Tag Archives: Hans von Spakovsky

Left losing its collective mind over Election Integrity Commission

All the usual left-wing voter fraud deniers are losing their minds at the thought of President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity promoting clean voter rolls. The horror!

Four Horsemen tweet

Multiple members of the commission have hands-on experience in maintaining accurate voter rolls, or holding election officials accountable for doing so as required by federal law.

 

Leftist groups like the ACLU, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Brennan Center, and the rest of the anti-election integrity collective including left-wing media outlets refer ominously to the process of cleaning voter rolls as “purging” — as if that means anything other than removing people from the rolls who aren’t eligible to be there.

 

What happened to the transparency crowd? Why do they not want anyone to even look at the data?

Left in a lather over President’s choice of Hans von Spakovsky for Election Integrity Commission

The usual left-wing voter fraud deniers are in a lather over President Trump’s appointment of voting rights expert Hans von Spakovsky to his Advisory Commission on Election Integrity – evidence enough that he’s a great pick.

 

Media outlets from the Left to the far Left including the Washington Post are joining the freakout, despite von Spakovsky’s stellar qualifications and open-minded approach to the scope of his and the commission’s task:

Hans told the Post that he does not enter this role with the assumption that voter fraud is a nationwide epidemic. “I think the answer to that is what we hope to find out,” he explained. “What I would say is that I think it’s a danger to the way our democratic system works anytime people are either kept out of the polls or their vote is stolen through fraud.”

From media to academia to advocacy groups aligned with Democrats’ anti-integrity stance, the institutional Left is united in attacking von Spakovsky – and attacking the commission’s goal of identifying ways to improve the quality of the nation’s voter rolls.

“It’s going to be fun watching all the liars smear him” and “reacting like Pavlov’s dog” at his appointment, added Adams. “Who would be for bad voting rolls? Why are they afraid of improving the system?”

Leftists like Kristen Clarke of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law are agitated about the commission’s intent “to encourage state officials to take action and purge voter rolls.”

 

Why wouldn’t a federal commission “encourage” states to comply with federal law?

 

It’s the responsibility of the federal government, namely the Department of Justice, to enforce compliance with the National Voter Registration Act’s mandate that local election officials proactively maintain accurate voter rolls. Yet enforcement of the NVRA’s list maintenance requirements was non-existent under the Obama DOJ, even as the Left busily sued states to enforce provisions requiring welfare offices to push voter registration.

 

Prior federal election commissions offered states suggestions for better list maintenance processes with little uproar. WaPo reported favorably on the results of President Obama’s 2013 Commission on Election Administration – including its recommendation to “share voter registration records across state lines to protect against fraud.”

 

Putting a negative spin on the same recommendations simply because they come from Trump’s appointees is pure partisan hackery.

Hans von Spakovsky on Virginia’s Failure to Cooperate with Election Integrity Commission

What is Terry McAuliffe hiding – and why?

 

Virginia’s Democrat governor says he won’t comply with a request from the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to provide voter registration data for the state.

 

Hans von Spakovsky, who was just added to the commission, talks with WMAL’s Larry O’Connor about McAuliffe’s bizarre refusal to cooperate with the advisory panel’s efforts to “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.”

 

Bizarre because federal law gives every member of the public, as well as the U.S. Attorney General, access to the voter registration records of the state.

 

Bizarre also, says von Spakovsky, because Virginia has an independent state election board that oversees voter registration. The governor doesn’t even have any say-so on whether to turn over the information.

 

So what is McAuliffe trying to hide?

 

Could it be the tens of thousands of voters found registered in both Virginia and another state? Or maybe the thousands of non-citizens found to have registered and voted in Virginia?

Will SCOTUS Redistricting Decision ‘Weaponize’ Federal Courts?

Hans von Spakovsky on the “political thicket” of partisan gerrymandering, the import of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wisconsin redistricting case Gill v. Whitford, and the risk of transforming federal courts “into weapons of political warfare.”

 

Under the Voting Rights Act, states are also in trouble if race is the predominant factor in their redistricting. But they are allowed to use some race in redistricting to comply with the VRA and protect minority voting rights. How much race they can use is unclear —- it has to be “just right,” which is why I call it the Goldilocks Rule of Redistricting.

 

Until now, however, the Supreme Court has stayed out of political gerrymandering as opposed to claims over racial gerrymandering or unequal populations in districts. The holding in the Wisconsin case violates prior precedent of the Supreme Court. . . .

 

Drawing up political districts is, by its very nature, a political exercise by the legislative branch. How could one possibly determine how much or how little politics is acceptable in the redistricting process? The Constitution says nothing about this at all, other than to give state legislatures the authority to draw not only their own state legislative districts, but congressional districts as well. . . .

 

In Cooper v. Harris, a North Carolina redistricting case that the Supreme Court decided on May 22, dissenting Justice Samuel Alito echoed Justice Frankfurter when he warned the Court against transforming the federal courts “into weapons of political warfare.” Otherwise, they will “invite the losers in the redistricting process to seek to obtain in court what they could not achieve in the political arena.”

 

That is exactly what is going on this case.