The "Solution" in Redistricting Is Worse Than the Problem

Charles Lane has good editorial entitled "This solution to gerrymandering is worse than the problem," explaining the dangers of why courts, even the Supreme Court, should not be involved in political redistricting. He likens it to the Supreme Court considering censoring “blue” or pornographic movies in the 1970s. Yes, it is distasteful but the alternative of the court deciding whether every film is “too blue” is not the best or appropriate role for a court.

Lane cites former moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as having the right approach to redistricting:

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the last member of the court with experience as a state legislator, put it in a 1986 opinion, the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws "does not supply judicially manageable standards for resolving purely political gerrymandering claims, and no group right to an equal share of political power was ever intended" by the document's authors.

Lane points out that Justices seem a bit confused on these political redistricting cases now before them:

"It seems like a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form to have deliberate, extreme gerrymandering," Justice Stephen Breyer observed. "But is there a practical remedy that won't get judges involved in every - or dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions?"

Lane also explains the problem is overstated.  The respected left-of-center Cook Report concludes the redistricting problem is overstated:

Why risk fatally politicizing the courts to fight a problem that's not entirely to blame for our political dysfunction anyway? The Cook Political Report's David Wasserman and Ally Flinn found that redistricting explains only 17 percent of the decline in competitive congressional districts over the past 20 years. Partisan gerrymandering "may be just as much a symptom of America's political problems as a cause," writes Harry Enten, an expert on gerrymandering.

Lane’s conclusion is spot on:

Sandra Day O'Connor was right: The Supreme Court should leave partisan politics to the partisan politicians.

Democrats Are Using Courts To Take Redistricting Power Away From Legislatures

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in The Daily Caller about how Democrats are trying - successfully - to seize political control by using the courts to control redistricting:

Democrats and their liberal allies, not satisfied with their results at the ballot box and in the legislatures, have turned to the courts to enact their radical agenda by fiat, without the input of the people as intended in our system of constitutional government.

Courts are increasingly deciding redistricting cases and enacting entirely new maps by judicial fiat:

Commonly called redistricting (when done in a way you like) or gerrymandering (when done in a way you dislike), states have established procedures whereby the state legislature or a special redistricting commission determines the districts for federal congressional and state legislative races after each decennial census. This has an enormous practical impact on elections, as it not only divides voters into constituencies but also decides which candidates may represent which group of voters. 

Redistricting is, at best, a confusing area of law. The guidelines provided in past Supreme Court cases are vague and applied inconsistently by the courts. And the reasons for this are obvious. Unlike traditional “law,” which involves applying static statutes, case law, and regulations to a specific fact pattern, redistricting is an inherently political act. It is difficult for courts to assess the political judgments of a state legislature or commission and provide clear guidelines for adjudicating future political decisions.

The recent, overt seizure of power by the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court to enact a map drawn by its selected expert provides is the starkest example of the Democrats' and their liberal allies' use of the courts to achieve a result they could not obtain through the ballot box or the people's representatives:

And that brings us back to the beginning. We are in a crisis of democracy over political control. Ultimate political power and accountability ultimately resides with the people, who exercise control through their elected representatives. Yet some courts, when presented with the opportunity from liberal activists’ lawsuits to undo and ignore the will of the people, jump at the chance to turn over political power to unelected, unaccountable experts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has three redistricting cases pending before it this term, which could dramatically change the law on redistricting. We hope that the Court provides some clear guidelines in this important area before the post-2020 redistricting so that the Democrats cannot use litigation to seize control of the district lines.

PA GOP Describes Special Election Irregularities in Letter to PA SOS

The Republican Party of Pennsylvania asked acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Robert Torres to investigate several "irregularities" during last Tuesday's special election in the 18th Congressional District.  Democrat Conor Lamb won the race by just 627 votes over Republican Richard Saccone, a small enough margin that even a relatively small number of confused or disenfranchised voters could change the outcome of the race.

An attorney and authorized campaign representative was prevented from observing vote counting in Allegheny County:

First, an authorized campaign attorney, Russell Giancola, presented several forms of permissible credentials but was prevented from observing the computation of the vote count in Allegheny County Tuesday night. . . . While attorney Giancola was finally able to obtain this compliance with the inappropriate preconditions, the delay deprived the campaign of the right to have counsel present during the computation reporting process.

Allegheny and Washington Counties failed to provide the notice to military and overseas voter required by the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act.  Voting machines were not calibrated properly:

Third, we received multiple complaints throughout the 18th Congressional District regarding calibration issues involving the voting machines.  Numerous voters have called the Party and the Saccone campaign to complain that they selected Rick Saccone on the voting screen, only for Conor Lamb to appear on the confirmation screen.  It is our understanding that some of these issues were not resolved during the Special Election.

Poll workers failed to follow provisional ballot procedures:

Fourth, the Party received numerous complaints about voters not appearing on the voter rolls, and being denied the ability to cast a provisional ballot at their polling place.  In at least one instance, a voter was denied a provisional ballot at his precinct and directed to vote at his prior precinct in the neighboring county where he used to reside before moving several months ago.  This violates voters rights under the Help America Vote Act and Commonwealth's implementing statutes and regulations. In addition, given the closeness of this election, denial of the right to vote for even a small number of eligible voters could cast the outcome of this election into doubt.

When the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court instituted a new congressional district map last month, it kept the previous lines for Special Election.  Both U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania declined to overturn that new map today (more about that on this blog tomorrow).  When voters tried to search for their polling place, they were incorrectly shown polling places under the new map:

Finally, as your office was made aware on election day, the Department of State's website www.votespa.com errantly directed voters to polling places matched to their address under the recently imposed Pennsylvania Supreme Court map . . . rather than the congressional district lines in use for the Special Election.  Since election day, we have heard from potential voters in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District who attempted to vote but were informed that they did not live in the district any longer. 

This illustrates some of the ills of court-ordered district maps - they create confusion for voters, generate administrative hassles (and opportunities for errors) for election officials, and disrupt constituencies mid-term.

We hope that the Pennsylvania Department of State takes these allegations seriously and investigates these irregularities so that the integrity of future elections is not called into question.

Recount Likely in PA Special Election Amid Allegations of Irregularities

Yesterday's much-publicized special election in Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district remains close, with the Democrat Conor Lamb leading Republican Rick Saccone by just 627 votes out of over 228,000 cast.  A recount is expected:

A source familiar with the next steps said Republican attorneys are planning to go to court Wednesday to demand the impounding of all ballots and machines that were used Tuesday night in all counties, as they plan for a possible recount.

There are allegations of irregularities with the voting machines and with absentee ballot processing:

Republicans plan to probe allegations that touch screen machines in Allegheny County were not properly calibrated and could have possibly registered votes for Lamb when the voter intended to vote for Saccone. 

These attorneys also plan to allege that GOP attorneys were blocked from observing absentee ballots by Allegheny County election supervisors.

There are also some concerns that the newly court-drawn map for the next election caused confusion. 

Another absentee ballot processing irregularity occurred in Washington County, which originally did not plan to count its 1,195 absentee ballots until today.  It planned to hold them in a secured location overnight before distributing them back out to the election precincts to be counted and reported back to the county election board.  Then, late last night, county officials changed their minds and decided to count them last night because of the close nature of the race.

We will update readers of this blog on the status of the recount, any investigations, and any litigation resulting from this race.

PA Legislators Ask Supreme Court to Stay Usurpation of Redistricting by PA Supreme Court

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Speaker of the House Michael Turzai and Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati filed an emergency application with Justice Samuel Alito to stay the imposition of a new congressional map by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pending resolution of the case by the entire U.S. Supreme Court.  Counsel to the Pennsylvania legislators include RNLA members Jason Torchinsky and Phillip Gordon of Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC and Mark Braden of Baker & Hostetler LLP.  

They described the intentional usurpations of the political process by the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court (internal citations and notes omitted):

This case arises from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s usurpation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s legislative authority to draw its congressional district lines through its preordained invalidation of the lawful districts the General Assembly enacted in 2011 (the “2011 Plan”). At all stages, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set this case on a path whereby only it would draw Pennsylvania’s new congressional districts—a task delegated to the “Legislature”—in violation of the Elections Clause. But as Justice Kennedy stated in League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, “drawing lines for congressional districts is one of the most significant acts a State can perform to ensure citizen participation in republican self-governance. * * * As the Constitution vests redistricting responsibilities foremost in the legislatures of the States and in Congress, a lawful, legislatively enacted plan should be preferable to one drawn by the courts.” . . . The Pennsylvania Supreme Court conspicuously seized the redistricting process and prevented any meaningful ability for the legislature to enact a remedial map to ensure a court drawn map.  

First, on January 22, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order enjoining the 2011 Plan because it failed to comply with purported mandatory requirements found nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution . . . . Second, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided an inadequate remedial opportunity to the General Assembly, thus ensuring a court drawn map. It did not issue an opinion with its initial order and did not provide its sufficient guidance on how a new map could be drawn in compliance with the Pennsylvania Constitution. It nevertheless gave the General Assembly a mere 18 days, until February 9, to enact new legislation before the Court would impose a plan of its own, and even reserved the right to review the enacted map. Indeed, that was the court’s intention all along. It proceeded to hire a political scientist to prepare for a judicial, rather than a legislative, redistricting. . . . 

. . . [T]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s intentional seizure of the redistricting process is now complete. On February 7—just two days before the deadline that the Court imposed to enact a new plan—the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion . . . . The General Assembly’s leadership rushed to prepare a plan to comply with the court’s opinion, but, given the two-day timeframe, it was unable to put a plan to a vote or negotiate a mutually agreeable plan with the Governor. It submitted that plan to the court and the Governor for review on February 9. On February 19, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted its own plan. The parties to the litigation had never before seen the court’s plan and had no opportunity to vet for compliance with the court’s own criteria. 

By promulgating mandatory criteria the General Assembly could not anticipate in 2011, and that are found nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution, withholding guidance as to how to achieve compliance with Pennsylvania law until two days before the court’s imposed deadline to enact a new plan, creating a proportional-representation criterion that is practically impossible to implement, and imposing a remedial plan that had been in the works all along, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ensured that its desired plan to draft the new map would be successful.  

Organizations such as the American Civil Rights Union filed non-partisan maps with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but of course the court was not interested in a map that was not drawn by its hand-picked expert.

Justice Alito requested a response to the application by 3:00 PM Eastern on Monday.  We can expect a decision soon, as he denied the application to stay following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's initial order 10 days after the application was filed.

Latest Voting Problem in Pennsylvania: 100,000 Noncitizens Registered to Vote

RNLA Southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter Leader Linda Kerns continues to uncover problems with elections in Pennsylvania.  Yesterday the Washington Times wrote an article entitled Lawsuit: 100,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Pennsylvania, which stated:

The 100,000 number cited in the lawsuit comes from testimony given by Philadelphia [Election] Commissioner Al Schmidt, who revealed the glitch in the state motor vehicle bureau’s systems that prompted noncitizens to register to vote.

In recent months Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State has resigned; Democrat election officials have been charged with voter intimidation; Philadelphia Congressman and  Democrat Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration (a.k.a. the elections committee) Bob Brady announced he is retiring in light of an election scandal; and now this.  The article also cites examples of noncitizens voting including this one:

Yet another woman voted in 2008 and 2012, had her registration canceled in 2014 because she wasn’t a citizen, then reregistered and voted in 2016, according to documents filed in court. She was registered as a Democrat.

Pennsylvania voters deserve better.  Every non-citizen's vote cancels out the legal vote of a registered citizen voter.

[FYI, Linda Kerns and RNLA’s Southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter will be hosting a reception this Thursday night. Check out details here.]

Pennsylvania Redistricting - Impeach PA Supreme Court Justices for Violating the PA Constitution?

Late last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling that congressional redistricting maps drawn after the 2010 census and in use for the last 3 election cycles (2012, 2014, and 2016) violated the Pennsylvania  Constitution.

Their solution was to have the State Legislature (with a Republican majority in both chambers) draw a new map and have Governor Tom Wolf (Democrat) approve the new map all in the span of three weeks--something that normally takes several months of planning under the best circumstances. Or, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would draw a new map instead.

Needless to say, the Legislature and the Governor did not arrive at an agreement. So, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed a new map for congressional districts that take effect this spring for the 2018 primaries.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's vote came down to a party-line vote, with the Democratic-elected justices voting to overturn the current map (In Pennsylvania, all judges — including Supreme Court justices — are elected by voters and run as either a Democrat or Republican candidates for ten-year terms and then retention.).

Now Pennsylvania elected officials are bringing up the idea of impeaching Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices for a ruling which is a clear attempt to govern from the bench and, worse, not abiding by the Pennsylvania Constitution.  The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article about this prospect today:

[S]tate Rep. Cris Dush of Jefferson County, raised the idea a few weeks ago, the rhetoric has intensified. This week, U.S. Rep Ryan Costello of Chester County said the justices “should be impeached” and U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey said the idea is worth discussing... Constitutional law scholars disagree on whether there may be grounds for impeachment — the first step in removing the elected justices from office. Dush and his supporters say the Democratic justices who voted 5-2 to invalidate the 2011 congressional map passed by the GOP-led legislature violated the U.S. Constitution by trampling over the redistricting rights that by law belong to the general assembly...

As of Thursday, no impeachment bill had been introduced. But in the memo he circulated to fellow lawmakers, Dush contended the high court’s ruling redrawing the congressional map “blatantly and clearly contradicts the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”... “They have absolutely no authority to say that if the governor vetoes, that it does not come back to the legislature. That is specific under the constitution. I am protecting the rule of law,” Dush said when confronted by protesters earlier this month. “This is not about gerrymandering.” Republicans have also broadly argued that the court usurped the authority of the legislative and executive branches...

The Inquirer explains that Pennsylvania elected officials may be about to venture into unchartered territory:

The state constitution does not say very much about impeachment, which is essentially the legislative process of formally accusing an official with wrongdoing. The constitution says, in part: “The Governor and all other civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misbehavior in office.” But the constitution does not define the term misbehavior, leaving state lawmakers to decide what conduct should trigger removal from office...

[According to one state constitution expert:] “If state lawmakers “believe judicial norms were trampled, they get to say if that’s an impeachable offense,” he said. “No one can second-guess them.”  

In the meantime, Pennsylvania Republicans are planning to appeal this new map to the U.S. Supreme Court again as well as turn to a three-judge federal panel as prescribed by federal statute.

We will keep you posted on future developments in the Pennsylvania redistricting controversy as it continues.

Dissecting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Redistricting Order

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down a per curiam order regarding a recent redistricting lawsuit that worked its way up through the Pennsylvania Courts: League of Women Voters of PA v. Pennsylvania.

At issue, the congressional district boundaries drawn after the 2010 census. The ruling fell along roughly partisan lines, with 4 justices ruling its congressional map was unconstitutional with another justice concurring in part (the unconstitutionality) and dissenting in part (the remedy put forth by the majority). Meanwhile, the two remaining justices dissented to the order in its entirety (see below).

The crux of the order declared:

[This] Court finds as a matter of law that the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, on that sole basis, we hereby strike it as unconstitutional. Accordingly, its further use in elections for Pennsylvania seats in the United States House of Representatives, commencing with the upcoming May 15, 2018 primary, is hereby enjoined. . . .

The Court's order continues by detailing how a new map will be redrawn in time for Pennsylvania's 2018 Primary, which is less than four months away. The order allows the Republican-majority Pennsylvania General Assembly to redraw the congressional districts within the Commonwealth, but they must submit their proposal by February 9, 2018, which must be approved by the Democratic Governor Tom Wolf--just 19 days. If the Governor and the Pennsylvania General Assembly fail to come to an agreement--which is possible, if not entirely likely--the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will redraw the congressional districts for Pennsylvania.

The Court ended its order by issuing an exemption for Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District, which is in the midst of a special congressional election, scheduled for March 13th. However, every other district is subject to be redrawn. The Court stated a full opinion is forthcoming.

Chief Justice Saylor offered a salient dissent:

Consistent with my previous vote disfavoring the assumption of extraordinary jurisdiction, I agree with the Commonwealth Court’s original position that it would have been appropriate to stay this matter pending anticipated guidance from the Supreme Court of the United States in Gill v. Whitford [citations omitted]. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stayed a series of recent federal court directives to state legislatures in cases lodging partisan gerrymandering challenges pending its review, most recently, as of last week [Rucho v. Common Cause] [citations omitted]. I hold the view that restraint is appropriate, particularly in light of the timing of the present challenge to a congressional redistricting plan that was enacted in 2011 and the proximity of the impending 2018 election cycle [citations omitted]. . . The crafting of congressional district boundaries is quintessentially a political endeavor assigned to state legislatures by the United States Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. I, §4. . . .

Justice Mundy expanded on Chief Justice Saylor's dissent by stating:

I join Chief Justice Saylor’s dissenting statement in full. I write separately to express my concern with the vagueness of the Court’s order. Despite its pronouncement that the 2011 map clearly, plainly, and palpably violates the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Court fails to identify the specific provision it so violates. This vagueness by the Court is problematic because the parties raise several state constitutional claims, including the Speech Clause, the Free Association Clause, the Elections Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause, each of which has a different mode of analysis [citiations omitted].

The Court’s order fails to give essential guidance to the General Assembly and the Governor, or this Court on how to create a constitutional, non-gerrymandered map. I am also troubled by the order striking down the 2011 Congressional map on the eve of our midterm elections, as well as the remedy proposed by the Court. In my view, the implication that this Court may undertake the task of drawing a congressional map on its own raises a serious federal constitutional concern. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (stating, “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[]”) (emphasis added) [remaining citations omitted].

Both dissents highlight U.S. Consitution issues, which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's per curiam order attempted to carefully avoid. 

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania GOP leaders from the Pennsylvania General Assembly announced that they will seek a stay from the Supreme Court of the United States.  In a joint statement, GOP leaders declared: “It is clear that with this ruling the Court is attempting to bypass the Constitution and the legislative process and legislate themselves, directly from the bench.” GOP leaders hope the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene as they did in North Carolina.

We will keep everyone posted on this story and informed of likely developments over the next couple weeks.

Redistricting Litigation Update

The past few weeks have been very busy for redistricting litigation.  Here is the status of some of the current cases:

• The Supreme Court agreed to hear consolidated Voting Rights Act and racial gerrymandering challenges to the state legislative and congressional districts in Texas (Abbott v. Perez), setting aside questions of jurisdiction until after briefing on the merits.  The court declined to hear a partisan gerrymandering claim from Texas for lack of jurisdiction (Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott).

• A three-judge district court found the re-drawn North Carolina congressional districts to be an impermissible partisan gerrymander and, in a lengthy 191-page opinion, ordered the map re-drawn, again, by January 24 (Common Cause v. Rucho).  This is the first time a court invalidated a congressional map on partisan gerrymandering grounds.  North Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay, and the original three-judge panel has refused to delay its order.

• A three-judge court in Pennsylvania dismissed a partisan gerrymandering claim against Pennsylvania’s congressional districts (Agre v. Wolf). 

• The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heard oral arguments today in a separate challenge to the Pennsylvania map under the state Constitution.  A Commonwealth Court judge who reviewed the evidence in the case found that the congressional district lines were not unconstitutionally gerrymandered, but Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court leans heavily Democratic.

The consolidated Texas cases now join two partisan gerrymandering claims already pending before the Supreme Court this term, Gill v. Whitford out of Wisconsin (argued in October) and Benisek v. Lamone out of Maryland (oral argument date not scheduled yet).  And there are also pending redistricting cases in Georgia, Michigan, and Virginia. 

With all of this pending litigation, the rules governing redistricting are far from settled.  The maps currently being litigated are ones drawn after the 2010 census, over 7 years old at this point.  And in some cases, such as North Carolina’s congressional districts, the map currently being litigated is one that was re-drawn after the last round of post-2010 litigation. 

As we look forward to the 2020 census and the next round of redistricting, Democrats are making redistricting strategy and litigation, as well as winning majorities in state legislatures, a priority, including attracting the focus of Barack Obama and Eric Holder.  Republicans are just beginning to counter the Democrats’ efforts.  But at this rate, legislatures might not even know what the governing rules are when it is time to draw the new maps in 2021, and even if the rules are set by 2021, Democrats have shown how willing they are to change the rules after the fact through litigation. 

Stay tuned to this blog and RNLA’s Twitter feed for updates on these cases.

More Non-Citizens May Be Registered to Vote in Pennsylvania Than Initial Reports Indicated

The latest from the non-citizen voter registration problems in Pennsylvania is that the problem could be much larger than initially thought.  Back in September, Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt reported that 220 non-citizens registered to vote in Philadelphia through a "glitch" at the DMV that allowed persons to register to vote after they had proven that they were non-citizens.  41% had voted at least once.

Then in October, Pennsylvania's Democratic Secretary of State, Pedro Cortes, resigned abruptly and with no explanation.  No official explanation has been given to date, though it was revealed in November that Democratic Governor Tom Wolf forced the resignation, but rumors abound that the resignation was related to the non-citizen registration debacle.

But now it appears after some initial investigation that the problem is greater than the early estimates:

Philadelphia election Commissioner Al Schmidt told state lawmakers this past week that there may be tens of thousands of non-US citizens who have registered to vote in Pennsylvania…and that for their sake, state officials should try to contact them. 

Commissioner Al Schmidt told a Senate committee that many of the non-US citizens who registered to vote in Philadelphia, perhaps unwittingly, did so through a glitch in the state’s motor voter system. While the known cases number only several hundred, he says they are all self-reported. Schmidt says more than 100,000 PA driver’s license numbers with Immigration and Naturalization Service indicators match with voter registration records. . . . "We’re not talking about an insignificant number here,” said Schmidt. “We’re talking about a potentially very significant number of thousands and tens of thousands.”

While not all of these license number hits are non-citizens registered to vote, certainly a significant number are.  As Commissioner Schmidt points out, the victims of non-citizen voter registration and voting are not only the citizens whose votes are cancelled out but the non-citizens themselves, as voter registration as a non-citizen can hinder any future naturalization process:

Schmidt says those people should be contacted. Besides the issue of election integrity, he says registering to vote – even unintentionally – will derail an immigrant’s path to US citizenship.

We will continue to follow this story and investigation.  It demonstrates the immense importance of proper election procedures and testing of election systems to ensure that there are no "glitches," whether technical or substantive, that threaten the integrity of voter registration or elections.

Why Did Pennsylvania's Chief Election Officer Resign? Still Seeking Answers...

Just over seven weeks ago, the Democrat Secretary of the Commonwealth for Pennsylvania, Pedro Cortes, abruptly and shockingly resigned from his post after just over two years. His resignation followed a government finding that non-citizens had registered to vote and many did in fact vote in past elections due to a "glitch" in the commonwealth's motor-voter software.

Since this time, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf and his office have not offered any explanation as to the circumstances of Secretary Cortes's resignation--which has only exacerbated the mystery and intrigue surrounding this story.

Earlier this week, Lowman Henry, the CEO of Pennsylvania's conservative-leaning The Lincoln Institute, authored a column on Secretary Cortes's abrupt resignation and the lack of transparency of the whole situation, which was published in a number of local Pennsylvania newspapers.

Mr. Henry's article explains that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has started an official inquiry to see how non-citizen could register to vote and actually cast ballots in Pennsylvania elections, but quickly has become intertwined with Secretary Cortes's resignation. Mr. Henry writes:

[ ] State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who chairs the State Government Committee, asked the Pennsylvania Department of State — the agency that oversees elections — if there was a procedure in place to cross-check the state’s voter registration rolls with driver licenses issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Foreign nationals can legally obtain a driver’s license, but their status as a non-citizen is so noted in the application process. To date the Department of State has refused to answer the committee’s questions and has not verified whether or not such cross-checking has occurred. Metcalfe further pointed out that there is no procedure in place for verifying U.S. citizenship in the voter registration process. Thus there is no way of actually knowing how many illegal voters are on the rolls. 

Adding to the intrigue was the abrupt and unexpected resignation of Pedro Cortez [sic]. Cortez served as Secretary of the Department of State, a position he held in both the [Gov.] Rendell and Wolf administrations. Cortez’s resignation came days after media reports spotlighting the foreign national problem. In what Metcalfe termed “suspicious timing,” Cortez was gone. Gov. Wolf, who pledged a greater level of government transparency in his administration, has added a few stones to the wall by refusing to disclose exactly why Cortez resigned. Right-to-Know requests filed by media organizations seem to indicate the Cortez resignation was not voluntary. . . It is true cabinet secretaries serve at the pleasure of the governor. But, they must also be confirmed by the state Senate and, especially when dealing with election integrity, have a further obligation to be transparent with the public. . . .

Mr. Henry continues by noting Governor Wolf and Pennsylvania Democrats' track record on election integrity efforts, or lack thereof:

Gov. Wolf has already opposed such election integrity safeguards as requiring voters to produce a photo ID when they arrive at their polling place. Wolf and Democrats in general[ ] claim photo ID is a GOP plot to discourage voter turnout. This though photo IDs are universally available, and needed even to buy cough medicine at the corner drug store.  

So the governor and his administration have a history of failing to take prudent steps to ensure the integrity of the state’s election system. … The State Government Committee lacks subpoena power to force information from the Department of State, but the House should take whatever action is needed to compel testimony. Lawmakers are elected by We the People to represent us and appointed bureaucrats should not be allowed to refuse to answer whatever questions they might have.

Lowman Henry concludes by calling on Pennsylvania Governor Wolf to provide "a full and complete explanation for the departure of Secretary Cortez." And further states that something just seems off with the whole situation and it feels like there is an attempt to hid it from the public.

The RNLA agrees. We believe the full story surrounding Secretary Cortes's ousting should be made public. Also, the public should be made aware of the full extent of these non-citizens voting in the critical swing state of Pennslyvania. We will continue to follow and highlight any developments that arise. 

Rep. Brady Under Investigation for Election Corruption

Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Bob Brady is under investigation for corruption:

The FBI is investigating Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Bob Brady for conspiracy, false statements and campaign fraud in relation to payments his campaign allegedly made to 2012 primary opponent Jimmie Moore in order to persuade him to drop out of the race, court documents reviewed by The Daily Caller show. 

FBI special agent Jonathan R. Szeliga filed a search warrant request on November 1 in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for all emails associated with Brady’s campaign email, BobCongress@Aol.com. 

Szeliga asserted he had “probable cause to believe that Kenneth Smukler, Robert Brady, Donald ‘D.A.’ Jones, Jimmie Moore, and Carolyn Cavaness and others known and unknown have committed violations” including charges of conspiracy, false statements, producing false records, causing false campaign contribution reports and violating limits on campaign contributions and expenditures.

This is the latest in a string of corruption allegations and charges against Democratic members of Congress, but what is striking about the election-related allegations against Rep. Brady is that he is the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, which is the House committee that handles election legislation and issues.  Rep. Brady has been outspoken against concerns about vote fraud and is a leading proponent of mandatory voter registration (a.k.a. automatic voter registration) in Congress.  Also ironic is that Rep. Brady represents the Philadelphia area, which is notorious for election corruption.  RNLA will follow this story as the investigation develops.

Philly Ballot Error: Female GOP Attorney Candidate's Name Misprinted

As voters headed to the polls to cast their ballots in state and local elections around the country today, it was a fairly quiet news day.  That is a good thing for election integrity and election administration; it generally means there were no major mistakes or attempts at fraud.

But there was at least one important mistake.  Christine Fizzano Cannon's name was misprinted on about half of the 4000 voting machines in Philadelphia.  Two different printers were used, each printing half the ballots with a different form of Ms. Fizzano Cannon's name.

Ms. Fizzano Cannon is a Republican female attorney running statewide for the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, an intermediate state appellate court.  Two Republicans and two Democrats were running for the two open seats on the court.

RNLA Pennsylvania Southeastern Chapter Chair Linda Kerns and her team was in court litigating this issue for hours today, but unfortunately this is not the type of error that can be fixed on Election Day.  This shows the importance of election officials' preparation work in checking and re-checking the ballot, voting machines, and other implements of the election to ensure that errors do not confuse the voters or affect any voters' opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.

After Non-Citizen Voter Registration Scandal, PA SOS Resigns Abruptly

In a surprise move, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes resigned late Wednesday.  The reasons for his resignation are mysterious, but many speculate that the registration of non-citizens through the "motor voter" system is to blame:

Cortes’ departure was announced in a 349-word “personnel update” emailed from Gov. Wolf’s office that offered no reason and focused almost entirely on his replacement, interim Secretary of State Robert Torres. . . . J.J. Abbott, a spokesman for Wolf, said he could not offer an explanation for Cortes’ departure. 

As secretary of state, Cortes served as the state’s top election official. His departure comes a week after State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, chairman of the House State Government Committee, and 15 of his colleagues sent Cortes a letter “to express our dire concerns” about the disclosure three weeks ago that legal resident noncitizens in Pennsylvania had been offered the chance to register to vote while applying for or renewing drivers’ licenses at PennDot service centers. . . .

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for non-citizens to be placed on the voter registration rolls through the "motor voter" program, an NVRA requirement that requires the DMV (or similar agency) to offer the opportunity to register to vote.  What is striking in Pennsylvania is that the problem derived from the structure of the DMV process, and large numbers of the registered non-citizens had voted:

The Department of State then said it had records of 1,160 canceled voter registrations listing ineligibility as a reason and said the issue was under review. . . . [Philadelphia City Commissioner Al] Schmidt said his staff traced the problem for 168 of the 220 documented cases to PennDot centers, where they produced immigration documents  to show they were in this country legally and eligible for a driver’s license. 

Later in the process, the applicants were asked to check a box on an electronic kiosk if they also wanted to register to vote. . . . The Department of State last month said it started changing the order of questions on the PennDot kiosks in August 2016 to address the problem.

While it is commendable that Pennsylvania has finally taken steps to resolve what Gov. Wolf's office calls a "glitch," it is remarkable that a system that allowed people to register to vote after they had proven their ineligibility lasted for so many years. 

This may just be the tip of the iceberg.  The cases that have been reported and investigated are from people who requested to be removed from the voter rolls due to ineligibility.  There may be many more non-citizens who were registered through the "motor voter" process who remain on the rolls and are still voting.

And two days later, the mystery surrounding Secretary Cortes' resignation remains, leaving us to wonder what more will come out about non-citizen registration and voting in Pennsylvania in the coming weeks.

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.  

Write-in Democratic Candidate Wins in Philadelphia Special Election?

On March 21st, Philadelphia held a special municipal election to fill one State Legislature seat for the 197th District in North Philadelphia. The only candidate with a name on the ballot was a Republican; meanwhile, the others, including the leading Democratic nominee and the Green Party candidate, were write-in candidates. However, the Democratic candidate—against the odds—won.  But likely due to fraud and unlawful electioneering by the Democrats.

The Philadelphia Daily News reported on March 30th:

Democratic write-in candidate Emilio Vazquez won the election, beating Green Party write-in candidate Cheri Honkala and Republican Lucinda Little, the lone candidate with her name on the ballot… [Little received 198 votes, or 7.4 percent of the 2,681 ballots cast.  Vazquez won 1,970 votes, while Honkala received 282. Only 5 percent of registered voters turned out. Democrats make up 85 percent of those registered in the district.] 

Joseph DeFelice, chairman of the city’s Republican Party, and state GOP chair Val DiGiorgio held a news conference to announce the joint lawsuit. DeFelice said the party is suing not because he thinks Little might have won in the heavily Democratic district, but because the violations were so rampant that those responsible should face fines and, if applicable, criminal charges. The ultimate goal is to have the results invalidated, DiGiorgio said. . . “I’m a Republican in Philadelphia, I’m used to losing,” DeFelice said. “I just want to lose fairly.”

Accusations include illegal voter assistance, specifically poll workers handing out Vazquez stamps. GOP leaders said they have signed affidavits from poll workers as well as photo and video evidence of poll workers entering voting booths. The city GOP Twitter feed includes photos that the party argues show doctored "pink slips," the ballot sample sheets that are posted for voters outside the polls.

Linda Kerns, attorney for the GOP city committee [and RNLA Southeastern Pennsylvania Chair], said the alleged fraud should bother people who live beyond the borders of the 197th... “What happened in this special election in the 197th should have every Democrat in the city from [Democratic Party Chairman] Bob Brady on down hanging their heads in shame,” Kerns said. “This was an election they could have won just by following the rules…. They cheated their way through this entire day with absolute impunity.”

Late last week, Linda Kerns filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the GOP and the Green Party outlining the widespread fraud vote during the March 21st Election. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on April 6th:

Two losing candidates [last] Thursday asked a federal judge to throw out the results of the controversial March 21 special election for the 197th Pennsylvania House District and order a new election, alleging the Democratic Party and its candidate engaged in illegal electioneering. 

The lawsuit from Republican nominee Lucinda Little and Green Party nominee Cheri Honkala was filed one day after Democrat Emilio Vazquez was sworn into office…. The 29-page suit is a litany of complaints about shady tactics in the North Philadelphia district.  The two candidates, along with the city and state Republican Parties and the state Green Party, are suing Vazquez, Philadelphia’s Democratic City Committee, and the Board of City Commissioners and Department of State, which oversaw the election…. Vazquez, in his new office in Harrisburg on Thursday, shrugged off the legal claims. . . .

The suit repeatedly cites allegations that election board workers, “virtually all of whom are registered Democrats,” engaged in or allowed electioneering such as passing out literature in support of Vazquez, allowing his supporters to linger in polling places, and allowing nonvoters to follow voters into polling booths…. “The voters for the special election were told by election board workers and representatives of the Democratic City Committee that they were only allowed to vote for the write-in, [Vazquez], and no other candidate,” the suit claims. “Voters were threatened or intimidated if it was thought they were going to vote for another candidate.” . . . 

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office’s Election Fraud Task Force reported receiving “approximately 50 calls” and responding to “several dozen allegations of illegal activity at polling places.”  It is now investigating, working with the state Attorney General’s Office.

These irregularities are only the latest of consistent problems of fraud and voter suppression by Democrats in Philadelphia elections.

Threats and Intimidation Against Electors

Yesterday, the Electoral College convened and voted to make Donald Trump the next President of the United States.  In most presidential election years, this process barely makes the news.  But this year, amidst celebrity calls for electors to abandon the person for whom they were pledged to vote, electors have been threatened with mountains of harassing emails, voicemails, and letters and even death threats:

The nation’s 538 presidential electors have been thrust into the political foreground like never before in American history. In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails.

Just a few disturbing examples:

• By mid-November, 22-year-old Michigan elector Michael Banerian had already received hundreds of emails: “You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” he said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
• Every elector in Pennsylvania was assigned a plainclothes state police officer for protection: Thousands of emails land in their inboxes every day. Copies of the Federalist Papers and other books urging political courage are being mailed to their homes. They are even getting phone calls in the middle of the night.
• One elector in Arkansas had to file a police report due to "continual threats."

The duties, selection, and voting requirements of electors in each state are established by state law, and the electors who voted for Trump yesterday were fulfilling their legal duties.  To their credit, most Democratic leaders have decried the threats, but the Department of Justice has been strangely silent.  Such threats against electors likely fall under the prohibition against voter intimidation or harassment contained in Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which falls under DOJ's jurisdiction.  Interstate communications that threaten another person are punishable under 18 U.S.C. 875(c).

However, it appears that the FBI and DOJ have done nothing to investigate the threats against presidential electors.  We hope that the Trump Justice Department will investigate these threats, which not only threaten the electors individually but also our constitutional republic and the uniquely American nonviolent transition of power.

Pennsylvania Recount Status

There has been a lot of news and misinformation surrounding Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's efforts for a statewide recount in Pennsylvania.  Here are the facts:

• Trump won the state by 71,294 votes.
• A candidate (who has not loss by less than .5%) requesting a statewide recount in PA (technically, contesting the election) must state legitimate claims of fraud or illegality that would definitely change the outcome, so it is unlikely that the statewide recount effort in PA will be successful.
• A hearing is scheduled next Monday (12/5) in Stein’slawsuit to obtain a court-ordered, statewide recount.  Stein is requesting a statewide hand recount and forensic analyses of electronic machines to determine whether malware was installed (despite no evidence of fraud or hacking).
• Green Party-backed voters are seeking precinct-level recounts.  
• Allegheny County (Pittsburgh area) scheduled a recount on December 5 of 52 precincts.  
• A judge denied requests to recount votes in 78 counties in Montgomery County (Philadelphia suburbs).  
• A recount yesterday in six Lehigh County precincts added 3 additional votes for Hillary Clinton.
• The deadline to request a recount has passed in many counties.

While it is unlikely that Stein will be successful in obtaining a statewide recount, some precincts in Pennsylvania will be recounting votes cast in those precincts.  The news regarding the recount efforts is changing rapidly; stay tuned for more information.

Election Issues and Fraud in Pennsylvania

In what has become a perennial problem, voters in Pennsylvania, primarily in Philadelphia experienced a number of election administration problems, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and machine problems during voting today:

Efforts to exclude Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia:

Joseph Defelice, Pennsylvania GOP chairman, says Democrats on the polling boards across Philadelphia are banning Republican poll watchers and minority inspectors from entering the poll sites.

Democrats in the polling places in Philadelphia "assisted" voters by helping them vote all-Democrat tickets and handing out Democratic literature in the polling place.

Mis-calibrated voting machines in Butler County:

Election judges in Clinton Township, Butler County confirmed there were issues with two of their eight automated voting machines. Most of the issues came when people tried to vote straight party ticket. 

However, other said they specifically wanted to vote for Republican Donald Trump only to see their vote switched before their eyes to Democrat Hillary Clinton. 

“I went back, pressed Trump again. Three times I did this, so then I called one of the women that were working the polls over. And she said you must be doing it wrong. She did it three times and it defaulted to Hillary every time,” Bobbie Lee Hawranko said.

The District Attorney in Luzerne County is asking the FBI to investigate machines changing votes from Trump to Clinton:

Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis has asked the FBI to look into complaints that electronic voting machines from across the county have been “flipping” votes before they were recorded.  

Complaints began coming in Tuesday morning that ballots cast for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump were being incorrectly shown as votes for Democrat Hillary Clinton. 

This post will be updated as more reports of irregularities come in from Pennsylvania.

First update, US News reporting more illegal voter assistance for Hillary, possibly changing the votes of Russian speaking Jews in North Philly:

A Russian-language interpreter in North Philadelphia’s Ephraim Goldstein Arbor House, a polling place predominantly used by Jewish Russian-speaking retirees, was accused of directing senior citizens to vote for Hillary Clinton, a Republican poll watcher and a Republican lawyer told law-enforcement officials today. The interpreter spoke in Russian to elderly voters, the Republican lawyer, said. Both the poll watcher and the lawyer are Russian speakers.  

 “The Russian community in Philadelphia are largely highly educated people who immigrated here over 20 years ago,” Marks said, “and they all can read the word Hillary Clinton.”