Conservatives Respond to End of Election Integrity Commission

On Wednesday, President Trump ended the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI), which had been plagued by lawsuits from liberal organizations and even one of the Commission's own Democratic members.  Liberals are touting their victory in "resisting" an initiative started by President Trump, but conservatives have also responded.

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in The Hill:

Why is this hatred so strong? Besides that it is the liberal election administration community’s way of participating in the Trump “resist” movement, they feared the PACEI because the last two presidential election commissions have recommended corrective measures that go against the liberal agenda. . . . Contrary to the liberal’s narrative, the PACEI disbanding does not prove there is no vote fraud; rather, it proves liberals fear looking into this issue because things such as illegal non-citizen votes favor the Democratic Party in elections. . . . 

In the end, liberals won this battle to prevent any inquiry into fraudulent votes and messy elections, but may lose the war. When the President disbanded the PACEI, he also “asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues.” . . . If DHS reviews the issues that the PACEI was tasked with studying, it could use the SAVE database to help states fix their voter registration lists and find non-citizens registered and voting much more efficiently than an advisory commission ever could, as election officials have been clamoring for for years. . . .

So Democrats have “resisted” the bipartisan efforts, in the fine tradition of the last two presidential election commissions, to study and propose solutions to fix our elections. Sadly, the American people are those who lose the most whenever the liberal election world is “successful.” Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of an American citizen, who has lost the right of self-government due to the political agenda of liberal activists. But the left may lose the war, as their victory may hurt their real goals and make it easier to stop non-citizens from registering and voting. 

Former PACEI member Hans von Spakovsky issued the following statement:

While I am disappointed about the dissolution of the Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I understand President Trump’s action.  The ability of the Commission to research, review, and examine the integrity and security of the American election process was made almost impossible by the unprecedented and unjustified obstruction by many state election officials who defiantly refused to cooperate with the Commission.

The Commission was also hampered by the almost dozen meritless lawsuits that were filed against the Commission by progressive advocacy groups that were solely intended to prevent its work and take up the time of the Commission’s staff with frivolous litigation. 

The American people understand how important it is that we have a secure system in which everyone who is eligible is able to vote and their vote is not diluted or stolen by fraudulent votes or administrative errors and mistakes by election officials.

The obstacles and impediments used to hinder the work of the Commission is evidence that there are many politicians and activists who want to prevent the American people from finding out the truth.

Fellow former PACEI member Christian Adams also issued a statement:

Foes of election integrity lost their seat at the table.  Now the important work of improving the integrity of the election process will be done by people who believe in election integrity, not by those who seek to preserve vulnerabilities in the system. Over the years, demonstrable and empirical data has been developed showing noncitizen voting, double voting, and defects in the election system that no credible observer could deny. Some news outlets and activists have decided to ignore those facts, as if they do not exist.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of well-funded groups, activist academics and individuals who are not credible who sought to undermine and sabotage the Commission’s work.  They may delight today in the dissolution of the Commission, but before long they’ll realize that advocates of election integrity have more stamina, support and perseverance than they realize.

We thank the members of the PACEI for their work and look forward to future efforts to improve the integrity of elections and voters' confidence in election systems and their outcomes. 

ICYMI: DOJ Finally Enters Litigation Against Guam's Racially Discriminatory Voting Law

A week ago Tuesday, the Department of Justice finally decided to fight against a blatantly racially discriminatory voting law in Guam, as Hans von Spakovsky described:

I have written numerous updates about the voting-rights lawsuit that Davis, a retired Air Force officer, filed back in 2011 against the territory of Guam . . . . Guam refused to allow Davis, a long-time resident of Guam, to register to vote for a plebiscite on the future of the territory because he is white and not Chamorro, the racial designation given to the natives who originally inhabited Guam.

The personnel changes made by President Trump, including Jeff Sessions as Attorney General and John Gore as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, were necessary for the Department of Justice to uphold the law and the rule of law:

After Guam lost in March, it appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 28, after eight years of studied indifference, the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions finally did the right thing: It filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting Arnold Davis.  

DOJ’s brief, which was filed by John Gore, the acting assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division, argues that “Guam’s plebiscite law intentionally discriminates based on race.” It directly violates Supreme Court precedent set in Rice v. Cayetano, a 2000 decision in which the Court threw out a similar Hawaii law. DOJ points out that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments both apply to Guam; the fact that it is a territory does not deprive its residents of those constitutional protections. The brief asks the Ninth Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision. . . .

The discriminatory law had been ignored for 8 years by the Obama DOJ because the voters the law discriminated against were the wrong color: 

The Obama administration refused to enforce federal law barring racial discrimination in voting, housing, employment, and education on a race-neutral basis. The Holder/Lynch Justice Department didn’t care if you were being discriminated against unless you were a member of one of its favored groups, a distinction that does not exist in our anti-discrimination laws. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as federal statutes such as the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, protect all Americans from racial discrimination.

Because DOJ had abdicated its duty to enforce the laws, this long case to vindicate Mr. Davis' voting rights has been fought by a courageous attorney - RNLA member Christian Adams.  We are grateful that the Sessions Justice Department respects the rule of law and has chosen to support Adams' litigation against this discriminatory law - at last.

Court Permanently Enjoins Texas Voter ID Law in "Outrageous" Decision

Today, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas permanently enjoined Texas' voter ID law, both the original law and the remedial amendment passed this term to comply with the 5th Circuit's en banc opinion last year.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton promised to appeal:

“Today’s ruling is outrageous. Senate Bill 5 was passed by the people’s representatives and includes all the changes to the Texas voter ID law requested by the 5th Circuit,” Attorney General Paxton said. “The U.S. Department of Justice is satisfied that the amended voter ID law has no discriminatory purpose or effect. Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy. The 5th Circuit should reverse the entirety of the district court’s ruling.” 

In a court filing earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked Judge Ramos to end efforts to overturn Senate Bill 5, noting that the law “eradicates any discriminatory effect or intent” and expands voter identification options when it takes effect January 1. Texas’ voter ID law “both guarantees to Texas voters the opportunity to cast an in-person ballot and protects the integrity of Texas’ elections,” the DOJ told Judge Ramos. 

Last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to Judge Ramos to assess the impact of any future legislative action, like Senate Bill 5.

Judge Ramos, an Obama appointee, found both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose in the law.  This case will undoubtedly return to the en banc 5th Circuit, and quite likely the Supreme Court, which may not review the decision too favorably.  A finding of discriminatory purpose is a very high bar that has not been met in this case.  As Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation said in response:

"The court has yet again proven all too willing to hand down rulings which beg to be overturned on appeal,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Texas’ voter identification law takes squarely into account the safety net system which the Fifth Circuit recommended be installed last year.”

But in the meantime, this unfortunate decision seriously threatens the ability of states to enact common-sense voter ID laws to protect the integrity of their elections. 

Christian Adams an Excellent Choice for Election Integrity Commission

President Trump announced additional members for his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity yesterday: Christian Adams and Alan King, a Democrat from Alabama. These experts will greatly aid the commission in its work and bring a wealth of real-world experience and expertise to the commission.  

Christian Adams has experience in election administration at the state and federal levels.  Adams served as General Counsel to the South Carolina Secretary of State, advising on election law and administration, and served in the Voting Section at the U.S. Department of Justice.  He has litigated election cases all over the country.

Currently, Adams is doing the important work of enforcing liberals’ favorite voting law, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA or “motor voter”). The NVRA requires local election officials to take steps to ensure their voter registration rolls are accurate, including removing dead and ineligible persons. Many local election officials have not been following the law’s requirements, some from fear of litigation from liberal groups who oppose such efforts to keep the voter registration records accurate. Adams and his organization, Public Interest Legal Foundation, have been requesting information about the voter registration records from local officials, publicizing the errors in them and lack of efforts to keep them accurate, and in certain cases, filing suit to require the local official to follow the law.

Adams has something his critics sorely lack, experience with elections from both a federal and state government perspective. The importance of this cannot be overstated and is a key component for any federal commission in our state-based election system. This is in strong contrast to some of the harshest critics of the Commission on Election Integrity who base their views on biased partisan studies or spend their time in academia far removed from the nuts and bolts of elections. 

New Report: Thousands of Non-Citizens Voting in Virginia

Today, the Public Interest Legal Foundation released a disturbing report about non-citizens registered to vote and actually voting in Virginia:

After three lawsuits, scores of record requests, and reviews voter history files across 133 Virginia jurisdictions, the Public Interest Legal Foundation has uncovered the following:

• Virginia election officials quietly removed 5,556 voters for non-citizenship between 2011 and May 2017;

• 1,852 of those removed as noncitizens cast ballots;

• A total of 7,474 illegal ballots were cast from the pool of removed noncitizens;

• Some records of illegal voting date back to the 1980s before their respective removals;

• Virginia election officials routinely fail to alert law enforcement about these illegal votes or registrations.

“At the instruction of Governor McAuliffe’s political appointees, local election officials spent countless resources to prevent this information from spilling into the open,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Virginia hid critical information that would have improved election integrity while a political operative-turned-governor vetoed numerous proposals that would’ve prevented alien registration and voting. From NoVa to Norfolk and all urban and rural points in between, alien voters are casting ballots with practically no legal consequences in response. 

“In this election year, aliens must not cast illegal ballots, and if they do they must be prosecuted. Let’s pray that Gov. McAuliffe’s veto pen did not invite a close election tainted by fraud,” Adams added. 

In the absence of regular data-sharing arrangements between federal officials and the Commonwealth, the ability of election officials to identify aliens on the voter rolls is almost nonexistent. The most that happens in Virginia is that an alien on the voter rolls will sometimes tell the state DMV they are not a citizen. Without those leads, counties and municipalities must accept false claims of citizenship on their face.

This report gives lie to those who claim that there is no problem with ineligible voters voting and determining the outcomes of elections.  In addition to other close races detailed in the full report (page 12), the winner of the 2013 attorney general election was determined by just 907 votes statewide.  As PILF noted, the methods for removing non-citizens from the voter registration rolls are far from effective or complete and the existing methods are rarely followed.  So there are likely far more non-citizens registered to vote and additional votes by non-citizens that PILF was unable to identify through their data review.  

This problem is duplicated in nearly every state across the country but has largely not been studied because it requires a tremendous amount of time and resources.  Sadly, PILF had to litigate against local election officials who refused to disclose voter registration data as required by the NVRA.  We can only hope that President Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity can conduct or prompt similar studies in a number of states and that state and local officials will cooperate, as required by law, in efforts to improve the accuracy of voter registration rolls.

Sessions' "Racist" Vote Fraud Prosecution Was to Protect Black Voters' Voting Rights

Liberals, particularly the NAACP, in the past few weeks have repeated the claim that Sen. Jeff Sessions is a racist based on his 1985 prosecution of civil rights activists for absentee ballot vote fraud.  

What are the facts and legal history of that case?  Then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was acting pursuant to a complaint brought by African-American candidates who believed that their African-American supporters' votes were being stolen or altered to steal the election away from them.  He prosecuted after a grand jury indictment, with the assistance and oversight of the Department of Justice, and evidence of the stealing of African-Americans' votes was presented at trial. He was upholding his duty as a federal prosecutor to prosecute violations of the law for which there is sufficient evidence to believe a conviction may be achieved; it was not a malicious prosecution on racist grounds:

“No federal prosecutor faced with the evidence seen by the grand jury would have failed to take the case and go forward with the prosecution,” [former head of the Election Crimes Unit inside the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section Craig] Donsanto told me. “The evidence in the case was overwhelming. I was there with the other assistant U.S. attorneys and not one dissented — everyone thought it was a solid case. I told Jeff Sessions to go forward with the case.” . . . 

Donsanto is highly offended by any claims that the prosecution was racist. The federal prosecutors were “trying to protect black voters who were having their votes stolen,” he notes. Moreover, the investigation was initiated only after local black voters and candidates complained to the Justice Department. When asked about the fact that a jury found the defendants not guilty, Donsanto says that as a former federal prosecutor, he respects the jury system. . . .  

In Perry County, Jeff Sessions and the other Justice Department lawyers were trying to protect black voters from having their right to vote stolen — a precious right that those voters had fought very hard to obtain during the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, a jury let the defendants off despite the evidence in the case, including testimony from black residents of the county about how their ballots had been altered and changed without their permission. And that is the real tragedy of this case. 

As Craig Donsanto says, this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is, according to Donsanto, “a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind.”

Similarly, the Public Interest Legal Foundation pointed out five important ways in which former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick had distorted the facts and history of the case in his opposition letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Mr. Patrick misleads readers to believe the ‘Perry County Three’ in Alabama were prosecuted by Mr. Sessions for ‘assisting’ voters. They weren’t. 

Prosecuting voter fraud is not itself an act of voter intimidation. 

Mr. Sessions was not a rogue prosecutor – he acted with oversight from multiple DOJ offices. 

If Sessions’ advancement of the case was as faulty as Patrick alludes, why did the Court refuse to acquit the defendants from the outset? 

Patrick fails to remind Congress that the defendants offered to enter guilty pleas for the misdemeanor election crimes.

Unfortunately, the facts of the case will not prevent liberals from using it as a basis to call Sen. Sessions a racist, despite all evidence to the contrary.  We can only hope that the American people will see through this name-calling and learn about the actual history of the Perry County absentee ballot fraud prosecution. 

Sessions Attorney General Nomination Roundup

Here are some of the notable articles about Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination as Attorney General from the last week.

Confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general, 12/16:

Would a racist introduce a bill - the Fair Sentencing Act - that rectified disparities in sentencing for drug crimes, and then work across the aisle for nine years to get it passed and signed into law? As U.S. Senator, Jeff Sessions did precisely that. In a similar vein, would a racist work to desegregate schools in Alabama? As U.S. Attorney, Jeff Sessions successfully desegregated Alabama’s schools. Or would a racist prosecute and seek the death penalty for Henry Francis Hays, a Klansman, on charges of murdering a teenage African American? That conviction was one of Jeff Sessions’ greatest accomplishments, and later, once elected as Alabama’s Attorney General, he ensured that Hays received the death penalty. These are hardly the accomplishments of a racist, of course, and Senate Democrats know the charge that Sen. Sessions is racist is ridiculous.

Attorney General Luther Strange urges confirmation of Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General, 12/16:

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange joined 24 other state attorneys general in urging the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as United States Attorney General. 

“Few positions are more important than our nation’s attorney general,” Attorney General Strange wrote in a joint letter to Senators Chuck Grassley, R-IA, and Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Thursday. 

“The person who fills that role is not only charged with keeping our streets safe, but upholding the legal principles that are the bedrock of our republic. Senator Sessions has proven over a long and distinguished career that he has the character to serve as United States Attorney General for all Americans. We urge his confirmation.”

Trump’s un-PC cabinet matches his campaign promises to a T, 12/17:

President-elect Donald Trump is assembling a Cabinet designed to govern exactly as he promised he would during the campaign. Naturally, the left is freaking out. . . . 

Nor is Attorney General-to-be Jeff Sessions any kind of racist. He got blindsided by such charges during confirmation hearings decades ago, but his public record since then includes successfully prosecuting the Alabama head of the Klan — which set up a civil suit that bankrupted the state branch of that hate group.

Smear Campaign Against Sessions Ignores the Facts, 12/18:

After all, the smear that Sessions is, or was, a racist has come up against a mountain of hard evidence to the contrary. Sessions opposed race-baiting George Wallace when he attended college. In Alabama. In the 1960s. As U.S attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions prosecuted the Klan and its murderous thugs, and worked to desegregate public schools. Later, as Alabama’s attorney general, he went after the perpetrators of a series of black church arsons in the 1990s. . . . 

What is evident in Sessions’ record is a public servant whose humble background and color-blind concern for everyday Americans made him a principled advocate of working-class people long before Donald Trump ever thought of public office. It animated his pursuit of real racists in Alabama, and his hard-line stance on immigration in Washington, D.C. Sessions was working to “drain the swamp” before draining the swamp was cool, convinced that that the “masters of the universe” from Washington, D.C., to New York City have been stacking the deck for themselves and their connected friends, while conditions stagnated or deteriorated for the rest of America in all its colors. This is the Sessions record, and it’s an admirable one.

Why They Oppose Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, 12/19:

When hearings for attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions start next month, prepare for a trip back in time to 1986. Three decades ago, his nomination for a seat on the federal bench was wrecked because Jeff Sessions fought voter fraud as a United States attorney. 

The same group of far-left activists are again opposing Jeff Sessions because Jeff Sessions will fight voter fraud as attorney general.

Clinton FBI Director Backs Trump's Attorney General Pick Jeff Sessions, Defends His Records on Civil Rights, 12/21:

The campaign to rally support for Donald Trump’s pick to head the Justice Department is growing, with former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who served under President Bill Clinton, now joining the effort. 

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Freeh offered his “strong recommendation” that Senators confirm their colleague Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., as the next attorney general, defending his record on civil rights, which has become a key concern for critics. 

“I have known Jeff since 1989 when we worked together as prosecutors on one of the most important civil rights cases investigated and prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice,” Freeh wrote. “[I] have always been greatly impressed with his commitment to the rule of law, his fair and balanced prosecutorial judgment, and his personal dedication to protecting civil rights.”

“Unreliable and Misleading” Charges against Sessions, 12/22:

As I’ve written before, much of the reporting on Senator Sessions’ bid for Attorney General has failed to dig deeper than the top-level talking points of his opponents. New reports ​are out digging up a decades-old lawsuit Sessions was involved with in which a state judge wrote that “the misconduct of the Attorney General in this case far surpasses in both extensiveness and measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously presented to or witnessed by this court.”  

Sounds pretty damning, at least until you learn that the order quoted above itself was found “particularly unreliable and misleading” by a unanimous panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court faulted the judge below for simply cutting and pasting his order from the opposing lawyer’s briefs, which explains the over-the-top language. Far from finding prosecutorial misconduct, the Eleventh Circuit held that there had been probable cause for prosecution. And it found the trial court’s order to be sufficiently misleading that the $7.2 million verdict in a related civil case was thrown out because the jury had been read that order. 

Fourth Circuit Turned Voting Rights into Political Weapon

In its decision on North Carolina's voter ID law last month, the Fourth Circuit acted like a trial court in determining new findings of fact, according to election law expert Christian Adams:

Legal analysts have given the opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturning North Carolina’s election reform law, including its voter ID requirement, mixed reviews. 

Both J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation in Washington, and Rick Hasen, chancellor’s professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, noted that it was highly unusual for the three-judge appeals panel to overturn a district court judge’s factual findings. 

While Hasen saw merit in the decision, Adams didn’t. 

“The 4th Circuit did what very few federal appeals courts do; they pretended they were a trial court,” Adams said. “One of the things they teach you in law school is trial courts deal with the facts and appeals courts deal with the law.” Hasen acknowledged that trial courts generally grant deference to the facts stated by a trial court.

Adams concluded that the Fourth Circuit found that the voter ID law and other election reforms were enacted with racially discriminatory intent because it was seeking any way to overturn the law for political reasons:

State elections officials and Republican leaders, however, have noted that in the 2014 election — the first federal election after the new voting provisions were enacted — turnout among black voters was higher than it was in 2010, the last nonpresidential election before the law passed. (The voter ID requirement was delayed until the 2016 primary and general elections.) 

Adams said the court “apparently wanted to set the law aside no matter what,” adding that the appeals court’s ruling turns voting rights into a political weapon. 

“Anything that the legislature ever passes and might affect blacks or Democrats ever so slightly more than whites or Republicans, these judges say it’s a voting rights violation,” Adams said. “That’s bad for the Voting Rights Act and for politics.”

On Monday, North Carolina filed a petition for emergency relief from the Supreme Court that would allow the voter ID law and other election reforms overturned by the Fourth Circuit to remain in effect for the November election.  We hope that the Supreme Court will stay the Fourth Circuit's decision until a less politically motivated court can evaluate the law.

Lawsuit Filed to Allow Inspection of Philadelphia Voter Rolls; Possible Ineligible Voters

The American Civil Rights Union, represented by the Public Interest Legal Foundation and RNLA Advisory Council Member Linda Kerns, has filed a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia for failure to allow public inspecting of its voter registration rolls as required by the NVRA.  For years, the number of registered voters in Philadelphia has far exceeded the percentage of eligible voters that could reasonably be expected to be registered:

For years in Philadelphia, the numbers of registered voters has nearly exceeded the number of citizen residents eligible to vote, among the highest in Pennsylvania. In response to these unusual circumstances, the plaintiff utilized protections in the National Voter Registration Act that require Philadelphia to allow physical inspection of election records related to voter registration and list maintenance programs. The plaintiff requested information from Philadelphia about tools used to ensure that non-citizens are not registering to vote, as well as other records.  

Philadelphia failed even to respond to the request, and thus the lawsuit followed.

The plaintiff in the case is the American Civil Rights Union. The plaintiff originally sent the defendant a notice letter in January 2016 describing potential violations of federal election law, asking to review election records, and seeking to discuss a cure. Philadelphia never replied.  

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud. Failure to clean the rolls aggravates longstanding problems of voter fraud in Philadelphia,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. “Philadelphia may not be using all the available tools to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Concealing list maintenance records from the public isn’t good government, and it violates Federal election law.”

Local election officials have an important duty to ensure that federal and state election laws are followed, including the laws regarding voter eligibility.  If a locality is refusing to follow federal law regarding inspection of its voter records, it may be failing to follow other important laws.  Ensuring that only eligible voters are registered to vote is key to the integrity of elections and public confidence in the electoral process.

Election Fraud Conviction of Community Organizer in Michigan

Christian Adams at Election Law Center has a good scoop on a recent election fraud conviction of a local left-wing political activist in Southwest Michigan:

A far-left community organizer is going to jail for at least 2 and a half years for election fraud in Michigan.  Edward Pinkney was sentenced to up to 10 years in prison for rigging a recall election for the mayor of Benton Harbor Michigan.

This is your classic case of petition shenanigans including Pinkney fraudulently changing dates on petitions and having people sign them multiple times. As Adams writes, “[a]t the root of the crime was a recall election.  Far left groups had targeted the mayor of Benton Harbor arguing in the (ironically named) ‘People’s Tribune’ that ‘an economic system that doesn’t feed, clothe, and house its people must be overturned and replaced with a system that meets the needs of the people.’ ”

It seems like in many instances petition fraudsters are able to plea or negotiate out of having to serving prison time, but as it turns out this wasn't Pinkney's first offense or even his first election fraud offense. As the local news reports:

His first run in with the law was 1988 for assault with a dangerous weapon out of California, followed in 1990 by a theft conviction out of St. Louis, Missouri, then in 1999 was convicted in Berrien County of embezzlement and in 2007 was convicted 4 felony counts of violating election laws.

As we have seen in past convictions of voter fraud, activists rallied to Pinkney’s side demanding he be freed although apparently most were not local residents: “The judge received more then 100 letters of support for Pinkney, but noted that many letters were duplicates. He said of all those he received only one letter was from a resident of Southwest Michigan.” Democratic City Commissioner Marcus Muhammed went as far as to call the court convicting Pinkney a "kangaroo court."