# data[].attributes.body
As economic crime is highly prevalent in the United States the government promotes acceptable law-abiding behavior in dealings with money. The article discussing Alex Murdaugh's numerous crimes both economic and social display the government's intent to punish and provide consequences for economic misdealing. The goverment charges Murdaugh and makes the information concerning his crime available to the public to demonstrate to the people the consequences that may ensue if the economic crime is committed which may have the effect of warding off undesirable behavior from the public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alex Murdaugh’s 19 indictments and 99 financial charges explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the trial of Alex Murdaugh begins next week in Colleton County, prosecutors are expected to argue that he murdered his wife and son to distract from the millions of dollars he stole from friends, family, clients and his former law firm.

# data[].attributes.headline
To Represent the Will of the Majority While Protecting the Rights of the Minority

# data[].attributes.subject
To Represent the Will of the Majority While Protecting the Rights of the Minority

# data[].attributes.body
This article demonstrates how our government is meeting this goal because in this article shows how important it is to have a majority rule while also protecting the rights of the minority. This article states how without majority the minority wouldn't be able to agree on certain things so they wouldn't be able to reach a decision. With the majority, it is safer and easier for us the people to come to a conclusion. The article, "Majority Rule and Minority Rights" states, "The essence of democracy is majority rule, the making of binding decisions by a vote of more than one-half of all persons who participate in an election."(Annenberg Classroom, paragraph 1). This evidence explains that the minority will still be able to vote but, the majority will have power with the votes.

-Natalie Zajac

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The essence of democracy is majority rule, the making of binding decisions by a vote of more than one-half of all persons who participate in an election. However, constitutional democracy in our time requires majority rule with minority rights. Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, expressed this concept of democracy in 1801 in his First Inaugural Address. He said,

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

In every genuine democracy today, majority rule is both endorsed and limited by the supreme law of the constitution, which protects the rights of individuals. Tyranny by minority over the majority is barred, but so is tyranny of the majority against minorities.

This fundamental principle of constitutional democracy, majority rule coupled with the protection of minority rights, is embedded in the constitutions of all genuine democracies today. The 1992 constitution of the Czech Republic, for example, recognizes the concepts of majority rule and minority rights. Article VI says, "Political decisions shall stem from the will of the majority, expressed by means of a free vote. The majority's decisions must heed the protection of the minorities." The Czech constitution is filled with statements of guaranteed civil liberties, which the constitutional government must not violate and which it is empowered to protect.

Majority rule is limited in order to protect minority rights, because if it were unchecked it probably would be used to oppress persons holding unpopular views. Unlimited majority rule in a democracy is potentially just as despotic as the unchecked rule of an autocrat or an elitist minority political party.

In every constitutional democracy, there is ongoing tension between the contradictory factors of majority rule and minority rights. Therefore, public officials in the institutions of representative government must make authoritative decisions about two questions. When, and under what conditions, should the rule of the majority be curtailed in order to protect the rights of the minority? And, conversely, when, and under what conditions, must the rights of the minority be restrained in order to prevent the subversion of majority rule?

These questions are answered on a case-by-case basis in every constitutional democracy in such a way that neither majority rule nor minority rights suffer permanent or irreparable damage. Both majority rule and minority rights must be safeguarded to sustain justice in a constitutional democracy.

By John Patrick, Understanding Democracy, A Hip Pocket Guide (Oxford University Press)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Majority Rule and Minority Rights - Annenberg Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The essence of democracy is majority rule, the making of binding decisions by a vote of more than one-half of all persons who participate in an election. However, constitutional democracy in our time requires majority rule with minority rights.

# data[].attributes.body
This article demonstrates how our government is meeting this goal because this article explains the new laws that were placed because of cyber-bullying. Cyberbullying has been a problem since when the very first social media platform was created. It came to the government's attention that this problem had to be fixed. The article, "Cyberbullying Laws" states, "Some criminal prosecutors have been able to use existing criminal harassment laws to prosecute cyberbullies in public schools. Now, nearly half of U.S. states include "cyberbullying" in their broader bullying or harassment laws. Most states also include a prohibition on "electronic harassment."(FindLaw Staff, paragraph 10). This example explains how cyberbullying was such a problem that now it's part of the criminal harassment law.

-Natalie Zajac

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bullying is hardly a new problem. In recent years, however, it has moved from the school grounds and school bus to social networking sites and text messages. Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet or mobile technology to harass, intimidate, or cause harm to another. Nearly all states have bullying laws in place to address traditional bullying. A growing number have online bullying or electronic harassment provisions.

This article discusses cyberbullying laws, how they differ among the states, and how these offenses are charged.

Why Is Cyberbullying Such a Serious Problem?

Cyberbullying can be as traumatizing, if not more traumatizing than traditional forms of bullying.

It is persistent. Cyberbullying victims can be messaged or attacked at any hour of the day or night.

It is ever-present. Bullying communications are right on the victim's phone, in group chats, on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. Cyberbullying is also found in gaming communities.

It is permanent. As the saying goes, "the internet is forever." Unflattering images and defamatory lies can have an influence on every area of a young person's life.

It is less visible to adults. School officials and parents might see physical bruises if a child is attacked at school, but they might not ever see what happens on a cell phone or in an internet community.

Cyberbullying attacks on a young person's character and self-esteem become a source of emotional distress. They can cause embarrassment, shame, anxiety, and depression. Cyberbullying has been implicated in a number of teen suicides.

For example, a high school student takes an unflattering picture of a classmate. They send it to all of her friends (via mobile phone) with hurtful comments. Then the targeted student is teased by dozens of classmates. Instead of having to deal with one bully, the victim now faces cyber-harassment from a group of people. The photo goes viral, attracting attention from strangers who join in the teasing, creating a terrible situation for a young person who is excruciatingly attuned to peer pressure. The results can be tragic.

In 2017, the parents of 12-year-old Mallory Grossman filed a lawsuit against their daughter's Rockaway Township school district for gross negligence. The parents said they repeatedly told school officials about the texts, Snapchat, and Instagram bullying. They also considered suing the parents of the cyberbullying peers.

Common Cyberbullying Tactics

According to StopBullying.gov, cyberbullying can take many forms. including:

Posting a mean or unflattering picture or video of a classmate

Posting rumors (or starting rumors) on a social media platform

Threatening people via text message

Outing someone for their sexual orientation or gender identity

Sending messages telling someone to kill themselves

Pretending to be someone else online in order to friend, and then expose someone

Is Cyberbullying a Crime?

Until the mid-2000s, there were no specific cyberbullying laws. But, legislators have not been blind to the increasing number of high-publicized incidents of suicide and school violence. Some states leave law enforcement in the hands of school officials. In such cases, cyberbullying is often treated as a civil, rather than a criminal matter.

Some criminal prosecutors have been able to use existing criminal harassment laws to prosecute cyberbullies in public schools. Now, nearly half of U.S. states include "cyberbullying" in their broader bullying or harassment laws. Most states also include a prohibition on "electronic harassment."

The trend is to hold offenders accountable for bullying behavior on- and off-campus, but only about a dozen states have school sanctions for cyberbullying actions committed off-campus. Depending on the state, victims may be able to seek remedies in civil courts or try to convince criminal prosecutors to take the behavior seriously enough to consider criminal charges.

Examples of State Cyberbullying Laws

Most states have school sanctions for cyberbullying or electronic harassment in general. Below is a sampling of state laws addressing cyberbullying:

California: Bullying in an educational facility includes communications by electronic means. The Safe Place to Learn Act, along with other code sections, establishes a student's "inalienable right to attend classes on school campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful." The use of an electronic device to cause someone to fear for their life (an extreme form of bullying) can be charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.

Florida: Florida's "Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act" prohibits bullying of any K-12 student or staff member. It specifically references cyberbullying, or "bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication". The law does not include criminal sanctions. It directs school districts to draft policies and to report instances of bullying. Schools can suspend or expel students found guilty of bullying. Unfortunately, enforcement varies from district to district. Some schools have used cyberbullying rules to punish students who report sexual assault.

Missouri: Cyberbullying is defined by Missouri statute as including, but not limited to "a message, text, sound, or image by means of an electronic device." School employees are required to report instances of bullying. An individual who uses social media to bully another person with violent threats may be charged with harassment. Offenses are normally misdemeanors, but could be charged as a Class E felony if the victim is a minor and the defendant is aged twenty-one or older. Penalties also increase if the defendant has a prior harassment conviction.

What Are the Penalties for Cyberbullying Cases?

The main difference among state cyberbullying laws is whether sanctions are administrative or criminal. Florida requires school policies but does not define criminal charges. Missouri can charge a cyberbullying offender in criminal court, but only for violent threats.

So, depending on the state laws, the penalties for a cyberbully can range from school suspension or expulsions to jail time.

While parents whose children have been bullied want a stricter approach to bullying, civil rights organizations like the ACLU criticize the use of the criminal justice system to inflict penalties on children. They tend to advocate that student behavior problems can be handled by school administration.

The Department of Health & Human Services offers tips on bullying prevention and anti-bullying policies at its StopBullying.gov website.

Learn More About Cyberbullying Laws From an Attorney

Cyberbullying is a rapidly evolving area of law, and the laws vary from state to state. If you or someone close to you has been charged with cyberbullying, get legal advice from an experienced criminal defense attorney in your area. They can explain the current state of cyberbullying and harassment laws in your state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bullying is hardly a new problem. In recent years, however, it has moved from the school grounds and school bus to social networking sites and text messages. Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet or mobile technology to harass, intimidate, or cause harm to another.

# data[].attributes.body
The government actively takes steps to resolve a conflict between families pertaining to dock regulations in Greenwich. By not only resolving a singular argument proposed by the surrounding family and neighbors about the inconvenience created by the state of the dock, the goverment uses the Greenwich dock case to implement further changes to harbor control and rules so that future cases and disputes with the same or similar situations can be avoided or solved in an efficient manner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GREENWICH - Mark and Marti Marache bought waterfront land on the north end of Greenwich Cove in 2001, assuming they would one day have a family and launch their boat from their own dock.

Twenty years later, their two boys have grown into teenagers and they have yet to launch a boat from their property and the family has spent more than $315,000 in fees to attorneys and architects along the way. The legal question raised by the Marache's dock on whether - or when - local harbor managers can place binding recommendations on the state has recently become part of local maritime precedent.

The court rulings in the Marache dock case put clear limits on local harbor management commission recommendations compared with before the case went to court, according to John Pinto, president of the Connecticut Harbor Management Association.

"What it's done is negate the input of any harbor management commission with regard to making any decision in and around its harbor," Pinto said in March. "We have no means to make any recommendation on a decision that is put forward to the DEEP ... unless that plan or that application is specifically laid out" in the harbor management plan.

The drawn-out and contentious arguments surrounding the dock's building also frayed the relationships between local harbor officials and the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection in the process, Pinto said.

"We've always had good rapport with all of the members of the DEEP. But, all the sudden, since this court decision, things have now started to change with regard to the ... rapport that we thought we had," Pinto said.

Even legislatively, the Greenwich dock dispute has had an effect.

Bill No. 5614 was introduced earlier this year and it would have granted more authority to local managers, but it died in committee. First Selectman Fred Camillo and several local harbor managers supported the bill but both DEEP and the state Department of Transportation were opposed.

A nine-year saga

The Maraches enjoy the water and they specifically picked this part of Greenwich so they could get into the cove with their boys, they said.

"We moved into Perkley Lane to raise the kids on the waterfront and part of that is boats and docks," Marti Marache said in May. "We never imagined that we would come across opposition."

"I felt like we were victimized a little bit because everyone else had a dock, but we had a neighbor that just didn't want to see it," Mark Marache said.

The Maraches first applied to build a dock in 2014, but refiled again in 2015.

Their neighbors, Susan and Bruce Cohen at 7 Perkley Lane, said they were strongly opposed to the construction of the dock from the beginning.

"We believed that that piece of property next to us, being almost entirely tidal wetlands, was not developable," Bruce Cohen said in May. "We relied on the fact that the property really wouldn't accommodate another house or any improvements."

The Cohens spent nearly a decade fighting the Marache dock with neighborhood pleas and at town meetings, before escalating to the legal system. A state court sided with the Maraches in 2022 and closed down further appeals.

The Maraches own two plots of land: One with their home at 12 Perkley and another undeveloped, waterfront lot at 15 Perkley across a small street.

The Cohens have lived at 7 Perkley for 50 years and their land is adjacent to the Maraches' waterfront property. Susan Cohen, a landscape architect, has toiled to turn their backyard into a showcase of her skills, but the Cohens said the dock obstructs their view of the water.

"We were disappointed that our neighbor felt that they wanted to build a dock here, right in the middle of the wetlands," Bruce Cohen said.

The Cohens' home also has a dock. Most of the homes in the area have docks - about 15 are visible from the end of Perkley Lane - but the Maraches' dock is larger than the others in the cove, in part because of its detached design and in part because it has a boat lift.

The Maraches were able to build their dock in 2019, but they have yet to permanently move their boat from its mooring spot in Nantucket, Mass. - where it has been stored for most of the past decade - because the boatlift still needs electrical work and the Maraches said they have prioritized paying their legal bills instead.

Dock on the docket

There are 26 official harbor management commissions in the state, including ones in neighboring Norwalk and Bridgeport.

Local managers and DEEP are bound by harbor management plans, which are drafted by the municipalities and approved by DEEP so the two entities have a clear understanding of their roles. Greenwich's Harbor Management Plan was adopted in 2017 and the Greenwich Harbor Management Commission is responsible for its implementation.

In Greenwich, docks are considered accessory structures and must be accompanied by a primary building. So instead of building a structure on their land at 15 Perkley Lane, the Maraches opted to build a detached dock across the street.

This choice meant the dock wasn't in the Greenwich's Planning and Zoning jurisdiction but rather squarely in DEEP's control. At DEEP's instruction, the Maraches added a boatlift that hoists vessels up out of the water, since the tide gets low there.

While most other nearby homes in the cove have docks, they are all attached to the land and do not have boatlifts.

The Maraches tinkered with their dock design for years, commissioning at least a dozen different designs to comply with various regulations and neighborhood requests, each costing thousands of dollars.

"We never in a million years imagined that it would end up being so much money," Marti Marache said. "At some point, we had spent too much to turn back."

DEEP eventually issued a tentative approval of the permit application in March 2018, according to court records, and a final approval of the Marache dock in October 2019.

Between that tentative and final approval, Greenwich's Harbor Management Commission said that DEEP had disregarded its recommendations on the dock, even though it was required to take them into consideration, a claim which DEEP rejected.

The Cohens filed an administrative appeal of DEEP's permit approval, saying that the decision allows for the evasion of local municipal zoning rules, as well as harm to their personal views of the water. The suit was argued by James Fogarty, one of Bruce Cohen's partners at Fogarty Cohen Russo & Nemiroff LLC.

"We were very hopeful that the structure that you're seeing right now would never get built, one way or another," Bruce Cohen said.

The town of Greenwich argued in court that DEEP's standard of having to outline all possible points of recommendation in a harbor management plan would require plans to predetermine every possible application that may come before them in the future, which "defeats the discretion vested in harbor management commissions."

State Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher eventually affirmed DEEP's permit decision for the Maraches in January 2021, saying the Maraches have a right to wharf out on their property.

Additionally, Moukawsher wrote that management commissions do not have the power to make binding recommendations to DEEP on permits affecting harbors.

"The Greenwich Harbor Management Commission has no veto authority over the state permit at issue here," the ruling read. "What the commission said wasn't binding, and DEEP was free to give it what weight it wished."

Cohen and the town of Greenwich appealed to Connecticut's Appellate Court in February 2021, an appeal which failed in October 2022. Connecticut's Supreme Court denied a petition to review the case in December, which brought the case to a close.

More recently, local harbor managers have been talking with DEEP about the ruling and how they can get back on the same page.

Geoffrey Steadman, a consultant to Greenwich's Harbor Management Commission and other commissions along the coast, said he sees the ruling in a more positive light. Steadman said the ruling has started a conversation between DEEP and local managers, one that he believes will result in a better Harbor Management Act.

"This is an opportunity, not to the negative, but to update the statutes to reflect all of what's been learned since 1984 with respect to the Harbor Management Act," Steadman said, referencing the year the HMA became law.

The Maraches said they felt like their sons lost an opportunity to enjoy the waterfront property they worked hard to afford and that the whole saga is still upsetting.

"I'm a bit angry," Marti Marache said. "I'm a bit bitter about it because of the time wasted."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a Greenwich dock dispute shifted the tides of harbor control in CT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fight over one residential dock in Riverside escalated to court and ended up limited local authority in harbors across the state.

# data[].attributes.body
The article describes how establishing a 50-50 law standard in parenting disputes is a way for more equality to be shared between the mother and the father concerning the custody and visitation of a child. The government promotes stability through this by creating a way for smoother custody trials which reduces conflict and allows a child to have a connection with a mother and father. Furthermore, introducing a default 50-50 child custody will aid not only individual cases but the majority of custody cases in Missouri which will prompt more order in the execution of these trials and the life of children across the state with access to both guardians.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMOV) -A bill that Missouri Gov. Mike Parson is in the position to sign into law would change the standard judges use to determine what's in the best interest of a child during custody cases.

Under current law, courts are to considered several factors including, "the needs of the child for a frequent, continuing and meaningful relationship with both parents and the ability and willingness of parents to actively perform their functions as mother and father for the needs of the child."

Should Gov. Parson sign , courts would be required to presume that equal, or approximately equal, parenting time is the default best situation for a child's welfare.

Exceptions to the standard would include situations wherein the two parents reached an agreement on something other than 50-50 custody, or if one of them proves that domestic abuse has occured. That proof would need to demonstrate a preponderance of evidence, the same standard as a civil complaint.

Some opponents to the measure argue that the standard set by the bill is too broad and doesn't allow courts to determine the nuance of their individual cases, which all differ wildly.

Still, the bill enjoyed healthy bipartisan support in both chambers, passing 114-9 in the House of Representatives and 30-4 in the Senate.

Governor Parson's office told the news bureau Thursday morning he had not yet finished reviewing the bill, but must decide on whether or not to do so my mid-July.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Future child custody cases will default to 50-50 parenting time under proposed Missouri law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bill that Missouri Gov. Mike Parson is in the position to sign into law would change the standard judges use to determine what's in the best interest of a child during custody cases.

# data[].attributes.body
This article demonstrates how our government is meeting this goal because in this article it talks about how the government is protecting basic human rights. In the article, "US: Protect the Right to Vote" it states, "A healthy democracy is one that is based on the will of the people and protects the rights of all, Human Rights Watch said."(Human Rights Watch, paragraph 5). This evidence clearly states that it's important for the government to protect this right.

-Natalie Zajac

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Washington, DC) - Election officials in the United States have human rights obligations to ensure that everyone entitled to vote in the November 8, 2022 elections are able to do so freely and without fear of intimidation or violence, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch issued a report in a question-and-answer format to describe the human rights imperatives, guided by international law, to protect the right to vote and the integrity of elections in the United States.

"The 2022 general elections in the United States are an important test of the country's resolve to adhere to fundamental principles of democracy and human rights," said Amanda Klasing, head of the US democracy initiative at Human Rights Watch. "Election officials themselves are under threat, and US officials should urgently ensure that voters, poll workers, and civic groups can participate freely in the electoral process, without fear or intimidation."

In its report, Human Rights Watch addresses the need to align US elections procedures with international human rights standards, including prohibitions against any racial discrimination in voting. It also discusses the critical role that civil society organizations play in protecting the integrity of US elections and key questions such as government's responsibility to counter misinformation and to act to prevent voter intimidation, including the presence of weapons or law enforcement in polling places.

While international human rights law " does not impose any particular electoral system," the United Nations says, it does set out voting rights and nondiscrimination obligations that are binding on the national, state, and local governments in the US.

A healthy democracy is one that is based on the will of the people and protects the rights of all, Human Rights Watch said. Inclusive democratic institutions are vital to protecting human rights: they help to ensure that people's voices are heard, civic groups can operate independently, elections are free and fair, and rights are protected under law.

In the US, some state and non-state actors are attempting to silence or limit the work of these groups. State laws violate the right to vote and misinformation about the 2020 elections is eroding public faith in elections and democratic institutions. This dynamic is especially visible in the lead up to the November 8 general elections.

The officials charged with administering free and fair elections in the US have come under increased scrutiny, harassment, and even death threats since the 2020 election in part due to false claims by former President Donald Trump and his supporters that there was a conspiracy to deprive him of the presidency in 2020, Human Rights Watch said. A task force of the US Justice Department, in close collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reported in August 2022 that it had reviewed over 1,000 reports of hostile or harassing incidents against election workers, with almost 11 percent meeting the threshold for a federal criminal investigation. In October, the FBI issued a broad statement of caution about threats to election workers ahead of the November elections.

Human Rights Watch also provides information in the report on the pernicious laws, policies, and practices that limit the power of Black voters, and the important role nongovernmental organizations play in protecting the integrity of US elections. These groups operating at the state and local levels are on the front line of protecting the integrity of US elections. They help to register voters, inform them about their rights and how to vote, and contact local election officials when there are problems.

Civil society and nonpartisan observers play a significant role in a healthy democracy, Human Rights Watch said. Some state lawmakers have passed laws that chill the involvement of nongovernmental groups in registering or supporting voters, including laws with steep fines and even criminal penalties.

International human rights law provides a useful roadmap for a way forward on these and other hot-button issues related to the US election, Human Rights Watch said. As US citizens go to the polls, other human rights concerns in the US and globally are being exposed. One such issue is the link between politicians who foment xenophobic fears to build political power - a theme seen in contacts between officials in Texas and in Hungary, for example. Another is the failure of countries like Brazil and states like Georgia to fully ensure that all eligible voters feel safe and able to exercise their rights without the terror fomented by racial discrimination.

"Racial justice is central to actual realization of the right to vote in the US, in Brazil, and worldwide," Klasing said. "You can't have democracy without racial justice, and you cannot have racial justice without democracy."

The November general elections are very consequential for human rights in the United States. There are 36 governorships up for election, including in influential states such as Texas and Florida. Every state will have state legislative elections, with bills pending in statehouses across the country to protect and to attack many human rights, including the rights to abortion access, peaceful assembly, and more.

All US House of Representative seats are up for election, along with 34 US Senate seats. And there are local ballot initiatives in many states, including in California, Michigan, Kentucky, and Vermont, considering questions related to abortion and contraceptives. These state initiatives have become crucial to ensure continued access to abortion at the state level, as the nearly 50-year federal constitutional guarantee was overturned by the US Supreme Court in June.

Although the US Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment technically abolished the institution of chattel slavery, it provided an exception that allowed for the continuation of slavery "as punishment of crime." Over 150 years after the passage of this amendment, voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont are considering measures that would explicitly prohibit all lingering forms of slavery and indentured servitude. Voters in Colorado, Florida and New Jersey previously took action to prohibit this racist exception.

The US prison labor system is a legacy of slavery and a form of economic exploitation, and racial inequities persist today. Black people are disproportionately incarcerated and thus overrepresented among those working in prison. In December 2020, Human Rights Watch supported an amendment to the US constitution that would "prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude" as a punishment for a crime. Almost one million people in the US are currently working while confined in US prisons.

Specious claims of election fraud, dangerous lawsuits undermining the basic principle of "one person, one vote," and confusing changes to election rules are all dangerous anti-rights forces at play in the current midterm elections and beyond. Human rights offer an easily defined roadmap through this dangerous terrain, Human Rights Watch said.

"Staying the course on ensuring democracy requires dismissing and circumventing all distractions in favor of protecting the right to vote for everyone," Klasing said. "No one, whether a voter or an election official, and no matter their political views, social group, or race, should lose sight of that simple fact."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Election officials in the United States have human rights obligations to ensure that everyone entitled to vote in the November 8, 2022 elections is able to do so freely and without fear of intimidation or violence. A new Q&A describes the human rights imperatives, guided by international law, to protect the right to vote and the integrity of elections in the United States.