Rep. Brady Under Investigation for Election Corruption

Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Bob Brady is under investigation for corruption:

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

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

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

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

Brennan Center Spreads Fake News; Noncitizens Are Actually Voting

The Brennan Center for Justice (BCJ) has recently been fond of tweeting over and over:

BCJ report found total of 30 cases of possible noncitizen voting—that’s 30, not 300, 3,000, 30,000, 300,000, or 3M

Turns out their numbers are an absurdly low estimate . . .  even in just one city.  Today, Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt released the following statement:

My office has identified 220 non-U.S. citizens who were registered to vote in Philadelphia at some point between 2006 and 2017. Of the 220 non-U.S. citizen registrants, 90 (41%) voted in at least one election. Of those who voted, 44 (49%) voted on one occasion, while 46 (51%) voted in two to twelve elections in the period in which they were registered. The total number of votes cast by non-U.S. citizens we identified is 227, with the largest number of votes (47) cast in the 2008 General Election. All 220 non-U.S. citizens provided documentation (e.g., signed affidavit or letter from the registrant or their immigration attorney) canceling their voter registration status on the grounds that they were not U.S. citizens and, therefore, were not eligible to register to vote.

Commissioner Schmidt traces the illegal votes to problems with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).  Despite having a citizenship verification procedure, PennDOT still managed to register these non-citizens (emphasis added):

The overwhelming majority (76%) of non-U.S. citizens who registered to vote either initially registered to vote through PennDOT or modified their voter registration record through PennDOT. When non-U.S. citizens apply for a driver’s license, they are required to provide stay documents to show their legal status to remain in the U.S. for at least one year.  PennDOT verifies these immigration documents electronically with the Department of Homeland Security and the applicant’s driver’s license record is marked using an INS Indicator. Nevertheless, following this interaction, non-U.S. citizen applicants – just the same as U.S. citizen applicants – are asked if they would like to register to vote using touch screen technology when driver’s licenses are issued to applicants at PennDOT offices. In addition to the possible challenge of limited English proficiency, it is also possible that – after just providing proof of their status as non-U.S. citizens – applicants believe they are eligible to vote.

“The current voter registration process at PennDOT is both harmful to election integrity and to members of the immigrant community seeking citizenship,” Schmidt said.

The last statement is important as it shows the problems with voter registration systems run through DMV.  The DMV was asking them to register to vote AFTER they had established they were not a citizen.  While the left is pushing for a much broader role for the DMV with systems such as "mandatory (or automatic) voter registration" that also serve to disenfranchise primary voters, these systems may be endangering non-citizens' immigration status.  After all, why would you ask this question after you know I am not a citizen.  

Liberal groups like the Brennan Center should stop denying that non-citizens vote and join with others that are working on fixing these problems both for election integrity and the benefit of legal immigrants seeking to become citizens.  

Concerns with Klobuchar-Graham Election Security Amendment

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have co-sponsored an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act providing for federal funding for state election security measures.  While the security community has embraced this amendment, and we thank Sen. Graham for taking the problem of election security seriously in a way that attempts to respect state power, we have some concerns about this measure:

• It is a serious amendment of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that should be approached carefully, and the process should include hearing where various stakeholders testify.
• It places enormous new responsibilities on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an agency which has struggled to fulfill its existing mandate and operate its existing advisory boards, which faces a budget crisis, and which may not have the authority to accomplish what the amendment requires.
• The EAC already accomplishes many of the functions in this amendment, but the amendment adds more bureaucracy and spends more money to do it.  It is an enormous aggregation of federal power.
• It formalizes the role of the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Branch to set standards, which the states are required to meet to receive federal funding.  Currently, the EAC is the only federal standard-setting standard entity for elections, and it is an independent agency.
• An existing voluntary program to certify voter registration systems appeared to be working well, aside from DHS withholding important security information from the states last fall.  States are agreeing to this new measure because they are already doing these things on a voluntary basis and need the funding, but a voluntary program and a mandatory (at least, from the perspective of funding) program are vastly different in terms of who is controlling the election security standards and systems.
• It excludes states that use direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines.  While there have been some serious problems with DRE machines (and Virginia decertified all DREs in the state last week), DREs are the only machines many localities have and they make voting easier for voters with disabilities.
• It would allow states to implement mandatory voter registration and other progressive reforms with federal funds.

This amendment needs some serious study and input from election administration experts--not just computer, national security, and cybersecurity experts--before it moves forward in the Senate.

Among other burdens placed on the EAC, the amendment requires it and a commission to conduct an investigation of the foreign interference in the 2016 election and the potential for interference in future elections.  An existing commission, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, is already investigating election security and voting machines as part of its mission to study the U.S. election system and what promotes or decreases voter confidence in the system.  The next meeting of the commission is tomorrow, from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM Eastern.  RNLA will be live-tweeting the meeting.

Thank You, Gov. Sandoval, for Vetoing MVR Bill in Nevada

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval vetoed a measure (IP1) that would have established mandatory, or automatic, voter registration (MVR) in Nevada.  His veto message showed that Gov. Sandoval understands the risks to individual liberty and election integrity that MVR poses:

IP1 advances a worthy goal by encouraging more eligible Nevadans to register to vote.  However, such a result must partner with sound policy.  IP1 fails this test because it extinguishes a fundamental, individual choice—the right of eligible voters to decide for themselves whether they desire to apply to register to vote—forfeiting this basic decision to state government.

Supporters of IP1 argue that the government’s provision of an “opt-out” from the automatic application process substitutes for the decision by the individual to apply to register to vote. However, the core freedom of deciding whether one wishes to initiate voter registration belongs to the individual, not the government.

Moreover, if IP1 became law, it would create an unnecessary risk that people who are not qualified voters may unintentionally apply to vote, subjecting them to possible criminal prosecution, fines, and other legal action. . . . 

The current DMV voter registration process provides the necessary balance for voluntary and informed voter registration. IP1 upsets that balance, removing the element of allowing an individual to initiate the voter registration process, and increasing the possibility of improper registration.

Instead of going back to the Nevada legislature, the measure will now go before Nevada voters during the general election in 2018.  Gov. Sandoval also wisely recognized that the decision for Nevada to "mandate compulsory application for voter registration by the government" is best made by the people, whose liberties will be restricted by the change.

Thank you, Governor Sandoval, for understanding how dangerous compulsion by the government is, recognizing how easily MVR can lead to ineligible persons being registered to vote, and trusting the people of Nevada to make this important decision for themselves.

Election News You May Have Missed, Part 1

In all the news from the election last week, you may have missed two important changes passed by referendum in Missouri and Alaska.

In Missouri, voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to Missouri's constitution to allow a photo ID to be required to vote:

With 63% voting in favor, voters in Missouri passed a constitutional amendment that will allow the state to enact a law requiring photo ID to vote.  The amendment gives state constitutional approval to a bill passed earlier this year to require a photo ID.  With the passage of the constitutional amendment, photo ID is now required in Missouri.

In Alaska, voters approved a unique form of mandatory voter registration, tying voter registration to applications for the state's Permanent Fund distributions:

Yesterday, voters in Alaska approved a ballot measure 65% to 35% that will automatically register Alaskans to vote when they apply for Alaska Permanent Fund distributions:

Ballot measure 1 would increase the number of registered voters in the state by automatically registering Alaskans when they apply for their PFDs. . . . Supporters say it’s a way to increase participation in elections, save time, and modernize state government. 

But the proposal has faced opposition from many Alaskans since its inception. Critics say the program’s $942,885 price tag would be a waste of money at a time when the state is grappling with a multi-billion dollar budget deficit. 

The Alaska Permanent Fund is an “annual dividend that is paid to Alaska residents from investment earnings of mineral royalties.”

The change in Missouri will help protect the integrity of its elections.  In addition to being expensive, the change in Alaska may hurt the integrity of its elections by introducing inaccuracies into its voter rolls.

Vote Fraud and Poor Election Administration in California: Recent Examples

California has long had problems with vote fraud and poor election administration.  Why does California have so many issues?  Single-party rule in the state is one possible answer.  Here are some of the remarkable recent examples of problems. 

California has widespread problems with voter registration, leading to issues for the June 7 primary:

Questions about the security and integrity of California voter information have surfaced after Riverside County’s district attorney described several online tampering incidents in which residents’ party registration was changed without their knowledge. . . . Many voters who said their party affiliations weren’t correct ended up using provisional ballots, which take longer to count because the voter’s eligibility has to be verified, or not voting at all.

Another indication of the inaccuracy of California's voter registration rolls is that hundreds of dead people have been voting in many recent elections:

A comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County. “He took a lot of time choosing his candidates,” said Annette Givans of her father, John Cenkner.  Cenkner died in Palmdale in 2003. Despite this, records show that he somehow voted from the grave in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010.

There was double voting during the June 7 primary:

The June primary election exposed an unacceptable potential for voter fraud in California that the state Legislature must immediately fix.  In just three counties, Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara, 194 people voted twice, suggesting the abuse statewide might run into the thousands. 

There were widespread problems during the June 7 primary:

California voters faced a tough time at the polls Tuesday, with many voters saying they have encountered broken machines, polling sites that opened late and incomplete voter rolls, particularly in Los Angeles County. The result? Instead of a quick in-and-out vote, many California voters were handed the dreaded pink provisional ballot — which takes longer to fill out, longer for election officials to verify and which tends to leave voters wondering whether their votes will be counted.

Exacerbating the issues, California may have mishandled early and provisional ballots after the June 7 primary:

Internet sleuths of varying expertise have attempted to prove that the millions of ballots left uncounted on election night contained a Sanders victory over Hillary Clinton, but were prevented from being added to the count. The fact that 2.5 million early and provisional ballots were not yet counted when the networks called the primary has become another reason to doubt that the media can fairly cover the race. 

California has opened the door to more fraud through mandatory voter registration:  

California has found a way to drive up voter participation. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the New Motor Voter Act last October that automatically registers individuals to vote when they obtain a driver’s license and — taking nondiscrimination up a notch — driver’s licenses are available to illegal immigrants. Technically, noncitizens aren’t eligible to vote, but the law decrees that one who does “shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.”

Because of its 53 House races and numerous important state legislative races, California's election administration will be very important in November.

Illinois Governor Rauner Vetoes Mandatory Voter Registration Bill

Last week, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner vetoed a bill that would establish mandatory, or automatic, voter registration in Illinois:  

Gov. Bruce Rauner vetoed a bill aimed at making voter registration automatic in Illinois, citing concerns about potential voting fraud and conflicts with federal law. 

The first-term Republican governor said he wanted to continue negotiations with supporters to work out those issues, but groups backing the measure accused him of playing politics with his veto and said they would seek an override. . . . 

Under the legislation, starting in January 2018 people seeking a new or updated driver's license — or other state services — would automatically be registered to vote or have their registration updated unless they opted out. Currently in Illinois, motorists seeking services at secretary of state driver's facilities are asked if they want to register to vote or update their registration — an opt-in form of voter registration.

The bill was hastily passed at the end of session, and, in addition to being an unnecessary expense to a financially distressed state, the governor found that it would open the door to fraud and violate the NVRA:

"I strongly support efforts to encourage greater voter participation in our democracy and share the goals of this legislation," Rauner said in a statement. 

"Unfortunately, as currently drafted, the bill would inadvertently open the door to voter fraud and run afoul of federal election law. We will continue working with the legislature and key stakeholders on language that meets our shared goals while complying with federal law and preventing voter fraud," he said. 

In addition, Rauner said the measure does not follow federal law, which requires a voting applicant to "attest to meeting the qualifications to vote" or to sign an application. He said the measure also relies on the Illinois State Board of Elections to then screen out individuals who are not eligible to vote, even though it may not have access to needed information.

We thank Gov. Rauner for wisely recognizing that mandatory voter registration threatens election integrity and the accuracy of voter registration rolls and does not accomplish the goal of increased voter engagement and turnout.

Clinton Reiterates Support for Unrealistic and Dangerous Election "Reforms"

While the media focused on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton yesterday, Hillary made a speech following Sen. Sanders' endorsement that contained calls for liberal election and campaign finance "reform."  This is a familiar refrain from the Democrats this year, but Hillary's speech had some new points.  The "reforms" are in line with the draft of the "most progressive platform in the history of party" released by the Democrats earlier this week.

Hillary's "Reform" - Everyone has to disclose all donors
Campaign finance reform is a subject to which liberals and Democrats criticize the current laws while exploiting loopholes in the system they claim to deride.  The campaign finance laws are already so complicated that national campaigns with full-time staff, attorneys, accountants, and compliance personnel struggle to comply.  Requiring the disclosure of additional donors would not only violate those donors' constitutional rights but also pose immense practical challenges for campaigns and non-profits.

Hillary's "Reform" - Automatic voter registration for everyone when they turn 18
Hillary's proposal goes far beyond the mandatory voter registration systems that are being implemented in several states across the country.  Those systems are dangerous enough, but Hillary's proposal goes beyond registering people who interact with the DMV to automatically registering everyone when they turn 18.  While she did not go into details, her proposal appears to be mandatory, universal voter registration, not the systems currently being implemented that at least have underused opt-out mechanisms.

Hillary's "Reform" - 20 days of in-person voting in every state
This is where Hillary's speech covered some new ground.  Universal donor disclosure and universal mandatory registration are frequently discussed by today's radically liberal Democrat leaders.  20 days of in-person early voting would be an enormous expense and procedural hassle for the states that would have to implement it, and very few states already have such a long period of early voting in place (including none of Hillary's "home" states of Arkansas, Illinois, and New York).  Early voting does not increase turnout, can actually harm voters, and increases the risk of voter fraud.

Hillary's "Reform" - No one waits more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot
Short lines at the polls are a good goal, one that was a focus of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and for which hard-working local election officials strive, but the federal government cannot simply dictate that no person must wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot.  Local election officials allocate scarce resources and personnel based on expected turnout, but they can not perfectly anticipate the innumerable things that could go wrong on election day, causing people to wait a long time to vote.  Long lines at the polling place are unfortunate and all local election officials should, and do, strive to shorten them, but Hillary ignores all the considerations and efforts of those officials when she unrealistically declares that no one should wait more than 30 minutes to vote.

RNLA Advocates Opposition to Mandatory Voter Registration and Mandatory Voting in GOP Platform

The Platform Committee began meeting today, in preparation for next week's Republican National Convention.  

RNLA leadership wrote to the leadership of the Platform Committee last month, requesting that the Committee add language to the platform that opposes mandatory voter registration and mandatory voting:

The RNLA respectfully requests that the Platform Committee add the following language to the 2016 Republican Party platform:

As freedom is essential to the American system of government, neither automatic voter registration nor mandatory voting should be enacted in any state or by the federal government. Citizens should be free to decide whether to participate in the political system through voting or registering to vote.

Automatic voter registration, more properly called mandatory voter registration, is a coercive, intrusive system that does not accomplish its goal of increased voter turnout but does create problems, such as inaccurate voter rolls. Mandatory registration opens the door for fraud by registering people who have no intention of ever voting in the jurisdiction, are transient, or are otherwise added to the rolls when they should not be. Mandatorily registering a citizen when he or she has decided not to register violates a citizen’s basic rights. 

We hope that the Platform Committee, in addition to considering the other important issues that will define the Republican Party for the next four years, will choose to add this important plank to the 2016 Republican Platform. 

Mandatory Voter Registration - Ongoing Analysis Continues to Show No Increase in Voter Turnout

This week, many lefties in Oregon are touting the success of the state’s mandatory voter registration initiative reaching a milestone and claim that 68,500 new voters have been added to the rolls, increasing democracy on a grand scale. In theory that sounds like excellent news. But, for all the generally loud noise, the claims of “improvement” and increased voter turnout are lacking in a very crucial element - fact.

The Bus Project, a Democratic oriented get out the vote organization, is extolling the virtues of Motor Voter based on the primary voting results. Their press releases have been picked up by national news organizations and the press is including this misleading graphic.

The graphic is false.

It purports to show the great success of Oregon Motor Voter program and claims that automatically-registered voters had good turnout numbers in the May 2016 Oregon primary election. But it is based on several fundamental errors. And it entirely omits the turnout result for 84% of all Automatic registrants–the non-affiliated voters, of whom only 6% turned out to vote in the primary election (compared with 23% of traditionally-registered non-affiliated voters).

The graph seems to say that a higher percentage of Automatic registrants turned out that Traditional registrants. But, in fact, the overall turnout of the Automatic registrants was 18.7%. The overall turnout of all registrants together was 53.7%. That means that the turnout of the Traditional registrants was in excess of 53.7%. So how could that graph be correct? It is not.

First, the graph for “Independent Voters” is wrong. The numbers graphed are only for members of the Independent Party of Oregon, not for non-affiliated voters — who comprise 84% of all Automatic registrants. So the graph entirely omits 84% of all of the Automatic registrants and bases its conclusions on a population of only 16% of the Automatic registrants–the most politically motivated ones (because they bothered to join a party). In fact those 84% of all Automatic registrants had turnout rates of under 10% for every age category other under 60 (and only 13% above that). All of their turnout rates were about 70% lower than those of Traditional non-affiliated registrants.

The obvious deficiencies in the information being heralded as a win indicates something that is an all too common trend in statistical data on mandatory voter registration. We have discussed at length the idea that adding more voters to the rolls simply does not translate into more voters at the polls. In fact, while MVR claims to bolster the rolls, it has only been shown to actually decrease voter turnout. The sad part is that this information is not new. Entire countries have already shown automatic registration has a negative effect on overall voter turnout. Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton favors universal mandatory voter registration.

As voter rolls swell with people who have no intention of voting, vote fraud will likely follow. Another concerning impact mandatory voter registration is going to have is the disenfranchisement of new voters in closed primary states. 

While I believe the intent behind Motor Voter was good, decoupling the act of voter registration from the selection of a political party in a State like Oregon with closed primaries and gerrymandered safe districts could be one of the most undemocratic acts we’ve seen here.

Merely registering everyone who comes through the DMV, assuming the often dysfunctional organizations can handle the additional task (which is far from a given, see post 1, post 2), will not increase voter turnout and will serve only as a detriment to the election process and election integrity in general. As a country we should be closing loopholes that generate fraud, not making more of them.

Connecticut & Mandatory Voter Registration - A Recipe for a Slow Motion Train Wreck

Mandatory voter registration is the most recent nonsensical idea sprouting up on the left. The basic premise is simple, at least according to their theory. However the actual implementation and execution of the process is another matter altogether especially when the DMV is involved.

The basic idea is that whenever a person goes into the DMV to procure a license or an ID, they will be mandatorily registered to vote that is unless they want to opt out. A few states that have decided to give this a try but it is unlikely to provide any benefit at the polls if our experience is similar to that of other countries that have forced citizens to register. For example, Canada attempted the same process back in the 90s only to see voter turnout decline. So what is the driving force? Votes.

Connecticut is one of the states that has recently adopted the process. However, their method could best be described as underhanded. Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of State, and Michael Bzdyra, Connecticut DMV Commissioner, recently took it upon themselves to bypass the legislature and consequently the will of the people.

The "memorandum of agreement," signed Monday by DMV Commissioner Michael Bzdyra and Deputy Secretary of the State James Spallone, says the new system, under which the DMV customer would be registered to vote unless he or she specifically declines by choosing to opt out, would begin operating by August 2018.

Under the current program, the DMV customer is registered to vote only if he or she actively chooses that option.

On Tuesday, Bzdyra and the state's top elections official, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, jointly announced the agreement that accomplishes what Merrill proposed in a bill that did not win approval during the recently concluded regular 2016 General Assembly session.

Connecticut’s DMV has had numerous issues with voter registration in the past. It seems beyond reason or at the very minimum counterintuitive that a bill unable to make it through the state legislature is put in place anyway without the blessing of its citizens. This is simply deceitful and appalling. It is an affront to the citizens of the great state of Connecticut. The DMV’s track record clearly does not justify adding more responsibility to the agency. This fact coupled with method in which the system is being adopted show that the push is not about the people. It’s about a perceived benefit during elections. Something is not right with the whole situation and whenever that is the case, all you need to do is follow the money. Check out line 12. 

Losing the Freedom to Choose, One Mandatory Voter Registration Bill at a Time

Illinois is the latest state seeking to remove citizens' ability to choose to register to vote or be involved in the electoral process in general. Senate Bill 0250 seeks to automatically enroll individuals to vote when they interact with one of five state agencies. Illinois already has a voter registration process in place and the State Board of Elections is opposed to the legislation.  

Given the push from the left, this has the potential to be a disaster just like it was in Oregon. Other countries have shown mandatory voter registrations' perceived benefits to be at best negligible, and it is more than likely detrimental. Legislators should listen to the State Board of Elections, which will have to implement the fabricated solution to a non-existent problem. 

Election board officials said their concern is logistics, pointing out that there’s no program set up for the initial September update. 

“It would take major changes to the system and structure of our system to try and implement these things,” said Kyle Thomas, the board’s director of voting and registration systems. 

Thomas also questioned the possible “millions” it could cost as the budget standoff between legislative Democrats and Rauner approaches a year.

Don Gray, Sangamon County Clerk, commented on the concerns.

"I understand the concerns there's a lot more burden on the state board of elections then there is here and the election authority to be able to implement Election Day and registration day maintenance," said Gray.

The board would have to go through a year’s worth of voter information to update their records.

The articles remain silent on something that has become a far more concerning trend from the left: Forcing citizens to register to vote. Freedom to choose is not something that we should take for granted. The role the government plays in our lives should not be one that forces us to participate, even if the measure provides the option to opt out rather than opt in. The solution to lack of voter engagement is not forced involvement. Rarely is forced action effective and often it has the opposite of the intended effect.

Disenfranchisement of New Voters in Oregon Primary Benefits Clinton over Sanders

Yesterday, Joanne W. Young published a piece at the Daily Caller that further illustrates the dangers associated with mandatory voter registration. Oregon, a bastion for most things liberal, attempted to force mandatory registration through the DMV. This drew more than a few warnings from Young earlier this year. It turns out the initial concerns were well founded as new voters are likely being disenfranchised as a result of the system.

Oregon was the first state to enact a system of automatic or mandatory voter registration. At the beginning of 2016, Oregon began mandatorily registering its citizens to vote when they visited the Department of Motor Vehicles, changing from an “opt-in” to an “opt-out” registration system. Liberals hailed this as a leap forward in making voting easier for everyone and encouraging broader engagement by citizens in our democracy.

Mandatory voter registration is a new experiment in the United States, and there is no proof it will meet its intended goals. Indeed, there is evidence from other countries, such as Canada, that have had systems of mandatory voter registration for years that, instead of increasing voter engagement and turnout, it actually decreases it . . . .

The issue will undoubtedly effect many voters in the Oregon primary today as those who are not declared for a party will be unable to vote given the state’s primary rules.

Oregon is a closed primary state, meaning that only those voters registered with a political party may vote in that party’s primary. The government cannot choose a party for a person, so by default, all new voters registered through the mandatory voter registration system areregistered as non-affiliated voters. To be registered with a party, new voters, who did not take the initiative to register to vote, must take the initiative to proactively indicate a party on a follow-up postcard they mail back to the Secretary of State.

In what should come as a surprise to very few, many of those who were mandatorily registered failed to return the postcard and as a consequence will be unable to vote in the primary.

At the end of April, only 16 percent of new voters had returned the postcard selecting a party. Fully76 percent of newly registered voters did not return the card at all, meaning they are registered to vote but registered as not affiliated with any party. The Oregon presidential primary is May 17, and the deadline for registering with a party was April 26 . . . . 

Further complicating matters, Oregon is an entirely vote-by-mail state, meaning that those non-affiliated voters have not even received a ballot and may not realize they are being disenfranchised.

The mandatory voter registration process in Oregon has been a glaring failure on many levels. It has achieved only the exact opposite of what it was advertised to do. Other countries have shown its impact to be at best negligible, and more than likely detrimental. 

The recent voter disenfranchisement in Oregon simply adds to a growing list of questionable policies emanating from the left. Young goes on to discuss who the situation does likely help; none other than the Democratic “establishment candidate,” Hillary Clinton. While I personally loathe Sanders ideals and general platform, it is hard to look at the integrity of this election from his perspective and not cringe. Step by step, state by state, super delegate by super delegate, the establishment is stealing the Democratic nomination away from him. Elections should have integrity. As Joanne Young pointed out regarding the New Hampshire primary in February, elections should always be right and just, not stolen.

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.  

Chris Christie Vetoes Automatic Voter Registration Bill

California and Oregon both passed mandatory voter registration laws this year and, if Democrats have their way, they are only the first of many. A Democratic group called iVote which is led by Jeremy Bird, a top Obama campaign aide, plans to spend millions of dollars in an effort to push mandatory voter registration laws.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently vetoed a mandatory voter registration effort by Democrats in the state.  Regarding the veto, Governor Christie said: "New Jersey taxpayers deserve better than to have their hard-earned tax dollars spent on thinly-veiled political gamesmanship and the State must ensure that every eligible citizen's vote counts and is not stolen by fraud."

As the Heritage Foundation points out, mandatory registration is nothing but a "'solution in search of a problem," and, as Governor Christie said, increases the potential for fraud. Mandatory registration is unlikely to help increase voter turnout because it is a lack of interest that keeps most voters from registering. In fact, the Census Bureau reports that only 4% of individuals claimed that they had not registered to vote  because they didn't "know where or how to register." Mandatory registration may not solve any problems, but it certainly has the potential to create one. These policies often involve permanent registration which has the potential to increase fraud because ineligible voters, voters who have moved, and the deceased would be more difficult to remove from the voter rolls.

Congratulations Governor Christie, and thank you for taking a stand and maintaining the integrity of the electoral system.