More Liberal Voter Suppression: This Time Military Voters

The liberal Center for American Progress has issued studies and claimed to be against voter suppression.  Yet, they have remained silent about the real voter suppression occurring in Philadelphia and now, even worse, they are actively advocating suppression of the military vote.   

The left-wing public policy group [Center for American Progress] issued a report Monday, “Election Security in All 50 States,” that called for stricter standards to prevent cybermeddling in elections by foreign governments, including banning military stationed abroad from submitting ballots via email or fax.

One state that allows such vote casting is Colorado. The center called on the state to “prohibit voters stationed or living overseas from returning voted ballots electronically.”

As Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams responded:

But Williams believes the Center for American Progress was wrong to ding Colorado for allowing voters who are stationed or live overseas to return their ballots electronically via email or fax.

“They don’t believe someone who works on a submarine should be allowed to vote,” Williams said. “We do.”

The report states: “Colorado should prohibit voters stationed or living overseas from returning voted ballots electronically. Regardless of the state’s secure ballot return system for electronically voted ballots, we recommend that all voted ballots be returned by mail or delivered in person.”

That’s not always possible, Williams said, and noted that Colorado has added safeguards for sending and receiving those ballots.

Colorado ranks second in the nation in the number of ballots transmitted to overseas voters based on its voting eligible population.

Just as Center for American Progress ignores voter suppression of non-Democrat voters in Philadelphia such as Green, Independent, and Republicans because it favors Democrats, it seems the reason for the attack on military voters is because they lean Republican:

 Conservatives were quick to blast the report’s recommendation as unworkable and politically motivated.

“You can bet that if the military historically voted Democrat instead of Republican, the Center for American Progress would not have a problem with it,” Peak said in a Monday post.

Voter suppression should be opposed by all regardless of party.  Whether it is intercity Green Party voters or our overseas military that is suppressed, no group should ignore or support voter suppression.  Shame on the Center for American Progress.  

RNC Consent Decree Ends After 35 Years

After 35 years, the consent decree that prohibited the Republican National Committee (RNC) from engaging in ballot security activities was terminated by a federal judge.  RNLA Chair John Ryder, former General Counsel to the RNC, stated:

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ended the consent decree that had banned the Republican National Committee from engaging in activities to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest since 1982.  Despite years and much money spent searching for evidence of Republican voter suppression, the Democratic National Committee could not present evidence to the court sufficient for the consent decree to remain in effect.  We applaud the fact that the RNC may now, on the same, lawful, non-discriminatory basis as other political organizations, ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote and that the votes of ineligible voters are not counted.

In November, the judge noted that the DNC had not presented any evidence of voter suppression, let alone any by the RNC:

“As far as what’s before this court, you’ve presented me with no evidence of actual voter suppression efforts on the day of the election, much less tying it to the RNC,” [Judge John Michael] Vazquez told DNC attorneys.

The judge had kept the consent decree in force after a December 1 sunset date to give the DNC an additional opportunity to present evidence of voter suppression or violation of the decree's provisions by the RNC.  It failed to do so:

In order to extend the decree, the DNC needed to show that the RNC violated the terms of pact. . . . However, Vazquez, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in his ruling that despite the various claims, the Democrats had not shown any violation "by a preponderance of the evidence." . . . 

"We are gratified that the judge recognized our full compliance with the consent decree and rejected the DNC’s baseless claims," said RNC communications director Ryan Mahoney. 

"Today’s ruling will allow the RNC to work more closely with state parties and campaigns to do what we do best, ensure that more people vote through our unmatched field program." 

While the consent decree has been in effect, other Republican organizations, such as the RNLA, NRCC, NRSC, Republican state parties, and other groups, have worked to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest.  As Mr. Ryder noted, we look forward to a new era where the RNC can, if it so chooses, be a part of this effort to protect the right to vote of every eligible voter.  

Obama-Appointed Judge Confirms There is NO Evidence of Republican Voter Suppression

Since 1981 the Republican National Committee has been under a consent decree regarding election integrity operations. For years the RNC has avoided any and everything to do with such activities.  The Democratic National Committee and its allies have been frothing at the mouth on this issue, despite no evidence of ANYONE on the right engaging in voter suppression.  Today, a federal judge appointed by President Obama, Michael Vazquez, made a statement that should put the argument over voter suppression to rest for good:

 “As far as what’s before this court, you’ve presented me with no evidence of actual voter suppression efforts on the day of the election, much less tying it to the RNC,” Vazquez told DNC attorneys.

This statement is worth breaking down.  In 2016, in the entire country the DNC with its large staff, money and nationwide affiliates could find “no evidence” of “actual voter suppression.”  The word actual is important because the DNC, Democrats and left-wing groups have accused Republicans in the media and fundraised off such claimed “voter suppression.”  Yet, the DNC could find “no evidence.” 

The DNC and liberal allies will no doubt latch on to the fact that the judge granted a deposition of Sean Spicer based on comments he made in a news article.  However, again, the judge stated:

“I want to give you a realistic expectation that I’m not going to be inclined to grant any additional discovery unless, through material issue of the consent decree, you have real evidence that what he said was not accurate,” he said.

The RNC did not engage in election integrity operation in 2016 or for years prior.  More importantly, an Obama-appointed judge agrees that there is no “actual voter suppression” by Republicans.   Now it is up to the media to focus on the real problems with election administration and to call out Democrats for "fake news."  

Suppression of Speech at Polls Leads to Voter Suppression

Last week, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky:

The Supreme Court is being asked to review — and reject — a Minnesota election law that tramples free speech rights by forbidding voters from wearing anything to the polls that might be interpreted as even slightly political or ideological, even if it has no relation to any candidate, ballot measure, or political party. . . .  

The case targets Minnesota Statute 211B.11, which forbids voters from wearing any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia.”  Officials have interpreted this open-ended language to cover messages that merely express a general social or philosophical outlook.  As the government itself noted at oral argument, Minnesota’s broad political apparel ban encompasses any shirt with the logo of the Chamber of Commerce or the AFL-CIO. 

“Minnesota has gone far beyond legitimate regulation and is now attempting to stifle the speech of voters of all ideological beliefs,” said PLF attorney Wen Fa.  “Instead of merely telling people they can’t wear campaign paraphernalia when they vote, the state’s sweeping restrictions can be used against any kind of apparel that reflects personal values, no matter how nonpolitical the message.  From unions to the Tea Party, this is a broad ban that threatens the free speech rights of everyone. . . ." "In these times when free speech enjoys scant support from bureaucrats and politicians as it is continually attacked throughout the nation, Minnesota’s political apparel ban is particularly dangerous,” added Andy Cilek.  “It empowers politicians with the authority to crush legitimate political expression with which they disagree.” 

Cilek and the MVA challenged the restrictions after Cilek became a victim of them.  When he attempted to vote in November, 2010, an election official ordered him to remove his “Don’t tread on me” shirt and his “Please I.D. Me” button (the latter reflecting the MVA’s support for voter-identification requirements, an issue that was not on the ballot).  After a substantial delay, he was eventually permitted to vote, but only after his name had been recorded for potential prosecution under the Minnesota law, which makes violations a criminal misdemeanor.

Full information on the case is available from PLF here, the cert petition is here, and you can track the Supreme Court's consideration of the petition here.  

This case is particularly important because it concerns not only the government's power to restrict voter speech at the polling place (which repressed speech by voters last fall) but also government officials' power to define statutory terms so broadly as to encompass nearly all speech.  This government overreach should be stopped, especially as this speech by voters does not meet any reasonable definition of electioneering and does not interfere with the peaceful and orderly administration of the election.  It is merely a tool for the government, and particularly individual government employees in the form of election workers at the polls, to selectively suppress speech.  And in this situation, suppressed speech also often means a suppressed vote.

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.

The Democratic Party's Persistent Voter Suppression

The Democratic Party has recently taken to using cries of voter suppression as an attack against Republican elected officials, candidates, and policies. From limits on early voting to voter ID, Democrats are quick to levy the charge of voter suppression, but a professor from UC-Berkely recently held up a mirror to the country's left-wing and revealed an ugly reality.

From 2001 to 2011, Democrats have been responsible for a massive suppression of voter turnout through their opposition to consolidated election cycles. It is a well-known fact that off-year elections yield the lowest voter turnout. What many not realize is that there are other, more sporadic election cycles in the country as opposed to just odd-year voting in November. In New Jersey, for example, state elections are held in November of odd years while school district elections are held in April and fire district commissioners are elected in February.

Professor Anzia asked a nationally representative sample of Americans if they prefer elections to be held at different times for different office "because it allows voters to focus on a shorter list of candidates and issues" or consolidated elections "because combining the elections boosts voter turnout for local elections." Voters responded with a clear preference for consolidated elections.

So, given this obvious preference, why isn't there a push to move toward these consolidated elections cycles? Well, from 2001 to 2011 there were approximately 200 bills put forward nationwide to cut down on the number of separate elections and ease the burden on voters. Of these bills only 25 became law. Most interestingly, a majority of the bills were sponsored by Republicans and failed because of Democratic opposition at the urging of Democratic-aligned interest groups, including teachers unions and municipal employee organizations.

Why? Because Democrats know that the voters who turnout in off-year elections tend to have a special interest in the issues or candidates on the ballot. These Democratic groups crave low voter-turnout because they know they will be able to get their members to the polls and that their vote will have a disproportionate impact in favor the groups' liberal agenda.

So while the Democrats are happy to champion voter-rights when it serves as a useful, albeit dishonest, attack on Republicans, it seems they are less inclined to do so when it stands in the way of their policy objectives.