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. 

Does the Real Election Interference Involve the Democrats?

In May, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen recounted the Obama administration’s long held propensities for election tampering, the latest effort being the DHS’s bid under former Secretary Jeh Johnson to infiltrate numerous state election voter databases during the 2016 election cycle.

Johnson testified last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, that, even though he did not believe that “votes were altered or suppressed in some way,” his organization did not report on potential Russian hacking for the sake of non-partisanship.

David Warrington, RNLA Vice President for Election Education, highlights the Democratic Party’s herculean attempt during this hearing to scapegoat anyone else for its own illegal forays into elections:

Leaving aside for a minute that Russia ‘hacking’ the 2016 election is a wildly inaccurate portrayal of Russia's digital meddling — which to date are only allegations, nothing proven — there's likely another reason Johnson wasn't quick to cry foul: some of the known, legitimate attempts to hack into state election databases were perpetrated by Johnson's own organization, the Obama-led DHS.

DHS is not alone.  As we detailed Friday, even Democrats are raising questions of interference with the election regarding Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch. What does all this mean?  As Warrington concludes the continued fixation on Russia:

They are little more than an attempt to protect the previous administration from being exposed as election meddlers, albeit unsuccessful ones. But Hillary Clinton's leaked emails, which showed the Democratic National Committee colluding with her campaign to ensure she won the nomination over Bernie Sanders, have already proven that meddling in democratic processes is a strategy the left employs to win. 

Partisan politics in the end is driving this Russia hacking myth. And as Michael Thielen put it, “the reality is that there’s more evidence linking a US federal agency under Obama to state election hacking than there is linking Russia to the presidential election.”

Wisconsin Voter ID Law Back In Court

On the last day of testimony in the trial in the renewed, as-applied challenge to Wisconsin's voter ID law, U.S. District Judge James Peterson made clear that he believes that the case will be appealed regardless of his ultimate decision. Still, Peterson has already announced that the law will remain in place through the August elections and noted that he hopes to make a ruling “by the end of July”. Here is an overview of the arguments and expert witnesses involved in the recent Wisconsin Voter ID case.

The turnout in [the April] election — the state's highest in a presidential primary since 1972 — is a central part of the state's case. Lawyers for the state have frequently noted the increased turnout in elections that have occurred since the state's voter ID law was passed in 2011 and emphasized that the DMV provides free IDs to those who need them.

Both sides have expert witnesses on their lists to help bolster their arguments — and attempt to discredit the expert witnesses whose reports conflict with their stance. 

The State is using two high-profile experts in M.V. Hood III, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia, and Nolan McCarty, a Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. The conclusions of the defense’s experts include:

M.V. Hood III:

     

"…Wisconsin’s election code provides a reasonable and common sense approach to the manner in which elections are conducted in the state. Further, Wisconsin has acted to continue to make elections more manageable, fair, and efficient (i.e. standardization for in person absentee voting days and hours). As well, the electoral climate in the state can be characterized as extremely positive as evidenced by the fact that in three of the last four federal election cycles Wisconsin recorded the second highest voter turnout rate in the country."

"The recent changes to in-person absentee voting in Wisconsin represent a means by which voter convenience can be balanced against the cost, both literal and administrative, for providing this service."

"…the rate at which absentee ballots have been rejected has fallen, not risen, over the last two federal election cycles. My examination of Wisconsin’s registration process involving the end of corroboration determined that this change instituted a fair and consistent standard for all electors in the state. Finally, increasing the residency requirement to 28 days places Wisconsin firmly in line with other states that have similar requirements."

"…there appears to be more than ample opportunity, time, and convenience for voters to accomplish this duty (of voting) in the State of Wisconsin."

"I can think of no reason that would lead me believe that the changes undertaken to Wisconsin’s election code under challenge in this case have, or will have, a detrimental impact on the ability of Wisconsin voters to cast a ballot, including minority voters."

Nolan McCarty:

"Clearly, I believe that there are many reasons to doubt (Kenneth Mayer's) conclusions. First, rather than observing a 'significantly lowered … probability that a voter [could] cast a ballot in 2014,' I documented that turnout increased markedly from 2010 to 2014 for racial minorities as well as for whites. In proportional terms (measured by the odds ratio), the turnout increases among the registered and citizen voting age population were at least as large for African-Americans as they were for whites."

"The findings suggesting the absence or smaller effects on racial minorities, students, young voters, and those without ID may largely be attributable to a variety of attrition biases, measurement error, and misinterpreted findings."

"…I find little evidence that the changes in Wisconsin electoral law had any significant partisan effect. The 2014 gubernatorial election was almost an exact replay of 2010 both in terms of vote shares and turnout at the municipal level. Nor did I find evidence that changes to absentee balloting reduced its usage by any racial or ethnic group."

Liberal’s and the left continue to attack the common sense voter ID regulations across the country, more often than not using the same illogical arguments over and over again unsuccessfully. Most recently courts have upheld state laws in the landmark voter ID cases in Virginia and North Carolina. At some point, the left must realize that election integrity is a crucial piece of the voting process and it is necessary to encourage voter involvement in elections. This should not come as a surprise to many as several polls have shown a great deal of public support for the laws.  

Michigan’s and Mississippi's Primaries Disprove the Left's Feckless Rhetoric About Voter ID Laws

Both Republican and Democratic voters turned out en masse last Tuesday providing yet another glaring example, among the rapidly expanding list of examples, that voter ID laws do not disenfranchise voters. Michigan broke a record set in 1972:

With more than 2.4 million voters turning out for Michigan's presidential primary on Tuesday, the record set in 1972, when 1.9 million people cast ballots, was shattered. 

Turnout in areas of Michigan was so high Tuesday that some clerks were reporting that some precincts were running out of ballots. The high number was fueled by a huge increase in absentee voting this year over previous elections. 

Clerks ran out of ballots in Redford, Ingham County and in one precinct in Kent County. Additional ballots were quickly sent to those precincts, but some voters reported having to wait for more than an hour in line until more ballots were delivered. 

Turnout was so high at a Redford Township polling station, Precinct 25, that the station ran out of Democratic ballots for at least half an hour, an organizer said.

States with voter ID laws continue to see record turnouts this presidential cycle on both sides of the aisle. Like most states, Michigan, typically classified a swing state, did not seem to have an issue with its citizens finding and using their ID. 

Mississippi also had strong turnout at the polls, with no significant issues reported:

"Voting's been pretty steady," Smithka said. "We've had a pretty good turnout. No real problems with voter ID. A couple people forgot their IDs and had to go home and retrieve them, but other than that it's been pretty smooth." 

Alma Myers, who was in charge of the Walthall School Precinct on Southern Avenue, said everything was fine. 

"Things are going pretty good," she said. The precinct had serviced 171 voters by late afternoon.

Additional states with voter ID laws, specifically Missouri, Florida and North Carolina, have presidential primaries tomorrow. Given the turnout in early voting in North Carolina, it should be another banner day.

Obama Administration Moving to Allow Non-Citizens to Register to Vote

As the presidential primaries are well underway, the U.S. Department of Justice continues to attempt to block measures designed to keep non-citizen voters from being included in our elections.

Each vote recorded by a non-citizen residing in this country illegally or legally disenfranchises an eligible, citizen voter.  States have taken prudent steps to prevent non-citizen voting by requiring proof of citizenship when a person registers to vote.  

Why is our current administration, along with liberal groups, attacking those measures now? Because most people are distracted with the primaries themselves.

On February 12, these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission’s decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22.

It's hard to envision why the DOJ would target the EAC simply for following the enacted law of the states in question except a desire to allow non-citzens to register and vote.  Most specifically because:

Under Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, states have the power to set the “Qualification requisite for electors.” As with many issues, the Left disdains the balance the Framers adopted in the Constitution and objects to this delegation of power to the states. They prefer to see power over elector eligibility centralized in Washington, D.C.

The EAC is fulfilling its duties to the states as required. The DOJ is actively encouraging and participating in efforts to keep the EAC from doing so and thereby attempting to disenfranchise citizen voters by allowing non-citizens to register and vote.

Gov. McAuliffe's Appointees Try an End Run to Let Illegals and Felons Vote

The battle for voter integrity continues in Virginia. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's appointees are trying bypassing the state legislature to make changes to allow convicted felons and illegal aliens to  fraudulent vote without any consequences. Under the proposed changes to the Virginia Code, voters would no longer need to affirmatively check a box stating that they are a citizen, and they are neither a felon, nor mentally incompetent. Currently, if a voter leaves this box incomplete, the action is a material omission. Thus, if a person does not at least affirmatively state they are a citizen, the vote does not count.

However, due to efforts by McAuliffe’s appointees the State Board of Elections was poised to take up a motion on July 28^th to change these procedures so that election directors across Virginia would be instructed to ignore blank boxes. On June 22, 2015, the State Board of Elections issued an extension to the comment period on the proposed Voter Registration Application Regulation and Form, and extended the public comment period again to August 3^rd, 2015.

Delegate James M. LeMunyon responded:

Every first-grader in Virginia gets a work sheet from a teacher with boxes to check. If we’ve had this sort of rampant people-haven’t-been-able-to-check-boxes problem, I haven’t heard of that one.

Hans A. von Spakovsky and Rachel landsman of the Heritage Foundation highlight in  National Review that the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 added the citizenship question to the federal voter-registration form because of the evidence that non-citizens are registering to vote. Proposed changes would allow non-citizens and felons to continue to illegally register, but eliminate the risk of getting caught.

Each illegal vote negates the vote of a citizen voting legally. Senator Thomas A. Garrett Jr. pleads with Virignia voters stating

If we let Terry McAuliffe have his way, illegal aliens will be able to vote just like you and me — unless you make time to help.

As Del. Rob Bell, a leader in the voter ID fight states (emphasis mine):

This would of course make it easier to commit voter fraud, and would substantially undermine the bills that I worked on with Senator Obenshain in 2013 to address voting by felons, residents of other states, and photo ID. 

In 2008, Senator Tom Garrett prosecuted voter fraud prompted by a progressive group that sent out forms to felons encouraging them to register.  As Garrett noted to the Board, their new proposal would make it “virtually impossible” to prosecute such offenders. 

Through midnight, Virginians can use the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website here to urge the Virginia State Board of Elections to continue to require affirmation of citizenship and non-felon status as material portions of the voter registration form.