America’s “Worst“ Election Official is Finally Starting to Pay for Her Fraud and/or Incompetence

Broward County Election Official Brenda Snipes is finally starting to face the music for her years of admitted vote fraud and incompetence.  Ironically, it was for her efforts regarding a Democrat Primary for then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman that she is beginning to face the music:

Broward Circuit Judge Raag Singhal issued an order Friday determining that Supervisor Brenda Snipes' office improperly discarded thousands of ballots cast two years ago in the Democratic primary race between Tim Canova and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In a ruling first reported by Politico, Singhal sided with Canova, who filed a lawsuit last year after he said Snipes ignored and then illegally obstructed his request to copy and inspect ballots.

Snipes was not only slapped down by a judge in a summary judgment, because of her fighting even after she admitted she broke the law, but the plaintiff will now receive attorneys’ fees.  

Snipes action in this case may or may not have helped the former Hillary-backing DNC Chair survive a strong challenge from a Sanders-supported challenger. 

What can be said is no one should trust Snipes to run an election.  In the 2016 general election alone Snipes had the following problems:

• She admitted that “non-citizens and felons have voted despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections when groups are actively registering new voters.”

• She alleged “engaged in ongoing violations of Florida law governing the canvassing of vote-by-mail ballots [absentee ballots]. [T]ens of thousands of vote-by-mail ballots in Broward County are being opened by your staff: (1) before they have been canvassed by the county canvassing board; and (2) without providing the public the opportunity to review or file a protest against the canvass of a ballot believed to be legally deficient.”

Under Snipes, voters are being disenfranchised by non-citizen and felons on the one hand.  On the other hand, she is destroying ballots and making it more difficult to review her actions.

Florida’s Secretary of State is sending an election expert to ensure all laws are followed.  It is about time; for who knows how many Ms. Snipes has disenfranchised through fraud or incompetence.   

Legendary Partisan Democrat Election Official Brenda Snipes Confirms Vote Fraud

Democrat Broward County, Florida, Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes made a startling confession in a suit brought by the American Civil Rights Union:

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.

This statement should help put to bed the argument that vote fraud is a myth.  A number of important things to note from this:

1. Despite her statement that “non-citizens and felons have voted” there have been zero prosecutions.  It is important to note again that prosecutions are not the proper way to judge vote fraud.  It also calls attention to the fact that a major election official knew that fraud had occurred but made no effort to report it.
2. Democrat and liberal groups do massive voter registration drives to make vote fraud easier.  As Snipes says, fraud happens “especially right before major elections when groups are actively registering new voters.”  This shows that the efforts of registration groups are in part aimed at flooding election officials with registrations to make it easier for fraudulent registrations to be entered.
3. “Major Elections.”  Often when we do hear stories on vote fraud, it is in local elections or Democrat primaries. The latter is often because bitter Democrat election losers are willing to expose the antics of fellow Democrats in these situations.  Snipes' statement makes clear this fraud is happen before major elections such as Presidential elections and that Democrats or their liberal allies are participating in an organized effort for illegal votes. 
4. Non-citizens and felons, as a group, vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  These illegal votes benefit Democrats and disenfranchise other voters, be they Green, Libertarian or Republican. 

Kudos to the American Civil Rights Union for bringing this serious matter to the public's attention.  

NC Election Worker Indicted for Altering Voter Registrations

A former temporary election worker in North Carolina has been indicted for altering voter registration records:

The State Bureau of Elections said in a news release on Tuesday that says 41-year-old Joy Yvette Wilkerson of Henderson faces charges of unlawful voter registration and unlawful altering of voter registrations. Wilkerson was indicted by a Granville County grand jury on Tuesday. . . . 

In June 2016, county elections director Tonya Burnette found in a review that voter registration records were changed without authorization. Burnette told the elections board, which investigated the matter and sent a full report to the district attorney's office.

The former worker attempted to alter as many as 250 registrations to allow ineligible felons to vote:

Joy Yvette Wilkerson, 41, of Henderson is facing multiple counts of fraudulently altering voter registrations, which is a felony charge. 

According to a Granville County Sheriff’s Department report, the county’s Board of Elections discovered the fraudulent activity last June and contacted law enforcement. The report says Wilkerson accessed the county’s voter registration database and restored – or tried to restore – active voting status to 250 convicted felons who had been removed from voter rolls while they served their sentence. 

North Carolina law bans convicted felons from voting while serving an active sentence – in prison or on probation – but their rights are restored after their sentence is complete.

This story illustrates how important it is for states to properly vet and train election officials, even temporary ones, and have procedures in place to protect against tampering with voter registration records or ballots (as temporary election workers did in Florida last year) and how susceptible the election system is to manipulation by a person with bad intent.  But the diligence of the North Carolina officials in catching and investigating this fraud should be commended.

Bill to Allow Certain Felons to Vote While Still in Jail Before CA Governor

A bill that would allow convicted felons still serving time in county jails in California to vote is currently before California Governor Jerry Brown.  

Inmates in California county jails would have the right to vote, under a bill passed by the state Legislature. Democratic Senator Holly Mitchell said the bill conforms with a 2014 court decision. . . . A superior court judge ruled felons in county supervision programs can vote, since they're not in prison or on parole. The bill also extends the right to inmates in county jail, who would vote in the district where they're incarcerated. Republican Senator Patricia Bates argued that could improperly influence elections. 

"These individuals who are in that particular jail may have zero connection to any of the issues going on in that city, have no vested interest, or perhaps a negative one," says Bates.

The bill exploits California's definition of prison, as the California Constitution requires disenfranchisement of felons in prison:

In 1976, voters amended the Constitution to end the permanent disenfranchisement of felons. The California Constitution now reads: The Legislature “shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.” 

With such clear language, you would think that a measure to allow felons to vote behind bars first would have to go before voters as a constitutional amendment. But voters get no say thanks to an unholy alliance of California politicians, California courts and the ACLU. In 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Realignment Act, which mandated that low-level felons serve their sentences not in state prisons, but in county jails or under county supervision. It was Brown’s clever way of alleviating state prison overcrowding by moving felons to largely overcrowded jails. 

. . . AB2466 would extend voting rights to felons in county jails because they are not called prisons. The legislation “defines ‘imprisoned’ to mean currently serving a state or federal prison sentence.” [Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber] told the Assembly her bill would not change the penal code, but simply serve to “clarify” the law and its “ambiguous terms of imprisonment.” 

[Republican Assemblymember Melissa] Melendez noted, “They’ve exploited the language in the code to suit their own needs.”

Restoring voting rights to felons still serving time, whether in prison (however it is defined) or under penal supervision, is bad policy.  The bill passed the California Senate on a strict party line vote, demonstrating that it is a political tool for the Democrats.  Further, super majorities of the public recognize the folly of this policy and oppose restoring voting rights to felons still incarcerated. 

Motion for Contempt Against McAuliffe for Defying Felon Voting Rights Restoration Order

Yesterday, Republican members of the Virginia General Assembly filed a motion for contempt against Gov. Terry McAuliffe for defying the Virginia Supreme Court's mandamus order that invalidated McAuliffe's executive orders that purported to restore voting rights to convicted felons on a blanket basis (internal citations omitted):

Petitioners respectfully request that the Court order Respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for defying the writ of mandamus that this Court issued on July 22, 2016. 

The Court struck down three executive orders restoring political rights to all felons who had completed their terms of incarceration and supervised release, holding that the Governor had unconstitutionally suspended the felon-disenfranchisement provision of Article II, Section 1 for “an indiscriminately configured class of approximately 206,000 convicted felons, without any regard for their individual circumstances and without any specific request by individuals seeking such relief.” Governor McAuliffe immediately denounced this Court’s decision, vowing to accomplish precisely the same result simply by issuing individual restoration orders for precisely the same class of approximately 206,000 felons, again without any regard for their individual circumstances and without any specific request by individuals seeking such relief. . . . 

On Monday, August 22, 2016, Governor McAuliffe announced that he had issued individual restoration orders to the approximately 13,000 felons who had registered to vote pursuant to his earlier unconstitutional executive orders, notwithstanding this Court’s order cancelling their registrations. The Governor also announced that he will issue new restoration orders to the remaining approximately 200,000 felons who meet the same criteria set forth in his invalidated April 22 executive order—that is, those who have completed their terms of incarceration and supervised release. . . .  

There is no substantive difference between the Governor’s current actions and his three executive orders suspending Article II, Section 1, that this Court invalidated in its mandamus decision. . . .

The motion points out that more than the issue of felon voting rights restoration is at stake in Gov. McAuliffe's actions; he threatens the rule of law by purporting to set himself above the law:

The Governor has openly declared his resolve to evade the Court’s order. The same day that the Court issued the writ, Governor McAuliffe proclaimed that “the Virginia Supreme Court has placed Virginia as an outlier in the struggle for civil and human rights” and announced that he simply “cannot accept” the Court’s ruling. . . . And he announced that he and the other Respondents will evade the Court’s decision prohibiting him from restoring the rights of this “indiscriminately configured class” of over 200,000 felons, stating: “At the end of the day, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. . . . [B]y two weeks [from now], all 206,000 [felons] will have their rights back.”  

In announcing last week his new plan to unilaterally re-enfranchise 206,000 felons, Governor McAuliffe again expressed his disdain for this Court’s decision. He claimed that “the Court dismissed the clear text of the Constitution,” and instead based its holding solely on “the way things have always been done in the Old Dominion.” . . . And most importantly, while claiming to be acting in conformity with this Court’s decision, the Governor emphasized that he “remain[s] resolute in [his] commitment,” to override the Constitution’s felon disenfranchisement provision by again restoring voting rights to approximately 206,000 felons who have completed their sentences and periods of supervised release, notwithstanding this Court’s order prohibiting Respondents from doing just that . . . .  

Governor McAuliffe is entitled to disagree with our Constitution and with this Court’s rulings interpreting it, but “[i]t is not for him to set himself above the law and go his own way because he deems the law’s requirements to be unwise or its restraints vexatious. In such manner does a government of laws become a government of men.” 

We applaud the Republican members of the Virginia General Assembly for standing up for the rule of law, for the text of the Virginia Constitution, and for the integrity of Virginia's elections. 

Yes, Democrats Have Tried To Rig Elections

Trump’s recent comments to the media surrounding his concerns of a rigged election have thrown the liberal media into a tizzy. For a variety of reasons, most Americans are not buying the narrative that our elections are safe. With good reason: publicly supported, common-sense electoral reforms are being attacked across the country.  The majority of Americans support voter ID as a means to protect the ballot box from fraud. 

Trump hit a nerve for a lot of Americans. Americans want fair and consistent elections. RNLA Executive Director, Michael Thielen, wrote an op-ed to address just one of several glaring issues that SHOULD prompt these concerns in every single American voter when it comes to election rigging.

The undisputed background is important. All agree that Governor McAuliffe is a close friend and staunch ally of Democrat Presidential Candidate Secretary Hillary Clinton. He was a DNC Chair under Bill Clinton. He is term limited as Virginia Governor to just one term. While Democrats would undoubtedly put this differently, there is merit to the statement of Virginia General Assembly Leader Bill Howell that “[t]he singular purpose of Terry McAuliffe’s governorship is to elect Hillary Clinton president of the United States. This office has always been a steppingstone to a job in Hillary Clinton’s Cabinet.”

No one disputes that felons overwhelmingly vote Democrat and that Virginia is a purple state where elections will likely be decided by a thin margin in 2016. The beneficiary of McAuliffe’s order is Hillary Clinton.

Further, even the staunch advocates of felon voting should have been, and were, given pause by the scope of Governor McAuliffe’s order. These advocates state that “once a person has paid their debt to society, their rights should be restored.”McAuliffe’s order included murderers, gang members still in prison,and others, such as sex offenders, still under involuntary supervision. McAuliffe’s order had the goal of getting the maximum number of voters available for Hillary, not the goal of felon rights advocates to “restore the rights of those who have paid their debt to society.”

When looking to address a problem, business owners know that one must look at the totality of the circumstances, learn from the past, and foresee future issues before they occur if they have any hope of being successful. This is a skill set that our current Commander-in-Chief has struggled to grasp. Trump is ahead of the curve and quite frankly he should be, given his extensive business experience. He sees the glaring truth that the liberal left refuses to acknowledge. 

Fraud is a reality in our elections and it needs to be fixed while Americans still have faith in the process. The Sanders email scandal illustrated this point perfectly and lends credence to Trump’s concerns. Hillary and the DNC dealt a vicious blow to public perception of election integrity. What would lead any reasonable person to believe that the general election would be any different? Hillary immediately turned around and hired the DNC Chair that was forced to resign. Add to that shady tarmac meetings, FBI investigations, email leaks, and one of the worst public trust ratings ever attributed to a candidate, and future issues are glaringly likely. As a good friend in the business world once told me, past performance predicts future behavior. 

Briefs Filed in Case Challenging Known Illegal Voting in Minnesota

Reply briefs were filed today in a case pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court challenging continuing violations by election officials that allow ineligible voters, such as felons, to vote illegally in Minnesota.  The case was filed by the Minnesota Voters Alliance:

We then prove that election officials have been notified, as required by specific statutes, of the ineligibility of every felon and non-citizen in the state. . . . We define for the Court the two particular ways in which election officials permit known ineligible persons to vote on election-day. First, felons and other known ineligible persons such as "non-citizens" are allowed to register and then cast ballots because election officials do not check any lists of ineligible persons. Second, election officials permit every felon marked “Challenged: Felony” on the poll roster to cast a ballot if the felon “swears” they are eligible. 

How much sense does it make for the state to ask the person whose right to vote has been removed by the Court if they want to vote and then ignore what the Court said, but that is what election officials do in Minnesota. 

Not only are ineligible persons voting in Minnesota, but it has a significant effect on the outcome of elections: 

Next, we prove that the amount of ineligible voting being allowed by election officials is significant in Minnesota and that it probably has, and certainly can, determine the outcome of close elections. 

As a result of incredibly painstaking and intrepid work by a team of MVA volunteers, we have been able to present the Court with an extensive list of 1,670 instances of ineligible voting by 1,366 named individuals during the 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 general elections. . . .

In presidential election years, more than 500,000 persons register on election day in Minnesota.  Our previous research has shown that after the 2008 election, there were more than 17,000 of those persons who, when verified after the election, had their voter statuses changed to “challenged” because they did not pass the state’s eligibility checks. 

We will post updates on this case as it moves forward.  We trust that the Minnesota Supreme Court will take this threat to the integrity of its elections seriously and order the Secretary of State to follow the law and not allow ineligible persons to vote.

VA Supreme Court Strikes Down McAuliffe's Blanket Restoration of Felon Voting Rights

Today, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down Gov. Terry McAuliffe's order that restored voting rights to over 200,000 convicted felons.  The court found it was unconstitutional because it re-wrote the Virginia Constitution:

In a 4-3 decision, the Court said it “respectfully disagrees” with Mr. McAuliffe’s position that he has the executive power to make such a sweeping move. . . . The court ordered the cancellation of registration of all voters convicted of a felony who registered under the governor’s executive orders by Aug. 25. 

Chief Justice Donald Lemons issued the majority opinion, which said that Mr. McAuliffe’s executive orders had revised a section of the state constitution. 

The ruling said Mr. McAuliffe lacked the power to issue a clemency order “to a class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request.” 

Justice Lemons cited Virginia’s tradition of “cautious and incremental approach to any expansions of the executive power,” writing that the framers in 1776 were skeptical of “the unfettered exercise of executive power.”

We applaud the Virginia Supreme Court for upholding the rule of law in Virginia. 

Update from Del. Rob Bell on Virginia Felon Voting Litigation

Yesterday, Delegate Rob Bell shared insights into the litigation challenging Governor Terry McAuliffe's blanket restoration of felon voting rights with RNLA lawyer volunteers.  We have covered Gov. McAuliffe's order and its aftermath here, here, here, and here.

Del. Bell discussed the order, the preparation for litigation, and likely outcomes:

• Since 1870, the Virginia Constitution has allowed the governor to restore voting rights to felons and governors have, but it has always been done on an individual, case-by-case basis.  Previous governors' legal teams, both Republican and Democrat, concluded that it had to be done that way.
• McAuliffe's order restored rights to any felon who has completed his or her sentence and finished supervised release, regardless of the crime committed.
• A particular concern is the effect on jury trials, because in criminal trials, the verdict must be unanimous.
• In preparation for trial, the legislature hired Cooper & Kirk.  Finding plaintiffs was the hardest part, but they found named plaintiffs at the Clifton Republican women’s club.  
• In terms of timing, mid-August is drop-dead date because of absentee ballots being printed.  Because of this, they took the case straight to the Supreme Court.  The Court agreed to special session for first time since 1993, and the case will be heard on July 19.
• 6,000 felons have already registered to vote.  If the restoration order is invalidated, then the governor could still restore voting rights one by one.
• The strongest argument is one of statutory interpretation: the blanket restoration allows one constitutional provision to survive while another becomes a nullity.  
• A bipartisan group of 43 Commonwealth Attorneys (representing 60% of citizens) filed an amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs.  If there had been more time, many more would have joined.
• There is now a second lawsuit challenging the order filed in circuit court and asking for an injunction.  
• There are two concerns – the Court rules against the plaintiffs or finds a way to dodge the case (standing, needing evidentiary rulings at circuit court, etc.).  Since there’s another case in circuit court, the Supreme Court will likely take up the case now.
• In terms of standing, the cause of action is based on a vote dilution claim.  
• The list of felons to whom rights have been restored has turned out to be a mess.  There are numerous people on the list who shouldn’t be on the list, and at this point the governor can’t fix it; only a court can fix it.

This year's Ed Meese Award winner, Chuck Cooper, will be discussing this litigation on the opening panel at the National Election Law Seminar on August 12-13.

“Crooked Hillary” Crony McAuliffe Earns a Trip to the Virginia Supreme Court

Breaking news today: Virginia Delegate Rob Bell shared an update on the now pending litigation with regard to Governor Terry McAuliffe’s unconstitutional blanket reinstatement of all felon’s voting rights just prior to the presidential election. The Virginia Supreme Court announced that it will hold a special session to hear the suit. The petition can be found here: Howell v. McAuliffe. We discussed the pending suit last week as well as the fact that McAuliffe has recently come under investigation by the FBI for questionable donations to his gubernatorial campaign. 

The email detailed a few keypoints about the Governor’s actions and their likely impact.

[T]he Governor's order is continuing to cause (what are hopefully) unintended consequences. Because the order restores the right to sit on juries, a Dinwiddie defendant accused of murdering a state trooper is arguing that such felons must be included in his jury pool.  Prosecutors in Loudoun and Fauquier have asked Governor McAuliffe for a list of the restored felons so they could strike them from juries hearing cases of similar crimes.  McAuliffe refused to release the list and even rejected a follow-up FOIA request.

By treating all felons exactly the same, McAuliffe’s order didn't consider the violence of each offense or whether the offender finished paying his victim’s medical bills. Legal advisors to Governor Kaine and Governor McDonnell explicitly rejected the Constitutionality of such a blanket restoration. 

Bell points out the glaring concerns for the judicial system. Allowing murders and rapists to be on a jury for a murder or rape case is quite frankly obscene and defies all levels of reasonableness and logic. The case is scheduled to be heard on July 19, 2016, at 9:00 AM.

Executive Overreach Creeps into Virginia

A “Crooked Hillary” lackey, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, is having a rough week and it’s mostly self-inflicted. The Governor has recently come under investigation by the FBI for donations to his gubernatorial campaign (more on that in a later post).

As if that was not enough for a bad day, McAuliffe is also facing a lawsuit that was filed in the Virginia Supreme Court today challenging the constitutionality of using an executive action to restore voting rights to felons en masse:

  

Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly will file suit today in the Supreme Court of Virginia challenging Gov. Terry McAuliffe's authority to order a mass restoration of rights April 22, covering more than 200,000 felons who have served their time.

"The Constitution of Virginia forbids this unprecedented assertion of executive authority," the filing states. "Governor McAuliffe’s executive order defies the plain text of the Constitution, flouts the separation of powers, and has no precedent in the annals of Virginia history. The governor simply may not, with a stroke of the pen, unilaterally suspend and amend the Constitution."

McAuliffe's order came just days after the General Assembly wrapped up the 2016 legislative session, has the potential to expand the state's voter rolls by up to 3.8 percent.

Chuck Cooper, the attorney for Republicans filing the suit, said the plaintiffs are making a direct appeal to the state's highest court because "time is of the essence...the governor issued the order in time for thousands and thousands of felons to register and ultimately vote in November elections, but that isn't enough time to litigate a case in the normal course of the trial courts of the commonwealth."

In a statement, [Speaker of the House William J.] Howell, who has clashed frequently with McAuliffe during his term over Medicaid expansion, gun control and most recently judicial selection for the Supreme Court of Virginia, said legislators "simply cannot ignore this unprecedented executive overreach.”

Given the current FBI investigation, the lawsuit, and even further allegations of wrong doing, one need not infer the Governor’s motive, as his actions speak directly to it. The unconstitutional executive action was taken for one reason alone: adding Virginia’s felon voters to the rolls in time for the presidential election. Voters that statistically will likely support “Crooked Hillary” for President. 

The Immoral and Unconstitional Act of Governor McAuliffe

A Friday afternoon a few weeks back, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe made an unprecedented and likely unconstitutional “executive order” allowing felons to vote.  As National Review wrote:

In what is likely an unconstitutional state action seemingly calculated to ensure that the purple state of Virginia goes blue in the November election, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D.) signed an order on Friday restoring the voting rights of 206,000 ex-felons in Virginia, including those convicted of murder, armed robbery, rape, sexual assault, and other violent crimes. The order also restores their right to sit on a jury, become a notary, and even serve in elected office.

Today, Christian Adams laid out the moral case against felon voting:

Giving violent felons the automatic right to vote is not morally defensible. Violent criminals who have shown contempt for other members of society and our laws should not have a voice in the process of writing laws. When a violent felon helps to choose lawmakers, laws will invariably skew more toward the criminal to the detriment of the law-abiding citizen.

Adams adds more details but the moral is simple: Governor Terry McAuliffe will do anything to elect his his friend Hillary President, constitutions and morals be dammed. 

Will McAuliffe’s Fourth Try at Vote Fraud for Virginia Succeed? (Part 1)

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is a former DNC Chair under President Bill Clinton.  As a former DNC Chair, he knows a thing or two about vote fraud and stealing elections for Democrats.  Last Friday, he took the unprecedented step of signing a possibly unconstitutional order (more on that in part II) allowing felons to vote in Virginia, including those convicted of murder, rape, and other violent crimes. 

This is just the latest effort by McAuliffe to win elections by means other than the voters.  To review:

1.  Before he was even elected, McAuliffe’s legal team fought to keep ineligible voters on the rolls in heavily Democrat Fairfax County, Virginia:

Virginia officials counted 7,934 duplicate names on the Fairfax County voter rolls, and the Democratic lawsuit asks that every one of those be allowed to cast a ballot on Nov. 5. We suggest that Mr. McAuliffe court eligible Virginians, and leave be the Virginians who have moved on. Any dead ones, too. They don’t really have much interest now in what goes on in Richmond.

Not only did the courts reject this effort but also, just a few months later, President Obama’s Commission on Election Administration advocated for just this kind of list clean up. 

2.  McAuliffe nominated a Democrat to the Republican slot for the Virginia Board of Elections:

Matthew Gray was nominated by the Governor despite having no experience that we know of in Election Administration.  He is currently working for the Humane Society.

. . .  Gary seemly “earned” his nomination by being a Democrat who once supported John McCain in 2008.  The later allowed the former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe with a straight face to nominate the Democrat primary voter Gray to the REPUBLICAN position on the Virginia Board of Elections.  (Virginia does not have party ID to vote and both parties generally identify their members by primary voting.)

This is just the latest example of the efforts of Democrats and the left to further politicize elections by appointing unqualified hacks to administer elections.

According to a story we will not link in the Washington Post, Gary withdrew his name under pressure from Republicans.   

3.  Of course, this is not even the first time that Governor McAuliffe tried to “restore” felon rights.  In July of 2015 he tried to make felons eligible by omission of answering questions regarding eligibility to vote:

The board is considering allowing people registering to vote to skip several questions on the application, including those asking whether those registering are U.S. citizens or felons whose voting rights have not been restored. . . . Currently, registrars can reject would-be voters if they do not check boxes to indicate their citizenship and felon status.

The proposal was met Tuesday with nearly universal skepticism — from registrars and elections officials with practical concerns, and from politicians and ordinary Virginians with big-picture worries that play into the nation’s fiercest political debates.

Illegal immigration, voter fraud and the restoration of felons’ right to vote — even the usurpation of legislative power by an overbearing executive branch — all loomed large over an hour-long hearing to discuss a seemingly arcane administrative matter.

In other words, this order he signed is just the latest effort by Governor McAuliffe to steal the election for his close friend Hillary Clinton.  We can only hope for the integrity of the election that this effort fails as well.  

Republican Wins in Maryland, Democrats Turn to Murderers, Rapists and Criminals to Prevent It From Happening Again

Maryland is commonly known as the “Free State” and yet many also know it as the “Old Line State”. The latter being a reference to the Maryland line's consistency and unwavering dedication during the American Revolution. As National Review discusses, Governor Larry Hogan is still attempting to “hold the line” in a battle that has been waging over a felon's "right to vote": 

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. We don’t let everyone vote — not children, not non-citizens, not the mentally incompetent, and not felons — because we have certain objective, minimum standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that must be met before someone is given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. People who have committed a serious crime against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards.

The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison — let alone when parole and probation have not yet been served. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Deep down, the Left knows all this; that’s why, though it is happy to let felons vote, it is somehow reluctant to restore their Second Amendment rights.

The real reason for this fight is not some noble cause for felons who have served their time.  It is pure crass politics to make it even harder for a Republican like Larry Hogan to win an election.  As a recent study concluded:

[A] study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release.

“Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation,” said the authoritative study in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

As a new legislative session begins, Governor Hogan’s veto of the bill in question is under partisan fire. Democrats have continued their attempt override it. Let us hope that the Governor’s veto holds.   

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.

Felon Voting: Another Example of the Politicization of DOJ

Hans A. von Spakovsky, former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, and Roger Clegg, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, have written a fascinating Legal Memorandum on Felon Voting.  While part of the Legal Memorandum discusses a specific bill, it makes some very important larger points on felon voting. 

It also serves to remind us again of the unprecedented politicization of the Department of Justice during the Obama Administration.  Liberals and individuals such as Obama Administration Attorney General Eric Holder advocate for felon enfranchisement primarily as a source of additional Democrat votes. 

Mr. Von Spakovsky and Mr. Clegg point out felon enfranchisement hurts victims of crime:

Indeed, the people whose votes will be diluted the most if criminals are allowed to vote will be law-abiding people in high-crime areas—people who are themselves often disproportionately poor and minority. Liberal civil-rights groups lobbying against felon disenfranchisement seem to have less concern for those victims.

If felons are allowed to vote, local elections in high crime areas, such as for School Board and Sheriff, are going to be influenced by re-enfranchised felons.  The voices of their victims will be diluted.  However, for national or statewide elections Democrats will be helped as felons vote overwhelming for Democrats. 

Of course this is also another way to play the political race card to aid with Democrat turnout with claims that felons are disenfranchised because they are disproportionately African American.  Again, the lie is proved by Mr. Holder’s own actions as Von Spakovsky and Clegg note:

If there were evidence that such [racially motivated felon disenfranchisement] discriminatory laws were still on the books, there are many well-funded civil rights advocacy organizations, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, that would be eager to challenge them. The fact that no such challenges are being brought indicates that such evidence likely does not exist.

Again, liberals and the Obama Administration are politicizing justice.  If they weren’t, they would be fighting for victims and not playing the race card for political gain.  

Indicted NY City Councilman Pushes Criminal Voting Over Needed Election Reforms

The NY Post has an interesting piece today about Ruben Wills, a NY City Councilman who is pushing legislation in the City Council to require the city Department of Corrections to “publicize the right of prisoners — awaiting trial or convicted of misdemeanors — to vote.” This is, at best, a questionable use of limited government resources. More interestingly, the Councilman is under indictment for “allegedly swiping government funds from a nonprofit that he once ran”

There is obvious absurdity and irony in an indicted Councilman pushing legislation to help imprisoned likely criminals to vote. Certainly, those incarcerated, non-convicted prisoners should be able to vote if they are otherwise qualified to vote. We do believe in innocent until proven guilty in the United States. However, we really have to ask if it is appropriate for an indicted Councilman to push this legislation, and secondly, if this is really the best use of taxpayer resources? We know New York City has serious deep-seeded and systematic problems with its elections so it’s perplexing why a City Council member would be focusing on superfluous priorities such as pushing voting for city prisoners.

NYC’s longstanding election administration problems were uncovered in a recent investigation and subsequent audit report from the New York Department of Investigations (DOI). During the course of its audit, the DOI identified a number of individuals who should have been removed from the city’s voter rolls, including ineligible felons, but were not. DOI investigators then appeared at NYC polling places to vote in the name of the ineligible voters. Undercover agents were cleared by poll workers to vote for the ineligible voters 97% of the time. DOI investigators were able to vote for 14 out of the 15 felons they impersonated at the polls. DOI would have had complete success if it weren’t for one amazing coincidence recounted in the audit report: 

In the one instance where an investigator failed to vote as a felon listed in the registration book, the investigator was unable to vote because the poll inspector at the election district 18 table stated that she was the mother of the felon voter for whom the investigator was attempting to vote.

The DOI’s audit report was nothing short of an indictment on New York City’s electoral system. You think the Councilman whose body is responsible for oversight of the city’s Board of Elections would be focusing his attention on holding the BOE accountable for fixing the dozens of problems identified in the report, including the charges of nepotism, inadequate training, and vulnerabilities to fraud. Instead, he is pushing for voting rights for prisoners, a position he may very well find himself if incarcerated for his alleged crime.  

City Councilwoman in Tennessee Enlists Felons for Votes

Former Bolivar, TN City Councilwoman Brenda Woods was recently sentenced for corralling felons to vote for her in the city’s 2009 municipal elections. Woods transported three felons, including two relatives, to the polls to cast votes for her. She used this method for her election to city council and also for her failed mayoral bid.

In court, the felons admitted that Woods knew about their previous felony convictions. However, “she assured them they could still vote.” The felon’s voting rights indeed had not been restored.

Woods’ sentence of two years in prison was suspended, and she has been placed with an intensive community-based supervision and treatment program. She has also lost her voting rights and her ability to run for elected office.

As seen before, this is another example of Democratic candidates knowingly recruiting illegal votes.

Obama's DOJ is Too Extreme for Democrats

Yesterday saw a major defeat for the Obama Justice Department when seven Democrat Senators rejected President Obama’s choice to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, Debo Adegbile, as too radical.  This is becoming a more regular occurrence as many Democrats are finding President Obama and the actions of his Justice Department lawyers too extreme for their liking.

While the fight over Debo Adegbile's nomination to DOJ was very much out in the open, the leader of the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder, efforts regarding felon voting are also causing a lot of discomfort for Democrats.  Once again the ideas of the Obama Justice Department are too extreme for liberal Democrat Senators. 

Attorney General Eric Holder’s call to restore voting rights to felons after they’ve served their time in prison has split Senate Democrats. . . .

[Sen. Mark] Warner [D-VA] suggested imposing a higher threshold for violent ex-felons to regain voting rights. . . .

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), whose re-election became significantly tougher when Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) announced a Senate bid this week, referred questions about ex-felons voting rights to his press office.  His spokesman did not respond to follow-up calls and e-mails.

The offices of Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) declined to respond to questions about proposals to restore voting rights to ex-felons.

While only Warner outright opposed Holder, you can bet some of those other Senators would also oppose Holder’s extreme proposals if it were up to a vote in the Senate.  The Obama Administration and their liberal allies supporting liberal radicals such as Debo Adegbile and such positions as automatic felon restoration are not just too extreme for Republicans and independents, but a growing number of Democrats.    

Vote Fraud is Not a Crime, But Police Uncovering It is

When a Milwaukee Police Task Force on the 2004 Election released the most comprehensive and non-partisan study of vote fraud, the left attacked . . .  the studies release!  They also attacked the police for recommending an end to same day registration as the best way to stop vote fraud or failing that, real photo ID.  The left again did not attack the substance of the police recommendations or factual findings but instead said it was wrong for the police to make policy recommendations or release a report.

And it is happening again. 

Election officials in New York have taken attacking police for exposing vote fraud to a whole new level.  As background remember, undercover police had no problem voting for dead, moved or felons in a recent undercover sting in the latest of a litany of vote fraud problems in New York. 

In response the New York City Board of Elections(BOE):

In fact, the Board thinks investigators who were allowed to cast ballots even though they posed as deceased people and felons should themselves be investigated.

The BOE voted to ask the city’s district attorneys to examine whether the Department of Investigation violated laws in its exhaustive inquiry.

 “We (are) unaware of any color of authority on the part of (DOI) to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves — and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.”

“We believe there is cause to be concerned that the integrity of the ballot has been compromised,” [New Board of Elections Chair] Soumas said.

Yep, to the New York City Board of Elections, vote fraud is not a crime but exposing it is.