On Voting, Schumer Apparently Considers Some Democrats Neo-Nazis

In the Daily Caller this week, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen calls out Senator Schumer and his recent blog post in the Medium which compared the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to the racist riots in Charlottesville earlier this month. In his blog post, Senator Schumer announced his attempt to block and force the disbandment of the commission. Mr. Thielen explored the rationale for this undertaking by the Democrats:

Simply put, current Democrats and their allies on the left have opposed virtually every major bipartisan election administration reform proposed by their fellow Democrats and liberals in this century. They have opposed such reforms even when political leaders such as former Democrat President Carter have backed them. . . . They oppose election administration reforms because a messy election system helps them beat outsiders within their own party such as Bernie Sanders and those outside the party, such as Republicans and Green Party candidates. . .

For years now in the Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia in the swing state of Pennsylvania, there have been issues with Democrat party operatives intimidating voters in Philadelphia... More recently in 2016, Republican poll officials in Philadelphia were turned away and not allowed to vote or do their jobs because of intimidation. . . . Of course, critics will say Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democrat, so why are Republicans complaining? In April of this year in a special election, the Green and Republican Parties joined together to file a federal lawsuit contesting the outcome. Operatives of the Democrat machine in Philadelphia were escorting voters to voting machines, telling voters they could only vote for the Democrat write-in candidate, and not allowing voters to vote for the Green or Republican Party candidates on the ballot. This is the sort of intimidation that should be condemned by all parties, but it is not—because it benefits Democrats. The reason Schumer says this is because he knows such “sloppy lists” benefit Democrats. . .

In July in Florida, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Democrat Brenda Snipes admitted under oath that problems with sloppy lists and last minute voter registration drives have led to “non-citizens and felons [voting] despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections.”... In other words, Democrat efforts to keep messy voter rolls have resulted in vote fraud and eligible voters being disenfranchised in a key Democrat county in Florida—the ultimate swing state during modern Presidential elections. Yet, none of this is reported or mentioned by many on the left who purport to track voter fraud.

Schumer ended his rant by proposing bipartisan “hearings on the status of voting rights in America.” If Schumer were at all sincere and believed this, he would embrace President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, for this is exactly what it is doing. The commission is seeking public comments prior to its second meeting on September 12, 2017, which will be co-chaired by the nation’s longest serving Secretary of State, Democrat Bill Gardner. Gardner is not just co-chairing the meeting but hosting it in his native New Hampshire. Hard to get much more bipartisan, unless Schumer is concerned the second meeting is too Democrat. . . .

The Democrats, guided under Senator Schumer, continue their offense of obstructing Republicans and their efforts to govern. By doing this, they continue to reject the will of the people and their choices in 2016 Election, including any efforts to investigate problems that occurred in past elections. 

Nevertheless, you can help out! The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is seeking public comments ahead of their next meeting on September 12th. You can submit your comment here.

Democrats Ignoring Voter Protections for Fraudulent Votes

In what seems like a daily attack on the Vice Chair of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Kris Kobach, election integrity opponent Jason Kander made an alarming admission of liberal policies (emphasis ours):

Jason Kander, the former Democratic secretary of state in neighboring Missouri, says it's "not at all true" that poll workers in Kansas hand out provisional ballots to voters who would've been turned away in other states. He argues most election officials are aggressive about handing out regular ballots whenever possible.

Actually this is illegal, ignores the law and disenfranchises voters by taking away the safeguard of provisional ballots and allowing fraudulent votes to be counted.  Provisional ballots were the idea of former DNC Chair and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd who sponsored them as part of the Help America Vote Act.  As he proudly described this civil rights protection at a 2007 NAACP forum (emphasis ours):

Q: What would you do to ensure that all Americans are able to cast a free and unfettered vote and that that vote be counted?

A [Senator Dodd]: The right to vote and to have your vote counted is the right upon which all of the rights that we have depends. Nothing is more fundamental than this. I’m very proud to have stood with John Conyers when about four or five people stood with us several years ago to introduce the “Help America Vote Act.” It’s not a perfect piece of legislation, but we were able to pass the first voting improvement legislation in this country since the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. It’s very important that we do what we can here to expand that right and expand that opportunity. We need to go back and do more to make this right. I’m proud that we stood together to make sure that people have provisional ballots, that we have the right to have statewide voter registration and bring courts of civil rights actions against those who would deprive us of those rights.

Kansas has the right approach, which is to give out provisional ballots to those who would be turned away in other states, and all should be concerned by Kander's statement.  A good example of why is another time the story lets the cat of the bag on liberals' plans.  

The story cites the fact that Florida had fewer provisional ballots than Kansas to seemingly condemn Kansas.   Actually, this again exposes problems in Florida; some of which have surfaced in the last few months.  A prime example is in the Democrat Stronghold of Broward County where the Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes, an elected Democrat, admitted under oath:

Snipes acknowledged the processes her office have been using aren’t perfect and that some non-citizens and felons have voted despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections when groups are actively registering new voters.

One of those processes is likely not using provisional ballots correctly.  Sounds like Kobach and Kansas' “more aggressive [approach] than other states at getting [provisional] ballots in the hands of would-be voters” is better than Kander's, which even a former DNC Chair would disagree with.  

Crying Wolf Over an Advisory Commission

Election Integrity opponents and Democrat activists have filed a flurry of lawsuits against the Presidential Election Integrity Commission.  So far those lawsuits have done little but waste time and taxpayer money.  

As the Washington Post reported (emphasis ours): 

[Judge Colleen] Kollar-Kotelly, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, ruled against the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog group that sought to block the commission’s data request because the panel had not conducted a full privacy impact statement as required by a 2002 federal law for new government electronic data collection systems.

She concluded that although the watchdog group had the right to sue under the law for a privacy review, the commission was a presidential advisory panel, not a federal agency subject to the privacy law.

“Neither the Commission or the Director of White House Information Technology — who is currently charged with collecting voter roll information on behalf of the Commission — are ‘agencies’ ” of the federal government subject to the court’s review in this matter, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

“To the extent the factual circumstances change, however — for example, if the . . . powers of the Commission expand beyond those of a purely advisory body — this determination may need to be revisited.”

And that is just it, the Election Integrity Commission is just advisory and making recommendations to improve our elections.  Liberal election Integrity deniers and many establishment Democrats continue to oppose any efforts to take a bipartisan look at improving our election process. 

So the Democrats go to court to sue to stop an Advisory Commission from merely meeting and thus continue to undermine our election process.  And yesterday marked their second failure on the lawsuit front.  Earlier the same Bill Clinton appointed judge stated (emphasis ours):

Kollar-Kotelly's ruling said there was no sign that the commission's procedures were impeding public debate about its actions, particularly a hotly-debated request that states turn over public voter registration data for study by the panel. . . .

"The regulations anticipate that some advisory committee meetings will be made publicly accessible via internet access, and that this is permissible so long as this method is 'reasonably accessible to the public,' and can accommodate 'a reasonable number of interested members of the public," the judge wrote.

"Based on Defendants’ representations, the livestreaming service offered for the July 19 meeting appears likely to satisfy both of these requirements, and indeed will offer more members of the public the opportunity to observe proceedings than had only physical access been permitted."

As EIC Vice Chair Kris Kobach stated:

"We are not surprised by the ruling because the lawsuit itself was a perfect example of partisan special interest groups looking to prevent a bipartisan commission from conducting a public meeting to discuss how best to improve our election system," Kobach said in a statement. "To prevent the meeting would have only served the purpose of preventing the public from learning information that they have every right to know about the integrity of elections in this country."

Which begs the question President Trump asked at the first Election Integrity Commission hearing: "What are they worried about?  There’s something.  There always is."  

Vote Fraud Proven and Still No Convictions

One of the many arguments of the opponents of election integrity measures is that there are very few convictions for vote fraud.  That argument is wrong on so many levels.  Many because vote fraud convictions are hard to obtain.  Take just one county, Palm Beach, in the purple state of Florida:

Detectives with the State Attorney’s Office found clear-cut evidence of voter fraud in last year’s August election, with nearly two dozen people’s signatures forged on requests for absentee ballots.  

But prosecutors are dropping the case.  

Why? They can’t find a suspect.

In an earlier story the Palm Beach Post discussed some of the tactics:

In other cases, residents said candidates watched over their shoulders, telling them who to vote for. Voters said they received mail-in ballots but didn’t know why. One woman said she felt pressured by a persistent candidate who talked his way into her home and dug out her ballot from a stack of discarded mail.

As the Post detailed absentee ballots or mail in ballots are subject to fraud and manipulation:

What could go wrong

No guarantee you can vote secretly — No protection from politicking, either.

Little security — No picture ID to request a ballot by mail, easier for others to vote on your behalf.

It’s out of your hands — Candidates and campaign workers routinely deliver ballots to the elections office.

The Post noted this is the third such vote fraud case in the last two years, but no prosecutions.  Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher, explains how it works:

She suspected they were getting voters’ absentee ballots or forms requesting the ballots by offering money or gift cards or were simply forging voters’ signatures. 

Bucher believed about 2,000 absentee ballots or request forms were possibly fraudulent, and her concerns quickly got the attention of Aronberg and the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, according to the memo.

So to conclude, Democrat election officials believe there is a vote fraud scheme going on in Florida, a police investigation concludes vote fraud occurred (for the third time in 2 years), and no one is being prosecuted.  Vote Fraud convictions are not a relevant standard for the existence of vote fraud.