Tag Archives: voter ID

The Motives of Those Refusing to Comply with Election Integrity Measures, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its examination of the reasons given by those refusing to comply with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

One prominent official refusing to comply with  The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity’s is Virginia’s Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe.  In a statement, he announced that he will not provide the information requested. “I have no intention of honoring this request. Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections.”

Virginia, an important swing state, was one of the most active jurisdictions for questionable voting tactics. Governor McAuliffe sought to overturn his states’ law against ex-felons voting without going through the state legislature by a questionable use of his executive pardon powers. The Virginia Democrat’s rough and tumble antics didn’t stop there.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation  released a report which found that voting fraud “is…much worse than simple ineffective governance…Virginia state election officials are obstructing access to public records that reveal the extent to which non-citizens are participating in…elections…the information from a few counties demonstrates a massive problem. In our small sample of just eight Virginia counties who responded to our public inspection requests, we found 1046 aliens who registered to vote illegally. The problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities. Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony. Again, this is from just a small sampling of Virginia counties. Each of the aliens we have discovered to have registered or voted has likely committed a felony…In Virginia, like most states, there is no formal program for identifying non-citizen registrants…The most alien votes were cast in 2012, followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term…Most discoveries of non-citizens on the registration rolls are accidental or chance. What this means is that the number of registered non-citizens thus far identified by this investigation is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’… One culprit…is glaringly obvious—federal and state voter registration forms, which ask registrants to affirm their citizenship with nothing more than the check of a box. No documentary proof of citizenship must be shown…States that have tried to remedy this problem by asking registrants to prove their citizenship with documentary proof have uniformly been stonewalled by litigation brought [during the Obama presidency] Department of Justice and legions of attorneys working with left-leaning voter groups committed to keeping ineligible voters on the rolls. This report demonstrates the serious problem that unelected election officials have refused to address and even conspired to hide…”

The Obama Administration was ardently opposed to measures designed to insure honest balloting. A newly appointed member of the Commission, Hans Von Spakovsky, described how “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) had moved to allow Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona to enforce their proof-of-citizenship voter-registration requirement. The Obama Justice Department moved against the action, [which was] part of its ongoing goal of allowing illegals to vote and to allow other voting violations to occur.”

Also in 2016, the True the Vote organization pleaded unsuccessfully with the DOJ to move against a clear-cut caser of alien voting. In a letter to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District Annette L. Hayes, Catherine Engelbrect, the organization’s chief, provided information concerning a specific case of non-citizen voting: “As you know, 18 U.S.C. § 611 prohibits ‘any alien’ from participating in federal elections… the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires individuals wishing to register to affirm their U.S. citizenship. The Washington State voter registration form also expressly notes that those unable to attest to the same shall ‘not complete this form.’  According to most recent data available from the Washington Secretary of State, [an alien described by name and address in the letter] registered to vote on September 27, 2014 and proceeded to cast and be credited for votes in the 2014 General, 2015 General and 2016 Primary.”

In the face of significant evidence about voter fraud and other inappropriate election activities, particularly concerning illegal immigrant voting, the refusal to consider remedial and protective measures is highly unreasonable.  In an attempt to explain their actions, those opposing corrective measures have charged racism.

The Regional News Network notes that “The status quo, with its laughably lax requirement of a mere verbal ‘pledge’ that an individual is a citizen, doesn’t cut it. ..Democratic politicians see an opportunity to cast Republicans as racists…Canada…requires citizens to show proof of address to vote. Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland all require some proof of identification to vote. In the Netherlands, where practically everything is legal, voters need to show both a government issued polling notification and a photo ID in order to vote…Indeed, most other countries in the civilized world look at the United States in disbelief that we don’t require proof of identification to vote. Even our own bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended a voter ID requirement when they issued their comprehensive recommendations in 2005. Their report called voter identification one of “five pillars” that would “build confidence” in the integrity of federal elections… that Commission was co-chaired by…Jimmy Carter.”

Wide scale opposition by the Democrat National Committee and key Democrat leaders to measures intended to insure honest balloting, including picture ID, contradict the party’s own practices in internal matters.  Picture ID’s were required for Democrat delegates seeking entry onto the convention floor of their own presidential convention in Philadelphia.

The Motives of Those Refusing to Comply with Election Integrity Measures

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government examines the reasons given by those refusing to comply with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in this two-part review.

Some state officials are refusing to comply with The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity’s request for information. Their motives need to be examined.

The Commission was established by an Executive Order on March 11, 2017.  Its purpose is to study laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; what actions undermine public confidence in the voting process; and what vulnerabilities exist in the system that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting.

Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity  describes the Commission’s initial action. “On June 28, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity issued a letter requesting that states provide publicly available voter data as permitted under their state laws. At present, 20 states have agreed to provide the publicly available information requested by the Commission and another 16 states are reviewing which information can be released under their state laws. In all, 36 states have either agreed or are considering participating with the Commission’s work to ensure the integrity of the American electoral system…14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission’s request for publicly available voter information.”

The reasons for the Commission’s existence are clear and ample.

In a 2012 study, the Pew Center on the States found “millions of voter registration records nationwide that are either inaccurate or no longer valid…based on data [indicating] a voter died, moved, or had been inactive from 2004 to March 2011.” The study revealed that 2,758,578 individuals were registered to vote in more than one state. In addition, “12.7 million records nationwide…appear to be out of date and no longer reflect the voter’s current information, more than 1.8 million records for people who are no longer living, but have active registrations on voter rolls, and 12 million records with incorrect addresses…once duplicates among categories are eliminated, approximately 24 million registration records, or nearly 13% of the national total, are estimated to be inaccurate or no longer valid.”

During 2016, news reports and studies verified the reality of voter fraud, and the growing influence of illegal aliens. Here’s a sampling:

  • The Dallas News  Complaints have been filed that in early voting, votes cast for Trump have been ‘switched’ by faulty machines into votes for Clinton.
  • The Washington Post:  “a group of undocumented immigrants is knocking on doors in Northern Virginia in support of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates…The vote-seekers are some of the 750,000 recipients of temporary legal status under the Obama administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. …‘All DACA recipients should take this on as an added responsibility, to change the power structure,’ said Luis Angel Aguilar, 28, who received his protected status in 2013 and is helping to coordinate the effort. ‘Our voices need to be heard”
  • Project Veritas:  NYC Democratic Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin stated at a United Federation of Teachers party that there is widespread voter fraud in New York City…”Schulkin, a Democrat, said that to effectuate illegal voting, people are bussed to various polling sites. He places a blame on NYC’s radical-left Mayor de Blasio.  “He gave out ID cards. De Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There’s a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud.”
  • A Science Direct white paper notes: “We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”
  • The Gateway Pundit’s  examination of a wikileaks release finds that Clinton campaign chief John Podesta stated it was OK for illegals to vote if they have a drivers license . The quote: John Podesta:  On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.
  • California: Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation allowing convicted felons the right to vote.
  • Some threats were prevented. Click Orlando reports that “A federal judge has rejected the Florida Democratic Party’s request to let people cast a ballot during early voting even if their registration application hasn’t been verified.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Non-citizen Voting Evidence Expands

The news that Victor David Garcia Bebek, a noncitizen in Kansas, has pleaded guilty to three counts of voting unlawfully in 2012 and 2014 has implications far beyond a single state or a single incident

Denial of voter fraud has been a mantra of the left for some time, even as reports of clear and evident voting and voting registration fraud have become available.  Columnist Pamela Gellar has noted that “Voter fraud is rampant. Were the full extent of it known, I am sure it would shock the world.”

It is not surprising that the prosecution arose in Kansas. The “Sunflower State” is the only one of the fifty that empowers its secretary of state to prosecute election law violations.

The Obama Administration engaged in consistent and significant efforts to prevent the detection and prosecution of these crimes. Leftist politicians are keenly aware that new arrivals to the U.S., especially those that come illegally, vote Democrat.

Indeed, not only did the Obama White House fail in its duty to prevent violations of the law, it actually encouraged this activity by moving with great force to foster the conditions that allow voter fraud to occur.  J. Christian Adams, an attorney in the voting rights section of the Department of Justice, has written that the Obama Administration killed any moves to address voter fraud, and specifically hired attorneys “whose main career experience was in subverting voting laws…”  Harassing state officials who sought to insure accurate balloting by imposing identification requirements, and cleaning up voter rolls, became an obsession of the Obama’s Justice Department

Hans Von Spakovsky, writing in National Review last year as the Presidential contest moved into gear,  described how “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) had moved to allow Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona to enforce their proof-of-citizenship voter-registration requirement. The Obama Justice Department moved against the action, part of its ongoing goal of allowing illegals to vote and to allow other voting violations to occur.”

Also in 2016, the True the Vote organization pleaded unsuccessfully with the DOJ to move against a clear-cut caser of alien voting. A letter to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District Annette L. Hayes, Catherine Engelbrect, the organization’s chief, provided information concerning a specific case of non-citizen voting:

“As you know, 18 U.S.C. § 611 prohibits ‘any alien’ from participating in federal elections

while the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires individuals wishing to register to affirm their U.S. citizenship. The Washington State voter registration form also expressly notes that those unable to attest to the same shall ‘not complete this form.’  According to most recent data available from the Washington Secretary of State, [an alien described by name and address in the letter] registered to vote on September 27, 2014 and proceeded to cast and be credited for votes in the 2014 General, 2015 General and 2016 Primary. His voter registration at the time of this letter’s submission is still listed as Active, according to public records…”

In 2015, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government reported that “State officials are raising an alarm about the potential for noncitizen, unlawful voting to substantially affect upcoming elections.  This is a major issue when considering the significant numbers of illegals entering and remaining in the United States, particularly during the tenure of the Obama Administration.”

Ohio’s Secretary of State, Jon Husted wrote a letter  to the White House protesting Obama’s policy, stating:

“I write regarding the consequences the recent Immigration Accountability Executive Actions may have on the administration of federal and state elections. Consistent with federal and state law, states are responsible for ensuring the integrity of our elections. As a swing state with access to voting that is already expansive, Ohio takes this responsibility very seriously. In spite of our diligence maintaining accurate voter registration rolls, however, the recent executive actions could jeopardize their integrity by making it much easier for people who are not U.S. citizens to illegally register and cast ballots…

“The source of the problem is that the recent executive actions enable millions of non-U.S. citizens to obtain valid Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses. Under federal law, any person with a valid Social Security number or driver’s license can register to vote, so long as they attest to their eligibility to do so.1 As a result, the recent executive actions dramatically expand the opportunities for illegal voter registrations in Ohio and other states by non-citizen voters who have valid forms of identification and who willingly or negligently affirm their eligibility to vote. This problem is especially serious in the context of third-party voter registration drives, which are prevalent in Ohio and other states. Such drives occur outside of the presence of election officials who could explain that citizenship—not mere lawful presence—is a fundamental requirement for registering to vote and who can caution non-citizens against erroneous attestations.

“In short, by enabling millions of non-citizens to access valid forms of the types of identification required to register to vote, the recent executive actions have increased the risk that non-citizens may illegally register to vote and vote in our elections…”

The effort by left-wing and progressive politicians to ignore voting fraud, and to protect the environment that allows this brand of crime to be committed, has become the greatest challenge to America’s electoral system.

Voting Fraud Encouraged by Left

The news, first reported by NBC’s Seattle affiliate, that the perpetrator of the Cascade Mall mass shooting, an immigrant from Turkey who was not a citizen but voted anyway, is the latest detail highlighting the massive voter fraud crisis facing the 2016 election. It also raises questions why the Democrat Party continues to fight against reasonable and appropriate measures to address the problem.

According to the news station “The Cascade Mall shooting suspect, Arcan Cetin, may face an additional investigation related to his voting record and citizenship status. Federal sources confirm to KING 5 that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary. While voters must attest to citizenship upon registering online or registering to vote at the Department of Licensing Office, Washington state doesn’t require proof of citizenship. Therefore elections officials say the state’s elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system.”

The news comes in the aftermath of a report by Colorado’s KCNC-TV,  a CBS affiliate,  that “exposed multiple instances in recent years where dead Coloradans were still voting.

True the Vote adds that mail ballot fraud is on the rise, as well.

These reports are only the very latest in repeated studies and analyses (previously reported in detail by the New York Analysis of Policy and Government) by objective sources that voting and voter registration fraud is rampant.

What may be an intentional refusal to update voter registration rolls allows the significant amount of fraud to be perpetuated. A Washington Times examination  of voters who moved out of the Nation’s capital to Prince George County in Maryland found that “The list of voters with names so unusual that there has been only one in the District and one in Prince George’s and who are listed as voting in both jurisdictions in the 2012 election is in the thousands. In an examination of 85, The Times confirmed through interviews and other public records that 15 were in fact the same person…Indeed, the list of Prince George’s voters with unusual names that match those on voter rolls in the District was far longer, at 13,000…The biggest risk of having nonresidents listed on the rolls is not the risk of people voting twice themselves, but of others appropriating their names by the hundreds…They are easy targets for those who would cast votes in other people’s names in bulk, often by absentee ballot, after scanning the list for names of people who hadn’t voted in years and would therefore not show up to hear that their vote already had been cast.”

True the Vote reports that despite nationwide-wide instances of voter fraud, Democrats continue to oppose reasonable measures to insure the sanctity of the ballot. After the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature passed a bill requiring phot ID for voting, Democrat governor Jay Nixon vetoed the measure. Governor Nixon’s partisan move was unsuccessful, since the legislature mustered sufficient votes to override the veto.

State measures still face opposition from federal courts, dominated by Democrat appointees. A recent DC Circuit decision placed an injunction prohibiting several states from requiring proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms.

The Clinton campaign has been particularly active in recruiting non-citizens into the election process. An August  Washington Examiner article noted that the Democrat nominee initiated an program to use undocumented aliens as a “voter registration army.”

Julia Porterfield, writing in National Review notes that “Marc Elias, the lead lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was among those who filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin challenging the state’s voter-ID law. … Following widespread voter-registration fraud in the 2008 presidential election, many states led by Republican governors quickly moved to pass voter-ID laws in an attempt to ensure the integrity of future elections.” There is an association between the Clinton Family Foundation, Porterfield reports, and ACORN, which has been accused of rampant voter registration fraud. The Clinton Family Foundation donated $10,000 to the group.

Roger Vadum, writing in Polizette, notes that “Voter fraud is commonplace in elections in America today. It has always been around to varying degrees because completely eliminating this kind of crime is impossible. The most policymakers can do is create laws and policies that attempt to minimize it. But this is where people on the Right and Left differ. Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care …The Left promotes voter fraud by fighting electoral integrity laws in the courts, often enjoying great success… some officials are hostile to election observers from nonpartisan good government groups like True the Vote monitoring their polling precincts. The Left labels such attempts to keep elections honest ‘voter intimidation.’

The Democrats no-holds barred approach to the 2016 election can also be seen in the legislation recently signed by California Governor Jerry Brown allowing felons waiting to be released the right to vote from their jail cells.

Stealing the 2016 Presidential Election

The lack of voter trust in the integrity of the voting process, blatant acts of rule breaking by the Clinton machine, and a refusal by judges to allow common sense voter id measures to survive point to an upcoming  election debacle unlike anything ever seen in U.S. history.

Since 2014, Democrat appointed judges have outnumbered Republican appointed judges.  “This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten,” stated Senator Charles Schumer in a NY Times article

With a greater inclination for judicial activism than their predecessors, current judges are having an impact in areas far beyond the traditional realm of the judicial branch. That expanded influence is becoming very pronounced in the area of elections.

Despite extensive, well documented cases of voter fraud and many studies by nonpartisan (and even liberal-leaning) organizations  that indicate that voter registration rolls have significant numbers of ineligible and deceased voters, courts are handing down decisions that strike down state voter ID laws.

True the Vote  notes that “The real threat is that recent federal court rulings against multiple states’ common-sense voter ID laws twist the Voting Rights Act from a law intended to stop racial discrimination into one that transfers the power to determine routine election procedures—which the Constitution delegates to the states—to the judiciary.”

Judicial bias has encouraged activists seeking to undermine an honest balloting process.

True the Vote provides an example indicating that key swing state “Ohio is totally targeted for fraud…Just as Hillary Clinton allies have done in other states across the country, the Left has launched a multi-front legal onslaught challenging election integrity measures in Ohio, a key swing state with a history of voter fraud. While other Democrat-backed lawsuits have mostly focused on fighting states’ voter ID laws, in Ohio they have sought to block voter roll cleanup efforts; eliminate laws requiring full and accurate completion of absentee- and provisional-ballot forms; and bring back the state’s ‘Golden Week,’ an extra seven days of early voting starting 35 days before Election Day during which people can register and vote on the same day – positions favored by the Left that accommodate fraud. “What happens in Ohio is we see people come from other states such as California and Massachusetts where they know their vote doesn’t matter, and exploit the loopholes…”

The challenge is particularly pronounced when the Clinton political machine is involved. From scandals involving unlawful contributions traced back to the Chinese military in the 1990’s to the rather blatant actions committed during this year’s Democrat primary against challenger Bernie Sanders, the Clinton machine has excelled at illegally gaming the system.

Writing in the Huffington Post, Riley Waggaman found that “Election ‘Shenanigans’ Have Defined the Democratic Primaries – and Benefit Hillary Clinton…Even Nate Silver, widely regarded as the Gandalf of statistical analysis, still can’t figure out how Clinton won in Iowa and Massachusetts…With a lead of two-tenths of 1 percent, Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of the Iowa Caucuses. … the Des Moines Register’s editorial board wrote that ‘[the Iowa Democratic Party’s] refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy’…To make matters worse, results from 90 precincts were reported ‘missing.”

In Arizona, numerous problems occurred on the day of primary voting, but the problems mostly affected Sanders supporters.  The Clinton campaign had managed to get most of their supporters to vote early by mail.

John Fund, reporting for National Review, describes how the courts have ignored  well-documented and blatant, obvious attempts at fraudulent voter registration:

“Three federal courts have thrown out voter-ID laws in North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin in recent days…. According to a Pew Research Center survey, only 31 percent of Americans were confident that “the votes across the country were accurately counted” in the 2012 election. … A separate Pew survey in 2012 found that one out of eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date, or a duplicate. Some 2.8 million people are registered in two or more states, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead. … In 2014, political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest, writing in the Washington Post, summarized their finding, based on their examination of thousands of voter interviews from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study: ‘Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008… in Michigan, [Prject Veritas’ … told different poll workers he was Detroit mayor Mike Duggan, Wayne State University Law School dean Jocelyn Benson, and columnist Nancy Kaffer of the Detroit Free Press — all whom strongly oppose voter-ID laws. In each case, poll workers offered him primary ballots for the person he was claiming to be. He was also offered the ballot of legendary Michigan rapper Eminem, whose real name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III. In all but one sting, the poll workers offered him a ballot, though he never actually accepted a ballot or cast an illegal vote.”

Unlawfully altering the results of a presidential election is not an exceptionally difficult task. Voter fraud in a few key precincts in just a few swing states could change the entire outcome.  There is growing and substantial evidence that the ground work for engineering an illegal outcome has already been laid.

DOJ Preparing to Tolerate Massive Voter Fraud

Are Americans being desensitized to criminal acts by federal agencies as a prelude to massive cheating in the upcoming presidential election?

The deeply disturbing confirmation that the leadership of the Internal Revenue Service was aware that their agency’s resources were being used to target political opponents of the Obama Administration adds to concerns that there has been a wholesale hijacking of taxpayer funded government agencies for partisan purposes.

The tolerance of these crimes sets up the nation for a potentially explosive altercation in the coming presidential ballot.

The latest revelation, discovered by Judicial Watch through an examination of FBI documents, presents a worrisome picture, particularly when combined with other research and information about the unlawful and biased practices of various federal departments during the Obama Administration.

The incriminating documents were obtained through a federal court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demand.

The FBI papers  show “that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting ‘Tea Party’ and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public.  An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations.  The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.”

The failure to bring charges against those who have committed criminal acts on behalf of the Obama Administration is emerging as a consistent pattern. The most recent example is the failure to prosecute former Secretary Clinton for obvious and serious national security-related  violations.

According to the released material, notes Judicial Watch, a “Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report clearly shows that “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011…The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011. .. IRS senior official Nancy Marks, … stated, “Cincinnati [The IRS center doing the targeting] was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity…According to the FBI documents, Paz and others were informed in the late spring and summer of 2011 that Cincinnati agents were using ‘BOLO’ (Be On the Look Out) briefing guides that instructed them to be ‘looking at cases using the Tea Party term.’”

In and of itself, the criminal actions of the Internal Revenue Service would be deeply troubling. But a pattern of such behavior across several federal departments is evident, as is the collusion of the Justice Department (DOJ) in its failure to prosecute these transgressions.

Writing for Creators, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano harshly criticized the DOJ in the most recent example of its political bias, the refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her negligent handling of classified material.

“Is it worth impairing,” Napolitano asks, “the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games? What has become of the rule of law — no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements — when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it? These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report …in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account…The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming.”

Both of these examples have served to desensitize the public about official misconduct, particularly when it comes to tampering with the election process. IRS harassment of opposition political groups, and the get-out-of-jail free card handed to presidential candidate Clinton both serve as precursors to the looming attack on a fair election process.

Numerous extensively well-credentialed researchers, including former DOJ veterans, have detailed the failure, indeed, the refusal, of the DOJ to prosecute overt and serious election misdeeds during the Obama years. J. Christian Adams, to cite just example, has written an entire book on the subject; his points have also been made by others as well. Both left and right oriented organizations (Pew, Heritage) have written about inaccurate voter registration rolls.

Hans A. von Spakovsky, writing for Heritage, has noted that one portion of the Voting Rights Act has been turned from its original purpose into a “political weapon.” He writes that “This cynical manipulation of federal power to benefit one political party over another … all-too-common … during Democratic administrations — underscores that the only real source of refuge from these political machinations is the Supreme Court.”

All of which leads to what will be the greatest challenge of the 2016 campaign, the potential for large-scale voter fraud resulting from the DOJ, at the behest of the Obama Administration, to oppose any attempt at insuring that only qualified voters registered in the place in which they are casting their ballot, actually vote.

The hypocrisy of Democrat opposition to voter ID was front and center at their recently concluded convention in Philadelphia.  Breitbart notes:

“Democrats have railed against voter ID laws…but Democratic National Convention officials will only issue credentials to those who present state-issued IDs. The DNC’s website says that ‘all pickup persons must have a state-issued ID that matches the name submitted’ to receive credentials. Media members attending the DNC have to present photo IDs at multiple checkpoints. But even as Democrats require IDs to enter their convention and The Voter Integrity Project discovered there were 30,000 dead North Carolinians still on the state’s voter rolls, Democrats continue to fiercely oppose voter ID laws.”

According to Ballotpedia, ” As of July 2016, only 18 states required voters to present photo identification… In some states, a voter who is unable to present valid identification may still be permitted to vote without casting a provisional ballot.”

A 2015 report by the Washington Times noted “President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress …saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole…secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway…”

The failure of the DOJ to take appropriate action in the IRS and Clinton Server scandals, and the agency’s refusal to prosecute clear-cut cases of voting-related misconduct in the past provide the groundwork for its tolerance of wide-spread and significant fraud in the 2016 presidential balloting.

Inappropriate Campaign Tactics

Presidential elections are generally hard fought, no-holds barred contests. However, several disturbing occurrences in the 2016 campaign have gone far beyond the usual rough and tumble of the quadrennial slugfest.

The initial salvo began even before the start of the campaign season, and has already been widely discussed. The inappropriate opposition of the Democrat Party to common-sense measures to insure the accuracy of voter registration rolls and to verify that only qualified voters actually cast ballots has been clearly documented.

Several new strategies have recently been added.

The GOP has generally been identified as tougher on crime, and in favor of more stringent sentencing. It follows, then, that those on the receiving end of that philosophy have not been favorably disposed towards Republican candidates. That has not placed the GOP at a disadvantage, since convicted felons, under current law in most states, have forfeited their right to vote as a consequence of their misdeeds.

In late April, Terry McAuliffe, Governor of the key swing state of Virginia and a personal friend of Hillary Clinton, announced that he was restoring voting rights of more than 200,000 Virginians who were convicted of felonies such as murder, rape, armed assault and other crimes.  Some analyses indicate that the governor’s restoration would be permitted despite the status of any unpaid fines or restitution requirements. A press release from McAuliffe’s office noted these ex-cons had “served their time and completed any supervised release, parole or probation requirements. Each of those Virginians will immediately regain the right to register to vote, to run for office, to serve on a jury and to serve as a notary public… The Governor implemented his action by signing an order restoring the rights of every Virginia felon who completed his or her sentence and all other requirements as of April 22nd, 2016. The total number of Virginians impacted by the Governor’s order today is 206,000. He also instructed the Secretary of the Commonwealth to prepare a similar order monthly in order to restore the rights of individuals who complete their sentences in the future. Article V, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia grants the Governor the authority to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” of a felony.” The governor’s action did not extend to restoring Second Amendment rights.

There has been harsh reaction. A National Review assessment questions whether the Governor can provide a blanket pardon, as opposed to a case-by-case action. The article quotes legal sources claiming that McAuliffe is essentially rewriting the state constitution. An Associated Press (AP) description left no doubt that the purpose of the move had less to do with the rights of released criminals and everything to do with the 2016 election. AP noted that at the announcement, left-wings groups were present, handing out voter registration forms. A BBC article quoted Republican Caucus Chairman Ryan T. McDougle: “Terry McAuliffe wants to ensure that convicted pedophiles, rapists, and domestic abusers can vote for Hillary Clinton.”

The Clinton campaign’s proclivity towards unusual tactics extends beyond enhancing the Democrat base using questionable means.  It is also extending into areas that embrace bare-knuckled politics in innovative ways. A New York Post article found that a “pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC plans to spend $1 million responding to her online ­critics” by deploying “a digital task force” to oppose Clinton opponents online.

The concept of silencing critics of Democrats in general can be seen in other actions, as well. The Obama Administration has engaged in a number of measures that would have a chilling effect on free speech. The latest, outlined in a Fox News report, is a Federal Election Commission move to censure a film maker who produced a movie sharply critical of the Obama Administration. Joel Gilbert, producer of a number of politically-themed independent films, is being targeted under the excuse that his movie, which has no connection to any campaign, should have filed reports to the FEC as though it were part of a campaign.  Interestingly, the FEC has not undertaken similar actions against pro-Democrat works on tv and in movies.

A potentially violent tactic has also been observed, as protestors have taken to blocking roads and streets leading to rally sites used by at least one GOP candidate.

The Reality of Voting Fraud

The key issue of this year’s presidential contest may not be who the candidates are, the weak economy, or the hazardous condition of America’s national security. Increasingly, it appears that the integrity of the election process itself may be the most contentious topic to arise in the 2016 race.

Recently, as reported in the Free Beacon Ann Ravel, the former chair and current member of the Federal Election Commission stated (at a conference in Canada, interestingly enough) that the “United States political system benefits wealthy white men,” and “criticized the system by saying it is set up in such a way that makes it difficult for women and minorities to succeed.”

FEC member Ravel’s comments are not isolated words. They are part of an overall strategy to create a smokescreen for attempts to alter election results through a combination of election day antics, registration fraud, and opposition to voter id. Commissioner Ravel’s comments are designed to give cover to a bevy of approaches that seek to overcome the advantage Republicans have demonstrated in recent elections, and that the GOP is expected to have in response to anger over the dismal results of the Obama Administration’s policies at home and abroad, as well as (if Hillary is the candidate) dismay over rampant ethical issues or (if Sanders is the candidate) a rejection of a blatant socialist message.

Many factors in illegal voting and registration are in play, particularly with the increase in illegal immigration, allowing noncitizens to obtain driver’s licenses and “motor voter” rules in many states that offer voter registration when applying for a license.

The NOLO legal website notes:

“Due to the Motor Vehicle Act of 1993 (also known as the ‘Motor Voter Act’), states are required to provide people with the opportunity to register to vote when they apply for or renew their driver’s licenses. However, while a minority of states ask for proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration, employees in most states may not inquire about citizenship status before asking noncitizens if they desire to register to vote… some noncitizens are misinformed about their eligibility to vote. For example, a campaign worker may tell you that permanent residents (green card holders) may register to vote, even when they are not eligible, or a canvasser may knock on your door to ask you to register and give you incorrect information.”

Legitimate questions continue to go unanswered. Some proficiency in English is required for citizenship, but some states print ballots in numerous languages. Why?

Intelligentuspolitics.com reports:

“Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by the Obama Justice Department, the Democrat Party, the Clinton campaign and various other groups … Their primary and continuing objective has been to convince the electorate that there is no voter fraud, an objective with which they have had moderate success. To understand the magnitude of this effort, perform a Google exact-match search for the phrase ‘voter fraud is a myth.’ Google has 3,940 articles in their index that use that exact phrase. What are the odds? That is a great deal of content with the exact same phrase and message.

Their secondary goal has been to convince voters that voting rules of any kind constitute Republican voter suppression… Again looking at search trends, in the last eight years, ‘Republican voter suppression’ produces 11,500 exact-match Google search results and ‘GOP voter suppression’ produces 15,100 exact-match search results. Their most aggressive efforts are dedicated to opposing maintenance of voter registration rolls and opposing voter ID laws. These initiatives pose a very real threat to successful voter fraud. Democrats combine media bombardment with a mind boggling assortment of frivolous lawsuits to oppose voter ID laws.”

Reason.comreports:

“In a 2015 study that is currently under review, Lindsay Nielson—a political scientist at the University of San Diego—parses the effects of stricter voter ID laws on the voting patterns of the young, the elderly, the poor, and racial minorities [in general elections]. …Nielson finds that “there is little evidence that racial minorities are less likely than whites to vote when states institute voter identification requirements.” … There is also “no statistically significant gap in estimated turnout [between high-income and low-income voter] when the identification law becomes stricter.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 2008 upholding of the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter identification law, stated that obvious examples of voter fraud exist throughout U.S, history.  The Heritage Foundation notes that the “Nonpartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, found that our ‘electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”

Illegal voting danger increases

California’s new motor voter law provides a significant example of how voter fraud has become institutionalized in some locations. The measure, recently signed by Governor Jerry Brown, provides automatic voter registration upon obtaining or renewing a driver’s licenses at the Department of Motor Vehicles for those qualified—but there is little effort to insure that only those qualified are registered. There is no required form to be filled out.

Since California allows illegals to obtain drivers licenses, it is inevitable that many will register to vote.  Clearly, Democrat Governor Brown has a vested interest in this occurring, since the policies of his party are particularly attractive to illegal immigrants.

Rasmussen reports that “Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.”

According to a Fox News Latino report, the state has already issued half a million licenses to illegals in the past nine months.

As significant as that number is, particularly in a state with so many electoral votes in the coming presidential election, it’s only the tip of the iceberg when viewed nationally. National Review notes that:

“President Obama’s recent executive orders granting provisional legal status to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens will likely allow an indeterminate number of them to cast ballots in elections across the United States — and it’s hard to see how it won’t affect the outcome of some number of close elections. Amnestied illegal aliens are now eligible to receive Social Security numbers and, in many cases, drivers’ licenses. Since the vast majority of states don’t require individuals to present proof of citizenship to either register or vote, and given the Obama administration’s zealous promotion of motor-voter registration and declared refusal to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (ensuring that only eligible individuals vote), it’s certain that appreciable numbers of amnestied illegal aliens will be able to vote.”

The measure has been blocked by the courts as a result of the lawsuits brought by 26 states, but given the Administration’s tendency to disregard laws it disagrees with, and the politicization of the Justice Department, there is little confidence that wrongful acts will be prevented. J. Christian Adams, who served for 5 years in the voting rights section of the DOJ, noted in his book “Injustice” that under President Obama “the very government department responsible for protecting voting rights and enforcing equal protection has been overrun by radicals bent on furthering a fringe political agenda…”

Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton maintains that one organization, La Raza, promotes unlawful voting by illegal aliens as part of its wider goal of gaining greater Mexican influence in the U.S. Southwest.

An Investors Business Daily study  found thatThe National Council of La Raza is promoting no-identification voting states to its followers. Might that have something to do with its advocacy of illegal immigration and the Democrats’ flagging electoral fortunes?

“La Raza, as it’s known, is no ordinary nongovernmental organization in the ‘anti-poverty’ racket. A group of lawyers and activists, it has long functioned as the illegal alien lobby in the U.S., advocating aggressively for the cause of open borders.

“For its latest stunt, it has published on its website and social media a list of voting stations that don’t require IDs.”

Another pathway for the obtaining of driver’s licenses in states not as lenient as California is an unsecured form of identification called the “Matricula”, an identification card issued by the Mexican government for use by illegal immigrants in the United States.

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government has previously examined this issue.

Hans Spakovsky emphasizes the problem of noncitizens registering to vote.  He reports that in a random sampling of 3,000 registrations in California’s 39th Assembly District, 10% contained phony addresses or were not U.S. citizens.

A number of states have attempted to attack fraudulent registrations by passing legislation requiring a valid ID to vote.  To the dismay of those dedicated to honest balloting, The Obama Justice Department has responded with significant hostility to this measure.  Although almost all the reported fraud has aided hard-left Democrats, Kelly reports, even liberal United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens stated “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of  state’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes” in a 2008 case that upheld Indiana’s stringent ID law following a challenge by the Democrat Party and its allies.

 In testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Rules ad Administration, CATO’s John Samples,  stated that the Motor Voter Act “has made it difficult if not impossible to maintain clean registration rolls…the inaccuracy in the rolls caused by the Act has thrown into doubt the integrity of our electoral system.”

The Judicial Watch organization, in response to its August 9, 2011 Freedom of Information Act filing, has received records which they describe as detailing friendly communications between the Justice Department and a former ACORN attorney now serving as Director of Advocacy for Project Vote.  The ACORN connection is ominous. 70 ACORN staff throughout 12 states were convicted of voter registration fraud; more than one third of the registrations that group submitted were found to be invalid.

Several observers notes that to become a U.S. citizen, at least a minimal proficiency in English is required. Logically, then, with the possible exception of those living on Native American (Indian) reservations, there is no logical reason for mandating the printing of ballots in any language other than English, other than assisting those who do not have the legal right to cast votes.

Proenglish notes that “in 1975, Congress greatly expanded the Voting Rights Act’s original intent by inserting special protections for ‘language minorities.’ The language minorities singled out for protection under Section 203 of the Act were: American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and citizens of Spanish Heritage. For the first time in our history, states and counties with substantial populations of these protected language minorities were required to provide ballot and election materials in languages other than English.” The organization notes thatThe United States is an English-speaking country in which almost all citizens speak, read, and understand the English language. Since 1907, the United States has required immigrants to learn English in order to naturalize and acquire the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections. This is entirely appropriate for a nation whose Constitution and founding documents are written entirely in the English language. Therefore, forcing state and local governments to print foreign-language ballots for citizens who are already required to read and understand English is both redundant and wasteful.

“The only logical rationale for the mandatory provision of ballots and voting materials in other languages is to facilitate and encourage voting by non-citizens – a violation of federal law. Thus, bilingual ballots debase the meaning of citizenship, encourage voter fraud, and undermine the integrity of the naturalization process by eliminating an incentive for immigrants to learn English.”

Democrat support for Sanctuary Cities based on electoral issues

The successful move by Senate Democrats to block the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act” indicates how deeply the battle lines have been drawn on issues relating to illegal immigration.

Sen. David Vitter, (R-Louisiana) who sponsored the legislation, pointed to the extraordinary danger posed by criminal aliens. Taxpayers in those cities have complained also of the unmanageable costs of providing education and other basic services to illegals.  Congressional legislation occurred in the wake of the nationally reported murder of a young woman, Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal who had already been deported five times. The bill would have made it unlawful for cities to refuse federal requests for notification before releasing illegals, and the stopping of federal funds to localities that violate the law.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered “sanctuary cities”. These jurisdictions protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents… This has resulted in the release by local authorities of approximately 1,000 criminal aliens per month. According to an updated report prepared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Congress, between January 1 and September 30, 2014, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport. More than 600 people were released at least twice.

“Out of these, 5,947 of the criminal aliens (62 percent) had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer. Fifty-eight percent of those with a prior history of concern had prior felony charges or convictions; 37 percent had serious prior misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent had multiple prior misdemeanors. An alarming number — 2,320 — of the total number of released offenders were subsequently arrested within the time period studied for new crimes after they were released by the sanctuaries…Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.”

The Democrats position on the issue at first seems contrary to two core groups of their supporters.  Many of the programs that Democrats favor are already short of funds.  Adding additional residents who require help strains state and local resources to the limit.  Illegals also harm job prospects for Americans at the lower end of the pay scale, particularly young blacks who have suffered extraordinary rates of unemployment.

What may seem, at first impression, to be a position counter to the Democrats own key interests comes into focus when seen through the prism of politics on a national scale.

Politico Notes that immigrants, “along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.”

A National Review  study concurs.

“President Obama’s recent executive orders granting provisional legal status to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens will likely allow an indeterminate number of them to cast ballots in elections across the United States — and it’s hard to see how it won’t affect the outcome of some number of close elections. Amnestied illegal aliens are now eligible to receive Social Security numbers and, in many cases, drivers’ licenses. Since the vast majority of states don’t require individuals to present proof of citizenship to either register or vote, and given the Obama administration’s zealous promotion of motor-voter registration and declared refusal to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (ensuring that only eligible individuals vote), it’s certain that appreciable numbers of amnestied illegal aliens will be able to vote. Furthermore, testimony last week before the House Judiciary Committee revealed that under Obama’s amnesty some illegal aliens will receive advance-parole status — a glide path to citizenship and full voting rights, though not for some time. This should be of grave concern to lawmakers and all Americans who care about the rule of law and election integrity.”

Fox Latino  reports that “More than 500K driver’s licenses [have been]  issued to undocumented immigrants in California.” This presents an opportunity, under motor voter, for illegals to unlawfully register to vote.

The White House, through the Department of Justice, has attacked states that seek to address the challenge through voter ID laws.  Opposition by Democrats to attempts by states to insure the accuracy of voter registration rolls has been substantial.