Small Reminder of the Great Work of Peter Schalestock

Yesterday RNLA President Elliot Berke, myself, and other members of the RNLA Board attended the Peter Schalestock Memorial and Celebration of Life. It was fitting tribute to a great man and leader in the field of election law. In attendance were leading lawyers from the Trump Administration, current and former Federal Election Commissioners, current and former counsels to the key Republican committees, key Congressional Lawyers, and much more. It was a who’s who of the election law bar. All agreed Peter was not only a leader but one of the nicest men. 

Today, we will excerpt a bit from some of Peter’s writing. A law review article from 2008 written by Peter Schalestock entitled: Monitoring of Election Processes by Private Actors. Peter wrote: 

 A large majority of states—forty-five—allow pre-election voter registration challenges, polling place challenges, or both, by private, non-governmental parties. This represents a strong endorsement of private monitoring and enforcement processes by the states. As the use of absentee ballots expands, the number of states allowing challenges to absentee ballots may grow from its current twenty-two to reach a majority as well. 

While those numbers have changed (and Peter’s prediction on absentee ballots proved true) his conclusion on the need for an Election Day Operations or poll watching is arguably even truer today: 

Private monitoring and enforcement can help identify errors and misconduct in elections, increasing the level of integrity beyond what government resources can provide. It also acknowledges the role of key stakeholders in what is, at its core, an adversarial system. 

Of course, this law review article is just a very small part of Peter’s work and career. We, at the RNLA, are honored to count him as a friend and member of our board.

States AGs Emphasize Rule of Law; Look Forward to Working with Trump's Justice Department

Back in May, at the RNLA’s annual National Policy Conference, one of its highly-praised panels included a discussion and conversation with three current sitting state Attorneys General—Attorney General Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Attorney General Curtis Hill of Indiana, and Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana.

They took a few moments to speak about their priorities in their home states as well as how they each saw their role at their home state’s chief lawyer.

Arkansas's Attorney General Leslie Rutledge spoke of the benefits of working with Trump Administration, rather than against the liberal and leftist policies of the previous administration. She also discussed her historic win as Arkansas’s first Republican Attorney General and her ongoing work to make the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office more accessible to all its residents.

[P]eople don't know all that we do in the Attorney General's Office. I really strive to reach more people. We have 75 counties in Arkansas. I've launched mobile offices and we go to every single county every year. This will be the third year in a row. I have personally gone to every county, all 75, holding “Rutledge Roundtables.” There is no litmus test to attend those roundtables. . . . We have to talk to people[, including those] who do not agree with us, and we have to do a better job of being public servants of letting people know how they can get help from our office. That's the one thing I have learned the most, how big the role of attorney general is and how much we can impact people daily life…

Jeff Landry, the new Attorney General of Louisiana, was most concerned about ensuring that police have the resources and ability to combat crime in their communities.

One of the most important roles we play is assuring the rule of law is actually followed. It's scary when you have to say that this country, to think that there are laws out there that [key members from the prior administration were just] picking and choosing whether or not they were going to follow them.

Attorney General Curtis Hill of Indiana ran and won on promising greater accountability and oversight as his priority in his new tenure as Attorney General--to serve the people. Beckoning back to President Reagan, Hill also wants to return common sense to his office.

My role as Attorney General remains the same regardless of who is in the White House. . . . My job is to defend the interests of my state and my people. Regardless of what the threat might be . . . [if we believe] some type of behavior is unconstitutional or we believe it to the detriment of Indiana, my office will act and will not act without any hesitation.

While each state varied a bit in their own agendas, there were some clear similarities. Specifically, each of the Attorneys General expressed enthusiasm about working with the Trump Administration and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session’s Justice Department. They also look forward to the addition of great judges, like Justice Gorsuch, and the score of other well qualified textualist judges recently nominated to the federal courts.

You can view the entirety of this discussion, here at C-SPAN. They taped the entire day’s public sessions. The AG Panel begins just after the 2-hour mark (about 2:02:00).



LOOKING FORWARD:

On August 4th and 5th, the RNLA is planning another stellar lineup of speakers for its annual National Election Law Seminar and you will be able to earn up to 9 hours of CLE credit, including an hour of ethics credit. This year, the RNLA is going to Grand Rapids, Michigan, which was a pivotal swing state in the 2016 Election. 

A keynote speaker at the Seminar will be Ronna McDaniel, Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. In the coming weeks, we will have additional announcements of keynote speakers and specials guests in attendance. Tickets are available now. The special early bird rate will end on Friday, July 14.  Also, specially discounted hotel rooms are still available for attendees. We look forward to seeing you there!

Problem of Vote Fraud Should Be Investigated

Today, RNLA released a statement joining President Trump in his calls for an investigation into the problem of vote fraud:

Recently, President Trump and his spokespeople have been criticized for his statements on vote fraud in the 2016 election. The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) has long been the leader in fighting for open, fair, and honest elections. While vote fraud may be difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, including the failure by appropriate authorities to prosecute such crimes and the inability of states to prevent voters from registering in more than one state, voter fraud does exist and those who dismiss its existence deny reality.

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen said: “Democrats continue to deny the existence of vote fraud against all proof to the contrary. There are many reasons why vote fraud is both hard to catch and hard to prosecute, but to deny that it exists, denies reality.”

Those who deny the existence of vote fraud should join us in welcoming an investigation into vote fraud. If the problem is really as rare as they say, such an investigation will prove their point. However, if problems are uncovered, such an investigation should work to provide solutions and remedies so that all Americans can feel more confident in our electoral system. Unfortunately, polls, including a recent Gallup poll that showed a record low 30% of Americans expressed confidence in the “honesty of elections,” show that Americans have low faith in our electoral process.

RNLA is pleased that President Trump is taking the problem of vote fraud seriously. It is not an easy problem to quantify or solve, but the first step to making our elections more open, fair, and honest is to acknowledge that the problem exists. We agree with President Trump that a further investigation into the matter is in the best interest of all Americans. 

Thank you, President Trump, for calling attention to the problem of vote fraud and making it a priority for your administration. 

Revisiting Drive-by Voter Fraud in New Hampshire

After the close of the first primary in the nation, allegations of vote fraud started to surface.  Campaign staffers and other out-of-state, "drive-by" voters voted in the New Hampshire presidential primary. 

If you are not a citizen in a state, you do not have the right to vote there. If you think that vote fraud is overblown, take a few minutes and check out the following video filmed during the New Hampshire primary. The left keeps asserting that vote fraud is not an issue and that voter ID laws are too strict. Based on the video, perhaps this is why.

The New Hampshire Attorney General's office has opened an investigation into allegations that Bernie Sanders' campaign staffers who were in the state on Election Day wrongfully voted in the New Hampshire primary.

RNLA officers called attention to the potential for fraud by out-of-state voters prior to the election. Vice President for Finance Joanne Young wrote:

On a bipartisan basis, led by Democrat Secretary State Gardner and Republican legislators, Granite Staters have tried to make sure it is the people of New Hampshire, not out of state campaign workers, that determine election results. . . . The effect of this sort of vote fraud can be profound. . . . Close state house races are often decided by a very small margin, even tying. . . . A few votes from out-of-state people can literally change the winner of a race. 

New Hampshire RNLA Chapter Leader Norman Silber discussed the impact out of state voters have in New Hampshire:

There are numerous reports of people voting who were in New Hampshire on Election Day but did not live in New Hampshire. Most are not investigated, let alone prosecuted. For example: In 2008, Secretary Gardner witnessed AmeriCorps volunteers who planned to leave on December 1 register at the polls and vote. In 2012, Alana Biden, Joe Biden’s niece, signed an affidavit to vote, claiming the address of Democratic State Senator Martha Fuller Clark as her home. Several other Obama-Biden campaign workers did the same, despite only being in New Hampshire to work for the election. In 2008 and 2012, Lorin C. Schneider, Jr., of Carver, Massachusetts, voted in Manchester’s Ward 9 despite being a long-time resident of Massachusetts. The New Hampshire Attorney General charged Schneider and he pled guilty to wrongful voting.

Drive-by voting is one form of fraud that distorts election results. It is an issue that clearly persists despite laws enacted to combat it. Requiring voter ID is a great first step, but it is not enough to combat the kind of vote fraud committed by Sanders' campaign staffers in New Hampshire.

LA Election Engineering, Difficult to Convict & More Difficult to Remedy

Louisiana Election Code “has some bark but barely any bite,” according to Heather Cloud, victim of election engineering in the Turkey Creek, LA Mayoral Election. Residents of Turkey Creek were required to vote twice for mayor after Bert Campbell plead guilty to Fraudulent Election Engineering, Cloud also states:

I'm willing to fight against corruption. I want it out. I want it out of Louisiana politics.

Campbell’s campaign gave mentally handicapped people $15.00 and other promises to manipulate their vote. After being picked up at their home, driven to early voting 25 miles away, the individuals were told to vote the numbers on a card specifically for Bert K. Campbell.

Campbell beat Heather Cloud in the November 4^th election, 110-106.

The only true recourse for Heather Cloud was to pursue it civilly because her other options were for the participants to willingly admit their fault or the District Attorney to criminally charge those involved. Nether would actually happen. Cloud incurred $12,065.00 in court costs and $13,000 in attorney fees.  

The district court dismissed Cloud’s case holding Cloud stated no cause of action, and relying on Savage v. Edwards, the number of votes bought was not enough to change the outcome of the election although it was proven the votes were bought.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling, stating that Cloud did state a cause of action, and remanded to the District Court. On remand the District Court ruled that the four people were given $15.00 to influence their vote, which is illegal in Louisiana, but the judge dismissed again for lack of authority to strike the votes and order a new election.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that the four votes were illegal, instructed the District Judge to strike the votes and to order a new election. Judge Sylvia Cooks stated,

It is time for this foolishness to stop in the state of Louisiana.

The District Judge did strike the votes and called for a new election. All costs were assessed to Campbell, and Cloud was returned only her $12,065.00.

During the court ordered election, they were again harassed and received offers to make all their problems go away in exchange for their support of Campbell. Campbell also claimed that Cloud falsely accused him relying on the fact that no criminal action was taken.

Campbell received six months of jail time, a $500.00 fine, but both were suspended for 18 months probation and $2,000.00 restitution. Bert Campbell would have been able to hold public office unless he was convicted of a felony.

Months later on February 21^st 2015, Cloud won 134 to 118. Cloud hopes this story will point to more legislative election reform to uphold the integrity of our election system.

RNLA Supports Efforts for Florida Share Vote Registration Data

Yesterday the Florida Chapter of the RNLA sent a letter to members of the Florida Legislature to urge members to review and amend current election law to facilitate the sharing of voter registration data across state lines.

The RNLA’s mission was created to promote open, fair and honest elections at all levels of American society in a non-discriminatory manner and to provide access to the polls to all qualified and eligible voters. Requesting that the Florida Legislature adopt language that would allow state election officials to develop a program that would integrate the comparison of other states voter registration lists helps further the RNLA’s mission. The letter states:

A 2012 study by the Pew Center on the States estimated that over 2.758 million people are registered in multiple states and concluded that one of every eight active voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. The recent Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) pointed out the importance of the integrity of the voter registration list and interstate data-sharing across the country. In many cases, the lack of clean data resulted in long lines and confusion at polling places.

A failure to share voter registration data across state lines results in obsolete and outdated registrations on the voter rolls.  This can lead to vote fraud.  Such fraud was witnessed on a large scale in 2000 in Florida and almost changed the results of the 2000 presidential election.

To read the entire letter, please find a copy here.