Moderator and Panelist:
Charles Cooper, RNLA Vice Chair; Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Panelists:

J. Christian Adams, former Voting Section Civil Rights Division Department of Justice attorney
Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center; former Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Kathryn Wheelbarger, Deputy Chief of Staff, House Committee on Energy
and Commerce; former Counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney

But Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) chose to use his time to scold witness Eric Eversole, of the Military Voter Protection Project, for omitting from his oral testimony some details of a MOVE Act enforcement case against New York.  In fact, Eversole did include complete facts of the case in his written testimony submitted in advance to the committee (which Nadler later acknowledged after actually reading Eversole’s submission).

Nadler also spent time on a “point of privilege” to defend ACORN – an organization found guilty of operating an illegal voter registration scheme and whose name is practically synonymous with voter fraud.  In his defense of ACORN, Nadler denied he ever “agreed to consider the request” to hold a hearing on ACORN, before he concluded that a hearing was “unwarranted”.  Seriously? 

Nadler did pose a (leading) question to Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice, asking her to “describe how voter ID laws disenfranchise certain classes of voters.” To which Weiser responded that “study after study” “confirmed repeatedly” that minority registered voters “won’t be able to vote” under photo voter ID laws. That conclusion improbably presupposes that minority voters who don’t currently have a photo ID (but had adequate ID to register) will find it impossible to get an ID.  Weiser also used the tired – and debunked – “more likely to be struck by lightning” voter fraud denial to justify allowing unidentified people to cast votes.  Seriously?

In her written testimony, Weiser denies impersonation fraud: “In truth, there are multiple means to discover in-person impersonation fraud, all of which might be expected to yield more reports of such fraud, if it actually occurred with any frequency. An individual seeking to commit impersonation fraud must, at a minimum, present himself at a polling place, sign a pollbook, and swear to his identity and eligibility. There will be eyewitnesses: pollworkers and members of the community, any one of whom may personally know the individual impersonated, and recognize that the would-be voter is someone else.”

Showing (twice) James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas video exposing DC pollworkers offering Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot to an unidentified person (another video in the series shows pollworkers waiving the signature requirement) effectively put the lie to Weiser’s unserious assertions – especially the one about eyewitnesses recognizing the individual being impersonated.

Weiser continues, “There will be documentary evidence: the pollbook signature can be compared, either at the time of an election or after an election, to the signature of the real voter on a registration form, and the real voter can be contacted to confirm or disavow a signature in the event of a question. There may be a victim: if the voter impersonated is alive but later arrives to vote, the impersonator’s attempt will be discovered by the voter.” 

“There may be a victim” – seriously?  Even if the vote is stolen from a deceased person, the “victim” is the honest voter whose vote is canceled out by a fraudulent one.  And it’s another improbable supposition that any reportable action would be taken in these instances, as the perpetrators cannot be identified and thus cannot be prosecuted.  And in any case the fraudulent votes cannot be taken back.  Seriously.

In a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Privileges & Elections committees (respectively, Delegate Mark Cole and state Senator Mark Obenshain) and those committees’ members, the president of the Virginia Electoral Board Association (VEBA), Renee B. Andrews of Falls Church, has asked the General Assembly to table the two voter ID bills passed earlier this year. Barring that, Andrews asked that the delegates and senators reject some of Governor Bob McDonnell’s proposed amendments to the bills (now designated as SB1ER and HB9ER).

Full story here.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Arizona’s voter-approved 2004 law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before receiving a ballot. . . Arizona can demand to see certain forms of identification that proves citizenship, the court ruled. And if someone doesn’t have those forms of ID, paying the fees to obtain the ID isn’t the same as a “poll tax.”


But still a federally-forced reliance on the “honor system”:

However, the court also ruled that Arizona must not refuse federal voter-registration forms, which work on the honor system by asking applicants to check a box saying whether they’re U.S. citizens. Arizona can’t replace that form with its form that requires proof of citizenship, the court ruled.

The case can still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gonzalez v. Arizona ruling here.  Phoenix New Times story here.