Why Are College Students’ Votes Worth More Than Everyone Else’s?

In the Daily Caller today, Executive Director Michael Thielen discussed the complicated issues around registering out-of-state college students to vote in battleground states. The article highlight how this issue raises gray legal and ethical issues, which are often disregarded in favor of political advantages.

[W]hy aren’t we upset when students do the same thing? Would we really accept the fact that adult commuters who work in New York and Boston and leave for their true homes on the weekends can vote in the city if it is in the strategic interest of a political party? Would we accept adults who are periodically working in a state or city voting there even when they have no real intent to live there? The answer is a resounding no. Worse, why aren’t we troubled that a political party uses students as political pawns on a regular basis?

. . . 

Legal definitions about eligibility to vote in a state vary from state to state, but state residence, domicile, inhabitance, or similar requirements usually contain the intent to live there for the foreseeable, or undetermined, future. A person who enters a state with no intent to remain usually does not meet this standard, and many college students have no intention to remain in the place they go to college. But some students do meet the legal standard, and this is why student voting location is so tricky. There is no set rule or answer for students, but the needs of a political party is not an ethical or acceptable way for a student to figure out where he or she should vote.

Americans would not be pleased if a multimillionaire politician, who owns several homes opted to register to vote in one property which happens to be in a battleground state, over his actual residence in another non-battleground state--solely based on a political factor. However, this is exactly what has happened in the past with students (and we blogged about this in 2014):

In 2008, then-Senator Obama’s campaign started a program nicknamed “float the vote”. This program involved telling students to vote where it was most politically advantageous for the Obama campaign and not where the student felt they “resided” or where they met the legal definition of residency or domicile for purposes of voter registration. This program unfortunately encouraged white lies for short-term political gain by encouraging students to state under oath that their college town was their permanent home and they intended to stay and vote. The program also undermined federal law that authorized and encouraged students who were away to vote by absentee ballot in their hometown. 

. . .

Float the vote demeaned voting from a patriotic right and duty to something strategic that included a bit of lying about where students really lived. There used to be safeguards in some states, such as Virginia, whereby students would be asked a series of simple questions when registering to see if they really resided in Virginia. This matters, in part, because there many more elections than just the Presidential election. However, Democratic Virginia Governors Tim Kaine and Terry McAuliffe appointed Democrats to the Virginia Board of Elections that eliminated these questions. McAuliffe also attempted to effectively eliminate voter registration questions on citizenship and felonies by saying those who did not answer would be automatically registered. The reason why they did so was quite simply the perception, backed up by polls, that felons, non-citizens, and students overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

The article closes on this point:

To be clear, liberals’ rhetoric about student voting has nothing to do with defending “poor students” or whether students have a right to vote and everything to do with obtaining more votes in close races. . . The Democratic Party encourages this tactic because polls show students tend to vote Democrat. It should not be contentious or controversial to say that students should have the same right to vote as everyone else, nothing more and nothing less.

Work needs to be done to reign in this behavior. It is unethical to target these students--from non-battleground states attending college in battleground states--just because their vote would have a greater impact while away at school and irrespective of where they intend to be after college. This should be a undebatable, nonpartisan issue, but sadly is not.

GOP Taking Action on Failing Obamacare

As Senate Republicans work to fix the U.S. healthcare system, the Democrats have made fantastical and wild statements about the affects any change will have to people’s access to medical treatment. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today announced that the Senate would not vote on the GOP healthcare bill until after recess, to continue perfecting the policy specifics. We must not forget, however, that the Affordable Care Act has already done considerable damage to our healthcare system.

As pointed to in the RNLA’s annual National Policy Conference on May 5th, the Affordable Care Act is not good for anyone. Dennis Kirk, an RNLA Lifetime member among the audience, asked the panel: “When do you anticipate total failure of Obamacare and can we beat that before it gets there?” Michael Franc, Hoover Institute’s Director of DC Programs, answered Mr. Kirk’s question first:

If the black letter had been adhered to it would have happened already. It’s structurally not sustainable, and the only reason it has been in effect for this long, frankly, is that there has been this serial ignorance, or ignoring the actual language, and finding ways to direct subsidies in that really shouldn’t go there under the way the law is written.

Congressman Keith Rothfus (PA-12), also on the panel, related that Obamacare is already failing:

In many areas it’s already felt. We learned this week 94 out of 99 counties in Iowa will not have a single insurer on their exchange to choose from.

Needless to say, the GOP is taking the initiative to reform another failing government program, while the Democrats have marching orders for obstructionism.

On a side note: Ilya Shapiro, who was the third member of the RNLA panel, is celebrating his birthday today. Happy Birthday, Ilya!

Does the Real Election Interference Involve the Democrats?

In May, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen recounted the Obama administration’s long held propensities for election tampering, the latest effort being the DHS’s bid under former Secretary Jeh Johnson to infiltrate numerous state election voter databases during the 2016 election cycle.

Johnson testified last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, that, even though he did not believe that “votes were altered or suppressed in some way,” his organization did not report on potential Russian hacking for the sake of non-partisanship.

David Warrington, RNLA Vice President for Election Education, highlights the Democratic Party’s herculean attempt during this hearing to scapegoat anyone else for its own illegal forays into elections:

Leaving aside for a minute that Russia ‘hacking’ the 2016 election is a wildly inaccurate portrayal of Russia's digital meddling — which to date are only allegations, nothing proven — there's likely another reason Johnson wasn't quick to cry foul: some of the known, legitimate attempts to hack into state election databases were perpetrated by Johnson's own organization, the Obama-led DHS.

DHS is not alone.  As we detailed Friday, even Democrats are raising questions of interference with the election regarding Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch. What does all this mean?  As Warrington concludes the continued fixation on Russia:

They are little more than an attempt to protect the previous administration from being exposed as election meddlers, albeit unsuccessful ones. But Hillary Clinton's leaked emails, which showed the Democratic National Committee colluding with her campaign to ensure she won the nomination over Bernie Sanders, have already proven that meddling in democratic processes is a strategy the left employs to win. 

Partisan politics in the end is driving this Russia hacking myth. And as Michael Thielen put it, “the reality is that there’s more evidence linking a US federal agency under Obama to state election hacking than there is linking Russia to the presidential election.”

Establishment Democrats Have Different First Amendment with More Speech Rights

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today about how establishment Democrats have different standards for free speech for Democrats and liberals and for others (including Democrats who stray from the party line):

Representative Val Demings may be the first Democrat to admit to how the left views the First Amendment. The Florida Congresswoman replied to a critical comment by saying, “My First Amendment Right is different from yours.” Any honest political observer has to admit that this is a salvo in the war the left and Democrats are currently waging on free speech. They try their best to silence any speech that does not fit their dogma, and Demings, intentionally or not, just revealed the game plan. 

Whether it comes in the form of campuses silencing speakers who “offend” their student snowflakes or via government officials regulating elections, efforts to stop or limit opposing viewpoints should be deeply troubling to all.  Most troubling are the movements being led by Democrat lawyers and liberal law professors, the very people who traditionally have been defenders of the First Amendment. . . . The left continues to double down and stop opposing speech even among its own members.  Consider the liberal outcry against the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.  Yes, Democrats oppose integrity in the electoral system, apparently. 

Marc Elias, Hillary’s lawyer and now the lawyer of choice in Democrat fights against free speech, leveled a warning to any Democrat who serves on a commission to study vote fraud and how to make elections better. He said: “No Democrat should serve on Trump’s new voter suppression commission. Period.” Similarly, Bob Bauer, President Obama’s lawyer and Elias’ current colleague, said: “[E]lection administration experts should keep their distance” from the commission. Professor Rick Hasen, promoter of liberal talking points, wrote on his Election Law Blog “Not sure what Democrat or election professional would be on a commission” with Secretary of State Kris Kobach or former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.  Hasen’s probably correct: it’s safe to assume few Democrats are courageous enough to cross Elias. . . . 

One wonders if the establishment left fears free speech in our electoral process so much because in a free debate, they will lose. And let’s not forget that Democrats, including Elias, are privately very concerned about ineligible voters, but only when their favored candidates’ victories are at stake. . . . Of course, that sort of intellectual discussion and competition is what establishment Democrats fear most.  Dissent is not allowed among today’s establishment Democrats, which may be why they rigged the primary to defeat Sanders and continue to fight every effort to protect the right to speak freely regardless of political party or ideology.

Liberal lawyers like Floyd Abrams and Alan Dershowitz have historically been some of the staunchest defenders of free speech, but there's a disturbing trend among Democrats and liberals to suppress free discussion and expression under the banners of (ironically) "democracy" and "tolerance."  It's even more disturbing that this anti-speech crusade extends to political speech and elections, where free speech rights are--and should be--most protected. You can read the whole article, published today, by clicking here. 

The Far Left Is Running, and Ruining, the Democrat Party

For years, newspapers have written about the “Tea Party” running and ruining the Republican Party.  While those stories were completely overblown, there seems to be some truth to the far left ruining the Democrat Party by demanding nonsensical things against the wishes of the majority of Democrats.

Let’s take as one example: potential obstruction of President Trump’s qualified and popular Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch.  On the far left there are people like Al Sharpton demanding obstruction indefinitely.

 “They can stall as long as they want till their man gets in the White House,” Sharpton continued.

On the other side, you have the number two Democrat in the Senate Dick Durbin stating:

 “The base wants me to reject him out of hand,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the body’s No. 2 Democrat, who will meet with Judge Gorsuch on Tuesday. “I don’t think that serves the country well.”

So individual senators are stuck between doing what is right for their country and their constituents versus appeasing their far-left base.  A great example is Senator Sheehan of New Hampshire. 

Last week, Shaheen said, "Everybody I've talked to agrees he should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote."

As the ninth Democrat committed to bringing Gorsuch's nomination to a vote, Shaheen would have guaranteed that Democrats would not be able to sustain a filibuster. White House press secretary Sean Spicer welcomed her decision and hopes more Democrats would join her.

So Shaheen flip-flopped. She tweeted to Spicer that she only meant a cloture vote.

. . .

That's just not true. An "up-or-down vote" in the Senate means a vote to confirm the nominee, not a procedural vote to close debate. Shaheen knows better. She just hopes the rest of us don't.

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri did a similar tweet and now she is using a more extreme tactic in an effort to get the base off her back. 

“I’m not talking about the Supreme Court nominee at all, in any way,” Ms. McCaskill said. “I just don’t think it’s a good idea.”

If the Senators ignore their constituencies and cave to the extremists in their party, Republicans have a strong case to end the 60-vote filibuster.  As the Fix’s Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post:

And as I've written, an unprecedented Supreme Court filibuster against a clearly 
qualified and likable nominee would just give Republicans a good excuse to do away more of the filibuster. 

Whether the Democrats have given into liberal extremists or will they listen to their constituents is up in the air but, as Roll Call writes, one thing is for sure:

If Democrats have a cohesive strategy, they’re hiding it.

Senator Nelson Shows His True Feelings after Bowing to Extremist Pressure

The Democrats have become totally beholden to extremist elements in their own party.  Never has that been more clear than on their recent vote on the confirmation of their colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.  All Democrats--except Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia--voted against him.  Yet, many Democrat Senators can be seen applauding Sessions' confirmation as Attorney General. 

Foremost of those applauding is Senator Bill Nelson of Florida.  Nelson is seen with long, apparently heartfelt applause for Senator Sessions, the man he just voted against confirming as Attorney General.  Senator Nelson is a case study of who is currently running the Democrat Party.

When the idea of Sessions as Attorney General was first floated, Senator Nelson stated, as quoted in an article entitled “Bill Nelson speaks highly of Attorney General prospect Jeff Sessions”:

“I can tell you I’ve worked with Jeff Sessions on a number of pieces of legislation … and we always got along. And we worked out, in a bipartisan way, whatever the issues were at the time.

“I think he’s a reasonable person,” Nelson added.

Then came the protests by extremists:

Wednesday morning (1/4) in Tampa, a group of activists spoke with officials in Sen. Bill Nelson‘s district office, calling on him at the very least to call for a delay a vote on Sessions’ confirmation, scheduled for January 10. Outside, a couple of dozen more concerned citizens held signs and spoke to reporters about their opposition to the Alabama Republican.

“We think that over the course of his career, Sen. Sessions used the power of the courts to discriminate against civil rights leaders, allegedly using racially charged language to disparage minorities, expressed support for the KKK and then tried to dismiss it as a joke,” said Toni Van Pelt, the president of the Pinellas County-based Institute for Science and Human Values.  . . .

“We can’t start normalizing this sexist bigotry, this racism, and this is the place where you draw the line, and you fight back and you hope the senator will hear that message and understand that there’s an awful lot of us who have his back if he’s willing to fight as hard he’s needed to,” [Nadine] Smith [head of Equality Florida] said.

As Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office said at the time explained in response:

“The notion that Sen. Sessions — somebody who committee members have known and served beside for 20 years — hasn’t made a good-faith effort to supply the committee with responsive material is preposterous,” said a spokeswoman for Grassley. “It’s been clear from the day Senator Sessions’ nomination was announced that the left-wing advocacy groups aren’t interested in a fair process and just want a fight. We trust the minority committee members will have the courage to give Senator Sessions the fair and respectful process he deserves.” (emphasis added.) 

So, it seems that Senator Nelson ignored his personal history and did not have the courage to stand up to the activists, seemingly agreeing with their argument that Sessions is a sexist bigot. 

Yet there was Senator Nelson cheerfully clapping for over 30 seconds (he is seen above the word "yea" clapping from the 18 second mark until 51 second mark) for Attorney General Sessions.  It looks like Senator Nelson knows that Jeff Sessions will make a fine Attorney General but surrendered his own judgment in response to the attacks from liberal extremists.  This is not worthy of a Senator.   

The Democratic Party's Persistent Voter Suppression

The Democratic Party has recently taken to using cries of voter suppression as an attack against Republican elected officials, candidates, and policies. From limits on early voting to voter ID, Democrats are quick to levy the charge of voter suppression, but a professor from UC-Berkely recently held up a mirror to the country's left-wing and revealed an ugly reality.

From 2001 to 2011, Democrats have been responsible for a massive suppression of voter turnout through their opposition to consolidated election cycles. It is a well-known fact that off-year elections yield the lowest voter turnout. What many not realize is that there are other, more sporadic election cycles in the country as opposed to just odd-year voting in November. In New Jersey, for example, state elections are held in November of odd years while school district elections are held in April and fire district commissioners are elected in February.

Professor Anzia asked a nationally representative sample of Americans if they prefer elections to be held at different times for different office "because it allows voters to focus on a shorter list of candidates and issues" or consolidated elections "because combining the elections boosts voter turnout for local elections." Voters responded with a clear preference for consolidated elections.

So, given this obvious preference, why isn't there a push to move toward these consolidated elections cycles? Well, from 2001 to 2011 there were approximately 200 bills put forward nationwide to cut down on the number of separate elections and ease the burden on voters. Of these bills only 25 became law. Most interestingly, a majority of the bills were sponsored by Republicans and failed because of Democratic opposition at the urging of Democratic-aligned interest groups, including teachers unions and municipal employee organizations.

Why? Because Democrats know that the voters who turnout in off-year elections tend to have a special interest in the issues or candidates on the ballot. These Democratic groups crave low voter-turnout because they know they will be able to get their members to the polls and that their vote will have a disproportionate impact in favor the groups' liberal agenda.

So while the Democrats are happy to champion voter-rights when it serves as a useful, albeit dishonest, attack on Republicans, it seems they are less inclined to do so when it stands in the way of their policy objectives.