More illegal robocalls in Durham?


A Durham voter got another odd robocall about voting.

Christina Headrick, a former reporter for the N&O, says she received a misleading call Sunday from a "woman with a professional sounding voice" about mail-in voting.

Here is what the woman said:

"Have you ever wondered how you can vote by mail? From the convenience of your own home? Your vote has never been more important than it is in this critical election year. And this is a great way to ensure your voice is heard. If you would like to vote by mail, please press 1. If not, hang up."

Absentee ballots must have been requested before last Tuesday and returned in the mail by 5 p.m. today. In short, there is no way that it would be helpful for anyone to receive information about mail-in voting yesterday.

She tried to look for a caller ID using *69, but the number was either out of the area or from a restricted caller. It is against state law for robocallers to not identify themselves.

She has notified elections watchdog Democracy North Carolina, which is asking Attorney General Roy Cooper and the State Board of Elections to look into the calls.


Vote by mail call

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: More illegal robocalls in Durham?

LET'S NOT BE RASH

Is it worth noting that the founder and chairman of Womens Voices, Women's Vote has contributed generously to Hillary Clinton's campaign? Or that the organization includes among its officials other Clinton supporters including John Podesta, one-time chief of staff to President Clinton?

This is not meant to suggest that WVWV is connected to any instance of vote suppression or of making illegal robocalls other than the quarter million or so for which its officials have accepted blame. And we should remember, too, that the organization has expressed deep sorrow and embarrassment about the calls after it was caught.

In any case, whatever damage could be done has been done and there is probably no reason at all to suggest that anyone at WVWV should be subjected to imprisonment or substantial fines for an attempt to subvert the democratic process. All I'm saying is maybe we should just forgive and forget, or even better ask ourselves, uh ... well, let's put it this way: What would Jesse Helms do?

Just saying.

Now you guys go vote and let wiser heads worry about these and other picky details.

Timing

The timing of this is even crazier. In what race would you be voting by mail right now? The ballots for general elections obviously can't exist until after the primary, and of course the deadline to request an absentee ballot for the primary is past.

Re: More illegal robocalls in Durham?

Note: Originally posted at 11:14 a.m., re-posted with audio.

— RTB 

Re: More illegal robocalls in Durham?

Mrs. LaFollette, my high-school English teacher, would agree with you, so I've pluralized the noun.

— RTB 

Re: More illegal robocalls in Durham?

forshizzle:

Using they/them as a singular pronoun is (a) a very old practice, and (b) completely valid linguistically. Not only that, but as one linguist has recently pointed out, there are some cases where 'proper' English usage REQUIRES combining singular-looking and plural-looking terms.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=89

As he says, don't use it if you don't want to, but that doesn't make it wrong when other people do.

Re: More illegal robocalls in Durham?

It is against state law for a robocaller to not identify themselves.

a robocaller = singular

themselves = plural

Re: More illegal robocalls in Durham?

Now, this is getting ridiculous. I was willing to chalk up the previous robo-disaster to incompetence on the part of women's voices women's vote. But now, a day before election, this is really bordering on voter suppression.