The Democrat New Hampshire Secretary of State is verifying voters who registered at the polls on Election Day last November, and so far his review has turned up 458 votes with a high likelihood of being fraudulent (emphasis ours):
New numbers from New Hampshire’s Secretary of State’s office indicate that 458 people who voted here on Election Day may have possibility committed voter fraud. . . . According to data released earlier this year from the Secretary of State’s office following apublic records request from NHPR, 5,903 first time New Hampshire voters who registered on Election Day last November used an out-of-state license as their form of identification. That’s 0.78% of all people who voted in the election.
Yes, people with out-of-state licenses can show up and vote on Election Day in New Hampshire. . . . But to vote with an out-of-state license, you need to prove you hold domicile in the state. Showing a utility bill, a lease or a pay stub, can work to prove you actually live in New Hampshire. . . . Voters without any proof that they live New Hampshire are allowed to cast their ballot, but they have to sign a legal document confirming they’re telling the truth about where they live. Signing that document opens them up to the possibility of prosecution if it’s proven they lied.
Within 90 days after the election, the Secretary of State’s office mails letters to those people signing those affidavits. According to documents provided to NH1 News this week by the Secretary of State’s office, 6,033 letters were sent to people who voted in New Hampshire last November without proof of domicile. As highlighted earlier, 458 of those letters came back undeliverable. Many of the names of those people will be sent to the state Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution. . . .
The Secretary of State’s office also sent out 764 letters following this past November’s election to voters who cast a ballot without a satisfactory photo identification. The is no information yet on how many of those letters were returned undeliverable.
There may be many more truly out-of-state voters who voted last fall in New Hampshire, in addition to the number of follow-up postcards sent to voters without photo ID that are returned as undeliverable. Fortunately, the New Hampshire legislature is working on a bill to plug the hole in New Hampshire's laws that allow out-of-state voters to vote so easily, and with a Republican governor now in the Granite State, it likely won't be vetoed as similar measures have been in the past.
President Trump claimed that he and former Senator Kelly Ayotte lost the November 2016 election in New Hampshire due to fraud, earning an official letter requesting evidence from FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. This is likely just the start of the evidence that will continue to accumulate as New Hampshire election and Department of Justice officials investigate voters who lacked proper documentation in the 2016 election.
Judicial Watch’s Robert Popper has an excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal about the ongoing federal litigation challenging several changes to North Carolina’s election laws and how statistics from November’s election dispel the myth the changes suppressed the vote there. As we have seen in other states that have adopted voter integrity measures such as photo ID laws, North Carolina’s changes are proving to have zero impact on minority turnout, despite the hysterical claims made by the NAACP and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ). In fact, African-American voter registration and turnout increased for the 2014 election.
Popper explains the various legislative changes at issue. For example, North Carolina moved to eliminate same day voter registration, a contentious policy that increases a state’s risk of Election Day fraud. North Carolina also tweaked its state law to require voters to vote in the precinct in which they are registered, hardly a novel or extreme measure. Another change challenged in the lawsuit is the reduction of days available for early voting from 17 to 10, although counties were required to offer the same number of early voting hours as they did before the changes kicked in. North Carolina also adopted a photo voter ID law in the legislative package although it does not take effect until 2016.
North Carolina was sued in two separate suits in August, 2013 by the NAACP, Common Cause, League of Women Voters and others. Later, a third suit was brought by Holder’s DOJ. (Click here for the pleadings and for other information on the case.) Among the extraordinary claims by DOJ as chronicled by Popper:
One expert in the Justice Department lawsuit claimed that more than 200,000 black voters, along with 700,000 white voters, would be “burdened” in an off-year election. Another expert concluded that particular provisions “will lower turnout overall” and “will have a disparate impact on African-American voters.”
Reality?
Those predictions were not borne out. The 2014 elections were the first test of the impact of North Carolina’s new laws, including a “soft rollout” of its voter-ID requirement—under which poll workers asked voters if they had ID and if not, to acknowledge the new requirement in writing. Board of Elections data showed that the percentage of age-eligible, non-Hispanic black residents who turned out to vote in North Carolina rose to 41.1% in November 2014 from 38.5% in November 2010.
The percentage of black registrants voting increased to 42.2% from 40.3% in the same period, and the black share of votes cast increased to 21.4% from 20.1%. The absolute number of black voters increased 16%, to 628,004 from 539,646.
As Popper notes, this is just “the latest example of allegedly “suppressive” laws that failed to suppress votes.” Plaintiffs and left-wing groups like the Brennan Center continue to cry wolf over these laws but the results are clear: common-sense voter integrity measures simply do not suppress the vote. As the Brennan Center and others continue to lose credibility based on their outrageous claims, they are only getting more desperate and it is showing. While some activist and sympathetic judges may continue to (at least temporarily) stop these laws from being implemented, the truth is finally emerging. Even Rick Hasen and other liberals have begun to question the Chicken Little “Sky is Falling” narrative being spun by plaintiffs in these suits and groups like the Brennan Center.
