Judge Allows Crimson Tide Voter Fraud Case to Continue

 Link.

“Judge James Roberts said Horwitz’s team has not presented “one shred of evidence” to prove a number of votes were tainted by bribery or illegal pressure in the Tuscaloosa City School Board race, but he would hear evidence related to residency requirements. . . .


One particular group of University of Alabama students listed their residence on July 28 at the Tutwiler residence hall on campus — which, Anderson said, is impossible as the dorm is not opened to students in July. 


“How truthful are these people being when filling out these affidavits?” Anderson said. “They wrote they lived somewhere they couldn’t have.”

Speech Regulations Snag Parents in PA School District

An example of speech regulators snagging citizen participation by parents seeking academic competence in one Pennsylvania school district.

“According to the state’s Campaign Finance Reporting Law, the group appears to qualify as a political committee under the definition of “any committee, club, association or other group of persons which receives contributions or makes expenditures.”

Political committees “must file reports at any election in which it expends money to influence an election,” the law states.


Ms. McFall said she is unable to comment about the investigation because of the lack of information provided about it to the Boosters.


The group’s objective for the primary, she said, was to give voters a choice in the general election instead of a ballot full of unopposed candidates. She said her group has shifted emphasis since the primary.”

Sowell: “Not One of Us”

Town Hall has Thomas Sowell’s latest syndicated column:

That liberals would be thrilled by another liberal is not surprising. But there are conservative Republicans who voted for Barack Obama, and other conservatives who may not have voted for him, but who are quick to see in various pragmatic moves of his since taking office an indication that he is not an extremist.


Anyone familiar with history knows that Hitler and Stalin were pragmatic. After years of denouncing each other, they signed the Nazi-Soviet pact under which they became allies for a couple of years before going to war against one another.

Pragmatism tells you nothing about extremism. But the conservative intellectuals who seize upon President Obama’s pragmatism to give him the benefit of the doubt are obviously bending over backward for some reason. . . .


Perhaps the best way to try to understand these reactions is to recall what Eleanor Roosevelt said when she first saw Whittaker Chambers, who had accused Alger Hiss of being a spy for the Soviet Union. Upon seeing the slouching, overweight and disheveled Chambers, she said, “He’s not one of us.”


The trim, erect and impeccably dressed Alger Hiss, with his Ivy League and New Deal pedigree, clearly was “one of us.” As it turned out, he was also a liar and a spy for the Soviet Union. Not only did a jury decide that at the time, the opening of the secret files of the Soviet Union in its last days added more evidence of his guilt.

The Hiss-Chambers confrontation of more than half a century ago produced the same kind of visceral polarization that Governor Sarah Palin provokes today.

Before the first trial of Alger Hiss began, reporters who gathered at the courthouse informally sounded each other out as to which of them they believed, before any evidence had been presented. Most believed that Hiss was telling the truth and that it was Chambers who was lying.

More important, those reporters who believed that Chambers was telling the truth were immediately ostracized. None of this could have been based on the evidence for either side, for that evidence had not yet been presented in court.

For decades after Hiss was convicted and sent to federal prison, much of the media and the intelligentsia defended him. To this day, there is an Alger Hiss chair at Bard College.

Why did it matter so much to so many people which of two previously little-known men was telling the truth? Because what was on trial was not one man but a whole vision of the world and a way of life.



 

ACRU Warns Alabama Counties of NVRA Violations

“The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) has sent notices to numerous Alabama counties that they are in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration (“Motor Voter”) Act. The counties have more registered voters than voting age-eligible residents, according to official data from the U.S. Census and state voter registration offices. . . .
The city of Dothan, Alabama is awaiting the results of a court decision into 124 absentee ballots in an election decided by 14 votes. Last week a Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court Judge ordered 397 voters to verify they were legally registered or not coerced into voting in an election decided by 87 votes. Despite the Supreme Court victory in Shelby County, Alabama v Holder giving Alabama sovereignty over its own election laws, Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to block any necessary reform or enforcement.

The counties in Alabama join others in Mississippi, Texas and Kentucky targeted by the ACRU for violating federal law that requires election officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists.


The ACRU has entered historic consent decrees with Walthall and Jefferson Davis counties in Mississippi after suing them in federal district court for having more voters registered than voting-age-eligible residents living in each county — just as the Alabama counties do that were put on notice today. Earlier this month, the ACRU also sent letters to 15 Texas counties and 11 Kentucky counties warning them that, based on official federal government data, they are violating federal law under the requirements of the Motor Voter Act.”

Link.

“Showing valid ID not a problem for El Paso voters” – or any other Texas voters



In Texas, the non-problems with Voter ID continue:

“El Paso County election officials say they’ve encountered no problems as voters begin to cast ballots while being required to show a valid ID.”


So why do Democrats like state Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D-El Paso) keep claiming that voter ID is a “war on women,” with “victims” like Judge Sandra Watts who according to headlines was “almost blocked” from voting but actually cast a regular ballot after showing an ID and initialing the poll book? 

The Texas tall tales are a political ploy. “Democrats hope these stories will help build public opposition to voter ID measures.”

In fact, “Democrats — nationally and in Texas – have been trying to gain political traction by saying that Texas’ new voter identification law is hurting women… The Texas Democratic Party said in an email that ‘Texans throughout the state — particularly women voters — are running into challenges’ at the polls because of the voter ID law.”

But reality suggests otherwise: 


“No one in Dallas County has been prevented from voting — or even forced to cast a provisional ballot — because [of] a name discrepancy” and “no voters had been deterred from casting a ballot.”


 


In Tarrant County “We’ve really had no complaints, concerns or issues… We haven’t had anyone refuse to show an ID. And we haven’t had any provisional ballots.”


Harris County says the new “voter ID law is not causing problems” despite record turnout.

“It’s not a big deal at all” in Travis County, where any issues have been “quickly and easily resolved.”


“We have had no complaints, no one turned away, no provisional ballots and no one has left (the polling place) to get their ID” in Coryell County.  “So far, we have had no negative feedback” in Bell County. In Lampasas County “We have had no problems, none. Not even a provisional ballot.”


 


Cameron County has been “incident-free through the first week of early voting.”


 


“[N]o problems with anyone wanting to vote” in Washington County.


All the Democrats’ purported “challenges,” “problems,” “snags,” “hold ups,” “hoops,” and “burdens” for women voters amount to adding initials to an affidavit in the poll book and voting as usual.  Not exactly “disenfranchisement.”

Posner says media misstated so-called “recant” of voter ID opinion


I was not, as one journalist has it, ‘publicly recanting’


 


The reliably anti-ID left-wing media’s newfound admiration for “distinguished” and “renowned” Judge Posner proves short-lived, now that Posner has pointed out their misrepresentations:


 


Posner thinks some journalists who reported on his sentence about the voter ID opinion misstated his view of the case.


 


“I did not say that my decision, and the Supreme Court’s decision affirming it (written, be it noted, by the notably liberal Justice Stevens), were wrong,” Posner says… “The point I was making in my book in mentioning the Crawford case was not that the decision was right or wrong (I was not, as one journalist has it, ‘publicly recanting’; I had not ‘switched sides’), but that in many cases judges can’t have any confidence in the soundness of their decisions if they do not have empirical data concerning the likely consequences of deciding the case one way rather than another.