ICYMI: Law Being Ignored in Post-Election Cases in Wisconsin

An article a few weeks back by the MacIver Institute gives some alarming numbers on Same Day Registration in Wisconsin.  While the article focuses on potential vote fraud, more alarming may be how local authorities ignore the law. 

Even though 3,871 voters across the state couldn’t be verified, only 954 were referred to the local district attorneys. According to state officials, all of them should have been referred, because that’s the law.

“If the postcard comes back to the municipal clerk as undeliverable, the clerk shall remove the voter from the eligible list and provide the voter’s name to the district attorney’s office,” said state Elections Commission spokesman Reid Magney.. . .

But a staggering 316 municipalities flouted that law, deactivating more registrations than they referred to their DAs, potentially opening the door to thousands of cases of illegal voting.

This is a problem.  Essentially it means if you fraudulent register and vote in Wisconsin and are caught, your name will be removed from the Voter Registration list and nothing else.  Your vote will still count and in Same Day Registration Wisconsin, you can register again the next election to start the process over.

Democrats Change the Election Laws for Partisan Advantage...Again

One of the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans is their views on election laws.  Republicans see elections laws as tool for a level playing field where the voters decide.  Democrats see elections laws as a tool for partisan advantage to set up an unbalanced playing field.  

We see the worst of this in blue states where Republicans have little power.  For example, in 2014 we saw the Democrats pass a special one-off same day registration law in Illinois to try to stop now-Governor Rauner from winning.   

Now in very blue California, they are trying again.  As AP is reporting:

California's political watchdog moved forward Thursday with a controversial change to a campaign finance rule that will help a Democratic state senator facing a recall.

Newman barely won last year in a district, mostly in Orange County, that has traditionally been represented by Republicans. His victory gave Democrats a supermajority, allowing them to raise taxes without GOP votes. The California Republican Party, anti-tax groups and talk radio hosts collected signatures to force a recall, citing Newman's support for a gas tax increase.

Democrats have fought hard to boost Newman's chances of surviving a potential recall. In addition to requesting the change in campaign finance rules, they slipped into the state budget a major change in the process for certifying signatures on recall petitions. The change was put on hold by a state appeals court.

Next time you read of Democrat support of new election laws, check their motivation.  It is likely less to do with voter suppression, dark money, or any other officially stated reasons.  It is most likely about tilting the playing field to their advantage and to take power away from the voters.

New Hampshire Attempts Minimal Election Integrity Protection; Democrats Predictably Overreact

In the midst of the New Hampshire Secretary of State's verification of voters who registered at the polls on Election Day in the fall finding 458 likely fraudulent voters (and probably more), the New Hampshire legislature is attempting to enact minimal common sense verification procedures for those who register to vote close to the election:

Earlier this year, the state Senate passed Senate Bill 3, an innocuous measure aimed at ensuring that a new voter has taken the steps necessary to make New Hampshire “the one place, more than any other, from which he or she engages in the domestic, social, and civil activities of participating in democratic self-government.” . . . To accomplish this, SB 3 tightens the state’s voter eligibility requirements. Under the proposal, someone registering to vote within 30 days of an election must “identify and provide evidence of a verifiable action” taken to maintain a domicile in the state. 

Just what are those “verifiable actions?” The bill establishes a wide-ranging list, including renting or purchasing a home in the state, obtaining a driver’s license, enrolling a child in a public school, attending a college or university, or obtaining a state-issued hunting or fishing license. Residence at a homeless shelter would also be sufficient.
Eager to ensure that the new law would in no way hinder the lawful casting of ballots, lawmakers make clear in the legislation that nearly any document – ranging from a lease, deed or utility bill, to a government form verifying the voter’s claimed address – would be accepted as documentation. . . .

SB 3 goes further still, allowing (as under current law) for same-day voter registration even if applicants do not have the required proof on hand. Applicants must sign an acknowledgment asserting their residency under penalty of voter fraud, and agree to provide the required proof to city officials within 10 days. That deadline is extended to 30 days in towns where clerks’ offices are open only part time. 

So, who will be removed from New Hampshire’s voter rolls? Only those who cannot, or will not, provide even a shred of evidence to support their claim of residency.

New Hampshire Democrats are saying those who support SB 3 are trying to suppress voters, attack "the legitimacy of our elections," and impose a literacy test, completely (and unfortunately predictably) resisting any effort to protect the integrity of elections and election results.  The Democrats' overreaction is particularly ridiculous in this case, as enacting this law would only bring New Hampshire in conformity with nearly every other state, which require some proof of residency in the state prior to registering to vote.

Federal Court Upholds NC Reforms to Ensure Election Integrity

As we discussed previously, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina upheld North Carolina's voter ID law in a long opinion that thoroughly considered all of the evidence.  The decision also upheld a number of procedural election changes that North Carolina made to ensure the integrity of its elections.

The court found that each procedural reform was made for a proper purpose and that turnout increased after the reforms were implemented, contrary to the challengers' position that the reforms were an attempt to suppress voters:

The reforms in question included . . . reducing the number of early voting days from 17 to 10 but extending voting hours; eliminating same-day registration and preregistration by 16- and 17-year-olds; and requiring voters to vote in their assigned precincts. . . . 

The claims made by DOJ and the Obama administration’s political allies boiled down to this: all of the reforms were discriminatory, either intentionally or in effect, and would suppress the votes of African-Americans, Hispanics and the young. The judge refused to issue an injunction when the lawsuits were first filed, which left most of the changes in effect for the 2014 election. . . . This wound up severely damaging the plaintiffs’ case, because turnout increased in both the primary and general elections of 2014 — the exact opposite of what the plaintiffs and their experts claimed would happen. . . . As the judge pointed out: “The evidence shows that African Americans have fared better in terms of registration and turnout rates in 2014, after the new law was implemented, than in 2010, when the old provisions were in place.” . . . 

The court also made another important point. The judge said that “the fact that voting can almost always be made easier does not render a State’s failure to do so, or a State’s repeal of a convenience or ‘failsafe,’ unlawful or unconstitutional per se.” With “every relaxation of the rules there is often an attendant trade-off or effect on verification and election integrity. The State demonstrated as much here.”  

The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, opposed North Carolina’s election system as changed by the 2013 reform law because “they preferred one that they say was even more convenient” than the very liberal system the state already has. Different degrees of “convenience” do not constitute a violation of the law or the Constitution. And the plaintiffs’ claims that North Carolina’s action was the result of “vestiges of historical official discrimination is rebutted by the facts.”

The court's opinion was also a victory for federalism and the ability of states to manage their elections, as provided by the Constitution:

The challengers failed on every front. According to the Court, the challengers inferred racial intent where there was no evidence of such. In fact, North Carolina acted rationally and responsibly in enacting the election changes. Specifically, the legislature relied upon extensive evidence . . . . 

It is important to realize that the court preserved the balance between state and federal power. States have the power under the Constitution to run their own elections. Some powerful interests want that to change. But the Founders intended that such policy decisions be left up to the branch of government closest to the people.

The Founders wisely gave states the power to manage their elections, as the states are more responsive to the needs and desires of their people than the federal government.  States devote a tremendous amount of resources to election administration and make hard decisions about how to ensure the integrity of elections while providing eligible voters the opportunity to vote.  This decision is an important step in protecting states from constant litigation and charges of racism from the left when they make prudent decisions about election administration.

The decision has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which has granted expedited review of the case.

Revisiting Drive-by Voter Fraud in New Hampshire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A prime example why Vote Fraud is so Hard to Prosecute

James Allan Jenkins with ten others concocted a scheme to fraudulently win an election in Texas to close down a road utility district (RUD).  His own testimony was:

Jenkins and other members of the RUD group claim a residence for “voting purposes only” can be separate from their residence. However, jury members didn’t see it that way.

A residence for voting that is separate from a residence for living?  Can you imagine what Ohio would look like in 2016 if that was the standard?  Every hotel room would be filled with a Democrat or Republican operative.  Campaigns would not be turning out the vote but turning out the operatives.  Of course, this is what Democrats have been doing for years in Same Day Registration states be it Joe Biden’s niece, or a massive organized effort in Wisconsin with temporary campaign workers voting in states that are not the locations of their residences. 

This case is from 2010 and it is still not over.  An appellate court reversed the jury verdict and Texas’ highest criminal court is now reviewing it. 

So five years later and there is still not a final verdict in a case where the defendant admitted vote fraud!

Biden’s Niece Likely Committed Vote Fraud

One of the reasons that the political operatives on the left fight so hard for vote fraud is so they can vote . . . illegally where they don’t live or have an intent to reside.  Don’t take our word for it, listen to the Democrat New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardener who was supporting Republican efforts to stop this practice in New Hampshire. 

Gardner said he likes the new proposal, particularly a House amendment that makes it clear that "working on political campaigns is not sufficient evidence" to make someone eligible to vote in New Hampshire.

He said it doesn't take much to swing state-level races.

"We had three ties in the last election cycle, one in the primary and two in the general election," he said. "And we had six other recounts that were in the single digits."

Not just small races are involved in this effort nor is this new.  Well-funded campaigns such as those for President can import thousands of volunteers to temporarily live, lie about their intent to reside, and then vote.  This practice has been going on for years and is one of the reasons the left fights so hard against voter ID. 

For example, the Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investigations Unit "Report of the Investigation into the November 2, 2004 General Election in the City of Milwaukee" uncovered a number of employees of a liberal environmental group and of the Democrat nominee for President voting in Milwaukee with no intent to reside there. 

The investigators found, through media and Internet sources, that the two organizations, in their own words, placed thousands of staffers and volunteers in Wisconsin during the course of this election cycle….[T]he persons described in this section represent multiple levels of both of the organizations; from upper management to the street level canvassers. …There does remain a strong possibility that the discovery of these random staffers voting illegally is the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’ as it relates to an illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the state of Wisconsin.” 

What makes the current situation even more newsworthy is the most recent example, which involves the niece of a potential Presidential candidate:

Election Day is always big in New Hampshire, and in the months leading up the general election last year, Alana Biden the vice president’s niece, worked on the campaign of President Barack Obama in the Granite State.

Biden voted on Election Day by swearing in an affidavit that her domicile was 145 Steinmetz Drive in Manchester. After the election, she left the state and moved to New York, according to her LinkedIn profile.

State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-District 21, has eight people registered to vote under her single-family address in Portsmouth. Several of them came to New Hampshire to work on campaigns for various periods of time and voted in elections before moving on.

Does anyone really believe that Ms. Biden was intending to permanently reside with 8 other campaign workers in a State Senator’s house in New Hampshire?  More importantly just think of how easy it would be for an unscrupulous and well-funded Presidential campaign to import thousands of “workers” into New Hampshire to “live” and vote only to return right after the election. 

New Hampshire is right to fight for a change in the law to stop this.  The Wisconsin Police had an even better way back in 2004 report when they advocated, Photo Voter ID with address. 

As an alternative, if On-Site registration is to continue in its present form, then the presentation of a government issued identification card that includes the voter’s name, address (including city) and date of birth should be presented before that person is allowed to register and vote.  The inclusion of identification alternatives such as a credit card bill, library card, lease, etc., where no photo is provided, does not ensure that the person presenting these types of documents is in fact the person they are asserting to be.   

Ms. Biden won’t be prosecuted.  And if the Democrat Governor has her way, Ms. Biden may get a chance to vote for her uncle in New Hampshire or New York or for that matter anywhere his campaign or allied group will pay her to work that has same day registration laws.  

Another Democrat Exposes Same Day Registration Fraud

In less than two years the most important primary in the nation will take place in New Hampshire.  The long time Democrat Secretary of State Bill Gardner is concerned that Same Day registration can lead to vote fraud.  From a recent TV interview:

[TV Personality]:  ALL THAT'S NEEDED TO CAST A BALLOT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE RIGHT NOW IS A SIGNATURE. SWEARING YOU ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE. THE SECRETARY OF STATE BELIEVES THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.

[Secretary of State Bill Gardner]: WE'VE HAD TWO ELECTIONS NOW, WITH ACTION TAKEN BY THE LEGISLATURE OVERTURNED BY THE COURTS.

[TV Personality:]ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE'S CURRENT LAW MAKES IT VULNERABLE FOR VOTER FRAUD?

[Secretary of State Bill Gardner]: WELL, I THINK THE VOTER REGISTRATION FORM THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT 

VOTER FRAUD.

[TV Personality:] SO YES?

[Secretary of State Bill Gardner]: YES. 

The longtime New Hampshire Secretary of State Gardner knows of the dangers of same day registration.

While Gardner is rightly concerned with the system he is understandably reluctant to talk about it given the political attacks he is likely to face from Democrat vote fraud deniers such as the Brennan Center and Al Sharpton.  The vote fraud deniers’ favorite voting system is the same day registration system that makes vote fraud so easy and that Gardner is so worried about. 

While Gardner is concerned but reluctant to discuss, others in New Hampshire are willing to talk about the problem and explain Gardner’s concerns:

"We have a problem," Carson said. "We have a problem with what Gardner called 'drive-by voting' -- people coming here for the day, voting and then leaving."

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Democrat primary in New Hampshire was won by the campaign that can import the most “drive by voters” from other states?  We salute the courage of Secretary Gardner for standing up to the vote fraud deniers.   

The Same Day Registration Lie

The lie is out.  Same Day Voter Registration is hopelessly corrupt and presents massive opportunities for fraud.  If there was ever any doubt it is erased by what is happening in the bluest of the blue states, Illinois.  Illinois’ Democrat Governor is very unpopular and losing a tight race with a Republican according to the polls.  Illinois Democrats knew this was going to be a tough election, so they planned in advance. 

So what do Democrats do?  They created a way to cheat.  They passed “Same Day” registration to attempt to fraudulently make the difference in  a close race.  Now, some liberals may argue that Same Day Registration is the best system for voting.  Fine.  The facts disagree but what is more interesting is Illinois’ Democrats disagree.  They oppose Same Day Registration in all other elections EXCEPT this November.  That’s right; the Same Day Registration law Illinois passed did not apply to the primaries this year or any future Illinois elections!

Illinois Democrats know that Same Day Registration is ripe for someone to steal an election.  In November, it is Democrats who could use it to drag their unpopular Governor across the finish line.  But in the future it could be used in a Democrat primary against fellow Democrats.  (A similar reason is why Rhode Island Democrats passed voter ID; there is no threat from Republicans but there is a long history of fraud in the Democrat primaries.) 

This summer we missed this great quote on the topic from Chris Christie which we highlight now:

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie today accused Gov. Pat Quinn and the state’s ruling Democrats of manipulating efforts to enhance their ticket, using techniques such as legalizing same-day registration on Election Day in an effort to boost turnout and blunt a GOP challenge from Bruce Rauner.

Christie, the head of the Republican Governors Association, said that he has been “reading about the race in Illinois every day” and said the manipulations of Democrats here would “make New Jersey blush.”

. . . “Same day registration all of sudden, this year comes to Illinois. Shocking. It’s shocking. I’m sure it was all based on public policy, good public policy to get same day registration here in Illinois just this year when the governor is in the toilet and needs as much help as he can get,” Christie said.

Christie’s sarcasm is obvious.  Unfortunately to many reporting this story, the motives of the Democrats are not.  It’s amazingly coincidental the Democratic-dominated legislature and Governor pushed Same Day Registration as a one-time only offering at the same time they were in endanger of losing the Governor’s mansion.  Same Day registration is hopelessly corrupt and Illinois Democrats know it and are trying to take advantage of it.    

Thank You Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz deserves a lot of credit for his work to root out vote fraud in Iowa.  Some results are shown on his homepage.  Of course critics attack him for even daring to suggest vote fraud is an issue but it is important to put those ludicrous arguments in context. 

1.  Some say that Schultz’s efforts to fight vote fraud are wrong as Iowa has a history as a “clean state.”  Of course our vote fraud page tells otherwise.  In fairness though, that may have been true for the distant past.  However, Iowa made the unfortunate switch to same day registration in 2007, an election system filled with fraud that has led to fraudulent results in nearby states of Wisconsin and Minnesota and more vote fraud in Iowa. 

One of the best ways to stop same day registration fraud is to have a real photo voter ID.  Some say that somehow such efforts by Secretary Schultz on behalf of voter ID are anti-Hispanic. Schultz has a personal record on that matter that caused him to responded as follows:

Schultz said he speaks Spanish fluently and is married to a Latina. He said he's spent time in Latin America, too, where the same kind of laws he's advocating here are already in place.

"Every Latin American country requires an ID to vote. How is that racist?" he asked. "Do you think they'd let us come and vote."

Of course Schultz is right very few countries in the world do not require ID to vote and nowhere else is the argument made that it is anti-minority.  The fact is the election systems of states like Iowa that allow same day Registration and oppose voter ID would not be accepted by any other country in the world.

Thank you to Secretary of State Schultz for your leadership. 

Will Colorado be the New Vote Fraud Capitol of the US?

The Democrat claims of “voter suppression” in the recent Colorado recall elections were so ridiculous that even CNN dismissed them.  However, there is a problem that CNN and others should not dismiss; Colorado’s new voting laws make fraud laughingly easy, as Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute showed:

Caldara made headlines by switching his voter registration from Boulder to Colorado Springs — roughly 100 miles away — so that he could “vote” in the Sept. 10 recall election. He cast a blank ballot. 

But his larger point was to show that a new Democratic-sponsored election reform law that allowed him to do so was ripe for abuse. It allows people to register as late as Election Day and to affirm that they intend to make the district their permanent home, even if they “moved” to the district that day.

Caldara and others have pointed out that such a promise is impossible to enforce. Shortly before the election, he rented a room in a friend’s house in Colorado Springs, told elections officials that he planned to make it his permanent home and was allowed to cast a ballot.

“Not only did I intend to move to Colorado Springs, I did move to Colorado Springs,” he’s quoted as saying in a statement responding to the article.

The Colorado Springs Gazette calls this a publicity stunt but realizes the seriousness of the problem and calls for Governor Hickenlooper to fix the bill right away in a stinging editorial that should be read by anyone who supports “same day registration”.  The Gazette points out:

That was a high-profile stunt, and authorities could do nothing to stop it because of HB1303. Even prosecution, which seems difficult given the language of the bill, would not have stopped Caldara's vote from counting had he actually completed the ballot. Imagine how many special-interest votes could be cast stealthily if election officials can't even stop an act of civil disobedience committed in broad daylight with cameras rolling. Heck, it wasn't even real disobedience. Some lawyers argue the law allowed it. . . .

Traditionally, one had to have roots in a community before voting in it. Not now. The wording below clearly shows that one can show up in a jurisdiction on the day of an election and vote with nothing more than an "intention" of making the place a permanent home.

This gives almost any Coloradan - especially those among us who are willing to lie - an easy opportunity to vote in local elections. Want to pass or kill a local school tax? Bring in voters willing to state an "intention" to move. Want to undo a municipal gun law? Ask impassioned gun-rights activists to show up and state their intentions to move. Supporters of Morse and Giron may never know whether out-of-jurisdiction voting hurt their senators, though no good evidence suggests it did.

Even if county officials can prosecute, they have no good means of detecting such activity. If they did, tracking down suspects and prosecuting them - by disproving their intentions beyond reasonable doubt - is a long way around. Even if successful, prosecutions won't undo the damage.

This is not a hypothetical situation that is limited to Colorado elections or even in-state voters.  It is documented as happening in multiple places in most detail in Wisconsin in the 2004 presidential election by a special task force of the Milwaukee police.  Out of state employees and volunteers for a liberal C4 and Kerry for President all voted in Wisconsin with no intent to reside there.  In their report found 16 staffers had voted this way but they thought there were many more (emphasis mine). 

Where proof could not be provided to Election officials that these staff members could vote in Milwaukee, other staff members who were registered voters vouched for them by corroborating their residency.  More alarmingly, other staff members who were deputy registrars for this election simply registered these individuals as Milwaukee residents, bypassing Election officials altogether.  The actions of the listed campaign and 527 staff members appear to be violations of State of Wisconsin Law as it relates to registering of voters and the casting of ballots in an election.  …There does remain a strong possibility that the discovery of these random staffers voting illegally is the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’ as it relates to an illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the state of Wisconsin.” 

They were never prosecuted.  The kicker is Colorado’s law is even looser than Wisconsin.  So while voter suppression in Colorado is a myth, vote fraud in Colorado has never been easier.   

North Carolina Becomes Latest State to Implement Common Sense Voter ID

Last Thursday, North Carolina lawmakers passed a measure that requires residents to present photo identification to vote, joining the increasingly long list of states that have approved similar common sense voter ID measures. In the past two years, at least 11 states have approved laws requiring voters to show identification at voting booths.

The law will require voters to present a government-issued photo identification at the polls, consolidated the early voting period, eliminated the fraud and problem ridden same-day voter registration, and stopped a bizarre pre-registration program for people under 18.

North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger called the bill:

 “A measure that restores confidence in our election process and ensures voters are who they say they are is a no-brainer — and nearly three-quarters of North Carolinians agree.” And said that “This bill will bring North Carolina in line with the majority of other states that already require voter ID.”

The proposed changes now head to the desk of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory where it will likely be signed into law. Governor McCrory praised the bill in a media conference Friday, saying it will restore faith in elections by requiring voters to present government-issued identification at the polls.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Shelby case cleared the way for North Carolina  to become the first Southern state in the nation to enact voting law changes without fear for having to obtain prior approval from the partisan Eric Holder led Justice Department.  Holder has signaled he will still use the Department of Justice for political purposes .  However, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision, he will have a much harder time accomplishing that purpose on Voter ID laws.   

"We understand there will be lawsuits," said Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger who is a lawyer. He added, "It's our belief the laws we are passing are consistent with Constitutional requirements and they will be upheld."

A poll this year showed that more than 72% of North Carolina residents support requiring voters to show photo ID before being casting their ballot, according to Berger. He described it as a “hugely popular, common-sense” provision.

North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) remarked:

“With over 70 percent of North Carolina residents consistently supporting the implementation of a photo ID measure, this common-sense legislation responds to the majority of citizens who desire a fair and accountable election system.” and  “The passage of this bill is a testament to General Assembly members’ relentless efforts in working to strengthen our election system.”

Tillis’s sentiments were echoed by one of the bill’s primary sponsor’s Harry Warren (R-Rowan):

“This bill is a necessary component to restoring confidence in our election system. By protecting the integrity of the ballot box, we ensure that every North Carolinian’s vote counts,”

Scott Cumbie, Chair of the Forsyth County, North Carolina Republican Party summed it up best:

 “As Republicans, we want to ensure that every American citizen has the freedom to vote and that they only vote once. And anything that ensures the integrity of the voting system is what we desire.”