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe ahead of the 2016 election, Comey acted without telling the Justice Department what he planned to do. He then stripped the case from a field office and kept it in the headquarters and had the same agents working on it and all other high profile cases and the Russian collusion probe at the same time. Comey is the main culprit who came under fire in the IG report for breaking with Justice Department rules and norms by assuming authority usually held by prosecutors and speaking in public about a case that did not produce criminal charges. What was disclosed is Comey allowed the Bureau to be weaponized by the Obama Administration.At FBI headquarters, agents and supervisors are currently saying that they are keeping their heads down and focusing on their jobs and investigations while the building is crumbling around them and the criticism of the Bureau is blowing the shingles off the roof.Trump’s attacks on the FBI was proven to be true after the IG released his reports. Some worry that the damage to the FBI may take years to fix. Trump’s public attacks on the Bureau is having an effect on the public’s confidence in the FBI.Jeffrey Danik, a retired FBI agent in Florida who now works with whistle-blowers at the bureau, blames the state of affairs on a severe lack of leadership and transparency at headquarters in owning up to recent blunders and gross misconduct. Those damaging failures have just about pushed an incredible organization over the brink. For now, everyone inside and out who cares about the reliability of law enforcement in America is left hoping that the Bureau can rebuild itself as a premier law enforcement agency.