Recent Left-Wing Attacks Distort Judge Kavanaugh’s Views on Voting Rights

In modern Democrat politics, anyone who supports measures to enhance voting integrity and decrease the likelihood of voter fraud should be labeled an ‘extremist.’ Hillary Clinton went as far as to say Judge Kavanaugh will bring the United States back to times of slavery. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker said if you support Judge Kavanaugh, you are ‘complicit with evil.’  As election law expert Hans von Spakovsky points out, these vicious attacks by top Democrats are totally baseless.

The latest bizarre claim laid against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is that his confirmation would “spell the end of voting rights.” This ridiculous charge has been spun up from two of Kavanaugh’s writings: a 2012 opinion upholding South Carolina’s voter ID law and a brief he filed as a private attorney in a case challenging Hawaii’s practice of preventing residents from voting based on their ancestry.

In both cases, Kavanaugh’s views were — and are — quite mainstream. More importantly, they have been affirmed.

In fact, Judge Kavanaugh’s key rulings on voting rights have all been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In South Carolina v. Holder, Kavanaugh (joined by two other judges) held that the state’s voter ID law was not discriminatory and did not violate the Voting Rights Act.

Kavanaugh noted, South Carolina made it even easier to vote by providing a “reasonable impediment” exception to its ID requirement. This allows those without proper identification to vote anyway. All they need do is sign a simple affidavit stating the reason they have not obtained a photo ID. Do that, and they can cast a ballot immediately, no questions asked.

Hans von Spakovsky's recent piece for The Hill illustrates the sad state of our political climate. For supporting a measure that would actually make it easier to vote and increase election safety, Democrats and major left-wing organizations have labeled Judge Kavanaugh a ‘racist’ trying to take away voting rights. Thankfully, history and facts have proven Judge Kavanaugh right.

Opponents of the law claimed it would “disenfranchise tens of thousands of minority voters,” but it never happened. The law has been in place since 2013 with no problems and no effect on turnout. No disenfranchisement. No voter “suppression.

Oddly enough, none of Judge Kavanaugh’s critics has bothered to mention that, in a subsequent voter ID case, the Obama Justice Department agreed that an ID law with a “reasonable impediment” exception was not discriminatory. On Aug. 3, 2016, the parties in Veasy v. Abbott penned a “Joint Submission of Agreed Terms” in which they agreed that Texas could apply its photo ID law in the 2016 election as long as any resident who signed “a reasonable impediment declaration” would “be permitted to vote using a regular ballot.”

Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most qualified nominees for the Supreme Court in modern history. Democrats have no viable explanation for opposing his confirmation. However, they have so much animus for President Trump and the American people who voted for the president that they are willing to harm the judicial system and attempt to trash the reputation of an honorable public servant for political gain. Thankfully, it does not appear their scorched Earth tactics will work and Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

Ambassador Randy Evan’s Confirmation: It’s About Time, But for the Left It’s Not About Facts

Today former RNLA Chair Randy Evans was finally confirmed to be Ambassador to Luxembourg after his nomination first was announced last September. The delay in confirming Ambassador Evans was part of the Democrats' general obstruction of President Trump's nominees.

The stated reason for the delay and opposition to Ambassador Evans was stated by Senator Bob Menedez on the Senate Floor today:

I oppose Mr. Evans nomination . . . my concerns center around his tenure on Georgia’s state election board from 2002-2010 . . . In March of 2005 Georgia passed a controversial new law requiring voters to show a photo ID. . . Multiple voices accused the Board of a deliberate attempt to mislead voters and possibly suppress minority turnout. 

The problems with this are numerous.  The Board of Elections of Georgia is bipartisan.  Ambassador Evans was hardly acting alone.  Is Senator Menendez saying the Members of the Commission who were appointed by the Georgia Democrats of working to “suppress minority turnout?” Ambassador Evans was merely working in a bipartisan fashion with the Democrats to implement a law pasted by the Georgia legislature.  It was the duty of all commissioners.

Second, the numbers tell a very different story on “voter suppression.”  In the 2008 election in Georgia, African-American turnout was up an amazing 7.5%.  And it was not just 2008 when President Obama was first on the ticket, as the Atlanta Journal Constitution stated in 2012 on the voter ID law:

Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period. . . .

Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.

It was expected that African American turnout would spike in 2008, when Barack Obama became the first person of color to win the presidency. And it did rise to historic highs in Georgia.

Black participation fell in 2010, as it did for all demographic groups. Still, a far greater share of black voters turned out in 2010 than in 2006, showing that Obama was not the only factor driving turnout.

It is incredible that Democrats used a bipartisan commission’s work as an excuse to oppose Ambassador Evans.   Does anyone believe they would have opposed one of the Democrats on that Georgia Election Commission at the same time if they were nominated by Hillary Clinton? 

The larger issue is the terrible games that Democrats are playing with nominations.  The Democrats also opposed the first openly gay Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, for a similar length of time.  He was finally confirmed less than a month ago.  America needs its Ambassadors and Democrats need to accept that Trump won and stop attacking worthy nominees.

ICYMI: 5th Circuit Upholds Amended Texas Voter ID Law

Last Friday, the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas' voter ID law, which it had amended in 2017 in response to an earlier en banc Fifth Circuit decision.  Judge Edith Jones wrote for the three-judge panel in Veasey v. Abbott, noting the irony that the plaintiffs were challenging, and the district court found invalid, the very interim remedy that both the plaintiffs and the district court had agreed to in 2016 (internal citations omitted): 

In the face of these obvious improvements over SB 14, Plaintiffs neither allude to nor adduce any proof that SB 5 has a discriminatory effect on indigent minority voters. To a large extent, SB 5 replicates the terms to which both parties agreed as an interim measure to cure SB 14’s Section 2 deficiencies in advance of the national 2016 election. Although the interim remedy was without prejudice to any party’s asserting its legal rights at a later date, one must wonder why the features the Plaintiffs agreed to only a year ago yielded an insufficient remedy when enacted into law. No explanation is forthcoming in their briefs. . . . 

That Plaintiffs’ factual critique boils down to speculation demonstrates the prematurity of the court’s decision to invalidate SB 5 in 2017, well before the law took effect in 2018. Nothing we conclude today disposes of any potential challenges to SB 5 in the future. Plaintiffs may file a new lawsuit, and bear the burden of proof, if the promise of the law to remedy disparate impact on indigent minority voters is not fulfilled. They did not challenge SB 14, for instance, for several years after its effective date. As a remedy for the deficiencies found by this court in Veasey II, however, there is no evidentiary or legal basis for rejecting SB 5, and the district court was bound not to take the drastic step of enjoining it. Further, because SB 5 constitutes an effective remedy for the only deficiencies testified to in SB 14, and it essentially mirrors an agreed interim order for the same purpose, the State has acted promptly following this court’s mandate, and there is no equitable basis for subjecting Texas to ongoing federal election scrutiny under Section 3(c) [of the Voting Rights Act].

Jason Snead and Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation point out that the decision, while important for election integrity reasons, also has major implications for the rule of law:

It was on this flimsy legal basis that [District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales] Ramos supported her decision to jettison the entire Texas voter-ID law. This judgment was made despite the fact that “all of the evidence supports that SB 5 was designed to remedy every defect” in the earlier law and “to supply indigent voter protections” recommended by the Fifth Circuit. . . . 

It’d hard to disagree with Judge Jones’s reasoning here. Texas made, by all rights, a good-faith attempt to rectify problems with its election laws while preserving an essential, commonsense tool for fighting fraudulent votes. The solution it settled on was largely based on Ramos’s own 2016 remedy, and it offers a broader set of alternatives “to producing compliant photo voter ID” than the Indiana statute the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional in 2008. Its “reasonable impediment” exemption is also virtually identical to South Carolina’s voter-ID law. South Carolina’s law was upheld by a three-judge federal court in the District of Columbia in 2012 and has caused no problems. 

Judge Ramos may have a personal bias against voter-ID laws, but as a federal judge she is not entitled to substitute her own policy preferences for those of elected lawmakers. As Judge Jones reminded us, “Courts must defer to [the government’s proposed remedy] unless the newly enacted plan is itself unconstitutional or violates federal law.” 

Neither condition applies here, and Jones rightly reversed Ramos’s decision. Judge Jones has delivered a victory not only for the integrity of the ballot box, but for the rule of law itself.

While the plaintiffs will likely appeal to the en banc Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, the efforts of Chairman Chuck Grassley and Leader Mitch McConnell to confirm President Trump's excellent judicial nominees have changed the composition of both of those courts since this case was last on appeal in 2016 and 2017.  

AG Sessions Testifies Before House Judiciary; Highlights Promotion of Rule of Law at DOJ

Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the House Judiciary Committee.  In his opening statement, he shared how the Department of Justice has advanced the rule of law since he took office:

After careful review, we have established a reinvigorated Project Safe Neighborhood program, as the foundational policy for public safety. . . . We have seen a 23 percent increase in gun prosecutions in the second quarter of this fiscal year. . . . We are making it clear that we stand with our law enforcement partners 100 percent. . . . We have also protected the rule of law in our own Department. We have prohibited so-called third party settlements that were being used to bankroll outside interest groups.

We have settled civil cases regarding the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate and settled the cases of many groups whose tax-exempt status was significantly and wrongly delayed by the Internal Revenue Service. We have also provided legal counsel to this administration in favor of ending several other unlawful policies. . . . We have filed briefs defending properly enacted state voter identification laws, lawful redistricting plans, religious liberty, and free speech on college campuses. In short, it is our mission to restore the American people’s confidence in the Department of Justice by defending the rule of law and enforcing the laws as you have passed them. And it is a mission we are honored to undertake. 

Attorney General Sessions was testifying in part on his previous testimony concerning contacts of the Trump campaign with agents of the Russian government.  He noted that, while it would be difficult for anyone to recall a conversation had in passing with someone a year ago, he has always answered questions truthfully to the best of his recollection:

In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer all of your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory. But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie.

Let me be clear: I have at all times conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the high standards and responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General. As I said before, my story has never changed. I have always told the truth, and I have answered every question to the best of my recollection as I will continue to do today.

Attorney General Sessions has been a lightning rod for controversy and accusations particularly because he has conducted himself so ethically and led the Department of Justice so effectively.  His leadership in turning the DOJ back to the rule of law is especially remarkable considering the number of Obama-appointee holdovers and acting department heads that remain at the DOJ due to Senate Democrats' delays and the liberal leanings of most of the career staff.  We thank Attorney General Sessions for his service and his willingness to go before Congress yet again to testify and help Congress fulfill its role of oversight of DOJ.

Another Trump Nominee Faces a Distorted and Misleading Attack on Her Record

The left really is going over the top in their attacks on nominees to the Trump Administration. Today, Mother Jones did a hit piece on Cameron Quinn for being too connected to conservatives or even a closed conservative group.  Their primary source for much of the article seems to be her LinkedIn page and quotes from people who do not know her. 

Instead of debating what they say Cameron has done, we’ll list a few things that the Mother Jones intentionally omitted from her LinkedInpage:  

• Cameron ran Domestic Programs for the Peace Corps for almost two years. Mother Jones obviously omitted this because they want to portray her only as a Republican activist and not someone who worked for a liberal- and Democrat-favored program like the Peace Corps.
• Cameron worked for years for the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, a bipartisan group seeking to make our elections better.  For example, the current Co-Chair Donald R. Sweitzer is a former DNC Political Director, union official, and staffer for Ted Kennedy's Presidential campaign.  House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer is also on the board.

While Mother Jones omits that bipartisan work from the LinkedIn page they sourced for other parts of their story, they also mischaracterized other things she actually did in the field of election law:

• There was an effort in Fairfax County, Virginia, while Cameron was Registrar to get activists inside polling places to interfere with efforts to cast a secret ballot. While partisans and groups can electioneer outside polling places, some Democrat and Virginia liberal groups wanted poll watchers to be able to talk to voters inside polling places and even to follow them into voting booths under the guise of “helping” them. This is the kind of potential intimidation tactic that many liberal groups rightly oppose and why all poll watcher trained by every group on the conservative side emphasizes that poll watchers cannot talk to voters in the polls, only election officials can.  And for voters who need assistance, Virginia has specific statutory procedures to protect the voter from intimidation. Cameron simply did what all good election officials across the country of both parties do: stop potential electioneering and voter intimidation inside the polls.
• The article also discusses voter ID. Cameron was an academic advisor to the prestigious Carter-Baker Commission on voting (the "Commission on Federal Election Reform"). This commission, led by former President Jimmy Carter, recommended voter ID. When citing Cameron’s work for voter ID, we find it interesting they omit the Carter-Baker Commission's report, which is still regularly cited today, and instead discuss a group that has been out of existence for over a decade.

Cameron has worked with and been a leader for RNLA for years, though never while she was an election official.  Cameron is a consensus builder, careful, conscientious, intelligent, and hardworking.  She will make a great Counsel for Civil Rights for the Department of Homeland Security.  Mother Jones could have asked us about her but instead of talking to people who knew Cameron, they choose to excerpt and distort parts of her LinkedIn bio and talk to political operatives who oppose all things related to President Trump. 

Court Permanently Enjoins Texas Voter ID Law in "Outrageous" Decision

Today, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas permanently enjoined Texas' voter ID law, both the original law and the remedial amendment passed this term to comply with the 5th Circuit's en banc opinion last year.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton promised to appeal:

“Today’s ruling is outrageous. Senate Bill 5 was passed by the people’s representatives and includes all the changes to the Texas voter ID law requested by the 5th Circuit,” Attorney General Paxton said. “The U.S. Department of Justice is satisfied that the amended voter ID law has no discriminatory purpose or effect. Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy. The 5th Circuit should reverse the entirety of the district court’s ruling.” 

In a court filing earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked Judge Ramos to end efforts to overturn Senate Bill 5, noting that the law “eradicates any discriminatory effect or intent” and expands voter identification options when it takes effect January 1. Texas’ voter ID law “both guarantees to Texas voters the opportunity to cast an in-person ballot and protects the integrity of Texas’ elections,” the DOJ told Judge Ramos. 

Last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to Judge Ramos to assess the impact of any future legislative action, like Senate Bill 5.

Judge Ramos, an Obama appointee, found both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose in the law.  This case will undoubtedly return to the en banc 5th Circuit, and quite likely the Supreme Court, which may not review the decision too favorably.  A finding of discriminatory purpose is a very high bar that has not been met in this case.  As Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation said in response:

"The court has yet again proven all too willing to hand down rulings which beg to be overturned on appeal,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Texas’ voter identification law takes squarely into account the safety net system which the Fifth Circuit recommended be installed last year.”

But in the meantime, this unfortunate decision seriously threatens the ability of states to enact common-sense voter ID laws to protect the integrity of their elections. 

Democrats Want Voter ID for Their Elections to Stop Fraud

While the majority of people regardless of party support ID to vote, the liberal and Democrat political establishment oppose it. . . for general elections.  This week we saw a different example where non-establishment Democrats claimed a intraparty election was stolen because of voting without proper ID:

Ellis, the former director of Emerge America, a women’s political organization, lost the election by a narrow margin of 62 votes out of 3,000 cast. Her loss immediately set off protests from hundreds of her backers, many of whom charged that there were irregularities that included allowing voters to cast proxy ballots without proper ID.

We aren’t surprised.  Democrats have long required ID AND enforced ID requirements for their events.  That they didn’t here, either causing a stolen election or a credible claim of one.  A past example:

But when it comes to union elections, Big Labor is much, much more comfortable with picture ID cards. Just last Thursday, Baltimore educators voted on a new labor contract. “We have seven voting places,” union boss Marietta English told talk show host Marc Steiner. “And all you need is your picture ID. And you must be a member of the Baltimore Teachers Union.”

Or of course the DNC itself has a long history of requiring ID at conventions, see this from 2012.

The DNC’s website says that “all pickup persons must have a state-issued ID that matches the name submitted” to receive credentials. Media members attending the DNC have to present photo IDs at multiple checkpoints.

We could go on but suffice it to say it is rank hypocrisy to require ID as a tool to stop fraud and inspire confidence at Democrat Party and Labor elections, but not for general elections of the American voting public at large.  

Recent Voter ID Legislation News

Here's what has been happening with voter ID legislation in the states, as more states recognize the importance of this important protection of election integrity or seek to improve their existing laws to ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote while protecting the votes of all eligible voters.

Iowa: Contentious voter ID bill gets final OK; heads to Branstad 

The Iowa Senate gave final approval Thursday to contentious legislation that will require voters to show government-issued identification at the polls . . . . 

House File 516 passed on a 28-21 vote with Republicans casting all the yes votes. Democrats and one independent all voted no. The bill now heads to Gov. Terry Branstad, who is expected to sign it.

Nebraska: Resolution to require voter ID at Nebraska's polls advances but is expected to stir debate among lawmakers

The Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee voted 6-2 to advance to the floor Legislative Resolution 1CA, which asks Nebraskans whether they want to put a photo ID requirement in the state constitution. 

If adopted by the full Legislature, ballot language on the constitutional amendment would appear before voters in November 2018. If voters approve the amendment it will be left to state lawmakers to pass legislation spelling out what constitutes an acceptable ID and whether the state will pay for IDs for those who cannot afford them.

North Dakota: North Dakota attempting to fix voter ID rules after lawsuit

After altering voter identification laws in previous legislative sessions, North Dakota's Republican-led Legislature now is attempting to fix them after a group of American Indians sued in federal court, alleging the state requirements are unconstitutional and disenfranchised tribal members. 

The House passed a bill Monday that allows those who don't have proper ID to cast a ballot that's set aside until the voter's eligibility is confirmed. The Senate still must agree to the measure before it goes to GOP Gov. Doug Burgum for his signature.

Texas: House committee approves bill to make changes to voter ID law

The House Elections Committee on Monday approved a bill that would make court-ordered changes to the state’s controversial voter identification law, moving the proposal to the House floor under the looming specter of federal action. 

Senate Bill 5, written by Rep. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, would give more leeway to people who show up to the polls without one of seven state-approved photo IDs. They would be allowed to use other documents that carry their name and address as proof of identity, such as a utility bill, if they sign a "declaration of impediment" stating why they don't have an approved ID.

If you'd like to receive a weekly email with the week's voter ID and mandatory voter registration news, sign up for Lawyers Democracy Fund's update here.

ICYMI, 458+ Likely Fraudulent Votes in New Hampshire 2016 Election

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.

Iowa Legislature Passes Voter ID; Now on Governor's Desk

Last Thursday, the Iowa legislature finalized its voter ID bill and sent it to the Governor for his signature:

The legislation makes sweeping changes to Iowa's elections laws that Republicans say are needed to ensure the honesty of the process and prevent fraud. Among them is a provision that would require every voter to present government-issued identification at the poll on Election Day. In addition, the bill shortens the time frame for casting absentee ballots and voting early at satellite polling sites from 40 days to 29 days. . . . 

“My proposal was aimed at modernizing Iowa’s elections technology, streamlining the system, and protecting it against the potential for human error and fraud," [Secretary of State Paul] Pate said. "The bill passed by both chambers accomplishes those goals and ensures every eligible Iowan will be able to cast their ballot and will not be turned away. I look forward to the governor signing the bill into law, and then the real work begins as we will coordinate with all 99 county auditors to implement this legislation, and institute our extensive outreach program so that every Iowan understands the provisions of this bill.” . . .  

Republicans said the bill has been crafted to address possible court challenges. They also point to a recent Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll which found 69 percent of Iowans support requiring an ID to vote. 

The bill outlines five forms of identification that would be valid at the polls, four of which include a photo. The fifth would be a new voter verification card the state and county would issue to every voter free of charge. Those who show up to the polls without valid ID could vote using a provisional ballot. . . . Most of the changes will take effect in 2019, according to the Iowa Secretary of State's office.

Governor Terry Brandstad is expected to sign the bill, as he has indicated his approval for voter ID laws.  We hope that Iowa adopts this important, common-sense protection of the integrity of its elections.  Unfortunately, although voter ID has wide support among Democrats and Republicans, liberal groups will inevitably challenge this law in a pointless waste of the courts' time and taxpayers' money.

ICYMI, Study Showing Voter ID Suppressed Minority Turnout Was "Fake News"

In January, liberals and the media were rejoicing that an academic study had proven their favorite narrative - that voter ID laws disproportionately affect minority voters, suppress minority turnout, and are just a cover for racist voter suppression.  The problem with that study was that it had questionable methodology and conclusions and evidenced bias, as reported by a new study from Yale, Stanford, and University of Pennsylvania professors:

The new study finds “no definitive relationship” between tough laws requiring voters to present identification and a dropoff in Hispanic, black, and other minority turnout. . . .  

The study released March 10 questions the numbers of the January report . . . . Citing inaccuracies and errors in the previous study, it says:

Here, we show that the results of this paper are a product of large data inaccuracies, that the evidence does not support the stated conclusion, and that model specifications produce highly variable results. When errors in the analysis are corrected, one can recover positive, negative, or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout. Our findings underscore that no definitive relationship between strict voter ID laws and turnout can be established from the validated CCES data. . . . These measurement errors in turnout raise the potential of both inefficiency and bias. 

. . . “Many federal courts have been asked to do the same: Find a causal link between voter ID and intentional decreases in minority turnout,” [Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation] said. “All eventually failed. Despite this, too many in the media are willing to report an initial study as gospel before peer reviewers can weigh in. It should have struck many news editors weeks ago that it took until 2017 to provide proof to a belief that could have been confirmed a decade ago, if true.”

Of course, the second study was largely ignored by the media that touted the results of the first study.  The results of the second study comport with public opinion polling showing that 77% of minority Americans support a requirement to show photo ID prior to voting.  If voter ID laws were designed to, or did in practice, suppress minority voters, minority voters would not support them in such large numbers.  Instead, voter ID laws are a common sense, fair protection of election integrity supported by Americans on both sides of the aisle, a fact that, for all their efforts, liberal academics and pundits have yet to disprove.

82 Non-Citizen Voters and 385 Non-Citizens Registered to Vote Found in Ohio

To further prove the point that elections have consequences and we are in a new world of election law and litigation, compare two news stories from this week.  First, the Trump administration has dropped the Department of Justice's opposition to Texas' voter ID law on the basis that it is intentionally racially discriminatory, to give the state time to amend the law.  Second, North Carolina's new Democrat governor and attorney general are attempting to withdraw (potentially unethically) the pending petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court regarding the Fourth Circuit's decision last summer striking down North Carolina's voter ID law. 

Opponents of voter ID laws claim that they are not needed because vote fraud doesn't happen, but when voting and voter registration records are investigated, both illegal voting and the potential for it are uncovered.  An investigation by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has uncovered hundreds of non-citizens registered to vote in the state, 82 of whom have voted in at least one election in the last year:

“In light of the national discussion about illegal voting it is important to inform our discussions with facts. The fact is voter fraud happens, it is rare and when it happens, we hold people accountable,” Secretary Husted said. . . . 

“I have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of Ohio’s elections system,” Secretary Husted said. “When you consider that in Ohio we have had 112 elections decided by one vote or tied in the last three years, every case of illegal voting must be taken seriously and elections officials must have every resource available to them to respond accordingly.” 

Husted added that none of the cases where a non-citizen cast a ballot occurred in jurisdictions where an election was decided by one vote or tied. 

It’s possible for a non-citizen to register to vote in Ohio if they lie about their status on the voter registration form.

And there may be more non-citizen registered voters and actual voters than what this investigation found:

Husted’s review is able to identify people who have registered to vote as citizens but obtained a driver’s license as a non-citizen. . . . And Husted admits there are likely other non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio but are not in the BMV’s system. 

That’s why he has appealed to Washington for access to a federal Homeland Security database… 

“If we had access to that information we could prevent this in advance and we could find out what the probably bigger number is of people who are on the voter rolls or who have voted and shouldn’t be.”

We applaud Secretary Husted for taking the problem of non-citizen registration and voting seriously and endeavoring to keep Ohio's voter registration records clean.  And we look forward to the Trump administration cooperating with states' efforts to ensure the integrity of their elections, instead of fighting them as the federal government has for the past eight years.

The Left's Poor History on Election Commissions

The left and their allies in the media regularly deny the existence of vote fraud and call any effort to investigate the problem “racist.”  They are even calling President’s Trump upcoming commission invalid or a waste of time. 

I guess they are at least being consistent this time and maybe even more honest.  Usually they wait until after they agree with a bipartisan commission's recommendations to start calling things racist. 

Let’s take the last national commission on voting, President Obama's Presidential Commission on Election Administration.  This commission was led by Mitt Romney’s campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg and President Obama’s campaign lawyer Bob Bauer.  As RNLA Board Member Joanne Young addresses in her article entitled: “Why Trump’s Call to Investigate Vote Fraud Is Valid:”

The irony was that at the same time Obama’s lawyer, Bob Bauer, was leading the bipartisan commission, his own firm was suing the state of Virginia, calling the efforts to clean up voter rolls racist and purging.

It goes further. Obama nominated Myrna Perez to be on the Election Assistance Commission. Perez was an adamant opponent of voter list maintenance, declaring such efforts “purging.”

This is why it’s tough to even talk about vote fraud. Any efforts, even those with bipartisan support, are bitterly opposed by liberal activists.  It also happen to the voting commission before that:

A primary recommendation of the 2005 bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform (the “Carter-Baker Commission”) was to require voter ID. This commission was led by Jimmy Carter, former president and noted liberal, and James Baker, secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush.

Yet, liberals oppose any efforts to enact commonsense voter ID laws, opposing them in legislatures and in the courts. Voter ID laws, which protect the integrity of the vote and thus our democracy for all citizens, are called racist and mechanisms of voter suppression.

Republicans are dedicated to improving our election process and President Trump deserves credit for the commission on vote fraud.  Democrats will likely object to the commission even if the Democrat members of the commission agree.  Hopefully the Trump Commission's recommendations will be taken seriously regardless of the reaction of those on the left who always disagree.  

Did Duke Students Unethically Trip Up the North Carolina Governor?

Allegations of vote fraud have run rampant in the 2016 gubernatorial election in North Carolina. One of the strongest may be that the lack of voter ID may have let out-of-state students vote in North Carolina.

Since 2008 Democrats have pursued a tactic of encouraging out-of-state students to register at their home or schools depending on which voting location was “more targeted.”  Here is a screen grab from the 2008 Obama effort published in the Hill.  As we explained previously:

The program did not tell students about legal definitions of residency in the various states or help them legally register in the state they resided, rather the program picked the most targeted state for them to vote.  The program worked like this for identical students who only had their states and colleges reversed.  Student A lived in Columbus, Ohio but was going to school at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The program told A to vote in the target state of Ohio over the blue state of Massachusetts.  Student B was reversed; B was going to school at Ohio State in Columbus, Ohio but lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The program told B to vote in Ohio.

In 2016 arguably no state had more potential close races than North Carolina.  Not only was the Presidency a highly targeted race, but so were the Senate and Governor’s races.  And vote fraud, more specifically illegal student voting, could have swung the Governor’s race.  As Republican Governor Pat McCrory stated on vote fraud:

McCrory said his “main suspicions” involved Durham County, where about 90,000 votes weren’t added to the statewide count until nearly midnight on election night. McCrory’s campaign called for a recount there that didn’t didn’t change the outcome. McCrory conceded the election to Cooper on Dec. 5 as the recount wrapped up.

“I personally don’t think it was about the machines” used to count votes in Durham, McCrory told the cable TV news station. “I think where the real impact was the Supreme Court decision not allowing us to have voter ID, which allowed a lot of college students who live out of state to vote.”

The Durham area has five colleges.  At downtown Durham’s Duke University alone only 12% of incoming freshmen (and presumably first-time eligible voters) were from North Carolina.  How many out-of-state students voted in North Carolina unethically, if not fraudulently, for Democrats?

To be clear, NO ONE is trying to stop students from voting and further we do not know anyone who is opposed to the young getting more involved in the political process.

However, should anyone be able to vote where they do not reside and have no intention of residing?  Everyone agrees we should have excused absentee voting, so people who are away from home on Election Day can vote in their home states and have their votes counted.  Would anyone be okay with letting those same people vote in the states they happen to be in on Election Day, even if they have no intent of ever residing there?  Forget about the “big ticket” items such as President, does anyone believe that local initiatives, school board races, city council elections, etc. should be determined by people who have no interest or intent to reside at the location?

Yet that is what can happen with student voting.  A student is going away from home for college.  The student may be living and intending to reside in that location or they may be going there to get the best education they can and intend to return home.  They could even be commuting to school. You will hear many students talk about “going home” for the summer or holidays, an obvious indicator of their mental state regarding where they perceive themselves as residing. That student should be treated like everyone else and vote where they intend to reside.

Voter ID is a great way to stop this practice or even the appearance of this practice.  There seems to be a very good chance that the newly “elected” Democrat Governor owes his election not to the people of North Carolina but the out-of-state college students like those that go to Duke.   Looks like Duke’s unethical tripping of opponents may extend beyond the basketball court.

Status of Voter ID Laws after 2016

2016 was a remarkable year in many ways, not least of which was the number of court decisions on voter ID laws.  What is the state of the law on the validity of voter ID requirements after 2016?:

Rule One: Voter ID, by itself, is presumptively valid. In the immediate post-HAVA era, new photo ID laws were seen as a threat and drew litigation challenges accordingly. Over time, however, courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 Crawford case – came to accept voter ID and uphold it against what lawyers call “facial” challenges; i.e., challenges to its mere existence. More specifically, courts are accepting states’ proffered justifications of fraud prevention and are finding that ID laws, by themselves, are not an undue burden on voters. In 2017 and beyond, therefore, any plaintiff challenging a new or existing voter ID law will have to do more than simply allege discrimination and/or limitation of voting rights to prevail. 

Rule Two: legislative intent behind voter ID matters. That said, general judicial acceptance of voter ID laws erodes quickly if there is evidence of actual discriminatory intent behind their enactment. In 2016, federal appeals courts blocked election laws in Texas and North Carolina because of evidence that legislators in both states had consulted, and may have relied upon, data suggesting those laws would disproportionately affect protected minorities under the Voting Rights Act. Going forward, any legislature seeking to enact or expand voter ID laws will be closely scrutinized to ensure that similar discriminatory intent is not motivating those laws. Note, however, that plaintiffs challenging such laws may no longer be able to count on support from the U.S. Department of Justice under the new Administration. 

Rule Three: whether and how voters without ID can get it is crucial. While facial challenges to voter ID laws are likely to fail, recent experience suggests that an “as-applied” challenge focused on the implementation of these laws has more likelihood of success. State and federal courts have been very clear that voter ID requirements begin to lose their presumption of validity when evidence suggests that voters without ID can’t actually get it. These fights can be intensely detailed; in Wisconsin, courts temporarily halted implementation of ID laws because of deficiencies at the state DMV in training staff to assist voters with obtaining ID, and in Texas the instructions to poll workers about what kind of ID could be required were subjected to direct oversight by the court. In this environment, the voter ID fight isn’t about sweeping legal issues but rather the nitty-gritty of implementation. 

What does this mean for voter ID going forward? I think it’s pretty straightforward: legislatures are likely free to enact such laws if they have the votes, but there must be no evidence of discriminatory intent and implementation matters; in other words, it isn’t enough to simply say voters will be allowed to get free IDs – there has to be an actual plan. In this environment, theoretical legal arguments about the constitutionality of ID laws are most powerful during legislative debate but are unlikely to succeed in court. The real fight is over intent and what happens after enactment. Proponents and opponents alike would be well-advised to put less emphasis on legal research and more on data gathering.

We are hopeful that some of the bad decisions on voter ID will be overturned in 2017.  Here are some of the notable voter ID stories from 2016:

• Fourth Circuit upheld Virginia's voter ID law
• Missouri voters passed a constitutional amendment allowing the state to require photo voter ID with 63% voting in favor
• Fourth Circuit struck down North Carolina's voter ID law; appeal to the Supreme Court is likely
• Fifth Circuit required Texas to modify its voter ID law; petition for writ of certiorari pending at the Supreme Court
• Multiple challenges to Wisconsin's voter ID law are ongoing
• A study exposed the inflated, faulty statistics repeatedly cited by voter ID opponents

4th Circuit Upheld Virginia Voter ID Law

Tuesday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Virginia's voter ID law:

In Lee v. Virginia State Board of Elections, the court held that not only does the photo-ID law “not impose an undue burden on minority voting, there was no evidence to suggest racially discriminatory intent in the law’s enactment.” Therefore, there was no violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and no constitutional violation either. 

The court’s description of the evidence presented by Elias and the plaintiffs shows just how frivolous this case was. Elias produced 14 “voter-witnesses” to support the Democratic party’s claims, yet as the district court found, “none of the voter witnesses was actually denied his or her right to vote.” In other words, out of the more than 5.6 million registered voters in Virginia, the Democratic party couldn’t find a single one who was unable to vote because of the law. So much for the Left’s constantly repeated theme that voter-ID laws “suppress” votes. . . .  

The evidence that the Virginia legislature passed the ID law with the intent to discriminate was almost equally pathetic. . . . Moreover, the court observed, the ID-law was passed “through the normal legislative process, and that process was unaccompanied by any facts or circumstances suggesting the presence of racially discriminatory intent.” This made the Virginia legislative process “in no way like” the process in North Carolina over its voter-ID law, which a different panel of the Fourth Circuit held as invalid in July in NAACP v. McCrory. Thus, this panel did not have to follow the other Fourth Circuit panel’s decision over the North Carolina law. . . . 

One final note. Those opposed to voter-ID laws consistently claim that huge numbers of American voters have no ID and no ability to get one. Yet when it comes to actually producing evidence to support that claim, opponents always fall short. In fact, in this lawsuit, they couldn’t produce a single Virginian who didn’t have an ID or who couldn’t easily get the free ID provided by the state.

The entire decision is well worth reading.  The Fourth Circuit rightly recognized, as the Supreme Court said in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, that inconveniences do not constitute a substantial burden on the right to vote, especially when a state is attempting to protect the integrity of its elections and has taken steps to ensure that no eligible voter loses the opportunity to vote.

Election News You May Have Missed, Part 1

In all the news from the election last week, you may have missed two important changes passed by referendum in Missouri and Alaska.

In Missouri, voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to Missouri's constitution to allow a photo ID to be required to vote:

With 63% voting in favor, voters in Missouri passed a constitutional amendment that will allow the state to enact a law requiring photo ID to vote.  The amendment gives state constitutional approval to a bill passed earlier this year to require a photo ID.  With the passage of the constitutional amendment, photo ID is now required in Missouri.

In Alaska, voters approved a unique form of mandatory voter registration, tying voter registration to applications for the state's Permanent Fund distributions:

Yesterday, voters in Alaska approved a ballot measure 65% to 35% that will automatically register Alaskans to vote when they apply for Alaska Permanent Fund distributions:

Ballot measure 1 would increase the number of registered voters in the state by automatically registering Alaskans when they apply for their PFDs. . . . Supporters say it’s a way to increase participation in elections, save time, and modernize state government. 

But the proposal has faced opposition from many Alaskans since its inception. Critics say the program’s $942,885 price tag would be a waste of money at a time when the state is grappling with a multi-billion dollar budget deficit. 

The Alaska Permanent Fund is an “annual dividend that is paid to Alaska residents from investment earnings of mineral royalties.”

The change in Missouri will help protect the integrity of its elections.  In addition to being expensive, the change in Alaska may hurt the integrity of its elections by introducing inaccuracies into its voter rolls.

Clinton Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Support Photo Voter ID

Are the Clinton Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist horrible racists bringing back Jim Crow laws?   I don’t think so.  But I do think they told the truth about photo ID--which they can support in certain instances--in emails to each other revealed by wikileaks.

Two excerpts are below.  First from Joel Benenson, strategist to Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and Chief Strategist to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign:

I do think we should explore ways to Co-opt GOP's argument for photo ID which has enormous appeal. Even among some Dem voters.

Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta replied supporting Photo ID to vote:  

On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

This completely puts the lie to the Democrat argument that photo ID is racist.  Unless you believe top officials of the Clinton campaign team are racist. 

It further shows how the attacks on voter ID laws are really political.  Both an effort to turn a losing issue into a winning issue and to scare minorities into voting for Democrats. 

Marc Elias and everyone else should immediately withdraw all their lawsuits against voter ID as it is not racist or discriminatory according to their parties' campaign leaders.

The Left Continues to Resist Efforts to Fight Voter Fraud

Today, Joanne Young published an op-ed on the homepage of National Review Online. Here's an excerpt:

Inaccurate voter rolls also exponentially increase the potential for fraud. Did you hear the one about the deceased World War II veterans who just registered to vote? How about the one where 40 days before the election, a thousand noncitizens were found on the voter rolls in Virginia? Or the dead dozen who cast their ballots in Colorado? 

With disasters like these, it’s no wonder that citizens are eager to monitor our monitors. Our request: Do your job. Under federal law, election officials must keep voter rolls up to date.

If you have five minutes, make sure to read the full article.

Brennan Center: The Only Democrats in New York who Don't See Vote Fraud

To work for the Brennan Center in New York, there are a couple unofficial requirements: (1) you have to be a  Democrat (and a Hillary supporter) and (2) a vote fraud denier.  On the latter, to hear the Brennan Center talk about it, vote fraud is more rare than a lightening strike.  They use their denial of vote fraud as one of their reasons to oppose Voter ID. 

However, the Brennan Center employees should talk to their fellow Democrats or read the papers about the vote fraud that is happening in their own area.  Today it was:

The Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections was caught on a secret video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud” — including at the polls.

Schulkin said he backed the IDs to prevent rampant fraud.

Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”

While discussing the potential for fraud, Schulkin volunteered that in some parts of the city, “they bus people around to vote . . . They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.”

Of course this does not come as a surprise to any rational New Yorker.  New York Democrats know there is a vote fraud problem in New York.  As former Democrat Congressional nominee Vincent Gentile said last year in an unguarded moment:

The candidate said his personal experiences as a politician in New York, one of the 18 states nationwide with no voter ID laws, had made him a supporter of the measures.

“All of us who’ve run before are, can tell you stories about what happens on Election Day,” he said.

Any honest Democrat in New York would admit to you that Vote Fraud is real and that Voter ID is needed, just most know that partisan groups like the Brennan Center will attack them for saying it.