(NEW YORK) — State officials seeking to combat a rise in voter intimidation during the midterm elections can find protection in a 57-year-old anti-discrimination law, according to voting rights experts.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is, along with the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the strongest civil voting protection on the books, says Sean Morales-Doyle of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, which on Friday released a new multi-part guide outlining key anti-intimidation laws as a resource for states.

“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 doesn’t require intent to intimidate in order to prove violation of that law,” said Morales-Doyle, director of the Brennan Center’s voting rights and election program. “So the person who’s doing the intimidating doesn’t have to mean to be intimidating.”

The release of the guide comes as baseless claims of 2020 election fraud have led to an increase in threats against voters and election workers in several states. In the last week, 10 cases of alleged voter intimidation at drop box locations in Arizona were referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, after witnesses reported numerous individuals, some armed and in “camo-clad gear,” filming and photographing voters as they returned their ballots.

“Part of what makes what we’re seeing in Arizona that’s different than what we’ve seen is in the past is … usually in previous elections, when you hear about instances of voter intimidation it tends to be a lone actor behaving badly at a polling place. It’s not an organized recruitment campaign, and that’s what’s happening in Arizona,” Morales-Doyle told ABC News.

Even though the alleged intimidation in Arizona didn’t occur at a polling location, Morales-Doyle said the voters are still protected under the law.

“You can violate voter intimidation laws at the polling place, you can violate it nowhere near a polling place; if you’re intimidating people and scaring them away from exercising the right to vote, then you are violating federal law,” he said.

The new Brennan Center offering, which it calls “The Voter Intimidation and Election Worker Intimidation Resource Guide,” outlines the common federal and state legal protections for voters and voting, as well as an overview of applicable federal laws and information about laws specific to Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.

“While these are not new concerns, the sources and the targets of these threats have shifted in 2022,” Brennan Center counsel Jasleen Singh and fellow Katie Friel said in announcing the resource guide.

In the aftermath of the alleged voter intimidation in Arizona, the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino filed a lawsuit this week accusing the alleged perpetrators, as well as Clean Elections USA and the group’s founder, Melody Jennings, of conducting a “coordinated vigilante intimidation campaign” with the “express purpose of deterring voters … from depositing their ballots.”

“The people who are doing it are making references to this Clean Elections USA when they do it,” said Morales-Doyle. “I think it’s exactly why what we’re seeing is so concerning right now, that there is actually this organization going on.”

On Friday, a federal judge denied the advocacy groups’ motion for a temporary restraining order against CEUSA, Jennings, and the ten unnamed accused perpetrators — but did not close the case.

Neither Jennings nor Clean Elections USA immediately responded to ABC News’ request for comment.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A federal judge in Arizona Friday declined to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to keep several people accused of voter intimidation from gathering near ballot boxes and surveilling voters.

In the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday, the nonprofit advocacy groups Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino accused ten unnamed individuals — as well as Clean Elections USA and the group’s founder, Melody Jennings — of carrying out surveillance in a “coordinated vigilante intimidation campaign” at ballot drop box locations, “with the express purpose of deterring voters … from depositing their ballots.”

The suit accused them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

In his ruling, the judge said he found that “defendants’ conduct does not fall into any traditionally recognized category of voter intimidation” and that the plaintiffs lacked “evidence that Defendants’ conduct constitutes a true threat.”

Voto Latino and Arizona Alliance also filed motions asking the court to grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bar the defendants from “gathering within sight of drop boxes; from following, taking photos of, or otherwise recording voters or prospective voters, those assisting voters or prospective voters, or their vehicles at or around a drop box; and from training, organizing, or directing others to do the same.”

In his order denying both motions, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi said he “acknowledge[d] that Plaintiffs and many voters are legitimately alarmed by the observers,” but ultimately ruled that the requested preliminary injunctive relief “implicates serious First Amendment considerations.”

“An individual’s right to vote is fundamental. But so too is an individual’s right to engage in political speech, assemble peacefully, and associate with others,” Liburdi wrote, adding that the defendants were not acting with the intention of discouraging people from voting, but by a desire “to prevent what [the defendants] perceive to be widespread illegal voting and ballot harvesting” so “that persons who attempt to break Arizona’s anti-ballot harvesting law will be exposed.”

“On this record, therefore, the Court finds that a reasonable observer could interpret the conduct as conveying some sort of message, regardless of whether the message has any objective merit,” which falls under the protection of the First Amendment, the judge said.

Following the ruling, attorneys for the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Neither Jennings nor Clean Elections USA immediately responded to ABC News’ request for comment.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MILWAUKEE) — A Wisconsin man is facing a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge after a video circulated online that appeared to show him grabbing a Black man around his neck after a dispute about an alleged bicycle theft, according to a criminal complaint filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

The Milwaukee Police Department told ABC News on Friday that Robert Walczykowski, 62, was charged in connection with the altercation seen in the video.

In the video, Walczykowsk, who is white, accuses 24-year-old Trevon Burks, who is Black, of stealing a bike from his friend’s yard.

“I didn’t touch it,” Burks says in the video, denying Walczykowski’s accusations.

A bystander filmed the video of the incident which took place earlier this month. In the video, the bystander lets Walczykowski know that he’s recording.

“Go ahead, record me,” Walczykowski says in the video as he appears to hold Burks by the neck.

“Let go of his neck, he’s not going anywhere,” the bystander says in the video.

Walczykowski eventually let Burks go, and Burks left the scene before police officers arrived, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, citing the criminal complaint.

Milwaukee police did not comment on whether Burks is suspected of stealing the bicycle or whether he will face any charges in connection with the dispute.

Burks’ family told Milwaukee ABC affiliate WISN that he has developmental delays. “My son didn’t do anything wrong and, if I was to get justice, I would want [Walczykowsk] to pay for what he did,” Burks’ mother, Tracey, said during a news conference, according to WISN.

Walczykowski and his attorney did not immediately respond to ABC News for comment.

Outraged by the incident, community members have protested in front of Walczykowski’s house since the video appeared online, waving “Black Lives Matter” flags. Other videos show people donating bicycles and other gifts to Burks.

Walczykowski will make his first court appearance Nov. 2, according to court records.

The police department told ABC News that the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office will handle the case from here. The district attorney’s office did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The Florida medical board committee on Friday approved a prospective rule that will ban medical or surgical gender affirming care for trans youth under the age of 18. The committee’s recommendation will be passed to the board, who will make the official ruling next Friday.

The meeting, open to the public, was met with boisterous and emotionally-charged commentary on both sides of the proposed rule. Uproar ensued when the opportunity to provide public testimony was cut short, with several attendees still awaiting a chance to address the committee.

“I wasn’t allowed to speak at all during the meeting today. And not to toot my own horn, but I do feel like I was one of the qualified people to speak in there as a transgender minor,” Jacob Wiley, a trans teenager, said afterwards at an Equality Florida press conference.

Prior to the ruling, the board heard testimony from those in support and opposition. A number of adults in different stages of de-transitioning spoke in support of the rule, citing multiple mental and physical complications they experienced as a result of gender affirming care. Oppositional testimony came from transgender individuals or trans youth advocates that cited the risk to a youth’s mental health, including increased risk of suicide, if gender affirming care were to be limited or prohibited.

If approved, the rule would limit care for the treatment of gender dysphoria in Florida. Gender dysphoria is when a person experiences emotional distress because because of misalignment between their biological sex and their gender identity.

The rule would prohibit puberty blockers, hormones, cross hormone therapy and gender affirming surgery for people under the age of 18, with an exception for individuals enrolled in IRB-approved, university-centered clinical research trials. There are currently no active clinical trials in Florida related to the provision of gender affirming care, and whether the length of these trials would be adequate to allow full transitory care cannot be guaranteed.

Concerns over irreversible consequences of care including hormonal therapy and gender affirming surgery were raised in the meeting; however, for those who have not yet gone through puberty or are undergoing puberty, the usage of “blockers” are often the first step in medical transition and according to the AAP, these are known to be safe, temporary, and reversible.

The board brought in several experts to talk about the research that has been done on the effects of gender affirming care on transgender youth.

Meredithe McNamara, a pediatrician and assistant professor at the Yale School of Medicine, criticized the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration for their recommendation in banning gender affirming care in June during her presentation, saying it contradicted the general medical consensus on the importance of care for trans people. Specifically, the Florida AHCA report stated that there was not enough research to prove gender affirming care was effective or safe.

However, McNamara pointed to the list of accredited medical institutions, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, alongside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, that deem gender affirming care as safe and valuable for gender-diverse people.

“This consensus is based on a solid body of evidence with more than 16 studies confirming that standard medical treatments for gender dysphoria are safe and effective,” McNamara said.

Medical research on the transgender community is limited, but studies on transgender adults suggest gender affirming care, including surgery, results in significantly lower odds of psychological distress, tobacco smoking, and suicidal ideation.

Research shows that people who have gender-affirming surgery had significantly lower odds of psychological distress, tobacco smoking, and suicidal ideation compared with trans people with no history of gender-affirming surgery.

An endocrinologist, Michael Laidlaw, supports sole treatment with mental health care in lieu of this care in combination with pharmacological and/or surgical interventions for transgender youth. He told the board that some of the effects of gender affirming care are irreversible and can cause severe complications such as infertility. However, pediatricians and endocrinologists have told ABC News that puberty blockers only present real risks after puberty and are not a risk to youth. Additionally, hormone blockers alone do not impact future fertility, according to the AAP.

Prior to this ruling, transgender Floridian residents had already been barred from using Medicaid to pay for gender-affirming care starting on August 21.

The move comes as Florida legislators, backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, continue to crack down on LGBTQ protections and identities. Studies have found that discrimination contributes to the high rates of mental health conditions, suicidal ideations and more among LGBTQ populations.

Alicia Zellmer, MD, is a resident physician in Internal Medicine, and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.