Supreme Court Upholds Ohio Voter Registration List Maintenance Procedure

This morning, the Supreme Court decided Husted v. Philip Randolph Institute, overturning 5 to 4 the Sixth Circuit decision that invalidated one of Ohio's voter registration list maintenance procedures.  Justice Alito wrote for the Court, starting by clearing stating the facts at issue, which have been politicized into slogans like "Ohio's voter purge" by the left throughout this case:

At issue in today’s case is an Ohio law that aims to keep the State’s voting lists up to date by removing the names of those who have moved out of the district where they are registered. Ohio uses the failure to vote for two years as a rough way of identifying voters who may have moved, and it then sends a preaddressed, postage prepaid card to these individuals asking them to verify that they still reside at the same address. Voters who do not return this card and fail to vote in any election for four more years are presumed to have moved and are removed from the rolls. We are asked to decide whether this program complies with federal law.

The Court found that Ohio's practice is in compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (internal citations omitted): 

Respondents argue (and the Sixth Circuit held) that, even if Ohio’s process complies with subsection (d), it nevertheless violates the Failure-to-Vote Clause—the clause that generally prohibits States from removing people from the rolls “by reason of [a] person’s failure to vote.” Respondents point out that Ohio’s Supplemental Process uses a person’s failure to vote twice: once as the trigger for sending return cards and again as one of the requirements for removal. Respondents conclude that this use of nonvoting is illegal.  

We reject this argument because the Failure-to-Vote Clause, both as originally enacted in the NVRA and as amended by HAVA, simply forbids the use of nonvoting as the sole criterion for removing a registrant, and Ohio does not use it that way. Instead, as permitted by subsection (d), Ohio removes registrants only if they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a notice.

While the decision is largely one of statutory construction, it is also one that respects the proper role of the court and defers to the lawful policy judgments made by legislatures (internal citations omitted):

Requiring additional evidence not only second-guesses the congressional judgment embodied in subsection (d)’s removal process, but it also second-guesses the judgment of the Ohio Legislature as expressed in the State’s Supplemental Process. The Constitution gives States the authority to set the qualifications for voting in congressional elections,  as well as the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” to conduct such elections in the absence of contrary congressional direction. We have no authority to dismiss the considered judgment of Congress and the Ohio Legislature regarding the probative value of a registrant’s failure to send back a return card. . . .

It is not our prerogative to judge the reasonableness of that congressional judgment . . . . The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress. But this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, not a question of policy. We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio’s Supplemental Process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date. The only question before us is whether it violates federal law. It does not.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence to raise constitutional concerns with the respondents' view of the NVRA (internal citations omitted):

I join the Court’s opinion in full.  I write separately to add that respondents’ proposed interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) should also be rejected because it would raise significant constitutional concerns. . . . As I have previously explained, constitutional text and history both “confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.” . . . Respondents’ reading of the NVRA would seriously interfere with the States’ constitutional authority to set and enforce voter qualifications.

While the left will hyperbolically decry this decision as promoting voter suppression, Ohio's process has many protections to prevent voters who still live in the state and wish to remain on the voter registration rolls from being removed.  That is why the Court correctly upheld the practice under the NVRA.  As Justice Alito noted, difficult policy judgments about the best ways to administer elections, protect the integrity of elections, and ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote should be made by legislatures, not by unelected judges.

At Issue in Husted Case: How Are States Supposed to Keep Clean Voter Rolls?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case on voter registration list maintenance, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.  At issue is Ohio's procedure for removing voters from the voter registration list:

In that process, in place since 1994, the state regularly identifies those on the voter list who haven’t voted in the previous two years (including at least one federal general election), and sends them a “confirmation notice.” If the voter does not respond to the notice (and the majority do not), the voter is kept on the voter list but moved to “inactive” status, where they can still vote. If such a voter does not vote or engage in any other voter activity during the next four years, they are removed from the voter list. The primary legal question is whether this constitutes “removal … from the official list of voters … by reason of the person’s failure to vote,“ as prohibited by Sec. 8 of the NVRA.

The justices questioned what states would be able to do to maintain the accuracy of their voter registration lists if the plaintiffs were successful.  As David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research explains:

Justice Breyer asked plaintiffs’ counsel, Paul Smith, “what are they [the state] supposed to do? That is, every year a certain number of people die and every year a certain number move…. All right. We don’t want them on the voter roll.” He went on to say: 

“Look, the reason I’m asking these questions is because I don’t believe Congress would have passed a statute that would prevent a state from purging a voting roll of people who have died or have moved out of the state. So I’m trying to reconcile the two. And, therefore, I ask you what the state’s supposed to do for that latter objective.” 

This is really the crux of the whole case, and the challenge with maintaining voter lists. The plaintiffs are quite right in that they don’t want anyone removed from the list who shouldn’t be, if they’re still eligible to vote and have simply chosen not to vote in some previous elections. I don’t know anyone who wants that. But the state is also right, as Justice Breyer recognizes, that accurate voter lists are essential to a functioning democracy, and that the state needs to figure out who’s moved within the state, moved out-of-state, or died, since the last election.

State and local election officials have difficult but important work to do maintaining accurate voter registration lists.  As Mr. Becker points out, interstate voter registration data sharing is one of the best ways for states to identify errors in their lists.  But states also need the ability to use other tools, such as the notice and waiting procedure used in Ohio.  Stay tuned for the release of this opinion, which will have major implications for election administration, later this term.

Accurate Voter Registration Lists Are Essential To Election Integrity

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in the Daily Caller about yesterday's House Committee on Administration hearing on state voter registration list maintenance and the importance of accurate voter registration records:

Enabling fraud is not the only problem with messy voter registration rolls.  Inaccurate rolls also create the opportunity for honest mistakes that negatively impact the voting process.  They contribute to long lines and congestion at the polling place. Voters are also frustrated when they show up at the polling place not properly registered in the correct precinct.  Logistically, inaccurate rolls require states and localities to waste money on ballots, poll workers, and other Election Day resources for ghost voters who do not exist or moved years ago.  As Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson pointed out in the hearing yesterday, the money that is spent unnecessarily on preparing for non-existent voters is desperately needed elsewhere, such as updating technology and security in voting machines. 

Inaccurate rolls also distort turnout numbers, making it seem like a state or county had lower turnout than it actually did.  Lawson described how Indiana completed a voter registration list clean-up process statewide, removing inaccurate records from the rolls, after the 2016 election.  Because of legal provisions regarding timing of maintenance procedures, the process could not be completed before the presidential election.  If it had been, Indiana would have had 65% voter turnout in 2016, instead of the 55% it actually reported.  That is a massive difference, and it would make a tremendous difference in voter perception of the election and the level of civic engagement as well. 

This is why accurate voter registration lists enjoy bipartisan support.  Every bipartisan presidential election commission in the last 20 years has recommended procedures to help states better maintain their lists.

While there is broad support in theory for voter registration list maintenance, liberals oppose most efforts to clean up the rolls:

While liberals pay lip service to accurate voter lists, when it comes down to the painstaking work of actually maintaining accurate official rolls, liberals and Democrats fight to ban nearly every tool that hardworking election officials have at their disposal. . . . Lawson bemoaned the fact that when a state seeks to clean up its voter rolls, activist organizations always sue the state for its attempt to follow the law.  A prime example — a challenge to Ohio’s voter registration record clean-up program, let by the ACLU and other liberal organizations, is currently pending before the Supreme Court, which will hear oral argument on the important case on November 8.

Mr. Thielen concludes by pointing to recent news stories about messy voter rolls in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, lamenting that liberals have turned this into a controversial issue, and thanking the Committee on House Administration for looking into state voter registration list maintenance.

DOJ Supports Ohio's Efforts to Clean Voter Rolls

In a welcome change from the Obama Justice Department's opposition to states' efforts to protect the integrity of their elections, the Trump Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court earlier this week in support of Ohio's process of removing inactive voters from the voter registration rolls:

Ohio and several other States have long used a registrant’s failure to vote for a specified period of years as grounds for sending an address-verification notice under 52 U.S.C. 20507(d)(2). That practice does not violate the NVRA. 

A. It is undisputed that Section 20507(d) itself does not restrict the grounds on which States may send address-verification notices. Instead, the court of ap- peals held that sending notices based on nonvoting violates Section 20507(b)(2)’s prohibition on removing a registrant “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” That is not the best reading of Section 20507(b)(2) as originally enacted, and it is foreclosed by the clarifying clause that Congress added in HAVA. . . .

C. The NVRA’s history and purpose reinforce the conclusion that States may send Section 20507(d)(2) notices based on nonvoting. Before the NVRA, most States removed registrants who had failed to vote for specified periods. Most of those States notified registrants and allowed them to avoid removal or re-register, but the notice procedures could be burdensome—and a few States failed to provide any notice at all. The NVRA eliminated the practice of removing nonvoters without notice and required States to use more protective notice procedures. But the legislative history indicates that Congress did not require States to abandon entirely the widespread practice of treating nonvoting as an indication that a registrant may have become ineligible. 

Allowing States to send Section 20507(d)(2) notices based on nonvoting is also consistent with Congress’s objective of ensuring accurate voter rolls while leaving the States substantial flexibility. Ohio and other States have determined that the most appropriate way to maintain accurate voting lists is to use nonvoting as an indication that a registrant may have moved, and to seek to verify the registrant’s continued residence using the procedure in Section 20507(d). Under the flexible structure Congress adopted in the NVRA and clarified in HAVA, that judgment is left to the States.

The new attorneys at the Department of Justice are doing excellent work evaluating the law and reversing the politicized positions of the Obama DOJ when necessary.  It is imperative the Senate swiftly confirm Trump's DOJ nominees so that this important work can continue.

82 Non-Citizen Voters and 385 Non-Citizens Registered to Vote Found in Ohio

To further prove the point that elections have consequences and we are in a new world of election law and litigation, compare two news stories from this week.  First, the Trump administration has dropped the Department of Justice's opposition to Texas' voter ID law on the basis that it is intentionally racially discriminatory, to give the state time to amend the law.  Second, North Carolina's new Democrat governor and attorney general are attempting to withdraw (potentially unethically) the pending petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court regarding the Fourth Circuit's decision last summer striking down North Carolina's voter ID law. 

Opponents of voter ID laws claim that they are not needed because vote fraud doesn't happen, but when voting and voter registration records are investigated, both illegal voting and the potential for it are uncovered.  An investigation by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has uncovered hundreds of non-citizens registered to vote in the state, 82 of whom have voted in at least one election in the last year:

“In light of the national discussion about illegal voting it is important to inform our discussions with facts. The fact is voter fraud happens, it is rare and when it happens, we hold people accountable,” Secretary Husted said. . . . 

“I have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of Ohio’s elections system,” Secretary Husted said. “When you consider that in Ohio we have had 112 elections decided by one vote or tied in the last three years, every case of illegal voting must be taken seriously and elections officials must have every resource available to them to respond accordingly.” 

Husted added that none of the cases where a non-citizen cast a ballot occurred in jurisdictions where an election was decided by one vote or tied. 

It’s possible for a non-citizen to register to vote in Ohio if they lie about their status on the voter registration form.

And there may be more non-citizen registered voters and actual voters than what this investigation found:

Husted’s review is able to identify people who have registered to vote as citizens but obtained a driver’s license as a non-citizen. . . . And Husted admits there are likely other non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio but are not in the BMV’s system. 

That’s why he has appealed to Washington for access to a federal Homeland Security database… 

“If we had access to that information we could prevent this in advance and we could find out what the probably bigger number is of people who are on the voter rolls or who have voted and shouldn’t be.”

We applaud Secretary Husted for taking the problem of non-citizen registration and voting seriously and endeavoring to keep Ohio's voter registration records clean.  And we look forward to the Trump administration cooperating with states' efforts to ensure the integrity of their elections, instead of fighting them as the federal government has for the past eight years.

6th Circuit Allows Law Upholding Integrity of Elections in Ohio to Remain in Effect

Today, the 6th Circuit reversed a district court decision that had struck down Ohio's reduction in its early voting period from 35 days to 29 days, still a very long period:

The left-wing groups bringing the challenge claimed that Ohio was violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and violating the Constitution when it reduced its early voting period from 35 to 29 days. The change was part of Ohio’s attempt to reduce the chaos that had led to voter fraud in the 2008 election. At least two people had pled guilty to voting in Ohio illegally because they resided elsewhere.

The Sixth Circuit rejected the attack as a far-reaching application of the Voting Rights Act that would result in judges “micromanaging” state election rules, in the name of unfounded claims of discrimination. 

The court wisely recognized that the challengers and the district court had created a rule that was remarkable and unrealistic (emphasis added):

Ohio is a national leader when it comes to early voting opportunities. The state election regulation at issue allows early in-person voting for 29 days before Election Day. This is really quite generous. The law is facially neutral; it offers early voting to everyone. The Constitution does not require any opportunities for early voting and as many as thirteen states offer just one day for voting: Election Day. Moreover, the subject regulation is the product of a bipartisan recommendation, as amended pursuant to a subsequent litigation settlement. It is the product of collaborative processes, not unilateral overreaching by the political party that happened to be in power. Yet, plaintiffs complain that allowance of 29 days of early voting does not suffice under federal law. They insist that Ohio’s prior accommodation—35 days of early voting, which also created a six-day “Golden Week” opportunity for same-day registration and voting—established a federal floor that Ohio may add to but never subtract from. This is an astonishing proposition.  

Nearly a third of the states offer no early voting. Adopting plaintiffs’ theory of disenfranchisement would create a “one-way ratchet” that would discourage states from ever increasing early voting opportunities, lest they be prohibited by federal courts from later modifying their election procedures in response to changing circumstances. Further, while the challenged regulation may slightly diminish the convenience of registration and voting, it applies even-handedly to all voters, and, despite the change, Ohio continues to provide generous, reasonable, and accessible voting options to all Ohioans. The issue is not whether some voter somewhere would benefit from six additional days of early voting or from the opportunity to register and vote at the same time. Rather, the issue is whether the challenged law results in a cognizable injury under the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. We conclude that it does not.

We will discuss this important decision more in the coming weeks, but it is refreshing to see a court properly applying constitutional standards and the Voting Rights Act and recognizing the realities that states face in administering and protecting their elections, instead of buying the extra-legal narrative presented by liberal advocacy organizations.

The Modern Day Election Mafia in Ohio

Ohio is no stranger to vote fraud. There have been several issues over the past few years that illustrate a substantial need for election reforms in the crucial swing state. But, despite steps taken by the Ohio legislature and Secretary of State John Husted to ensure a fair election, the left continues to sink millions of dollars into blocking and undoing as much of the common sense legislation as possible. It is not out of fear for citizens but rather fear of losing the White House.

Just last month, Rebecca Hammond was charged with filing thirty-five fictional voter registration applications. An election in Lorain was invalidated because voter fraud made the difference in the outcome. Aliens are voting in Ohio elections. In 2008, Obama campaign volunteers such as Amy Little and Yolanda Hippensteele committed criminal voter fraud when they illegally voted in Ohio even though they lived elsewhere. And who can forget Cincinnati election official Meloweese Richardson who boasted she voted six times for President Obama and was treated as a hero by Ohio Democrats when she was released from jail?

Criminal voter fraud in Ohio helps Democrats win elections, and Democrats know it. That’s why they are pouring millions into overturning election integrity laws in the federal courts. The laws enacted in Ohio were specifically designed to stop election gangsters like Little, Hippensteele and Richardson.

Without winning Ohio, the Left cannot retain power over the executive branch in November. That’s why Democrats are fighting so hard in court to strike these election reforms down. That’s why they’ve brought so many lawsuits, to undo the efforts of Secretary Husted and the Ohio legislature to stop the gangsters.

While both the legislature and the Secretary Husted have been working diligently to ensure a fair and honest election in 2016, the steps they have taken to rectify the problem have been met with lawsuit after lawsuit from those who seek to yet again, steal the election.

Here's how it works. Democrats and their pals in law schools and at legacy news outlets roll an endless loop tape that “voter fraud is a myth.” When Democrats are convicted of voter fraud in a key swing state, it goes right down the memory hole. When government officials pass laws to remedy the problem, Democrats and their deep pocketed allies go to federal court to overturn the laws, claiming they discriminate against minorities.

The institutional Left knows that controlling election process rules is the first step to controlling policy. Conservatives and Republicans usually pay more attention to the policy, and not to the process. Ohio was a rare exception, and some sought to clean up the process. But now federal courts are undoing the cleaning and bringing back the mess just in time for November. 

And, it will likely be a mess. How many more convictions are required to show vote fraud is real? Not only that it is real but it is far more prevalent than most believe. The liberals and Democrats in the state have a plan. It’s the same as last cycle. Maintain the status quo and work behind the scenes to manipulate the election results. In Ohio, we know the issues occur based on those who have been caught. Is there any way to know how many get away with it?

To really turn Ohio into a mess, a third case was filed in April by the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, the Soros-funded DEMOS and the ACLU seeking to stop Ohio Secretary of State Husted from cleaning the voter rolls. Many counties in Ohio had more registered voters than people alive thanks to the shoddy performance of the former Democrat Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. In this new case, the plaintiffs make the preposterous claim that election officials cannot use inactivity when cleaning voting rolls – something federal law obligates them to do.

We recently pointed out the concerns presented by bloated voter rolls in a few blogs regarding the current zombie infestation at the polls in California [Part 1, Part 2]. If the dead returning from the grave to vote is not reason enough to keep state polls current, I doubt anything ever will be. We need integrity in our elections. We must continue to fight for common sense reforms that limit the potential for fraud. Voter ID laws certainly address in-person fraud; however, as Secretary Husted and the Ohio legislature have most certainly figured out given the severity of the issues in their state, many additional reforms are needed to adequately address the issue of election integrity.

Vote Fraud: Parent and Child Edition

The Chronicle Tribune of Ohio has been following an election recently decided by one Provisional Ballot for a Democrat primary in Lorain County.  The case has uncovered a few interesting tidbits of the Voter Fraud mind.  There is this one (emphasis ours):

Bail bondsman Tony Horn admitted on the stand Thursday that he didn’t live at 924 W. Seventh Court, which he listed as his current address when he cast a provisional ballot in the May Democratic primary.

But he said that he used to live there and continued to receive mail at that address, which he believed met the criteria for a current address. . . .

Flores and his attorney, Gerald Phillips, contend that Tony Horn rigged the election in favor of his son. They have argued throughout the trial before Lorain County Common Pleas Judge Mark Betleski that numerous voters cast ballots using addresses where they didn’t live.

Phillips said after the hearing that Horn effectively admitted to breaking the law by signing provisional ballot paperwork claiming he lived where he didn’t.

Tony Horn was a Dad allegedly trying to steal an election for his son.  Keep in mind that Tony’s illegal vote was part of an alleged effort to organize more illegal votes.  

Another illegal vote involving parents and children happened with a  daughter visiting her mother. 

Ashley Marie Robinson told election officials that she lived at 2008 Oakdale Ave. in Lorain when she cast a provisional ballot in the May Democratic primary, but her mother testified Friday that wasn’t the case.

 “She comes and goes, but she hasn’t lived there,” Evelyn Vasquez told Lorain County Common Pleas Judge Mark Betleski.

Regardless of what happens in this case, this shows the potential importance of voter ID.  Voter ID with an address would eliminate the problems of where does a person intend to reside by taking out the guesswork of reading the intentions, honest or dishonest, of the voter.  

Ohio Online Voter Registration Receives Bi-Partisan Support

Ohio voters are still required to register to vote as they have for generations, on paper. The Ohio Senate is finding strong support for Senator Frank LaRose’s bill that would bring Ohio into the modern era of online voter registration.

In a Statement to the Ohio Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee, Donald Palmer, Senior Advisor to the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Democracy Project, highlights the benefits of online voter registration:

• reduces the high potential for voter error and address the risks of fraud that exists with traditional paper-based systems;
• saves jurisdictions a significant amount of money;
• increases the accuracy and currency of the voter rolls, thereby reducing delays and congestion at the polling place; and,
• improves the voter experience because voters get immediate feedback when they are registered or when their information has been updated.

Republican National Lawyer’sAssociation writes in support of the LaRose bill noting such benefits. 

[A]ny system used to undertake online applications must also include certain safeguards to protect the integrity of the electoral system. The system should positively determine the identity of online applicants, provides the transmission of a valid signature, ensures only eligible voters can utilize such a system, use the latest technology to deter any cyber-attack, and leaves the registration determination in the hands of the proper registration official.

The LaRose bill receive broad, bi-partisan support supported by others including the Ohio Association of Election officials, the County Commissioners’ Association of Ohio, the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters of Ohio and Military leaders. According to The Columbus Dispatch, the Senate hopes to vote on the bill by the end of the summer, and move closer to online voter registration. RNLA hopes Ohio passes this bill to give Ohioans the convenience of full, secure, online voter registration.

More Vote Fraud in Ohio, More Voters Disenfranchised

Hamilton County Ohio is finding more people who committed vote fraud. 

Two more people were indicted today on charges of illegal voting, bringing the total of indicted voters in Hamilton County to eight.

One of those indicted today - Ellen Elizabeth Duncan of Avondale - was a poll worker at the Urban League offices on Reading Road. She is accused of voting by absentee ballot and in person at last fall's election.

The other, Timothy Merman of Fairfax, is accused of using a Fairfax business address as his residence when voting in 2012. Prosecutors say Merman actually lived in Kentucky at the time.

Hamilton County has a long history of vote fraud problems.  Take 2008 for example.

In Hamilton County, near Cincinnati, there is overwhelming evidence that fraudulent votes have already been cast during the week when voters could register and cast their ballot on the same day. Attorney Mike O'Neill has been appointed to investigate 41 percent of the 610 ballots that were subpoenaed by Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph Deters. Deters stepped down from the case amid controversy over his Republican Party affiliations.  Assistant County Prosecutor for the Board of Elections Dave Stevens said, "We should be able to resolve some of these fraudulent votes before the election, but my guess is there are over 100 illegal votes in the system already and they will not be taken care of until after the election."

The only difference is now they are doing something about it.  However the problem remains that people who voted legally were disenfranchised as a result of the double voting.  Unlike the fail-safe of provisional ballots which allows voters who were wrongly removed from the voting rolls to still have their vote counted, there is no remedy for the voters who have been disenfranchised as a result of these crimes.  

ICYMI: Non-Citizens Voting in Ohio

Once again we have another story of vote fraud in the key swing state of Ohio that the mainstream media is ignoring: 

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office found 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election -- and has referred the case for possible prosecution.

The alleged crime would be a notable case of voter fraud in a key swing state. By law, only American citizens are allowed the privilege of casting ballots for the nation's leaders.

Of course all this happens only well AFTER the 2012 election. 

Ohio officials say that did not stop some from getting around the system.

Husted also found that 274 non-citizens remain on the voting rolls.

The new cases of non-citizen voting are being referred to local prosecutors.

What will local prosecutors with limited budgets do about non-violent crimes for an election over a year ago?  No doubt like the left some will continue to ignore vote fraud.  The important thing is for Secretaries of States such as Husted to have the resources to clean up the voter rolls before an election.  Everyone should thank Secretary Husted for his efforts.  

Obomination-Justice in Vote Fraud Case in Key Swing State

Here is another story for those on the Left who claim voter fraud does not exist in USA Today that also cites the RNLA vote fraud page. A judge Wednesday sent a Cincinnati woman to prison for five years following her illegal voting conviction. Calling her a common criminal who abused her authority as a poll worker.

Melowese Richardson was a Hamilton County poll worker from 1998 until she was arrested earlier this year and was charged with eight counts of illegal voting.

In May, she accepted a plea deal and was convicted of four counts in exchange for the other four being dismissed.

"This is not a little thing. It's not a minor thing. This is what our country's based on — free elections," Judge Robert Ruehlman of Hamilton County Common Pleas Court told Richardson, chastised her for violating the principle of one person, one vote.

She was convicted of voting twice in the 2012 election and voting three times in 2008, 2011 and 2012 for her sister, who has been in a coma since 2003.

Richardson still defiant told Judge Ruehlman that Amy Searcy, the Hamilton County Board of Elections director criticizing her moments before the sentencing, bothered her. Richardson,said that for years she helped “register” Democrats to vote but now was being “persecuted” despite her decades as a poll worker.

"I think the board has shown me nothing but total disrespect for the 30 years I've served them," she told the judge. "I believe in the system and I've done nothing to harm the system or cause disgrace to President Obama."

Judge Ruehlman responded by critisizing Richardson for suggesting she was being prosecuted because she was an African-American Democrat helping a African-American Democratic presidential candidate.

"It has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with disrespecting you. You did this to yourself," Ruehlman told her. "You're very selfish, self-centered. I really believe President Obama, if he were asked about this today, he would be appalled. He would not want anybody to cheat to get elected."

Assistant Prosecutor Bill Anderson told the judge that anything short of a prison sentence would be an attack on the voting system.

As a poll worker, "her job is actually to protect the integrity and sanctity of the voting system," Anderson said. "(She) is an ideologue who was hell bent on stuffing the ballot box with as many Obama votes as possible."

Tim Burke, chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party, had no sympathy for Richardson either.

“It’s very sad how she doesn’t understand how she abused the trust that was placed in her as a poll worker….She frankly embarrassed the board and, in the process, all of us who trust in the system.”

Melowese Richardson was the third person convicted this year of illegal voting in the Cincinnati area:

• Sister Marguerite Kloos, 55, of Delhi Township, Ohio, voted last fall via absentee ballot for another nun who died before she could cast her vote. Kloos lost her job as a dean at the College of Mount Saint Joseph and was placed on probation. She could have her conviction erased and be eligible to vote again.

• Russell Glassop, 76, of Symmes Township, Ohio, submitted his wife's absentee ballot after she died in 2012. He was placed on probation but could have his conviction erased and be eligible to vote again.

This story is the perfect illustration of how most of the national media chooses to ignore a story about voter fraud and more importantly so does the Obama Administration, especially the Eric Holder led Justice Department. That is this week's Obomination.