Test Post to Standard Posts
April 14, 2024Response to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s July 9, 2024, Needs Assessment Report for Observation of the 2024 US General Elections
Tim Meisburger
As someone who has for more than thirty years been involved with election administration, election observation, and the promotion of democracy (including with the OSCE during the first Bosnian election), I read the ODIHR report with interest, and wanted to provide some constructive criticism and a few suggestions for the ODIHR, if you do decide to observe the election.
First, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Needs Assessment Mission (ODIHR NAM) made a critical error in failing to interview anyone from the opposition party during their assessment. As far as I can tell, the only Republicans you interviewed were a couple of lawyers at the Heritage Foundation, and a random individual at the National Republican Congressional Committee, who are representative of the bipartisan Washington consensus (what we call the uniparty) rather than the broad Republican base.
You had many meetings with government officials, but failed to note that government officials are almost entirely affiliated with the Democratic Party, that government employee unions only contribute to Democratic candidates, and that the power and privileges enjoyed by unelected government officials over ordinary citizens is a major policy difference between Republicans and Democrats. Consequently, when you articulate the consensus of the ODIHR NAM interlocutors, you in now way reflect broader public opinion.
There are literally hundreds of pro-democracy and election integrity NGOs across the United States, but you did no interviews with any of them, and instead merely repeated the talking points of the ruling party. Egregious examples of unexamined assertions include the following.
Several ODIHR NAM interlocutors noted that access to voter registration is disproportionately more difficult for voters living in urban areas, low-income voters, and some racial minorities, with these groups continuing to have lower than average registration rates. Actually, as in any other country, access to voter registration in the U.S. is easier in urban areas than rural areas. I suspect your interlocutors make this argument to justify the use of insecure voter registration practices that facilitate vote theft from marginalized populations in densely populated urban areas.
You allow your interlocutors to make the ridiculous assertion that a significant percentage of Americans are unable to obtain ID cards, something possible in even the least developed countries, and fail to note in the report that voter ID is normal and best practice in election administration everywhere. You also fail to report the common concern among election integrity NGOs and the broader public that the ruling party wants to outlaw entirely normal voter ID requirements (and now proof of citizenship requirements) to facilitate election fraud.
ODIHR NAM interlocutors expressed confidence in the methods for early and postal voting… Every competent election administrator and observer knows that early and postal voting are less secure than in-person one day voting. Early voting (in Virginia, where I live, we have 45 days of early voting) is impossible for observers to monitor effectively, and the lack of transparency in early voting processes is a major driver of public doubt in the integrity and legitimacy of elections. Absentee voting was initially introduced to enable soldiers overseas to vote, but we have always known it is less secure than in-person voting. Postal voting facilitates vote theft, vote buying, and voter intimidation in the home and workplace, and is another major contributor to citizens lack of confidence in the integrity of the election process in the U.S.
Another example of the unrepresentativeness of report is the statement: All ODIHR NAM interlocutors were confident in the technology used for marking and counting ballots but coverage of broader public sentiment indicated decreasing trust in counting machines. Neither the public, nor computer security specialists, nor election integrity activists, have faith in voting technology, and it might have been useful to interview at least one person that could present that view. The machines in use in the U.S. (and elsewhere in the world) are nontransparent, non- verifiable, and breed distrust in election outcomes.
All ODIHR NAM interlocutors confirmed that these freedoms (association and assembly) are respected in practice; but any discussion with opposition movement or party activists would have revealed that they are often denied permits and venues due to their political orientation. Opposition speech is also routinely censored by a neofascist alliance of state and media corporations, with “disinformation” programs sponsored by the state used to suppress political opponents. For example, if you search online for “election integrity” or “confidence in elections” you will only return results for the ruling party narrative, even though the vast majority of election integrity activists are nonpartisan or affiliated with the opposition.
All ODIHR NAM interlocutors expressed confidence in election administrators’ integrity and their capacity to fulfil their roles, including on election day, despite the presence of rhetoric denigrating their integrity, yet election integrity activists and the general public disagree. Perhaps the suspicion is driven by election workers covering windows to prevent monitors from observing the count, or videos of election workers in the dead of night running the same stack of ballots over and over through a tabulator. A good example of why some distrust election workers (who are primarily Democrats, like all government workers) comes from Arizona in 2022, where (for odd reasons) Democrats were urged to vote early and Republicans were urged to vote on election day. In the event, early voting worked fine, and on election day, machines “broke down” or had the wrong paper, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Republicans, and enabling the Secretary of State of Arizona (who managed the elections) to certify her own election as Governor of the state.
Many ODIHR NAM interlocutors noted that inflammatory speech targeting political opponents and election officials have become a common feature of the political discourse. This statement is true, but probably not in the way your interlocutors intended. Throughout this campaign, and going all the way back to his first campaign, ruling party politicians and activists have sought to demonize President Trump, dehumanize his supporters, and delegitimize their participation in elections. This has resulted in assaults on politicians (including the assassination attempt on the former President last week), and continual death threats against other politicians and Supreme Court Justices. In effect, they are rejecting multiparty democracy, and advocating for one party elections.
Many ODIHR NAM interlocutors were concerned about the capacity for Artificial Intelligence to target and amplify disinformation as well to make it more convincing, particularly as it relates to the administration and the outcome of the election. The ruling party, and their allies in the corporate media, have consistently labeled as “disinformation” true information that undermines their narrative. This includes the Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop, and many others. Most recently, the Biden Administration’s spokeswoman, and many regime journalists, labeled real video (including video shot in Europe) that demonstrated the current president’s cognitive decline as AI-produce “cheapfake” disinformation.
Your footnote on the events of January 6, 2021, is incorrect in almost every particular. No police officer died on January 6, but two protesters were killed by police, one shot to death without warning from cover, and one beaten to death. There is significant evidence that the breach of the Capital was a false flag operation organized by government agents to undermine the massive pro-democracy demonstration taking place concurrently near the White House. If you are to comment on this event in your report, it would make sense to at least read some of the massive amount of research that questions the ruling party narrative.
The U.S. has among the least accurate voter rolls in the world, and these bloated and inaccurate voter rolls facilitate fraud. As an indicator, some states have double the number of voters on their rolls as eligible citizens. Ruling party “election” organizations work constantly to prevent cleaning of voter rolls, and voter list audits are actually illegal in many states, and are not conducted by election administrators in any state. Some states have joined the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which is an NGO funded and run by ruling party activists, and is supposed to help clean election rolls, but there is no evidence they have ever done that, and some suspicion their primary purpose is to conceal inaccuracy.
I hope that these comments and suggestions will be useful, if you decide to send an observer team for the elections. I think that the U.S. could benefit from objective and non-partisan observation of our elections, and have often wished I had the resources to bring in credible observers from organizations like ANFREL, NAMFREL, the Election Working Group in Bangladesh or COMFREL from Cambodia.
I recognize that it may be hard for you to criticize your hosts, who are also funding your mission, and humbly suggest that if you feel that you will not be able to produce a neutral and objective report that includes concerns from across the political spectrum, that you not send a mission, as a partisan mission intent of merely reinforcing the ruling party narrative could undermine global respect and acceptance of non-partisan election observation. If you do decide to send a mission, feel free to get in touch, and I can supply you with good contacts in virtually any state that can provide more insight into local and national electoral concerns.
About the Author – Tim Meisburger spent almost 30 years overseas organizing and monitoring elections, and was Director of the Center for Democracy Rights and Governance at USAID during the Trump administration. He is currently working on Vote Your Vision for the America Project.
