Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘election integrity’

208 Democrats Vote Against Legislation To Keep Noncitizens Out Of Elections

By: Brianna Lyman | April 10, 2025

After sitting back for four years while the leader of the Democrat Party allowed millions of illegal aliens to invade the country, 208 Democrats voted against legislation Thursday that would keep foreign nationals out of American elections.

The Republican-led House passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act 220-208. The legislation, introduced by Texas Rep. Chip Roy, would require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

“Despite the ridiculous attacks and purposeful misinformation spread about the bill, I am pleased to see that the House of Representatives once again passed the SAVE Act on a bipartisan basis to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections,” Roy said in a statement to The Federalist.

“In order to preserve this republic, we must uphold what it means to be able to vote in a U.S. election,” Roy continued. “I am grateful that my colleagues answered the call and passed the SAVE Act, as this serves as a critical first step to ensure that we maintain election integrity throughout our country. It is now up to the Senate to take up, pass, and send this important bill to President Trump’s desk.”

Four Democrats — Rep. Ed Case (HI); Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX); Rep. Jared Golden (ME); and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA) — voted alongside Republicans to pass the SAVE Act.

Democrat Reps. Vicente Gonzalez Jr. of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina previously voted in July to pass the SAVE Act but voted in opposition to the legislation on Thursday. The previously legislation passed in July, 221 to 198, after Democrats stated noncitizen voting is already illegal.

But just because noncitizen voting is already illegal doesn’t mean it’s not happening — or that current law does anything to prevent it. Current law prohibiting noncitizens from voting is largely toothless, with prospective voters simply checking a small square box on a federal registration form attesting under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen.

The SAVE Act would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act to make documentary proof of citizenship a requirement to register to vote. The legislation would add the additional, necessary layer of protection to keep foreign nationals out of U.S. elections. Under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), states are required to check information about newly registered voters in federal elections against information stored in the state’s motor vehicle administration database. Individuals who do not have a driver’s license identification number can instead provide the last four digits of his Social Security number. But foreign nationals can obtain both of those documents, so neither one really confirms citizenship.

In California, prospective voters who lack both a driver’s license identification number and a Social Security number can instead provide proof of identity — not citizenship — using low-security identification like a gym membership, utility bill, or credit card.

Such a vulnerable system has enabled 11,198 noncitizens to register to vote in Pennsylvania despite, as Democrats have made clear, it being illegal, according to the Washington Times. Oregon’s Secretary of State meanwhile found nine noncitizens who had voted in past elections after discovering “more than 300 noncitizens were erroneously registered to vote,” as reported by The Federalist’s Logan Washburn. Similarly, a Georgia audit found 20 noncitizens registered to vote — nearly half of which cast a ballot in previous elections, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The SAVE Act now heads to the Senate for a vote.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2

Author Brianna Lyman profile

Brianna Lyman

Visit on Twitter@briannalyman2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The SAVE Act Could Hit Filibuster Wall In New Republican-Led Senate

By: M.D. Kittle | November 19, 2024

View of the U.S. Capitol Building in November. — ‘The Democrats are not into compromising on issues that will cost them power,’ Rep. Glenn Grothman said of the election integrity bill.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. Kittle

Having clinched the federal government trifecta, Republicans have the opportunity in the next Congress to move through legislation they could only have dreamed of over the past six years. Will they squander this golden opportunity to pass conservative reforms?

In particular, can the SAVE Act, a key election integrity measure, be saved from the Senate filibuster? Perhaps, but there’s disagreement even among members of Wisconsin’s GOP congressional delegation on the fate of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in the upcoming session. The bill requires individuals to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in federal elections, as it directs states to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls. The measure passed the Republican-controlled House in July along party lines, with a scant five Democrats voting for it. Dems insisted that the protections are unnecessary because it’s already illegal for foreign nationals to vote in elections. But current law is nothing more than an honor system without the ability to require proof of citizenship at the point of registration.

As The Federalist has reported, thousands of illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals have shown up on voter lists across the country.

The SAVE Act has languished in a Senate that had no interest in ensuring only U.S. citizens vote in elections. Attached to a stopgap government spending proposal in September, the bill died a miserable death in the House.

But Nov. 5, 2024, delivered a red wave, a sea change election that will put former President Donald Trump back in the White House, place Republicans back in control of the Senate, and allow the Grand Old Party to keep its majority in the House. Expectations are high — as they were in 2017 and 2018 when Republicans also held the trifecta with Trump in charge of the executive branch — that conservatives will be able to push through an array of government reforms.

Not so fast, some say.

‘Tool to Defend’

“Any election law is going to be tough in the Senate,” Rep. Glenn Grothman, told me Monday on the “Vicki McKenna Show” in Milwaukee. Grothman, who represents Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District, said the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass most legislation, will make it nearly impossible to get the SAVE Act, border security, and other bills through the august upper house.

It would seem there isn’t much appetite for ditching the filibuster, especially in a Senate run by newly elected Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., a longtime protege of Senate Republican Leader and 60-vote threshold defender Mitch McConnell. Fellow McConnell stooge Texas Sen. John Cornyn recently told NBC News that there’s “unanimity” among Senate Republicans on preserving the filibuster — even if President-elect Trump again calls for senators to dump it.

“Senators have a tendency to defend their power, just like everybody else does. I don’t know a lot of wimps in the United States Senate,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told the news outlet. “I think we’ve all lived through the possibility of losing the filibuster as a tool to defend. And I would be surprised if there were enough Republicans who thought that we should change it now.”

‘On the Other Foot’

When Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they pushed to bypass the filibuster to pass an election integrity nightmare “voting rights act,” but couldn’t quite get the 60 votes needed to suspend the rule. That was in January 2022, just days before Dems turned over control of the House to Republicans and saw their majority in the Senate diminished to a slim 51 seats. McConnell congratulated renegade Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, for their “courage” to resist the pressure to loosen the rule. McConnell warned Democrats “that in the very near future the shoe might be on the other foot.” Nearly three years later, Manchin and Sinema are on their way out of the Senate and the “shoe” is definitely about to be on the other foot.

‘We Can Get There’

Grothman agrees the filibuster has “prevented a lot of horrible things from passing” under Democrat control, from packing the Supreme Court to statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. “So, I can’t say it’s horrible when the Republican senators say we’re going to require 60 votes for all policy changes, but it sure is going to be frustrating because I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes in immigration law, and I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes to election law.”

The Wisconsin congressman said there is no compromising with Democrats on either issue.

“I don’t think they’ll ever give us the SAVE act,” Grothman said. “The Democrats are not into compromising on issues that will cost them power. They just aren’t.”

Grothman’s colleague, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, said the SAVE Act is a priority and can pass both houses, but it will take negotiations to get there. Fitzgerald, who represents Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District, said he’d like to see the legislation move from the Senate to the House this time around.

“Even though [Republicans] are going to have the majority over there, there are going to be some specific senators that probably are going to need to get some of the things that were in the SAVE Act to agree to it,” the lawmaker told me last week on the “Vicki McKenna Show.” “That could become the negotiations between the houses to sign off from.”

Rep. Bryan Steil, Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District congressman, said Republicans have an opportunity to take election security and integrity bills previously passed in the House and get them to Trump’s desk. Steil, chairman of the House Administration Committee, acknowledges the filibuster may well be a challenge, but he sees the potential for some Senate Democrats to cross the aisle on bills that have the backing of the majority of voters.

“Obviously, President Biden had no interest in putting forward common-sense election integrity provisions,” Steil told me. “With a Republican Senate and a Republican House and President Trump in the White House, I’m of a view we can get there.”

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Democrat ‘Election Deniers’ in Pennsylvania and Iowa Refuse to Concede Races

By: M.D. Kittle | November 18, 2024

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey on the campaign trail. — Democrat campaigns and their allies have no compunction about breaking election law to grab and keep power.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. Kittle

Funny how the times change.

Four years ago, Democrats and their pals in corporate media began painting then-President Donald Trump and Republicans who questioned the results of the troubled 2020 election as “election deniers.” Now, Democrats are doing all they can — including breaking election law — to challenge GOP victories in Iowa and Pennsylvania despite “insurmountable” odds. Even The Washington Post, part of the left’s corporate media public-relations team, sees the writing on the wall for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn. The entrenched incumbent lost to Republican challenger Dave McCormick by some 24,000 votes in a swing state election that helped Republicans take back the Senate with a comfortable majority. The Associated Press and other news outlets called the race for McCormick. But Casey and his party of election integrity deniers, led by Democrat political ambulance chaser Marc Elias (Hillary Clinton’s Russian dossier peddler), refuse to concede. Instead, Casey’s campaign has sought an expensive recount, and has no compunction about grinding election law under foot to tally enough votes to hold the seat.

‘Tipping the Scales’

“Sen. Casey just refuses to accept the fact that he’s lost this election, so he is costing taxpayers well over a million dollars” for a statewide recount, Linda Kerns, 2024 Pennsylvania Election Integrity Counsel for the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, told The Federalist late last week on the “Simon Conway Show” in Des Moines.

If Sleepy Senator Bob Casey had put as much energy, resources, attention, & firepower into the needs of Pennsylvanians over the last 2 decades as he is putting into fighting the outcome of this election, maybe he would have gotten more votes. Congrats @DaveMcCormickPA.
— Linda A. Kerns 🇺🇲 (@lindakernslaw) November 9, 2024

The Democrat senator and his attorneys are pushing for invalid provisional and mail-in ballots not correctly signed or properly dated to be counted, contrary to a Pennsylvania court ruling. Democrats on some county boards dismissed the law and the court ruling in agreeing to accept suspect and invalid ballots.

“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,” Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said Thursday.

“People violate laws anytime they want,” she added. “So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes.” It was a troubling statement from a public official, and another in countless examples of why Democrats got their clocks cleaned in this month’s election. Voters have had more than enough of leftist-led lawlessness over the past four years.

Even the Dem-friendly Washington Post editorial board can smell the desperation. The election lawlessness, too, now seems a bridge too far for the left-leaning WaPo board.

“Democrats would surely protest if a Republican commissioner made the same statement [as Ellis-Marseglia] to justify tipping the scales for their party’s Senate nominee — and they would be right,” the editorial board wrote in a piece headlined, “Democrats thumb their nose at the rule of law in Pennsylvania.” “Elections need rules, established in advance of the voting, and those rules must be applied equally and consistently.”

The same newspaper, of course, joined a chorus of accomplice media outlets chiding swing state Republican Senate candidates, Eric Hovde in Wisconsin and Kari Lake in Arizona, for not conceding closely contested elections. The conservatives have raised election integrity questions, but neither has asked election officials and courts to break the law to reverse their opponents’ election leads.

“Four years ago, many Republicans embraced Trump’s brand of denialism when he stoked far-fetched theories to try to undo his loss of the presidency. Now, they are largely staying silent amid scattered false claims of rigged elections in downballot races — and they’re calling on Sen. Bob Casey (D) to concede that he narrowly lost in Pennsylvania,” a team of leftist Washington Post reporters concluded in the piece — published a day before the editorial — that served as a defense of Casey’s recount call and a knock-on Republicans mulling their own legal options.

In Pennsylvania the math doesn’t look good for Casey, but he’s counting on the recount and a stack of invalid votes.

“But even if Sen. Casey wins on these, there’s still not enough for him to win this election so he’s just desperately hanging on,” Kerns said.

‘The Election Deniers are the Democrats’

It’s a similar situation in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan’s campaign on Thursday sought a recount of the votes in an election in which incumbent Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won by less than 1,000 votes. The purple district saw Miller-Meeks win her first term in 2020 by a final recount tally of just six votes.

Bohannan’s path to victory appears unlikely, too, but the campaign said in a statement that a recount will ensure “that every voter is heard” and that they have “full trust in this process and will accept the results regardless of the outcome.” The Associated Press has yet to call the race.

Miller-Meeks said the vote count, as it stands, is “insurmountable” and that the districtwide recount is an unnecessary expense to taxpayers.

“In Iowa, all of the legal ballots have been counted, all of the provisional ballots and the military ballots have been counted. The counties have certified their election results, and we remain ahead. We gained votes on election night,” the congresswoman told The Federalist Friday on the “Simon Conway Show” on NewsRadio 1040 WHO in Des Moines. “So, it’s an insurmountable lead. But, yes, my concern is after the recount when we’re still ahead, which we will be, I’m very confident of that, they’re going to continue to deny the election and they may go on to do a contest and try to get ballots admitted that were illegal ballots.”

Republicans have already secured enough victories to hold the House, but Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to stave off defeat and a wider GOP majority in a handful of races yet to be called. Those include Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, two House races in California, and one each in Alaska and Ohio.

Miller-Meeks said the tables have turned in the “election denier” narrative.

“We’ve heard for four years how Republicans were a threat to democracy; they were going to overturn democracy. But really what is happening is that the election deniers, the people who are trying to thwart the rule of law, trying to thwart what a state constitution allows when it comes to elections, are the Democrats,” the Republican congresswoman said.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

corruption, Political

Tagged with:

By Massive Margins, Voters in Eight States Say Only Citizens Can Vote in Their Elections

By: M.D. Kittle | November 08, 2024

Signs point to where voters may drop off their ballots in Columbus.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. Kittle

As divided as America may be, this election showed there’s one thing most Americans agree on: Only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections.

Voters this week in eight states — Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin — overwhelmingly approved constitutional amendment ballot questions seeking to ensure noncitizens cannot vote in state and local elections. Foreign nationals are already barred from voting in federal elections.

“We’re so often told about how divided we are in the United States, but on Tuesday we had Republicans, Democrats and independents come together in overwhelming numbers declaring that only citizens would be able to vote” in elections, a jubilant Will Martin, Wisconsin state director of Americans for Citizen Voting, told The Federalist in a phone interview this week.

The Badger State’s Citizen-Only Voting Amendment (COVA) was endorsed by more than 70 percent of voters in Tuesday’s election, according to unofficial tallies. Support topped 65 percent in each of the states with COVA questions on the ballot, according to unofficial results reported by state news organizations. In Iowa, the referendum passed with 76 percent support. In South Carolina, the ballot question earned the approval of a whopping 86 percent of voters.

In Missouri, the same ballot question amending the state constitution to make clear only citizens can vote in Show Me State elections also knocked out ranked-choice voting by a two-to-one margin.

Before Election Day, COVA advocates felt confident, but Wisconsin presented the biggest challenge. Jack Tomczak, vice president for Citizen Outreach for Americans for Citizen Voting, told The Federalist that the amendment faced “well-funded” opposition led by the leftist League of Women Voters. More than three dozen leftist groups lent their names and resources to an effort to defeat the referendum. Martin said opponents ran “shameful” ads falsely warning voters that military personnel wouldn’t be able to vote in Wisconsin elections if the amendment passed.

In Idaho, Democrat lawmakers claimed noncitizens could be barred from voting in private elections, including homeowner associations and parent-teacher associations elections. The amendment ballot questions had nothing to do with such races, just as they don’t involve federal election law.

‘Being Diminished’

Opponents, assisted by the accomplice media, pushed the left’s false talking point that foreign nationals voting in elections is nearly nonexistent and that the constitutions in Wisconsin and the other states already bar noncitizens from voting.

“Passage of the amendments marks the latest chapter of Republican’s [sic] ongoing efforts to put unfounded claims of noncitizen voting at the center of a broader political strategy,” Democratic Party mouthpiece NBC News reported this week.

In the words of outgoing acting President Joe Biden, malarky.

As The Federalist has reported, the vast majority of states’ constitutions include language that “every” citizen meeting age and residency requirements is eligible to vote. The amendments demand that “only” U.S. citizens meeting the requirements are electors.

Opponents of the COVA movement insist there’s no difference. The “every” phrasing opens the door to noncitizens being allowed to vote in state and local elections, as is the case in California, Maryland, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

In September, Frederick became the largest city in Maryland to allow noncitizens to vote in its elections. The Board of Aldermen voted 4-1 to give green card and illegal immigrants the right to cast ballots. Kelly Russell was the sole dissenting vote.

“I have talked to many people who worked to get their citizenship in order to vote who do not agree to that, who feel that their efforts and all the hard work that they did is being diminished by this,” she said, according to Fox45 News in Baltimore.

Takoma Park, Maryland, has allowed foreign nationals to vote in local elections for more than 30 years. All told, a dozen Maryland municipalities open the franchise to noncitizens. They can because there’s nothing in the state constitution that prevents them from doing so.

‘Common Sense’ Movement

Wisconsin legislative Democrats have voted en bloc against resolutions to take the citizen-only amendment to the voters. While they insist noncitizens illegally voting in elections isn’t an issue, it is. Noncitizens have voted in U.S. elections and thousands have shown up on state voter rolls this election cycle.

The problems are only magnified by an unprecedented 10 million U.S. Border Patrol encounters with illegal aliens in the nearly four years that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been in office. While it is a felony for foreign nationals to vote in U.S. elections, incidents are difficult to track and not a priority for many prosecutors.

“There are at least 25 million non-citizens in the country according to the Census Bureau and no federal enforcement mechanism to ensure their names don’t appear on the voters rolls,” Paige Terryberry, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, told The Federalist in September. “Right now, the Biden-Harris administration is using welfare offices, DMVs, Public housing, healthercare.gov and more to register voters, and they aren’t verifying citizenship at these locations. States can act too, but the SAVE Act is the only thing that can fix this problem nationwide before the election.”

Each illegal vote diminishes those of eligible voters.

Since 2018, 14 states have added, or have voted to add, citizenship requirements to their constitutions, according to Ballotpedia.

Martin noted that swing state Wisconsin is a “50-50” state, as evident by former President Donald Trump’s victory in the so-called “blue wall” state by a little over 28,000 votes. Still, the ballot question scored majorities in 71 of 72 counties, Martin said.

The COVA advocate said the issue is part of a sea change in America, a return to basic guiding values.

“Theres a movement in this country toward common sense,” Martin said. “People are tired of people trying to interpret for them, people are tired of being told what to think.”

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Democrat-Led County Can’t Accept Thousands of Late Absentee Ballots

By: Brianna Lyman | November 04, 2024

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Democrat-run Cobb County cannot accept thousands of absentee ballots that arrive after the Election Day deadline. Cobb County announced on Thursday that as of Oct. 30, “more than 3,000 absentee ballots requested by last Friday’s deadline had not been mailed.”

Cobb County Board of Elections Chairwoman Tori Silas said that the county was “taking every possible step to get these ballots to the voters who requested them” but that the county was “unprepared for the surge in requests and lacked the necessary equipment to process the ballots quickly.” While absentee ballot requests had “been averaging 440 per day … that number surged to 750 per day” during the final week to request an absentee ballot, the county said.

To remedy the issue, the county announced on Thursday that it would overnight the late ballots for a Friday morning (Nov. 1) delivery with “prepaid express return envelopes to ensure voters can return them by Tuesday’s deadline.”

But on Friday, the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a suit arguing that, despite the county taking steps to get the ballots delivered to voters by Friday, voters would be “disenfranchised.”

Cobb County Judge Robert Flournoy bought the bogus argument, ruling on Friday that the 3,000 or so voters who received a late mail-in ballot could return those ballots before 5 p.m. on Nov. 8 — three full days after Election Day — as long as the ballots were postmarked by 7 p.m. on Nov. 5.

The Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party appealed the ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court, arguing that state law mandates the return of absentee ballots on Election Day and that since Cobb County paid for express return postage and overnighted the ballots to voters in order to — as Cobb County said — “ensure voters can return [the ballots] by Tuesday’s deadline,” there is no need to extend the date for acceptance.

The appeal also argued that Georgia “does not guarantee a right to vote by mail.” Rather, “Voters still have many options to vote, including by voting in person or delivering their absentee ballots in person.”

The Georgia Supreme Court agreed, granting the RNC and Georgia GOP’s motion to pause the lower court ruling. This means any late-arriving absentee ballots will not be counted. The court also ordered the late-arriving ballots sent in by the 3,000 voters to be segregated until further notice from the court.

Voters who did not receive their mail-in ballot may vote in person on Tuesday.

RNC Chairman Michael Whatley celebrated the ruling in a post on X.

“Democrat-run Cobb County wanted to accept 3,000 absentee ballots AFTER the Election Day deadline. We took this case to the Georgia Supreme Court. We just got word that we WON the case. Election Day is Election Day — not the week after,” Whatley said.

“We will keep fighting, keep winning, and keep sharing updates.”

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2

Author Brianna Lyman profile

Brianna Lyman

Visit on Twitter@briannalyman2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Pravda Press Still Won’t Ask Harris If She’ll Accept the Results of the Election If She Loses

By: M.D. Kittle | October 25, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama appear at a campaign rally in Georgia.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. Kittle

The Pravda press has asked former President Donald Trump over and over again whether he’ll accept the results of the election if his Democrat opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, wins. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, has heard the question ad nauseam as well.

CBS News political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns peppered the former president with the question in late August, as the Democratic National Committee was installing Harris as the party’s nominee following President Joe Biden’s forced exit from his reelection campaign.

“Will you accept the results of this election?” the reporter asked.

“Absolutely. I assume it’s going to be a fair election. If it’s going to be a fair and free election the answer is absolutely I will,” Trump said.

Burns pressed with this ridiculous question. “What does fair mean to you?”

“It means the votes are counted. It means that votes are fair,” Trump said. “It means they don’t cheat on the election, they don’t drop ballots, install new rules and regulations that they don’t have the power to do.”

In other words, if leftist activists and Trump-hating elections officials don’t rig this election like they did the last one.

“They don’t use 51 intelligence agents to give phony reports, which had an effect on the election. They don’t do many of the things that they did in the last election,” he added, referring to the former intelligence officials who signed a letter insisting the Hunter Biden laptop story reported by the New York Post days before the 2020 presidential election was “Russian disinformation.” It was not. It was very real. And the Deep State, assisted by a complicit corporate media, silenced a story that many Americans say could have changed the results of the election.

Do Tell

But the Pravda press has been generally loath to ask Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the same question. The Federalist is asking. We sent email requests to both the Harris campaign and the vice president’s office asking if she will accept the results of the election if she loses next month to Trump. As of publication, crickets.

The Federalist also asked the National Security Leaders for America whether their members will accept the results of the election if the former president wins. NSL4A made headlines and garnered lots of airtime last month when its 700-plus former government, military and national security leaders signed an open letter endorsing Harris. Former CIA Director John Brennan is one of the endorsers. He’s also one of the 51 signers of the letter falsely claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

Again, no response.

A good question voters should be asking is, why aren’t the accomplice media asking whether Harris, the Democrats, the intelligence community and other swamp creatures will be patriotic enough to accept the results of the election if Trump wins?

They Do Not Accept

They’ve been far too busy publishing all kinds of stories asking all kinds of conservatives whether they’ll accept the results of the election if their guy loses — Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.), even Republican voters at large via various polls. They’re the same “journalists” who like to gloss over the fact that leading Democrats refused to accept the election results of 2016, when Trump surprised the world and beat bitter shrew Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of state and the Pravda press’ presidential chosen one.

“I do not see this president-elect as a legitimate president,” the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., told NBC News as Trump was taking office amid Democrats’ cries of “Russian interference.”

“I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians and others that helped him get elected. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open democratic process,” he added.

Sour Grapes Hillary said the same and has kept on saying since.

“I believe [Trump] understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did,” she complained in a 2019 CBS News interview.

“In fact, the last time Democrats fully accepted the legitimacy of a presidential election they lost was in 1988,” wrote The Federalist’s editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway in Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.

During the vice presidential debate between Vance and Walz, moderator Norah O’Donnell demanded Vance answer whether he would “seek to challenge this year’s election results.” She didn’t press Walz on whether he would accept the results of a Trump-Vance win.

Walz was given a moment to deliver a “can’t we all get along” speech, insisting that questioning the results of elections must end.

“When this is over, we need to shake hands, this election, and the winner needs to be the winner,” the leftist said. “This has got to stop. It’s tearing our country apart.”

Vance rightly reminded Walz about the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party.

“…[W]e have to remember that for years in this country Democrats protested the results of elections. Hillary Clinton in 2016 said that Donald Trump had the election stolen by Vladimir Putin because the Russians bought like $500,000 of Facebook ads,” Vance said. “This has been going on for a long time. And if we want to say we need to respect the results of the election, I’m on board. But if we want to say, as Tim Walz is saying, that this is just a problem that Republicans have had, I don’t buy that.”

Voters shouldn’t buy it, either. That’s why it’s important to know where the Democrat Party presidential nominee stands less than two weeks before Election Day. So, The Federalist is asking.

Vice President Harris, will you accept the results of the election if you lose?

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

UPDATE:

An official with National Security Leaders for America has provided a comment following the publication of this story. The official, who asked to be identified as an NSL4A “spokesperson” said the following:

“Unlike Mr. Trump, who led a violent insurrection to try to overturn an election he lost, our members–who fought for this nation’s democratic and pluralistic ideals–will respect America’s democratic decision. We hope Mr. Trump, whose own Chief of Staff said Mr.Trump wants to be a dictator, will do the same.”

As has been well documented, Trump’s former chief of staff’s incendiary comments have been debunked by multiple sources, and the assertion that Trump “led a violent insurrection” is widely disputed.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Federalist’s 2024 Battleground State Elections Guide

By: The Federalist Staff | October 10, 2024

The Federalist Staff

With Election Day less than a month away, election processes and early voting are kicking into gear in several swing states around the country. With different election laws and court rulings governing election administration in each state, it can be tough to keep up with the myriad guidelines and rules governing the electoral process. That’s why The Federalist’s 2024 Battleground State Elections Guide is here to help.

From ballot return deadlines to mail-in voting rules, here are all the key dates and information you’ll need to understand the election process in swing states throughout the country this cycle.

Arizona

In-Person Early Voting: Began on Oct. 9 and ends on Nov. 1.

Mail-In Voting: Ballots began to be mailed out Oct. 9.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Mail-in ballots must be returned by 7 p.m. local time on Election Day to be counted. These ballots can be returned via mail or delivered in person. Polling locations for in-person voting on Election Day also close at 7 p.m. local time.

Ballot Harvesting: Arizona law stipulates that only a “family member, household member or caregiver of the voter” may return the elector’s mail-in ballot.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: All absentee voters are required to sign the affidavit on the ballot envelope in order for their vote to be tabulated. The envelope signature must match the signature on the voter’s registration form.

Voter ID: Arizona requires in-person voters to present one type of acceptable photo ID or two types of non-photo ID.

Citizenship Requirements: The U.S. Supreme Court recently allowed part of a state law to go into effect that requires eligible electors to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote via state registration form. Arizonans may still register as federal-only voters with no proof of citizenship. The Arizona Constitution further specifies only U.S. citizens can vote in elections.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Arizona law permits a “curing” period, in which local officials are authorized to contact voters to correct signature issues on their mail ballots. Any issue must be corrected “not later than the fifth business day after a primary, general or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election.”

Major Ballot Initiatives: Arizona’s ballot is expected to be stacked with roughly a dozen ballot initiatives this November. Among the most notable are constitutional amendments to effectively legalize late-term abortion (Proposition 139), raise the threshold for citizen-initiated ballot measures (Proposition 134), give the state legislature power to limit the governor’s emergency powers (Proposition 135), and prohibit open primary elections (Proposition 133).

Also set to appear on the ballot is a constitutional amendment that would institute open primaries and allow for the adoption of ranked-choice voting for general elections (Proposition 140). Despite the discovery that roughly 38,000 pairs of signatures gathered in support of the measure were duplicates, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that votes cast for the measure may count.

For more information on the full list of Arizona ballot measures, see here.

Biggest Election Fights: In September, Arizona election officials discovered roughly 98,000 registered voters lacking documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) due to an error stemming from how the state’s Motor Vehicle Division shares driver’s license information with the voter registration system. As noted above, individuals who do not provide DPOC may still register as “federal-only” voters and can only cast ballots in federal races.

According to the secretary of state’s office, most of the affected voters are registered Republicans. The Arizona Supreme Court granted these electors the ability to vote full-ballot this November.

The secretary of state’s office revealed on Sept. 30 that election officials found an additional 120,000 voters affected by the issue who lack DPOC.

Georgia

In-Person Early Voting: Begins on Oct. 15 and ends on Nov. 1.

Mail-In Voting: Absentee ballots were sent to UOCAVA voters on Sept. 17. Registrars began sending out absentee ballots for the general public on Oct. 7. The last day to request a mail-in ballot is Oct. 25.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Absentee ballots (excluding UOCAVA ballots) must be returned by 7 p.m. local time on Election Day to be counted. These ballots can be returned in person, through the mail, or at a drop box location. Polling locations for in-person voting on Election Day also close at 7 p.m. local time.

Ballot Harvesting: Georgia does not permit ballot harvesting, but only allows certain family members or a household member to return a voter’s ballot. (A caretaker may also return a disabled voter’s ballot.)

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Absentee ballot envelopes contain an “oath which must be signed by the voter.” Georgia also “requires the voter’s driver’s license number or state identification card number, which is compared with the voter’s registration record,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. If a voter is unable to sign his ballot, Georgia “law requires the voter make a mark,” according to Carroll County’s election website. Ballots lacking a signature or mark are rejected, according to Carroll County.

Voter ID: “Georgia law requires photo identification when voting, either in person or absentee,” according to the secretary of state’s website. Acceptable forms of identification include any state or federal government-issued photo ID (including a driver’s license or a valid passport), a student ID from a Georgia public college or university, or a military or tribal photo ID.

Citizenship Requirements: Since 2010, Georgians registering to vote have been required to provide evidence of their U.S. citizenship, including a driver’s license or driver’s license number as long as the registrant has previously provided proof of citizenship to the Department of Driver Services. For those who don’t possess any of the accepted citizenship documents, Georgia law tasks the State Election Board with establishing “other documents or methods” for proving a person’s citizenship. However, it appears certain voters may be able to evade some of the safeguards in place.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Georgia law permits a “curing” period, in which local officials are authorized to contact voters to correct signature issues on their absentee ballots. The “last day for voters to cure timely submitted absentee ballots if they failed to sign the oath or information mismatch” is Nov. 8.

Major Ballot Initiatives: Georgia will have three initiatives on the November ballot. One would create a Georgia Tax Court “with judicial power and statewide jurisdiction,” the second would provide “for a local option homestead property tax exemption,” and the third “exempts property that is valued at less than $20,000 from the personal property tax,” according to Ballotpedia.

Biggest Election Fights: The conservative-led State Election Board has clashed with Democrats and Georgia’s Republican-led secretary of state’s office recently, especially on the topic of whether election officials should be forced to rubber-stamp election results even if they have concerns about the election’s administration.

Republican officials like Fulton County election board member Julie Adams argue they should be able to investigate concerns about the administration of an election before certifying the results, rather than rubber-stamping results they believe are legally dubious.

Democrats are also waging a series of legal challenges against the State Election Board, which has passed a series of rules aimed at ensuring the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who voted, among other election integrity measures.

Michigan

Voter Registration: Michiganders can register to vote at any time up to 8 p.m. on Election Day. They can register to vote online, by mail, or in person at the local clerk’s office.

In-Person Early Voting: The Michigan Department of State tells voters early voting will be available “for a minimum of nine consecutive days, ending on the Sunday before an election.” So early voting will start Oct. 26 at the latest, but communities can start the process earlier, allowing it to run for as many as 29 days.

Mail-In Voting: Absentee ballots are available beginning 40 days ahead of every election. Voters can request a ballot from the local clerk, and can opt-in to receive absentee ballots ahead of every federal, state, and local election. After Michigan voters approved no-excuse absentee voting in 2018, Proposal 2, which passed in 2022, further instituted mail-in voting practices and myriad other election policies supported by the left.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Voters must return absentee ballots to the local clerk’s office by 8 p.m. on Election Day to be counted, but overseas voters simply need their ballots to be postmarked by Election Day and received by clerks within six days after the election.

Ballot Harvesting: Michigan law allows an immediate family member or “individual residing in your household” to return a voter’s ballot. A voter may also request the clerk who issued a ballot help return it.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Absentee voters must sign the envelope with a signature matching their state ID or voter registration application.

Voter ID: The state requires in-person voters to show a photo ID or sign an affidavit claiming they don’t have one. Acceptable documents include a current student ID or government ID such as (but not limited to) a U.S. passport or state driver’s license. Michigan does not require a copy of an ID to vote by mail.

Citizenship Requirements: It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and voter registration forms and ballot applications require a person to attest that he is a citizen, but Michigan does not require documentary proof of citizenship from would-be voters.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: If a signature does not match that in the local clerk’s records, Michigan law requires clerks to contact the voter to “cure” the signature and solve the issue. According to the secretary of state’s office, voters may cure their signatures until 5 p.m. the third day after the election.

Major Ballot Initiatives: Michigan will have no statewide ballot measures in November.

Biggest Election Fights: Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson fought to keep third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot and remove independent Cornel West from the ballot, both of which actions would likely help Vice President Kamala Harris’ chances.

The Republican National Committee has filed multiple lawsuits against Benson for her guidance to clerks on handling ballots and her alleged failure to clean the state’s voter rolls. The Public Interest Legal Foundation has also sued Benson for an alleged lack of voter roll maintenance.

Nevada

Voter Registration: The deadline to register online is Oct. 23. Mailed voter registration forms had to be postmarked by Oct. 8.

Nevada also offers same-day registration, in which eligible electors may register and vote in person during the early voting period or on Election Day. Those who choose this option must present a valid Nevada driver’s license or Nevada ID card. Voters will receive their ballots to vote after the registration process is completed.

In-Person Early Voting: Begins on Oct. 19 and ends on Nov. 1.

Mail-In Voting: Every registrant listed as “active” on Nevada’s voter rolls is automatically mailed a ballot every election. Voters can request to opt out of this mailing list.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Nevada law does not specify when election officials may start sending mail-in ballots to voters. State law does, however, require these officials to send electors their ballots “not later than the 14 days before the election.”

Ballot Return Deadlines: All ballots that are dropped off in person must be submitted by 7 p.m. local time on Election Day. According to the Nevada secretary of state’s office, “Mail-in ballots that are postmarked on or before the day of the election AND received by the 4th day after election day by 5 p.m., will be accepted as received and processed according to Nevada State law.”

Ballot Harvesting: Nevada law permits any “person authorized by the voter [to] return the mail ballot on behalf of the voter by mail or personal delivery to the county clerk, or any ballot drop box established in the county.”

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: All electors voting via mail must sign the ballot envelope for it to be counted. The envelope signature must match the signature on the voter’s registration form.

Voter ID: Nevada does not require a person to show ID to vote. As summarized by Ballotpedia, state law requires a Nevada in-person voter to “sign his or her name in the election board register at his or her polling place.” That signature is then “compared with the signature on the voter’s original application to vote or another form of identification, such as a driver’s license, a state identification card, military identification, or another government-issued ID.”

Citizenship Requirements: Nevada law requires all eligible residents to be U.S. citizens to vote, although the state constitution does not explicitly stipulate only U.S. citizens can vote. The state does not require documentary proof of citizenship from people voting or registering to vote.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Nevada law permits a “curing” period, in which local officials are required to contact voters to allow them to correct signature issues on their mail-in ballots or otherwise confirm the signature affixed to the ballot belonged to them. The voter “must provide a signature or a confirmation, as applicable, not later than 5 p.m. on the sixth day following the election” for the ballot to be counted.

Major Ballot Initiatives: There will be seven measures appearing on Nevada’s 2024 ballot, six of which are constitutional amendment proposals. Among the most notable are initiatives instituting ranked-choice voting (Question 3), effectively legalizing late-term abortion (Question 6), and requiring electors to present a valid form of ID in order to vote (Question 7).

Biggest Election Fights: The top issue raising concerns among election integrity activists in the state is the accuracy of Nevada’s voter rolls. Organizations such as the Public Interest Legal Foundation have documented what appear to be alarming inaccuracies within the voter registration lists, such as finding some registrants’ addresses listed at bars and casinos. Efforts by the Citizen Outreach Foundation to file citizen-led challenges to have these allegedly ineligible registrants removed have been met with resistance by Democrat Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, whose office recently issued a memo instructing local officials to stop processing the group’s challenges.

North Carolina

Voter Registration: The standard deadline to register to vote is 5 p.m., Oct. 11. However, North Carolinians can register to vote after the Oct. 11 deadline in person at early voting locations.

In-Person Early Voting: Begins Oct. 17 and ends at 3 p.m. on Nov. 2.

Mail-In Voting: Any registered voter in North Carolina can vote by mail for any reason. Voters must request the ballot using an absentee ballot request form, either online or with a paper form. This year, voters must request absentee ballots by Oct. 29 at 5 p.m.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Ballots must be returned by Election Day, Nov. 5 at 7:30 p.m. (with exceptions for UOCAVA voters).

Ballot Harvesting: North Carolina law permits a near relative or legal guardian to return a voter’s absentee ballot. It is otherwise a class I felony for anyone to deliver a ballot to a voter or return it for them.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Voters must sign their absentee ballot envelope.

Absentee ballots must be filled out in the presence of two adult witnesses who are not disqualified by other state statutes. Those two persons must print and sign their names on the application and certificate, as well as provide their addresses. Voters can also fulfill the requirement with the seal and signature of one notary public.

Voter ID: A photo ID is generally required to vote in North Carolina, but the address on the ID “does not have to match the voter registration records.”

If an in-person voter does not have a voter ID, he will be asked to either complete an ID exception form and vote provisionally, or vote provisionally and return to his county elections office with a valid ID “by the day before [the] county canvass.” North Carolinians voting by mail are required to provide a copy of a photo ID when returning their ballot, but they can also fill out an exception form. Counties are required to count provisional ballots as long as the ID exception forms are “properly completed.”

Exceptions for not showing an ID are expansive, and range from a disability to “work or school schedule” to a religious objection to being photographed. (Being the victim of a declared natural disaster occurring withing 100 days of Election Day also qualifies a voter for an ID exception.) Mail-in voters who are somehow unable to attach a copy of their ID must include either their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

North Carolina does not require photo ID for voters covered under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

Citizenship Requirements: North Carolina law requires U.S. citizenship to register to vote. However, citizenship documents are not required to register.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: North Carolina allows for ballot curing in certain circumstances, including if the voter “did not sign the voter certification,” “signed the application in the wrong place,” or failed to include a copy of a photo ID with an absentee ballot.

Major Ballot Initiatives: North Carolina only has one ballot initiative certified to appear on the ballot this November. The Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment was referred to voters by the state legislature and would amend the state constitution to provide that only eligible U.S. citizens can vote in the state. The amendment would prohibit local governments from allowing noncitizens to vote.

Biggest Election Fights: The RNC has filed several lawsuits against the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

The western part of the state was also significantly damaged by Hurricane Helene, which will make it more difficult to vote in the deep-red region of the state, though state officials are in the process of implementing emergency election procedures.

Pennsylvania

Voter Registration: The deadline to register to vote in Pennsylvania is Oct. 21. The state implemented automatic voter registration in September 2023 through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Since then, anyone who gets a driver’s license and is eligible to vote is automatically registered unless they intentionally opted out of voter registration. Pennsylvanians may also register online, by mail, or in person at their county election office.

In-Person Early Voting: Pennsylvania treats early voting and mail-in voting the same. Voters can go to their county election office, receive a mail-in ballot, vote, and submit this ballot “all in the same visit.” In-person voting starts as soon as counties start mailing out ballots, but that date is different for each county. Voters may check online with the Pennsylvania Department of State to see when their counties’ ballots are ready.

Mail-In Voting: The deadline for requesting a mail-in ballot is Oct. 29. Any registered voter may request a mail-in ballot.

Ballot Return Deadlines: The county must receive a completed ballot by 8 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 5. Counties will not accept ballots with a postmark of Nov. 5 at 8 p.m.; the ballot must be in hand by then.

Ballot Harvesting: Voters must return their own ballots, although there are some exceptions for voters with a disability to designate someone, in writing, to deliver their ballot. Former Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf created a stir in 2021 when he casually admitted in a radio interview that his wife violated this rule, by dropping off his ballot for him. It is not allowed in Pennsylvania, even between spouses.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Voters mail ballots in a two-envelope system. The inner, secrecy envelope is not marked, but the outer, mailing envelope must be signed and dated.

Voter ID: Voters must provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number when registering to vote, as required by federal law. Identification is also required the first time a voter casts a vote in a precinct where they will sign a voter roll book, though the ID does not have to include a photo (voters can use a utility bill or bank statement as long as it includes their name and address). After that, no identification is required as long as the voter continues in the same precinct because they sign the book each election. If a Pennsylvania voter moves to a new precinct, he will need to show identification again.

Voters who qualify for a ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) or the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act do not need to show ID.

Citizenship Requirements: You must be a U.S. citizen and a resident of Pennsylvania at least 30 days before the next election to register to vote.

Military voters, and those who are registered in Pennsylvania but out of the country, may register to vote through UOCAVA. They may participate in federal and local elections. Pennsylvania also allows voters who once lived in the state but now live overseas and have no intention of returning to vote as “federal” UOCAVA voters. These voters may vote in federal-level elections such as president, vice president, U.S. senator, and congressional representative. They cannot vote in Pennsylvania’s local elections.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Some counties give voters notice and opportunity to “cure” mistakes, and some do not. State law tells counties not to count improperly marked ballots, but the Pennsylvania Department of State has issued guidance telling counties to flag ballots in need of curing so voters will receive an automatic notice informing voters they can cure their ballots. This has become a point of controversy.

Biggest Election Fights: Mail-in ballot curing has been under dispute, and in the courts for several years, and in multiple cases. Should counties toss out improperly marked ballots as the election code directs? Or does Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt have the authority to override the law and issue guidance to mail-in voters offering them a second chance to mark their outer envelope properly? Counties have been choosing to either follow the law or the guidance, giving voters different responses to the same problem, depending on where they live.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania challenged Schmidt and Pennsylvania’s 67 county boards of elections over this matter. The RNC believes voters should be held to the law as written by the elected General Assembly, which does have the authority to change the law, and so far, hasn’t. Last week, the state supreme court declined to rule on the issue before Election Day.

Wisconsin

Voter Registration: Wisconsin offers same-day voter registration, so eligible Wisconsinites can register to vote in person on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024 (Election Day). The deadline to register to vote by mail or online is Oct. 16.

In-Person Early Voting: Counties can offer early voting from Oct. 22 until Nov. 3, although the dates and office hours “vary by municipality.”

Mail-In Voting: Absentee ballots begin being mailed out 47 days before November’s general election.

Ballot Return Deadlines: All absentee ballots must be delivered no later than 8 p.m. local time on Election Day. The ballots may be returned via mail or hand-delivered to the polling place or clerk’s election office.

Ballot Harvesting: Wisconsin law implies that only the voter shall mail the ballot or deliver it in person to the municipal clerk’s office that issued the ballot.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: All absentee voters must sign and seal the ballot certificate envelope. A witness also is required to sign the envelope and include his address. Ballots that fail to include the required information are rejected.

Voter ID: Wisconsin requires in-person voters to show the “original copy of their photo ID” to vote.

Citizenship Requirements: Wisconsin’s constitution states that “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state” is eligible to vote. “Citizenship is documented through a U.S. birth certificate or a Certificate of Naturalization, but proof of citizenship is not required to vote,” notes the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: This has been an on-again, off-again issue in the Badger State for several years. In February, the Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5-1 on guidance advising clerks to accept ballots with incomplete ballot witness addresses following a Dane County Court ruling on the curing question. A Waukesha County judge in 2022 had ruled that clerks completing or fixing missing information on absentee ballot envelopes on behalf of the voter violated state law. Concerns over improperly “fixed” ballot envelopes were at issue in the 2020 election, and a subject of unsuccessful Trump campaign lawsuits challenging the results of the election in Wisconsin. A federal judge earlier this year tossed out a lawsuit by Democrat Party fixer Marc Elias’ lawfare group seeking to block Wisconsin election law requiring a witness to sign a voter’s absentee ballot.

Major Ballot Initiatives: Wisconsin voters will decide whether to amend Wisconsin’s constitution to provide that “only” U.S. citizens 18 or older may vote in national, state or local elections. Currently the constitution states that “every” U.S. citizen 18 or older may vote. Citizen Only Voting Amendment advocates argue the existing language leaves a loophole that would allow Wisconsin municipalities and the state to open elections to noncitizens, as has been done in other states and the District of Columbia.

Biggest Election Fights: Wisconsin’s four-year battle over the widespread use of absentee ballot drop boxes was decided by a new liberal-led court, just in time for the 2024 general election. In a 4-3 ruling in July, the court endorsed the return of absentee ballot drop boxes, opening the door to the same kind of election shenanigans that plagued the Badger State in 2020. The decision overturned the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling by the conservative majority in 2022 banning the widespread use of the drop boxes.

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Newsom Signs Law Barring Huntington Beach Voters from Deciding Their Own Voter ID Laws

By: Brianna Lyman | October 01, 2024

California Gov. Gavin Newsom — California’s Warden/Governor Gavin ***“I do what the hell I want”*** Newsome

Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., signed a law Sunday undermining the will of Huntington Beach voters who approved a measure requiring voter ID. The new state law bars cities from adopting such measures. In March, 53.4% of Huntington Beach residents approved a ballot measure that would require voters present identification in order to vote in municipal elections. The measure was slated to take effect in 2026 and also permitted the city to “provide more in-person voting locations” and “monitor ballot drop-boxes.” But Newsom signed into law Sunday legislation that was originally introduced in response to the Huntington Beach city council approving the measure prior to placing it on the ballot. The new law prohibits “a local government from enacting or enforcing any charter provision, ordinance, or regulation requiring a person to present identification for the purpose of voting or submitting a ballot at any polling place, vote center, or other location where ballots are cast or submitted, as specified.”

The state previously sued Huntington Beach in April to prevent the will of the voters (in the name of “democracy”). California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the city claiming, “the right to freely cast your vote is the foundation of our democracy and Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy flies in the face of this principle.”

It is unclear whether the lawsuit will still be pursued. The Federalist has inquired with Bonta’s office for a status update.

Bonta had previously sent a letter to city officials in September 2023 claiming the measure “conflicts with state law” and falsely alleged voter ID measures “serve to suppress voter participation.” Bonta told city officials to withdraw the measure or else Bonta would take “action.”

Bonta’s suit alleged Huntington Beach’s voter ID provisions were “preempted and invalid” in matters in which “local law conflicts with state law reasonably tailored to the resolution of a statewide concern.”

The suit also argued the measure undermined the authority of the state legislature, “placing the onus on registered voters to establish their eligibility to vote, and groundlessly challenging the right to vote.”

Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates said in response to the suit that the city would fight to “uphold and defend the will of the people,” according to Courthouse News.

Gates argued that state law (at the time the measure was adopted by the city), did not prohibit the city from adopting the ballot measure. Gates pointed to the introduction of the legislation after the proposal was approved by the city council arguing, as reported by Courthouse News, that “this proves that Bonta [is] wrong — if passing voter ID laws was illegal, why was a new bill necessary?”

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2

Author Brianna Lyman profile

Brianna Lyman

Visit on Twitter@briannalyman2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Oklahoma Removes 450,000 Ineligible Voters from Rolls, Including More Than 5,000 Felons

By: Logan Washburn | September 20, 2024

Author Logan Washburn profile

Logan Washburn

Oklahoma election officials have removed more than 450,000 ineligible voters from the state’s rolls ahead of November’s election.

“Voting is our most sacred duty as Americans — and every Oklahoman wants to know their vote is securely cast and properly counted,” said Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt in a press release.

State election officials have removed 453,000 total ineligible voters since 2021, Stitt’s office announced Wednesday.

As part of “routine voter list maintenance,” the state has removed 5,607 felons, 14,993 duplicate registrations, 97,065 dead voters, and 143,682 voters who moved out of state, according to the release. During address verification, officials also canceled 194,962 inactive voters.

We all need an ID to fly, buy alcohol, cash a check, etc.

There’s no reason a state shouldn’t have strict voter ID laws. It’s just common sense.

In Oklahoma, our laws require proof of identity for every voter, regardless of whether you’re voting early, absentee, or in-person.
— Governor Kevin Stitt (@GovStitt) September 18, 2024

Stitt’s office has been working with legislators, the state election board, and the secretary of state on voter list maintenance. Officials are using technology like artificial intelligence to “protect our elections,” said Secretary of State Josh Cockroft in the release.

“We’ve aggressively pursued policies to ensure voting is secure and accurate,” Cockroft said. “Every eligible citizen will have their vote counted and their voice heard.”

Oklahoma allows “only eligible voters” to take part in elections, according to the release. The state’s June primaries had a “100% voter verification match,” KOSU reported.

Stitt formed a Campaign Finance and Election Threats Task Force in November 2023, according to the release. The task force works to “assess the electoral process, scrutinize foreign investment in campaigns, and ensure Oklahoma elections are the safest in the nation.”

The task force recommended random post-election audits, banning ranked-choice voting, regulating the use of AI, changing contribution limits by “non-corporate entities,” banning foreign campaign expenditures, and working with Native American tribes to enforce election law, according to state documents.

“This Task Force was charged with investigating the most critical aspect of our republic: ensuring our elections are free and fair,” Stitt said in an April press release, encouraging state legislators to adopt the recommendations.

Paul Ziriax said in the latest press release that successful recounts and post-election audits have “proven the accuracy of Oklahoma’s voting system.”

“Our laws and procedures are designed to ensure the integrity and security of our elections,” Ziriax said.

Texas recently announced the removal of 1.1 million ineligible voters from the rolls during routine maintenance ahead of November’s election, as The Federalist previously reported. Other states have taken similar steps to deal with ineligible voters on the rolls.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin revealed in an executive order in August that the state’s department of elections had removed more than 6,300 noncitizens from the voter rolls, as The Federalist reported. The same month, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen announced his office found more than 3,000 potential noncitizens registered to vote. Earlier this year, Ohio discovered more than 100 noncitizens registered to vote, spurring the state to clean its voter rolls.

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Democrat-Controlled States Refuse to Clean Voter Rolls and Fix Election Problems

By: Sen. Ron Johnson | September 03, 2024

Sen. Ron Johnson

President Joe Biden has vowed to veto the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which simply requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. His promise was made in reaction to congressional Republicans who want to include it with any continuing resolution required to fund the next fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1. The president’s adamant opposition to what most Americans support demonstrates just how much Democrats are dedicated to making it easier to cheat in elections.

On Dec. 16, 2020, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I held a hearing titled, “Examining the Irregularities in the 2020 election.” In spite of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the election irregularity deniers, there were many indisputable irregularities.

In Wisconsin, 170,000 faulty absentee ballots in Milwaukee and Dane County were improperly counted by election clerks. Representatives of the far-left “Zuckerbucks” program — which is designed to pour left-wing dollars into local election offices, benefiting their Democrat candidates — imposed such heavy-handed direction in Green Bay that the local election clerk resigned from the stress and allowed Zuckerberg’s minions to run the election. “Democracy in the Park” was allowed in Madison, where activists unlawfully collected 17,300 ballots. Seniors in nursing homes voted without the required voting deputies present, bordering on elder abuse for political gain. As was the case in other states, election observers were not allowed to effectively observe the election process.

More recently, as one of many examples of states cleaning voter rolls, Virginia cancelled 6,303 noncitizens’ voter registrations.

Unfortunately, the election irregularity deniers have been so effective — aided and abetted by the corporate media — that these abuses have not only been ignored, but those who wish to cheat in the 2024 election have been able to devise new election fraud schemes. Absent media scrutiny, Republicans are undertaking efforts to stop them.

In one of the most closely contested states, Wisconsin’s governor vetoed nine election reforms passed by the Republican legislature and designed to restore confidence in our state election system. The Wisconsin Election Commission refuses to remove more than 4 million ineligible voters from our out-of-date voter roll (Wisconsin has approximately 3.5 million eligible voters). Election integrity starts with clean voter rolls, and by refusing to clean up Wisconsin’s, Democrats are clearly stating that they’d rather leave room for fraud than increase confidence in our election system.

Following a pressure campaign from Senate Republicans and the Republican National Committee (RNC), Nevada just removed 90,000 voters from its lists. If Nevada can do it, why can’t the Badger State?

Biden’s Executive Order to Register Voters

Nationally, the potential for election interference and voter fraud seems to be growing, with minimal attention being paid to it. Let’s start with President Joe Biden’s executive order directing federal agencies to register voters. Does anyone seriously believe these registration drives will be done in a nonpartisan manner? How many taxpayer dollars will be spent registering individuals most likely to vote for the party of big government and more deficit spending?

The RNC and Trump campaign recently sued the Biden administration to stop this partisan activity. Will courts intervene in time?

States Cleaning Voter Rolls

The Democrats’ open border policy is guaranteed to result in widespread voter fraud. Democrat presidential nominee Harris’ vice-presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, signed a law giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. That license, together with a utility bill, is all someone needs to register to vote in Minnesota. Democrats claim that because it is illegal for noncitizens to vote, illegal immigrants won’t register. We should be highly skeptical of that being an effective deterrent. Last week, the RNC sent a demand letter to Minnesota’s secretary of state following the revelation that a noncitizen in Minnesota received a ballot that he hadn’t even asked for. That is unlikely to be an isolated incident.

After all, Ohio just purged 499 illegal immigrants from its voter rolls following a multi-phase audit. But that’s in a state with Republican leadership that actually believes in election integrity and wants to make it difficult to cheat. Elsewhere, Boston officials disclosed that 70 illegal aliens contacted county election officials asking to be removed from voter registration lists. How did those Massachusetts noncitizens get registered, and how many remain on the registration lists? While it’s good to see officials in some states taking the lead to purge their voter rolls, there is much more work to be done.

Laundering Donations

In March 2023, journalist James O’Keefe first reported on a campaign financing violation dubbed “smurfing.” Unbeknownst to the “donors,” Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show in some cases tens of thousands of small dollar donations being made in their names, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. One example in Wisconsin detailed five “smurfs” making a combined total of 28,471 donations, worth $401,326. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., was a recipient of 531 of those donations, worth $5,147. No wonder Democrats report a resounding lead in small dollar donations!

My Senate staff has been pressuring the FEC to investigate these violations, but the FEC won’t even acknowledge whether they are investigating. Republican attorneys general such as Jason Miyares in Virginia have thankfully launched concurrent investigations to demand answers and stop this unfair practice.

Presidential Election

For well over a year, I have publicly expressed my doubts that Biden would be the Democrat nominee. I would generally add that whoever replaced him would immediately be placed on a pedestal and declared the new messiah. But even I am astonished by the extent to which my prediction has come true. Former President Donald Trump is not running against Kamala Harris, he is running against the entire corporate media, who are coordinating their efforts to defeat him.

This is not a new phenomenon. Remember the Russia hoax, which the corporate media cheered on? How about Google manipulating search results to favor Democrats and suppress Republicans? Most “journalists” in corporate media today are merely advocates for the left. Honest, unbiased reporting has largely gone the way of the dinosaur.

As alarming as the reality described above is, I have not written this column to discourage, but as a call to action. The RNC and Trump campaign have recruited 157,000 poll workers and poll watchers across the country ahead of November. Join the effort at ProtectTheVote.com, and make sure to get out and vote as soon as your state allows. We can beat the forces arrayed against us if we turn out in numbers that are too big to rig.

Sen. Ron Johnson is a Republican from Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Texas AG Investigates Possible Illegal Voter Registrations

By: Logan Washburn | August 22, 2024

Texas AG Ken Paxton giving a press conference

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating reports of nonprofits illegally registering noncitizens to vote.

“Nonprofit organizations have been located outside Texas Department of Public Safety Driver License offices, operating booths offering to assist in voter registration for persons doing business,” reads an Aug. 21 press release from Paxton’s office.

Investigators with Paxton’s Election Integrity Unit recently performed “undercover operations” in “major metropolitan areas” regarding possible registration of noncitizens to vote, according to the release. Investigators have “already confirmed” nonprofit registration efforts outside Texas DPS offices.

“If eligible citizens can legally register to vote when conducting their business at a DPS office, why would they need a second opportunity to register with a booth outside?” Paxton said in the release. “The Biden-Harris Administration has intentionally flooded our country with illegal aliens, and without proper safeguards, foreign nationals can illegally influence elections at the local, state, and national level.”

The attorney general’s office is continuing an “ongoing investigation,” Paxton said in a statement to The Federalist.

“We cannot provide more information at this time,” Paxton said. “It is encouraging that these booths are now prohibited from operating on DPS property.”

The DPS had allegedly been tacitly allowing these efforts near driver’s license offices, according to Texas Scorecard. But due to Paxton’s investigation, the department “temporarily prohibited” voter registration groups from operating on its property.

“It is a crime to vote — or to register to vote — if you are not a United States Citizen,” Paxton said in the release. “Any wrongdoing will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

It is a “crime in Texas to lie about one’s citizenship” or to help another person do so when registering to vote, according to the release. The crime brings a punishment of up to two years in a state jail and a $10,000 fine. It is also illegal in Texas for noncitizens to vote or help someone else do so. Violations bring a punishment of up to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

“Texans are deeply troubled by the possibility that organizations purporting to assist with voter registration are illegally registering noncitizens to vote in our elections,” the release said.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott echoed a similar sentiment on X, referring to Paxton’s investigation.

“Illegally registering non-citizens to vote won’t be tolerated in Texas. It’s a crime,” Abbott said. “We won’t let cheaters influence elections in Texas.”

Illegally registering non-citizens to vote won't be tolerated in Texas.

It's a crime.

Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX is thoroughly investigating it.

We won't let cheaters influence elections in Texas. https://t.co/YL5yfy3YiN
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) August 21, 2024

Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.

Author Logan Washburn profile

Logan Washburn

Category:

Crime, Political

Tagged with:

Alabama Secretary of State Finds 3,000 Potential Noncitizens Registered to Vote

By: Logan Washburn | August 14, 2024

Wes Allen discussing his candidacy for Alabama secretary of state

Author Logan Washburn profile

Logan Washburn

Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen has discovered more than 3,000 potential noncitizens registered to vote in the state. His office is now taking steps to remove noncitizens from the rolls.

“I will not tolerate the participation of noncitizens in our elections,” Allen said in an Aug. 13 press release. “We have examined the current voter file in an attempt to identify anyone who appears on that list that has been issued a noncitizen identification number.”

Allen’s office found 3,251 registered voters with noncitizen ID numbers issued by the Department of Homeland Security, according to the release. His office is telling local administrators to “inactivate and initiate steps necessary to remove all individuals who are not United States citizens” from the voter file.

Allen worked with “other state agencies that collect noncitizen identification numbers” and checked them against voter registrations, Laney Rawls, Allen’s director of communications, told The Federalist. She said Allen has made this a “priority” since taking office in January 2023.

Some of these potential noncitizen voters may have become citizens after initially getting noncitizen ID numbers, according to the release. Allen’s office will inactivate these registrations and allow those who have since become citizens to update their registration with an Alabama driver’s license number, non-driver ID, or the last four digits of their Social Security number, according to Rawls. Allen’s office is still working to determine when the noncitizen ID numbers were issued, Rawls said.

The federal government has denied “repeated requests” to help with the investigation, according to the release. Allen began contacting the DHS’s Citizenship and Immigration Services division in November 2023, requesting a list of noncitizens living in Alabama to cross-reference with the state voter file, according to Rawls.

“The Office also contacted the White House administration for assistance in getting this data and our requests have been denied,” Rawls said. The “lack of cooperation” prompted Allen to try and solve the issue on his own.

“I am hopeful that in the near future the federal government will change course and be helpful to states as we work to protect our elections,” Allen said in the release. Allen’s office is sending the registrations at issue to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall for “further investigation and possible criminal prosecution.”

“This is not a one-time review of our voter file,” Allen said. “We will continue to conduct such reviews to do everything possible to make sure that everyone on our file is an eligible voter.”

Federal mandates have directed state agencies to expand voter registration, including sending forms to noncitizens, according to Rawls. She also said President Joe Biden’s “Executive Order on Promoting Access to Voting” led the government to register voters in Alabama’s federal prisons, where inmates include noncitizens.

The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood reported Biden has used the executive order to push voter registration in Mississippi prisons. According to The Daily Signal, the Federal Bureau of Prisons partners with left-leaning groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, and the Campaign Legal Center.

“Unfortunately, the federal government limits the power of states to require proof of citizenship at the time of registration,” Rawls said. Still, Allen has directed local boards of registrars to require an Alabama driver’s license number, non-driver ID, or Social Security number when registering voters.

“Allen has also demanded answers from state and federal agencies conducting these expanded voter registration efforts on how they plan to keep noncitizens from registering to vote in Alabama,” Rawls said.

Allen previously warned citizens of registering to vote through Vote411, citing concerns over data privacy. The Federalist reported that Vote411, which masquerades as a nonpartisan group, uses voter registration forms to shuttle users to a left-wing data harvesting operation.

In Tennessee, Secretary of State Tre Hargett’s election coordinator Mark Goins sent letters to more than 14,000 potential noncitizens in June, telling them to either update their information or request the state remove them from voter rolls.

Doug Kufner, communications director for Hargett’s office, told The Federalist at the time that Goins found these registrations after comparing voter registrations to data from the state’s Department of Safety and Homeland Security.

“This data indicates the person may not have been a U.S. citizen at the time of the transaction. The person could have been naturalized since applying for a driver’s license,” Kufner said at the time. “Tennessee law makes it clear that only eligible voters are allowed to participate in Tennessee elections.”

The letters instructed new citizens on how to correct their records, but that didn’t stop the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation from threatening to sue, according to The Associated Press. Hargett’s office sent follow-up letters, clarifying it would not remove registered voters who did not respond to the initial mailing.

Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

There’s Only One Reason Democrats Oppose Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote

BY: M.D. KITTLE | JULY 10, 2024

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

As the Republican-controlled House is expected to take up a bill Wednesday aimed at making sure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections, President Joe Biden is signaling he would kill the measure should it miraculously survive the Democrat-led Senate. Biden isn’t likely to need the veto pen. Democrats will, however, be forced to explain why they oppose the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires documentary proof of citizenship to vote for president and members of Congress.

And while they have gotten plenty of cover from corporate media in asserting that foreign nationals — including illegal aliens — are rarely ever caught voting in federal elections, such explanations may not sit well with U.S. voters who overwhelmingly support prohibitions on noncitizens voting in federal elections. Most Americans, too, according to polls, are deeply concerned about the tsunami of illegal immigrants that has swamped U.S. communities on Biden’s watch. Exactly why the Biden administration has kept the border door wide open isn’t lost on anyone who has been paying attention for the past three and a half years.

“Democrats say it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. That’s true. It’s also illegal for someone to illegally enter our country, but that hasn’t stopped millions and millions of people,” U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., told me Tuesday during an interview on the “The Vicki McKenna Show” in Milwaukee and Madison.

‘Petri Dish’ for Noncitizen Voting

Steil, the chairman of the House Committee on Administration, which passed H.R. 8281 in May, wants to remind anyone who will listen that Democrats already support foreign nationals voting in local elections, as they are allowed to do in Washington, D.C. Most House Democrats earlier this year voted against a measure that would have barred illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from voting in local elections in the nation’s capital. The bill is deemed dead on arrival in the Senate.

Not surprisingly, just 28 of the 500-plus foreign nationals voting in last month’s D.C. primary elections registered as Republicans, according to The Washington Post.

In a first, noncitizens are voting in D.C. Here’s what it means to them.https://t.co/1IcyuKSRdy
— Candice Frederick (@ReelTalker) June 5, 2024

Steil said Democrats want to use noncitizen voting in local elections, currently allowed in a handful of states, as a “Petri dish” to test on the American people.

“In a period of time that we know that millions of legal and illegal immigrants in the country are not eligible to vote in federal elections, it’s important to enforce the laws on the books,” the congressman said.

Honor System

As it stands under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the “motor voter law,” voters may simply check a box on the federal form affirming they are U.S. citizens and meet other eligibility requirements. Democrats prefer the honor system. In opposing the SAVE Act, they have noted the tough penalties for foreign nationals who lie about their citizenship status in registering to vote: a fine, up to five years in prison, or both, according to federal code.

But Democrats know it is difficult to track false claims of citizenship, a longtime problem. A 2014 story by WHYY, a Philadelphia public radio station, reported on a fact that remains a significant issue in the Biden presidency a decade later: “Illegal immigrants lie to get asylum status in U.S.”

But they certainly wouldn’t lie to vote in federal elections, Democrats insist.

“We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it’s not been something that is easily provable,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the May 8 press conference in introducing the SAVE Act.

‘The Only Reason’

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has introduced a similar measure in the Senate. He cut to the chase in a post Tuesday on his X account.

“The SAVE Act would prevent non-Americans from illegally voting, protecting the votes of American citizens. The only reason to oppose it is because you want non-Americans illegally voting,” Lee wrote.

Biden, meanwhile, is pushing Democrat legislation loosening voter integrity laws.

“The President has been clear: he will continue fighting to protect Americans’ sacred right to vote in free, fair, and secure elections,” the White House said in its opposition statement to the SAVE Act.

The SAVE Act would prevent non-Americans from illegally voting, protecting the votes of American citizens.

The only reason to oppose it is because you want non-Americans illegally voting. https://t.co/Ld4QqGPMu8
— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 8, 2024

But how “free, fair, and secure” are U.S. elections without documented proof of citizenship?

Biden and his fellow Democrats in D.C. appear to be backing a losing issue. A national poll conducted last year for Americans for Citizen Voting by RMG Research Inc. found that 75 percent of respondents opposed allowing foreign nationals to vote in their local elections. A recent poll found 68 percent of North Carolina voters supported a state constitutional amendment barring foreign nationals from voting in elections. North Carolina voters will vote on the citizens-only question on November’s general election ballot.

“This is a moment in time that we should all realize that we should maintain U.S. elections for U.S. citizens and requiring documentary proof of that citizenship is how you actually enforce the law,” Steil said.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Democrat Fixer Marc Elias’ Firm Steps In To Stop ‘Disastrous Election System’ Fix

BY: M.D. KITTLE | JUNE 19, 2024

Democrat attorney Marc Elias appearing on MSNBC.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

Bogus Russian dossier peddler and Democrat Party problem fixer Marc Elias has again injected himself into a key election integrity case to “defend the broken status quo.” Swing-state Nevada’s dirty voter rolls include hundreds of suspect addresses, at bars, strip clubs, empty parking lots, and other commercial addresses, according to an investigation by the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Doing so is clearly against the law.

“In Nevada, by the state law, you are required to be registered where you actually live, where you sleep. Not where you work, not at a P.O. Box. So we’re trying to get elections officials to enforce the law,” Lauren Bis, PILF’s director of communication and engagement, says in a video tracking bad addresses in the Las Vegas area.

To that end, the foundation has filed a petition in Washoe County, Nevada’s second-most populous county, to force elections officials to investigate and fix commercial addresses on the voter roll. PILF investigators found addresses on the rolls reported as liquor stores, empty lots, and even the Nevada Gaming Control Board, among others.

Baseless Attacks?

Elias Law Group and a band of leftists have sought to intervene in PILF’s petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that forcing Washoe election administrators to follow the law and clean up the county’s dirty voter rolls will “threaten” voting rights.

The would-be intervenors claim that their members and constituents would be forced to “expend substantial resources to educate voters and protect them from baseless attacks on their eligibility.”

Baseless attacks?

As The Federalist recently reported, Bis was greeted with a lot of quizzical looks from employees at the casinos, fast-food restaurants, retailers, post offices, funeral homes, strip clubs, tattoo parlors, and jails where registered voters — at least according to Nevada’s dirty voter rolls — “resided.” What PILF found was equal parts sad and hilarious, foundation President J. Christian Adams told me on “The Federalist Radio Hour.”

The election integrity public interest law firm tracked data from the Nevada secretary of state’s office, which in the 2022 midterm elections reported 95,556 ballots sent to undeliverable, or “bad,” addresses. PILF investigators documented commercial addresses purported to be the residences of registered voters, confirming on video that the individuals did not live where they reported residing.

“We’ve been to all of the locations. It’s not some data exercise we see sitting at a computer in Chicago. We’ve actually got boots on the ground looking for the voters, and they don’t exist,” Adams said.

‘Disastrous Elections System’

Making matters worse, Nevada automatically mails a ballot to every active registrant on the voter rolls.

“I’m looking for Ronald or William Phelps,” Bis says in the video to a bartender wearing a “Tacos por favor” T-shirt at a local watering hole on North Nellis Boulevard in Vegas. “I don’t know who that is,” the barkeep replies.

“So, they don’t live here?” Bis asks. “Uh, at the bar? No,” the bartender says, chuckling. She’s clearly amused by the question.

It’s almost as amusing as Elias and friends’ apparent efforts to stop election officials from following the law under the absurd premise of voter rights. Their court filing offers a dire warning about what will happen if Washoe County is required to do what PILF has done: Washoe County’s job.

“If the Court grants such relief, Respondent Burgess — and other clerks and registrars across the state — will be flooded with third-party demands to investigate all manner of alleged peculiarities in the voter rolls, based on unsourced, unverified, and unsworn information,” the court filing admonishes. “Petitioners are not the only ones making such demands. Nevada is in the midst of a storm of baseless efforts by third parties to force election officials to undertake a rushed purge of registered voters before the November election.”

Adams called Elias’ latest lawfare stunt a “cry wolf exercise.”

“He does this all over the country. He spools up these progressive astroturf organizations and they file a legal brief, which they have done in our case, which we have to respond to, that says, ‘Oh, if you listen to these evil conservatives, there will be eligible people improperly removed from the rolls.’ Nonsense,” said Adams, who formerly served in the Voting Section at the U.S. Department of Justice and was appointed to President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

“Marc Elias is in the business of defending the riches of a disastrous elections system with universal vote-by-mail that are sending ballots automatically to thousands of bogus addresses,” Adams added.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Yes, Democrats Want Aliens to Vote in U.S. Elections. Take Jamie Raskin’s Word for It

BY: M.D. KITTLE | MAY 24, 2024

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

As the House voted Thursday to bar foreign nationals from voting in local Washington, D.C. elections, Democrats and their public-relations team in the corporate media have rolled out the big guns in attacking such election integrity efforts. They’re painting the legislation that ensures noncitizens cannot vote in elections as the next so-called “Big Lie,” sticking to their well-worn narrative that noncitizens already are prohibited from voting in U.S. elections and that such violations “don’t exist.”

But one of the fiercest opponents of the election integrity legislation has said the quiet part out loud, as Democrats are wont to do.

‘Alien Suffrage’

As Fox News reported, U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., wrote a full-throated defense of “Alien Suffrage” in a 1993 paper for the American University Washington College of Law, where he serves as Professor of Law Emeritus. Raskin is ranking member of the House’s Oversight Committee, which, among other things, has constitutional oversight of the District of Columbia.

“In this Article, I will argue that the current blanket exclusion of noncitizens from the ballot is neither constitutionally required nor historically normal,” Raskin wrote. “Moreover, the disenfranchisement of aliens at the local level is vulnerable to deep theoretical objections since resident aliens — who are governed, taxed, and often drafted just like citizens — have a strong democratic claim to being considered members, indeed citizens, of their local communities.”

A top Democrat leader unveils liberal plans to give illegal immigrants right to vote in local, state, and federal elections.

Writes that illegals “have a strong democratic claim to being considered members, indeed citizens”. https://t.co/k3u4bVlyb9
— Jim DeMint (@JimDeMint) May 23, 2024

Not surprisingly, Raskin was among 143 Democrats voting against the Republican-led bill blocking illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals from voting in elections in the district, over which Congress has ultimate authority. Interestingly, 52 Democrats joined Republicans in passing the measure — because the vast majority of Americans believe only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in local and U.S. elections. Taking the opposing view is not a smart reelection strategy for politically vulnerable liberals.

Several cities in Raskin’s home state have allowed foreign nationals to vote in local elections for years. Takoma Park, Maryland in November celebrated its 30th anniversary “of the first non-US. Residents” voting in the Washington, D.C. suburb.

“Even if it’s only a handful voting in elections—and it’s more than that—it’s a huge step forward for democracy,” said Seth Grimes, a leftist community organizer, in an official city press release. “Non-citizens have a stake in civic affairs, and everyone should have a voice in who governs them.”

Polling shows an overwhelming number of Americans don’t share Grimes’ point of view, or the one expressed in Raskin’s law school report. A national poll conducted last year for Americans for Citizen Voting by RMG Research, Inc., found 75 percent of respondents were opposed to allowing foreign nationals to vote in their local elections.

In his 1993 paper, Raskin argued that the “emergence of a global market and the corresponding dilution of national boundaries, would invite us to treat local governments as ‘polities of presence’ in which all community inhabitants, not just those who are citizens of the superordinate nation-state, form the electorate.”

“Alien suffrage would thus become part of a basic human right to democracy,” the now-congressman wrote.

Does Raskin still feel that way? His office did not return The Federalist’s request for comment.

Media: Alien Voting Doesn’t Happen and It’s Fine When It Does

After Thursday’s vote, it’s not a leap to suspect many of Raskin’s fellow Democrats support foreign nationals voting in local elections. If they were against it, they would have voted for the D.C. election integrity measure.

Corporate media, of course, have been running interference for Democrats in the weeks since former President Donald Trump, the GOP’s presumed presidential nominee, and Speaker Mike Johnson announced the rollout of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The SAVE Act is aimed at shoring up glaring holes in the 30-year-old National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) passed during a simpler time, when politicians believed in borders. The bill would amend the 1993 “Motor Voter” law to require individuals to provide proof of citizenship before they are automatically registered to vote at state departments of motor vehicles and other agencies. It also requires states to remove foreign nationals from their voting rolls, something too many state election officials have been loath to do. The NVRA does not require direct proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Republicans say the legislation is crucial in the wake of the millions of illegal immigrants that have poured through the U.S. southwest border since Joe Biden took the presidential oath of office in January 2021.

“There is currently an unprecedented and a clear and present danger to the integrity of our election system, and that is the threat of noncitizens and illegal aliens voting in our elections,” Johnson said at a Capitol press conference earlier this month announcing the bill.

But the accomplice media, while conceding foreign nationals have been caught voting in federal elections, assert the act is extremely rare. Besides, the left’s messengers contend, what illegal alien in his right mind would risk committing a felony just to vote in a federal election? The New York Times accused Republicans of “Sowing [a] False Narrative.” The Associated Press asserts “Noncitizen voting isn’t an issue in federal elections,” while it acknowledges that it does happen.

“To be clear, there have been cases of noncitizens casting ballots, but they are extremely rare. Those who have looked into these cases say they often involve legal immigrants who mistakenly believe they have the right to vote,” AP admits.

So much for the idea that any illegal vote dilutes the validity of an election. Again, the corporate media like to put qualifiers on fraud, forced by the facts to acknowledge its existence but insisting it isn’t “widespread.”

“They’ve used ‘widespread’ for years as a way of downplaying any concern about it,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and Senior Legal Fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “We don’t have ‘widespread’ bank robberies but we have enough of them that we take very detailed security precautions to prevent them. Election fraud is exactly the same.”

Excellent truths @ChuckMuth

Hans Von Spakovsky points out:
“We don’t have ‘widespread’ bank robberies, but we have enough of them that we take very detailed security precautions to prevent them. Election fraud is exactly the same.”https://t.co/xKMn3uRBxF pic.twitter.com/erB4hxK2cQ
— Nevada Globe (@NevadaGlobe) May 18, 2024

Where Democrats Stand

Raskin isn’t the only Democrat who has defended foreign nationals voting in elections. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, has been very vocal in his support for aliens voting in New York local elections. His New York congressional colleague, leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has suggested the Republican-controlled House’s bill to bar foreign nationals from voting in D.C. is reminiscent of the days of slavery.

“They’re singling out the residents of the District of Columbia and expanding in the history of disenfranchisement that goes all the way back to the legacy of slavery,” she said last year.

James Comer, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said the bill aims to rectify the D.C. City Council’s decision to “recklessly allowed non-citizens to participate in elections in our nation’s capital.”

“This move by the Council was irresponsible and subverts the voices of American citizens,” Comer said in a statement. “Today, Congress took action and I applaud the passage of legislation that will now prohibit non-citizens from voting in District of Columbia elections.”

The House bill pertaining to D.C. elections and the SAVE Act aren’t going anywhere this year with a Democrat-controlled Senate and a president who appears to be running a Democrat Party future recruitment drive. But Americans, many of whom don’t support illegal aliens and other foreign nationals voting in U.S. elections, know where the party stands heading into the November election.

“Rep. Raskin is okay with the ‘dilution of national boundaries.’ I am not. And neither are the majority of United States citizens,” said Jack Tomczak, national field director for Americans for Citizen Voting, which is leading a growing national effort to amend state constitutions to include citizen-only voting language.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Without The SAVE Act, The Only Thing Keeping Foreigners from Voting Is the Honor System

BY: MIKE LEE | MAY 13, 2024

Someone holding an 'election integrity' sign.

MIKE LEE

Congressional Democrats insist that the SAVE Act — which requires proof of citizenship to establish eligibility to vote in federal elections — is unnecessary because federal law (18 USC § 611) already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. Those making this argument ignore a glaring problem: the government officials who register voters and conduct federal elections aren’t allowed to require proof of citizenship.

The Demands From Illegal Immigrants In Denver Colorado Get More & More Insane

People who have broke our laws and are already being supported by American Tax Payers need even more. Here are their demands:

Number 1: (Illegal) Migrants will cook their own food with fresh… pic.twitter.com/bRdtq2pq9a
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 11, 2024

It’s therefore shockingly easy for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, leaving our elections dangerously vulnerable to foreign interference. Anyone — even an illegal alien or other noncitizen — can register to vote in federal elections, just by checking a box and signing a form. This is all on the honor system. No proof of citizenship is required.

It’s not just that state officials — who are responsible for federal voter registration and elections in our country — don’t verify citizenship in this context; it’s that the Supreme Court has told them that they’re not allowed to do so. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), the Court held that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA, also known as the “Motor Voter” law) prohibits states from requiring proof of citizenship when processing federal voter registration forms.

You need to watch. This is how the Democrats are planning to steal the election.

pic.twitter.com/F6ZOZnglEo
— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) May 13, 2024

The SAVE Act would fix this gaping loophole by requiring anyone registering to vote in federal elections to provide proof of citizenship. It would also require states to review existing federal voter registration files and remove all noncitizens.

Remember: every state issues driver’s licenses to noncitizens, and 19 states issue them to illegal aliens. This, coupled with the Motor Voter law and the Supreme Court’s ruling, makes it shockingly easy for aliens — legal and illegal — to vote in federal elections, even though they’re prohibited from doing so. Considering that there are now nearly 30 million noncitizens in the U.S., including about 12 million who have entered illegally since the last presidential election, we desperately need the SAVE Act.

While Democrats are already mocking the SAVE Act, they don’t dispute that noncitizens shouldn’t vote in federal elections. Rather, they insist that there’s no need for the bill because noncitizens — being prohibited by law from voting in federal elections — categorically do not vote in such elections. That argument fails for one simple reason: it implausibly assumes universal compliance with a law that has become breathtakingly easy (and correspondingly tempting) to violate.

Some say that noncitizens wouldn’t dare register to vote in federal elections, as doing so is illegal and could adversely affect their present or future immigration status. Even if this assumption were correct with regard to many (or even most) noncitizens in the U.S., that still wouldn’t disprove the need for the SAVE Act.

If even a tiny percentage of America’s 30 million noncitizens were to vote, they could change the outcome of a close federal election. And, as noted by the Immigration Accountability Project, it’s odd for the left to insist so vehemently that illegal aliens don’t vote, given that congressional Democrats have inserted language “to waive inadmissibility for illegal voting in all [their] amnesty bills.”

Democrats can’t have it both ways; they can’t (1) credibly say that illegal aliens don’t vote in federal elections, and then (2) expect us to forget their own proposals, which assume the opposite is true. In any event, and regardless of how many (or few) noncitizens may have voted in the past, why not take steps to prevent it from happening in the future?

The sanctity of your vote is at stake. Now more than ever, we need to make sure that our elections are fair, lawfully conducted, and free of foreign influence. To do that, it’s imperative that Congress pass the SAVE Act.

All of the democrats’ arguments are just as ridiculous. This guy has something to say about them.

This guy is a savage. pic.twitter.com/rTK5zl1JN6
— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) May 13, 2024

Mike Lee is a U.S. Senator from Utah and author of “Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

South Carolina Agency: The Feds Force Us to Give Voter Registration to Foreign Nationals

BY: M.D. KITTLE | MAY 07, 2024

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

As South Carolina law enforcement investigates allegations a state agency is handing out voter registration forms to foreign nationals, an agency official tells The Federalist that federal law has tied the state’s hands.

Jeff Leieritz, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, says the department, as the state’s Medicaid agency, is mandated to provide voter registration information under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act Of 1993. The information apparently goes out to everyone applying for the benefits, including foreign nationals.

Section 7 requires each state to designate voter registration agencies, including all state offices providing public assistance, unemployment compensation, or disability services; state or local government offices; federal and nongovernmental offices; and armed forces recruitment offices.

“SCDHHS does not believe the state Medicaid agency should have a role in voter registration. However, absent the legal authority to make this change, SCDHHS remains required by federal law to provide voter registration application forms with each Medicaid application,” Leieritz said in a statement Monday to The Federalist.

‘That’s Insane’

South Carolina state Rep. Adam Morgan has been pushing for answers after a refugee reported receiving a packet of information, including voter registration forms, at the Health and Human Services office. Morgan did not return The Federalist’s requests for comment, but he did speak about the issue last week on FrankSpeech.

“The refugee was actually confused. They were like, ‘Am I supposed to fill this out?’ They asked a relative, and the relative is a citizen who said, ‘No, you can’t fill this out. You’re not a citizen.’ [The refugee] said, ‘Why are they giving this out to noncitizens?’ And we were, like, “Exactly! That’s insane,” Morgan told The Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson.

Why is the SC Medicaid office insisting on giving voter registration forms to non-citizens?

Listen to what SC Freedom Caucus Chairman @RepAdamMorgan found out is going on even in his Republican-lead state.

Watch the full episode at FRANK SPEECH DOT COM. pic.twitter.com/4k1WImariC
— The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson (@AbsoluteWithE) April 30, 2024

Morgan said the refugee mailed the forms back to the Medicaid office advising that the government agency shouldn’t be giving voter registration information to people who are not eligible to vote. The office sent the refugee even more information in response, Morgan claims.

“It’s just infuriating that the government is actually sending these forms out and literally confusing people who may not be trying to do wrong, or opening the door wide open for somebody to do wrong and get people who are not citizens to vote in the election,” said the president of the South Carolina Freedom Caucus and a Republican candidate for a U.S. House seat.

On, Wednesday, the Freedom Caucus sent Gov. Henry McMaster a letter expressing its “grave concern with this breach of election integrity.” They asked that the state inspector general’s office launch an immediate investigation and that the governor order state agencies to “cease and desist distributing voter registration and voter declination forms to non-citizens.”

McMaster, a Republican, quickly responded, saying he has asked the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division to immediately contact Morgan to “provide SLED with any and all evidence, documents and information that you possess in order to evaluate the authenticity of your allegation of illegalities.”

“SLED has received the Governor’s letter to Representative Adam Morgan and will review the allegations provided,” the Law Enforcement Division told The Federalist in an email Monday.

‘Overreaching Federal Requirements’

Leieritz, the spokesman for the state health department, said the agency is aware of reports circulating on social media about the refugee receiving voter registration forms. He said the department does not process or submit voter registration forms for Medicaid applicants or members. That is the domain of the South Carolina Election Commission.

“SCDHHS is investigating what has been reported on social media,” the spokesman said, adding that the agency believes the 30-year-old National Voter Registration Act needs to be amended “to repeal these overreaching federal requirements.”

“South Carolina’s citizens would be better served by a state Medicaid agency that is able to focus singularly on efficiently operating the state’s Healthy Connections Medicaid program,” Leieritz said.

Morgan and the Freedom Caucus are proposing adding a provision in the state budget prohibiting state money from funding the distribution of voter registration information to foreign nationals at South Carolina agencies.

“But isn’t it insane that we have to do that,” the lawmaker told Robinson. “It’s crazy to me that we are at a place in America where we have government employees and government agencies who are willing to actively give out voter registration forms to noncitizens. And if it’s happening in South Carolina, you’d better believe it’s happening all over especially the swing states.”

It is, via federal executive fiat.

‘Bidenbucks’

Beyond the NVRA, President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14019 commands federal agencies to do what some legal experts say the executive branch does not have the legal authority to do: expand voter registration and turnout — using White House “approved” third-party organizations connected to Democrats. The sweeping initiative has been billed “Bidenbucks,” since it uses federal dollars. Think of Executive Order 14019 as Zuckbucks on steroids, using your money.

“This is clearly weaponization of the government for a partisan purpose,” Dave Craig, a senior legal fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, told me in February.

On the swing state front, the Michigan Department of State earlier this year signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Small Business Administration “to promote civic engagement and voter registration in Michigan.” The agreement, according to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and SBA Administrator Isabel Casillas Guzman, is a “first-of-its-kind collaboration” for the federal agency. It is expected to run through Jan. 1, 2036. Such constitutionally suspect “agreements” between the Biden administration and left-led state executive branches are part of Biden’s unprecedented executive order.

‘Non-issues’ Becoming ‘Major Issues’

The South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) last week said it had received several questions and concerns about foreign nationals registering to vote in defiance of basic election integrity protections.

“The SEC is actively auditing voter data through the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program database to ensure that only U.S. citizens are included on the active list of registered voters. Regardless of the method of registration, no voter may be registered in South Carolina without signing an oath swearing that they are a citizen of the United States,” the agency states on its website. “The auditing process ensures that any bad actors are removed from voter rolls and held accountable through state and federal election law statutes.”

The elections regulator said it has not received any “specific information that non-U.S. citizens are fraudulently being registered to vote” in South Carolina.

“The SEC will not allow fraudulent voter registration to happen on our watch,” said Howie Knapp, executive director of the SEC. “Should we receive or discover information that non-U.S. citizens are being registered to vote in our state, we will immediately report to our law enforcement partners for investigation and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.”

South Carolina is looking to join a growing list of states passing resolutions for constitutional amendments barring foreign nationals, including illegal immigrants, from voting in local elections.

“Many said this was a non-issue. Then we discovered state agencies sending voter registration forms to non-citizens. These ‘non-issues’ keep turning out to be major issues,” Morgan recently tweeted on his X account.

🚨Constitutional Amendment passes prohibiting non-citizens from voting in elections at any level in SC.

Many said this was a non-issue. Then we discovered state agencies sending voter registration forms to non-citizens.

These “non-issues” keep turning out to be major issues… pic.twitter.com/1wgFDR2Mmm
— Adam Morgan (@RepAdamMorgan) May 1, 2024

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

corruption, Political

Tagged with:

Alabama Secretary Of State Warns Of ‘Misleading’ Voter Registration Mailer By Leftist Group

BY: M.D. KITTLE | MARCH 26, 2024

A sticker declaring, I Voted, with American flag.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

Two groups are running a “misleading, unsolicited mass mailing of pre-filled voter registration forms targeting Alabama mailboxes,” according to an alert from Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen. In his warning, Allen says his office has “officially discouraged” the mailer, which is in no way affiliated with the state.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that left-wing groups founded by an old Clinton family friend are behind the effort. According to the secretary of state’s office, the Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information have said they intend at least two rounds of mass mailings.

“On two occasions, this Office was contacted on behalf of Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information regarding a mailer they planned to send to Alabama citizens,” Allen said in the alert. “In response, I strongly discouraged the group’s plan to mass mail our citizens.”

According to activist tracker InfluenceWatch, the Voter Participation Center (VPC) was launched in 2003 as Women’s Voices Women Vote, before expanding its mission and changing its name nearly a decade later.

“The group initially focused on registering the strongly Democratic-leaning voting bloc of single women to vote; today, the group organizes registration of numerous Democratic-leaning voting populations,” InfluenceWatch reports.

Founded with help from former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta, the leftist nonprofit has been heavily scrutinized for trying to “register animals, dead people, infants and felons to vote,” according to a 2012 Judicial Watch probe. The center has ties to Big Labor, including the AFL-CIO.

The VPC’s “questionable tactics to undermine the electoral process have caused concerns in several states, including New Mexico, Florida, Wisconsin and Virginia,” the Judicial Watch investigative report states. “VPC forms are deceiving and appear to be official when they are not, according to a news report that links a picture of the mailer. The VPC has also defended the famously corrupt Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) during its various scandals.”

The Voter Participation Center and its partner nonprofit, the Center for Voter Information, were at it again in the 2020 presidential election, to the concern of election officials in several states. As left-leaning Propublica reported at the time, the Democrat-tied groups conducted a “massive campaign to register voters and promote mail-in voting.”

“The nonprofits aim to send 340 million pieces of mail this election cycle, with a focus on two dozen key states. The groups describe themselves as nonpartisan, but they were founded by a former Democratic operative, and the organization has spent at least $47,142 this cycle to promote former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential bid and $40,065 supporting other Democrats, according to public filings,” Propublica reported on Oct. 23, 2020, just 11 days before the election.

Propublica’s figures were a drop in the bucket. Tax filings subsequently reviewed by the Hill found the Voter Participation Center spent more than $100 million, a sevenfold increase from what the organization spent on the 2016 presidential election.

Like other leftist groups, the center used the cover of Covid to defend its get-out-the-vote efforts targeting Democrats.

“At a time when in-person voter contact was sidelined for health and safety reasons, the Voter Participation Center really stood up and did the work that was needed to help register voters, to help voters learn about and sign up to vote by mail, and to educate voters on early voting in person, voting by mail and how to vote safely on election day,” Tom Lopach, the group’s CEO, told the Hill at the time. Lopach, as the publication noted, is a longtime Democrat operative who previously served as “executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a former chief of staff” to Democrat Sen. Jon Tester.

Allen said his office has in previous elections cycles received complaints from Alabama residents about “incorrect pre-filled voter registration forms” much like the ones from the Voter Participation Center.

“This type of targeted, partisan interference by out-of-state, third-party organizations is unnecessary, confusing, and counterproductive,” the secretary of state said.

“Alabama citizens can rest assured that the Alabama Secretary of State’s office and local election officials are well-equipped to handle voter registration in Alabama,” Allen added. “Trusted voter registration and election information can be found on the Secretary of State’s official website.”

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Loophole In ‘Weak’ North Carolina Voter ID Law Lets Just About Anyone Cast A Ballot

BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 12, 2024

Sign in New Hampshire requiring photo ID

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

North Carolinians who didn’t present a photo ID when voting during the presidential primary last week were still permitted to cast a ballot, thanks to exceptions that Soros-backed groups supported including in the state’s voter ID law.

On March 5, more than 1.7 million North Carolina voters were asked to show a photo ID to vote in the presidential primary, in the first major election since the law went into effect. Most of those voters appeared to successfully present an ID and cast a ballot. Still, according to preliminary counts, more than 1,000 voters cast what is known as a “provisional ballot” due to “ID not provided,” according to the state’s election board (NCSBE). Of those more than 1,000 voters, 546 later returned to show their IDs. But another 607 voters never showed a photo ID, instead simply signing a form claiming that a “reasonable impediment” prevented them from presenting an ID.

The Law Doesn’t Actually Compel Voters to Show Photo ID

The North Carolina general assembly initially passed a series of election-related laws in 2013. After facing legal challenges to the voter ID requirement, the state legislature presented a revised voter ID law in 2015 that included the “reasonable impediment” exception, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit nevertheless struck down the voter ID requirement in 2016. Republicans spent the next several years fighting in the courts to pass some type of voter ID laws while North Carolinians voted in 2018 to approve a state constitutional amendment establishing a photo ID requirement.

Most recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court — which had flipped from a Democrat-majority to a Republican-majority — overturned a past decision by the same court and thus permitted the photo ID requirement to go into effect.

The current version says that a voter who does not present a photo ID due to a “reasonable impediment” may still cast a provisional ballot so long as he provides “a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document,” his voter registration card, or the last four digits of his Social Security number and birth date.

If a voter still fails to present any of those documents, the law says he can simply complete a declaration stating that he is who he says he is — aka the “honor system.” He must also designate on the form that a “reasonable impediment” — such as disability or illness, lack of transportation, lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain a photo ID, work schedule, or family responsibilities — has prevented him from providing an ID. Other acceptable reasons include a voter having lost his ID or simply “not know[ing] photo ID was required for voting.”

The ID exception form is also accepted for mail-in voters who cannot include a copy of their photo ID with their ballots, according to voting instructions posted by the Mecklenburg County government.

‘Nobody Will Be Turned Away’

Thirty-six other states currently mandate some form of voter ID, but Republicans who have worked on election integrity efforts say North Carolina’s law is the “weakest” of them all.

“You can literally put any kind of excuse you want on the ‘Reasonable Impediment’ form and be given a ballot. It’s not hard at all to vote,” Chairman of the Lee County Republican Party James Womack told The Federalist.

“This ‘Reasonable Impediment’ thing is really a weakness in the law, it’s the weakest voter ID law in the country when you consider almost anyone can walk in and say ‘Oh, I lost my ID’ and cast a provisional ballot,” Womack continued. “They really didn’t make an attempt this year, in Senate Bill 747, to update anything that was in the case of ‘Reasonable Impediment.’”

Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina Jay DeLancy wrote in 2015 after an earlier, similar version of the law was passed that it was a “stunning betrayal” to all state residents who wanted to see “real voter ID” laws. DeLancy said at the time that, while he did not believe Republicans in the legislature purposely gutted the photo ID provisions, “their inexperience in election fraud analysis leads them to believe the new loophole ‘won’t be a big deal’ in our state.”

Provisional ballots can theoretically be rejected, but those cast based on a “reasonable impediment” to providing voter ID can only be rejected if a county elections board unanimously finds that the information a voter gives in the ID exception form is false. It’s unclear, however, how a county board would be able to discern whether a person’s claimed impediment to obtaining an ID is genuine. Besides, Womack noted these voters likely wouldn’t be rejected due to a fear that lawsuits would be lodged alleging voter suppression.

“What they did, this law, neuters the ability of the board to reject those ballots no matter how ridiculous the excuse is that the voter uses,” DeLancy told The Federalist. “It defies common sense.”

DeLancy told The Federalist he believes Republicans in the legislature thought they would be “clever” and include the “reasonable impediment” provision as a way to avoid having the voter ID law tossed.

Womack speculated that then-House Rules Chairman Rep. David Lewis included the last-minute “compromise language” to help the legislation pass. He noted Republicans had to work in bipartisan fashion since, at the time, they did not hold a supermajority in either state legislature and the Reasonable Impediment provision would alleviate concerns from the left that there would be an “undue burden on people who didn’t have photo ID.”

Womack said the provision likely didn’t get much attention since the legislation got stuck in the courts for years but argued that now that it has gone into effect “people are starting to expose its weaknesses.”

“There’s all kinds of excuses you can put on the form and you’ll still be granted the right to vote, nobody will be turned away,” he added.

DeLancy said the provision should be fixed ahead of November’s election “or else” it leaves the door open for potential abuse.

Soros-Linked Group Cheered ‘Reasonable Impediment’ Exception

When North Carolina’s 2013 law was challenged in court shortly after it was signed, the leftist groups behind the legal fight included the NAACP and the Advancement Project. The Advancement Project had received nearly $4 million between 1999 and 2012 from the Soros-funded Open Society Project. The Foundation to Promote Open Society contributed more than half a million to the Advancement Project between 2009 and 2012, according to Influence Watch. Later suits targeting the law were brought by other election-interference groups like the ACLU.

When Republicans proposed a revision adding the “reasonable impediment” exception to the law in 2015, the Soros-backed group Democracy North Carolina spent weeks “encouraging hundreds of citizens to attend and speak out” at hearings regarding the legislation and celebrated the inclusion of the “reasonable impediment” provision.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Media Attack New RNC Chair For Election Integrity Efforts, But GOP Critics Say He Could Do More

BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 11, 2024

Then-President Donald Trump speaks at rally in North Carolina

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

The Republican National Committee (RNC) replaced its chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Friday with the now-former North Carolina Republican Party (NCGOP) chair Michael Whatley, who was the Trump-backed frontrunner. Ever since Whatley’s name was floated, the corporate media predictably deployed the “election denier” smear they assign to any Republican who has ever shown an interest in protecting the integrity of elections.

Whatley has a track record of emphasizing election integrity — and that’s enough, in the eyes of the corporate press, to paint him as a radical election-denying extremist. But with the high stakes of the 2024 election cycle, some of Whatley’s critics say he needs to amp up his election integrity efforts to another level in his anticipated post at the RNC.

Attacks From the Corporate Media

Whatley, who had served as NCGOP chair since narrowly defeating his opponents Jim Womack and John Lewis in 2019, has been the target of hand-wringing pieces from corporate media ever since he was tapped as former President Trump’s choice to lead the RNC. In an MSNBC column, North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton clutched her pearls about the “danger” Whatley poses.

“It’s clear that Trump is looking for an RNC leader who won’t hesitate to disenfranchise voters, rig elections or dismantle our democracy,” Clayton melodramatically wrote. “[Whatley] has helped lead efforts to defy the will of the people and infringe on North Carolinians’ rights.”

CNN ran a piece entitled “Likely frontrunner for RNC chair parroted Trump’s 2020 election lies.”

Multiple outlets affiliated with States Newsroom — a network launched by a Democrat dark-money group — shuddered at the thought that Whatley teamed up with organizations like Cleta Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network that trains poll watchers, under the headline: “Trump’s pick for RNC chief worked with top election denier’s group.”

Russia hoax lawyer Marc Elias’ Democracy Docket joined in the attacks, saying Trump’s “endorsement of Whatley signals that the party is continuing down its path of pushing false election fraud narratives ahead of the November general election.”

What did Whatley do to be smeared as an election conspiracy theorist? In November 2020, he alleged that there was “massive fraud” in “places like Milwaukee and Detroit and Philadelphia.” Of course, even the Associated Press has admitted the existence of voter fraud in the 2020 election, just simply not enough for their liking to denote it as “widespread.”

As Whatley told CNN, “changes to the 2020 election process … weakened safeguards on absentee and mail-in votes in some states,” which “led to distrust by many across the country.”

Whatley’s Work on Election Integrity

Whatley’s supporters tout major wins for the state’s courts and election integrity efforts under his leadership.

“I think [election integrity] is probably [Whatley’s] greatest strength,” Nash County Republican Party Chair Mark Edwards said. “Coming out of the 2020 election there was a lot of angst and energy among Republicans about election integrity and rather than stoke some of the more outlandish and extreme and outrageous reactions to what happened in 2020, Whatley stood above it and saw that this is where the concerns of the party were.”

“He took it upon himself to grab the election integrity issue by the horns and direct that energy into productive use by setting up the Election Integrity Review Committee within the party,” Edwards added, crediting Whatley with “hiring legal staff to help head up the election integrity efforts of the party, and work very closely with Republican legislators to craft legislation that was drafted, introduced and passed and is now being implemented.”

The NCGOP established the Election Integrity Committee in 2021 to recruit, train and send out attorneys and poll watchers to observe “absentee-by-mail approval meetings, early voting polls, election day polls, county canvasses, recount meetings, and protest hearings.”

In 2022, “Whatley doubled down on his efforts to recruit and train poll observers and lawyers,” said former NCGOP legal counsel Philip Thomas. The NCGOP was unable to provide numbers for how many poll watchers were appointed over the course of Whatley’s tenure. Whatley critic Jay DeLancy, however, said it might be difficult for the NCGOP to obtain that data since individual counties appoint observers and the process is decentralized.

Senior legal fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute Cleta Mitchell said Whatley “understands that there is more to winning elections than just turning out votes and voters.”

“He has a sense of the need to focus on the election system itself,” Mitchell added. “While sometimes he has too narrow a focus, such as thinking that volunteer lawyers on Election Day will somehow overcome the billions of dollars that the left has invested in changing the entire voting system in our country, Michael is at least aware that there is more to winning than the historic or traditional ‘If we have a good candidate and good issues and a good campaign, our side will win.’ Those days are long gone and at some level, Michael understands that.”

Whatley also created the Judicial Victory Fund, which states its goal is “raising the resources needed to support … statewide conservative judicial candidates.” NCGOP Communications Director Matt Mercer said the fund is “something that really can’t be overstated enough.”

“Whatley campaigned on ‘Reset in Raleigh’ and overturning a 6-1 Republican deficit on the Supreme Court,” Mercer said. “Whatley has been undefeated [in judicial races] in 2020 and 2022 with the Judicial Victory Fund and the partners at the county and district levels.”

Mercer also credits Whatley with helping get voter ID “past the finish line” by flipping the balance of the court, adding while the NCGOP will miss him, “it’s going to be a benefit for the RNC to have someone of his caliber there.”

The fund was particularly handy during the 2020 election for the North Carolina Supreme Court’s chief justice between Democrat incumbent Cheri Beasley and Republican Associate Justice Paul Newby. Beasley refused to concede after she lost by about 400 votes and attempted to restore thousands of ballots. Of the 2,800 of those ballots analyzed by The News & Observer at the time, 70 percent belonged to Democrats and just nine ballots belonged to Republicans.

Some of the ballots Beasley tried to force election officials to accept were ballots that had already been counted, WRAL News reported. But the NCGOP says her attempts ultimately failed after they used resources from the Judicial Victory Fund to fight back.

Republicans also managed to flip the balance of the state’s Supreme Court in 2022 after Republicans Trey Allen and Richard Dietz won their races, giving Republicans a 5-2 majority.

“If you’re a state party chairman and you don’t have critics, you probably aren’t doing your job,” former chairman of the NCGOP Tom Fetzer told The Federalist. “It’s something that anybody who has ever been a state party chairman accepts and deals with.”

GOP Critics Say Whatley Could Do More

Womack and John Kane, who tried to unseat Whatley in 2022, say he is being given too much credit and should be doing more for election integrity.

“He’s taking credit for [the Judicial Victory Fund] as a great accomplishment, but the credit needs to be shared with … the attorneys that were working on the judicial campaigns, there were different districts that were raising money,” Womack said.

And when it comes to fighting to secure elections, Womack said the real effort comes from the RNC. In October, the NCGOP and RNC intervened in a lawsuit wherein Democrats attacked a state senate bill that “prevents non-citizens from voting, protects bipartisan poll watchers, and eliminates dark money in elections.”

“The RNC is taking the lead on their lawyers so the NCGOP is just saying, ‘Me too,’” Womack told The Federalist. “We do have a general counsel who is pretty good but the RNC is the one floating all these costs for the lawsuits nationwide.” Aside from the RNC’s election integrity efforts, he added, grassroots Republicans have also worked behind the scenes to ensure the state has a fair process.

This criticism was echoed by Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, Jay DeLancy, who claimed the NCGOP only addressed allegations of dead people voting in the Beasley-Newby race after his organization took the lead and began investigating.

“It wasn’t [the NCGOP] idea, it was ours,” DeLancy said, adding however that he was pleased the NCGOP helped ramp up efforts. DeLancy also argued that while he has “no complaints about [the NCGOP] lawsuits” and said he gives “credit” to the “effective” legal action that was taken, securing elections starts from the bottom up.

“Election integrity takes creativity, you have to think about how the bad guys are doing things and get into the process,” he said. “What we’re more concerned with is day-to-day ground game and where people are cheating, where the rubber meets the road at the polls.”

“When things go south at the polls, we train our poll workers to pull out the law and show the clerk where they’re wrong. [NCGOP] doesn’t, they just say, ‘call us’…and log it unless they feel they can take legal action,” DeLancy added. “I would love to have seen someone who took election integrity seriously as RNC chairman but at the end of the day, all they really care about is get out the vote efforts and they’re not serious about election integrity.”

Mitchell expressed similar thoughts, saying while recruiting volunteer lawyers and poll observers is “absolutely vital,” she hopes Whatley “will be open to hearing about and understanding” that Republicans need to “fight the left on every single issue and every inflection point regarding the election system.”

“We cannot hope to counter their massive funding and organizational advantage that has nothing to do with the DNC or the normal political campaigns,” Mitchell said. “We are in a different world now and hopefully, Michael and the new RNC leadership will want to learn and do something about it. Banking early votes or ballot harvesting as a singular strategy has the left rolling in the aisles laughing at us.”

Womack and Kane also expressed concerns about whether Whatley could actually fundraise for the party.

“The state party would be broke if it weren’t for RNC subsidies,” Womack said. Kane also attributed the state party’s funds to the RNC.

Womack acknowledged, however, that Whatley likely wouldn’t need to worry about doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to fundraising because Trump would be able to drum up most of the support himself.

“Trump’s train has left the station,” Womack said. “I think he’s gonna do well regardless of who the RNC chair is so I’m guessing it really doesn’t matter who leads the RNC.”

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Democrats, Not Trump or His Supporters, Are the Real Extremists

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | MARCH 05, 2024

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

Hot on the heels of a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that states have “no power” to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot, Democrats and their lackeys in the corporate press denounced the court for supposedly meddling or interfering in the election.

“Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that’s had this many opportunities to interfere in the election,” said former Rep. Donna Edwards on MSNBC. NBC News’ Ken Dilanian mused that the 9-0 ruling would “be seen by many people as the court essentially interfering in some sense in the election.”

Got that? When Democrats interfere in a presidential election and launch what amounts to an insurrection against the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court steps in and unanimously puts a stop to it, it’s the court, not Democrat activists, who are interfering in the election.

The hypocrisy here is breathtaking but not unexpected. Democrats engage in this kind of projection constantly, taking an extreme position and then decrying any dissent or resistance to it as extremist.

In the Colorado case, two well-funded leftist groups with anodyne names — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Free Speech for People — waged a lawfare campaign with a far-fetched reading of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” managing to get Colorado’s Democrat-dominated Supreme Court to rule in December that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot. The plan was to do this in numerous states, foreclosing the possibility of Trump’s reelection.

From the outset, it should have been obvious that the legal argument was bogus, a cynical and clumsy ploy to prop up President Biden’s reelection bid by robbing voters of the chance to cast ballots for Trump. It’s hard to imagine anything getting a unanimous ruling on our deeply divided Supreme Court, but these bozos managed to do it — and in the process embarrassed the many corporate media commentators who twisted themselves into pretzels arguing that the Colorado case was strong.

But if we step back a bit and consider all this in the context of nearly every other scheme Democrats have hatched in recent years, it’s possible to see why they thought it was worth a shot. Time and again, Democrats take unprecedented steps and trample every conceivable norm to advance their agenda, and when anyone objects, they label them an extremist or insurrectionist or Christian nationalist (whatever that means). They project onto their opponents, and especially onto Trump, the very things they are actively engaged in doing.

An obvious example of this is when Democrats warn that if Trump is reelected, he’ll use the Department of Justice and the FBI to go after his political rivals. Oh really? This is exactly what the Biden administration has been doing for the past three years to Trump, his lawyers, and his supporters. The criminal cases against Trump are nothing if not the weaponization of the DOJ to crush an unpopular sitting president’s chief political rival. This weaponization began even before Trump won the White House in 2016. In the waning days of the Obama administration, Democrats used the FBI and the intelligence community to go after the Trump campaign — and continued going after Trump after he won the presidency, perpetuating the Russia-collusion hoax for years with the assistance of a complicit corporate press. If anyone is using the levers of government power to go after their enemies, it’s Democrats, not Trump.

Other examples of Democrat projection abound. After months of letting our cities burn in Black Lives Matter riots, excusing them as “mostly peaceful,” Democrats threw the book at anyone who wandered into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, arresting, jailing, and prosecuting more than a thousand Americans to date, often on flimsy charges that otherwise would hardly merit a fine. Just last week, the FBI arrested Blaze Media investigative reporter Steve Baker for his coverage of Jan. 6, marching him out of Blaze’s Dallas office in handcuffs. Democrats feign outrage at the arrest of The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich in Russia, but they gloat, as NBC News did, when the Biden administration does the same to right-of-center journalists here in America.

Pick almost any controversial issue, and you’ll find the same pattern at work. Democrats flood the internet with disinformation and propaganda about Covid, and then decry dissenting voices (and accompanying data) as agents of disinformation who must be censored and banned by Big Tech. Same thing for what they call “election disinformation,” which merely refers to opinions and data that run counter to their preferred narrative.

Democrats do this with everything.

On abortion, they take the extreme position that it should be allowed up until the moment of birth, then denounce Republican-led states that impose restrictions that are the norm across the Western world.
On transgenderism, they insist children can consent to genital mutilation and sterilization, then condemn modest efforts to ban or limit these practices as child abuse.
On immigration, they throw open the southern border and let 10 million illegal immigrants flood into the country, then attack anyone who suggests we have a crisis at the border and need to secure it.
On crime, they defund the police and decriminalize a host of antisocial, destructive behavior in our cities, precipitating a crime wave of robbery and assault, then denounce as racist any arguments for law and order.
On racism itself, they tar everyone on the right with the label but look the other way when the racists on their side call for the genocide of the Jews and defend (even celebrate) Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians.

On nearly every major issue today, Democrats are the extremists. Their denunciations of Trump and his supporters rise in direct proportion to their own extremist agenda. The projection is a tactic, a crude rhetorical ruse. Don’t fall for it.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, to be published in March 2024. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Report: 186 Now-Removed Arizona Voter Roll Names Were Foreign Nationals

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | FEBRUARY 22, 2024

Arizona removed nearly 200 residents from its voter rolls after discovering they were foreign nationals, and therefore ineligible to vote, a new report revealed.

Published on Tuesday, the analysis by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) found that 186 noncitizens residing in Pima County have been “involuntarily purged” from the Grand Canyon State’s voter registration lists since 2021. According to the report, seven of these 186 foreigners appear to have cast ballots “across two federal and local elections.”

Records reviewed by PILF included more detailed information, such as the party affiliation of the aforementioned noncitizens. The analysis indicated 108 did not have a party affiliation, while 46 were registered as Democrats and 28 as Republicans. Three were registered independents and one was a Libertarian.

“Roughly 65 percent of records came from ‘political parties and group drives,’” the report reads. “Although conclusions in other studies established that organizers of voter registration drives can be left leaning, the party affiliations of the registrants within the Pima disclosure are more varied.”

A separate report released by PILF last year found that Arizona had also removed 222 Maricopa County residents who were identified as foreign nationals since 2015. Of those 222 noncitizens, nine purportedly cast “12 ballots across 4 federal elections.”

PILF’s analysis comes amid concerns over whether Arizona’s voter registration processes could lead to registering foreign nationals to vote. While Arizona requires residents to show proof of citizenship to vote in state elections, a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision forbade the state from implementing such a requirement for federal elections. As PILF noted, individuals who cannot provide Arizona with documents to prove citizenship “may participate only in federal elections” using a federal-only ballot.

“State officials also query government databases to backfill these credentials for existing registrants where they can,” the report says. “If officials become aware of a registrant’s documented foreign nationality from reliable government data, however, they are ‘involuntarily purged’ from the roll if they cannot prove subsequent naturalization has occurred.”

These registration procedures highlight the problems with policies such as automatic voter registration and permitting illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, which, PILF noted, “exacerbate the problem” of foreign nationals being registered to vote in U.S. elections.

In a statement, PILF President J. Christian Adams blasted federal law for “hamper[ing] states’ abilities to validate citizenship during the voter registration process” and called on lawmakers to change it so states can verify registrants’ citizenship.

“Arizona is limited to building imperfect systems to address the problem of foreign nationals voting,” Adams said.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Government-Backed Censors Who Rigged The 2020 Election Are Now Stealing 2024

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | FEBRUARY 20, 2024

Mike Benz and Tucker Carlson talk censorship in the past and 2024 election

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

If you didn’t see Tucker Carlson’s interview last week with Mike Benz, you need to take an hour and watch the whole thing. In a mind-bending narrative about the emergence of what Benz calls “military rule” through an online censorship industry in the U.S., he lays out in startling detail just how corrupt and tyrannical the U.S. defense and foreign policy establishment has become.

Most importantly, Benz, the executive director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, explains how a constellation of federal agencies and publicly funded institutions, under the pretext of countering “misinformation,” rigged the 2020 election and are right now smothering the First Amendment and rigging the 2024 election through massive state-sponsored censorship online. The 2020 election and the Covid-19 pandemic, says Benz, were the “two most censored events in human history.” And 2024 is shaping up to be the same, thanks to the emergence of a federal censorship-industrial complex.

The problem here is profound, with deep historical roots that go back to the aftermath of World War II and the creation of the CIA along with a host of U.S.-funded international institutions. But for our purposes, it suffices to understand the problem in its two most recent stages: the period from 1991 to 2014, and from 2014 to the present.

At the outset of internet privatization in 1991, free speech online was seen as an instrument of statecraft. At that time, says Benz, internet free speech was championed by the U.S. foreign policy and defense establishments as a way to support dissident groups around the world in their efforts to overthrow authoritarian or disfavored regimes. It allowed the U.S. to conduct what Benz calls “insta-regime change operations,” in service of the State Department’s foreign policy agenda.

The plan worked really well. Among other things, free speech on the internet allowed U.S.-backed groups to assert control over state-run media in foreign countries, making it much easier to overthrow governments. The high-water mark of this way of deploying free speech online, Benz explains, was the Arab Spring in 2011 and 2012, when governments the Obama administration considered problematic — Egypt, Tunisia, Libya — all began falling in so-called Facebook and Twitter revolutions. During that time, the State Department worked closely with these social media companies to keep them up and running in those countries, to be used as tools for protesters and dissident groups that were trying to circumvent state censorship.

But all of that changed in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine toppled the government of Viktor Yanukovych and there was an unexpected pro-Russia counter-coup in Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. Later that same year, says Benz, when the people of Crimea voted to be annexed into the Russian Federation, “that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the internet in the eyes of NATO.”

Thereafter, NATO, the CIA, and the State Department, together with the intelligence agencies of our European allies, did an about-face on internet free speech. They began instead to engage in what amounted to hybrid or information warfare to censor what they saw as Russian propaganda online. These efforts quickly spread beyond Ukraine and Eastern Europe to include the censorship of populist groups on the right that were emerging across the EU as a response to the Syrian migrant crisis.

By the time Brexit emerged in the summer of 2016, explains Benz, NATO and the foreign policy establishment felt there was a real crisis afoot; the problem was spreading west from Central and Eastern Europe, and it had to be stopped. If it wasn’t, then Brexit might trigger the collapse of the entire EU, along with NATO and the entire constellation of supranational institutions that relied on NATO. The entire postwar architecture of institutions might come crashing down, all because the hearts and minds of the people were being swayed. So went the thinking, anyway. As far as the national security establishment was concerned, citizens were being swayed by Russian and far-right propaganda, and we can’t have that.

Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy." pic.twitter.com/hDTEjAf89T
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 16, 2024

Under these circumstances, free speech was the last thing that could be allowed to flourish online. Censorship became the order of the day. As Carlson put it, these NATO and EU leaders identified their new enemy as democracy within their own countries — their own voters, in other words: “They feared that their people, the citizens of their own countries, would get their way. And they went to war against that.”

And then Trump was elected. From that moment — and indeed, as we know from the Russia-collusion hoax, even before Trump was elected in November 2016 — the U.S. foreign policy and defense establishments, which had done so much to censor and weaponize the internet overseas, turned their attention to American citizens.

Initially, their predicate for domestic surveillance was Crossfire Hurricane, the fatuous notion that Russia had infiltrated the Trump campaign and that Trump was a Russian asset. Once that collapsed, they needed another excuse to spy on and censor Americans who held disfavored opinions or who spread “misinformation,” to put it in the parlance of the censorship-industrial complex. To do that, they had to get around the prohibition against the CIA operating on American soil.

Since they couldn’t very well get away with openly spying on and censoring American citizens, they decided to house the bulk of their censorship operations inside the Department of Homeland Security, specifically in a part of DHS tasked with reducing and eliminating threats to U.S. critical physical and cyber infrastructure. Hence “domestic misinformation” — which is really just a term for opinions and information that the national security state doesn’t like or that run counter to State Department policy — was classified as an attack on “critical cognitive infrastructure,” and could therefore be censored. What it amounted to was an end-run around the First Amendment.

But even DHS couldn’t do this directly, so it outsourced online censorship operations to third parties like the Election Integrity Partnership, or EIP, which consisted of four separate organizations: the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and a firm called Graphika. These private-sector “partners” did the nitty-gritty work of mapping out entire online networks of people who helped spread certain disfavored opinions, or what the censors called “false narratives.” Essentially they were deputized to censor Americans on behalf of the government.

It should come as no surprise that the people behind the EIP censorship network are leftists who hate Donald Trump, despise his supporters, and love censorship. For example, former Facebook executive Alex Stamos is the director of the Stanford Internet Observatory. He has compared “over half of the Republicans in Congress” to ISIS, called for Newsmax and OANN to be kicked off the air, and said, “We have to turn down the capability of these conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences.” His views are typical among the managers of the censorship industry.

These managers and their partners inside the U.S. government went about their task with gusto, including a seven-month pre-censorship campaign ahead of the 2020 election. Any content challenging public faith in mail-in ballots, early voting, and ballot drop boxes was flagged for violating new rules about “delegitimizing elections.” The censors, along with the government, had strong-armed the social media companies into adopting these rules, as documented in great detail last year with the release of the “Twitter Files.”

Indeed, the “Twitter Files” exposed a massive effort by the federal government to deputize Twitter and other social media companies to do what it could not, at least not legally. But in some ways, the “Twitter Files” just revealed the tip of the censorship iceberg.

We at The Federalist were caught up in all this during the 2020 election. As detailed in a recent lawsuit filed in December by The Federalist, The Daily Wire, and the state of Texas, the State Department illegally used a counterterrorism center intended to fight foreign “disinformation” to censor Americans.

The State Department, through grants and product development assistance to private entities like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard, was “actively intervening in the news-media market to render disfavored press outlets unprofitable by funding the infrastructure, development, and marketing and promotion of censorship technology and private censorship enterprises to covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press,” according to the lawsuit.

In our case, it meant the federal government was using cutouts like NewsGuard to throttle our reporting and commentary on the 2020 election and its chaotic aftermath. Both the GDI and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) developed censorship tools that included “supposed fact-checking technologies, media literacy tools, media intelligence platforms, social network mapping, and machine learning/artificial intelligence technology,” the lawsuit says. The State Department then gave these tools to companies like Facebook and LinkedIn to target disfavored media outlets, including The Federalist.

Through these and other methods, during the 2020 election cycle and the Covid pandemic, the government-backed censorship-industrial complex throttled millions of online posts, suppressing traffic to news sites, and undermined revenue streams for a host of outlets and influencers with disfavored or dissident views.

But this isn’t a thing of the past. All of the censorship infrastructure described above is still intact, still functioning, and is firing on all cylinders right now ahead of the 2024 election. If anything, the censorship-industrial complex is more robust than it was four years ago. Just last week, Meta’s President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg boasted on CNBC that he currently has some 40,000 employees, which is nearly 60 percent of Meta’s entire workforce, tasked with censoring speech on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Clegg also claimed Meta has spent about $20 billion, including $5 billion in the last year, on its censorship efforts — or what he euphemistically called “election integrity.”

What does that mean in practice? We don’t have to guess. Remember that Facebook infamously censored the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020 at the behest of the FBI. With 40,000 employees now charged with censoring “hate speech” and ensuring “election integrity,” we can be fairly certain that if another Hunter Biden laptop story comes along this election cycle, it too will be quashed by the censors.

Why exactly is our government doing this? It’s not merely a partisan preference for ensuring Democrats stay in power, but something deeper and more insidious. To circle back to Carlson’s interview with Benz, it’s because the national security state has come to regard “democracy” not as the will of the people expressed through elections, but as the constellation of government agencies, government-backed institutions, corporations, media outlets, and nonprofit groups. Protecting democracy, in this view, means protecting these institutions from the people they were putatively meant to serve.

As Benz says at one point in the interview, “The relationship between the managers of the American empire and the citizens of the American homeland has broken down, and that has played itself out in the story of the censorship industry.”

All of this seems rather complex and dense, at least in the details of how it works. But at root it’s very simple: Those who have power don’t want to be held accountable by the unwashed masses, by “populism,” and certainly not by the results of free and fair elections. They will not tolerate anyone, not even a duly elected president, going against the “interagency consensus” — that famous phrase of Alexander Vindman’s from the first Trump impeachment. They don’t think the people have that right, and they intend to use every tool they have to protect their power and privilege.

The stark truth is that if we don’t defeat and dismantle this censorship-industrial complex, it means the end of our republic and the rise of tyrannical military rule in the United States.

If you think that’s an overstatement, go watch the entire Benz interview and consider it in the context of what we have all seen play out in America over the past half-decade or so. There is no language alarmist enough to convey the gravity of what’s happening here. This is a hybrid war being fought mostly online but with real-world consequences that are every day becoming more obvious. We have to win the war to save our country, but we can’t even fight if we don’t know what’s happening, or how, or why.

About 15 minutes into the interview, I was again reminded of something I once heard the late, great Angelo Codevilla say in a lecture. He said our response to 9/11 was fundamentally flawed because it took a “law enforcement” approach to terrorism that required the creation of a vast state security and surveillance apparatus to detect and stop terrorist attacks. Once the terrorist threat subsided, Codevilla explained, this surveillance apparatus would be turned on the American people and destroy the republic it was supposedly designed to protect.

That lecture was in 2013. Codevilla was right. It’s all happened exactly as he said it would. What happens next is up to us.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, to be published in March 2024. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Category:

corruption, Political

Tagged with:

If Democrats Love ‘Democracy,’ Why Do They Attack Election Security Measures Voters Want?

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | FEBRUARY 02, 2024

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

“We are the party of democracy!”

That’s the asinine campaign message Democrats are using heading into the 2024 election to convince voters that Donald Trump and his “MAGA Republican” supporters are an existential threat to the republic. Because as everyone knows, the political party that attempts to throw its primary political opponent off the ballot and into prison; prosecutes praying pro-lifers; targets practicing Catholics; interferes in elections to its candidates’ benefit; and coordinates with Big Tech to silence dissent online is the standard-bearer of “democracy.”

For all their disingenuous rhetoric about upholding the will of the people, Democrats are actively fighting against Americans’ wishes — especially when it comes to the integrity of U.S. elections.

Last week, the Honest Elections Project (HEP) released a report recommending 14 policies for states to implement to ensure an electoral process that’s fair and accountable to the people. Democrats are actively fighting against many of the commonsense practices outlined in the analysis despite their popularity amongst the American electorate.

Take, for instance, voter ID requirements. In July, the HEP released survey data showing that a whopping 88 percent of U.S. voters back laws requiring eligible citizens to show a form of identification in order to cast their ballot. Polling by Gallup in 2022 produced similar results, with 79 percent of respondents in favor of a photo ID requirement. But that doesn’t seem to matter to Democrats, whose acolytes have spent years ignoring voters’ wishes and engaging in dishonest lawfare to dismantle states’ existing voter ID requirements.

From Ohio to New Hampshire, leftist lawyers and groups have filed frivolous lawsuits aimed at gutting voter ID statutes. Many of these suits are based on unsubstantiated claims that such laws “disenfranchise” nonwhite voters.

While courts across the country have repeatedly determined their “voter suppression” arguments to be bogus, Democrats’ continuous use of nonwhite voters as a crutch to smear popular voter ID laws shows how little respect they have for “democracy.” The aforementioned HEP poll also showed the vast majority of black (82 percent) and Hispanic (83 percent) voters support such requirements in order to vote. Gallup found that 77 percent of nonwhite respondents supported photo ID laws. If Democrats truly respected the will of the American voter, as they regularly claim to do, why are they trying to undercut a policy most of them support?

But it’s not just voter ID requirements. Democrats are actively waging a nationwide campaign to demolish numerous policies recommended by the HEP that ensure secure elections and are supported by the majority of U.S. voters.

While most of the electorate (89 percent) believes “American elections should only be for American citizens,” that hasn’t stopped Democrats from attempting to authorize noncitizen voting throughout the country. Last year, for example, Rhode Island Democrats introduced legislation to authorize localities to allow illegal aliens to vote in their municipal elections. Some cities, such San Francisco, New York City, and Washington, D.C, have already passed measures permitting certain noncitizen voting.

In response to left-wing nonprofits dumping hundreds of millions of “Zuckbucks” into local election offices during the 2020 election to benefit Joe Biden, elected officials and voters in 27 states enacted measures restricting election offices’ ability to accept and use private monies to administer elections. In response, several of those same Democrat-aligned groups formalized the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence as a way of circumventing these “Zuckbucks” bans and therefore violating the will of the people in the aforementioned states.

The same dynamic can also be seen regarding mail-in voting. Most voters (66 percent) support terminating no-excuse mail voting “as long as states offer two weeks of early in-person voting, including weekends.” Meanwhile, Democrats — who used the Covid lockdowns as a pretext for expanding the use of vote-by-mail and other insecure election practices — have continued to push unsupervised mail balloting across the country. Some states, such as Nevada, automatically mail individuals listed on the state’s voter rolls a ballot ahead of elections.

Whether it’s banning foreign money in elections, ensuring transparency in the elections process, or backing election audits, the story remains the same: Democrats actively oppose policies supported by voters that bring accountability and security to the U.S. elections system. Their screeds about being the party of “democracy” are a dishonest talking point designed to obfuscate their contradictory actions and smear their political opponents as extremists.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Elise Stefanik Gives Master Class on Refuting Democrats’ ‘Insurrection’ Lies

BY: EVITA DUFFY-ALFONSO | JANUARY 08, 2024

In an NBC interview Sunday, Rep. Elise Stefanik deftly demonstrated how to handle Democrats’ false claims about a Jan. 6, 2021 “insurrection” to justify criminalizing the speech of the half of the country that opposes their policies.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CG5aOiPv7cY%3Ffeature%3Doembed%26enablejsapi%3D1

At the beginning of “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker’s interview with Stefanik, Welker played a deceptively edited clip from Jan. 6, 2021. On the House floor, Stefanik characterized the events from earlier that day as “tragic” and stated that violent individuals should be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Had NBC honestly portrayed the clip, it would have included the main point of Stefanik’s speech. That was to call out Democrats for dismantling election integrity laws ahead of the 2020 election in key swing states. Watch Stefanik’s remarks in full here.

Welker asked the dark-horse potential for Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick whether she still believes “that day was tragic, and that those who were responsible should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.” This was an attempt to entrap Stefanik into accepting the Democrat lie that Jan. 6 amounted to an “insurrection” that justifies the Biden Department of Justice’s continued investigation and prosecution of nonviolent attendees at the protest.

Stefanik refused to take the bait, responding, “Well, first of all, Kristen, as typical for NBC and the biased media, you played one excerpt of my speech… If you go back and play the full speech I gave on the House floor, I condemned the violence just like I condemn the violence of the BLM [Black Lives Matter] riots. But I also importantly stood for election integrity and security of our elections. If we don’t have that, we do not have a democracy.”

[Read: America’s Justice System Says Jan. 6 Was Neither A Terrorist Attack Nor An Insurrection]

Stefanik also expressed “concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages,” and the “weaponization of the federal government against not just President Trump, but [all] conservatives.”

Indeed, countless peaceful protesters who demonstrated at the capitol three years ago have been slandered by the media and House Democrats’ J6 Committee, harassed by Biden’s Department of Justice, and held for months in solitary confinement awaiting trial. Traditional Catholics, pro-lifers, parents who oppose critical race theory at school board meetings, and Trump supporters have also found themselves targets of the Biden DOJ for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly.

“And that’s one of the reasons why I’m so proud to serve on the Select Committee on the Weaponization of the [Federal] Government,” said Stefanik. “Because the American people want answers. They want transparency, and they understand that as you look across this country, there seem to be two sets of rules. If your last name is Clinton, or it’s Biden, you get to live by a different set of rules than if you’re an everyday patriotic American.”

“So the real threat to our democracy is these baseless witch hunt investigations and lawsuits against President Trump,” Stefanik added. “[It] is undemocratic and it’s shredding our Constitution, and you know who agrees with me, Kristen? The American people. That’s why President Trump is winning in poll after poll against Joe Biden.”

Welker also asked Stefanik if she would “vote to certify the results of the ’24 election no matter what they show?” Again, refusing to fall into Welker’s trap, Stefanik replied matter of factly, “We will see if this is a legal and valid election.”

This answer has been seized on by the corporate media to somehow insinuate that Stefanik is anti-democratic. Apparently, Welker and the rest of her media peers do not comprehend the point of certifying the presidential election, which is to validate the integrity of the electoral process. In other words, no representative should be committed to certifying or not certifying the election until after it has taken place and been verifiably conducted lawfully.

Importantly, Stefanik pointed out the key fact that Democrats are already interfering in the 2024 election through multiple means. “What we’re seeing so far is that Democrats are so desperate they’re trying to remove President Trump from the ballot,” Stefanik continued. “That is a suppression of the American people.”

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

Author Evita Duffy-Alfonso profile

EVITA DUFFY-ALFONSO

VISIT ON TWITTER@EVITADUFFY_1

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

By Trying To Keep Trump Off The Ballot, Democrats Are Staging A Coup In Broad Daylight

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | DECEMBER 22, 2023

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

If it wasn’t obvious before now that the left will do anything to stop Donald Trump from winning a second term in the White House, the events of the last few days should leave no doubt in any American’s mind. Democrats, including President Biden, are prepared not only to rig the 2024 election in broad daylight but also to twist the U.S. Constitution and undermine the republic so they can hold on to power.

As most everyone knows by now, an infamous 4-3 majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that voters in their state will not be allowed to cast a ballot for Trump in next year’s presidential election. The court’s outlandish claim is that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says candidates who have “engaged in insurrection” are prohibited from holding public office.

According to the court, which is dominated by left-wing ideologues appointed by Democrat governors (all the judges on the Colorado Supreme Court are Democrats, some are just more radical than others), Trump meets this definition because he “incited” a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Never mind that Trump has yet to be convicted of a crime associated with Jan. 6 (or any crime for that matter) or that the 14th Amendment doesn’t include the president or vice president in a list of offices to which its Section 3 provision applies. For the leftists on the Colorado Supreme Court, it’s enough to declare Trump an insurrectionist and viola! He’s off the ballot — all in the name of “defending democracy.”

David French called it a “bold, courageous decision,” but setting aside the constitutional/legal debate, consider what it means practically. About 1.4 million Coloradans voted for Trump in 2020. All those voters, if they want to vote for Trump again this time, have been disenfranchised by the court. That’s bad enough, but the left’s strategy here is larger than just one state. Before the ink was dry on the Colorado ruling, California Democrats leapt into action. The lieutenant governor, Eleni Kounalakis, sent a letter to Secretary of State Shirley Weber asking her to “explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.”

Meanwhile, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump for his alleged role in the Jan. 6 riot, this week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and rule on the case before the lower court issues a ruling. As Byron York noted, Smith’s frantic brief doesn’t state the obvious: “He’s rushing to try Trump so Trump can be convicted and jailed before the election.”

Plenty of smart people have pointed out the glaring problems with the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Namely, it stipulates Congress must establish a procedure for barring someone from office for engaging in insurrection, which Congress did, twice, first in 1870 and again in 1948. In the latter instance, Congress created a criminal insurrection law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which is the enforcement mechanism for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The key point here is that Trump has not been charged or convicted under that statute, which means the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s garbage ruling.

But set aside the legal fight because it doesn’t matter to the left. For Biden and the Democrats, this isn’t really a question of what the Constitution does or doesn’t say. This is a question of power and how far they will go to keep it. From the politicized court ruling in Colorado to the four criminal indictments against Trump amounting to 91 felony charges to Biden’s statement last November that he’ll use the Constitution to ensure that Trump “will not take power” and will not “become the next president,” what we have amounts to an open conspiracy to rig the 2024 election by preventing voters from casting a ballot for the likely GOP nominee.

It’s not too much to call this a coup or a color revolution. If Democrats get away with this, we won’t be able to say we have a republic anymore for the simple reason that we won’t have anything like free and fair elections. Democracy in America will be reduced to something like Democracy in Iran or Russia, where only regime-approved candidates are allowed to appear on the ballot.

And don’t think this will end if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Colorado decision. The Democrats will see it as a mere setback, not a defeat — and certainly not a deterrent. When they say, as they have been quite often lately, that Trump will never leave office if he wins next November, or that 2024 will be our last election ever if Trump prevails, they’re really talking about themselves. What they say Trump will do if he becomes president again is what they’re doing right now, before a watching world.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, to be published in March 2024. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Media Lie About This Leftist-Linked Voter Roll ‘Maintenance’ Group to Protect Democrats’ Election Machine

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | DECEMBER 18, 2023

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

Over the past two weeks, regime-approved press outlets have run several articles rushing to the defense of leftists’ latest scheme to inflate voter rolls with likely-Democrat voters: the Electronic Registration Information Center. Otherwise known as ERIC, this organization is a widely used voter-roll “management” system founded by Democrat activist David Becker that was “sold to states as a quick and easy way to update their voter rolls.” In reality, ERIC’s membership agreement places a higher priority on registering new voters than on cleaning up existing voter rolls.

The program inflates voter rolls by requiring member states to contact “eligible but unregistered” residents to encourage them to register to vote. When a state becomes an ERIC member, it is required to submit “all active and inactive voter files,” “all licensing or identification records contained in the motor vehicles database,” and any state files related to “voter registration functions” to the organization, which then compares this information with that submitted by other member states.

It’s after this process that ERIC compiles updated voter-roll information — including lists of voters who have multiple registrations, moved, or died, and lists of “eligible but unregistered” voters — and sends it to member states. As Victoria Marshall wrote in these pages, ERIC mandates that states engage in voter list maintenance “only after [they have] independently validated” the data they receive from the organization. In other words, “if a state does not independently validate the ERIC data, it is not required to clean its voter rolls.”

ERIC’s ties to Becker — who has since resigned from his role as a nonvoting ERIC board member — and its refusal to change its bylaws have prompted a flurry of GOP election officials to withdraw their states from the organization within the past two years. Included in this growing list are the states of Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and several others. Some of these jurisdictions, including Virginia, Ohio, and Alabama, have since formed separate interstate voter data-sharing pacts to serve as an ERIC replacement.

In light of ERIC’s steady collapse, Votebeat’s Jen Fifield and Rolling Stone’s Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng have painted these GOP officials as “conspiracy theorists” and fomented Democrat accusations that these states are struggling to effectively share and maintain accurate voter rolls. While handing out “far-right” and “MAGA Republican” labels like candy on Halloween, these “reporters” weave a web of deception to obscure the organization’s role in Democrats’ election machine.

Both articles’ writers, for example, attempt to pin the source of Republican election officials’ concerns with ERIC on a 2022 Gateway Pundit piece about the organization, which they quickly dismiss as riddled with “conspiracy theories.” Of course, nowhere in their articles do these so-called “journalists” bother to explore one of the — if not the — most alarming details about ERIC: the group’s ties to the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), a Becker-founded nonprofit responsible for interfering in the 2020 election to help Democrats.

CEIR and the Center for Tech and Civic Life collectively received hundreds of millions of dollars from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg leading up to the 2020 contest. These “Zuckbucks” were then poured into local election offices throughout the country to push sloppy Democrat-backed voting policies, such as mass mail-in voting and the widespread use of ballot drop boxes. Analyses have shown these grants were heavily skewed toward Democrat municipalities, especially in swing states, effectively making it a giant Democrat get-out-the-vote operation.

As The Federalist previously reported and communication records have indicated, CEIR enjoys a transactional relationship with ERIC, which sends the voter-roll data it receives from states to CEIR. Upon receiving the data, CEIR “then develops targeted mailing lists and sends them back to the states to use for voter registration outreach.” In other words, CEIR — a highly partisan nonprofit with a history of left-wing activism — is creating lists of potential (and likely Democrat) voters for states to register in the lead-up to major elections.

Convenient how that incredibly important detail didn’t make it into the Votebeat and Rolling Stone articles, isn’t it?

Fifield then took things a step further by advancing the contrived narrative that Republican officials whose states left ERIC are having difficulty sharing voter data with other states and ensuring accuracy within their voter rolls. She bases this claim upon internal documents obtained by American Oversight, a left-wing nonprofit dedicated to “filing open records requests targeting Republican interests.”

Contrary to Fifield’s activist “reporting,” several GOP secretaries of state whose jurisdictions have departed ERIC have publicly testified under oath that they haven’t experienced any issues with managing their voter rolls since withdrawing from the organization. In October, Secretaries of State Frank LaRose of Ohio and Cord Byrd of Florida spoke before a Pennsylvania Senate committee hearing about their respective experiences with ERIC and maintaining accurate voter registration lists since departing the program.

When asked if he thought states can keep voter rolls clean without ERIC, LaRose replied, “100 percent,” and went on to debunk Democrats’ sky-is-falling talking points about what will happen if states withdraw from the organization.

ERIC “has only existed for the last 10 or 12 years, and states have had this responsibility for a long time to maintain accurate voter rolls,” LaRose said. “States absolutely can maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls if they’re intentional about it. And it’s important to use all the different tools at your disposal.”

LaRose went on to describe Ohio’s various processes of removing deceased voters, noncitizens, and other ineligible voters from its voter registration lists. He also discussed the effectiveness of data-sharing pacts with other states and noted Ohio’s intent to formulate these agreements with more states ahead of the 2024 election.

Meanwhile, Byrd explained how interstate data-sharing agreements have allowed Florida to possess greater control over its voter data, saying, “We know exactly what we’re sharing with the other state [and] they know what they’re sharing with us.” Byrd expressed hope that “through these different [memorandums of understanding] … a consistent standard will be created” when it comes to states exchanging voter data.

ERIC’s role in the left’s get-out-the-vote apparatus is bigger than Democrats are willing to admit — and that’s exactly why their regime-approved media allies will never tell their readers the truth about it.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Category:

Media, Political

Tagged with:

Censorship Ally VineSight Flags True Social Media Posts As ‘Toxic’ Misinformation

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | OCTOBER 18, 2023

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

A “disinformation” group is out with new reports flagging online information as “misinformation” for corporate tech giants known for censoring such info — even if the content is true.

VineSight, a Tel Aviv-based tech company with offices in New York, relies on artificial intelligence (AI) to scan the internet for “toxic narratives” and “misinformation.” A thorough examination of the company’s recent reports, however, reveals so-called “toxic narratives” and “misinformation” are synonymous with conservative arguments and inconvenient truths.

The company’s report on clean energy, for example, highlights a post from a “bot-like” account as misinformation that reads, “China emits the most CO2.” The statement, however, is verifiably true. China is by far the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions on the planet and has been for almost two decades.

VineSight’s clean energy report also highlights statements from human accounts as misinformation including, “Climate advocates are hypocrites,” and “[electric vehicles] repeatedly catch on fire.” Climate advocates, however, are often hypocrites when they endlessly lecture about fossil fuels while flying to glitzy conferences courtesy of private air travel. And electric vehicles, including bikes and scooters, are seeing a rise in spontaneous combustion triggered by the malfunction of lithium-ion batteries.

On Facebook, allegedly misleading viral topics include a claim from conservative radio host Glenn Beck saying an “EV battery factory needs fossil fuels to run” and another from Breitbart that “Biden’s green policies benefit China.” But studies have shown that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than their gas-powered counterparts — in part because of the pollution-inducing production of lithium-ion batteries, a market China dominates. In other words, the more President Joe Biden subsidizes rich Americans buying electric vehicles, the more Beijing stands to profit.

[READ: Even This Left-Wing Report Sounds The Alarm: U.S. Is Way Too Dependent On Communist China For Minerals]

Almost every energy-related statement VineSight flagged in its “misinformation” report is backed by either an outright truth or, at minimum, evidence to support the claim. For example, VineSight identified as misinformation a statement attributed to former President Donald Trump that went viral on TikTok: “The Green New Deal is the Destruction of Our Country.” The Green New Deal is a far-left proposal to radically reengineer the nation’s economy and power grid to prioritize climate change above all else. Residents in California are already suffering the effects of state officials implementing aspects of the Green New Deal on a local level; frequent blackouts and strict rules on water use are the new norm.

[READ: Welcome To The Green New Deal, California]

VineSight’s reports on climate change and voter fraud are not much different. Its climate change report this month flagged topics such as “climate change is a hoax” and “there is no climate crisis” as top examples of viral misinformation. Yet earlier this year, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist became the second Nobel laureate to sign a declaration with more than 1,600 other scientists that emphatically says, “There is no climate emergency.”

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” reads the declaration, organized by the Climate Intelligence Foundation. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

Another climate “topic” written off as disinformation by the misinformation group is, “China opens a new coal transportation network.” Yet here’s a headline from National Public Radio (NPR) in March: “China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds.”

A VineSight press release in May celebrated the firm’s updated disinformation technology to “not only identify and alert organizations to disinformation attacks faster but also help mitigate, counter-message, takedown or label content before it damages a company’s reputation and business.”

“Today VineSight’s premier solution is used by major Fortune 500 brands including financial, manufacturing and pharmaceutical institutions, political campaigns, and other causes across the globe,” the company wrote.

The same press release highlights how “VineSight works with the terms of service of each social platform and where possible, get [sic] messages labeled or removed, to counteract any attacks or minimize virality.” In other words, by VineSight’s own admission, it shares its reports with major tech platforms to flag posts for censorship.

The company also admits its concerns about “disinformation” are related to election outcomes. “Disinformation is disrupting the legitimacy of the election process, threatening democracy, and allowing extremist views to become prevalent,” VineSight said in its May press release.

VineSight’s “tracking report” on voter fraud identified conservative themes on election integrity as “viral misinformation and toxic narratives.”

Here are a few The Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway highlighted on X:

The topics also included “allowing illegal immigrants to vote is an insult to Americans,” and “MAGA movement was able to make election fraud a top voters issue.” The group also flagged the topic: “the 2020 election was stolen and now Democrats are trying to interfere with 2024.”

Democrats did of course rig the 2020 election — a conspiracy they’ve admitted to — by way of exploiting Covid-19 to transform “Election Day” into election season with the radical expansion of mail-in voting, the least secure format to conduct elections. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also dumped some $350 million into the leftist nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life, which funded and staffed local government election offices. These dollars flowed overwhelmingly to the blue areas of swing states, effectively making the operation a Democrat get-out-the-vote effort.

Then there was the collusion of Big Tech and the media, which openly suppressed blockbuster stories surrounding the corruption of the Democratic nominee and his involvement in his son’s potentially criminal overseas business ventures. Hemingway wrote an entire 448-page book documenting the myriad ways Democrats rigged the 2020 contest.

As for the upcoming election, Trump, now the Republican front-runner in his third run for the White House, is faced with 91 felony indictments just over a year ahead of the next election. On Monday, the leading candidate for the GOP nomination was slapped with a gag order from an activist judge who effectively barred the former president from even campaigning against his top political opponent: the federal government. It bars Trump from publicly defending himself against attacks from potential witnesses, court personnel, or his federal prosecutors, including Special Counsel Jack Smith. According to VineSight, none of that constitutes election interference. Saying as much is amplifying “misinformation.”

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.

Category:

Media, Political

Tagged with:

Federal Court Chides Dem Activists: There’s Nothing Racist About Election Integrity Laws Like Florida’s

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | SEPTEMBER 22, 2023

Voter putting their ballot in voting machine in Columbia, MO

A full federal appeals court declined to take up Democrat groups’ challenge of Florida’s 2021 election integrity law on Thursday, marking a major win for Gov. Ron DeSantis and the GOP-controlled state legislature.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Thursday’s decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals “let stand an April ruling by a three-judge panel of the [court] that sided with the state on major issues in the case.” The 11th Circuit’s April decision effectively overturned a prior ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker — an Obama appointee — who baselessly claimed the law in question discriminated against black voters.

“What are the supposedly racist provisions that the district judge enjoined officials from enforcing?” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote of the court’s Thursday decision. “They are unremarkable, race-neutral policies designed to bolster election security, maintain order at the polls and ensure that voter-registration forms are delivered on time.”

Signed into law in May 2021, SB 90 includes numerous provisions heavily supported by election integrity activists and American voters. According to a DeSantis press release, the statute “strengthens existing voter ID laws, bans ballot harvesting, prohibits unsolicited mass mailing of ballots, increases election transparency, and prohibits private money from administering elections.”

In his March 2022 decision, Walker claimed that Florida lawmakers demonstrated “intent to discriminate against Black voters” and that the statute is “the stark result[] of a political system that, for well over a century, has overrepresented White Floridians and underrepresented Black and Latino Floridians.” The majority of the 11th Circuit’s three-judge panel disagreed, writing in April that Walker’s allegations of “intentional racial discrimination rest on both legal errors and clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

“Under our precedent, this history cannot support a finding of discriminatory intent in this case. Florida’s more recent history does not support a finding of discriminatory intent,” Pryor wrote.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

YouTube Punishes Channel For ‘Harmful And Dangerous’ Video Quoting Hillary Clinton

BY: JOY PULLMANN | SEPTEMBER 06, 2023

JOY PULLMANN

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOYPULLMANN

YouTube recently demonetized a video it had previously approved consisting entirely of quotes of Republicans and Democrats alleging election vulnerabilities and crimes, the video’s creator confirmed to The Federalist Tuesday. Matt Orfalea showed The Federalist a June 7 email from YouTube saying his video was “suitable for all advertisers” after “manually reviewing.”

A YouTube spokesman Tuesday, however, told The Federalist the video was just a few months later banned from providing its creator ad revenue because it contained “demonstrably false claims that could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral process.” The spokesman did not answer The Federalist’s question of exactly what information in the video was “demonstrably false.”

With no other notification from YouTube, on Aug. 21, Orfalea found a notice inside his channel saying a YouTube reviewer had decided the video depicted or encouraged “harmful or dangerous acts” and presented “situations that may endanger participants.” The video consists entirely of quotes from Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, a few TV reporters, and some other Republicans and Democrats publicly contesting election results from 2016 to 2020.

YouTube demonetized and then deleted this same video before, in November 2022. At that time, YouTube also demonetized and deleted similar videos on Orfalea’s channel, including videos that weren’t public, says Racket journalist Matt Taibbi, who commissioned the videos. For these transgressions, YouTube gave Orfalea’s channel a strike, three of which result in a permanent ban from the platform.

Those banned videos also simply clipped accurate news quotes of both Republicans and Democrats making “stolen election” and “election interference claims,” Orfalea and Taibbi say. Taibbi says he “argued to Google” last year that the now-twice-banned video “could not possibly be violative of any ‘misinformation’ guideline, as it was comprised entirely of ‘real, un-altered clips of public figures making public comments.’”

“[T]hese videos are factual,” Taibbi wrote on Nov. 18, 2022. “There are no statements taken out of context. No editing games were played to make it appear someone is saying something he or she did not. This was the point of the exercise, to show what was actually said, when, and by whom.”

In July 2021, YouTube also demonetized Orfalea’s channel over a Starbucks commercial parody, notifying Orfalea, “We think it violates our violent criminal organizations policy.” His channel was later remonetized.

Then, in June of this year, Orfalea says, he re-uploaded the “Trump vs Hillary” video to YouTube to verify the company’s June 2 claim it had ended its “elections misinformation policy” after banning “tens of thousands” of videos. Immediately after the upload, the video was demonetized, Orfalea said, but after he appealed to YouTube, he received the June 7 email saying a human reviewer had lifted the demonetization.

Then, sometime between June 7 and Aug. 21, the video was demonetized again. YouTube says it has closed Orfalea’s appeal of its reversal.

“In the past (for [example], when my channel was demonetized) I always received notifications from YT about it BUT I received no notification about this,” Orfalea told The Federalist via email.

In an Aug. 31 livestream, Orfalea showed in his YouTube analytics that demonetization cut his video income by 90 percent. The analytics traffic curve also suggests the video’s reach might have been artificially reduced.

“In the last 6-8 months — hell, the last 2-3 months — the landscape for non-corporate media businesses has tightened dramatically,” Taibbi noted last week. “Independent media content is increasingly hard to find via platform searches, even when exact terminology, bylines, or dates are entered by users. Social media platforms that once provided effective marketing and distribution at little to no cost are now difficult to navigate even with the aid of paid boosting tools.”

Recommendations generated by YouTube algorithms drive 70 percent of what people see on the world’s largest video platform. More Americans use YouTube than even use Facebook, at 81 percent in 2021.

YouTube parent company Google controls 92 percent of the world’s search results. Wall Street Journal and other investigations have found that Google alters its search results in ways that benefit leftists. So does YouTube’s current criteria for hiding information, which effectively takes the political left’s side on controversial topics under the guise of stopping “misinformation.”

Google also demonetized The Federalist from ad revenue in 2020 in conjunction with a foreign left-wing pressure organization.

Recent lawsuits from multiple states’ attorneys general, as well as on behalf of individuals such as journalist Alex Berenson and doctors Aaron Kheriaty and Jay Bhattacharya, have discovered that social media companies, including YouTube, ban information Democrats dislike from the internet at the behest of federal officials. The lawsuits found this censorship affects hundreds of millions of Americans and targets not just false information but true information.

Federal courts adjudicating this lawsuit also found, as plaintiffs’ lawyer John Sauer testified to Congress two weeks ago, “close connections and cooperation between federal national-security officials and the mass-surveillance and mass-censorship enterprise.”

“This isn’t just about statements from individual has-beens like Hillary Clinton, but official bodies like the DHS and the FBI,” Taibbi noted in 2022. “Just like Trump, those official organizations have repeatedly engaged in a form of ‘election denial,’ warning that upcoming elections will be packed full of efforts by foreign countries to ‘amplify doubts about the integrity of U.S. elections’ and to ‘hinder candidates perceived to be particularly adversarial” to countries like China and Russia, by ‘spreading disinformation.’”

YouTube’s spokesman didn’t answer these Federalist questions:

What brought this video to the “human reviewer’s” attention — was it a complaint from a government official, an algorithm or AI scanning method YouTube uses, or something else?
What information, specifically, in the video does YouTube consider “harmful or dangerous”?
Did the human reviewer find any false information in the video? If so, what?
Orfalea says he’s appealed YouTube’s decision and hasn’t gotten an answer yet. How soon should he expect that response? What are typical YouTube response times for complaints like this?

By press time, the spokesman had not responded to a follow-up email noting the lack of response to these questions.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her latest ebook is “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” An 18-year education and politics reporter, Joy has testified before nearly two dozen legislatures on education policy and appeared on major media from Fox News to Ben Shapiro to Dennis Prager. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs who identifies as native American and gender natural. Her several books include “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Biden Won In 2020 The Same Way Soviet Basketball Won Gold In 1972

BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY | AUGUST 10, 2023

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY

VISIT ON TWITTER@MZHEMINGWAY

Corporate media are returning to their favorite question to ask of any and all Republicans who care about the integrity of elections: Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? A New York Times employee asked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis the question in Iowa last week. NBC News correspondent Dasha Burns asked a variant of the question, to which DeSantis gave an extended reply about the proper and improper way to run elections. Completely uninterested in his substantive reply, she followed it up with: “Yes or no, did Trump lose the 2020 election?”

The question is never asked in good faith, and you can know that with certainty because none of these reporters even came close to asking it from 2016-2020 when the entirety of the Democrat Party refused to accept the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s election. In fact, they eagerly and actively participated in the Russia-collusion information operation designed to overturn the results of that election. Hillary Clinton was claiming the 2016 election was stolen throughout 2019, and the media generally cheered her on.

But if you need help understanding why the question is never asked in good faith, let’s step out of the realm of politics for a minute and consider the men’s gold medal basketball game of the 1972 Olympics.

The game is one of the most controversial events in Olympic history, with the American men’s team refusing to concede they lost to the Soviet Union. In fact, it’s been more than 50 years and the men on that team have never accepted their silver medals because they still do not believe the game was conducted in a fair fashion. Just last year, the men wanted to have the silver medals donated to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, but the International Olympic Committee demanded the men officially accept them first before they could be donated. On principle, the men will not take the medals or recognize the legitimacy of the outcome, so the medals remain in limbo.

The team, which is the only team in Olympic history to contest an outcome, has an excellent case that the game was rigged. The Americans had dominated the Olympic sport since it first appeared in the 1936 Olympics. They had won seven gold medals and were the presumptive favorites in 1972. Their record before the final game was an astounding 63-0.

However, the Soviets were very good that year and their older and experienced team was winning the game until the final seconds, when the U.S. player Doug Collins was fouled and sank two free throws, putting the team ahead by one point with one second left on the clock.

An official demanded that an additional two seconds be put back on the clock. When that time expired, the U.S. team began to celebrate and their fans swarmed onto the court. But officials said the clock reset had not been done properly so they put three seconds back on the clock and gave the Soviets another chance. The Soviet team also managed to make an illegal substitution of a player who, with the help of a Soviet Bloc referee interfering in the play, passed to another player who scored the winning point.

The Americans were outraged at how the game was conducted and appealed to a basketball court made up of five judges. However, they lost that appeal 3-2. It is perhaps worth noting that all three judges who voted against the Americans happened to be from communist countries.

The Soviet Union men, for their part, are absolutely defiant that they won a free and fair game. Just a few years ago, Russians put out a very popular movie called “Going Vertical” — also known as “Three Seconds” — about their surprise victory over the Americans. It became “the most-successful Russian film of all time,” according to the Hollywood Reporter.

When the American press covers the Olympics issue — including a raft of coverage last year on the 50th anniversary of the game — they never hector the players to concede that they lost. They do not refer to them as “Olympics deniers.” Heck, the Olympics.com news site itself has a story headlined, “Americans refuse silver as USSR steal controversial basketball final.” The Washington Post covered the dispute generously. So did NBC. In 2012, The New York Times favorably reviewed a book that alleged the game was stolen by the Soviets. When power forward Dwight Jones died in 2016, The New York Times gave him an obituary that featured the disputed game. ESPN has filmed round table discussions about the unfair loss. Just last year, The New York Times supported the effort to have the outcome of the game overturned.

Can you imagine if reporters cornered the players or their fans and said, “Yes or no, did you lose the 1972 game?” Can you imagine if they badgered each player to utter an affirmation that the Soviets won fair and square or be called “basketball deniers”? Can you imagine how juvenile and idiotic that would sound? Real journalists wouldn’t do any of these things, particularly if they genuinely wanted to understand or accurately convey why the game was so controversial.

Similarly, there is something downright pathological in the media and other Democrat activists’ attempts to silence any and all genuine discussion about the weirdest election of our lifetimes. I researched and reported a full-length book about all of the verifiable problems with the election. These problems include the effort by the same top Democrat lawyer who ran the Russia-collusion hoax to push for the coordinated change of hundreds of election laws and processes, supposedly due to Covid. The vast majority of the significant changes were done in violation of the Constitution’s requirement that state legislatures handle such rules. The changes led to tens of millions of unsupervised ballots flooding into the system at the same time that scrutiny of said ballots was diminished. Mark Zuckerberg, one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men, spent more than $400 million to orchestrate the takeover of government election offices by left-wing activists. This get-out-the-vote effort was overwhelmingly focused on the Democrat areas of swing states.

There is also the issue that corporate media moved from pervasive bias into overt propaganda on behalf of Democrats and against Republicans. They invented fake news that was inserted into national debates, such as the false Aisne-Marne story claiming Trump secretly didn’t like American soldiers and the false claim that Russia was paying bounties for dead American soldiers and that Trump didn’t care. They also suppressed completely true stories about the Biden family business of paying for access to Joe Biden. In fact, a cabal of powerful figures conspired to falsely blame as Russian disinformation a laptop belonging to a key member of the Biden family pay-for-play business.

And that doesn’t even mention the fact that the U.S. government conspired with Big Tech companies to run a massive censorship-industrial complex to suppress news and information advantageous to conservative politicians and issues. This censorship-industrial complex also worked and continues to work to elevate left-wing media with a track record of running false information operations, such as the debunked Russia-collusion hoax and the Kavanaugh rape smear.

But let’s get back to the basketball game.

Did the men’s basketball team of the Soviet Union score more points than the United States in 1972? They did. Did they receive the gold medal? They did. Did Joe Biden receive more Electoral College votes than Donald Trump? He did. Was he inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States? He was.

All of those things are true. It is also true that reasonable people on the losing side of both contests believe — for very good reasons — they were not fair. It is sheer gaslighting to use the immense power of the Democrat media and corrupted Department of Justice to say that people are not allowed to oppose the way election contests were conducted or discuss how the manner in which the contests have been conducted affected the outcome.

Fans of the 1972 Soviet men’s basketball team and the 2020 Joe Biden campaign have every right to say they won a free and fair contest. They should not be jailed or persecuted for that view. Some fans and operatives of the current regime want to make it illegal or unacceptable to question or oppose the censorship-industrial complex, the plot to radically change election laws in an unconstitutional fashion, the private takeover of government election laws by left-wing billionaires, or our propaganda press. It’s something one might have expected to find in 1972 Soviet Russia more than in 2023 United States.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. She is the author of “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.” Reach her at mzhemingway@thefederalist.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Media Gin Up Lies About Election Worker Safety To Escape Ballot-Box Accountability

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | AUGUST 08, 2023

Legacy media are once again parroting the debunked lie that there is a growing, widespread problem of Republicans threatening election workers. On Monday, Time Magazine published a melodramatic article about congressional Democrats’ “desperate[] push[]” to include provisions in the next federal spending bill they claim will protect state and local election workers. Of course, Time places the blame for this alleged problem on Donald Trump and his so-called “election denying” supporters, and warns that Congress’s upcoming budget is “likely the last chance” Democrats have to “safeguard” the 2024 election.

“It comes as election officials have faced a titanic upswing in death threats, online intimidation, and abuse,” the article reads.

There’s just one little problem with Time’s fantastical claim: It’s manufactured nonsense.

As I reported in these pages in April, the left’s insistence that there is a widespread conspiracy of Republican voters threatening election officials is simply not true. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Joe Biden’s own Department of Justice (DOJ).

During his August 2022 testimony before the U.S. Senate, Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the DOJ, claimed the agency’s Election Threats Task Force — which was launched in July 2021 to address this alleged “rise in threats” against election workers — had reviewed and assessed roughly 1,000 allegedly “threatening and harassing” communications directed toward election officials. Two days before Polite’s testimony, the DOJ issued a press release disclosing only about 11 percent of those 1,000 communications “met the threshold for a federal criminal investigation” and that the “remaining reported contacts did not provide a predication” for further investigation.

“[T]o recap: In a country of roughly 331 million people, the DOJ — in the span of a year — received roughly 1,000 calls alleging threats toward election workers, in which only about 11 percent of cases warranted a federal investigation,” I wrote at the time.

So how exactly does Time justify its claim that there’s been a “titanic upswing” in threats directed toward election workers since the 2020 contest? The first is by linking to a survey from the Brennan Center for Justice — a highly partisan organization engaged in left-wing activism — claiming to show persistent fear among election workers for “their colleagues’ safety.”

The second is by linking to a November 2022 Washington Post article that includes grandiose statements from Democrat election officials pushing the same sky-is-falling narrative. Among those who commented to the Post was Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, whose office proclaimed it had “identified hundreds more threats against her since 2020.” The Post, of course, didn’t bother to mention whether it vetted her assertion to determine its truthfulness.

What’s equally remarkable about the article is the Post’s willingness to bury the truth from its readers. Not until the article’s 22nd paragraph are readers given the actual data from the DOJ on which I previously reported. Even then, the Post attempts to downplay the truth by regurgitating claims from unnamed election officials who say the DOJ and states’ limited number of prosecutions are “just a fraction of the threats they receive.”

Yes, there are verifiable threats made against election workers, however rare. But it also rarely rains in Death Valley, California. That doesn’t mean we should start building Noah’s Ark 2.0 to prepare for a catastrophic flood there.

What we’re seeing is a media-wide effort to take anecdotal incidents of threats and blow them out of proportion to give the appearance that election workers are under constant siege from so-called “election denying” MAGA Republicans. It’s a Democrat strategy designed to both cast their political opponents as extremists and dissuade conservatives who have legitimate concerns about election integrity from partaking in completely legal forms of electoral oversight (such as poll watching).

Democracy does indeed die in darkness — just not in the way regime-approved media want you to believe.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Exclusive: Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Voter ID, Limited Mail-in Voting

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | JULY 31, 2023

New polling provided exclusively to The Federalist shows a vast majority of U.S. voters support election integrity initiatives such as voter ID requirements and limitations on the use of mail-in voting.

Conducted by the Honest Elections Project (HEP) from July 13-16, the survey reveals widespread support among the American electorate for common-sense election integrity policies. According to the poll, 88 percent of Americans support laws mandating voters show a form of ID in order to cast their ballot, including the vast majority of black (82 percent) and Hispanic voters (83 percent). Only 9 percent of those polled opposed ID requirements.

The survey’s findings paint a vastly different picture than the one crafted by legacy media and Democrat politicians, who for years have maliciously smeared voter ID laws as Republican-sponsored tools designed to “suppress” the votes of racial minorities. Two years ago, for example, Democrats and their propaganda press allies used this tactic to smear Georgia’s passage of an election integrity law that contained a provision mandating voter ID for absentee voting. President Joe Biden went so far as to label the bill “Jim Crow on steroids.”

Not only did Georgia experience record early voter turnout ahead of its Nov. 8 general election and Dec. 6 Senate runoff, but a poll conducted after the 2022 midterms revealed zero percent of black Georgia voters said they had a “poor” experience voting in the elections.

The HEP survey also found overwhelming opposition to noncitizens and minors voting in U.S. elections. In recent years, Democrat-controlled cities such as Washington, D.C., have passed measures permitting foreign nationals to vote in their respective municipal elections. Meanwhile, blue localities in states such as Maryland and California have passed measures allowing kids as young as 16 to vote in local elections.

According to HEP’s polling data, 89 percent of voters “think that American elections should only be for American citizens, including 82% of Democrats, 80% of Black voters, and 78% of Hispanic voters.” The survey also found 72 percent of voters oppose dropping the voting age to 16.

But it’s not just voter ID and eligibility where Democrats are out of touch with voters. Among the poll’s notable findings is support for limiting the use of mail-in voting.

In the lead-up to the 2020 election, numerous states used the Covid lockdowns as a pretext for expanding the use of vote-by-mail and other nonsecure election practices. Attempts by GOP-led states to return their respective elections to pre-Covid election rules have predictably been met with pushback from Democrats, who have falsely accused Republicans of “rolling back” so-called voting rights.

Contrary to Democrat claims, HEP’s survey shows over three-fourths (76 percent) of voters believe “voting in person is better than voting by mail.” The data also reveals that 73 percent of Americans “reject automatically sending ballots without a voter’s request,” and 74 percent think practices such as ballot harvesting “should be illegal.” Meanwhile, 89 percent think “every ballot should be received by Election Day.”

The data also indicates two-thirds of voters (66 percent) support terminating no-excuse mail voting “as long as states offer two weeks of early in-person voting, including weekends.” This includes 69 percent of Hispanic voters and 55 percent of black voters, who support limiting the use of mail-in voting to groups such as people with disabilities, elderly citizens, people serving in the military, and those who “will be absent on Election Day.”

The poll additionally found widespread opposition to foreign nationals influencing U.S. elections and support for transparency in the elections process.

“Despite what the far left and many in the mainstream media would have you believe, election integrity measures continue to boast wide support among the American public,” HEP Executive Director Jason Snead said in a statement. “When it comes down to it, election integrity measures that make it easy to vote and hard to cheat are just common sense.”

The HEP survey was conducted among 1,600 registered voters and has a margin of error of 2.45 percent.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Over 70 Nonprofits Call On Congress To Pass Republicans’ Election Integrity Bill

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | JULY 14, 2023

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

A coalition of over 70 conservative nonprofits sent a letter to House leaders on Wednesday, urging the lower chamber to pass recently introduced legislation that seeks to strengthen the integrity of U.S. elections.

“The undersigned nonprofit organizations and policy leaders write in strong support of the free speech and citizen privacy provisions in the ‘American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act’ (H.R. 4563) introduced by Congressman Bryan Steil,” the letter reads. “This thoughtful legislation protects and strengthens important First Amendment rights that Americans have enjoyed since the founding of our country.”

The document’s signatories include leaders from organizations such as the Capital Research Center, John Locke Foundation, and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, among others.

Introduced on Monday, the American Confidence in Elections Act, or ACE Act, includes numerous provisions designed to close existing loopholes in America’s election system. Among the bill’s notable proposals is a provision repealing President Joe Biden’s March 2021 executive order that instructed hundreds of federal agencies to interfere in the electoral process by using taxpayer money to boost voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Under Executive Order 14019, the heads of each agency were additionally required to draft “a strategic plan” explaining how his or her department intends to fulfill Biden’s directive. Despite attempts by good government groups to acquire these plans, the Biden administration has routinely stonewalled such efforts by slow-walking its response to federal court orders and heavily redacting any related documents it has released.

The ACE Act would not only prohibit federal agencies from engaging in voter registration and mobilization activities; it would require them to turn over their strategic plans to Congress “[n]ot later than 30 days after” its enactment.

Other changes to federal election law include those ensuring only U.S. citizens are voting in federal elections. According to a bill summary, the ACE Act incorporates several provisions from Rep. Morgan Griffith’s, R-Va., “NO VOTE for Non-Citizens Act of 2023,” including a requirement that states permitting localities to allow non-citizen voting in their respective elections to place such non-citizens on a voter registration list “separate from the official list of eligible voters with respect to registrants who are citizens of the United States.”

A separate provision mandating “the ballot used for the casting of votes by a noncitizen in such State or local jurisdiction may only include the candidates for the elections for public office in the State or local jurisdiction for which the non-citizen is permitted to vote” was also included.

Notably, the ACE Act also ensures only U.S. governments — not private actors — are responsible for funding election administration. During the 2020 election, nonprofits such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) received hundreds of millions of dollars from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. These “Zuckbucks” were poured into local election offices in battleground states around the country to change how elections were administered; among other things, this was done by expanding unsupervised election protocols like mail-in voting and using ballot drop boxes. To make matters worse, the grants were heavily skewed toward Democrat-majority counties, essentially making it a massive, privately funded Democrat get-out-the-vote operation.

A recently published report by Americans for Public Trust details somewhat similar efforts by Hansjörg Wyss, a left-wing Swiss billionaire who, according to the analysis, has “flooded the American political system with hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign dark money” for years. APT had previously filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Wyss in May 2021 for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The ACE Act furthermore seeks to enhance congressional oversight of Washington, D.C., by enacting a series of provisions aimed at enhancing the district’s election system. Included are requirements for voter ID and regular voter roll maintenance, as well as prohibitions on ballot harvesting, ranked-choice voting, and mailing ballots “except upon a voter’s request.” The bill would also repeal a law passed by the district’s council last year that allows non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.

Provisions promoting voter ID, strengthening donor disclosure protections, and prohibiting federal “disinformation governance boards” are also included in the bill.

“We urge all Members of Congress to support the strong free speech and citizen privacy provisions in Congressman Bryan Steil’s ‘American Confidence in Elections Act,’” the conservative nonprofits wrote.

The House Administration Committee passed the ACE Act on Thursday; it now awaits a vote from the full House.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Republicans Use House Committee Hearing To Demolish Democrats’ Bogus Election Lies

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | MAY 25, 2023

Former Georgia Rep. Scot Turner testifying before Congress

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

During a House subcommittee hearing on “American Confidence in Elections,” Republicans demolished Democrats’ phony narratives regarding nonexistent “voter suppression.”

“Our hearing today will highlight how voters across the country are demanding reforms to ensure that every eligible American voter can be confident that they will have access to the ballot box and that their ballot will be counted according to established law,” said Chair and Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla.

For the past several years, Democrats have routinely slandered anyone with legitimate questions about the conduction of the 2020 election. Concerns raised about the influence of hundreds of millions of ‘Zuckbucks,’ interference by federal intel agencies, and censorship by Big Tech platforms have been met with leftist accusations of subverting “democracy” and advancing “conspiracy theories.” Legacy media have additionally used the term “election denier” to smear and silence their political opponents over such concerns.

During Wednesday’s hearing, however, Scot Turner, a former Republican state representative from Georgia, turned the tables, exposing Democrats as the party that has a history of pushing real conspiracy theories regarding the outcome of elections.

“Faith in the results of elections is vitally key for the health of our republic. But more and more, that faith is shaken by false allegations,” Turner said. “In 2016, the presidential election was marred by allegations of Russian hacking. And while evidence showed that the hacking was of email servers, by December of 2016, half of Democrat voters believed that Russians had changed vote tallies in favor of Donald Trump. That number would skyrocket to 67 percent … after a media barrage and many prominent leaders call[ed] the presidency of Donald Trump ‘illegitimate.’”

A November 2018 Economist/YouGov poll found this to be the case, showing that 67 percent of Democrats believed it was “definitely true” or “probably true” that “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected.” Meanwhile, only 17 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Independents believed such a statement to have any semblance of accuracy, according to the survey.

During his testimony, Turner also highlighted former Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams’ repeated insistence that her 2018 election against now-Republican Gov. Brian Kemp was illegitimate due to nonexistent voter suppression. Shortly after the 2018 contest, for instance, Abrams told a crowd of supporters that “concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true, or proper” and that “as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede.” Abrams repeated similar remarks during an August 2019 interview with CBS News.

Abrams’ bogus contention ultimately went down in flames last year when an Obama-appointed judge struck down her lawsuit challenging the election. In his opinion, Judge Steve Jones wrote that the voting practices challenged by Abrams’ team “violate neither the constitution nor the [Voting Rights Act of 1965].”

“Abrams’ refusal [to concede] in 2018 is when it became apparent to me as a state representative just how damaging misinformation and disinformation are to our country,” Turner said.

Turner additionally referenced Democrats’ slanderous attacks on Georgia’s 2021 election integrity law, saying that dishonest opposition to such measures “are a form of voter suppression in their own right.” Signed by Kemp in March 2021, SB 202 included provisions mandating voter ID for absentee voting and safeguards on giving voters gifts or money within 150 feet of a polling place. Early voting was also expanded under the law, with counties now required to “offer two Saturdays of early voting instead of just one.”

Immediately after the law’s passage, Democrats and their legacy media allies began smearing the law as a Republican-led effort to “suppress” nonwhite voters. President Joe Biden grossly referred to SB 202 as “Jim Crow on steroids” and called on Major League Baseball to relocate its 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta in protest. The MLB ultimately acquiesced, condemning the law and moving the game to Colorado. The decision ultimately cost Georgia an estimated $100 million in revenue. Coca-Cola and Delta were also among those to condemn SB 202.

Contrary to Democrats’ claims that the Republican-backed law would suppress Georgians’ ability to vote, the results from the 2022 midterms say otherwise. In addition to record early voter turnout ahead of the Nov. 8 general election, the state also experienced record turnout for in-person, early voting for its Dec. 6 Senate runoff.

A poll conducted after the midterms further revealed that 0 percent of black Georgia voters said they had a “poor” experience voting in the 2022 contest. In fact, as noted by Breitbart, “73 percent said they had an ‘excellent’ overall experience voting, 23 percent said they had a ‘good’ experience, [and] three percent said they had a ‘fair’ experience.”

“At each step of the way and with every improvement to the voting process, the Georgia General Assembly has had critics screaming at them that what they’re doing is wrong, racist, and will hurt communities of various types,” Turner said. “And just like the claims that Russia hacked the election and changed votes, or that Abrams lost because of ‘voter suppression,’ or that the election was stolen, the data and evidence don’t back up those claims.”

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Exclusive: RNC Launches New Year-Round Election Integrity Department Ahead Of 2024

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | MAY 12, 2023

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is gearing up for next year’s presidential race with the launch of a new department dedicated solely to election integrity. The new internal infrastructure will bring on year-round staff operating new technology designed to facilitate recruitment and litigation, according to a 35-page report shared exclusively with The Federalist.

“The RNC built a historic election integrity program in 2022: we put 80,000 volunteers on the ground, secured key legal victories, and learned how we can grow even stronger in the future,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told The Federalist. “As we prepare for 2024, the RNC will establish a full-time permanent Election Integrity Department that will combine our existing tools to build on our unprecedented progress.”

The report sent to RNC members Thursday details the party’s plans to transform the GOP’s election integrity efforts from pop-up operations into year-round initiatives that remain ongoing immediately after each election. Prior to 2021, the national Republican Party was restricted from engaging in electoral oversight, such as hiring poll watchers over a 1981 consent decree. That meant any initiatives designed to maintain integrity in American elections were patchwork efforts coordinated by independent campaigns with the support of the GOP congressional campaign committees. The decades-long order was lifted in 2018 after more than three decades, and the party officially resumed efforts on poll watching and voter fraud in the 2021-2022 election cycle.

“The need for the RNC to be the permanent and year-round home for the Republican [Election Integrity Operations] is glaringly obvious, and the party is fortunate that we now have that,” the report reads. “For the past two years, the RNC has worked tirelessly as a bridge among those groups with unprecedented cooperation.”

The RNC is now preparing to hire an army to the tune of “tens of thousands” of attorneys and poll watchers with an aggressive litigation strategy to ensure a free and fair election next year.

“Beginning with the successful 2021 operations in Virginia and New Jersey, the RNC established a multifaceted [Election Integrity Operations] program in partnership with the NRSC and NRCC that resulted in dozens of lawsuits,” wrote Ashley MacLeay and Art Wittich, who chaired the RNC committee behind the report.

The fallout from the 2020 election, wherein Democrats exploited lockdown-era protocols to radically expand unsupervised access to the ballot box, has led the GOP to prioritize election integrity as a pillar of the RNC’s 2024 campaign strategy.

Three years ago, Democrat operatives through Facebook’s Center for Tech and Civic Life took over the administration of elections and erected ballot boxes in liberal strongholds to gin up turnout. Mark Zuckerberg’s project gave more than $400 million to the effort, with only a small fraction of the “Zuckbucks” spent in areas won by President Donald Trump.

[READ: The 2020 Election Wasn’t Stolen, It Was Bought By Mark Zuckerberg]

Other efforts by Democrats to rig the 2020 contest included turning election day into election season, with voters able to cast ballots weeks before November, absent of the typical safeguards that protect against fraud. All happened while Big Tech conspired with the corporate press and even federal intelligence agencies to manipulate public opinion throughout the process.

While Republicans are limited with what they can do to confront the corporate collusion, the new RNC department marks an effort to master the mechanics of modern elections. The GOP is also planning to jump in the ballot harvesting game in states with loose restrictions. The party largely refrained from participating in the mass collection of ballots three years ago to the detriment of Republican candidates who faced Democrat opponents eager to exploit relaxed protocols.

Last fall, the RNC took a two-pronged approach to ballot harvesting: GOP attorneys fought to ban the practice in states such as Arizona, where attorneys were successful, while party workers took advantage of harvesting in states where efforts failed to rein in the rules.

“The RNC ballot harvested where the law allowed it in 2022, helping to secure key congressional wins that flipped the House,” McDaniel told The Federalist. “We will build on and expand those efforts in 2024 where legal while still holding Democrats accountable for bad laws that undermine election integrity.”

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Court Rulings Give North Carolina And Florida Republicans Major Wins For Election Integrity

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | MAY 01, 2023

North Carolina and Florida Republicans chalked up major wins last week after a series of court rulings upheld their respective election integrity efforts.

On Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned its previous decision banning gerrymandered districting in the state. Last year, the court’s then-Democrat majority (4-3) “threw out a state Senate map from the Republican-led state legislature and maintained congressional boundaries that had been drawn up by trial judges.” After Republicans won the state’s two Supreme Court races during the 2022 midterms, the high court’s new conservative majority (5-2) opted to rehear the case earlier this year.

“In its decision today, the Court returns to its tradition of honoring the constitutional roles assigned to each branch,” wrote Chief Justice Paul Newby in Friday’s decision. “This case is not about partisan politics but rather about realigning the proper roles of the judicial and legislative branches. Today we begin to correct course, returning the judiciary to its designated lane.”

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Moore v. Harper, a case pertaining to the North Carolina redistricting fiasco. As The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland reported, the justices will ultimately decide whether a state court has the ability to usurp the constitutional power of state legislatures and “impose its own map for congressional districts drawn after the decennial census.”

[READ: In Moore v. Harper, SCOTUS Could Decide Who Gets The Final Say In A 2024 Election Dispute]

In addition to gerrymandering, the North Carolina Supreme Court also issued separate rulings upholding a previously passed voter ID law and overruling a trial court decision that permitted convicted felons on probation or parole to vote. In December 2018, the GOP-controlled General Assembly passed a bill mandating citizens show a form of valid ID when voting several weeks after North Carolina voters approved a photo ID constitutional ballot initiative.

In September 2021, a trial court struck down the 2018 statute, repeating the false claim that such laws discriminate against racial minorities. The then-Democrat-controlled Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in December. Much like with its prior gerrymandering ruling, the high court’s new Republican majority decided to rehear the case.

According to The News & Observer, a local news outlet, acceptable forms of valid voter ID include a U.S. passport, an unexpired North Carolina driver’s license, a local or state government employee ID card, or a state voter identification card.

Legal Victory for Florida Republicans

Meanwhile, Florida Republicans scored a major victory for election integrity last week after a federal appeals court upheld a 2021 law aimed at enhancing security procedures regarding the use of mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision that the March 2022 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker — an Obama appointee — was severely flawed.

In his decision, Walker alleged that Florida lawmakers demonstrated “intent to discriminate against Black voters” and asserted that the statute is “the stark result[] of a political system that, for well over a century, has overrepresented White Floridians and underrepresented Black and Latino Floridians.” The appeals court disagreed, writing that “the findings of intentional racial discrimination rest on both legal errors and clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

The court further admonished Walker’s faulty legal analysis, particularly his error in claiming that “a racist past is evidence of current intent.”

“Under our precedent, this history cannot support a finding of discriminatory intent in this case. Florida’s more recent history does not support a finding of discriminatory intent,” wrote Chief Judge William Pryor.

Notably, Walker is also the judge tasked with overseeing Disney’s ongoing lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

How Incompetent Election Administration Suppressed Midterm Voters In Harris County, Texas

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | APRIL 17, 2023

A mural of the Texas flag on the side of a building — Harris County officials’ election misadministration led to ballot paper shortages, delayed openings, and an untold number of disenfranchised voters.

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

If Americans want to understand how genuine “voter suppression” works, they should take a look at the widespread disenfranchisement of voters in Harris County, Texas, during the 2022 midterms.

On Election Day, county election officials’ misadministration of the contest led to ballot paper shortages, delayed openings and temporary closures of voting centers, and an untold number of disenfranchised voters.

“I have never seen anything so egregiously, grossly mismanaged as the elections in Harris County this past year,” said Harris County GOP Chair Cindy Siegel during a recent Texas Senate committee hearing.

For context, Harris County is the third-most populous county in America. While historically favorable to Republicans, county residents have increasingly voted for Democrats in recent election cycles. During the 2020 election, for instance, Joe Biden won the county by 13 points, with Democrats also expanding their majority on the county’s governing commissioners court last fall.

Not long after the polls opened on Election Day, local media outlets began reporting that several Harris County voting centers were experiencing ballot paper shortages, delayed openings, and problems with voting machines.

What Happened in Harris County?

Nearly two months after the election, Harris County released an “inconclusive” assessment detailing the reported problems election workers and voters encountered on Election Day. In addition to ballot paper shortages, the report confirmed that some voting centers “did not open on time,” with reasons ranging from staffing problems to election officials not receiving the keys to their center’s voting equipment prior to polls opening.

The report further revealed that during the early part of Election Day, the county’s ePollbook server “lost replication,” which “prevented the wait time tool from updating the website, prevented the supply team from seeing real-time check in and disabled the sample ballot look up feature.” Such circumstances “had a direct impact on the ability [of county election officials] to see how many voters were being checked-in and what the wait times were” at any voting center.

While the assessment says that 68 precinct election judges “reported running out of their initial allotment” of paper ballots, an investigation conducted by local news outlet KHOU 11 indicates the problem was more widespread. According to the investigation, 121 of the county’s 782 voting centers “did not initially receive enough ballot paper to cover voter turnout.”

“The county allotted each of the locations six ballot paper packets, or enough for 600 ballots. But the total votes cast exceeded that amount, sometimes by hundreds of ballots,” the KHOU 11 report reads.

At the committee hearing, Siegel testified that one of the Harris County GOP’s precinct chairs developed a “heat map” purportedly showing that “the majority” of the 121 polls were in “Republican voting areas.”

The KHOU 11 investigation also found that on Election Day, 52 voting centers “received less paper in 2022 than ballots cast in 2018.” Harris County has not disclosed why voting centers ran out of ballot paper. It also remains unknown how many voters were disenfranchised as a result of such issues.

Investigations and Continued Cover-Up

Following the Nov. 8 contest, leading Texas Republicans began demanding answers from Harris County officials over the locality’s Election Day problems. On Nov. 14, GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statement calling on the secretary of state, attorney general’s office, and Texas Rangers to “initiate investigations into allegations of improprieties in the way that the 2022 elections were conducted in Harris County,” adding that voters “deserve to know what happened.”

Not long after, Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg announced her office had launched an investigation into the county’s Election Day problems following a request from the Texas secretary of state’s office to help with an inquiry into “possible criminal activity relating to shortages of paper ballots.” After receiving backlash from Texas Democrats, a bureau chief in Ogg’s office defended the investigation, saying Ogg was following state law.

Despite the seriousness of the matter, leading Harris County officials have attempted to stonewall efforts to uncover what led to the administrative failures on Election Day. When pressed by Harris County’s commissioners in January about the ballot paper shortages, Clifford Tatum, Harris County’s election administrator, refused to provide any details, using a lawsuit filed against his office by the Harris County GOP as justification for remaining mum.

County officials have displayed similar evasiveness with local media. Last year, KHOU 11 and a local ABC affiliate filed open records requests with Harris County over records related to the Nov. 8 election. After the Texas attorney general denied a request from Harris County to dismiss the requests last month, the locality filed a lawsuit against the AG’s office last week to keep the records hidden.

Texas Republicans Offer Solutions

In response to Harris County’s extensive track record of failed election administration, Texas Republicans have introduced numerous bills this year seeking to enhance the integrity of the state’s elections. If passed and signed into law, SB 1911 would allow any county official responsible for acquiring election supplies who “intentionally fails to provide an election precinct with the required number of ballots” to be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. Said officials could also be charged under the same statute for failing to “promptly supplement the distributed ballots upon request by a polling place.”

Individuals convicted of a Class A misdemeanor are subject to a fine of up to $4,000, a maximum of one year in jail, or both.

Also introduced is SB 1039, which mandates local election officials address inquiries related to election irregularities and provide “explanation[s] and “supporting documentation” when such information is requested by local and state party chairs, candidates, or election judges.

“This is about a catastrophic lack of performance in Harris County,” said bill sponsor and Republican Sen. Paul Bettencourt during last month’s State Affairs Committee hearing. “It’s too big to ignore. The state can’t afford this type of problem in Harris County and neither can the residents.”

Additional election integrity bills introduced by Texas Republicans would make illegal voting a felony, withdraw Texas from the leftist-controlled voter-roll management system known as ERIC, and grant the secretary of state the power to suspend and replace an election administrator, among other reforms.

The kinds of Election Day failures displayed in Harris County are notably problematic because of the partisan difference in how Americans vote. While Democrats have made unsupervised, mail-in voting a key facet of their electoral strategy, Republicans prefer in-person voting on Election Day.

If this trend grows, it means that any election misadministration on Election Day will continue to disproportionately harm GOP voters over Democrats. Such circumstances would only further contribute to Americans’ waning confidence in U.S. elections, making accountability for what happened in Harris County all the more necessary.

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ohio, Iowa Withdraw from Democrat Operative-Controlled Voter Roll ‘Maintenance’ Group ERIC

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | MARCH 20, 2023

Ohio and Iowa are the latest states to withdraw from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), an interstate voter list maintenance group controlled by Democratic operatives, after a meeting of its board failed to deliver the aforementioned states’ requested reforms.

The two midwestern states follow in the steps of Florida, Missouri, and West Virginia, which withdrew from the alliance in early March over ERIC’s failure to remove its founder, Democrat operative David Becker, from its board, and its requirement that member states conduct voter registration outreach to eligible but unregistered residents in their states. Louisiana and Alabama withdrew last year.

In response to Florida, Missouri, and West Virginia’s withdrawal from the group, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose sent a letter to ERIC threatening Ohio’s departure if the board did not remove Becker — or “ex-officio members” — from its bylaws and cut the requirement for states to conduct partisan voter registration outreach. Instead, states should utilize ERIC’s data-sharing services “in the manner which they believe best serves their local interests,” LaRose argued.

While Becker seemingly complied with one of LaRose’s demands by tweeting that he would not seek renomination to ERIC’s board, ERIC refused to execute LaRose’s other reforms during a March 17 board meeting.

At the meeting, two proposals were put to a vote: changing ERIC’s bylaws to allow states to choose how they utilize ERIC’s data, and pairing the voter registration outreach requirement to a report that helps states catch double voting. Both proposals failed to pass because ERIC’s bylaws require an 80 percent majority before making a change.

“ERIC has chosen repeatedly to ignore demands to embrace reforms that would bolster confidence in its performance, encourage growth in its membership, and ensure not only its present stability but also its durability,” LaRose wrote in a letter announcing Ohio’s withdrawal on March 17. “Rather, you have chosen to double-down on poor strategic decisions, which have only resulted in the transformation of a previously bipartisan organization to one that appears to favor only the interests of one political party.”

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate told Politico that the failed votes prevent ERIC members from doing what’s best for their states.

“Ultimately, the departure of several key states and today’s vote is going to impact the ability for ERIC to be an effective tool for the State of Iowa,” Pate said. “My office will be recommending resigning our membership from ERIC.”

As previously reported by The Federalist, ERIC is a voter roll management system used by nearly 30 states and the District of Columbia. It was created under the guise of helping states clean their rolls — i.e., remove dead and duplicate registrants — but does more to inflate them.

As a part of the alliance, member states are required to contact eligible but unregistered residents to register to vote. ERIC creates these lists of unregistered residents and sends them to member states to contact themselves. Given ERIC’s partisan origins and alliance with the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) — one of two groups that funneled $419 million in grants from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to mostly-blue areas of swing states during the 2020 election — it’s likely ERIC targets Democrat-leaning residents to register.

Despite ERIC’s obvious ties to the left, corporate media outlets are characterizing states that have withdrawn from the organization and its critics as “conspiracy theorists” who are peddling disinformation. Thankfully, states like Ohio and Iowa have ignored this intimidation campaign.

“I cannot justify the use of Ohio’s tax dollars for an organization that seems intent on rejecting meaningful accountability, publicly maligning my motives, and waging a relentless campaign of misinformation about this effort,” LaRose wrote. “Additionally, I cannot accept the board’s refusal – for a third time – to adopt basic reforms to the use of ERIC’s data-sharing services.”

Alaska and Texas are two more member states considering withdrawing from ERIC.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Lawsuit Forces Los Angeles County To Remove 1.2 Million Ineligible Voters From Rolls

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | FEBRUARY 27, 2023

Los Angeles County, California confirmed it had removed 1.2 million ineligible voters from its rolls thanks to a settlement with the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch, the group announced Friday. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in 2017 on behalf of itself and four registered voters in Los Angeles County. Election Integrity Project California, Inc., another public interest group, was also a part of the lawsuit.

Under the agreement, Los Angeles had to send 1.6 million address confirmation notices to voters listed “inactive” on its voter rolls. According to the National Voter Registration Act — which requires states to maintain accurate voter rolls — states and counties must remove from their voting rolls voters who do not respond to such mailers and do not vote in the next two federal elections.

In its most recent progress report for complying with the settlement, Los Angeles told Judicial Watch it had removed a total of 1.2 million ineligible voters from its rolls. Last year, the county revealed that 634,000 of its inactive voters hadn’t voted in the past 10 years.

Back in 2017 when Judicial Watch first filed its lawsuit, it argued Los Angeles County had more registered voters than residents eligible to register and the “highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.” According to data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission at that time, voter registration for the county was 112 percent of its adult citizen population.

“This long overdue voter roll clean-up of 1.2 million registrations in Los Angeles County is a historic victory and means California elections are less at risk for fraud,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement. “Building on this success, Judicial Watch will continue its lawsuits and activism to clean up voter rolls and to promote and protect cleaner elections.”

This isn’t the first lawsuit of its kind by Judicial Watch. New York City recently removed 441,083 ineligible voters from its voter rolls after reaching a settlement with the conservative advocacy group. North Carolina also removed more than 430,000 ineligible registrants from its rolls due to a similar lawsuit, and Kentucky agreed to do the same in response to a lawsuit.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is another good government group that has filed lawsuits to compel states including Michigan and Pennsylvania to clean their voter rolls to guard against potential election fraud.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

California Democrat Arrested, Charged With Mail-In Ballot Fraud

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | FEBRUARY 20, 2023

A California city council member was arrested for allegedly committing election fraud.

Lodi City Council member Shakir Khan, a Democrat, was arrested on Thursday for multiple election fraud charges, including allegedly stashing 41 mail-in ballots at his home, falsifying voter registration documents, and pressuring residents to vote for him. Investigators claim, based partially on body cam footage of police interviews, that Khan registered 23 people to vote at his home address and used his phone number to register 47 people to vote.

And another Democrat,

Lodi City Council member Democrat Shakir Khan arrested on voter fraud charges related to 2020 Crime of the Century – stash of ballots found at his residence with fake voter registrations. pic.twitter.com/xWeWpUJy2K
— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) February 18, 2023

These charges stem from the 2020 election, when Khan was elected to the District 4 seat for the Lodi City Council.

Khan also faces charges in a separate criminal case with his brother that include illegal gambling, money laundering, tax evasion, and unemployment fraud. He’s due in court for another arraignment on that case on Feb. 21. Related to the election fraud charges, Khan was released from jail on Friday but must wear a tracking device and stay within California.

Local news reports it’s unclear whether Khan has resigned from the city council over the allegations. Still, the charges he faces related to election fraud are serious. That investigators allegedly found 41 sealed and completed mail-in ballots when searching Khan’s home proves how easy it is for nefarious actors to fix elections when unsupervised mail-in balloting is legal.

As previously reported, mail-in ballots pose a huge risk for election fraud. According to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission, 28.3 million mail-in ballots are still missing across the country from elections conducted between 2012 and 2018. Because there is no way to track these ballots, there is no way of knowing whether they were used fraudulently.

” federal Election Assistance Commission, 28.3 million mail-in ballots are still missing“..

Third-party partisan organizers can also take advantage of such a lax system by harvesting ballots (coaxing voters to fill out ballots on behalf of Democratic candidates, taking their ballots, and dropping them off at election offices), and they do. In fact, Khan allegedly engaged in ballot harvesting by pressuring District 4 residents to vote for him and filling out their ballots.

Requiring all voters who are able to cast their ballots in person would remedy many of the security weaknesses of mail-in balloting. If that were law in Khan’s case, he wouldn’t have been allegedly able to fill out 41 fraudulent mail-in ballots using fake names and addresses and deliver them to be counted. There would have to be actual people showing up at the polls, identifying themselves, and filling out each of their ballots.

Despite the obvious liabilities of switching to all-mail elections, California just became the eighth state to approve all-mail voting for its elections moving forward. As a result of such a disastrous change, expect more cases like Khan’s to spring up.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

Category:

Crime, Political

Tagged with:

Zuckbucks 2.0 Recipients Turn Down Money After Leftist Nonprofit Fails Transparency Test

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | FEBRUARY 14, 2023

roll of "I voted" stickers on a table at a polling place — **Unless more localities reject these private funds and membership, CTCL will once again undermine election integrity in 2024 and beyond.**

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

Three of the 10 counties chosen as beneficiaries of a program from the nonprofit that helped fund the private takeover of government election offices in 2020 are refusing to accept those dollars leading up to the 2024 cycle.

Election officials from Brunswick and Forsyth Counties in North Carolina and Ottawa County in Michigan have chosen not to accept funds from the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a program that plans to funnel $80 million in election grants to jurisdictions across the country over the next five years. The alliance is a project of the Center for Tech and Civic Life, one of two groups that funneled over $328 million of private money from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, known as “Zuckbucks,” to government election offices mostly in the blue counties of swing states, mobilizing Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts and swinging the race in Joe Biden’s favor.

Many of the jurisdictions chosen as recipients for the 2024 cycle lean heavily Democrat and are located in swing states, indicating CTCL is hoping to replicate its successful scheme in the next presidential election in purple states Democrats need to win, such as Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. While CTCL might once again try to hide its efforts by claiming the alliance is also giving money to red counties, expect more than double or triple the funds to be spent on Democratic-leaning counties compared to Republican ones, just like in 2020.

Ottawa County Clerk Justin Roebuck told RealClearInvestigations he will refuse the grant money offered to his county because of transparency concerns. When Roebuck asked the alliance about its criteria for the amount of money given to each county, those running the program refused to give a clear answer.

Tim Tsujii, director of elections for the Forsyth County Board of Elections, told RealClear that Forsyth will not take any grant money because the county has adequate funds to administer its elections. Forsyth and Brunswick Counties will still be part of the alliance, but Tsujii raised concerns about members having to pay a fee for being part of the program.

“There is all this talk about the money going to elections offices and the counties, but what about the money going from the counties to the alliance?” Tsujii said.

To be a part of the alliance, election offices must pay an annual fee, $1,600 for a basic membership or $4,800 for premium, which the CTCL-created program says gives officials access to “coaching,” tutorials, consulting, and any other as-needed handholding, such as revamping voter forms and websites. The alliance also obligates members “to make non-monetary (but highly significant) contributions to the broader activities of the Alliance,” such as participating in its events and sharing election data, documents, and forms.

While the program goes to great lengths to stress its “commitment to nonpartisanship” — “We will never attempt to influence the outcome of any election. Period” — its own founding organization, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, has demonstrated the catastrophic and deeply partisan consequences of welcoming outside groups to infiltrate government election offices.

These three jurisdictions are not the only beneficiaries raising concerns about the integrity of the alliance and the problems associated with accepting its funds. The town of Greenwich, Connecticut, narrowly approved a $500,000 grant from the program after town representatives and concerned residents wrote a letter to their local newspaper signaling their opposition to accepting the grant. The letter cited outside influence by the partisan groups in Greenwich’s election process as one reason to reject the funds.

As RealClearInvestigations noted:

When [Greenwich] residents heard that its elections office was tapped to receive $500,000 in grant money from the CTCL, a member of the town’s legislative council sent an email to the center seeking more information, including audits of the group’s books, a copy of the group’s annual report, and its conflict-of-interest policy.

The CTCL declined to provide the documents, insisting that its audited financials and conflict policies “are not publicly filed documents.”

The alliance has also failed to disclose how exactly the grant money will be used, instead keeping things vague and saying it will vary depending on each office. But if CTCL’s past is prologue, that could mean working with left-wing third-party groups to create absentee ballot forms, targeting likely-Democratic voters by harvesting and curing their ballots, and crafting automatic voter registration systems. The Center for Tech and Civic Life is already hoping to do this on a much broader scale than in 2020. As The Federalist previously reported, CTCL has an elaborate plan to infiltrate more than 8,000 local election departments across the country by 2026.

That county election officials and town leaders are suspicious of the alliance and are starting to opt out of its grant money should set off alarm bells for other jurisdictions committed to conducting free and fair elections. Unless more localities reject these private funds and memberships, CTCL — under the guise of its new U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence program — will once again undermine election integrity in 2024 and beyond.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

If Biden’s Federal Elections Takeover Is ‘Free and Fair,’ Why Are the Plans Completely Redacted?

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | FEBRUARY 09, 2023

"vote here" sign — **Despite finally fulfilling a FOIA request, Biden’s Department of the Interior sent Citizens United a heavily-redacted document.**

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

After several executive agencies in the Biden administration were sued for refusing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests from conservative advocacy group Citizens United over the White House’s attempt to federalize elections, the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs finally turned over its first batch of requested documents. There’s one problem: More than half of the 54-page document is completely redacted.

“The Biden administration is the least transparent in history, and these absurd redactions are just the latest example. What are they trying to hide from the American people?” Citizens United President David Bossie told The Federalist.

As The Federalist previously reported, in March 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing hundreds of federal agencies to engage in a federal takeover of election administration. It also permitted federal agencies to work with “nonpartisan” third-party entities to get voters registered, yet left-wing dark money group Demos publicly admitted it’s worked with federal agencies, “in close partnership with the ACLU and other allies,” to advance the aims of Biden’s directive.

Such an order set off alarm bells among Republicans and good government groups, reminiscent of the widespread takeover of government election offices by Democratic activists and donors in the blue counties of key swing states during the 2020 presidential election. Through their infiltration of state and local offices, Democrats were able to conduct partisan get-out-the-vote operations and swing the election in then-candidate Biden’s favor. This order is a taxpayer-funded version of that effort, turning federal agencies — including those that dole out federal benefits — into voter registration hubs and partisan get-out-the-vote centers.

Citizens United wanted to find out more about it, which is why last June, it filed FOIA requests with the DOI and State Department seeking email and text messages that mentioned both the executive order and the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits executive branch employees from engaging in election activities. When the agencies failed to comply, Citizens United sued. On Jan. 31, DOI sent its first round of documents per Citizens United’s request.

But the 54-page PDF sent to Citizens United is mostly redacted, save for logistical emails between White House staff and agency department heads. The plan and implementation scheme for the “Promoting Access to Voting” executive order itself are completely redacted.

In a cover letter sent with the documents, the Biden administration defended the redactions under U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which allows agencies to withhold information under the “Presidential Communications Privilege” (exists to ensure “the President’s ability to obtain candid and informed opinions from his advisors and to make decisions confidentially”) and the “Deliberative Process Privilege” (“protects the decision-making process of government agencies and encourages the frank exchange of ideas on legal or policy matters”).

But according to Jason Foster, president and founder of Empower Oversight, a transparency and government accountability group that frequently files FOIA requests, these redactions are a prime example of the federal government’s blatant over-redacting and censorship.

“Federal bureaucrats do everything in their power to conceal information from the public,” Foster told The Federalist. “Whether it’s over-classification or improper redactions and stonewalling Freedom of Information Act requests, they instinctively err on the side of hiding information to avoid embarrassment, conceal misconduct, or cover up corruption. It’s up to Congress to reform the FOIA process, and in the meantime, it’s up to independent organizations to sue aggressively to force the federal government to comply with transparency laws.”

While good government groups can sue over improper redactions, this process can usually take about a year to uncover just one document from a series of files, those familiar with the matter said. Now that Republicans control the House of Representatives, however, they have the power to compel the federal government to produce non-redacted versions of requested documents, a Citizens United official told The Federalist.

During the 117th Congress, nine House Republicans wrote a letter to the White House raising concerns about the executive order, specifically regarding the fact that the order supplants the authority of the states to set election law and administer elections under the Constitution. When asked about the Biden administration’s secrecy over its election’s directive, Freshman Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., who chairs the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, echoed her colleague’s sentiments.

“Everyone should have concerns about this executive order and the involvement of any federal agency in our election process,” Hageman told The Federalist. “First and foremost, elections are the constitutional responsibility of the states, not our federal bureaucracy. This is yet another example of the federal government overstepping its authority and infringing upon states’ rights. Even if this order was well intended — and I have serious doubts that it was — it is unconstitutional.”

Hageman emphasized that the White House cannot get away with such extensive redactions of election-related processes.

“Large-scale redactions are not in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act,” Hageman added. “This is one of the few tools we have to hold our government accountable. Are we to accept that the information is classified to such an extent that the document is unable to be coherently interpreted? Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the federal government cannot be allowed to continue to obscure and obstruct.”

Of particular interest in the 54-page document is a draft letter on page 32 from Indian Affairs Assistant Secretary Bryan Newland to White House Domestic Policy Advisor Susan Rice, formerly President Obama’s national security advisor and “right-hand woman” who is known for her involvement in spying on the Trump campaign in 2015 and lying about it. In that role, she also spread lies about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, helped Obama staffers target Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and turned a blind eye to the Biden family’s foreign business affairs.

One line in the draft letter reads: “The plan promotes voter registration and voter participation (REDACTED) and the Department’s agency action to achieve these objectives.” The redacted portion might point to a Hatch Act violation, a Citizens United official told The Federalist.

“These documents relating to the Biden White House’s efforts to turn the federal workforce into a partisan voter registration committee must be released to the public in their entirety,” Bossie said. “Congress must investigate this executive order to see if the Biden Administration is violating the Hatch Act on a massive scale.”

When asked why the Interior Department isn’t being transparent with the public about Biden’s federal takeover of elections, the Bureau of Indian Affairs referred The Federalist to the U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) exemptions in the cover letter sent to Citizens United.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

After Approving Mass Mail-In Balloting, California Loses 10 Million Ballots In November Midterms

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | JANUARY 18, 2023

The 2022 midterms were the first major elections to occur in California after the Golden State approved all-mail voting in September 2021. Under the new system, all registered voters in the state are automatically mailed a ballot for each election cycle (Californians can still opt to vote in person if they wish). But during California’s first foray into mass mail-in balloting for the 2022 midterms, 226,250 mail ballots were rejected and more than 10 million remain unaccounted for, according to a new report by the Public Interest Legal Foundation.

Per the report, the most common reason for rejection of mail ballots in the 2022 cycle was late arrival (48 percent of rejects). Under California law, mail ballots must be postmarked no later than Election Day and arrive at the tabulation center within seven days. For the state’s 2022 general elections, more than 57,000 ballots arrived after Nov. 15 (the seven-day mark). Largely as a result of the switch to mail-in balloting, more than 57,000 Californians were disenfranchised. Such voter disenfranchisement is sure to continue as long as the state keeps its vote-by-mail system.

“Mail ballots disenfranchise,” PILF President J. Christian Adams said in a statement. “There are many reasons mail ballots fail ultimately to count. No one casting a ballot at home can correct an error before it’s too late. California’s vote-by-mail demonstration should serve as a warning to state legislators elsewhere.”

Another concerning figure coming from California’s midterm election cycle is that 10 million ballots still remain unaccounted for, after processing all polling place votes and rejected ballots. The assumption by election officials is that the majority of these ballots were ignored or thrown out by recipients. But such an information gap increases the risk of fraud. As the report notes, “The public cannot know how many ballots were disregarded, delivered to wrong mailboxes, or even withheld from the proper recipient by someone at the same address.”

Unaccounted mail-in ballots are a serious liability for states with all-mail voting. According to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission, 28.3 million mail-in ballots are still missing from elections conducted between 2012 and 2018. While there is no way of knowing whether these missing mail-in ballots were used fraudulently, they still pose a risk to election integrity.

Take ballot harvesting — the practice of third-party organizers collecting ballots from voters and returning them to election offices — for example. States that approve all-mail voting greatly incentivize ballot harvesting, since Democrat doorknockers can coax potential voters to fill out their ballots and hand them over to their newfound Democrat friends on the spot, rather than having to convince voters to do the legwork themselves. Partisan activists may take advantage of such a lax system. And they already do.

All-mail voting also creates more opportunities for chaos, which in turn undermines voters’ confidence. Under a traditional system where voters cast ballots in person, poll workers must account for all election materials and have a log of the number of ballots cast. When problems occur, such as ballots disappearing, the issue is resolved quickly due to the data trail. Not so with all-mail elections.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, multiple states switched to mail-in balloting under the guise of protecting public health. These voting systems were put in place with hardly any safeguards or scrutiny of the risks posed by all-mail elections. Currently, there are eight states — California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington — that primarily conduct their elections by mail.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

With 25,000 Mysterious Votes and Missing Documents, Maricopa’s 2022 Election Process Marked by Chaos and Uncertainty

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | JANUARY 18, 2023

ballot drop box — **Arizona law requires the county recorder to show the origins of and chain-of-custody documents for every drop box ballot obtained.**

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

While the GOP and conservative media have largely moved on from Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and the systemic failures that occurred in Maricopa County on Nov. 8, court testimony and eyewitness reports from the Lake trial include allegations that Arizona’s largest county violated state law by failing to implement chain-of-custody documentation for Election Day ballots, resulting in a mysterious 25,000 extra votes added to Maricopa County’s official tally within a 24-hour period — more than the margin of victory between Lake and gubernatorial victor Katie Hobbs.

It was about 10:00 on election night when Maricopa County’s ballot tabulation vendor, Runbeck Election Services, received its first truckload of Election Day drop box ballots. While Runbeck received seven truckloads total (the last was completed about 5 a.m. the following morning), Runbeck staff thought it odd the deliveries did not come earlier throughout the day. But that wasn’t the only glitch. There were no chain-of-custody forms delivered with the ballots, a stark departure from typical procedure.

According to Runbeck employee Denise Marie, prior to Nov. 8, drop box ballots were “delivered in red bins with a chain of custody form” from the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center (MCTEC), which listed how many ballots were delivered.

But on election night, “instead of receiving the ballots in red bins, the ballots from the drop boxes had been placed in mail trays and loaded onto mail cages. MCTEC did not include the Maricopa County Delivery Receipt forms with any of the Election Day drop box ballot deliveries. There were no chain of custody forms with the ballots and no count of the number of ballots that were delivered,” Marie wrote in a sworn affidavit.

Maricopa County Co-Director of Elections Reynaldo Valenzuela even testified that while the county’s election workers count drop box ballots and record the counts on documents as required by law prior to Election Day, they did not count the ballots retrieved from drop boxes on Election Day itself. During the Lake trial, Valenzuela was asked whether Maricopa County election officials know the precise number of drop box ballots on Election Day, and he told the court, “On Election Day, no, because we’re not doing drop box courier process at that time. It’s a different process for Election Day.”

According to Lake attorney Kurt Olsen, this is in direct violation of Arizona state statute, which requires the county recorder to maintain records that log the chain of custody for ballots “during early voting through the completion of provisional voting tabulation.”

Per Arizona’s Election Procedures Manual, when ballots are taken from drop boxes, they must either be counted at the local vote center or be placed in secure ballot transport containers to be taken back to the county for tabulation. When the county recorder or elections official opens the container, he or she must count the number of ballots inside and note it on a retrieval form.

Because Maricopa County tabulators received more Election Day drop box ballots than they had ever received before, as County Recorder Stephen Richer testified, they removed the ballots from the ballot transport containers without counting or recording the number on a retrieval form for each drop box, as witnessed by Republican poll watcher Leslie White. This is a violation of the chain-of-custody requirements the county recorder is tasked with implementing.

The ballots were then put in mail trays and loaded onto mail cages, which were then put on trucks and delivered to Runbeck to be scanned and counted, according to supply-chain auditor and Lake trial witness Heather Honey. And notably, according to Marie’s sworn affidavit, this loading of ballots into the trucks also occurred without any documentation or record of the number of ballots on each.

Since Maricopa County failed to create its own chain-of-custody documents for the Election Day drop box ballots, Runbeck made its own (called “MC Inbound Receipt of Delivery Forms“), which logged the seven truckloads of drop box ballots on election night. On the delivery forms, Runbeck estimated the total number of Election Day drop box ballots to be 263,379 by multiplying the maximum number of ballots a mail tray can hold by the number of trays received, as Honey explained to The Federalist.

Runbeck CEO Jeff Ellington gave his staff a similar estimate of the number of ballots received via an email on Nov. 9, saying, “we started getting mail packets dropped off from Maricopa around 10pm last night and received mail packets about every hour through sunrise this morning. Likely between 250 and 275K packets were dropped off at the polls yesterday.”

At a press conference that evening, Richer affirmed Runbeck’s estimate by saying the county had received an unprecedented 275,000 drop-off ballots on Election Day. That same day, Maricopa County reported the total number of ballots cast in the 2022 general election to the Arizona Department of State: 1,136,849 ballots, with 407,664 ballots left to count — 1,544,513 ballots total.

However, on that same day, around 5:30 p.m., Maricopa County asked Runbeck to calculate the total number of Election Day drop-off ballots received, according to Marie, who was tasked with running the tabulation herself. Marie found that Runbeck’s records showed 298,942 drop box ballots had been received and scanned on Election Day.

As a result of such a discrepancy between the estimate and the official tally, Maricopa County sent a new vote tally to the Arizona secretary of state’s office on Nov. 10 (earlier that day, Richer had sent an email to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors admitting he could not reconcile the differences between the county’s numbers and the secretary of state’s listing, demonstrating that even the supposed expert official in charge of the counting process couldn’t figure out where the extra ballots came from). Instead of the original 1,544,513 total ballots reported for the 2022 general election in Maricopa County, the secretary of state’s website now listed 1,569,603, a more than 25,000-vote discrepancy with no explanation. That same day, Maricopa County gave another press conference, stating it had received 292,000 Election Day drop box ballots without batting an eye.

What This Means

Arizona law requires the county recorder to show the origins and chain-of-custody documents for every drop box ballot obtained. According to Runbeck employee Denise Marie and Maricopa County Co-Director of Elections Reynaldo Valenzuela, Maricopa County violated state law by failing to create any chain-of-custody documentation for the drop box ballots received on Election Day. Because of this failure, no records exist to dispute or reconcile the discrepancy between the number of ballots Runbeck first reported (263,379) and its final tally (298,942), a more than 35,000-vote change. As Olsen remarked in his closing argument for the Lake trail, “If you don’t have a count from MCTEC when those ballots are being transported to Runbeck, how do you know whether that count is secure?”

Nor do there appear to be chain-of-custody documents, a violation of Arizona law, showing how Maricopa County was able to add more than 25,000 ballots to its final tally. That addition is more than Hobbs’ margin of victory, which was about 17,000 votes.

“On November 9th, the reported count is 25,000 ballots less, which is beyond the margin here, than on November 10th,” Olsen said. “So the day after the election, they put out what the count is and then magically 25,000 ballots appear on November 10th, and well, hey, that’s the race.”

While part of the argument Lake’s attorneys used in their lawsuit seeking to challenge Arizona’s gubernatorial election was that Maricopa County violated its own Election Procedural Manual by failing to implement chain-of-custody documentation, Arizona Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson rejected the claim due to the county’s assertion that such chain-of-custody documents exist, even though it failed to produce them. At the time of the trial, Maricopa County hadn’t fulfilled a public records request for the documents.

But while such documents do exist for drop box ballots counted prior to Election Day, no such chain-of-custody paperwork exists for the Election Day drop box ballots themselves, Honey reiterated to The Federalist. The judge did not consider this alleged violation of state law and ruled against Lake’s challenge, saying she failed to present clear and convincing evidence of widespread misconduct.

Arizona has an impossibly high bar for overturning elections on the grounds of misconduct, as the judge himself noted. Lake not only had to allege misconduct but intentional misconduct, such to affect the outcome of the election. Lake has since filed two appeals — one with an appeals court, the other with the Arizona Supreme Court. The appeals court agreed to expedite her case.

When asked about its alleged failure to implement chain-of-custody documentation for the Nov. 8 election, Communications Manager for the Maricopa County Elections Department Matthew Roberts told The Federalist: “There are robust tracking and security procedures in place to document and ensure proper chain-of-custody of early ballots on Election Day. These policies and procedures were followed on Election Day, as well as throughout the early voting period. At no point during the process were chain of custody policies broken or procedures not followed and documented.”

The Maricopa County Elections Department did not respond to The Federalist’s request for documentation of the chain-of-custody process for the Election Day drop box ballots.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ranked-Choice Voting Keeps Rigging Elections

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | JANUARY 11, 2023

As different states and municipalities across the country adopt ranked-choice voting, it’s become obvious this mind-boggling election system deserves a new name: rigged-choice voting.

After nearly two months of tabulation, Alameda County, California, — one such ranked-choice voting (RCV) adoptee — announced it got the count wrong for its Nov. 8 election. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the California county admitted it made systemic errors while tabulating ballots. As a result of the snafu, an Oakland School Board race flipped: The top vote-getter (and certified winner) must now hand his board seat over to the third-place finisher.

While gross negligence on the part of some Alameda County election officials is not only probable but likely, RCV’s Byzantine election system must also take the blame. In it, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his voters are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate. The process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes. For the Oakland mayor’s race, it took nine baffling rounds of RCV for one candidate to receive the narrow majority. The local NAACP chapter demanded a manual recount but scrapped it due to the expense.

In the case of the Oakland School Board election, officials blame a software configuration problem for the error (even the machines were confused about how to count the RCV-way). But is it right for a candidate who receives a plurality of votes on the first go-through to eventually lose to someone who finishes last? Often, the victors that emerge from ranked-choice voting are not the candidates a majority of voters favor. Case-in-point: Democrat Mary Peltola won Alaska’s lone congressional seat despite nearly 60 percent of voters casting their ballots for a Republican.

What’s behind the RCV takeover? As The Federalist has previously reported, partisan Democratic activists and moderate Republicans are pushing RCV as a legal mechanism to push out more revolutionary (read: populist) candidates in favor of establishment-backed contenders. As Project Veritas has documented, the moderate, nominal Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski was behind the campaign to change Alaska’s primary to an RCV system, ensuring the defeat of her Trump-backed challenger Kelly Tshibaka. Had Alaska not implemented RCV, Tshibaka likely would have defeated Murkowski in the primary.

There is a myriad of problems with RCV, as the Alameda County debacle shows. The Foundation for Government Accountability notes that ranked-choice voting causes ballot exhaustion (when a ballot is cast but does not count toward the end election result), diminishes voter confidence, and lags election results. It can take weeks or even months for a ranked-choice race to be counted, threatening the security of the process.

If Americans desire democracy and election integrity, rigged-choice voting is clearly not the way to go.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Harvesting Low-Effort Votes Is Working Great for Democrats, So They’re Going for More

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | DECEMBER 28, 2022

Election 2020 — **While some congressional Republicans might think the post-2020 election integrity fight is over, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.**

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

The dust of the 2022 midterm contests has barely settled and Democrats — invigorated by the Red Wave that evaporated under extended lax voting policies — are out to make sweeping changes to our nation’s election laws once again.

Think back to 2020, when Democratic governors and unsuspecting Republican lawmakers made unprecedented changes to state election policies in the name of Covid that included mandating universal mail-in balloting and a month of early voting. Some states have kept these changes permanently. But Democrats are not satisfied, and why should they be? With their gubernatorial power retained (they kept all but one of the governor’s offices) and newfound control of state legislatures in both Michigan and Minnesota, Democrats are keen to ram through a whole gamut of unprecedented and unconstitutional changes. It’s working, so they’re going to keep doing it.

As The New York Times reported, Democrats’ list of policy proposals for 2023 includes expanding automatic voter registration systems, preregistering teenagers to vote, granting the franchise to felons, and criminalizing what the left thinks is election “misinformation.” Of course, all these policy prescriptions have little to do with “voting rights,” but Democrats package them as such, and slander their opponents as — you guessed it — racists.

Make no mistake about what these proposals are meant to accomplish. Take automatic voter registration. The New York Times notes that such a system — already adopted by 20 states — “adds anyone whose information is on file with a government agency — such as a department of motor vehicles or a social services bureau — to [a state’s] voter rolls unless they opt out.”

During the 2020 election, Michigan’s Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson sent out automatic voter registration forms to all eligible Michigan residents. As a result of the mailer, 114,000 people were automatically added to Michigan’s voter rolls. Many were duplicate and otherwise inaccurate registrations. By padding state voter rolls with new unlikely voters, Democrats can target unsuspecting blocs of voters, harvest their ballots, and put their candidates over the top. Various leftist 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations are solely dedicated to this.

As I’ve previously reported regarding Democratic attempts to court high school-age kids, multiple left-wing organizations are targeting young people to effectively propagandize them into future Democratic Party voters. As two-thirds of Gen Z voters backed Democrats this past midterm election cycle, Democrats are hoping to capitalize on this emerging voting bloc while also setting their sights on even younger kids. While leftist organizations have tried to couch their outreach efforts as bipartisan, Democrat politicians admit they’re going after younger voters to benefit the left.

“[Targeting young people] is something the left’s been pushing for quite a while — along with enfranchising noncitizens and automatic restoration of felon voting rights,” executive director of the Honest Elections Project Jason Snead told me earlier this month. “They’re always looking for new people to bring into the election system and calculating the targeted groups who will be more likely to vote Democratic.”

Along with making the state a key player in their efforts to pad voter rolls in their favor, Democrats are also intent on criminalizing any information that could hurt their electoral prospects. Known Democratic Party hack and Michigan Secretary of State Joycelyn Benson told the New York Times that she wants new rules and penalties for individuals peddling “misinformation” in election mailers or language on proposed ballot amendments.

“The greatest threats to our democracy right now continue to be the intentional spread of misinformation and the threats and harassment of election officials that emerge from those efforts,” Benson said.

With Democrats’ history of using Big Tech to label the New York Post’s verified story on Hunter Biden as misinformation and its subsequent censorship during the 2020 election, as well as myriad true scientific claims that countered the bureaucracy’s Covid narrative, it’s clear Benson and fellow Democrats’ desire to censor “misinformation” is code for cracking down on any information Democrats don’t like.

What’s To Be Done

Republicans must be wary of Democratic efforts to fortify elections in 2023 and beyond. While some congressional Republicans might think the post-2020 election integrity fight is over, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Democrats have a massive ground game advantage over Republicans already, and if they pass these policy proposals — under the insufferable label of “voting rights” — in key swing states, that advantage will only grow to an insurmountable one. Republicans must realize election integrity is not a seasonal push nor a battle isolated to 2020. Rather, they must be on offense for years to come.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Twitter Files Illustrate How Intelligence Agencies Can Rig Politics

BY: JOY PULLMANN | DECEMBER 14, 2022

Twitter icon close-up on black phone screen — **Perhaps the most important outcome of these releases is the broadening recognition that Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al., are part of government propaganda operations.**

JOY PULLMANN

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOYPULLMANN

It’s not clear whether Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is hostile.

Musk could be motivated by deeply personal reasons to battle Big Tech’s enforcement of Marxist identity politics. Or he could be attempting to do damage control for the regime by duping people who have reason to distrust the regime into believing Twitter is now more trustworthy. There are many other possibilities, too, and it’s impossible for outsiders to know which is true.

After all, the Twitter Files haven’t so far released that much new information. We already knew Big Tech was colluding with federal officials to deny Americans free speech and therefore self-government. We already knew the internet’s dominant infrastructure is completely rigged. We already knew Donald Trump’s Twitter defenestration was based on Twitter employees’ personal animus against him, not any objective reading of company policy.

We already knew Joe Biden is likely owned by foreign oligarchs who pay his son Hunter for access and influence, and that the Hunter Biden laptop story’s suppression was a deep state influence operation that tipped the 2020 election.

Whatever is going on behind the release of the Twitter Files, good things can come of it. This wormhole likely goes very deep, and even what we’re seeing now, quite close to the surface, is alarming and indicative enough. Perhaps the most important outcome of these releases is the broadening recognition that Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al., are part of government propaganda operations.

This is very likely why we’ve been hearing increasing alarms about “protecting democracy.” The existence and prevalence of this chant online is itself a strong indicator that democracy, or the concept of self-rule through free and fair elections, as the basic bloke thinks of it, doesn’t really exist anymore. At least, that’s certainly the case if Big Tech, in collusion with unelected officials who are almost as far-left as Twitter’s employees, selects what information voters may receive.

Twitter censorship directly or indirectly is what led to the horrendously regressive COVID policies, Biden's presidential victory, and why we got the record inflation, energy, crime, illegal immigration and Fentanyl crises.
We are here today because of what Twitter did.
— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) December 13, 2022

This Twitter-capade reveals further details about Big Tech’s function as an arm of U.S. “national security” and “intelligence” agencies. Decades ago, these agencies started going rogue on the formerly inalienable constitutional rights of American citizens, with tacit acquiescence from Congress through repeat authorizations and increased funding. These agencies and the entities they’ve colonized now treat the American people like occupied foreign territory, subject to psychological manipulation and institutional infiltration in a manner reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party.

In fact, this whole affair emits more than merely a whiff of totalitarian collectivism, both communist and fascist. For one thing, the Twitter Files details about the revolving door between U.S. intelligence agency employees and Twitter — and surely also Google and Facebook — recall that Germany’s infamous National Socialists embedded party operatives on “private” company boards. So does today’s Chinese Communist Party.

One must also consider the possibility, if not absolute likelihood, that many of these “former” U.S. military and intelligence agents working at Twitter and Co. are not actually former, but covert government agents. I hear the practice is called “sheep dipping.” Former Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker certainly fits that description. So does Vijaya Gadde.

Over the weekend, while we both dealt with obstacles to new searches, it was @BariWeiss who discovered that the person in charge of releasing the files was someone named Jim. When she called to ask “Jim’s” last name, the answer came back: “Jim Baker.”
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 6, 2022

It’s also noteworthy that a number of these types, including Baker and big fat lying former CIA Director John Brennan, seem to be laundered through CNN and MSNBC stints as “security analysts.” I.e. to use TV to spread regime-desired disinformation, such as to help quash the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.

"…multiple episodes suggesting that Twitter had been penetrated by foreign intelligence agencies and/or was complicit in threats to democratic governance" pic.twitter.com/6Nm4ds0rtk
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) December 11, 2022

So, twitter employees were working with the FBI and foreign intelligence. And the higher ups were warned and were totally cool with it to the point they fired the whistle blower to silence the story. Just amazing. https://t.co/FxUsK8wajF
— The Dank Knight 🦇 (@capeandcowell) December 12, 2022

This use of spycraft against American citizens seems to be an increasingly recurring and increasingly visible aspect of our post-2016 dystopia. Recall that it appears to have been a feature of the Jan. 6, 2021 “insurrection,” the 2020 Michigan tyrant “kidnapping” false flag operation, the Spygate operation, the attempted FBI entrapment of Sen. Ron Johnson, and many more.

While the vast majority of Americans don’t use Twitter, it has a massive, outsized influence on every American’s everyday life. We saw that in real-time with the consent spiral manufactured, possibly by national security agencies, to impose unprecedented lockdowns in 2020.

Twitter has a fraction of the users of every other major online network, yet it controls the political conversation because of who uses it and how they use it. It’s helpful, even if not literally true, to think of Twitter as an influence operation targeted at Congress, the executive agencies, the corporate media that control the ruling Democrat Party, and other members of the ruling class. That’s who its users overwhelmingly are, especially the most active.

Twitter is where people go to link up to the woke hive mind. That’s why it’s poison to everyone, but especially Republican officeholders.

This is why Republican politicians make some of their stupidest decisions when framed by what they see on Twitter, because the Twitter “consensus” reflects the opposite of their constituents’ views. (This disconnect is a major reason The Federalist exists.) It’s simply a pressure tool for the leftist mob. That’s also why big business leaders are idiots to respond to Twitter mobs — the majority of their customers don’t pay any attention to Twitter.

This information asymmetry has been highly destructive to the American republic but highly useful to the nefarious actors who run our deeply corrupt federal agencies. For one thing, it has allowed the veiled imposition of a vast information iron curtain across Western countries where many people believe themselves to be free citizens. Twitter is the tip of the spear for this growing censorship regime now consisting of a shadowy web between federal officials, social media-sponsored “fact checking” censorship hacks, Big Tech, corporate media, intelligence agencies, and who knows what other entities.

Twitter has been the typical initiator of bans on a person, organization, idea, or conversation from an online voice — and sometimes from basic life necessities such as banking. Then Facebook, Apple, Google, and others follow suit. The other colluding entities get Twitter to do the heavy lifting of canceling a dissenting person, political movement, conversation, or idea, then just file behind and copy Twitter so they avoid blowback.

We now have more evidence to add to the growing pile establishing that Twitter wasn’t just functioning this way because almost all of its employees were far-left Democrat activists. It also has been rigging public conversation, and therefore public life and elections themselves, at the behest of elected and unelected Democrats using their public positions for deeply partisan gain.

The Biden administration admitted it was flagging specific posts for Twitter to take down. It called for Big Tech to inflict “consequences” on those who disagreed with Democrats, and attempted to publicly formalize its evisceration of this vital tool of democracy — free speech — with a “Disinformation Governance Board.” The Biden administration’s national security apparatus openly declared that anyone who doesn’t agree with Democrat politicians could be investigated as a potential “domestic terrorist”!

These government-entwined monopoly platforms obviously exist to disseminate coordinated information operations and kill competing information. They are staffed with de facto or actual intelligence agents at levels high enough to disappear key internal records. Anyone who claims these are simply “private companies” is either not intellectually competent, in denial, or part of the ongoing psy-op to deny Americans the right to make their own political decisions based on genuinely free and open public discussions.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Here’s her printable household organizer for faith-centered holidays. Sign up here to get early access to her next ebook, “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is the author of several books, including “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. Joy is also a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Kari Lake Fires Off Biting One-Line Statement After Outlets Call Race for Katie Hobbs

By Jack Davis November 15, 2022 at 6:49am

Republican Kari Lake is not wilting after projections emerged Monday that she will lose the Arizona governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs.

“Arizonans know BS when they see it,” Lake said on Twitter.

Arizonans know BS when they see it.
— Kari Lake (@KariLake) November 15, 2022

During the campaign, she had frequently questioned the integrity of the 2020 election that led to Joe Biden’s presidency, and last month she had told ABC News that she would concede the gubernatorial race only if “it’s fair, honest and transparent.”

“When I first started voting back in the ’80s, we had Election Day,” Lake said in that interview. “Our Constitution says Election Day. It doesn’t say election season, election month, and we’ve watched as our Election Day has turned into election week and election weeks and now election month. And the longer you drag that out, the more fraud with problems there are.”

On Monday, nearly a week after the midterm elections, ABC News projected Hobbs to be the winner of the Arizona race, concluding that her election was part of “a stunning rejection of election deniers in midterm contests.”

CNN also projected the Democrat to win, saying she was “defeating one of the most prominent defenders of former President Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.”

Fox News joined the chorus declaring Lake had been defeated but noted that according to Arizona’s rules, the contest might face a recount.

The Associated Press explained its call for Hobbs by saying “the latest round of vote releases gave her a big enough lead that the AP determined she would not relinquish it.”
“The AP concluded that, even though Lake had been posting increasingly larger margins in vote updates from Maricopa County, she was not gaining a big enough share to overtake Hobbs and was running out of remaining votes,” the wire service said.

AP numbers posted in The New York Times on Monday night gave Hobbs a margin of about 20,000 votes out of the roughly 2.5 million votes cast with 95 percent reported.

Hobbs issued a statement after media outlets proclaimed her to have won.

“I want to thank the voters for entrusting me with this immense responsibility. It is truly an honor of a lifetime, and I will do everything in my power to make you proud. I want to thank my family, our volunteers, and campaign staff. Without all of your hard work, passion, and sacrifice this night would not be possible. Thank you from the bottom of my heart,” she said.

“For the Arizonans who did not vote for me, I will work just as hard for you – because even in this moment of division, I believe there is so much more that connects us,” she said, adding, “Let’s get to work.”

Democracy is worth the wait.

Thank you, Arizona.

I am so honored and so proud to be your next Governor. pic.twitter.com/O6ZFSHbIBe
— Katie Hobbs (@katiehobbs) November 15, 2022

During the campaign, Hobbs had labeled Lake an “election-denying, media-hating, conspiracy-loving, chaos-causing opponent.”

Journalist Kyle Becker offered his thoughts that denying an election was fair does not mean one wears the media label of “election denier.”

Anyone who has attacked @KariLake as an "election denier" needs to realize one simple fact: Katie Hobbs just proved Kari Lake's point.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 15, 2022

Just like you can reject Covid mRNA shots and not be an 'anti-vaxxer,' you can recognize an election is run in a corrupt manner and not be an 'election denier.'

Democrats throw around lazy personal attacks that are meant to avoid debating the issues or solving the problems.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 15, 2022

It implies that anything Democrats say is a free, fair, transparent & legitimate election must be one & anyone questioning them is guilty of being an 'election denier.'

No one is supposed to question whether Democrats have corrupt motives for framing a debate this way.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 15, 2022

Lake has said Hobbs, who as Arizona’s secretary of state oversees elections, should have recused herself from overseeing the election.

Jack Davis

Contributor, News

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Expert Reveals His Team Has Been Tracking Google Election Interference, And They Found a Very Worrying Pattern

By Michael Austin | November 8, 2022

Is Google attempting to change the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections with its biased algorithms? Robert Epstein believes the answer is “yes” and claims to have proof.

Epstein, a Ph.D. from Harvard University, has quite an accomplished resume. He formerly served as editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, has published 15 books and currently serves as senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

Leading up to the midterm elections, Epstein and a team of thousands have been monitoring political content being pushed by tech companies like Google and Twitter, and in a Sunday article for the Daily Caller, Epstein revealed those findings.

Epstein’s team has recorded 1.9 million “ephemeral experiences” pushed into users’ feeds by Google in order to convince users to vote a certain way — presumably Democrat given the company’s history of bias. Epstein expects to have recorded 2.5 million of these messages by election day.

Ephemeral content is described by Epstein as “short-lived content that impacts people and then disappears, leaving no trace.”

So, via its search engine, the Google-owned video platform YouTube and other means, Google is pushing messages meant to sway voters in a biased manner that later disappears without a trace. Or rather, it would have disappeared without a trace if Epstein had not mobilized a team of “field agents” — registered voters — to record these messages on over 2,500 computers.

There are many different types of “ephemeral experiences” meant to sway opinion — about a dozen — that Epstein has identified over the course of nearly a decade. This includes bias in search results, search suggestions, voting reminders and interactions with digital personal assistants.

For example, if you look up the candidate of one party, only favorable articles, videos and other results are pushed to the top. Additionally, what Epstein describes as “carefully crafted search suggestions” flash on Google’s search bar when a user begins to enter a term.

According to Epstein, these messages “can shift voting preferences of undecided voters by up to 80 percent in some demographic groups after a single search.”

Reminders to vote were sent more often to liberal voters than to conservatives, and question-and-answer interactions with digital personal assistants manage to “shift the voting preferences of undecided voters” by 40 percent or more, Epstein’s team found.

The psychologist’s team collected and recorded 1.5 million ephemeral experiences of this nature in the lead-up to the 2020 election. They believe these manipulations may have shifted as many as six million votes in favor of Joe Biden.

In 2022, his team found similar results.

“In swing states, and especially in Wisconsin, Arizona and Florida, we are finding a high level of liberal bias in Google search results, but not in search results on Bing (the same pattern we have found in every election since 2016),” Epstein wrote.

“In several swing states, 92 percent of the autoplay videos being fed to YouTube users are coming from liberal news sources (YouTube is owned by Google). Unless Google backs down, it will shift hundreds of thousands of votes on Election Day itself with those brazen targeted go-vote reminders — and we will catch them doing so.”

It shouldn’t come as a shock that Google would find itself ensconced in such controversy. Leaked emails leading up to prior elections have shown the company’s willingness to use biased algorithms to push the subjective values of Google employees and administrators. Leaked emails obtained by The Wall Street Journal in 2018 revealed that Google employees were discussing different methods they could use to “leverage” search functions in order to combat then-President Trump’s travel ban. At the time, Google claimed none of the ideas were implemented.

Epstein does believe there is hope on the horizon, however. According to him, just prior to the 2020 election, his company went public with their findings, prompting three U.S. senators — Ron Johnson, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz — to send Google CEO Sundar Pichai a letter threatening investigation. After the letter was sent, Epstein’s team found that Google manipulations in the Georgia Senate race dropped to zero. This is because, according to one Google whistleblower, the company can turn biased algorithms off and back on again “like flipping a light switch.”

Epstein hopes, going forward, his team can serve as an accountability shield, preventing Google and other tech companies from engaging in partisan antics.

“[T]his time, we will continue to expand the monitoring system, and we will be monitoring content going not just to voters but also to America’s children. By late 2023, we will have a digital shield in place — a panel of more than 20,000 field agents in all 50 states — and we will shame Big Tech into staying clear of our elections and our kids for many years to come,” he wrote.

Michael Austin

Manager of Writing and Reporting

Michael wrote for a number of entertainment news outlets before joining The Western Journal in 2020 as a staff reporter. He now manages the writing and reporting teams, overseeing the production of commentary, news and original reporting content.

@mikeswriting

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘election integrity’

By: Brianna Lyman | April 10, 2025

Share this:

By: M.D. Kittle | November 19, 2024

‘Tool to Defend’

‘On the Other Foot’

‘We Can Get There’

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Share this:

By: M.D. Kittle | November 18, 2024

‘Tipping the Scales’

‘The Election Deniers are the Democrats’

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Share this:

By: M.D. Kittle | November 08, 2024

‘Being Diminished’

‘Common Sense’ Movement

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Share this:

By: Brianna Lyman | November 04, 2024

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2

Share this:

By: M.D. Kittle | October 25, 2024

Do Tell

They Do Not Accept

As has been well documented, Trump’s former chief of staff’s incendiary comments have been debunked by multiple sources, and the assertion that Trump “led a violent insurrection” is widely disputed.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Share this:

By: The Federalist Staff | October 10, 2024

Arizona

Georgia

Michigan

Nevada

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Share this:

By: Brianna Lyman | October 01, 2024

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2

Share this:

By: Logan Washburn | September 20, 2024

Share this:

By: Sen. Ron Johnson | September 03, 2024

Biden’s Executive Order to Register Voters

States Cleaning Voter Rolls

Laundering Donations

Presidential Election

Sen. Ron Johnson is a Republican from Wisconsin.

Share this:

By: Logan Washburn | August 22, 2024

Share this:

By: Logan Washburn | August 14, 2024

Share this:

BY: M.D. KITTLE | JULY 10, 2024

‘Petri Dish’ for Noncitizen Voting

Honor System

‘The Only Reason’

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Share this:

BY: M.D. KITTLE | JUNE 19, 2024

Baseless Attacks?

‘Disastrous Elections System’

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Share this:

BY: M.D. KITTLE | MAY 24, 2024

‘Alien Suffrage’

Media: Alien Voting Doesn’t Happen and It’s Fine When It Does

Where Democrats Stand

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Share this:

Without The SAVE Act, The Only Thing Keeping Foreigners from Voting Is the Honor System

Mike Lee is a U.S. Senator from Utah and author of “Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document.”

Share this:

BY: M.D. KITTLE | MAY 07, 2024

As South Carolina law enforcement investigates allegations a state agency is handing out voter registration forms to foreign nationals, an agency official tells The Federalist that federal law has tied the state’s hands.

‘That’s Insane’

‘Overreaching Federal Requirements’

‘Bidenbucks’

‘Non-issues’ Becoming ‘Major Issues’