“Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale will push legislation next year aimed at increasing voter registration and participation while combating potential fraud within the system.”  Link.

The PJ Media version.  Another Credible Academic.

In a Louisiana election, the people who cared the most and decided to vote got to decide an issue in a town with 6,200 voters.  344 voters voted and a new hotel tax was approved in Youngsville, LA. That’s how it works.  If you don’t show up, you don’t have a voice.  If they choose not to decide, they still have made a choice. (due credit to N. Peart.)

The answer to this circumstance is not to devise ways to make the uninterested interested.  The decision not to participate in the election is a decision none the less.  Some people deliberately don’t want to participate in elections, don’t want to integrate into the political fray. That’s their choice.  And in Youngsville, it means a new tax.

One of the more interesting revelations from the case brought by the Virginia Democratic Party is that Virginia’s participation in the Interstate Cross Check program may have caught at least 47 felony double voters in two states.  Buried in an affidavit is the fact that 47 voters are under criminal investigation as a result of data derived from the cross state check program. 

I wrote here how the Democrats may have unwittingly exposed two of their affiants to further scrutiny after it was discovered in court last week that they strangely registered to vote in two states within a few days of each registration.  This occurred in October 2004, right before the Presidential election.

It would be high irony if the lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party of Virginia resulted in little more than the discovery that Democrat voters were committing voter fraud.

 Link.

We have yet more evidence that parts of academia are fully engaged in dividing Americans along racial lines and indoctrinating students with fringe and toxic racial ideas. From the Cornell Daily Sun: Kimberle Crenshaw ’81, Critical Race Theorist, Returns to The Hill (emphasis all mine):

Visiting Cornell, a prominent theorist on issues of race and gender equality said recent Supreme Court cases addressing affirmative action and voting rights have devastated the progress of the civil rights era at a lecture Thursday.

Prof. Kimberlé Crenshaw ’81, law, University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia Law School spoke as part of her five-day visit at Cornell, where she studied government and Africana studies when she was an undergraduate. During the course of her visit, Crenshaw will be meeting with faculty and students.

Crenshaw focused on recent major Supreme Court decisions made primarily this summer, including Shelby County v. Holder, Hollingsworth v. Perry and Fischer v. University of Texas. . . .

Crenshaw said the decision of Shelby County v. Holder –– which was designed to prevent discrimination by striking down the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act –– “was truly ugly in the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. The crown jewel of the civil rights movement … it will surely suppress the voting rights of tens of thousands, perhaps millions of voters of color.” 

Millions? This is an outright lie, and either the professor knows it or is not grounded in reality.  There hasn’t been a single voter “disenfranchised” by the Shelby decision.   It gets worse:

Crenshaw focused on the arguments of colorblindness that were brought up through this case.

Crenshaw explained that the rationale of “colorblindness” — the idea that society has become race-neutral and does not have to redesign status quo institutions to prevent discrimination — is used to disguise a defense of the status quo. Crenshaw argued that substantive changes are necessary to be truly post-racial. [Specific institutions please?] . . .

“Colorblindness has been resurrected to roll back the social infrastructure enacted during the civil rights movement,” Crenshaw said.

Crenshaw said these setbacks were the result of decisions made by the Supreme Court under Justice John Roberts, since 2005. She said that the Roberts court ended active restructuring of social structures to prevent racial discrimination, pointing to the Parents Involved v. Seattle case where, she said, “the Supreme Court ends active school desegregation.” [the case that said race could not be used to assign children to schools, sort of like the desegregation cases in the 1960s.]

[And this truly Orwellian moment she] said the legal move toward race neutrality is reminiscent of much discriminatory policy like grandfather clauses and literacy tests, “efforts to suppress access to the franchise has always used measures that were formally race neutral.”

Crenshaw concluded by saying truly combating racism requires scrutinizing the structures that perpetuate racism and confronting inequality with the status quo.

Renee Alexander ’74, associate dean of students and director of intercultural programs, worked to bring Crenshaw to Cornell after being inspired by a previous presentation she had seen Crenshaw give.”

This is what passes for credible on elite college campuses today – the idea that treating individuals without regard to race or color but rather as individuals with divine dignity is somehow racially discriminatory. These are not just nutty notions, they are dangerous notions. They attempt to undo and unraveling the meaning of words. They defy the truth. Treating people without regard to race is deconstructed to mean racism. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia, except when it wasn’t.

Beware, these nutty and dangerous notions aren’t confined to places like Cornell or in Crenshaw’s classroom in Los Angeles. They are en vogue among growing numbers of lawyers and those who hold power. We saw it on display last week at the Supreme Court when Shanta Driver stood before the Justices and proclaimed that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to whites. Driver wasn’t ashamed. Her and thousands of other share the same toxic belief. We see the belief manifest in the policies of the Justice Department. 

Pay attention, Driver’s client was “By Any Means Necessary.”  They claimed that Michigan’s ban on racial discrimination was, in fact, racial discrimination.

Freedom is slavery.

The structure that racialists like Driver and Crenshaw seek to undo is the primacy of truth.  They seek to deconstruct the meaning of words.  They seek to alter the meaning of the promises of equality in the Constitution.  They defy truth. They disdain the individual dignity of every human, without regard to race.  History is full of people like Driver and Crenshaw, and they are a menace to individual freedom.  Sadly, college professors these days seem enamored with ideas that have created so much destruction across time. 

Judge Posner is proving once again that the only time partisan law professors or the media quotes a conservative on election integrity issues is when the conservative defects or wobbles.  Once they defect, conservatives are featured in the New York Times.  No surprise.  Hans von Spakovsky has this on Judge Posner at National Review.

“The Left’s well-oiled propaganda machine is in overdrive again. Partisan law professors and the liberal media are trumpeting Judge Richard Posner’s “admission” that he regrets the majority opinion he wrote upholding Indiana’s voter-ID law. . . . Well, if it’s factual information Judge Posner wants, let’s give it to him.”

Full story at link above

“Watkins found 104 who still seemed to be registered in other states, and sent them all letters. She did Internet searches on some. She wound up taking 104 of them off the voter rolls.

In Stafford, Registrar Greg Riddlemoser submitted a description of his process that the lawyers for the SBE filed as part of their court documents this week.

In that document, Riddlemoser said the Crosscheck program being used by the SBE, as well as other programs, are “welcome tools that the general registrar community has been long requesting to meet the federal and state legal requirements to maintain accurate voter registration rolls.”

Link here.

Link to analysis on the ruling here.

Link.