Author Archives: ELECTIONLAWCENTER.COM

“Widespread” Voter Fraud in Virginia

The Richmond Times report rebuts one of the favorite talking points of voter fraud deniers.  Story here.  The money quote:

“If that person then shows up to vote, “the only way to catch them is through the voter ID bill — should they come in claiming to be actually who they are,” Garrett said. “

More:
“We believe these complaints ran the gamut from voter registration fraud issues through potential fraud at the polling place on Election Day,” said Donald Palmer, secretary of the Virginia Board of Elections, who was appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell in February 2011. “We do not have specific numbers on how the complaints broke down. However, (the state board of elections) is aware that arrests have been made over the past few years for individuals engaging in voter registration fraud.”


Palmer added that recent indictments obtained by the Richmond commonwealth’s attorney’s office for voter fraud and the results of the state police investigation “remind us that unfortunately, fraud does exist in Virginia’s elections.”


Many opponents of the voter ID law maintained that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud in Virginia, and the law would suppress the vote of minorities and others who don’t have adequate identification. About 3.7 million Virginians voted in the 2008 election.


Richmond had by far the largest number of voter-fraud cases opened by state police — 124 — followed by Fairfax County with 37, Chesterfield and Prince William counties with 20 each, Alexandria with 19, Henrico with 17 and Petersburg with 13, according to state police data requested by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.




 

Legal Times Covers RNLA Panel on Holder DOJ

Full story is here. Tidbits:


The Department of Justice under President Barack Obama’s watch has involved itself more with pushing an ideological agenda than enforcing the nation’s laws, according to attorneys speaking at the Republican National Lawyers Association’s annual National Policy Conference in Washington.


M. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative nonprofit, started off the discussion titled “The Rule of Law versus The Obama Justice Department” by outlining his view of the “administration’s malfeasance” and the “DOJ’s sabotage” of the Defense of Marriage Act . . . .

In terms of national defense, the problem does not stem from the Justice Department’s refusal to defend the law but rather is the result of a pattern within the administration to take action without an explanation as to the legal precedent that gives them the authority to do so. . . .

A former DOJ voting section attorney, J. Christian Adams, said that Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has stacked the deck in favor of Democrats by hiring lawyers who have previously worked with far-left organizations like the Junta for Progressive Action. This selective hiring has permeated the voting section to the degree that Obama election posters graced the walls of the section’s office space even after a memo was distributed instructing employees to remove them, he said. . . . “

Again, full story here at Legal Times.

Voter ID Opponent Says Texas AG “Abbott Is Right, Holder Is Wrong”


In its editorial “Abbott Is Right, Holder Is Wrong”, the reliably-liberal Dallas Morning News sides with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on the issue of whether the Justice Department may depose state legislators to see if there was “discriminatory intent” in drafting Texas’ voter ID law, which is currently before a 3-judge federal panel for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.


 


From the Dallas Morning News: 


“This newspaper opposed the Texas voter identification law. When it comes to the release of information, particularly as it applies to the act of governing, we are almost always on the side of more and not less. In this instance, however, we are swayed by the arguments of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott… that the Justice Department does not meet the legal standard for compelling testimony from lawmakers.”


 


Holder Wrong:


“The Justice Department, in briefs filed in federal court in Washington, has already concluded that there is substantial evidence that the Texas law will discriminate against minorities. Prosecutors in Washington in effect are using that finding to request the deposition of Texas lawmakers, something that is permissible by law but by no means common.”


 


Abbott Right:


“The Texas voter ID law, regardless of how you feel about it, was modeled on the one that was passed in Indiana and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. In other words, it was not the product of a cabal working with ill intent behind the scenes. . .The legislative process that produced the law in Texas was very open — the public debate included hearings and testimony. No one can argue that Texans did not know what drove legislators to enact the law.”


 


DMN’s conclusion:
“[T]here’s a difference between fighting the good fight and fighting unfairly and unwisely. In this instance, it is the Texas attorney general who is in the right.”


 


 


Postscript:  The court’s ruling on this issue came a day after DMN’s editorial.  Friday’s order from the 3-judge panel, while declining the blanket protective order requested by Abbott, also denied Holder’s all-inclusive ‘extraordinary instance’ argument, and maintained that state legislators may individually waive or assert legislative privilege:


“If any legislators assert the privilege in response to specific requests for depositions or to justify withholding the production of specific communications, Defendants can move to compel in the appropriate court and Texas can oppose the motion or renew its motion for a protective order.  At that point, the precise scope of the privilege can be determined.”

“John McCain, the 2008 Election and Civil Unrest”

Latest at PJ Rule of Law.

“Whether or not ballot boxes were stuffed by ‘black Dems’ in Philadelphia is probably something we will never know. What we do know is this: First, that people in the McCain campaign thought they had evidence of election tampering that cost McCain the election. Second, that McCain thought it best for the country to do nothing about it, in part because of fears of mob violence.”

Wisconsin Appeals Redistricting Ruling to SCOTUS


The Journal Sentinel reports:


 


Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to overturn a decision by a three-judge panel that found maps of two state Assembly districts violated Latinos’ voting rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court is required to take the case and will have the final say on what election maps are in place around the state for the next decade starting this fall.



“While some view the adverse portion of the district court decision as being inconsequential, I disagree,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “Any time a federal court rejects a state redistricting statute, and decides to redraw or adjust a legislative district, it is a serious matter and appropriate for appellate review.”


Virginia Governor Considers Veto of Voter ID


“We’re going to have to take a very hard look at that bill now when it comes back to determine what the next step is,” he said.


 


In its current form, the bill requires anyone who forgets to bring proper identification to the polls to fill out a provisional ballot, which would not be counted unless the voter returns with proper ID or sends an electronic copy.  McDonnell sought to weaken the bill by allowing election officials to compare the signature on the provisional ballot with a voter registration card on file. But both the House and Senate shot down McDonnell’s amendment during Wednesday’s veto session. . .


 


Local registrars in Virginia lobbied lawmakers hard to override McDonnell’s changes because of the extra work it would have created for poll workers on already stressful election nights, and they found supporters on both sides of the aisle.  



Full story here.

Wisconsin Voter ID Case Won’t Be Resolved Before Recalls


As anticipated: 


 


A challenge to Wisconsin’s new voter ID law won’t be resolved before this spring’s recalls are over.


Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan has temporarily blocked the law from taking effect while he considers both sides’ arguments.   A four-day bench trial wrapped up early Thursday afternoon with Flanagan saying that he wants to see both sides’ final positions in writing.  He said final briefs will be due June 18, nearly two weeks after the June 5 general recall election.