New Mexico State Rep. Mary Helen Garcia will receive a civil trial on her claim that voter fraud cost her the June 3 Democratic primary election. “Garcia, D-Las Cruces, lost to Bealquin Gomez by 16 votes, 410 to 394.” Gomez is vice chairman of the Doña Ana County Democratic Party. “In a lawsuit challenging the results, Garcia alleges at least 17 instances in which signatures by voters on absentee ballots did not match the signatures on their registration forms. She said her claim was based on conclusions by a forensic handwriting analyst.” The Doña Ana County clerk said “most of the absentee ballots sent by mail came from Sunland Park,” which has a history of fraudulent voting.
NM State Rep. Garcia Alleges Voter Fraud, Challenges Primary Election Result
New Mexico state representative Mary Helen Garcia is challenging the results of the state’s June 3 Democratic Primary Election: Specifically, the attorneys cite irregularities in the signatures associated with absentee voting in the primary election for New Mexico House District 34. “As Chairwoman of the New Mexico House Voters and Elections Committee, I have long advocated for transparent, ethical, open elections, in which protection of the voter’s rights and the sanctity of his or her vote are of the utmost importance…” Attorneys for Rep. Garcia submitted information by a forensic handwriting analyst, citing at least 17 cases of signatures not matching voter rolls. State election results show Garcia trailing Bill Gomez by a 16-vote margin.
More Double Voting For President… More DOJ Dropping the Ball
Another case of double registration, another case of double voting, another case of the Holder Justice Department not getting serious with corrupted rolls.
Link.
Internet Voting? “Bitcon and the Myth of the Unhackable Election”
Link to Daily Signal.
Success of Mississippi Voter ID “muddles” debate
ID opponents are befuddled by the success of voter ID – where is all the “voter suppression” they keep predicting? The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi – a staunch opponent of the voter ID requirement – was ready to spend June 3 fielding complaints from voters turned away at the polls. As it turns out, they received no such complaints, an ACLU employee told CBS News… Shortly after the implementation of a voter photo ID law in Georgia, there was record turnout in the 2008 presidential primary election, with double the number of African-Americans voting than in 2004 – when there was no voter photo ID law in place.
“Two Peas in a Pod”
From Rush Limbaugh Show today:
RUSH: If I had to guess, this Regime is smart enough to know that they’re not gonna put these kinds of instructions where they can be found by people. In other words: Fast and Furious. I guarantee you there is not a paper trail between Obama and Eric Holder about that. They talked about it maybe somewhere, or they had a third party/a liaison do it. I asked J. Christian Adams, who used to be in the justice department.
I said, “Can you walk three me through it? Because obviously you’ve got like-minded people. You got Obama; he puts Holder in there. They have the same objective where the Department of Justice is concerned. How does Holder find out what Obama wants done?” Adams told me, “He doesn’t need to find out. He already knows. They’re two peas in a pod. That’s why Holder’s there. He doesn’t need marching orders.”
On With Sean Hannity Today Radio
I’ll be on the Sean Hannity Radio Show today discussing the Mississippi primary, poll observers and the final days of the US Senate campaign.
Shelby Didn’t Gut the Voting Rights Act (VRA); it took DOJ federal bureaucracy out of the preemption business and kept determinations in the Courts
An additional note from the article written by Roger Clegg. He reminds his readers of what exactly the Supreme Court does and what the left wing advocacy groups are trying to “fix”
There are other big problems with the bill: It exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority; features for the first time racial classifications that offer protections for “minority voters” that it withholds from “nonminority” voters; contains provisions that have nothing to do with Section 5 (including scary new litigation authority given to Attorney General Eric Holder and his civil-rights-group cronies); encourages racial gerrymandering, segregation, and racial identity politics, with an eye to partisan advantage; has all kinds of pernicious side effects as a result of the “disparate impact” approach that it enshrines; encourages spurious litigation; and burdens localities with bean-counting requirements, to name a few. But it fails to clear even the basic initial hurdle: We just don’t need Section 5 anymore.…Indeed, these other provisions are now being used, aggressively, by the Obama administration and liberal civil-rights groups, and there is no evidence that they need more weapons in their arsenals. If they can prove their cases in court, they will win — the way it works with every other civil-rights law — but with Section 5 they have gotten used to winning without having to prove anything, and that’s the only reason for the efforts to bring back Section 5.
“We Just Don’t Need Section 5 Anymore”
Roger Clegg @ National Review: The Voting Rights Act has plenty of other sections that we can use against discrimination.
Section 5 was an extraordinary provision. It said that nine entire states and parts of seven others could not make any change — no matter how small — in any voting practice or procedure without getting advance permission from the federal government. The federal government had to be convinced ahead of time that the change had no discriminatory “purpose” or “effect.” It basically put the burden of proof on a state or local government to establish its innocence — not only of disparate treatment, but also of anything with a disproportionate racial impact.
“Race Baiting the Mississppi Senate Runoff”
Link here.