Eric Holder’s Disgraceful Voting Legacy

There is a big distinction between White House Counsel and Attorney General.  The Attorney General is supposed to be the country’s lawyer while the White House Counsel is the President’s lawyer.  Yet, Eric Holder was more political than the White House Counsel.  Actually, he was more like a political party counsel.  Three quick examples. 

1. In the New Black Panther case, Holder overruled a career DOJ Attorney (who formerly headed a state ACLU chapter) to stop a conviction against two people clearly trying to intimidate voters.  While Holder and Democrats have never been able to find  a documented case of intimidation by Republicans (since it’s non-existent), , they let these perpetrators off.
   
2. The Presidential Commission on Election Administration came out strongly in favor of interstate voter registration list maintenance and cleaning up the voter rolls.  This committee was co-chaired by President Obama’s campaign lawyer and former White House Counsel Bob Bauer.  Yet the Department of Justice under Holder had previously announced that they would not enforce laws regarding cleaning up the voter rolls with one of his deputies going so far as to state in a DOJ meeting: “We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law.”
   
3. Holder again overruled career DOJ attorneys to file a purely political challenge to appease the far left on South Carolina Voter ID.  Not only did the Department of Justice lose the case but they lost so badly they had to pay legal fees, with American taxpayers footing the bill for Holder’s ideological crusade. 

Holder regularly overruled career appointees (who by the way were often Democrats) to make political decisions.  He was so political even the Obama campaign lawyer disagrees with him.  A shameful history for a US Attorney General without even going into his record on non-voting matters or voting related matters such as the IRS targeting scandal.  

Vote Fraud “Happens All The Time” in South Texas

A Texas judge has invalidated a city commissioner election as the result of vote fraud. The judge called for a new election after, “Lupe Rivera won the election against Letty Lopez by 16 votes.” Lopez contested the results of the November 2013 election and claimed that 44 votes were illegally cast.

The judge carefully evaluated each of the 44 contested votes individually. Many of the votes were cast by people who deliberately, illegally registered under a “home is where the heart is” residency standard. These individuals registered at homes belonging to Rivera’s friends, neighbors, and relatives, including several at Rivera’s childhood address. Other ballots were disqualified because legal voters testified in court that they had not voted in the election, despite the existence of ballots cast in their names. Additionally, there were questions surrounding the validity of some of the absentee ballots.

At the end of the investigation, Rivera led by only two votes. As a result of the tremendous confusion and uncertainty created by the contested ballots, the judge refused to declare a winner and ordered a new election.

This is not the only current instance of vote fraud in Westlaco. Earlier this month, a 72-year-old former campaign worker pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to one count of vote-buying.

Letty Lopez’s attorney said the fraud he found in this case isn’t unique. “It’s not unusual at all. . . . I’ve had calls from other people with similar issues, and I think it happens all the time here.”

Judge Exposes Democrat Lies on "Purges"

 

Every year Democrats complain about “purges” of lists.  Judge Claude Hilton of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia set not only the Democrat Party of Virginia straight but wrote an opinion that should set every Democrat Party straight when they make wild and spurious charges against state and local officials merely trying to do their jobs. 

First Judge Hilton lays about the bottom line:

There exists a valid state interest in preventing voter fraud, and “[i]t is well established that purge statues are a legitimate means by which the State can attempt to prevent voter fraud.”

As in almost all the cases against stopping voter fraud, the extreme remedy of allowing vote fraud to go forward to protect a small few who were mistakenly removed from the list is ridiculous.  As Judge Hilton puts it:

Plaintiff has not provided evidence of any qualified voters who have been deprived of their right to vote.  If a voter is removed from the voter rolls in error, there are several mechanisms in place to protect that voter’s rights, including provisional ballots and registration reinstatement.  Indeed, the few incidents wherein an individual was removed from the voting rolls erroneously have been corrected. 

Lastly Judge Hilton touches on what many Democrats and liberals are really fighting for in these cases and cases involving voter ID.  It is not the minuscule few who are wrongly excluded, the law has adequate remedies there, it is for those who want to fraudulent vote, especially those who do not reside in the state. 

Those individuals who are registered in another state and have thus been correctly removed from the Virginia voter rolls have suffered no harm.  An individual does not have the right to vote in state where he or she does not reside. . . The Commonwealth has a valid interest in ensuring that individuals who are registered to vote in Virginia are not also registered to vote in another state.