Author Archives: ELECTIONLAWCENTER.COM

“Electing to Fight Fraud” in Georgia



“It’s quite possible that, in our zeal to make voting convenient, we’ve made it far too convenient,” according to the Augusta Chronicle:


 


“Right here in Augusta – which boasts one of the finest election directors around, Lynn Bailey – an Augusta Chronicle investigation recently unearthed several dozen voters whose home addresses were actually empty lots and abandoned houses across the county. The spot check, done by comparing voter registration information to county property records and Licensing and Inspection dates on abandoned properties, illustrates that voter fraud may be occurring even in areas with the most trustworthy election officials.  Imagine if rank partisans were, instead, in control of the election machinery…


 


“Voter ‘suppression’ can no longer be considered a legitimate concern. There were no confirmations of it before or after the election – and fears that Barack Obama might be turned out of office because minorities weren’t allowed to vote were obvious puffery.  Fact is, our problem is just the opposite: There aren’t enough controls on the system to prevent votes being cast that shouldn’t be.”

Wall Street Journal: Voter “Suppression” Debunked

 More:  Opponents make two claims: that, as is “seen by many” according to TPM, such laws are intended to suppress minority voting; and that such laws have the effect of suppressing minority voting. Hardy clearly agrees with the first claim, inasmuch as she characterizes voter ID requirements as an “assault on our ability to vote.” She provides no evidence for this claim, or at least none that TPM finds worth reporting, but then her audience probably didn’t need to be convinced.

National Review: DOJ “Misbehavior” Called Out in NH Bailout

National Review link:

“The Center for Individual Rights filed a motion to intervene on Wednesday on behalf of a resident of the state who objects to the bailout. The motion reminds the court that it cannot grant New Hampshire’s request because the state “admits on the face of the complaint that it does not satisfy the statutory criteria for a bailout.” The motion also brings to the attention of the court the language cited in the NRO article from the Shelby County case, where the D.C. Circuit found Shelby County ineligible for a bailout due to the county’s failure to submit one voting change, much less the numerous unsubmitted voting changes of New Hampshire.

This motion to intervene by a New Hampshire resident and voter, if it is granted, will make it much more difficult for the court to ignore New Hampshire’s noncompliance and the Justice Department’s misbehavior in the case. “

CIR Steps in to Block NH Bailout

Why?  For the reasons I and Hans von Spakovsky wrote about yesterday. From the brief:

This Court may take notice of two additional matters. First, the Supreme Court has
granted a petition for writ of certiorari to this Court in Shelby County v. Holder, a case that
challenges the constitutionality of the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5. Shelby County v.
Holder, 2012 WL 3018430 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2012). Part of the defense of the constitutionality of
that statute is that the provisions permitting bail-in and bailout ensure that the statute remains
focused on the jurisdictions with the worst records, and that the bailout provision can be readily
used by covered jurisdictions with clean records. Shelby County v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 881-
82 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2012 WL 3018430 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2012). Indeed, one of
plaintiff’s attorneys has cited this case and other bailout cases as an important reason why the
Supreme Court should uphold the constitutionality of Section 5. Gerry Hebert, The Shelby
County, Alabama Case and Bailouts (Nov. 15, 2012), available at www.clcblog.org. The
Attorney General thus has an incentive to interpret the bailout conditions very liberally, and his
effort to defend the constitutionality of Section 5 in Shelby County seems likely to influence his
determination of whether the bailout conditions have been met here.


Second, earlier this year, the Attorney General agreed to a consent decree permitting
bailout in which the covered jurisdiction admittedly had enforced changes in voting laws without
preclearance. Consent Judgment and Decree in Merced County v. Holder, D.D.C. No. 12-cv-
00354-TRH-DST-ABJ filed August 31, 2012 (Doc. No. 11) ¶ 29 (“Some recent submissions
were made after the Attorney General reviewed the records of the County and the political
subjurisdictions in the course of considering the County’s bailout request and advised that it
appeared that several potential voting changes had not previously been submitted to the Attorney
General over the preceding ten years.”). This only gives further support to the belief that the
Case 1:12-cv-01854-EGS-TBG-RMC Document 6 Filed 12/05/12 Page 10 of 12
1 Movant’s proposed motion to dismiss accompanies this motion as an exhibit. While a
motion to dismiss is technically not a “pleading,” courts have repeatedly interpreted the
“pleading” requirement of Rule 24(c) liberally so as to include a proposed motion to dismiss that
makes clear the proposed intervenor’s position. New Century Bank v. Open Solutions, Inc., 2011
WL 1666926, *3 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2011) (citing authorities); Danner Constr. Co. v.
Hillsborough County, 2009 WL 2525486, *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2009) (ruling that a motion to
dismiss suffices under Rule 24(c), and rejecting an overly strict interpretation of that rule).
9
Attorney General, at least while Shelby County is before the Supreme Court, is not going to
argue that full adherence to the bailout conditions must be met before this Court may issue the
requested declaratory judgment.

“Snap, crackle. . . racist.”

Vadum has the goods on Mock.

“The Left’s vicious all-out assault on electoral integrity this past election cycle was largely funded by the nation’s most radical labor union and the man who brought you Rice Krispies.

The Battle Creek, Michigan-based W.K. Kellogg Foundation funneled a staggering $5.2 million in grants to the Applied Research Center (ARC), which churned out a steady stream of propaganda aimed at convincing Americans it’s somehow racist to require photo ID from a voter, Media Trackers Ohio reports.”

UPDATE: Three Non-Citizens Now Charged with Felony Voter Fraud in Minnesota: Same-Day Registration Forms “Slipped By” Election Judges



The Austin Post-Bulletin reports that the three non-citizens who illegally voted, “Jacob Awuol Barac and brothers William and Braulio Manzano all filled out same-day registration forms incorrectly, which slipped by election judges, before casting their ballots. All three checked the box saying they were not citizens of the United States before filling out the rest and signing the portion that says they were, in fact, U.S. citizens.” 

Shrewder fraudsters might not have checked the non-citizen box (a safeguard ACLU Michigan’s Kary Moss decried as a “cynical voter suppression tactic”) and thus “slipped by” undetected before and after the fact.  Just how many ineligible people have illegally cast votes by abusing same day registration is unknown.  What is known is that it can be, and has been, done.    


Toobin Beclowns Himself

Jeffery Toobin’s answer for an election system that doesn’t work?  Have the Federal Government take it over.

Sorry, this is pinhead talk.  This is what people in academia who have never monitored or worked in an election concoct.  This is what people who have never worked in the federal government and spend most of their life inside the Beltway or on Manhattan come up with to solve a local problem.