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.  

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.  

Washington Post Says Presidents Obama and Carter are "Voter Suppressors" and Against "Civil Rights"

In an editorial entitled “Voter suppression is the civil rights issue of this era,” The Washington Post tried to liken Republicans and President Trump’s bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity as somehow tied to efforts to protect “confederate statues” and anti-civil rights Jim Crow laws.  The obvious problem with this is it was Southern Democrats who put up these statues and enacted the Jim Crow laws.  

The less obvious problem is a living Democrat President and a living Democrat President's Commission not only disagree with the examples they cite as “voter suppression” but support them.  First is President Obama whose Presidential Commission on Election Administration called for voter lists to “come as close as possible to creating an accurate database of all eligible voters.”  The Post considers this effort to remove ineligible names from the voter rolls “purging.”  The Post further calls for "[pushing back hard against" this activity, and therefore the recommendations of President Obama's Commission, and says "this should be a paramount cause for [civil rights in] the Trump era.”  In other words, President Obama's Commission (which was co-chaired by his campaign lawyer and White House Counsel, Bob Bauer) is a vote suppressor and anti-civil rights because of its support for accurate voter rolls. 

Another item The Post demands “[p]ushing back hard against [are] those who . . . demand forms of voter ID that many Americans don’t possess . . . this should be a paramount cause for [civil rights in] the Trump era. “  Well, Jimmy Carter not only accepted a report that called for voter ID, he co-chaired the effort. 

With their support of list maintenance and voter ID, President Obama's Commission and President Carter are, according to The Washington Post’s logic, “vote suppressors” and opposed to civil rights.  This is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as The Post's attempts to tie reasonable bipartisan efforts to ensure the integrity of the election to statues of Confederate generals.  Shame on The Post.  

Democrats Continue to Attack American's Right to Vote

The left continues to attack the Election Integrity Commission, but Sarah Lee breaks down the flaws of the left's arguments in an article in the Independent Journal Review.  She addresses the surreal fact that liberals are using which is a conservative argument of Federalism for maybe the first time ever.

In a weird turn of events, liberal Democrat leaders have suddenly rediscovered the concept of federalism and have begun to craft the narrative that this request to the states for help study is somehow a predecessor of centralizing policy. It is not. The Commission, as clearly stated in their foundational order, is a study group only tasked only with making suggestions.

She notes how opposition against the Commission is part of a larger problem of liberals obstructing everything:

Ultimately, the pushback from liberals sounds more like obstructionism of the type the Democrats have been engaged in since President Trump was elected, most visibly by attempting to block almost every single one of his judicial appointments, beginning with newest SCOTUS member, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

She concludes by detailing another reason beyond the constant obstructionism that Democrats engage in, fear in what the Commission may uncover:

The fear-mongering over what the Commission is trying to do — which is, simply and literally, examine states’ voter processes and publicly available rolls in an attempt to make sure only legal votes are cast and counted — is so extreme that it makes one wonder just what on earth Democrats are frightened might be discovered.

Perhaps what they fear is what The Republican National Lawyer’s Association and The Heritage Foundation have both discovered through their respective vote fraud databases which document hundreds of cases of proven vote fraud: the myth of vote fraud is no myth at all.

The Heritage database is here.  The RNLA's survey is here.  Sarah Lee has a strong point that the left is protesting and obstructing as if they have something to hide over a mere Advisory commission. 

New Report: Thousands of Non-Citizens Voting in Virginia

Today, the Public Interest Legal Foundation released a disturbing report about non-citizens registered to vote and actually voting in Virginia:

After three lawsuits, scores of record requests, and reviews voter history files across 133 Virginia jurisdictions, the Public Interest Legal Foundation has uncovered the following:

• Virginia election officials quietly removed 5,556 voters for non-citizenship between 2011 and May 2017;

• 1,852 of those removed as noncitizens cast ballots;

• A total of 7,474 illegal ballots were cast from the pool of removed noncitizens;

• Some records of illegal voting date back to the 1980s before their respective removals;

• Virginia election officials routinely fail to alert law enforcement about these illegal votes or registrations.

“At the instruction of Governor McAuliffe’s political appointees, local election officials spent countless resources to prevent this information from spilling into the open,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Virginia hid critical information that would have improved election integrity while a political operative-turned-governor vetoed numerous proposals that would’ve prevented alien registration and voting. From NoVa to Norfolk and all urban and rural points in between, alien voters are casting ballots with practically no legal consequences in response. 

“In this election year, aliens must not cast illegal ballots, and if they do they must be prosecuted. Let’s pray that Gov. McAuliffe’s veto pen did not invite a close election tainted by fraud,” Adams added. 

In the absence of regular data-sharing arrangements between federal officials and the Commonwealth, the ability of election officials to identify aliens on the voter rolls is almost nonexistent. The most that happens in Virginia is that an alien on the voter rolls will sometimes tell the state DMV they are not a citizen. Without those leads, counties and municipalities must accept false claims of citizenship on their face.

This report gives lie to those who claim that there is no problem with ineligible voters voting and determining the outcomes of elections.  In addition to other close races detailed in the full report (page 12), the winner of the 2013 attorney general election was determined by just 907 votes statewide.  As PILF noted, the methods for removing non-citizens from the voter registration rolls are far from effective or complete and the existing methods are rarely followed.  So there are likely far more non-citizens registered to vote and additional votes by non-citizens that PILF was unable to identify through their data review.  

This problem is duplicated in nearly every state across the country but has largely not been studied because it requires a tremendous amount of time and resources.  Sadly, PILF had to litigate against local election officials who refused to disclose voter registration data as required by the NVRA.  We can only hope that President Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity can conduct or prompt similar studies in a number of states and that state and local officials will cooperate, as required by law, in efforts to improve the accuracy of voter registration rolls.

Flashback Friday -- 2009 -- That Time Senator Schumer Was Actually for an Election Integrity Investigation

Democratic Minority Leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, has emerged as one of the most highly partisan leaders in the Senate in a long while. Senator Schumer has also become a leading critic of President Trump's Commission on Election Integrity headed by Vice President Pence.

Senator Schumer decried: 

"President Trump has decided to waste taxpayer dollars chasing a unicorn and perpetuating the dangerous myth that widespread voter fraud exists."

Reported by Fox News on May 11, 2017

He continued by claiming the Commission was going to be a:

“clear front for constricting the access to vote to poor Americans, older Americans, and — above all — African-Americans and Latinos.”

Reported by the Washington Post on May 11, 2017 

However, it looks like Senator Schumer's real objection is simply this is a Commission called for by President Trump after he claimed that vote fraud occurred during the 2016 Election.

Let's take a look at what Senator Schumer said in March 2009. According to Politico:

Chuck Schumer’s side won big in 2008, but the New York senator has launched an inquiry into potential voter fraud and disenfranchisement. 

On Wednesday morning, Schumer gaveled to order a hearing on a report estimating that as many as seven million voters were kept from casting ballots in November.

“This report is beyond troubling,” said Schumer, who is chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. “Put together, you get massive disenfranchisement. This is unacceptable and undemocratic.”

While the problems of the infamous 2000 election battle were the result of long lines and hanging chads, an MIT study argues the problems of the 2008 race were the result of voter registration issues. Among the report’s findings are that two million to four million registered voters were discouraged from casting ballots and that as many as nine million additional people tried and failed to register to vote.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in 2009, Schumer was very - and correctly - concerned about election integrity.  However, in 2017, Senator Schumer rather put partisanship ahead of the looking into the extent of vote fraud and overall election integrity.

To be clear, at least "some" vote fraud did occur during the 2016 Election. To categorically deny the problem is to fully ignore a serious problem, a real threat to our elections and our democracy. While the full extent of this problem is currently unknown, the RNLA has documented those cases that have been published on our Vote Fraud News page. 

Reactions to Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity: Part 1

This post is the first in a series, highlighting the left's odd reactions to President Trump's announcement yesterday, as part of the broader and pervasive effort to resist Trump.  Today, we focus on prominent Democrat elected officials.

Here is what the commission, the recommendations of which will have no binding authority, has been charged with studying:

The Commission shall, consistent with applicable law, study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.  The Commission shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President that identifies the following: 

(a)  those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; 

(b)  those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; and 

(c)  those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting. 

But apparently, studying what increases and decreases public confidence in election results and where there are vulnerabilities in the system is deeply offensive to Democrats, who see any effort to improve the integrity of election results as "voter suppression":

Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes: While cloaked as an effort to protect the integrity of our elections, President Trump's voter fraud commission will be anything but. The cloak hiding its real mission is thin; indeed, it will no doubt serve as a tool to further real and serious Republican attacks on American voting rights and leave eligible voters disenfranchised.

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy: This misbegotten Commission sadly is yet another malicious effort to undermine the voting rights of millions of Americans across the country.  The integrity of our elections is a foundational issue, but any commission led by an extremist like Kris Kobach – a ‘birther’ whose attempts to restrict voting rights have repeatedly been struck down in federal court – has zero credibility.  

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren: Today [Trump] signed an order launching a "Vote Fraud Commission," but it really should be called a "Vote Intimidation Commission." [Trump] picked Kris Kobach – architect of some of the most racist & anti-voter state laws – to lead this new conspiracy crusade. The GOP spent [years] gutting voting rights & suppressing black & Latino votes. We can’t allow [Trump] to turn the clocks back more. 

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: The President’s ‘Election Integrity’ Commission is purpose-built to encourage and enable voter suppression. . . . The President’s ‘Election Integrity’ Commission is clearly intended to accelerate the vile voter suppression efforts in states across the nation.The integrity of our elections has been undermined because of the disenfranchisement of American citizens, not the bigoted delusions of widespread voter fraud.  If President Trump cannot believe that the majority of Americans voted against him, he should review his own conduct instead of trying to steal the vote from millions of citizens.

According to Democrats, the only threats to the integrity of our elections we should be concerned about are Republicans, Russian hacking (though we should be more concerned about Obama administration hacking), and Republican efforts to protect the integrity of our elections.  I wish that were sarcasm, but according to Democrats' statements yesterday, that is what they actually believe.  Unfortunately for Democrats, the evidence of vote fraud and its effect on elections, and public confidence in election results, already exists, and the commission will likely uncover more.

Left Denies Vote Fraud Despite Many Instances of Fraud

According to the left, vote fraud is a myth.  The left may want to rethink that line of attack.  Since February 5 when President Trump announced that “Vice President Mike Pence will oversee a special commission to investigate voter fraud,” there have been at least 21 incidents of vote fraud reported in 17 states.  And to be fully forthcoming, we are sure we are missing things. 

No matter how the left tries, it is impossible to deny that vote fraud is real.  The news stories prove that those that deny the existence of vote fraud are themseleves engaging in fake news. 

For more details, check out our Vote Fraud News page.  Unfortunately, we are not sure we can keep up with all the stories.  Feel free to send stories and reports to info@republicanlawyer.net.

The Left's Poor History on Election Commissions

The left and their allies in the media regularly deny the existence of vote fraud and call any effort to investigate the problem “racist.”  They are even calling President’s Trump upcoming commission invalid or a waste of time. 

I guess they are at least being consistent this time and maybe even more honest.  Usually they wait until after they agree with a bipartisan commission's recommendations to start calling things racist. 

Let’s take the last national commission on voting, President Obama's Presidential Commission on Election Administration.  This commission was led by Mitt Romney’s campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg and President Obama’s campaign lawyer Bob Bauer.  As RNLA Board Member Joanne Young addresses in her article entitled: “Why Trump’s Call to Investigate Vote Fraud Is Valid:”

The irony was that at the same time Obama’s lawyer, Bob Bauer, was leading the bipartisan commission, his own firm was suing the state of Virginia, calling the efforts to clean up voter rolls racist and purging.

It goes further. Obama nominated Myrna Perez to be on the Election Assistance Commission. Perez was an adamant opponent of voter list maintenance, declaring such efforts “purging.”

This is why it’s tough to even talk about vote fraud. Any efforts, even those with bipartisan support, are bitterly opposed by liberal activists.  It also happen to the voting commission before that:

A primary recommendation of the 2005 bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform (the “Carter-Baker Commission”) was to require voter ID. This commission was led by Jimmy Carter, former president and noted liberal, and James Baker, secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush.

Yet, liberals oppose any efforts to enact commonsense voter ID laws, opposing them in legislatures and in the courts. Voter ID laws, which protect the integrity of the vote and thus our democracy for all citizens, are called racist and mechanisms of voter suppression.

Republicans are dedicated to improving our election process and President Trump deserves credit for the commission on vote fraud.  Democrats will likely object to the commission even if the Democrat members of the commission agree.  Hopefully the Trump Commission's recommendations will be taken seriously regardless of the reaction of those on the left who always disagree.  

The New York Times Shows Its Agenda on Vote Fraud

After years of ignoring vote fraud within New York City and state, The New York Times finally wrote a story on it, in Texas.  Of course, the story was incredibly biased and instead was, again, only written to make it harder for vote fraud to be prosecuted.

From a journalistic standpoint, the story is flawed.  Keep in mind a jury, who, unlike The New York Times, was there for the entire trial, convicted Rosa Ortega.  Yet the Times story features a picture of her family and lawyer and focuses on her side of the case: "She said in court that she had not known she was ineligible to vote and was confused by registration forms and explanations by election officials."

A side the jury did not find persuasive.  As was reported elsewhere: “The jury took a few hours to find her guilty on both counts.”

While the Times focuses on Oretega's alleged confusion, the jury clearly put more weight on other matters.  For example (emphasis ours):

The Tarrant County indictment stated that she voted in the November 2012 General Election and the May 2014 Primary Run-off, knowing she was not eligible to vote because she is not a U.S. citizen. Ortega had previously applied to vote, but Tarrant County officials rejected her application because she admitted on the form to non-citizen status when asked. She filled out an application five months later and alleged she was a citizen.

Obviously the jury did not feel this was a confused person but rather a person who knew what she was doing and was trying to get around the law.  She was a person who changed her citizenship answer after she was rejected and told she was ineligible. 

The Times briefly quotes the Assistant AG in the case:

Jonathan White, an assistant attorney general who helped prosecute the Ortega case with Tarrant County officials, said the evidence of fraud was unambiguous. “She told the elections office she was a citizen,” he said. “She told everyone else she wasn’t,” including a recorded statement to prosecutors in which she said she was a citizen of Mexico.

The jury obviously believed the prosecutors. 

Regardless, the national focus the Times gives this story is in stark contrast to its stance on vote fraud locally.  The New York Times has ignored vote fraud in its own neighborhood for years.  It has become comical how it ignores vote fraud.  Here are just a few examples:

ICMYI: NY Ballot Box Stuff Scheme Now Importing People from Israel
More on NY Vote Fraud Scandal, Apartment Manager Vote Fraud?
Hard to Tell Where the Incompetence Ends and the Fraud Begins
Police Prove How Easy it is to Impersonate Voters in Hometown of Vote Fraud Deniers
Brazen Voting Fraud Alleged Among Ultra-Orthodox In Williamsburg

We could even list the vote fraud in New York by famous New Yorkers such as Al Sharpton and Geraldine Ferraro if we went back further.  Vote fraud is rampant in New York and instead of covering it, they present a biased view of one case in Texas. 

Fake News?  

Democrats Intimidate Voters with Baseball Bats, Republicans with Voter Guides

Every cycle the Democrats and their allies on the left make unfounded allegations of intimidation against Republicans, yet they remain silent on actual intimidation. 

The strongest example yet of the hypocrisy is in North Carolina where Democrats were mad about a Republican voter guide being passed out.  The response to a perfectly legal voter guide by one North Carolina Democrat official is to call it a (bold emphasis added):

“cheap psychology is being used and some voters don’t know any better and think the culprit is being sincere. We need enough volunteers at both sites and also on Election day to NIP THIS IN THE BUD even if a baseball bat is necessary.”

This is clear intimidation.  Under pressure from the North Carolina GOP, the Democrat Party official retracted this.  To their credit, the Democrat Party of North Carolina condemned it as well. 

However, while RNLA condemned reports of alleged anonymous supporters of Mr. Trump discussing intimidation, no national figure or group on the left has even commented on the actual calls for intimidation by a North Carolina Democrat official. 

Why?  It certainly leads credibility to those who say:

Democrats have little concrete to show for a week of legal battles charging Donald Trump and his allies with a sweeping voter intimidation campaign, but the effort may pay off politically for Hillary Clinton by energizing her backers to get to the polls to stop a real or imagined GOP onslaught.  

No one should forget the actual intimidation that has taken place in North Carolina with the firebombing of a North Carolina GOP headquarters and political vandalism.  This make the comments even more troubling.      

Vote Fraud Deniers Won't Even Define the Words

Justin Levitt is often cited by the media for his study finding only 31 cases of vote fraud.  He is a recognized liberal vote fraud denier and the former counsel for Americans Coming Together, a parent group of ACORN that was disbanded after a huge FEC fine.  Leavitt defines vote fraud as:

Allegations of voter fraud—someone sneaking into the polls to cast an illicit vote . . .

On the right is someone who has researched vote fraud and groups like ACORN, Matthew Vandum, who defines vote fraud as:

Before we go further, let’s define voter fraud: It is unlawful interference with the electoral process in an effort to bring about a desired result. . . . It refers to fraudulent voting, impersonation, intimidation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, and a multitude of crimes related to the electoral process.

Levitt comes from a background of fraud and defines voter fraud very narrowly.  Vandum comes from a background of research and defines it broadly.  Along with his partisanship, Levitt's narrow definition explains part of the reason Levitt ignores and minimizes vote fraud.  Let’s just say we are glad the law agrees with Vandum.   

Brennan Center: The Only Democrats in New York who Don't See Vote Fraud

To work for the Brennan Center in New York, there are a couple unofficial requirements: (1) you have to be a  Democrat (and a Hillary supporter) and (2) a vote fraud denier.  On the latter, to hear the Brennan Center talk about it, vote fraud is more rare than a lightening strike.  They use their denial of vote fraud as one of their reasons to oppose Voter ID. 

However, the Brennan Center employees should talk to their fellow Democrats or read the papers about the vote fraud that is happening in their own area.  Today it was:

The Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections was caught on a secret video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud” — including at the polls.

Schulkin said he backed the IDs to prevent rampant fraud.

Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”

While discussing the potential for fraud, Schulkin volunteered that in some parts of the city, “they bus people around to vote . . . They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.”

Of course this does not come as a surprise to any rational New Yorker.  New York Democrats know there is a vote fraud problem in New York.  As former Democrat Congressional nominee Vincent Gentile said last year in an unguarded moment:

The candidate said his personal experiences as a politician in New York, one of the 18 states nationwide with no voter ID laws, had made him a supporter of the measures.

“All of us who’ve run before are, can tell you stories about what happens on Election Day,” he said.

Any honest Democrat in New York would admit to you that Vote Fraud is real and that Voter ID is needed, just most know that partisan groups like the Brennan Center will attack them for saying it. 

Even a Liberal Democrat "Expert" Agrees - Virginia's Latest Effort at Vote Fraud Goes Too Far

What won’t Virginia Democrats do to promote vote fraud in Virginia?  Unconstitutional orders to enfranchise felons, including those in half way houses or prisons in other states; encouraging election officials to not ask for citizenship or felon status; refusing to clean up the voting rolls; and now allowing “selfies” (a self-portrait photograph, typically taken with a digital camera or camera phone held in the hand) of ballots, via a last-minute Advisory Opinion from the Attorney General.

  

Why is this another tool for vote fraud?  It could lead to vote buying and coercion.  Let’s quote an “election law expert” regarding an election selfie case in New Hampshire:

Similarly, the effectiveness of the selfie ban and the continued occasional prosecutions for vote buying, especially for absentee ballots, show that where there can be verification of how someone voted, this is a real — not theoretical — problem.  [A] picture of a valid voted ballot, unlike a simple expression of how someone voted, is unique in being able to prove how someone voted.  

Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more narrowly tailored law to prevent vote buying. Tell the world you voted for Trump! Use skywriting. Scream it to the heavens. We just won’t give you the tools to sell your vote or get forced to vote one way or another.  

The social-media age gives people plenty of tools for political self-expression. New Hampshire’s law is a modest way to make sure that this patriotic expression does not give anyone the tools to corrupt the voting process.

The expert quoted - Hans von Spakovsky of Heritage?  Ex-DOJ Official Christian Adams?  Another conservative?  Nope, it is noted Democrat party supporter/advocate and Election Law Professor Rick Hasen of Election Law blog.  Of course, since the article was written in 2015 and the current issue is in a target state during an election, Hasen has merely posted links on his blog and remained relatively silent.  Hopefully, Hasen will stand up strongly and decry the Virginia Attorney General's Advisory Opinion and the potential for fraud it creates:

The change certainly opens the door to “vote-buying fraud” and it impacts the privacy of other voters and election workers just who happen to be around the camera.  More importantly, election officials have long warned that allowing voters to take a selfie of their ballot during the voting process will cause long lines of voters waiting to vote, all waiting until the “utter foolishness” plays itself out.

It would be nice if Democrats interested in election administration would just once practice what they preach.  

Threat of Vote Fraud Is Real

There has been much debate in the past few weeks over whether vote fraud exists, with many liberals claiming that it does not exist at all.  

Rejecting the idea that vote fraud does not occur as "lunacy" during an interview on MSNBC, RNLA's Vice President for Election Education, Mark Braden, recounted an instance of vote fraud that he encountered personally:

Well, our election system actually works quite well. . . . But the notion that vote fraud doesn't exist, is, of course, lunacy. People steal cars, people steal money, why anybody would think you wouldn't steal votes is a mystery to me. Vote fraud is rare but it absolutely occurs, and sometimes occurs on a massive basis. I did a recount in Illinois of the governor's race. I went to the Chicago Board of Elections, where they explained to me that vote fraud was a Republican illusion. And a Chicago Times reporter explained the same thing to me. But when we got done with the recount, the grand jury report showed that 10% of the Chicago vote was made up on election night. That's 110,000 votes. So the notion that vote fraud doesn't happen is a joke. It does happen. 

Mark Braden went on to emphasize that just because there are unfounded accusations of fraud, we should not assume that vote fraud does not occur, and that well trained poll workers and observers are some of the best protections against fraud:

Well, I've seen people make unfounded accusations of fraud. [P]eople make wild accusations. One shouldn't let the nonsense of wild accusations blind [one] to the possibility of real indiscretions. So it’s a balancing act. 

Most of our elections work extremely well, but there are places where they don't. And in those places, we need to be concerned. Asking people to be poll workers and working in our polling places are, in fact – that's the best guarantee for a good system. A good system has people working for both parties in polling places around the country as poll workers watching the process.

Forbes contributor George Leef summarized the problems with denying the existence of vote fraud and especially using that denial to overturn voter ID laws, as the Fourth Circuit did in striking down the North Carolina voter ID law:

[T]he nation does face a grave election integrity problem. It goes way back in time and has been worsening in recent years as techniques for manufacturing votes have been sharpened. . . .  

Judge Motz also resorts to the assertion that vote fraud is a problem that doesn’t exist, which raises a logical question: how does she know that it never happens or only with extreme rarity? How can anyone claim knowledge that things are not happening? Anyway, there is abundant evidence that vote fraud does happen and with regularity. 

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund . . . points out, that the late Senator Arlen Specter acknowledged that in Pennsylvania vote fraud was common and notorious. Fund also quotes former Philadelphia City Councilman Jimmy Tayoun (who went to prison for corruption) on the tactics of fraud: “You can flood a lot of phony names and phony addresses, and there’s no way they’re going to check.” 

Invalidating a law over nothing more than assumptions about bad motives in enacting it is politicized judging at its worst. This National Review editorial puts the point well: “The Fourth Circuit went out of its way to ignore evidence, impugn the motives of North Carolina’s legislature, and concoct specious legal rationales to forward a political agenda.”

While tools such as poll watchers and voter ID help to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest, vote fraud does happen.  It is irresponsible and naive to claim otherwise.

NY Times Goes to GA to Make Up Story While Ignoring Real Vote Fraud in Its Neighborhood

The New York Times today did something it never does: it mentioned vote fraud in a headline (see picture, we are not going to link to the “story”).  Of course, the story has nothing to do with vote fraud or the integrity of the election.  The New York Times has a long history of ignoring vote fraud, and instead the purpose of the story was to scare African Americans that their vote is being taken away from them.  Ironically, while the story focuses on the alleged bigotry behind the voting laws in Georgia, The New York Times ignored the actually anti-Semitic bigotry of Georgia Democrat Congressman and Super delegate Hank Johnson last week. 

We thought we would take a moment to list some of the actual vote fraud that has happened in New York that has been completely ignored by The New York Times:

ICMYI: NY Ballot Box Stuff Scheme Now Importing People from Israel

More on NY Vote Fraud Scandal, Apartment Manager Vote Fraud?

Hard to Tell Where the Incompetence Ends and the Fraud Begins

Police Prove How Easy it is to Impersonate Voters in Hometown of Vote Fraud Deniers

Brazen Voting Fraud Alleged Among Ultra-Orthodox In Williamsburg

We can go and on.  We could even list the vote fraud in New York by famous New Yorkers such as Al Sharpton and Geraldine Ferraro if we went back further.  Vote fraud is rampant in New York and instead of covering it, The New York Times goes to Georgia in an apparent effort to scare voters nationwide.  Shame on the Times.   

The Dead Walk to the Voting Booths in California

Last week we shared a blog post surrounding the ongoing zombie voting apocalypse that was recently uncovered in California. Since that time, many tough questions have been asked.  Questions like: How did they not see this coming? How is this happening? Isn’t the government supposed to ensure election integrity? And most importantly, how can we stop it?

The fact of the matter is this is scary time we live in, but there are some simple answers to the panicked questions currently crawling out of California. First off, dead voters are not a rarity, and disappointingly enough, California is far from the first state to have the problem. Despite the shock and utter disbelief that followed the report, a quick Google™ search will yield all sorts of deceased voting activity. Activity that for one reason or another usually goes unaddressed. Vote fraud exists in many different forms in this country and sadly, this is not new information. Voter ID laws have started to address the in-person process but much work remains to be done in order to protect the integrity of our elections. That being stated onto the questions.

How did they not see this coming? / How is this happening?

A: It’s an excellent question and one that even the California Secretary of State and Auditor addressed publically.  The sheer level of dysfunction and mismanagement of funds in California dedicated to HAVA is just astounding. I highly recommend you take a moment and read the report. Page 39 references a previous audit which further illustrates the sheer magnitude and perpetual nature of the problem in the state. Now you may be asking what exactly does HAVA have to do with the zombie voting apocalypse? Well, HAVA, among many other things, provides the state with funds to ensure that their voter registration rolls are current and much like everything else in the world when money designated for a particular purpose is needlessly wasted or carelessly mismanaged, the system begins to break down. Pieces of the process start to fall through the cracks making fraud a far more likely and distinct possibility. In this case, dead voters are not being removed from rolls and somehow, these deceased individuals are continuing to vote.

Isn’t the government supposed to ensure election integrity? / How can we stop it?

A: Absolutely. California’s HAVA budget has been a catastrophe almost since the program’s inception. In a world where liberals and the left consistently raise voter disenfranchisement as one of their main concerns we have legitimate voters being disenfranchised by the dead with literally no consequences.  In all seriousness, this is a failure at the most basic level of election administration and we must demand accountability. If we continue to allow such a complete and utter disregard for the integrity of our elections, than a precedent will be set and much like the way a zombie infection spreads in the movies, so too will fraud continue to spread through our elections.

Vote fraud is alive and well. We have much work to do to ensure that our elections are and continue to be both honest and fair. 

The Voting Dead

No, this is not a spinoff of AMC’s popular T.V. show. This is reality, one that the left is far too quick to dismiss and consistently claims does not occur.  Voters in California have somehow been coming back from the dead in order to cast their ballots for years. The report was aired by a CBS station in LA (Channel 2).

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.

But he’s not the only one.

CBS2 compared millions of voting records from the California Secretary of State’s office with death records from the Social Security Administration and found hundreds of so-called dead voters.

In total, the report showed that 265 people voted from beyond the grave. This is vote fraud, plain and simple. The following day the station released an update to the story which detailed some of the early fallout from the discovery.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich introduced a motion at the Board of Supervisors meeting to start an investigation into the news station’s findings and put the Registrar on notice:

“The Registrar-Recorder has to do a better job to insure the integrity of the voter system is secure,” he told David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9.

Supervisor Sheila Kuehl voted in favor but defended the Registrar who claims to be removing “1,200 to 2,000 deceased records from the database per month.”

“There’s really no way to connect a person whose death is recorded with a person who is registered to vote unless we get some kind of notification from the family,” Kuehl told Goldstein.

“But we did that though. We were able to do it,” Goldstein said. “We were able to confirm that there’s 215 dead voters in L.A. County.”

Where is the outrage? Where are the folks screaming about REAL, QUANTIFIABLE voter disenfranchisement? Well, the reporter thought to attempt to include those folks as well but, they were eerily silent on the matter.

CBS2 reached out to the California Democratic Party, but they declined to comment.

The Registrar has 30 days to report back to the Board of Supervisors looking into the findings.

Election integrity in this country has been under siege for some time. It needs to stop and those responsible need to be held accountable. Voter ID laws are the first step in the process of ensuring that we actually address the problem. Vote fraud deniers hide behind the mere possibility of an inconvenience for a few, while more and more evidence is uncovered showing that our system is susceptible to and is consistently subject to fraud.