Latest Voting Problem in Pennsylvania: 100,000 Noncitizens Registered to Vote

RNLA Southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter Leader Linda Kerns continues to uncover problems with elections in Pennsylvania.  Yesterday the Washington Times wrote an article entitled Lawsuit: 100,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Pennsylvania, which stated:

The 100,000 number cited in the lawsuit comes from testimony given by Philadelphia [Election] Commissioner Al Schmidt, who revealed the glitch in the state motor vehicle bureau’s systems that prompted noncitizens to register to vote.

In recent months Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State has resigned; Democrat election officials have been charged with voter intimidation; Philadelphia Congressman and  Democrat Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration (a.k.a. the elections committee) Bob Brady announced he is retiring in light of an election scandal; and now this.  The article also cites examples of noncitizens voting including this one:

Yet another woman voted in 2008 and 2012, had her registration canceled in 2014 because she wasn’t a citizen, then reregistered and voted in 2016, according to documents filed in court. She was registered as a Democrat.

Pennsylvania voters deserve better.  Every non-citizen's vote cancels out the legal vote of a registered citizen voter.

[FYI, Linda Kerns and RNLA’s Southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter will be hosting a reception this Thursday night. Check out details here.]

From Vote Fraud to Voter Intimidation: Philly Democrats do it All

Our recent blogs have detailed the multitude of problems in Philadelphia in the last year.  RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen decided to tie them all together in one op-ed in the Daily Caller. 

At best in Philadelphia, it is hard to say where the incompetence ends and the vote fraud begins.  At worse, Democrats in Philadelphia are using Jim-Crow-style intimidation tactics on anyone who tries to vote for the Green or Republican candidates, or anyone but the Democrats’ chosen candidates.

The problems described by Thielen are not limited to the polling booth:

Democrat supporters in Philadelphia have actually preyed on the elderly, who could not or did not want to vote, let alone register to vote.  At the St. Francis Center for Rehabilitation and Health Care, seniors with dementia, who were unwilling to register or vote, or were otherwise not aware registered and voted absentee in a Democrat Primary.

Or to Republicans:

[R]efusing to allow Green Party supporters to vote, aggressively questioning Green Party voters seeking assistance, and more.   [Pennsylvania Attorney General] Shapiro stated: “One should not chalk these actions up to typical partisanship or typical electioneering.  These were crimes.”

Shapiro stepped up and prosecuted Democrat election officials in one precinct.  The problems are not limited to one precinct.  Please check out the article for more details and unfortunately this blog in the futur,e as there are sure to be more posts on problems with Philadelphia elections.  

"Democrats” Are Ignoring True Voter Intimidation

In case you missed it, early this week Pennsylvania’s Attorney General came down hard against voter intimidation in Philadelphia:

Attorney General Josh Shapiro said the charges should “draw a very clear line ahead of next week’s election.”  

One elderly couple, both Republicans, cast their ballots together, but only one of the votes was recorded, while the other appeared to have been replaced with a write-in vote for the Democrat in the race, Shapiro said.

A voter intending to cast a ballot for the Green Party candidate was told the ballot machine was broken and later was cursed at when he returned to try again, Shapiro said. Another voter supporting the Green Party candidate was aggressively questioned when he tried to bring someone into the polling booth to assist him, as allowed by law.  

“One should not chalk these actions up to typical partisanship or typical electioneering,” Shapiro said

To anyone who has followed Philadelphia elections, none of this is a surprise. Dozens of Republican court appointed election inspectors and poll watchers were turned away in the 2016 election and since they are also voters in that precinct: "People are leaving and they’re scared to come back and vote."

 

What is pleasantly surprising is that the Pennsylvania Attorney General did the right thing and went after a few of the "intimidators."  Kudos to him. 

Why is this not fought more often?  Well, take a look at the webpage of the nonpartisan “Election Protection” coalition.  The coalition of over 100 groups allegedly fights against voter intimidation which it defines as “putting undue pressure on or trying to coerce a person or group to suppress votes or to vote a certain way.”  This is obviously exactly what happened underlying the charges earlier this week in Philadelphia and has been happening since at least 2008.  Yet, the coalition is silent on this. 

The most recent story on their homepage is about Pennsylvania as well.  Yet nothing on the recent charges in Philadelphia in front of a Mayoral election in just a few days.  It seems like the entire “Election Protection” coalition looks the other way when voter intimidation happens to members of the Green or Republican Party.  Or put another way, they are ignoring the voter intimidation done by Democrats.  Shameful, and certainly not “nonpartisan.”   

Another Trump Nominee Faces a Distorted and Misleading Attack on Her Record

The left really is going over the top in their attacks on nominees to the Trump Administration. Today, Mother Jones did a hit piece on Cameron Quinn for being too connected to conservatives or even a closed conservative group.  Their primary source for much of the article seems to be her LinkedIn page and quotes from people who do not know her. 

Instead of debating what they say Cameron has done, we’ll list a few things that the Mother Jones intentionally omitted from her LinkedInpage:  

• Cameron ran Domestic Programs for the Peace Corps for almost two years. Mother Jones obviously omitted this because they want to portray her only as a Republican activist and not someone who worked for a liberal- and Democrat-favored program like the Peace Corps.
• Cameron worked for years for the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, a bipartisan group seeking to make our elections better.  For example, the current Co-Chair Donald R. Sweitzer is a former DNC Political Director, union official, and staffer for Ted Kennedy's Presidential campaign.  House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer is also on the board.

While Mother Jones omits that bipartisan work from the LinkedIn page they sourced for other parts of their story, they also mischaracterized other things she actually did in the field of election law:

• There was an effort in Fairfax County, Virginia, while Cameron was Registrar to get activists inside polling places to interfere with efforts to cast a secret ballot. While partisans and groups can electioneer outside polling places, some Democrat and Virginia liberal groups wanted poll watchers to be able to talk to voters inside polling places and even to follow them into voting booths under the guise of “helping” them. This is the kind of potential intimidation tactic that many liberal groups rightly oppose and why all poll watcher trained by every group on the conservative side emphasizes that poll watchers cannot talk to voters in the polls, only election officials can.  And for voters who need assistance, Virginia has specific statutory procedures to protect the voter from intimidation. Cameron simply did what all good election officials across the country of both parties do: stop potential electioneering and voter intimidation inside the polls.
• The article also discusses voter ID. Cameron was an academic advisor to the prestigious Carter-Baker Commission on voting (the "Commission on Federal Election Reform"). This commission, led by former President Jimmy Carter, recommended voter ID. When citing Cameron’s work for voter ID, we find it interesting they omit the Carter-Baker Commission's report, which is still regularly cited today, and instead discuss a group that has been out of existence for over a decade.

Cameron has worked with and been a leader for RNLA for years, though never while she was an election official.  Cameron is a consensus builder, careful, conscientious, intelligent, and hardworking.  She will make a great Counsel for Civil Rights for the Department of Homeland Security.  Mother Jones could have asked us about her but instead of talking to people who knew Cameron, they choose to excerpt and distort parts of her LinkedIn bio and talk to political operatives who oppose all things related to President Trump. 

Election Integrity Commission Seeks Input from States

After Vice President Pence announced that the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity would hold its first meeting on July 19 and that all meetings of the commission will be open to the public, Commission Vice Chair Kris Kobach sent a letter to state election officials asking how the Commission can best help the states:

As the Commission begins it work, I invite you to contribute your views and recommendations throughout this process. In particular: 

1. What changes, if any, to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections? 

2. How can the Commission support state and local election administrators with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities? 

3. What laws, policies, or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer? 

4. What evidence or information do you have regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud in your state?  

5. What convictions for election-related crimes have occurred in your state since the November 2000 federal election? 

6. What recommendations do you have for preventing voter intimidation or disenfranchisement? 

7. What other issues do you believe the Commission should consider? . . .

On behalf of my fellow commissioners, I also want to acknowledge your important leadership role in administering the elections within your state and the importance of state-level authority in our federalist system. It is crucial for the Commission to consider your input as it collects data and identifies areas of opportunity to increase the integrity of our election systems.

This Commission, recognizing the unique role and power of the states in our federalist election system, has given the states the unprecedented opportunity to have input in the Commission's focus and goals.  With the past two presidential election commissions, the chairmen determined the focus and goals.  But the left has responded with its tired refrain of voter suppression and Democrat secretaries of state have already declared they are going to resist any requests from the commission to help make their voting systems better.  

These questions are mostly non-controversial.  They ask for information and opinions and are not partisan or political on their face.   Question two even provides an opportunity for Democrat state officials to opine on the threat that Russian interference posed to last year's election, one of the left's current favorite narratives.  For the questions that are controversial such as those on vote fraud, this provides an opportunity for election officials to make their case denying it is a problem.   

Further, question seven gives an open-ended opportunity for an official who thinks elections are anything less than perfect.  

This shows the political and disingenuous nature of those opposing the report, for they literally have the opportunity to influence what both what the Commission studies and the recommendations it makes. If Democrats aren't willing to provide their opinion on election issues when asked, they will have very little credibility to criticize the Commission's report when it is released.    

Instead of engaging in a bipartisan, federal-state dialogue about how to make American elections better, they are sadly and reflexively resisting the Commission and missing the opportunity to have their voices heard to make elections more open, fair, and honest.

New York Times Shows Its Political Bias in Ignoring Actual Voter Intimidation

Over the weekend, the New York Times editorialized the following:

Jeff Sessions, the new attorney general, is hardly likely to be as proactive as the Obama administration was in investigating complaints of voter suppression by the states. 

This claim is laughable if it were not a serious matter.  President Obama’s Department of Justice did little or nothing on actual voter intimidation while acting as partisans.  We will limit ourselves to two examples at the beginning and end of President Obama’s term.  

In 2009, the new Obama Department of Justice was handed a “slam dunk” case of violations of Voting Rights Act as the result of the intimidation in the infamous “New Black Panther Party” video outside a polling place.  Yet, Obama political appointees at the Department of Justice overruled career staff in a partisan decision and the case was largely dismissed.  (Jerry Jackson, one of the two in the video, was later rewarded with election to a seat on the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee.)

Late in 2016, Presidential Electors in the state of Michigan received death threats before they cast their ballots for President Thump in the Electoral College.  These crystal clear efforts at intimidation or worse did not merit a peep out of the Obama Justice Department. 

There are other examples.  However, the Obama Administration Department of Justice seemly ignored voter intimidation and many other voting matters and did their job on a partisan basis.  The New York Times' proclamations that the Trump Department of Justice will behave worse when Attorney General Sessions has been on the job only a few days, shows the Times’ political basis.  

Threats and Intimidation Against Electors

Yesterday, the Electoral College convened and voted to make Donald Trump the next President of the United States.  In most presidential election years, this process barely makes the news.  But this year, amidst celebrity calls for electors to abandon the person for whom they were pledged to vote, electors have been threatened with mountains of harassing emails, voicemails, and letters and even death threats:

The nation’s 538 presidential electors have been thrust into the political foreground like never before in American history. In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails.

Just a few disturbing examples:

• By mid-November, 22-year-old Michigan elector Michael Banerian had already received hundreds of emails: “You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” he said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
• Every elector in Pennsylvania was assigned a plainclothes state police officer for protection: Thousands of emails land in their inboxes every day. Copies of the Federalist Papers and other books urging political courage are being mailed to their homes. They are even getting phone calls in the middle of the night.
• One elector in Arkansas had to file a police report due to "continual threats."

The duties, selection, and voting requirements of electors in each state are established by state law, and the electors who voted for Trump yesterday were fulfilling their legal duties.  To their credit, most Democratic leaders have decried the threats, but the Department of Justice has been strangely silent.  Such threats against electors likely fall under the prohibition against voter intimidation or harassment contained in Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which falls under DOJ's jurisdiction.  Interstate communications that threaten another person are punishable under 18 U.S.C. 875(c).

However, it appears that the FBI and DOJ have done nothing to investigate the threats against presidential electors.  We hope that the Trump Justice Department will investigate these threats, which not only threaten the electors individually but also our constitutional republic and the uniquely American nonviolent transition of power.

Election Issues and Fraud in Pennsylvania

In what has become a perennial problem, voters in Pennsylvania, primarily in Philadelphia experienced a number of election administration problems, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and machine problems during voting today:

Efforts to exclude Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia:

Joseph Defelice, Pennsylvania GOP chairman, says Democrats on the polling boards across Philadelphia are banning Republican poll watchers and minority inspectors from entering the poll sites.

Democrats in the polling places in Philadelphia "assisted" voters by helping them vote all-Democrat tickets and handing out Democratic literature in the polling place.

Mis-calibrated voting machines in Butler County:

Election judges in Clinton Township, Butler County confirmed there were issues with two of their eight automated voting machines. Most of the issues came when people tried to vote straight party ticket. 

However, other said they specifically wanted to vote for Republican Donald Trump only to see their vote switched before their eyes to Democrat Hillary Clinton. 

“I went back, pressed Trump again. Three times I did this, so then I called one of the women that were working the polls over. And she said you must be doing it wrong. She did it three times and it defaulted to Hillary every time,” Bobbie Lee Hawranko said.

The District Attorney in Luzerne County is asking the FBI to investigate machines changing votes from Trump to Clinton:

Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis has asked the FBI to look into complaints that electronic voting machines from across the county have been “flipping” votes before they were recorded.  

Complaints began coming in Tuesday morning that ballots cast for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump were being incorrectly shown as votes for Democrat Hillary Clinton. 

This post will be updated as more reports of irregularities come in from Pennsylvania.

First update, US News reporting more illegal voter assistance for Hillary, possibly changing the votes of Russian speaking Jews in North Philly:

A Russian-language interpreter in North Philadelphia’s Ephraim Goldstein Arbor House, a polling place predominantly used by Jewish Russian-speaking retirees, was accused of directing senior citizens to vote for Hillary Clinton, a Republican poll watcher and a Republican lawyer told law-enforcement officials today. The interpreter spoke in Russian to elderly voters, the Republican lawyer, said. Both the poll watcher and the lawyer are Russian speakers.  

 “The Russian community in Philadelphia are largely highly educated people who immigrated here over 20 years ago,” Marks said, “and they all can read the word Hillary Clinton.”

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.