Clean voter rolls: Not just a good idea, it’s the law

Voter ID laws are really “yesterday’s fight,” says former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams. The new front that state legislators interested in election integrity should focus on is voter rolls.


Maintaining clean voter rolls is required by federal law but is being fought “both in courts and politically” by left-wing organizations and their allies in the Obama Justice Department.


“Because clean voter rolls help prevent voter fraud, it’s probably the most important issue facing the states in the realm of voting laws, [Adams] said.”


Ohio Secretary of State doesn’t want uninvited feds overseeing elections

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted voiced his objections to the Department of Homeland Security’s unilateral decision last Friday to designate state election systems as “critical infrastructure” at the Ohio Election Association Officials conference this week, saying he’s concerned that DHS is unwilling to put into writing that they won’t intervene in any state’s election without the state’s consent.

“Whether it’s a Homeland Security secretary appointed under President Obama or one appointed under President Trump, I don’t want the federal government to have authority to invite themselves into our elections process in Ohio or any other state without our permission,” Husted said, followed to applause.


The National Association of Secretaries of State conference in February will focus on clarifying the issue, Husted said. If the department continues to evade a written statement and will not remove the designation, the NASS will ask Congress to clarify in law that Homeland Security cannot intervene in state elections without consent.


Lorain, Ohio judge finally refers 2015 voter fraud case to prosecutor

If people do something wrong, they should be held accountable.


Better late than never:


A Lorain County judge who overturned a May 2015 city council Democratic primary decided by just one vote, after determining that nine ineligible people had illegally voted in the race, has finally turned over the records of those ineligible voters to county prosecutors to investigate for voter fraud.


Lorain County Common Pleas Judge Mark Betleski wrote in a letter he admitted was overdue to Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis Will,

I am writing you now to advise you that I determined that certain individuals voted illegally in that election.


I am requesting that you review the materials contained in this letter, the evidence admitted during the trial of this matter, and any other information available through your office’s investigation, and determine whether any individuals should be prosecuted for their actions during the 2015 Lorain City Primary election.

Judge Betleski found that the nine ineligible voters had registered at addresses where they didn’t actually live (in some cases, where no one lived), “a felony under Ohio law,” or had moved.

SCOTUS puts North Carolina’s 2017 special election on temporary hold

Stayed, for now:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday put a court-ordered legislative redistricting and 2017 special election on hold while it reviews Republican legislators’ appeal in an ongoing lawsuit.


A lower federal court ruled months ago that the current legislative districts are an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and it ordered the General Assembly to draw new districts by March 15 and hold a rare off-year election in altered districts this November.


Tuesday’s Supreme Court order puts that order on hold at least until a Jan. 19 conference among the justices at which they will consider an appeal seeking to keep the current districts in place.

State legislators responded along party lines, with Republican House and Senate leaders saying in a joint statement, “We are grateful the U.S. Supreme Court has quashed judicial activism and rejected an attempt to nullify the votes of North Carolinians in the 2016 legislative elections,” while disappointed Democratic Rep. Graig Meyer said, “For Democrats, this is a setback in our plans for winning back power in the legislature, but it does not stop our momentum.”

“The Real Reason for the Left’s All-Out Assault on Jeff Sessions”

The institutional Left is afraid:”

Under persistent questioning, Sessions has had to defend his decision to prosecute a case of brazen voter fraud—something that was his job to do. The repeated references to this case by some senators represent just how far the civil rights industry has swerved from its honorable roots to derail a confirmation. Character assassination, false testimony, performance protests aimed at securing retweets instead of reconciliation, and more have all been trained on the Alabama senator.


The oft-referenced voter fraud case Sessions brought involved the harvesting of absentee ballots by a trio then lionized as “the Perry County Three” in the mid-1980s. These Perry County defendants faced charges for mail fraud and casting multiple ballots in a single election. They simply stole votes. They weren’t acting to further civil rights—they were committing crimes. As Sessions mentioned in his testimony, the offense was reported by local black complainants whose absentee ballots were being intercepted and voted without their consent. . . .


Contrary to what the NAACP and its friends may say otherwise, the right to vote exists with the individual, not the political machine that forces “assistance” on voters without their input. Arguing that the decision to prosecute voter fraud is itself a disqualifying offense when seeking the job of attorney general demonstrates just how perverse the modern left has become with respect to the rule of law.


The left’s highlighting of this one case demonstrates that the institutional left is afraid. They are afraid they may soon lose enormous power because the Sessions Department of Justice will no longer participate in their radical racialist agenda.

Judge rules Texas city’s at-large districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Critics who claim that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides voters insufficient protection are proven wrong by the ruling in this Texas city redistricting case:

“This decision shows that the Voting Rights Act is alive and well, contrary to the scare-mongering of some interest groups. When people claim that the Voting Rights Act was ‘gutted,’ the decision in the Pasadena case demonstrates they aren’t telling the truth,” J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation told Breitbart Texas.

The full opinion is at the link.

Why the Left hates soon-to-be Attorney General Jeff Sessions

The Left hates Sessions because Sessions hates voter fraud, loves the Constitution


Former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams joins Vicki McKenna to talk about why the Left is desperately smearing and lying to fight Senator Jeff Sessions’ Attorney General confirmation, why they fight the election integrity measures he supports, and the sorry state of the modern civil rights industry.

They hate Jeff Sessions because Jeff Sessions hates voter fraud. He prosecuted voter fraud when he was a U.S. attorney, and in the perverse world of the modern Left, that disqualifies you from being the Attorney General.


And that’s why they’re going after Jeff Sessions, because he prosecuted voter fraud in Alabama in the ’80s, and it just so happens some of the people he prosecuted were well-connected ‘civil rights leaders’ . . . they were stealing the votes of black voters,  they were going to their house, they were taking their absentee ballots, they were changing the votes.

To the modern Left, though, it doesn’t matter if black “civil rights activists” steal the votes of black voters. Prosecuting black cheaters (at the request of black candidates losing votes to the cheating) is the problem.

This goes back to the overarching narrative we see over and over and over again. . . any election integrity measure, they act as if it’s a conspiracy by Jim Crow. It’s the modern lie. it’s what the civil rights industry has become is a group of well-funded dishonest brokers. . . .


The modern Democrat Party is changing the rules of the game when it comes to elections. . . they want to change the environment so it helps them win power. . . They know Jeff Sessions opposes that. . . That’s why they hate Sessions, because Sessions loves the Constitution.

Adams says California is a great example of how you “transform a political class by transforming the electorate.”

They basically had an open system where it was a free for all. People flooded across the border, they got registered multiple times, and you saw a state completely transformed politically. . . . That’s how they plan on transforming the country. They tell you this. They tell you that they believe demographic changes will eradicate conservatism and constitutionalism. They make no secret about it. What they don’t tell you is those demographic changes are accelerated by lawlessness.

The institutional Left is spending “millions and millions and millions of dollars” funding “a giant edifice that is working to undermine the American system of elections and the rule of law,” including soon-to-be-failed efforts to block Jeff Sessions from becoming our next Attorney General.

EAC commissioner scathes DHS for decision to designate election systems “critical infrastructure”

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Commissioner Christy McCormick issued a scathing statement Saturday denouncing the Department of Homeland Security’s Friday-night designation of state and local election systems as “critical infrastructure.”


McCormick says DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson’s unilateral decision “appears to be purely political” and “blindsided” state election officials and EAC Commissioners.


McCormick raises a number of concerns about the substance of DHS’ action: the scope and effect of the designation isn’t known; it politicizes elections and creates a layer of non-transparency and unnecessary federal bureaucracy; the “Russian hacking” justification is thin at best; and the designation opens States to legal, financial and privacy liabilities.


But the sharpest criticism is aimed at DHS’ process. McCormick calls it “disingenuous, at best,” which helps explain the high level of mistrust the agency’s action has engendered:

This designation blindsided election officials, who were not provided an adequate opportunity to engage in the decision-making process. While DHS claimed that it would publish notice of the consideration of the designation in the Federal Register and provide a comment period, it did not do so. Additionally, DHS set up an “Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group,” which included some of the Secretaries of State, to participate in the process, but it effectively never utilized that group. It is obvious to me that Secretary Johnson discarded and dismissed the opinions and concerns of the Secretaries and of the EAC Commissioners, the very people who actually have deep professional experience in conducting and administering elections in this Country, before making this decision.


DHS officials represent that they are speaking for the Federal Government, but this Federal agency, the sole mission of which is to assist the States and local election officials in the administration of elections, and which sets the national guidelines for voting systems and tests and certifies those systems, and is a clearinghouse for the best practices in election administration, speaks for itself, and it does not agree with this designation. While this statement is not on behalf of the Commission or my fellow Commissioners, I can say that all of the EAC Commissioners have publicly stated they are not in favor of this designation and had advised Secretary Johnson and his subordinates that he should not move forward with it.


Moreover, we have often been dismayed and confused over either the lack of or conflicting information that has been provided to us. There have been occasions when we have spoken to or been briefed by DHS officials and sometimes even less than an hour later seen different or additional information provided by or leaked to the media by DHS officials. Numerous times after our discussions with DHS and/or other members of the USIC we have been left shaking our heads and unable to reconcile the pieces of information that they have given to us.


One must question the end game of this effort, especially when the touted benefits of this designation have already been offered and provided to elections officials throughout the past four months. Our states and territories have Constitutional authority to conduct elections, NOT the Federal Government. Elections officials have been aware of and have been dealing with cyber security and physical security of election infrastructure for many, many years and do an excellent job of it. This designation appears to be purely political, especially given that it was made with two weeks before the change in administrations. Elections officials asked for more time, conversation, and discussion and a thorough understanding of the scope and benefits of the critical infrastructure designation. That request was flat out denied by the unilateral action of Secretary Johnson.