Brennan Center Spreads Fake News; Noncitizens Are Actually Voting

The Brennan Center for Justice (BCJ) has recently been fond of tweeting over and over:

BCJ report found total of 30 cases of possible noncitizen voting—that’s 30, not 300, 3,000, 30,000, 300,000, or 3M

Turns out their numbers are an absurdly low estimate . . .  even in just one city.  Today, Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt released the following statement:

My office has identified 220 non-U.S. citizens who were registered to vote in Philadelphia at some point between 2006 and 2017. Of the 220 non-U.S. citizen registrants, 90 (41%) voted in at least one election. Of those who voted, 44 (49%) voted on one occasion, while 46 (51%) voted in two to twelve elections in the period in which they were registered. The total number of votes cast by non-U.S. citizens we identified is 227, with the largest number of votes (47) cast in the 2008 General Election. All 220 non-U.S. citizens provided documentation (e.g., signed affidavit or letter from the registrant or their immigration attorney) canceling their voter registration status on the grounds that they were not U.S. citizens and, therefore, were not eligible to register to vote.

Commissioner Schmidt traces the illegal votes to problems with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).  Despite having a citizenship verification procedure, PennDOT still managed to register these non-citizens (emphasis added):

The overwhelming majority (76%) of non-U.S. citizens who registered to vote either initially registered to vote through PennDOT or modified their voter registration record through PennDOT. When non-U.S. citizens apply for a driver’s license, they are required to provide stay documents to show their legal status to remain in the U.S. for at least one year.  PennDOT verifies these immigration documents electronically with the Department of Homeland Security and the applicant’s driver’s license record is marked using an INS Indicator. Nevertheless, following this interaction, non-U.S. citizen applicants – just the same as U.S. citizen applicants – are asked if they would like to register to vote using touch screen technology when driver’s licenses are issued to applicants at PennDOT offices. In addition to the possible challenge of limited English proficiency, it is also possible that – after just providing proof of their status as non-U.S. citizens – applicants believe they are eligible to vote.

“The current voter registration process at PennDOT is both harmful to election integrity and to members of the immigrant community seeking citizenship,” Schmidt said.

The last statement is important as it shows the problems with voter registration systems run through DMV.  The DMV was asking them to register to vote AFTER they had established they were not a citizen.  While the left is pushing for a much broader role for the DMV with systems such as "mandatory (or automatic) voter registration" that also serve to disenfranchise primary voters, these systems may be endangering non-citizens' immigration status.  After all, why would you ask this question after you know I am not a citizen.  

Liberal groups like the Brennan Center should stop denying that non-citizens vote and join with others that are working on fixing these problems both for election integrity and the benefit of legal immigrants seeking to become citizens.  

Top 10 Republican Lawyer Posts for 2016

Here are the top 10 posts for 2016 from The Republican Lawyer blog.  These posts show how the left is trying to destroy the First Amendment and how out of control the Obama Administration was on matters of speech.  Furthermore, they prove once again how Donald Trump’s victory was also a victory for the Constitution. 

10. "Judge Sanctions DOJ Attorneys for Putting Politics Ahead of Truth, Ethics, and Justice."  We will be happily working to confirm Senator Sessions as Attorney General to fight the ethical abuses and politicization of the Department of Justice under President Obama. 

9. "Brennan Center: The Only Democrats in New York who Don't See Vote Fraud." Any honest Democrat in New York would admit to you that vote fraud is real and that voter ID is needed; just most know that partisan groups like the Brennan Center will attack them for saying it.

8. "Democrats Keeping the Zombie Vote Alive."  Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams stated:  "It is impossible to vote from the grave legally” but apparently Democrats do it anyway. 

7. "Former SEC Commissioners Reject Political-Disclosure Rulemaking."  Obama Administration efforts to force mandatory disclosure of corporate spending on political and other advocacy activities should be viewed as primarily political rather than economic and, as such, would not serve to help shareholders evaluate corporate performance or promote shareholder value

6. "FEC Democrats Vote to Censor Books, Documentary Films."  FEC Democrats voted to assert regulatory power over books and films.  That means they believe the FEC has the power to censor certain books and documentary films.

5. "Congress Shall Make No Law: Protecting the First Amendment from Attack."  Preventing attacks on the First Amendment can only be done through fighting back against speech suppressive activity.

4. "RNLA Explains What Open, Fair and Honest Elections Mean."  By “open,” we mean a process in which all sides can have “observers” and the process is determined by legislatures well in advance.  By “fair,” we mean election officials should be from both parties and they should administer the election process in an orderly, unbiased fashion.  By “honest,” we mean free from fraud.

3. "Reactions to Donald Trump's Potential Supreme Court Justice List." One of the most popular issues for Donald Trump was his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. 

2. "Leader McConnell Won the Fight on the Scalia Vacancy."  Thank you, Sen. McConnell, for your leadership on judicial nominations and fighting to protect the judiciary from judges who will legislate from the bench and not respect the rule of law and the role of the courts.

1. "A Great Justice, Ignored Because of his Race."  The left excludes Justice Clarence Thomas from the National Museum of African American History and Culture despite his remarkable and impactful 25 years on the court.  

Brennan Center: The Only Democrats in New York who Don't See Vote Fraud

To work for the Brennan Center in New York, there are a couple unofficial requirements: (1) you have to be a  Democrat (and a Hillary supporter) and (2) a vote fraud denier.  On the latter, to hear the Brennan Center talk about it, vote fraud is more rare than a lightening strike.  They use their denial of vote fraud as one of their reasons to oppose Voter ID. 

However, the Brennan Center employees should talk to their fellow Democrats or read the papers about the vote fraud that is happening in their own area.  Today it was:

The Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections was caught on a secret video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud” — including at the polls.

Schulkin said he backed the IDs to prevent rampant fraud.

Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”

While discussing the potential for fraud, Schulkin volunteered that in some parts of the city, “they bus people around to vote . . . They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.”

Of course this does not come as a surprise to any rational New Yorker.  New York Democrats know there is a vote fraud problem in New York.  As former Democrat Congressional nominee Vincent Gentile said last year in an unguarded moment:

The candidate said his personal experiences as a politician in New York, one of the 18 states nationwide with no voter ID laws, had made him a supporter of the measures.

“All of us who’ve run before are, can tell you stories about what happens on Election Day,” he said.

Any honest Democrat in New York would admit to you that Vote Fraud is real and that Voter ID is needed, just most know that partisan groups like the Brennan Center will attack them for saying it. 

Commissioner Goodman is Fighting For Free Speech and Increased Participation

Federal Elections Commission (FEC) Commissioner Lee Goodman is fighting the good fight over at the FEC.  Lee is a former first Vice President of the RNLA.  However, Lee is fighting for the rights of ALL parties and people to speak in two ways:

1.  Commissioner Goodman writes about efforts to regulate the parties and the presidential debate process:

I write separately, however, to express more fundamental concerns with the Commission’s regulation of press organizations that sponsor candidate debates as part of their news coverage and programming.  For too long, the Commission has ignored the congressional and constitutional mandates to unconditionally protect the free press rights of media entities.  Our shared American democracy thrives only when government respects the media’s freedom and independence to inform the public about public affairs.  But thirty-five years ago, the Commission made a regulatory error that has encroached upon that autonomy ever since.

 As the Washington Examiner notes:

His memo came on the heels of an FEC decision to stiff-arm a demand from an outside group seeking to require media outlets to include third-party candidates in debate. But in shrugging off the demand, the FEC also maintained a 1979 ruling that tells the media how to run debates. Goodman has been warning for two years of Democratic efforts on the evenly-split FEC to regulate websites and press outlets, especially conservative ones like Drudge. His efforts so far have kept the regulations in the closet. Goodman, formerly a Virginia Republican Party counsel, wrote, "Our shared Democracy thrives only when the government respects the media's freedom and independence to inform the public about public affairs. But 35 years ago, the commission made a regulatory error that has encroached upon that autonomy ever since."

2.  Commissioner Goodman also wrote a piece about strengthening the parties.  On Tuesday, the FEC will “vote on a proposal to revive political parties and make them more effective at mobilizing populist political participation.”  Commissioner Goodman notes how important this is for a number of reasons, including what should be non-controversial such as voter registration, including:

Second, the FEC should expand regulatory freedom for parties to engage volunteers in democratic activities such as volunteer mail drives, phone banks and literature distribution. Current laws either prohibit or are so vague that they chill parties from engaging armies of volunteers to engage in time-honored voter contacts and door knocking campaigns. Third, the FEC needs to give the parties more regulatory freedom to register voters and turn voters out to the polls. The current proposal would allow state and local parties greater freedom to engage in this profoundly important democratic activity.

This has support across the ideological spectrum from the libertarian right to the radical left:

For decades political scientists have lamented the demise of political parties and have blamed government regulatory policy. The near death of parties has been the subject of over a dozen recent reports by practitioners and lawyers for the two major parties and minor parties alike, party experts, academics and think tanks ranging from the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute to the pro-regulatory Brennan Center for Justice. The press also has recognized the problem, from Politico's "Last Call for State Parties" (Feb. 16, 2014) to Time's "Party Down" (March 3, 2014), observing that America's political parties are no longer effective institutions.

Thank you Commissioner Goodman for working to strengthen Democracy on a bipartisan basis. 

Does the Left Care About ACTUAL Voter Disenfranchisement?

In the home of one of the leading vote fraud deniers, the Brennan Center, a week ago a massive vote fraud scheme was brought to trial.  The Brennan Center spent months wailing about massive mythical disenfranchisement of voters by voter ID in Texas, yet remains silent about actual disenfranchisement in their own neighborhood.   

Hector Ramirez was arrested Tuesday on massive voter fraud charges in his failed 2014 Assembly bid.

Ramirez and his allies went door-to-door in his west Bronx district duping voters into letting the veteran pol’s campaign staff vote on their behalf, a prosecutor charged as the 242-count indictment was unsealed.

“Victim after victim after victim testified to the grand jury that members of the Ramirez campaign knocked on their door, including Hector Ramirez himself, and said ‘Hey, you don’t have to go to the polls for this election, just sign here,” Assistant District Attorney Pishoy Yacoub said in Bronx Supreme Court.

The Brennan Center and other vote fraud deniers will no doubt argue that Mr. Ramirez sill lost the election so what does it matter?  However, that argument fails for two reasons.  The lesser of the two reasons is the fact the election was just two votes away from an alleged criminal being elected is hardly comforting.  If he was just a slightly better cheat, he would have won. 

However, the bigger reason is that it disenfranchised voters and entire ballots. 

Those voters never got their ballots back, Yacoub said.

Unlike the mythical claims of voter ID disenfranchising people, this really did happen.  They lost their votes.  The Brennan Center is silent.  Is it because they don’t care about disenfranchisement?  It seems likely.  The Brennan Center and other vote fraud deniers focus on issues such as voter ID to scare and fundraise off rather than issues such as vote fraud that actually disenfranchise voters.  

A New York Democrat Explains Why Voter ID is Necessary

Councilman Vincent Gentile of New York spilled the beans and said what all HONEST candidates in New York know, Elections need ID.

The candidate said his personal experiences as a politician in New York, one of the 18 states nationwide with no voter ID laws, had made him a supporter of the measures.

“All of us who’ve run before are, can tell you stories about what happens on Election Day,” he said.

We have often detailed the problems in New York with election fraud.  Vincent Gentile is not just a local councilman.  He is the Democrat Party Nominee for the open Congressional seat in the eleventh district.  Gentile added:

“There should be some kind of identification when a person presents themselves to vote,” Mr. Gentile said. “Whether it’s a photo, or something, there should be some kind of identification presented that is secure on Election Day before you’re able to vote.”

Of course other liberals, including his own campaign staff disagreed with him. Gentile will be taken to the woodshed for speaking the truth openly.  Gentile let the cat out of the bag.  Vote fraud is real and Voter ID can help stop it. Don’t take our word for it; take the word of this elected Democrat running for Congress.  

North Carolina and the Myth of Voter Suppression

Judicial Watch’s Robert Popper has an excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal about the ongoing federal litigation challenging several changes to North Carolina’s election laws and how statistics from November’s election dispel the myth the changes suppressed the vote there. As we have seen in other states that have adopted voter integrity measures such as photo ID laws, North Carolina’s changes are proving to have zero impact on minority turnout, despite the hysterical claims made by the NAACP and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ). In fact, African-American voter registration and turnout increased for the 2014 election.

Popper explains the various legislative changes at issue. For example, North Carolina moved to eliminate same day voter registration, a contentious policy that increases a state’s risk of Election Day fraud. North Carolina also tweaked its state law to require voters to vote in the precinct in which they are registered, hardly a novel or extreme measure. Another change challenged in the lawsuit is the reduction of days available for early voting from 17 to 10, although counties were required to offer the same number of early voting hours as they did before the changes kicked in. North Carolina also adopted a photo voter ID law in the legislative package although it does not take effect until 2016.

North Carolina was sued in two separate suits in August, 2013 by the NAACP, Common Cause, League of Women Voters and others. Later, a third suit was brought by Holder’s DOJ. (Click here for the pleadings and for other information on the case.) Among the extraordinary claims by DOJ as chronicled by Popper:

One expert in the Justice Department lawsuit claimed that more than 200,000 black voters, along with 700,000 white voters, would be “burdened” in an off-year election. Another expert concluded that particular provisions “will lower turnout overall” and “will have a disparate impact on African-American voters.”

Reality?

Those predictions were not borne out. The 2014 elections were the first test of the impact of North Carolina’s new laws, including a “soft rollout” of its voter-ID requirement—under which poll workers asked voters if they had ID and if not, to acknowledge the new requirement in writing. Board of Elections data showed that the percentage of age-eligible, non-Hispanic black residents who turned out to vote in North Carolina rose to 41.1% in November 2014 from 38.5% in November 2010.

The percentage of black registrants voting increased to 42.2% from 40.3% in the same period, and the black share of votes cast increased to 21.4% from 20.1%. The absolute number of black voters increased 16%, to 628,004 from 539,646.

As Popper notes, this is just “the latest example of allegedly “suppressive” laws that failed to suppress votes.” Plaintiffs and left-wing groups like the Brennan Center continue to cry wolf over these laws but the results are clear: common-sense voter integrity measures simply do not suppress the vote. As the Brennan Center and others continue to lose credibility based on their outrageous claims, they are only getting more desperate and it is showing. While some activist and sympathetic judges may continue to (at least temporarily) stop these laws from being implemented, the truth is finally emerging. Even Rick Hasen and other liberals have begun to question the Chicken Little “Sky is Falling” narrative being spun by plaintiffs in these suits and groups like the Brennan Center.

Victory and Defeat for Open, Fair, and Honest Elections

While Republicans see the administration of elections as a non-partisan process to be performed in accordance with the rule of law, we have long contended that some far left Democrats see election administration as a way to race bait and fear monger in a desperate effort to scare the liberal base into voting.  The leaders in this effort include the Brennan Center which has recently been rebuked on the left by the likes of liberal law Professor Rick Hasen and the New York Times. 

The Brennan Center’s most visible spokesperson on election issues has been Myrna Perez.  Ms. Perez has made outlandish statements that such activities as cleaning up the voting lists are “vote purging” that  “happens every day”, that 1.2 million people don’t have ID in Texas, and much more. 

For her years of effort of carrying the Democrats water on these issues she was rewarded with a nomination to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC).   RNLA and others interested in fair and honest elections vehemently and vociferously opposed her nomination. 

She has been proven factually wrong again and again but that never mattered.  That is until today.  She has withdrawn her nomination to the EAC. 

We hope this is not just a rejection of her but of the organization that gives her a platform, the Brennan Center. 

However, while we won the battle, we have not won the war.   Her replacement, Matt Butler, is even being questioned for partisanship by the left.  Like most liberal “experts” on voting, he has no experience in working in election administration. 

Today was a victory for open, fair and honest elections with the withdrawal of Ms. Perez.  However, the war is not over as President Obama has nominated another person who seemingly has little interest in election administration. There are literally dozens of current and former Democrat election administrators and experts who would be qualified to help lead a commission whose responsibility it is, at least in theory, to “assist” state and local election officials and voters. Is Butler really qualified for such a task? What are his qualifications other than being an activist progressive Democrat?  As Doug Chapin writes:

At this point, it would appear that the Democrats have made the decision to trade a potentially controversial (and therefore problematic) pick for on that is lower-profile, albeit just as partisan.

More on Butler later, however, his nomination at first blush seems to prove why it is time to end the EAC.

Don’t Buy the Brennan Center’s Propaganda

In the wake of last Tuesday’s disaster for Democrats, the Brennan Center was quick to argue (or at least strongly insinuate) that newly implemented photo ID and ballot integrity laws were to blame for some key Democrat losses. Wendy Weiser, writing for Brennan, wrote about North Carolina, Kansas, Florida, and Virginia and how the “margin of victory came very close to the likely margin of disenfranchisement.” Weiser’s proof consists of anecdotal reports from the volume of calls to the “Election Protection” call center and already discredited cherry-picked statistics. Weiser strongly insinuated that these laws may have made the difference and, as usually what happens with Brennan Center’s propaganda, the argument is now being regurgitated by press outlets such as the The Washington Post, Columbus Dispatch and pundits like Andrew Sullivan. For example, the Post writes that “[v]oter suppression laws are already deciding elections.” Fortunately, at least one national press outlet is pushing back. Francis Berry writing for Bloomberg and who is admittedly against these laws writes:

A day after the election, Wendy Weiser at the Brennan Center for Justice argued that “in several key races, the margin of victory came very close to the likely margin of disenfranchisement.” She cited the Senate race in North Carolina as one example; here’s the gist of her argument: Four years ago, 200,000 ballots were cast during seven days of early voting that the state has since eliminated. The state also ended Election Day registration, which 100,000 North Carolinians took advantage of in 2012, almost one-third of them black. In last week’s election, since Republican Thom Tillis’s margin of victory over Democratic Senator Kay Hagan was about 48,000 votes, Weiser implies that Hagan lost because so many (Democratic) voters were kept away from the polls. 

Weiser’s argument has been picked up by other voting-rights advocates and pundits, but it falls apart upon closer scrutiny. Even with seven fewer days, early voting in North Carolina increased this year compared with 2010 -- by 35 percent.

Statewide turnout also increased from the previous midterm election, to 44.1 percent from 43.7 percent. Even if turnout was lower than it would have been without the new voting law -- something that's impossible to establish -- it was still higher than it had been in four of the five previous midterm elections, going back to 1994.

In addition, based on exit polls and voter turnout data, the overall share of the black vote increased slightly compared with 2010.

Rick Hasen, an expert on election law, says he's skeptical about Weiser’s analysis, and rightly so. When voting-rights advocates fail to include any balancing points in their discussion of the election, they undercut their credibility and give ammunition to Republicans who suspect that they are mostly interested in electing Democrats.

It’s long past time that the press and other supposed objective outlets stop quoting Brennan Center as some neutral academic research institution whose arguments and statistics should be taken at face value without significant scrutiny. They are agenda-driven and in this instance have irresponsibly attempted to cast doubt on the credibility of the election. The truth is these laws haven’t disenfranchised voters nor have they artificially impacted the results of the election. It’s time the press starts doing its job in fact checking rather than parroting Brennan Center’s propaganda.

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.  

Will the Brennan Center Hire Lois Lerner Next?

The Brennan Center for Justice describes itself as “a nationally recognized powerhouse for research and activism in the fields of campaign finance and election reform.”  A more neutral reading would be that the Brennan Center for Justice is known for their partisan efforts on voting and their poorly sourced studies on vote fraud related issues such as voter ID.  The Brennan Center’s current and former employees while paying lip service in reality even oppose reform efforts such as those proposed by the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration on topics such as list maintenance. 

A new study by the Capitol Research Center scratches the surface of these and other problems and is worth checking out.  One line from that study shocked me (emphasis added).

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU is currently headed by Michael Waldman, who served as director of speech writing for President Bill Clinton from 1995 to 1999. Previously he was special assistant to the president for policy coordination from 1993 to 1995. In this role he was the top White House policy aide on campaign finance reform and claims credit for drafting the Clinton administration’s public financing proposal.

Are you kidding me?  Clinton’s top aide on campaign finance reform claiming credit and leading a group, any group, which talks about campaign finance reform is like putting Lois Lerner in charge of a group for fair treatment of 501c4 groups.  (Maybe Brennan will hire her next.) 

For those who do not remember, liberals and conservatives agree that President Clinton was one of the worst Presidents in history on campaign finance issues.  During the 1996 campaign there were so many problems that even the New York Times, which regarded this as a top issue, had to report negatively on the Clinton Administration.  Of course, the New York Times waited until November and December of 1996, after Clinton had been re-elected for the bulk of their reporting.  While the scathing and lengthy editorial taking the Clinton Administration to task on campaign finance is no longer available online, some of the reporting of it is.  Here are a few paragraphs from a typical New York Times story post the 1996 election. 

In the ornate Map Room of the White House residence, with Vice President Al Gore at his side, President Clinton assembled his most senior advisers for an important budget meeting. It was not the Federal budget that was being considered, but the budget of the Democratic National Committee.

As controversy has grown over Democratic fund raising, Mr. Clinton has sought to distinguish between the practices of his own re-election campaign and those of the Democratic committee. But the Map Room meeting is just one example of how closely the committee worked with the White House.

In the frenzy, a small group of Democratic fund-raisers and donors amassed questionable, and, in some cases unlawful, contributions, some from Asian sources, that have left the White House and the Democratic Party embroiled in controversy and facing a new round of hearings from a Republican-controlled Congress.

But this year Mr. Clinton relentlessly used all the perks and power of incumbency to raise money, according to both his aides and campaign finance experts. And White House and party officials met weekly to go over money goals and determine where the President would be needed to appear.

The Clinton Administration often talked about campaign finance reform but in reality their actions were all about winning political races for Democrats at all costs and any fundraising means.  I guess Waldman makes sense as a leader of the Brennan Center as that seems to be the Brennan Center’s mission as well.