Washington Post calls it “somewhat of a rebuke” to the Democrat party. Of course had the decision gone the other way, it would have been a full-on rebuke of the Attorney General. Post coverage here.
Virginia Democrats Lose Injunction Motion on Voter Roll Cleanup
Today USDC judge Hilton granted the motion of Judicial Watch, et al., for leave to file as amici in Virginia Democratic Party vs. Virginia State Board of Elections. The hearing was also on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
The court denied the motion and did not stop administration of list maintenance in Virginia based on the Virginia Cross State check program. The court also granted leave to file this amici motion.
A curious thing happened in the hearing. The Democrat Party introduced the declarations of Jeryle Jones and his wife Carla. These two voters showed up on the cross state check as being registered in both Kentucky and Virginia. The Democrats introduced the declarations to show that they now lived in Virginia yet were being stricken from the rolls. Note that the declaration of Jeryle Jones says that he was transferred to Kentucky in October 2004, right before the Bush v. Kerry Presidential election.
The State Board of Election introduced evidence to the Court that made this story especially curious. It turns out the in the first week of October, the Jones’ registered to vote in Virginia, and less than a week later, registered to vote in Kentucky. The Democrats may have opened up a can of worms, especially for the Jones. Folks don’t usually forget they registered to vote in one state when they register again a few days later in another state.
Why would the Jones’ have registered to vote in two states just days apart, and right before moving (when they might possibly have two residence addresses where mail is received). Did the Jones’ vote twice for President, perhaps John Kerry, in 2004? Was the double registration days apart merely an oversight.
The public records will reveal the answers.
Connecticut Democrat state rep accused of voter fraud
“Some voters are outraged after allegations surfaced into whether state representative Christina Ayala of Bridgeport has been involved in voter fraud. Even the head of her own Democrat State Party thinks Ayala should step down.
“The State Elections Enforcement Commission launched a criminal investigation revealing evidence that state representative Ayala falsely registered to vote in the 600 block of Noble Avenue in Bridgeport back in July of 2009 and remained registered there until January 2013.
“According to the investigating attorney, Ayala voted in nine different primaries and elections using that false address. More evidence uncovered she ran for elected office twice from that phony address and applied for funds from the Citizens’ Election.”
9th Circuit Reply Brief in Davis v. Guam
The reply brief in Davis v. Guam was just filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Maj. Dave Davis is challenging the election (which is restricted by Chamorro ancestry) regarding Guam’s political status. The brief alleges that racial exclusion violates the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment and various federal statutes. The brief can be read here. The introduction: Guam’s “Native Inhabitant” limitation on voting, and its admitted use of the “machinery of the state” to enforce that limitation, is racial discrimination in violation of the Constitution and federal statutory law. The district court wrongly concluded that Mr. Davis suffered no injury when Guam’s Election Commission denied him the right to register to vote in the plebiscite. The defendants repeat the district court’s errors, and compound them by insisting that his challenge would not be ripe even if the plebiscite were held tomorrow. The defendants do not deny that the “Native Inhabitant” classification is synonymous with the Chamorro racial group. Instead, they assert that whether the “Native Inhabitant” classification is a racial one is irrelevant, because Congress can discriminate against U.S. citizens living in unincorporated territories. The racial discrimination at issue here, however, is Guam’s own; it has not been sanctioned by Congress. To the contrary, Congress has expressly extended the Fifteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to Guam, and has independently prohibited Guam from engaging in voter discrimination. Guam cannot hide behind Congress. The defendants also attempt to minimize the consequences of their racial discrimination. They insist that Mr. Davis has no claim because the plebiscite—which they assert is simply a tool to determine the desires of the “Native Inhabitants”—has no legal effect. But this Court has squarely held that the right to vote encompasses any election intended to elicit the “official expressions of an elector’s will,” Hussey v. City of Portland, 64 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 1995), which includes the plebiscite at issue here. Moreover, the plebiscite will have an effect—among other things, the law requires Guam’s officials to perform the official act of transmitting the results of the election to Congress and the President. This Court should reverse the district court’s judgment and conclude that Guam’s racially discriminatory plebiscite is invalid.
TX AG Candidate Promises Voter Fraud Task Force
Texas will not be a safe place for fraudsters if this happens: • closely monitor the activities of groups that would seek to subvert ballot integrity. • appoint a Special Counsel devoted to exposing and prosecuting any instance of voter fraud. • aggressively defend the landmark Texas voter ID law from the “Obama Administration’s spurious attempt to invalidate it.”
“Rep. Dan Branch said Thursday one of his first acts as Texas attorney general would be the creation of a Voter Fraud Task Force.
According to a news release, Branch would:
“More on James O’Keefe’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Main Justice”
Voter ID Talking Points in PA: Hush up.
PA Democrats keep saying an accurate advertisement is misleading. It isn’t the content, it’s the “tone.” The advertisement plainly states that Voter ID won’t be required for the November election in Pennsylvania. “This is the law and we want voters who may not have an ID to understand clearly how they can get one for free, so if this law is eventually upheld, as we believe it will be, all voters will have an ID,” an SOS spokesman said.
A Democrat from Lebanon is using the same talking points.
Copy of Lawsuit Against Main Justice
Here is a copy of the defamation lawsuit James O’Keefe filed against Mary Jacoby’s outfit, Main Justice. It’s not the first time that Jacoby’s publication has published false information.
Brief Filed to Defend Interstate Cross Check and Virginia Voter Roll Clean Up
Here is the brief Bob Popper and I filed for Judicial Watch defending Virginia’s clean up of voter rolls of ineligible voters, and defending the interstate cross check program as necessary.
Brief here at Scribd.