Friday, October 24, 2014

Hans von Spakovsky Once Again Proves Voter ID Does Not Disenfranchise Voters

On October 16, 2014, Hans von Spakovsky spoke at the National Press Club on the impact of state voter ID laws on the 2014 midterm elections, as well as recent court rulings on the laws.

Von Spakovsky reminded everyone that all of the claims about how voter ID laws deprive citizens of their right to vote were initiated by the NAACP about eight years ago, and those claims have since been proven incorrect through data.

He further pointed to data gleaned from a “case study” in Georgia, which since it was under Section 5 of the VRA, they were required to keep data on all registered voters. Georgia implemented a strict voter ID law in 2008 and the data showing how many white, Hispanic, and black voters turned out to vote after the law took effect. Instead of the turnout for black voters going down, it actually went up dramatically.

The data in Georgia further shows that that was not a fluke. It went up again in 2010, and in 2012, the number of black voters in Georgia actually outnumbered the number of white voters in Georgia.

Justice John Paul Stevens (yes, a liberal) on the Supreme Court wrote an opinion upholding the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter ID requirement – which was called one of the strictest in the nation – and opined that it was not an undue burden on voters to obtain an photo identification.

Indiana also kept records on how many voters of each race voted in the elections after they instituted their voter ID law, and they saw a similar pattern to Georgia. Just after the law was implemented in 2008, Indiana saw one of the largest increases in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. In 2010, their turnout went up again, and in 2012, the census bureau reports that blacks voted at a higher rate than whites in Indiana by 10 percentage points.


It is clear that voter identification does not disenfranchise minority voters, nor is such a law racist. The reason Democrats are against it is because they need to commit voter fraud in order to continue to win elections, and requiring an identification when one goes to the polls to vote puts a damper on that. 

Thursday, October 23, 2014

In Illinois, Democrats Resorting to Multiple Forms of Vote Fraud

Democrats continue to try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes when it comes to voter fraud. Their most recent tactic: “calibration errors.”

When Illinois State Representative Jim Moynihan – a Republican – went to early vote at his local library, he found he was not able to vote for himself, or any other Republican on the ballot. He would vote for the Republican candidate in a race, and the machine’s screen would move his vote to the Democrat candidate in that same race, including his own. Discussing the situation, Moynihan said:

I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent. You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.

Moynihan is clearly concerned that citizens might not pay as much attention as he did to the situation, and vote for someone they don’t want to,

Clearly, I am concerned that citizens will be unable to vote for the candidate of their choice, especially if they are in a hurry and do not double check their ballot. I cannot say whether or not this was intentional, but Cook County voters deserve better and should not have their right to vote suppressed.

This continues a trend found in Democrat Governor Quinn's last election when numerous voting machines in predominately African American precincts  in Chicago were programmed to change Green Party candidate Richard Whitney's name (who presumably was siphoning off Democrat votes) to RICH WHITEY.


The deception in Illinois does not stop there, however. President Obama continues to vote in his home state of Illinois, and in 2012 when he went to early vote, he had to show his photo ID. This time around, however, the Illinois legislature took that part of the law away on the second-to-last day of this year's legislative session.

Further, the changes the legislature and Gov. Quinn made to the laws, including expanding polling places for presumed Democrat voters and same-day registration, apply only to this election, which is close and hotly contested.

Also interesting, is that the poll workers in Illinois, when Obama came in to vote, told him to "vote Democrat," which we all are well aware is illegal. Who knows who else the poll workers told to "vote Democrat."


Even in the deep blue state of Illinois, Democrats are afraid they cannot win an election without voter fraud and misleading voters.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

More Vote Fraud in the Home of Vote Fraud Deniers the Brennan Center

While some New York based groups such as the Brennan Center are busy trying to deny vote fraud nationally, there is so much vote fraud in New York that it is hard to keep track of it.  In this election cycle, we have seen corrupt election officials, attacks on police officers for trying to stop vote fraud, voter impersonation schemes, busing in live voters to vote for the dead, voters from other countries, and much more. 

However, once again New York proves that there is an unlimited amount of hubris when it comes to vote fraud.  For currently the Bronx District Attorney is looking into vote fraud allegations in a race to fill an assembly member who had to resign because of, you guessed it, vote fraud.

The Bronx DA is investigating claims of voter fraud in a hotly contested Democratic primary for the Assembly that was decided by two votes.

. . .Ironically, Pichardo, by winning a special election, succeeded Assemblyman Nelson Castro, who was nailed for election fraud after nine voters were discovered registered at his one-bedroom apartment.


The New York ironies continues with the Brennan Center’s denials of vote fraud.  I would like to suggest that leading vote fraud deniers the Brennan Center move their location to another state.  It is really hurting their argument that vote fraud does not exist when it is continually happening in their own neighborhood.  

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Early Voting Should be the Exception, Not the Rule

Early voting and absentee ballots have become more commonplace nowadays, and that might not be a good thing. As John Fund writes in the National Review, a Sun-Sentinel article in Florida – where there is an intense battle for governor – entitled “People Who Vote Before Election Could Decide Outcome of Governor’s Race” ran over the weekend.

As John Fund explains,

In Florida, a third of the electorate will vote by mail, a third will vote early by going to a voting center, and a third will cast their ballots on Election Day. Nationwide, some 2 million people have already voted, even though scheduled debates haven’t even finished in many states. We are seeing an early-voting craze: In 35 states, people can vote early without having to give an excuse for missing Election Day. That’s up from 20 states just over a decade ago. Half the states also allow no-excuse absentee-ballot voting by mail. Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have abolished the traditional polling place; in those states almost everyone votes by mail.

Fund continues to explain that this expansion isn’t just bad election practices, but it might even violate the Constitution,

The notion of Election Day isn’t just a tradition; it’s in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 states that “Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Congress codified this requirement in 1872 by setting a uniform presidential election date.

J. Christian Adams also weighed in on the transition to early voting, and opined that while the government’s butchered response to Ebola has become an important issue in this election, many voices – and votes – will not have a chance to speak to this because they have already spoken.

Adams states,

This is the one of the serious problems with early voting — voters making dumb or uninformed decisions about fast-moving events.  If you voted weeks ago, you voted before the administration’s bungling of the Ebola problem became conventional wisdom. The list of congressional leaders calling for a travel ban continues to grow.  Yet the Obama administration continues to oppose it for some frighteningly outlandish reasons.

While Ebola is a recent epidemic and issue, Adams saw this as an issue way back in February and even then, realized early voting has the potential for problems.  He wrote an article in the Washington Times about eight reasons to stop early voting. Those eight reasons were:

First, early voting produces less-informed voters. After they cast an early ballot, they check out of the national debate. They won’t care about the televised debates, won’t consider options, and won’t fully participate in the political process. […] Second, early voting is extremely expensive. When election officials drag out an election for weeks, that means more poll workers, more broken machines, more salaries, more costs, more everything. […] Third, early voting is a solution in search of a problem. Those who claim America is plagued by long lines on Election Day aren’t being honest. MIT conducted a study of the 2012 presidential election and found that the average wait in line to vote was 14 minutes. […] Fourth, early voting puts more money into politics. Campaigns will be more expensive and complicated. [...] Fifth, fewer election observers means more voter fraud. Election observers in open polls are an essential tool to ensure that the democratic process functions cleanly. […] Sixth, the most toxic part of early voting is that it increases American political polarization. It rewards those who are the most extreme. Early voting is a subsidy to those most stubbornly committed to one party. […] Seventh, early voting doesn’t increase turnout. Studies have shown that states that adopt early voting have no empirical turnout increase. Finally, early voting destroys one of America’s last surviving common cultural experiences — turning out as a single nation on a single day to elect our leaders.

After an examination of the facts, it is clear the early voting should go back to being the exception in voting, not the rule it has become in recent years.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Will the Ebola Czar Abuse the Military Again?

Ron Klain is being criticized in some quarters for his lack of health care background for his being named Obama’s Ebola Czar.  For those with memories of the 2000 election cycle, there may be concerns about how he will treat the military. 

You see, Ron Klain was the General Counsel of the 2000 Gore Campaign Recount Committee where he led an unprecedented effort to disenfranchise military voters.  The position was so extreme even the Democrat Vice Presidential Nominee Joe Liebermann refused to back the position.  As chronicled in the 2001 book “At Any Cost” on the efforts of lawyers led by Klain:

And yet, incredibly, they continued to file hypertechnical objections to hundreds of ballots, refusing to withdraw them even in the face of overwhelming public opposition.  Gore officials vainly tried to distance themselves from these continued objections, but it was now clear that the Vice President’s own lawyers were explicitly directing the anti-military effort.

Klain was trying to win the presidency for Gore by disenfranchising our military!  Klain’s disdain for the military is relevant in his current role since our troops are literally in the front line in the fight against Ebola in Liberia. 


Whether Klain will properly respect and treat the military in his role as Ebola Czar is a legitimate question.  If his history in disenfranchising our troops is any indicator, we have reason to be worried.   

Friday, October 17, 2014

Obomanation: A Political Demagogue Should Not be a Voting Commissioner


Generally when one is nominated for a commission, judgeship or other government position for a job that can stir controversy but serves the entire public, the nominee stays out of the limelight in that field.  At the very least, the nominee stays out of areas of blatant partisanship and does not use inflammatory rhetoric when one is nominated to work on a bipartisan commission. 

This rule is not being just broken but shattered by Myrna Perez, a nominee to be a Commissioner for the Election Assistance Commission.  As we detailed in our opposition letter, Ms. Perez has a long history of partisanship and playing fast and loose with the facts.  Recently she has taken this to new levels on the subject of Voter ID.

Instead of trying to work with groups to help publicize the multiple free ID options to voters, Ms. Perez has been fear mongering with ridiculous and groundless claims like saying people have to choose between eating and voting because of ID requirements. 

(The irony of the last statement is that Ms. Perez is in effect denying people some social services, such as those of the courts, over the counter medicines, and much more that often require some form of identification.  It seems she is in favor of oppressing the poor to make a rhetorical political point over helping them obtain a free ID.)

Wait there is more, according to Ms. Perez:
  • at least 1.2 million” in Texas don’t have IDs, a number so incredible that not ever her own side’s biased statisticians think the number is anywhere near that high.
  • ’Here was an issue when a state enacted this kind of restriction on right to vote for the purpose of discriminating against racial minorities,’ said Myrna PĂ©rez, a Brennan Center for Justice attorney.”  (Ms. Perez, other than you and a few on the far left, no one has ever said that or believes that.  Actually voter ID will help many minorities who are often the victims of vote fraud and effectively disenfranchised by fraudulent votes.  For just a few Texas examples check http://rnla.org/votefraud.asp and search for Texas.)

Ms. Perez is not alone in making these spurious allegations.  But she is the only one who has been nominated to a commission to assist with voting that is making these sort of comments. 

President Obama should immediately withdraw Ms. Perez’s nomination, his failure to do so is another Obomanation.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Former Police Chief Pleads Guilty to Vote Fraud

Richard Toney, the former police chief of a small township in western Pennsylvania, Harmar Township, has pled guilty to violating federal election laws and soliciting absentee ballots in an effort to benefit his wife and her running mate.

While Toney has officially retired from his police chief position since this event, he was still officer-in-charge of police in 2009, when he committed the violations.  Federal prosecutors assert that in 2009, Toney sought absentee ballots for his wife Kim and her running mate in the Democratic primary for Harmar Township supervisor.  

Richard Toney allegedly applied for absentee ballots and then had them filled out by people who should not have filled them out, because they were not going to be absent for the primary.   

The soliciting of the ballots had a profound impact on the primary – prior to absentee ballots being counted, no one had a clear majority.  Kim Toney and one opponent won the top two slots, but after 50 absentee ballots were counted, Kim and her running mate prevailed and won the general election, including two seats on the five-member board that runs Harmar Township.

Neither Kim Toney nor her running mate, Jerry Chalmers, have been accused of any wrongdoing.  


Toney entered into a plea agreement with federal prosecutors that landed him three years of probation.