Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘voter ID’

How No-Excuse Absentee Voting Allows Special Interests To Manipulate Voters


REPORTED BY: WILLIAM DOYLE | FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/15/how-no-excuse-absentee-voting-allows-special-interests-to-manipulate-voters/

ballots

Signs outside every physical polling place forbid electioneering. Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling locations when voting is taking place. These restrictions are usually on the display of signs, handing out campaign literature, attempting to influence voters, or soliciting votes within a predetermined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place. A list of the specific electioneering prohibitions adopted by each state can be found here.

Opposition to electioneering is the main reason election integrity advocates oppose allowing political activists to provide food and water to voters waiting in line at polling places. What has been portrayed as a measure to starve and dehydrate suffering voters is really a commonsense prohibition against electioneering. Allowing such practices would allow anybody with a few water bottles or a bag of sandwiches an opportunity to harangue, harass, or otherwise intimidate voters who are waiting in line to cast their ballots.

But nobody has yet come to terms with a new type of electioneering that goes hand in hand with universal absentee voting. We call it “remote electioneering” and define it as an attempt to influence or solicit votes among absentee voters between the time they receive their absentee ballot and the time they submit it to their election office. Obviously, the opportunities for what in normal circumstances would qualify as illegal electioneering multiply considerably with absentee voting, since there is no way of knowing the extent to which partisan activists attempt to influence the behavior of absentee voters.

CTCL’s Goal Was to Influence Absentee Voters

But we have a glimpse of the attitudes of Democrat election activists toward electioneering with absentee ballots through Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) documents, which outline the actions that the major recipients of their Covid-19 Response Grant Program would have to fulfill as conditions of keeping their grant money. By the admission of the activist election officials in Wisconsin who were funded by CTCL in 2020, absentee ballot electioneering was one of their major goals. Grant recipients were required to “Encourage and Increase Absentee Voting (By Mail and Early, In-Person),” mainly through providing “assistance” in their completion and the installation of ballot drop boxes. They were also to “dramatically expand strategic voter education & outreach efforts, particularly to historically disenfranchised residents” in states such as Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which in 2020 were flooded with no-excuse absentee ballots for the first time ever.

We know that absentee ballot electioneering occurred in areas in these states where CTCL had a substantial presence because it was part and parcel of CTCL’s requirement that absentee voting be promoted, assisted, and increased. Ongoing contact between activist election officials and millions of new absentee voters was not only encouraged in areas that received big CTCL money, it was required.

Wisconsin Illustrates Extravagant Plans

The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan, which served as the basic template for CTCL’s nationwide efforts during the 2020 election, provides documentation of their extravagant plans to use key election offices to electioneer the absentee vote that they were so intent on promoting.

Election officials in Wisconsin who were “on the street” had enough contact with voters to bemoan the fact that “countless [individuals]” in their municipalities attempted to submit cell phone “selfies” as valid photo ID. Explaining to them that this was not a valid form of photo ID and instructing them on how to properly submit valid ID reportedly “took considerable staff time and resources.”

If election officials had such knowledge, they must have had extensive contact with such low-information absentee voters while they were in the process of completing and submitting their ballots. If this were at the polling booth, it would qualify as illegal electioneering because election officials had “extensive contact” with in-person voters who were completing and submitting their ballots.

A great deal of concern was expressed about “Voters who, understandably, were completely confused about the timeline and rules for voting in the midst of a pandemic and required considerable public outreach and individual hand-holding to ensure their right to vote.” Figuratively “holding someone’s hand” as they cast a vote — whether absentee or in person — seems to be the very definition of electioneering.

The city of Green Bay planned to spend $45,000 to employ bilingual “voter navigators” to help residents properly upload valid photo ID, complete their ballots, comply with certification requirements, and offer witness signatures.  But it would be illegal for poll workers to help voters complete their ballots when voting in person. Why should it not be illegal for partisan activists to help people complete their absentee ballots?

The city of Racine wished to create a corps of “vote ambassadors.” Racine officials said they would recruit, train, and employ such paid ambassadors to set up at the city’s community centers to assist voters with all aspects of absentee ballot requests. But how do we know that the diplomatic efforts of such “ambassadors” would not be exercised exclusively on behalf of their own partisan interests when “assisting” in the completion of absentee ballots?

Violating Voting Booth’s Sanctity

The sanctity of the voting booth used to be considered one of the sacred traditions of American democracy, as it protects the right of individuals to determine who will represent them in government. But the kind of Democracy™ that involves the indiscriminate mass mailing of no-excuse absentee ballots is a top-down endeavor, where most of the power, initiative, and agency is on the side of Democrat politicians and leftist election activists rather than voters.

Their plan is to influence, cajole, and incentivize the least civically engaged, least informed, most apathetic individuals within their jurisdictions to fill out absentee ballots in a way that validates the consolidation of Democratic Party power. Absentee ballot electioneering is the key to a more modern way of “stuffing the ballot box” in an era where activists have convinced a significant number of people that their voting rights have been fatally compromised if they are not permitted to cast a ballot in whatever way is most effortless for them.

The fact that opportunities for electioneering are so few at the polling place, and so plentiful during the time that elapses between the receipt of absentee ballots and their submission, suggests another reason those who wish to find new ways to interfere in legitimate elections are the most strident advocates of universal mail-in voting. It also provides yet another reason why people who believe in free and fair elections should spare no effort to resolutely oppose no-excuse absentee voting in 2022.


William Doyle, Ph.D., is principal researcher at Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas. He specializes in economic history and the private funding of American elections. Previously, he was associate professor and chair in the Department of Economics at the University of Dallas. He can be contacted at doyle@rodneyinstitute.org.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Red Standards

A.F. BRANCO on January 25, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-red-standards/

Corporate America and the Democrats are selling out our humanity in exchange for China’s money.

07 SlavVot DT 1080
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

No, Requiring Voter ID Is Not ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ And It’s Offensive to Say That


REPORTED BY: CURTIS HILL | JANUARY 24, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/24/no-requiring-voter-id-is-not-jim-crow-2-0-and-its-offensive-to-say-that/

Joe Biden talking about voting rights

Whether Mitch McConnell’s boneheaded distinction between African Americans and “Americans” was a misstatement or something more sinister, the fact remains: America will not benefit from federalizing its elections.

The narrative that continues to be stoked by the radical left is that states all over the country are actively denying blacks the right to vote and only the federal government can stop it. At the center of this controversy is the “oppressive” requirement that all voters be required to produce a valid ID, which will disparately affect black voters because everyone knows blacks are more likely than whites to not have an ID.

Joe Biden’s risible claims about voting rights are true to what Malcolm X described as the “trickery” of the white liberal: “The history of the white liberal has been nothing, but a series of trickery designed to make Negroes think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems.” The trickery for today’s white liberal is to manufacture racism by creating the narrative that voter ID is racist and will disproportionately harm blacks. Or that limiting the amount of early voting and other measures that increase ballot vulnerability is inherently racist because blacks won’t vote unless the federal government prods them to the polls because blacks are so dependent on the federal government.

Not only is this narrative unsupported by facts, this lie covers the truth that Democrats don’t want any election laws passed that might catch or stop from voting illegally people Democrats believe will vote Democrat—including voters who don’t want to prove they haven’t voted twice in the same election.

Every black person I know has an ID. Can any supporters of the Freedom To Vote Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act produce black people who tried to vote but were turned away because they did not have a valid photo ID? That’s the rap on Georgia and other states’ laws requiring all prospective voters to prove who they claim to be as a protection against claims of voter fraud.

The big deal with these state legislatures tightening security measures is allegedly not that the measures are unnecessary, but that they are discriminatory, racist, and targeted to keep blacks from voting. Democrats must believe that blacks aren’t smart or interested enough to get a photo ID, the central security measure being added to state voting protocols.

For the past year, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi have been “Jim Crowing” that the Georgia law and others like it are racist since black people are more likely than their white counterparts to not have an ID and therefore be denied their vote (for Democrats—because, according to Joe Biden, you ain’t black if you don’t vote Democrat). Really?

What is it about being black that makes one less likely to have identification? Seems like a racist sentiment. Assuming that there is a black adult without identification, we are supposed to presume that black voters without IDs would be so intimidated by a requirement to present an ID that they would rather not vote than stop by the local license branch and get an ID for the cost of a Big Mac and a Coke? Most states like Indiana will waive the minimal fee if necessary.

But if Democrats are right, and requiring identification is indeed racist, why are they only making noise about required ID voting? Shouldn’t they complain about driving, which would be racist because an ID is required to drive? What about opening a bank account, credit application, or ordering a cell phone, cable and ordinary utilities?

All these would have racist implications daily rather than just on Election Day. Yet there’s not a peep about blacks not being able to get a cell phone or cable TV, because that doesn’t get the Democrat his votes.

This all leads to the Democrat solution: kill the Senate filibuster. Of course, we are reminded that the filibuster was the procedural tool used by Democrats and Republicans to oppose civil rights legislation. But the use of the tactic that may have been used against what is now viewed as popular legislation does not make the tactic itself racist in its application.

The filibuster has evolved from its initial incarnation to a procedure that provides the minority party or position the opportunity to be heard. Since both parties have often been in the minority, both parties have benefited and suffered from its deployment.

I know it might be painful for them, but perhaps Democrats should open up their playbook and remember what they did to intimidate and suppress black voters in the first half of the 20th century.

It is unnerving that the Democrat Party draws comparisons to its champions of segregation Bull Connor and George Wallace suggesting that voter ID is a discriminatory tool, the same as the poll tax or the literacy test, that actually prevented blacks from voting in a notoriously humiliating manner. Such comparisons are a disgrace to the honored memory of all who fought and won victories in securing the right to vote.

In the continued invocation of Jim Crow, the euphemism for the abhorrent laws that legally sanctioned segregation, discrimination, and brutality, Biden and his race-baiting big government aim to racialize the filibuster so that all who support its continued use are brandished racist forevermore. I hope blacks in this nation are wearing thin to the leftist patronization that denigrates the proud history of black and white patriots who fought, bled, and died for freedom, independence, and our opportunity to vote.


Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Frail Rider

A.F. BRANCO on January 14, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-frail-rider-2/

If you don’t agree with Biden, you’re Bull Conner, Jefferson Davis, and an evil Domestic Enemy.

Biden’s War on Conservatives
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Swamp Thing Returns

A.F. BRANCO on August 24, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-swamp-thing-returns/

Pelosi is back trying to federalize our elections eliminating voter ID and allowing ballot harvesting.

HR 4 Election Steal Bill
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Destructing America

A.F. BRANCO on July 5, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-destructing-america/

Biden’s radical leftist policies are destroying America.

Biden Destruction Of America
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Slimy Creature

A.F. BRANCO on July 6, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-a-slimy-creature/

How about we change the Democrat mascot to a hippopotamus type animal and call it “Hypocrat”.

Democrats are Hypocrats
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco coffee table book “Keep America Laughing (at the left)” ORDER HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

15 Insane Things In Democrats’ H.R. 1 Bill To Corrupt Elections Forever


On Wednesday, House Democrats passed an 800-page bill that would mandate insecure voting processes and subject voting tallies to partisan manipulation. It’s a slap in the face to the half of Americans, including many Democrats, who believe the 2020 election was riddled with fraud and errors, largely due to the rapid expansion of mail-in balloting and other suspensions of state election laws.

“It is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence,” write 20 Republican attorneys general in a Thursday letter about the ridiculously named For The People Act of 2021, or H.R. 1. Democrats have made the bill their top priority this Congress to permanently cement their current unified control of the federal government.

The bill “would (among other things) implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election; go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place; and interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, secure the fairness and integrity of elections, and participate and speak freely in the political process,” says a Heritage Foundation analysis.

H.R. 1 broadcasts Democrats’ goals for unending electoral dominance through openly rigged voting processes. It would engineer an unconstitutional federal takeover of state elections for national office. No surprise, then, that Joe Biden says he will sign this legislation if it reaches his desk.

Here are just some of the unconstitutional, absurd, nakedly partisan, and crime-assisting provisions in this bill that 220 House Democrats voted for and every House Republican voted against.

1. Openly Breaks the Constitution

As the attorneys general note, “Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal—and with presidential elections, exclusive—responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections.” This bill would instead unconstitutionally give Congress primacy over state elections, in numerous ways.

Yet the Constitution expressly affords the states, not Congress, the power to determine how presidential electors are selected. Mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter ID laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions all violate states’ constitutional authority in conducting elections.

2. Set Up Star Chambers to Intimidate Judges

The bill would establish a “Commission to Protect Democratic Institutions” that would have the power to force judges to testify before a panel of unelected federal bureaucrats. According to the bill on page 389, the commission, or any member or subcommittee of the commission, may “hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable.”

This commission, the Heritage analysis finds, “would be given the authority to compel judges to testify and justify their legal decisions, threatening their independent judgment and subjecting them to political pressure and harassment.”

3. Mandate Mail-in Ballots, 10-Day Delay in Results

Rather than reject the 2020 electoral chaos caused by bureaucrats suspending state election laws to further unreliable mail-in voting and suspend legal deadlines for mailed ballots, H.R. 1 would mandate this electoral chaos forever.

The bill mandates universal mail-in balloting and requires states to wait ten days after election day for any outstanding tranches of ballots to be suddenly discovered in Democrat-run strongholds — oops, I mean, allow all ballots to arrive. The Heritage report notes that “no-fault absentee ballots” “are the tool of choice for vote thieves.”

Besides a recipe for chaos and partisan election manipulation, this is unconstitutional. The attorneys general note that “The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting.”

4. Eliminate Voter ID Election Security

“Perhaps most egregious is the Act’s limitations on voter ID laws,” write the attorneys general. “Fairly considered, requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls represents nothing more than a best practice for election administration.”

After a brief overview of this history of bipartisan support for voter ID laws, the letter continues: “Voter ID laws remain popular, with thirty-five states requiring some form of documentary personal identification at the polls. Yet the Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to ‘attest[] to the individual’s identity and . . . that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.’ This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are. Worse, it vitiates the capacity of voter ID requirements to protect against improper interference with voting rights.”

5. Register Millions Of Criminally Present Foreign Citizens to Vote

By forcing states to automatically and duplicatively register all people to vote through government outposts such as motor vehicles, state universities, and welfare agencies, H.R. 1 would register millions of illegal migrants to vote in the United States. According to their own reports on surveys, millions of illegally present foreign citizens vote in the United States, and overwhelmingly for Democrats. Democrats including President Barack Obama have worked to prevent states from enforcing laws against foreign citizens voting in U.S. elections.

This bill would essentially create de facto voting rights for the tens of millions of non-citizens inside the United States. Under this bill, states must automatically register every adult and are legally prohibited from inspecting or checking whether anyone who votes is legally eligible to do so.

The bill also bans courts from enforcing any legal penalties on any foreign citizens who illegally vote in the United States (Section 1015). This bill’s provisions would thus allow anyone inside the United States to vote in its elections with no consequences, even if they are not citizens and have demonstrated contempt for our nation by breaking our laws to take advantage of our freedoms (for as long as they last).

6. Explode Opportunities for Election Cheating

“Adding to the threat of increased voter fraud, the Act would mandate nationwide automatic voter registration and Election Day voter registration,” write the attorneys general. “Such systems would provide too many opportunities for non-citizens and others ineligible to vote to register and cast fraudulent ballots before officials can take preventive action.”

Allowing people to register the same day they vote in 2020 contributed to suspiciously high — near or even above 100 percent — percentages of registered voters reportedly casting ballots in many precincts, often in key locations.

The bill would also “Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters,” notes the Heritage analysis. It would require every ballot to be considered legitimate from the get-go, effectively banning provisional ballots.

Those are currently used, for example, when a voter shows up at the polls and records say he already voted or he is registered using incorrect information such as the wrong address. Under this bill, he could still vote without the error being cleared up, and with a regular, not provisional, ballot.

The bill would also eliminate any requirements that a witness sign an absentee ballot, and send absentee ballots for life to everyone who has ever used one. It would also effectively ban matching signatures on absentee ballots to government records of the voter’s signature, such as from a driver’s license record (Section 307).

Therefore, the bill eliminates almost every safeguard meant to protect against fraud and give voters confidence in election results.

7. Prevent Cleaning Up Voter Rolls

If the bill passes into law, “States could not use a combination of voter inactivity and unresponsiveness to maintain voter lists but may instead remove illegitimate voter registrations only where officials obtain some other unspecified ‘objective and reliable evidence that the registrant is ineligible to vote,’” write the 20 state attorneys general. “This attack on reliable methods that states have been using to maintain voters lists without specifying any reasonable permissible alternatives belies any actual interest in preventing voter fraud. The objective, rather, seems to be to prevent meaningful voter list maintenance altogether.”

Moreover, the bill threatens anyone, such as a local election official or poll watcher, who might undertake any questioning of any voter or attempts to establish his or her eligibility to vote. Section 1071 says: “It shall be unlawful for any person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote or to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from aiding another person in registering to vote.” The maximum penalty for this would be up to five years in prison.

8. Unleash Mobs on Political Donors

If passed, the bill would require that political speakers and nonprofit organizations publish the identities of their donors. This would create blacklists for leftist activists to target to prevent their political opponents from the opportunity to speak in public, note the attorneys general.

In addition, the bill would require massive compliance costs for “candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations,” says the Heritage Foundation. “Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public; its onerous disclosure requirements for nonprofit organizations would subject their members and donors to intimidation and harassment.”

Even the leftist American Civil Liberties Union expressed concern about these provisions in a letter to top House Democrats. These sections of H.R. 1 “could harm political advocacy and expose non-profit donors to harassment and threats of violence should their support for organizations be subject to forced disclosure,” the ACLU wrote.

9. Gerrymander Districts to Favor Democrats

The bill would establish a commission of unelected national bureaucrats to decide where the political boundaries for various districts will be, rather than state elected officials.

“At least when legislatures draw boundary lines voters may punish egregious behavior at the next election; not so with government-by-commission, which trades accountability for mythical expertise and disinterest,” complain the Republican attorneys general about this provision. “The republican form of government inherently rejects the idea that elites have some unique capacity to discern and implement the best policies. The American tradition instead embraces political accountability as the best way to advance the public interest. With respect to political redistricting, no ideal, perfectly balanced congressional boundaries exist, so we should let the people decide, through their elected officials, where to place them.”

10. Make Vote Hacking Easier

The bill’s mass forced voter registration of every person with a record in various state databases comprises “a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals,” the Heritage analysis finds. Government databases are notorious for breaches of private information by cybercriminals and foreign countries. This would also create numerous duplicate voter registrations that the bill bans state and local officials from cleaning up, potentially assisting individuals in voting multiple times.

11. Let Former Felons Vote Before They’ve Completed Their Sentences

The Heritage analysis says this bill would also “Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison regardless of uncompleted parole, probation, or restitution requirements. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.”

12. Help 16- and 17-Year-Olds Vote Illegally

H.R. 1 “would also require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register; when combined with a ban on voter ID and restrictions on the ability to challenge the eligibility of a voter, this would effectively ensure that underage individuals could vote with impunity,” says the Heritage analysis.

In Section 1091, the bill establishes a federal pilot program in public schools to register 12th graders to vote. This is a blatant attempt to push elections Democrat, as polls have shown for decades the younger people are, the more likely they are to vote Democrat.

13. Bans Keeping the Records Necessary for an Election Audit or Recount

In Section 1502, the bill would ban state and local officials from preserving the record of paper ballots that make trustworthy post-election recounts and audits possible. It states: ‘‘The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verified paper ballots in any manner that makes it possible, at any time after the ballot has been cast, to associate a voter with the record of the voter’s vote without the voter’s consent.”

14. Mandates Ballot Drop Boxes

In Section 1907, H.R. 1 would mandate that, beginning 45 days before an election, “In each county in the State, each State shall provide in-person, secured, and clearly labeled drop boxes at which individuals may, at any time during the period described in subsection (b), drop off voted absentee ballots in an election for Federal office.” This allows for the anonymous submission of absentee ballots outside of mail.

It is also a recipe for massive fraud, given that in 2020, when mail-in balloting was massively expanded, more than 26 million ballots were requested and never returned. Since this bill also requires all votes to be presumed valid, anyone could gather up any number of ballots that this law also requires to be mailed to all people listed in every government database, fill them out, and dump them in.

Tens of millions would be available for ventures like these. This bill would also legalize “ballot harvesting,” or authorizing one individual to collect such ballots and turn them in by the barrel.

Even if not one partisan in the entire United States is unscrupulous enough to take advantage of this big cheating opportunity, the mere existence of this possibility would seriously erode public confidence in elections. That should be reason enough for any honest person to oppose it.

15. Giving U.S. Territories Extra Democrat Seats in Congress and the Electoral College

H.R. 1 would form a commission to consider granting five U.S. territories voting rights, but not statehood. This is an open attempt to rig Congress and the presidency in favor of Democrats.

If these territories are granted House, Senate, and Electoral College seats, they could add as many as 10 senators and 18 new Electoral College votes, all almost assuredly filled with Democrats. Notice that at the current construction of the Senate, when a 60-vote majority is needed to pass most items of importance, this plan would give Democrats that insurmountable 60-vote majority to do whatever they want with no obstacles.

Since these remote islands are all welfare states that have chosen to remain dependent on U.S. taxpayer largess rather than developing self-government, they would be poor partners for the existing states, to say the least. Like usual, Democrats don’t even want to challenge them to self-governance. They just want to use them as dependents to expand their political power.

There’s a lot more in this bill, such as that its only limits on voting appear to be regarding absentee ballots for U.S. soldiers. This massive list is not a comprehensive examination.

It should suffice, however, to reveal how insane today’s Democrat Party is that every single House Democrat, save one, voted for this bill. This is a voting bill that only totalitarians seeking a uniparty nation could love.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Sign up here to get early access to her next book, “How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

HILARIOUS Cartoon DESTROYS Liberal Voter ID Arguments


waving flagReported by Cassy Fiano, Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Liberals are always against voter ID laws, saying that it will somehow prevent minorities from voting. But this meme destroys every argument they’ve got.

voter ID

voter ID meme

When the New Hampshire primary commences on Feb. 9, it will make American history by becoming the first-ever primary election to require voter IDs!

Fox News explains:

Tens of thousands of new voters are expected to flood the polls, and they will need to show up with a valid photo ID, which can include a driver’s license, passport, military ID, and even some student ID’s from colleges and schools approved by the state.

Note that this rule first went into effect during the 2012 general election. Its implementation came so late in the year, however, that it was not used during that season’s primary election, and as a result, voter fraud occurred:

Lorin Schneider, Jr., who lives in Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to wrongful voting charges for illegally voting in New Hampshire three times. He cast his ballots in the 2008 presidential election and again in both the presidential primary and general election in 2012. He was fined roughly $7,000, given a suspended prison term and lost his right to vote in the state.

This month, Manchester resident Derek Castonguay also pleaded guilty to voter fraud after prosecutors say he voted illegally and tried to vote twice during the mid-term election in 2014. He also was given a suspended jail term and fined $1,000.

… That said, I expect to hear a lot of moaning and whining from liberals who allege that voter ID laws disfranchise minority voters and are thus racist.More Evidence

Call me a loon, but I think the belief that minorities lack the capability to go and obtain an ID like everybody else is in itself quite racist. Also rather racist is this belief that minorities are too afraid to get their pictures taken.

Yes, the people who say they aren’t racist are the same ones who say that minority voters are just too dumb or poor to go get an ID card, which usually costs less than $15. But remember, they’re not racist at all — they just don’t think minorities can accomplish anything on their own without white liberals holding their hands through it.

All about the vote illegalalienvoters-300x300 Buying votes Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Poll: Majority of Americans Favor Voter ID Laws by a Huge Margin


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/16/poll-majority-of-americans-favor-voter-id-laws-by-a-huge-margin/

Voter ID 
Democrats like to pretend that voter ID laws are some modern-day disenfranchisement efforts. These same Democrats ask for ID at Democrat events, however, so their logic- and I use that term loosely- is flimsy, to say the least.
Apparently, the bulk of America agrees that there is nothing sinister about voter ID laws as a new poll shows that 7 in 10 registered voters are in favor of identification laws for voting.
I suppose they’re all “racists,” too…
According to a new Fox News poll, 7 in 10 registered voters favored the laws with the majority of blacks and Democrats also polling in favor of them.
The 70 percent who support voter ID laws remains largely unchanged in the past few years. Another 27 percent believe the laws are unnecessary…
 
The survey found majorities of every demographic support the law. Ninety-one percent of Republicans offer support, and 66 percent of independents feel the same.
 
Fifty-five percent of Democrats support the laws, while 43 percent oppose them.
 
Opposition to the laws is highest among black respondents, but even there a bare majority, 51 percent, support them. Forty-six percent of African Americans oppose the laws…
 
The poll asked, “Supporters of these laws say they are necessary to stop ineligible people from voting illegally. Opponents say these laws are unnecessary and mostly discourage legal voters from voting. What do you think?”
 
The poll surveyed 1,025 registered voters and margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. 
In essence, voter ID laws requires states ask from those looking to vote the same burden of proof that is required to board a plane, drive a car, buy a beer, buy cigarettes, pick-up tickets at will-call, get into an R-rated movie or place a bet.
 
Democrats, in order to win on this issue, must, somehow, demonstrate that it is more unreasonable to ask for an ID at the voting booths than it is for a clerk to ask for ID at a late night showing of a horror movie.
 
All in all, the case against voter ID laws is not only flimsy, it’s downright laughable in its ridiculousness. 
VOTE 02

Prove it: Court rules states can make voters prove citizenship


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/19/judge-states-can-demand-proof-citizenship-voters/?page=2#ixzz2wXifds6p

Election commission can’t stop voter ID laws

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

**FILE** Aaron Belenky shows part of a letter from election officials while standing in front of his apartment in Overland Park, Kan., on Aug. 14, 2013. The letter lists the valid citizenship documents needed to register to vote in Kansas for the first time. Belenky allowed the American Civil Liberties Union to list him as one of three aggrieved voters in a notice sent this week to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. (Associated Press)A U.S. District Court judge ruled Wednesday that Arizona and Kansas can require anyone registering to vote to prove their citizenship and the federal Election Assistance Commission cannot block them.

The ruling is a boost for states’ rights and marks a setback for President Obama and other liberals who fought stiffer voter ID checks with an argument that they reduce voter turnout.

“This is a huge victory for me, personally, for the states of Kansas and Arizona, and for the whole cause of states’ rights,” said Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach, who led the challenge. “We’ve seen so many defeats recently in areas where the federal government has been encroaching on states’ authorities, and this time the good guys won.”

In his ruling, Judge Eric F. Melgren said the EAC, which Congress created after the 2000 Florida voting fiasco, must accede to states’ requests for people to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The judge said the Constitution gives states the power to determine voter qualifications, and if states want to insist on proof of citizenship, the election commission cannot overrule them.

“The EAC’s nondiscretionary duty is to perform the ministerial function of updating the instructions to reflect each state’s laws,” Judge Melgren ruled in a decision out of Kansas. “The court orders the EAC to add the language requested by Arizona and Kansas to the state-specific instructions of the federal mail voter registration form immediately.”

A spokesman for the EAC said the commission was reviewing the decision. The Justice Department, which argued the case before Judge Melgren, didn’t return a message seeking comment.

The ruling comes at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are paying increasing interest to the rules governing campaigns and voting. With the country ideologically split, each side is looking for an advantage at the ballot box.

Democrats say identification checks could prevent some eligible voters from casting ballots. Republicans generally argue for stiffer checks to prevent fraud.

Kansas and Arizona enacted requirements that voters prove their citizenship when they register. State registration forms were changed to add the requirement.

But the federal government, which also distributes voter registration forms in states under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law, refused to add the requirement.

Arizona then said it would refuse to process federal forms and ended up in court. Last year, in a case known as Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona couldn’t reject the federal forms.

But the Supreme Court ruling also hinted that if states asked the EAC to include proof of citizenship on forms distributed within their borders, the commission couldn’t refuse.

Arizona and Kansas requested that the EAC change the forms distributed in those states, but the commission refused.

Judge Melgren said he saw clear signs in last year’s Supreme Court ruling that the justices intended for the EAC to follow the wishes of the states.

“On one hand, the ITCA decision acknowledges the broad scope of Congresspower under the Elections Clause, which includes the authority of the NVRA to preempt state law regarding voter registration,” the judge wrote. “But the ITCA opinion also emphasizes the states’ exclusive constitutional authority to set voter qualifications — which Congress may not preempt — and appears to tie that authority with the power of the states to enforce their qualifications.”

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said the ruling will help clean up voter rolls. About 2,000 people have submitted federal forms in the state but haven’t proved their citizenship, he said.

“With this filing and with this ruling, we have accomplished what we felt was the desire of Arizona voters all along,” Mr. Bennett said.

Wednesday’s ruling was focused on election law, but it comes in the middle of a thorny national debate about U.S. immigration laws. A number of states have pushed for stricter enforcement from the Obama administration and the right to help enforce federal immigration principles.

Mr. Kobach has been at the forefront of those effort

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/19/judge-states-can-demand-proof-citizenship-voters/#ixzz2wXiOytac
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Supreme Court Tells Arizona To Ask Obama’s Permission


The States of Texas can require “proof of citizenship” to apply for or renew your drivers license, but Arizona cannot ask for “proof of citizenship” to register to vote. Yes, I know it sounds as confusing at it is maddening. What else would you expect from this mixed up bunch of lawyers running the country. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court, yesterday ruled in favor of the challengers to the Arizona’ Proposition 200 voter I.D. law and found that the state had overstepped its authority by requiring “proof of citizenship” to register to vote in US elections.

The 1993 “National Voter Registration “Motor Voter” Act” established an honor system for federal voter registration tied to driver license applications and renewals. Federal law provides all applicants for Driver Licenses or renewals—in all states—must be offered a “mail -in” voter registration card. Proper I.D. is required, by law, to do business with all state driver licenses issuing authorities as a pre-requisite for receiving your voter registration card, but federal law does not require “proof of citizenship” to register to vote.

The US Constitution provides the federal government broad authority over states regarding election law.

Federal law allows anyone to register to vote by swearing to be a US citizen—simply checking a box on the federal registration form—under penalty of perjury. Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling upheld that authority.

Unfortunately, perjury is a rarely prosecuted crime at the federal level.

Some states require “proof of citizenship” for D.L. applications and re-newels. Some states do not. In addition, some states (Utah for one) will take a Matricula card issued by the Mexican government as proper ID as they allow non-citizens to drive “conditionally” in their state.

Arizona taxpayers were burned by Arizona lawmakers who failed to perform their due diligence. Federal taxpayers picked up a lot of the cost since the Justice Department had a hand in assisting “The League of Woman voters of Arizona, the “Mexican American Legal Defense Fund” and Arizona Indian Tribes—all tax exempt organizations—in their challenge to Arizona’s “proof of citizenship” voter registration requirement.

Two weeks ago, a sixty something Vietnam veteran was required to show “proof of citizenship” to renew his 30 year old Texas driver license (which has required fingerprint ID for over a decade). He got it all straightened out by bringing his Social Security card, his passport and his DD-14.  He also filled out his voter registration card and checked the box on the federal form swearing he was a US citizen eligible to vote. I rather wish I were there to see and hear that.

Arizona could have saved us all a great deal of money and valued Supreme Court Justice hearing and deliberation time if they had simply copied the laws on the books from any number of states that require “proof of citizenship” to be granted the privilege to drive and by law being offered a federal voter registration mail-in card like they do in Texas.

Texas requires “proof of citizenship” as identification in state driver’s license applications and re-newels. According to the Vietnam Veteran, I mentioned earlier Texas “proof of citizenship” requires a valid Social Security Card and a valid Passport.

Justice Scalia, who authored the majority opinion, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting, ruled that the states could not add additional voter registration requirements over current federal laws without permission of the federal government or courts. I cannot say for sure what the Arizona State Constitution or statutes allows for drivers license I.D. laws, but Justice Scalia provided its state’s Attorneys with the proper procedure to petition the Federal Election Assistance Commission for a change in Arizona’s voter registration identification standards. According to Scalia, if the commission denies Arizona’s request, the state can take the federal government back to a lower Federal Court to ask for relief.

Here is the rub.

Since 2011—the year the last two commissioners resigned—the Federal Election Assistance Commission (FEAC) has not been able to seat more commissioners. The President is responsible for FEAC commissioner nominations, which the Senate must confirm. Just like Federal Immigration Judgeships that remain vacant and awaiting Obama nominations.

Since there was a Democratic controlled House, Senate and President from 2008 through 2010 my gut tells me that Obama and his allies, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, may have purposely avoided their obligation to staff this election law assistance program provided by the federal government. Now why would they do that?

Perhaps someone should be asking John Boehner and Mitch McConnell this question. After all what is more important election integrity or immigration reform?

I applaud Arizona’s efforts to control voter fraud. Now, could someone call Jan Brewer and tell her Texas already figured it out.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: