The Left’s Crusade Against Honest Elections

In this week’s Daily Caller Op-Ed, Michael Thielen, RNLA Executive Director, highlighted how the extreme left and many Democrats are against verifiably honest elections in America. His piece explains how left-wing ideologues have written "articles"--what tantamount to opinion pieces--and passes them off as news articles. The piece goes on to praise, the too often vilified, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and his efforts to ensure more honest elections in Kansas.

Secretary Kobach has been a leader in the effort to clean up voting lists as the head of the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck program, one of two interstate voter registration data sharing programs endorsed by the PCEA [President Obama's Presidential Commission on Election Administration].  Crosscheck “identifies possible duplicate registrations among states, and . . . provides evidence of possible double votes,“ and it is used by such deep blue Democrat states as Massachusetts and New York. . . . 

Clean and accurate voter registration rolls are an important election integrity protection with broad, bipartisan support among the public and election officials, which you would never know by listening to the radical liberals who oppose basic election integrity protections. Secretary Kobach has led an effort by the majority of Secretaries of State across the country to clean up voter rolls and clean voter registration rolls are exactly what terrifies Berman, as he writes that the commission will “make policy recommendations at the federal and state level, which could include support for suppressive policies like . . . voter-rolls purges.”. . .

The left recycles the same talking points, again and again, about how efforts to prohibit non-citizens and illegal aliens from voting is somehow wrong. They are--after all--not American citizens, nor entitled to a vote.

The irony that is lost on [left media, like the NYT's author Ari] Berman is that every illegal alien vote disenfranchises a U.S. citizen voting legally. . . The reality is Berman is attempting the very thing he accuses Kobach of seeking: partisan advantage in voting laws.  The difference is that Kobach seeks to disenfranchise illegal voters, while Berman’s policies allow disenfranchisement of legal voters. . . .  

However, the left perpetuated this point because non-citizens vote Democrat in elections. Reported studies have confirmed this point.

The Democrats are so scared of losing a fallacious talking point to appeal to their liberal base that they don’t even want to allow a study on issues of wide bipartisan support, such a voter registration list accuracy and maintenance, for fear of what other important issues the commission may investigate. . . .The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets are providing a vehicle for the radical liberals now controlling the Democratic Party to disseminate their anti-election integrity message. The sensational rhetoric and fact-free war is unfortunate in what should be a common goal for all Americans: open, fair and honest elections.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity's purpose is to look into systemic problems plaguing the current system. However, preemptively attacking those who a part of the commission is not productive and really is just the left's ongoing saga to attack any effort to improve the system or make an election fair, open, and honest. The fact is the left can do better. The left should do better.

Will McAuliffe’s Fourth Try at Vote Fraud for Virginia Succeed? (Part 1)

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is a former DNC Chair under President Bill Clinton.  As a former DNC Chair, he knows a thing or two about vote fraud and stealing elections for Democrats.  Last Friday, he took the unprecedented step of signing a possibly unconstitutional order (more on that in part II) allowing felons to vote in Virginia, including those convicted of murder, rape, and other violent crimes. 

This is just the latest effort by McAuliffe to win elections by means other than the voters.  To review:

1.  Before he was even elected, McAuliffe’s legal team fought to keep ineligible voters on the rolls in heavily Democrat Fairfax County, Virginia:

Virginia officials counted 7,934 duplicate names on the Fairfax County voter rolls, and the Democratic lawsuit asks that every one of those be allowed to cast a ballot on Nov. 5. We suggest that Mr. McAuliffe court eligible Virginians, and leave be the Virginians who have moved on. Any dead ones, too. They don’t really have much interest now in what goes on in Richmond.

Not only did the courts reject this effort but also, just a few months later, President Obama’s Commission on Election Administration advocated for just this kind of list clean up. 

2.  McAuliffe nominated a Democrat to the Republican slot for the Virginia Board of Elections:

Matthew Gray was nominated by the Governor despite having no experience that we know of in Election Administration.  He is currently working for the Humane Society.

. . .  Gary seemly “earned” his nomination by being a Democrat who once supported John McCain in 2008.  The later allowed the former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe with a straight face to nominate the Democrat primary voter Gray to the REPUBLICAN position on the Virginia Board of Elections.  (Virginia does not have party ID to vote and both parties generally identify their members by primary voting.)

This is just the latest example of the efforts of Democrats and the left to further politicize elections by appointing unqualified hacks to administer elections.

According to a story we will not link in the Washington Post, Gary withdrew his name under pressure from Republicans.   

3.  Of course, this is not even the first time that Governor McAuliffe tried to “restore” felon rights.  In July of 2015 he tried to make felons eligible by omission of answering questions regarding eligibility to vote:

The board is considering allowing people registering to vote to skip several questions on the application, including those asking whether those registering are U.S. citizens or felons whose voting rights have not been restored. . . . Currently, registrars can reject would-be voters if they do not check boxes to indicate their citizenship and felon status.

The proposal was met Tuesday with nearly universal skepticism — from registrars and elections officials with practical concerns, and from politicians and ordinary Virginians with big-picture worries that play into the nation’s fiercest political debates.

Illegal immigration, voter fraud and the restoration of felons’ right to vote — even the usurpation of legislative power by an overbearing executive branch — all loomed large over an hour-long hearing to discuss a seemingly arcane administrative matter.

In other words, this order he signed is just the latest effort by Governor McAuliffe to steal the election for his close friend Hillary Clinton.  We can only hope for the integrity of the election that this effort fails as well.  

SOTU: Obama Says Make Voting Easier, Rest of the Year He Works to Make It Harder

We agree with the President’s words at the State of the Union regarding voting:

We've got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now. 

However, his words are not backed up by his actions.  For example, the President’s own Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) recognized the need for clean voter rolls.  We wholeheartedly agree with this as we wrote in our official response:

RNLA generally agrees with the analysis and recommendations to reform states’ voter registration processes. Enhancing the integrity of the rolls through the use of technology and interstate and intrastate data sharing, and holding states accountable for compliance with federal law will result in significant improvements to our voter rolls that will ensure reliable rosters for Election Day, thereby ensuring a smoother voting process.

Yet instead of working on these proposals, President Obama and leading Democrats such as Hillary Clinton have called for mandatory registration.  Mandatory registration guarantees inaccurate voting rolls which will ensure a more chaotic voting process.  We wish President Obama, Secretary Clinton, liberal groups, and others would work on the areas of bipartisan agreement to move forward to make voting easier, not harder through practices such as mandatory registration (which does not increase turnout).  

If President Obama truly wanted to improve the voting process he would push for other recommendations of the PCEA:

RNLA strongly agrees with the PCEA’s recommendations that states transition from paper to electronic poll books. Electronic poll books speed up the check-in process because election workers can search a field by typing in the voter’s name rather than flipping through hundreds of paper pages. They also result in a more accurate roster of those who have checked in and voted at the polling place. The ability to, in real time, accurately identify those voters checking-in, including those who have already voted, will help to combat fraud and abuse.

Instead of pushing for this sort of modernization, President Obama has wasted Presidential capital on this topic in areas such as mandatory voting, which would force a poll tax on those who chose not to vote.  While we hope the President is sincere in his desire to make voting easier and to “modernize” the process, we would like to see some action in support of these sorts of proposals instead of harmful campaign rhetoric on mandatory voting and registration.  

Part 2: Is Automatic Voter Registration for Potential Fraud Not Turnout?

Over the New Years break, we got in a twitter debate over automatic registration.  As always some on the left argue for automatic registration.  They say this is for increased turnout.  The problem with this is there is no evidence that turnout is increased.  For example, Canada actually saw a downturn in voter turnout when it went to automatic registration. 

However there are some negative things that can happen with automatic registration such as increased costs and vote fraud.  This is because automatic registration guarantees clogged and inaccurate voter rolls.  Accurate voter rolls were a priority to President Obama’s bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) when it stated (emphasis added):

Improving the accuracy of registration rolls, for example, can expand access, reduce administrative costs, prevent fraud and irregularity, and reduce polling place congestion leading to long lines.

Automatic registration has no benefits but many minuses.  One of those minuses is it would make vote fraud easier.  As the PCEA said, accurate voting rolls help prevent fraud.   Adding people who have no interest in elections or intention to vote (in some cases because they don’t intend to stay long in the area or are voting elsewhere) to voting rolls certainly presents the opportunity for fraud.  

Over 20 States Have Counties with More Registered Voters than People Alive

It would be a funny Zombie joke if it was not true and so impactful.   According to Public Interest Legal Foundation:

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has put 141 counties on notice across the United States that they have more registered voters than people alive.  PILF has sent 141 statutory notice letters to county election officials in 21 states.

This is not just an academic exercise.  These zombie voters can have a real effect on elections and these disastrous messed-up voter rolls make vote fraud much easier.  As PILF’s J. Christian Adams commented:

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of PILF.  “Close elections tainted by voter fraud turned control of the United States Senate in 2009.  Too much is at stake in 2016 to allow that to happen again.”0

The vote fraud in 2008, which has been proven in scores of ways including a study published in the left leaning Washington Post, led to the passage of Obamacare. 

Even President Obama’s Commission on Election Administration agrees that the cleaning up of voter rolls is important. 

It is unfortunate that President Obama’s Justice Department does not.  As Public Interest Legal Foundation points out:

Lawyers for PILF have previously brought lawsuits against other counties that failed to clean up voter rolls after receiving a notice letter.  The notice letters also seek access to public information about voter roll maintenance efforts. The United States Justice Department also can bring lawsuits to fix corrupted voter rolls but has failed to do so during the Obama administration.

Until a new President is elected that actually cares about voter disenfranchisement, Zombie voting will not be a joke but a real problem.  

Part 1: Stop Increasing the Burdens on Local Election Officials

On a non-partisan basis, election officials are angry for the increasing burdens that are being placed on them.  Typical was the reaction yesterday from local election officials in Virginia:  

Election officials’ complaint is familiar. “We do more and more with less,” said VRAV [Voter Registrars Association of Virginia] President Lisa Wooten. “I would hate to see a terrible election happen to any of us.”

Nationwide Democrats have not only opposed funding the needs of election officials  but instead have advocated expensive and burdensome ideas such as increasing early voting which does nothing to increase turnout (more on that tomorrow).  As RNLA wrote in its response to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (emphasis added):

If nothing else, the post-mortem of the 2012 General Election revealed the need to focus on the basics of Election Day administration. As the PCEA pointed out repeatedly, the long-lines were typically a result of management problems which can be solved with proper planning and resource allocation and upgrades to our voter registration system. Anything that distracts from the main focus of absentee voting for those who need it, the close of registration books, and the monumental task of preparing for Election Day is simply that, a distraction. Local election officials have finite resources and are already stressed to the breaking point with juggling poll worker training, press inquiries, programming and testing voting equipment, and the other planning that needs to take place on the eve of an election. Being required to administer a robust early voting program is simply going to draw resources and attention away from those preparations.

The time has come to focus on helping election officials and to make their jobs easier.  On a bipartisan basis election officials would agree.  

Super Lawyers discuss Super PACs at RNLA conference

The recently concluded RNLA Election Law conference held in Las Vegas had many highlights. Notable speakers included Georgia governor Nathan Deal and FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman. Presenters discussed a wide range of issues important not only to election lawyers but to Republican lawyers of any practice. Panels included salient topics such as the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, Supreme Court cases, and recounts.  

One distinctive panel featured top-level election lawyers discussing real-world scenarios that arise with modern presidential campaigns. Counsel for candidates, candidate-specific Super PACs, and wealthy donors play a vital role helping clients achieve their goals while navigating the assorted agencies, laws, and regulations that touch upon political activity.

The scenario began with Stefan Passantino, of McKenna Long and Aldridge—and counsel to Newt Gingrich’s 2012 presidential run—playing advisor to the “candidate,” RNLA Board of Governors Chair Randy Evans. 

Charlie Spies, of Clark Hill, and counsel to the Mitt Romney-focused Restore Our Future PAC—the first candidate-specific Super PAC—assumed the role of advisor to the fictional Super PAC: ‘Election Law Lawyers Make Great Presidents PAC.’ 

Robert Kelner, chair of Covington & Burling’s Election and Political Law Practice Group, and representative of many high-net worth individuals, represented the audience, who played the part of wealthy donors. 

Mr. Passantino began by discussing the preliminary stages of a presidential campaign. The candidate’s team must evaluate the credibility of a presidential run. This includes polling, gauging the fealty of activists and donors, and probing the success of any “draft” campaigns. They must also make crucial decisions about budgeting and staffing. 

Mr. Spies explained the importance of making the PAC appear viable to donors. Starting the PAC is not difficult, requiring only a short form submitted to the FEC. The real challenge is ensuring the PAC has credibility with possible funders. This may include hiring people that have had some previous professional relationship with the candidate and pitching donors on the Super PAC’s plans. An important consideration is advising how much contact candidates can have with a Super PAC without crossing into illegal coordination. 

Mr. Kelner discussed the issues involved from the donor’s perspective. A donor’s desired involvement may run the spectrum from simply writing a check to traveling on the campaign. Each level of higher involvement comes with attendant risks counsel must diagnose and explain to the client. 

The discussion turned to various issues that arise as campaigns continue to develop. All three panelists emphasized the level of independence the campaign must maintain in order to avoid contributing in kind. These issues can surface in a number of ways including with staffing decisions, common vendors, and list rentals. 

The panelists also discussed the phenomenon of companion Super PAC and 501(c)(4) organizations. As the panelists noted, 501(c)(4) organizations differ from Super PACs in a variety of legal and structural ways that affect its political activity.

The panelists concluded by teasing out the different regulatory environment in a state race. They discussed not only the different set of rules in state races but also the differences in state agencies versus federal. 

By Paul Jossey

Executive Summary of Justin Riemer's Testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on Data Collection

            Distinguished committee members, thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding data in elections. I am a former Virginia election official and co-author and Editor of a recent report from the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) reviewing  the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s (PCEA) report and providing additional suggestions to improve election administration in the United States.

            To begin, it is important to highlight two issues why the collection and reporting of accurate and comprehensive data is a significant challenge for election officials. First, statewide election databases created as a result of Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requirements suffered from many problems commonly associated with large government IT projects. In the scramble to meet implementation deadlines, building in adequate data-reporting capabilities became a secondary concern to complying with the specific HAVA requirements. In Virginia, it was impossible to reverse-engineer the system after its launch to add better data collection and reporting capabilities. While HAVA’s database requirements mostly addressed voter registration functions, many states designed their databases to run various other election processes. Consequently, these systems house not only voter registration records but also information related to absentee voting, data collected at the polling place, and other functions of the electoral process. While Virginia has made many improvements, significant challenges in extracting data from the system remain.

            A second challenge is that much of the data used to analyze elections is collected on Election Day by poll workers who receive inadequate training, work only a few days out of the year, and are paid very little. Poll workers must complete a significant amount of complex paperwork after a long day and frequently make mistakes or leave out important information that is often impossible to collect later if not captured on election night.

            Another issue for policymakers to consider is how increasing demands for data and records impose significant administrative burdens on election officials. Survey obligations from the Election Assistance Commission, Federal Voting Assistance Program, and other stakeholders are tedious but manageable. However, adding increased FOIA requests, state and local data reporting obligations, litigation, and requests through other record disclosure provisions such as in the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) have turned basic data and records reporting obligations into a significant administrative burden. Combined with an increasingly shorter election off-season because of 45-day absentee ballot mailing deadlines and expanded early voting, these obligations make it more difficult for officials to perform their core job functions and make improvements to their election practices.

            Finally, using data to rank states’ election performance has value to identify both best practices and deficiencies, but there are also concerns. First, is the worry that graders will penalize states for not adopting policies such as expanded early voting, vote-by-mail, and Election Day Registration. The RNLA, many non-partisan election officials, and other stakeholders have significant policy reservations regarding these issues and they should not be included as indicators of performance. Similarly, graders should not penalize states for implementing voter integrity measures such as reasonable voter identification requirements and enhanced voter registration list maintenance programs. 

            Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to appear before this committee.  Justin's full testimony is here.  

A Powerful Tool to Help Election Officials with the Potential to Prevent Fraud

One of the key recommendations RNLA agreed with in the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s report was that election officials adopt the use of electronic poll books to check-in voters at the polling place:

An e-pollbook is an electronic version of the paper pollbook. It is simply a list of eligible voters in the relevant jurisdiction, which traditionally has been organized alphabetically or by address of the voter. The e-pollbooks provide poll workers with the ability to locate a voter’s information quickly and accurately, to confirm a voter’s registration status, and to prescribe the appropriate ballot. The e-pollbook provides greater flexibility to those who are checking in people to vote, compared to the traditional paper list.

In RNLA’s to the PCEA report, we agreed with the PCEA’s recommendation that states should adopt the use of electronic pollbooks for the reasons outlined in the PCEA report. We also see additional value for electronic pollbooks as a potential fraud deterrent by including voters’ photographs in the check-in record:

[O]ne promising idea that some states have considered is enhancing electronic poll books by adding the display of photographs to the registered voter’s record. This would be done through interfacing with state DMV databases so voters’ state identification photos can be displayed along with their name and other identifying information. This system would allow a poll worker to display a voter’s photograph on the poll book along with their other identifying information when checking in the voter, verifying that the voter is the same person in the image provided by DMV. This idea would be particularly helpful to states that do not have a Photo ID requirement. This technology should be piloted by states to gauge its effectiveness in accurately ensuring the identity of voters and providing for a more accurate check-in process.

Interestingly, this idea has been floated by both Democrats and Republicans. Democrat Secretaries of State in Nevada and Minnesota have advocated for this idea, presumably since it would allow election officials to verify the identity of voters by means of photograph without actually requiring the voter him or herself to appear with a photo ID. Legislation was also introduced in Virginia that would have implemented the idea but it did not pass. (See SB1072, Obenshain.)  

States are moving to integrate their various data sources and within the near future obtaining photographs of all individuals in the DMV system for such a system should not be too difficult. Election officials could use these photographs for the 90% plus of voters that have a DMV record. Finding a way to obtain the photographs of those voters without DMV records could be more difficult but it is not impossible. For example, many college students register to vote and do not have Driver’s Licenses but may have photographs on file with their universities for their student IDs. States could work internally to tap into these additional records to obtain photographs for an extremely high percentage of their voters. For those remaining voters, they could photograph them at the polling place to have a photographic record of the voter.

States should work to at least implement this as a pilot program to determine its effectiveness and preventing fraud as well as ensuring the right person gets checked in at the polling place when voting.

Early Voting: Not the Answer to Long Lines

Supporters of expanded early voting seized on the long lines seen in some polling places in the 2012 general election as an opportunity. While supporters of early voting have used multiple policy arguments at different times to favor early voting, including the inaccurate claim that it increases turnout, the long lines proved to be a good opportunity to argue that early voting will help fix that problem. Experience tell us this is not the truth.

The fact is that we know states with high percentages of early voting still had long lines at the polls, some with limited early voting opportunities had very few problems with wait times. As the RNLA’s recent report responding to the PCEA, the President’s election commission, demonstrates, it is management problems, precincts with too many voters assigned to them, registration problems, and other issues that are at the root of long lines. Even with the most liberal and generous amounts of early voting, a majority of voters still choose to vote on Election Day. (It is called Election Day after all.)  Accordingly, election officials need to be able to handle the large volume of voters that will vote on that one day.  

One case study worth mentioning is in Arlington, Virginia, right outside of Washington, DC, with a high number of federal employees who commute to DC or live and work overseas. For obvious reasons these areas have higher than average levels of absentee voting. One Arlington County precinct had over 30% of its votes cast via absentee ballot, yet still had voters waiting in line to vote for over two hours. Similarly, Miami-Dade County had significant early voting opportunities and still had precincts with some of the longest, if not the longest, wait times to vote in the country.

RNLA’s report provide alternatives to relying on early voting, a solution that ignores the systemic problems that caused the lines in the first place. Let’s clean up our voter rolls, speed the check-in process, and better train our local poll workers and we will see that early voting is not necessary to ensure a smooth and pleasant voting experience for Americans.  

President Obama and Democrats Do Not Want to Protect Minorities’ Voting Rights

When a President appoints a commission to fix a problem you would think a President would at least mention the commission or its findings when he discussing the subject.  Yet, in the last two weeks President Obama has given a number of speeches on voting, but has failed to mention his own Presidential Commission on Election Administration headed by his former White House Counsel and Campaign lawyer, Bob Bauer.

Why?

Simple, Democrats led by the President have no interest in fixing elections but rather only have an interest in elections as a political issue. 

Heritage Scholar Hans Von Spakovsky and Peter McGinley point out something interesting:

Last Friday, in a speech at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference, President Obama proudly announced that the Justice Department had taken on more than 100 voting rights cases since 2009. The problem with that claim is that, since 2009, the Justice Department has taken on only 39 voting rights cases ^[2]—and as former Voting Section lawyer Christian Adams points out, only 13 were relate ^[3]d to protecting minority voting rights. And, with respect to some of the cases in which the department has been involved, it lost spectacularly—such as its false claim that South Carolina’s voter ID law was discriminatory.

Perhaps President Obama misspoke when he overstated the number of voting rights cases by more than 60—or perhaps he was misinformed by his Attorney General, Eric Holder. In fact, the ever-criticized Bush administration had a much better enforcement record with much higher case numbers than the Obama administration, as was outlined in a report ^[3] released by the Justice Department’s Inspector General in March 2013.

That’s right even on minority rights President Obama’s Department of Justice has done less than the Justice Department he loved to attack that of his predecessor President George W. Bush.  President Obama and many Democrat have no desire to fix elections; rather they only want to talk, mostly untruthfully, about elections for political gains.  This is why President Obama won’t discuss his own commission on fixing elections or work with Republicans on issues such as list maintenance that have bipartisan support.  This is why President Obama speech on elections was in front of Al Sharpton, a well-known perpetrator of vote fraud, and not to organizations such as those of Secretaries of States that actually work on elections. 

FYI, the RNLA has released a detailed analysis of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s report that is available here.  

How Democrats Work To Restrict Voting and Disenfranchise People in a Purple State

Justin Riemer, the former Deputy Director of Elections in the swing state of Virginia and editor/co-author of RNLA’s recent response to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, does not think about elections in a “partisan” fashion  after his former job helping to run elections in Virginia.  What the left does not understand, Justin is a typical Republican fighting to making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. 

Unfortunately Democrats do not agree and spend their time defending groups like ACORN and its successors while making false cries of “voter suppression.”  The reality is they are the ones who are making it harder to vote.  As Justin points out in an Op-Ed in the Richmond Time’s Dispatch, in Virginia it was Republicans who are trying to improve voting:

While Democrats accuse Republicans of making voting harder, the truth is Virginia Republicans have been leading the charge to improve our elections. It was a Republican, Del. David Ramadan, who led efforts to enact online voter registration and pass legislation to modernize voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles, two [Presidential] commission recommendations. In addition, the majority-Republican State Board of Elections has worked in a bipartisan manner to improve voting for Virginia’s overseas and military citizens and to participate in programs like the Electronic Registration Information Center to reach thousands of unregistered but eligible citizens, two more commission recommendations.

It is ironic that last week President Obama was talking about voting but not his own commission’s recommendations.  How often does a President announce a commission during the State of the Union, yet not talk about its findings in his speeches on the topic?  The fact is Democrats led by the President do NOT want to fix voting, they see the voting process as a political issue to exploit.  Justin also points out a prime example in Virginia.

Readers might remember last year when the Democratic Party of Virginia [DPVA] sued the State Board of Elections to stop the removal of thousands of registrations of individuals who moved out of Virginia and registered to vote in another state. The suit targeted Crosscheck, an interstate data-sharing program DPVA vilified as “purportedly designed to prevent voting fraud but that (has) the effect of suppressing voter turnout among the poor, the elderly and minorities — many of whom are Democratic.” The judge quickly dismissed the suit, writing the DPVA had not “presented any evidence” that Crosscheck would disenfranchise voters.

Fast-forward to January when President Barack Obama’s bipartisan commission organized to make recommendations to improve voting released its report. With a few exceptions, the commission made good suggestions, including a call for states to join interstate data-sharing programs to clean up their voter rolls. The commission specifically endorsed Crosscheck, the same program DPVA attacked as a plot to keep Democrats from voting.

If Democrats really care about “voter suppression” and “restrictions on voters,” they will work with Republicans to fix the process.  However, their actions show little interest in doing more than being hypocrites on programs like Crosscheck. 

For more solutions, read Justin’s entire article here.