Making terroristic threats and some other forms of harassment are, of course, crimes in most states, and are usually punished more severely if committed against a public servant, which in some cases would include an election board member. Disrupting official proceedings and obstructing the discharge of public duties are also usually crimes. In the age of anonymous online communications, enforcement is difficult and rare, of course.
Of course, some of the complained-of harassment was accusations of racism. That is not a crime, of course, but may subject the accuser to liability for damages for defamation. Of course, defamation lawsuits are tough to win, and many of the accusers here probably don’t have much money from which to collect damages (they’re “judgment-proof” in lawyer-speak).
I don’t know of any state laws providing special protections for attorneys. Judges have the power to impose sanctions or hold people in contempt for harassing opposing lawyers or parties, but that power extends only to punishing the parties and lawyers who are actually before the judge, not the general public.
Linda Kerns, the lawyer who took over the Pennsylvania litigation after Porter Wright withdrew, filed a motion asking the judge to impose sanctions on the PA Secretary of State’s lawyers because an associate from their firm, Kirkland & Ellis, left Kerns a harassing voicemail. The opposing lawyers argued that the associate had nothing to do with the case, that the associate was acting only in his individual capacity, and that the call was “discourteous” but not harassing. The judge denied Kerns’ motion after Kerns withdrew from the lawsuit.
This Republican attorneys’ news conference has been live for some time now, but the recording of the whole thing will probably be available at this same address afterwards.
LIVE NOW: Presidential Election fallout and analysis on Newsmax TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39WrSskl3XE
It’s not only a presentation in regards to legal issues. It’s far more serious than that.
So there are legal remedies for threats and harassment, especially in cases of threats and harassment against public servants. But as we know, some of those jurisdictions in question are administered by improperly subjective judicial officials.
There’s also the glaring problem of poor election systems of law in some of the states. One state should not be allowed to change the outcome of a federal election by committing election fraud in the practical (not legal) sense.
If we see no judicial remedy with a changed election outcome, the Democrat Party will obviously try to cement the corruption and run with it (hard socialism without a legitimate election system).
Consequently, the process of solving the problem will be complicated indeed.