Democrats Ignoring Voter Protections for Fraudulent Votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crying Wolf Over an Advisory Commission

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

As the Washington Post reported (emphasis ours): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As EIC Vice Chair Kris Kobach stated:

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

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

Promising Start to Protecting Freedom Through Election Integrity

RNLA Vice President for Communications Ron Hicks wrote today about how important election integrity is to securing our freedom through the ballot box and how the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is beginning its important work to help states better administer their elections:

Last week, Commission Vice Chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach sent a letter to chief election officials in every state that set off another round of manufactured, faux outrage and misleading headlines.  What was in this letter that had everyone up in arms? A request for input from the states on a variety of election administration questions and suggestions about how the Commission could best help the states, and a request that the states provide already publicly available voter data. 

Unlike previous presidential election commissions, this Commission is taking the unprecedented step of not only recognizing states’ primary role in administering and protecting the integrity of elections, but in also asking states how the Commission can be of help to them.  Instead of taking a top-down (federal-to-state) approach, the Commission has given the states the opportunity to participate in the process and has asked for their input in recommending goals for the Commission. . . . The second part of the letter asks each state to provide “publicly available voter roll data for [your state], including, if publicly available under the laws of your state,” personal data typically recorded as part of a voter’s voter registration record.  As stated twice in that short portion of the request, the Commission is requesting only publicly available voter registration data. . . . 

Sadly—as has been far too common in recent months—the mainstream media’s reporting has twisted the letter into a threat by the Trump administration to gather and publish confidential information about every voter in the country.  Headlines tout the states’ non-compliance with the letter, claiming that some 44 states plus the District of Columbia are refusing to provide the information requested by the Commission. 

The truth is that 29 states are providing publicly available voter registration information, as determined by their state’s law, and just 18 states are not providing the data.  This is hardly the massive, overwhelming resistance to the Commission portrayed in the media.  And this is only part of the whole picture.  State laws in Tennessee and North Dakota do not allow release of voter registration data to the Commission. Yet, these states are being portrayed by media as being non-compliant when, in fact, their hands are just tied by their own laws.

The RNLA will highlight the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity's actions here and in our weekly Daily Caller column.

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.

Election Integrity Commission Seeks Public Voter Registration Information from States

On Wednesday, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Vice Chair Kris Kobach sent a letter to state election officials requesting publicly available voter registration information to help the Commission do its work:

In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publicly available voter roll data for [your state], including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.

Despite this request being limited to existing and only publicly available information, the left has decried this as a witch hunt, voter suppression tool, intrusive into voters' privacy, and federal overreach.

Liberals and Democrats admit that the voter registration rolls are messy and that this is a problem, but they resist local election officials' attempts to clean them or determine what systems would help them be more accurate.  

Rhode Island recently announced that it has found 150,000 inaccurate voter registration records in a state with a voting age population of 842,321.  Shouldn't states be welcoming the opportunity to prevent such inaccuracies from occurring?  This is a problem that the left and right agree exists.  If the left won't participate in even studying an issue that they admit is a problem, that begs the question if the left cares about fixing any part of our election process.    

Trump Wants to Fix Elections with Integrity Commission; Left Says Election Integrity Study Will Pollute Our Water?!?

RNLA Vice President for Communications Ron Hicks wrote praising President Trump for formally announcing his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity earlier today:

This study, and the recommendations for reform and better practices that will come from it, is long overdue.  Only 30% of Americans expressed confidence in the “honesty of elections,” according to a recent Gallup poll. 

Like the response to any action by President Trump, we can expect manufactured public outcry from the left, likely centered on the fact that the commission will investigate problems of vote fraud as part of its mission.  The activists on the left who deny the existence of vote fraud despite evidence to the contrary will decry the commission, even though vote fraud is a non-partisan issue. 

A typical overreaction from the left is here: the Friends of the Earth think a commission on election integrity is a partisan action that somehow destroys the environment:  

By signing this order, Trump is using his office to silence voters and is ignoring Americans demanding action to address climate change, protect our drinking water, and ensure the food our children eat is safe.

In reality, as Hicks explains, it is non-partisan:   

Why is it non-partisan?  Because vote fraud takes many different forms and is a much broader problem than the voter impersonation fraud often discussed in the news—when someone shows up at the polls pretending to be a legitimate voter and votes in his or her name.  When vote fraud occurs, it cancels out the vote of someone voting for a different candidate.  It’s a broad problem that affects honest voters broadly.  And no voter who has taken the time to research the candidates and issues and vote wants to know that a fraudulent vote has negated his or her vote. 

The best example of the non-partisan nature of the study is Secretary of State Bill Gardner.  Gardner has been Secretary of State of New Hampshire since 1976 during very Democrat and very Republican swings in the New Hampshire electorate.  Gardner is just one of the qualified Secretaries of State on the commission who act in a non-partisan manner for election integrity:  

Commission member Democrat New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner understands this well.  His party affiliation does not prevent him from caring deeply about the integrity of New Hampshire elections and working tirelessly to ensure that eligible votes from New Hampshire citizens are counted and not canceled by fraudulent votes. . . . Commission vice chair Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, also has worked for years to improve the integrity of elections not just in Kansas but around the country.  He founded, and his office administers, the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck (IVRC) program, which compares voter registration databases from member states to identify possible errors and duplicate registrations.

We look forward to to reviewing the findings and recommendations of the commission and working together with election officials to ensure that the problems that harm the integrity of our elections are eliminated or reduced to protect the lawful votes of all eligible voters.

Vote Fraud Watch: Double Voting in Colorado

In addition to problems with dead voters, Colorado also has problems with double voting:

An ongoing CBS4 voter fraud investigation has uncovered a dozen cases where Coloradans are suspected of voting twice. . . . In six of the new cases, voting records show the same people voting twice in Colorado elections. In another six cases, people are suspected of voting in Colorado and another state during the same election cycle. . . .

Five of the double voters are being prosecuted in Kansas, and people voting in both Kansas and Colorado is a perennial problem:

[Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach] says after each election, Colorado and Kansas crosscheck voters to identify double ballots and clean up their databases. But Kobach still believes 10,000 people are registered to vote in both Colorado and Kansas. 

“Any one of those 10,000 people could probably succeed in casting two votes,“ Kobach said. “We want to get the word out, ‘Don’t do it, we’ll catch you.’”

Problems of double voting inside Colorado are amplified by Colorado's new vote-by-mail system:

[In addition to a pending double voting prosecution in Colorado, Colorado Secretary of State Wayne] Williams admits other Coloradans are getting away with it. Combing through voter data, CBS4 found three suspected double voters in Denver, one suspected double voter in Arapahoe County and one suspected double voter in Douglas County. All five cases that CBS4 uncovered have now been referred to prosecutors for possible criminal action. 

“It’s a relatively small number,” said Williams, “But, it is a problem of any magnitude because we have close elections in Colorado.” . . .  

Since ballots were mailed out last week, CBS4 has been contacted by a handful of voters who have received more than one ballot.

We applaud Secretaries of State Williams and Kobach for taking the problems of double registration and double voting seriously.

Kansas SOS Kris Kobach Combats Voter Fraud

Since taking office in 2011, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has fought to protect the integrity of elections in Kansas.  He created a system for citizens to report instances of voter fraud:

The Kansas Secretary of State's office administers elections at the national and state level for the state of Kansas. In order to ensure that Kansas elections are among the most secure in the nation, we must safeguard our voting process. Election and voter fraud undermines the precious right of each citizen to be heard at the ballot box. Each step of the process must conform to the law, from voter registration to casting votes to counting ballots and certifying results.

To the dismay of many liberals, Sec. Kobach sought and obtained the power to actually investigate and prosecute reported instances of vote fraud:

The conservative Republican pushed for legislation last year that gave him the authority to prosecute voter fraud. Gov. Sam Brownback signed the measure last summer, making Kobach the only secretary of state in the nation with such power. 

At the time, Kobach said he had identified more than 100 potential instances of double voting, casting ballots in the same election in different jurisdictions. 

Kobach announced three voter fraud cases last October and three more in January. One of the October cases resulted in a guilty plea in December, and one was dismissed last Friday. 

Sec. Kobach rightly recognizes that prosecuting vote fraud is not a high priority for prosecutors and state attorneys general, whether through political motives or simply lack of manpower and expertise.  But vote fraud is a real problem, and prosecution is the only true deterrent:

“One of the principal reasons of exercising this prosecutorial authority is letting people know they won’t get away with it,” [Kobach] said. 

Kobach said any instance of voter fraud is serious. 

“Every time an illegal vote is cast, that effectively cancels out the vote of a legitimate voter,” he said. “In close elections, those illegal votes can alter an election.”

Thank you, Secretary Kobach, for standing up for the integrity of the voting process in Kansas and serving as an example to the rest of the country of what the chief election administrator in a state should do. 

Kansas Makes Reporting Voter Fraud Easier

Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, added a new website link to report suspected voter fraud in addition to a voter fraud hotline. This is after Kobach gained the power to prosecute voter fraud instead of reporting them to a local district attorneys office. The message on the KA Secretary of State’s Office website says,

In order to ensure that Kansas elections are among the most secure in the nation, we must safeguard our voting process. Election and voter fraud undermines the precious right of each citizen to be heard at the ballot box.

According to Deputy Secretary of State, Bryan Caskey, possible violations include voting irregularities, corrupt political advertising, election bribery, election forgery, disorderly election conduct, intimidation of voters, voting without being qualified and voting twice in the same election.

Unfortunately, the KA Democratic Representative John Carmichael is ready to spar over the issue and claims Koback will pursue “less than meritorious cases.” And says “That’s what we have to keep our eye on.”

For the latest news on voter ID ad voting issues generally, sign up here for RNLA’s Friday Voter ID Update.

SCOTUS Denies Requests for Proof of Voter Citizenship

The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Arizona and Kansas that left in effect a November 2014 ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the states cannot require the documentation for applicants using the “federal form.”

The decision denied the states’ request to change its registration requirements to include proof of citizenship for those applying to vote in federal elections, as the states require for those using their state forms.

Kirs Koback, Kansas Secretary of State, who filed the joint appeal to the federal appellate court decision with Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan, says,

The Supreme Court decision not to review was not particularly surprising given the fact that there was no circuit split yet.

Kobach expects the 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the two states, to eventually weigh in, according to Roll Call. Kobach also said,

States allow people to use the federal form to register for state elections as a courtesy, but are not required to do so. So I would encourage people to continue to provide proof of citizenship. That is what the people of Kansas overwhelmingly wanted, that is what I ran on and that is what the Kansas Legislature overwhelmingly voted for. That remains the law in Kansas.

Now states will have a more difficult time preserving the integrity of federal elections in their states. Currently, the federal agency's form only requires applicants swear eligibility under penalty of perjury. Therefore, if a state wishes to use the federal form for their own elections then states will have to establish citizenship some other way.

Why it matters:

In a study, two Old Dominion Professors analyzed survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, to find that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterms. Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic, they cite Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race as one likely tipped by non-citizen voting. As a senator, Franken cast the 60th vote needed to make Obamacare law. The authors write,

We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Kobach plans to send a request presented differently to the EAC to prevent alien votes cancelling out votes of U.S. citizens.  Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legal voter. 

Voter ID Laws Do Not Negatively Impact Voter Turnout

A Heritage Foundation study recently addressed this issue.  The Heritage study was in response to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.  GAO reviewed recent elections in Kansas and claimed that "Kansas... had seen decreased voter turnout since its voter ID law went into effect" in 2012, therefore, voter ID laws have a negative impact since they suppress voter turnout.

GAO based this assumption on decreased voter turnout between the 2008 and 2012 elections.  However, the Heritage study pointed out that a decrease was not due to the voter ID law.  Instead, it was improper to compare 2008 with 2012 because there were no statewide political campaigns in 2012, and presidential campaigns are "typically not active in Kansas due to the perception that Kansas is a 'safe' Republican state."  Thus, there was no get-out-the-vote effort in 2012.  The Heritage report explained that it was more appropriate to compare the 2012 election with 2000, with 2012 having a slight increase in the percent of voters participating.  Heritage further explained that the 2010 should instead be compared to a similar election in 2014 when "there was a positive 1.1 percent increase in voter turnout."  Other states with voter ID laws were cited as having similar increases in voter turnout.

The Kansas Secretary of State concluded that "The system is really designed to ensure that it's easy to vote and hard to cheat and I think we accomplished that."

By James Keats

Obomination: Presidential Report Proves Again Liberals Would Rather Cry Race Than Fix Elections

A major bipartisan commission that includes prominent Democrats and Republicans issues a report making recommendations to improve our elections.  However, over time some Democrats and the far left not only disagree with the report, they label all those who attempt to implement many of its recommendations (even fellow Democrats) as in favor of voter suppression and either state or imply that they are “racist.”

No, I am not talking about the recent report issued by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration headed by Ben Ginsberg and Robert Bauer but an earlier effort headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, the Commission on Federal Election Reform or Carter-Baker Commission  That bipartisan report adopted the following recommendation on voter ID:

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.

Over time the left labeled voter ID at best a cynical attempt by Republicans to keep Democrats from voting or at their worst as racist. Democrats continue to attack all efforts to pass any kind of voter ID law.  This despite the fact voter ID requirements have broad support from all groups, including Democrats, and have been passed by Democrats in states such as Rhode Island. 

Now the same thing may be happening again.  With apologies to Mr. Bauer and Mr. Ginsberg, they are not as famous as Jimmy Carter or James Baker nor was their commission’s charter as broad.  However, one of their conclusions regarding voter registration list maintenance has met with more resistance in the past from the radical left than voter ID did before Carter-Baker.  Briefly that recommendation is: 

States should join interstate programs that share data and synchronize voter lists so that states, on their own initiative, come as close as possible to creating an  accurate database of all eligible voters.  

The radical left and many in the Democrat Party have labeled efforts to update such lists as, you guessed it, racist.  Infamously, the Obama Justice Department even refused to enforce laws regarding “list maintenance”.   

Will the radical left apologize to people such as Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach who has been a leader in efforts to clean up voter lists and even set up a volunteer state exchange database?  Will the Obama Department of Justice start doing its job that a commission led by President Obama’s former White House Counsel recommends?

Just as with Carter-Baker on Voter ID, we are concerned that the far left and some of their Democrat allies would rather make false cries of racism than fix our elections.   Until the Department of Justice starts enforcing the law in this regard, it will remain an Obomination.