A New Form of Voter Intimidation: Anti-Choice Harassment at the Polls

All pundits and politicos are agreeing that this year’s presidential race — and many other federal races as well—will be extremely tight. Who wins the White House on Tuesday will largely rely on get out the vote efforts by both parties in a number of battle ground states that will ultimately decide the election.

One of these states is Ohio. Polling locally and nationally has President Barack Obama leading but still within the margin of error over Republican challenger Mitt Romney, and early voting could become the key to who will be the victor in the state, as well as the nation.

No wonder anti-choice activists are fighting so hard to supress the vote.

For anyone who has ever tried to access a clinic that provides abortion services (and, more often these days, even clinics that only provide birth control) knows, anti-choice zealots make actually entering a clinic without interference more difficult every day. They pray in the sidewalks in front of the entrances. They display graphic signs and shout and offer “counseling” to both patients and just passersby. They take up parking spaces, block the signs of buildings with their vehicles, and they even film people coming and going in and out of the clinics. All of these tactics, which they cling to as freedom of speech, is thinly veiled harassment and intimidation in an effort stop a woman from enacting her legal right to choose.

Another legal right they appear to be limited fans of? The right for voters to cast an unimpeded vote for a candidate they don’t support.

The last few election cycles have seen an upswing of voter intimidation and suppression efforts in mostly minority or heavily Democratic districts. Problems range from a lack of voting machines to unofficial poll “challengers” who seem intent on ensuring voters prove their right to vote, to inadequate supplies of ballots, and more. Every year there is another trick that slows down the ability to cast a vote in largely poor and minority neighborhoods.

Now, Columbus, Ohio is the birthplace of a combination attack—abortion clinic access blocking techniques being used outside an early voting polling location. The site of 1700 Morse Avenue is the sole early voting location for residents of Franklin County. In 2008, the county, which is the largest in the state, was a major win for Obama, who beat Republican Senator John McCain by over 100,000 votes in the district.

Early voting will continue until election day at this polling location, but the act of voting there will be more difficult than in previous years thanks to anti-choice activists who have decided to camp out just outside of the “no politics” buffer zone set up around the site. Leading the charge is Richard Justman, who, according to an article at abortion opponent and Republican activist Jill Stanek’s website, was “more and more disturbed to see only Democrats show up in force after a Columbus, Ohio, Early Voting Center opened for business near his home on October 2.”

According to Stanek, Justman has parked his van in the lot to take up multiple parking spots, limiting the number of available spots for other election workers at the site. Justman moved his van in at 1 a.m and to be sure he doesn’t lose his advantage, he’s staying with it around the clock, asking others to sit with it while he showers or uses a public restroom so his vehicle can’t be towed.

Justman isn’t just taking up space that could be used by election officials, but voters as well. Franklin County Board of Elections spokesman Ben Piscitelli asked Justman to move his vehicles so that voters who wished to cast ballot early—the sole reason for the site—could access the parking spaces. Piscitelli told The Daily Caller:

“It was all right for this gentleman and his vehicle to be there; we just asked if he would please move back a couple of rows to where some similar vehicles were parked so that voters would have more parking spaces closer to the voting center.We didn’t want to make a bigger deal out of this than it was.”

But Justman isn’t just about physically obstructing access to the polling place as much as is legally allowed. Like with clinic access protesting, Justman is also bringing with him the graphic anti-choice blown up bloody “fetus” posters the extremists in the movement have become so fond of, thanks to his eager support from “Created Equal” leader Mark Harrington. If you wish to cast a vote, you have to look at their photos, first. Election officials say that the large sandwich boards are blocking visability in the right of way leading up to the polling place. Justman’s lawyer has defended it as Justman’s religious freedom and freedom of speech being restricted by an unjust government, and the signs remained.

Justman couches his protest as a desire to ensure that voters remember social issues like abortion and gay marriage when they cast their ballots. His gory photos in the right of way make it clear where he stands on the right to choose, and his less publicized adornments on his van, which tells voters to “Stop Sodom & Gay-Mora Marriage” or “Vote Character not Color” help clarify his other political leanings. Yet he is widely embraced in his crusade by anti-choice leaders, from Stanek to Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman and Christian Defense Coalition‘s Pat Mahoney, the latter two stopping by Justman’s vigil to lend their support.

Should a voter be obligated to pass graphic posters in order to practice his or her constitutional right to vote? Only if he or she lives in a heavily Democratic area, it seems. “By making this into a circus-like atmosphere, it discourages many people,” one Democratic activist told NBC News.

The intent at the polling places is no different than their actions at reproductive health clinics. Stay just inside the letter of the law. Try to convince those who arrive not to do what they came to do. Slow them down and make it as difficult as possible. Coerce with graphic images and unspoken intimidation. Pretend they are just concerned and simply providing information. Make the process as uncomfortable as possible.

Randall Terry ran a graphic anti-abortion ad in D.C. to test the waters, then the following cycle multiple candidates did the same. Anti-choice lawmakers proposed a few abortion restrictions to see if the public would fight them, and then the next session numerous states proposed identical laws. If this is allowed to count as acceptable at polling locations as long as it is outside the “no politics” zone, you can bet this will be at nearly every election site by 2016.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • crowepps

    I sure would like to know exactly what legal ‘rights’ the unofficial poll watchers have and how much they are allowed to interfere with voters.  When I go in to vote, I am concentrating on what I am doing and going over the list in my head of various candidates that I have chosen to support.  I do not want that process interrupted by a challenge from another *private* citizen who has decided he/she doesn’t think I *look like* a legitimate voter, and who feels entitled to inconvenience me while demanding to have her/his suspicions assuaged.

  • jessicawyant

    Voter suppression and/or harassment would be anon-issure if all states made the transition to mail-in only ballots as Washington State has.  You can easily register or update your registration online, via snail mail, or in person (though I’ve never done so in person), and ballots are cast via mail or drop boxes only. Though this means we no longer get cute little “I voted” stickers, it means that all choices are made within the privacy of one’s own home, where one (usually) has the ability to do some research on the candidates/initiaves/issues and take as long as they want to make their choices.  With this system, the only way I can think of to harass voters or make sure they’d be unable to cast their votes would be to camp out at every mailbox and drop box in the state, though by this time your vote has already been filled in and sealed in TWO tamper-proof envelopes. Either that, or commit some extremely widespread mail tampering or large scale terrorism against the USPS (which, nutty as some anti-choicers may be, seems like a stretch even for them).

  • flying-nosehair

    “Voter suppression and/or harassment would be anon-issure if all states made the transition to mail-in only ballots as Washington State has.”

    So how do homeless people vote?

  • leftcoaster

    Washington went to an all-mail voting system a couple of years ago, saving an enormous amount of money and time spent transporting ballots. It’s worked incredibly well. As a former reporter who’s witnessed the tallying process, I can assure everyone that there are no more security or fraud concerns in connection with this system and, in fact, probably it is a better safeguard. The best part was covering elections for a daily paper with an extended deadline of 10 p.m. .. The ballots were fed into machines throughout the week, but not until 8 p.m. were they officially tallied. We had preliminary results in 15 minutes. A win-win for voters, the press, and the integrity of the process.


  • leftcoaster

    Are not eligible to vote in any jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with where voting takes place. Theoretically you must be a resident of a district to vote, and registering requires producing some sort of proof of where you live. I’m sure some get around it by using other peoples’ addresses (which IMO is good) – but if they have an address at which they can receive mail, they can vote by mail.

  • nick-crane

    In King County homeless voters can use the address of homeless shelter, moblile home parks or a street corner. http://www.kingcounty.gov/elections/registration.aspx#nontrad  So if you are homeless check with your local voting board and don’t believe that you can’t vote because it is a mistake or you are being lied to.


  • colleen

    Are not eligible to vote in any jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with where voting takes place

     The matter has gone through the courts.  Because so many veterans are homeless, these folks have compiled a list. I don’t know how current the list is but you are completely wrong when you say that the homeless aren’t eligible to vote.