According to Judge Terrence Berg’s opinion on Election Day in ACLU of Mich. v. Does 1-6:
The ACLU alleges that Defendants are actively involved in actions aimed at threatening, intimidating, harassing, and deterring voters from participating in the 2024 election. The ACLU presented four affidavits from Michigan residents in support…
Raimi, who served as a poll watcher on Election Day at four different locations, witnessed concerning behavior. At Derby Middle School polling location in Birmingham, Raimi observed three men with cameras filming people entering and leaving the polling station. One of them wore a baseball cap with a provocative message, while the others were described as wearing “patriotic” shirts. Despite Raimi’s objections to their filming, they insisted on their First Amendment right to do so.
Other individuals distributing flyers near the polling station informed Raimi that the men had prevented a family from leaving, despite being asked not to record them. At the Oakland Schools Technical Campus Southeast polling station in Royal Oak, Michigan, Raimi encountered one of the same men from earlier, now accompanied by three other individuals who appeared intimidating. Raimi noted that they had cameras and were filming the polling location.
When instructed by the precinct supervisor not to film, the men reiterated their First Amendment right to record. Despite Raimi’s warnings, they continued to film. Police intervention led to their departure, although two of them continued recording the police. Raimi believed that these individuals were part of an organized effort to provoke negative reactions from poll workers and voters for video capture…
Ago, another voter, recounted a similar experience at the same polling location, where individuals claiming to be part of the “media” were recording voters against the poll workers’ instructions. One of the individuals even followed Ago to her voting booth, disregarding her privacy rights. When Ago expressed her discomfort, the individual callously dismissed her concerns.
Feldberg, who voted at a different location, described a group of individuals recording voters with phones and selfie sticks, creating a disruptive and intimidating atmosphere. Despite complaints from voters, the group persisted in their actions. Feldberg felt unsafe and reported the incidents to the police.
Feldberg stated that the police informed her that a group of people had not committed any illegal acts, citing it as a matter of free speech in a public setting. On the other hand, Khogali, the Executive Director of the ACLU, reported instances of voter intimidation in Oakland County during the election. This involved individuals filming voters without consent, causing some to feel intimidated and seek alternative routes to exit the polling stations. The ACLU had to allocate resources to address this issue, affecting their ability to provide essential services to voters.
In response to these incidents, the court ordered the defendants to cease harassing or intimidating voters at polling stations. This included restrictions on filming voters, approaching polling station entrances within 100 feet, following voters to their cars, or engaging in any intimidating behavior while wearing masks or otherwise.
Despite the legal arguments surrounding the First Amendment right to record in public places, particularly involving public officials, the specific circumstances of recording private citizens in public settings remain uncertain. Additionally, while laws exist to regulate electioneering near polling places, the injunction in this case extended to filming voters beyond the designated boundary.
Ultimately, the preliminary injunction hearing was canceled as the ACLU withdrew the case post-election, leaving little room for further legal action.
Source link
