Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 596067 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
WSJ: Wisconsin's election confusion
« Reply #1100 on: April 08, 2020, 04:36:07 AM »
Wisconsin’s Election Confusion
Decisions to alter voting need to follow the law, even in a pandemic.
By The Editorial Board
April 7, 2020 7:24 pm ET


Wisconsin held its election Tuesday on schedule despite coronavirus, and Democrats are blaming the Supreme Court for endangering public health. That’s not what happened. On Monday night the Justices rightly reversed a district judge’s last-minute order that would have allowed Wisconsin ballots to be cast after the election was legally over. The confusing episode is a reminder that, even in a pandemic, steps as grave as rewriting voting rules should be up to elected representatives and not freelanced by judges.

Wisconsin planned to mitigate the coronavirus threat with a large increase in vote-by-mail so fewer people would need to leave their homes. The Democratic National Committee sued to force the delay of the election outright.

The Coronavirus Surge


SUBSCRIBE
Last Thursday a federal judge denied that extreme request but said vote-by-mail needed to be extended. Instead of receiving ballots by April 7, he said, clerks needed to count any ballots received by next Monday, April 13. After apparently realizing that this could distort the electoral process by allowing Tuesday’s reported results to influence votes, the judge issued another order banning the state elections board from reporting any results before April 13.

The Republican National Committee asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, and five Justices agreed that the district judge was outside his authority. His remedy would “fundamentally alter the nature of the election by allowing voting for six additional days after the election,” they wrote in an unsigned opinion. By trying to muzzle election results, they added, “the District Court in essence enjoined non-parties to this lawsuit.”

The Supreme Court decision came an hour after the Wisconsin Supreme Court swatted aside Gov. Tony Evers’s effort to unilaterally postpone the election. Through March, Mr. Evers, a Democrat, had indicated the election should proceed and issued an executive order exempting polling places from his mass-gathering ban.

Yet liberal pressure built in recent days and on Monday Mr. Evers tried using his emergency powers to call off the next day’s voting. The state’s Supreme Court ruled 4-2 that he didn’t have that power—election law would need to be changed by the legislature (though in other states Governors’ emergency powers are broader). And so voting went ahead, with long lines at socially distanced polling places and a surge in absentee ballots—more than a million compared to less than a quarter million in 2016.

More than a dozen states have postponed their spring primary elections because of the virus. Yet Wisconsin’s election is more consequential than the all-but-finished Biden-Sanders primary that is the main item on the ballot in many states. A state Supreme Court seat and criminal-justice referendum are both contested. Postponing it by months could require altering the duration of elected officials’ terms.

Republicans in the Legislature didn’t show interest in postponing the election, but neither did Mr. Evers until recently. If voters are disappointed, they can hold legislators accountable in November or boot Mr. Evers in 2022.

The pandemic has disrupted much of American life and voting is no exception. But both the district judge’s jury-rigged order and Mr. Evers’s last minute 180-turn under political pressure set a bad precedent. This virus will be here for some time, and people in different states need to deal with it through the democratic process. Americans have already temporarily lost some of our freedom and we shouldn’t also toss out the rule of law.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1103 on: April 11, 2020, 07:12:26 PM »
Given how many elections we have interfered with around the world I'm thinking it would be hard to muster the political support, not to mention the viability of a military strategy is not apparent to me; Trump was wise to go with trade instead.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
John Lott: Jimmy Carter was right, Mail In Voting=Fraud
« Reply #1104 on: April 12, 2020, 08:39:58 AM »


Heed Jimmy Carter on the Danger of Mail-In Voting
‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.’
By John R. Lott Jr.
April 10, 2020 6:27 pm ET

‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

Concerns about vote-buying have a long history in the U.S. They helped drive the move to the secret ballot, which U.S. states adopted between 1888 and 1950. Secret ballots made it harder for vote buyers to monitor which candidates sellers actually voted for. Vote-buying had been pervasive; my research with Larry Kenny at the University of Florida has found that voter turnout fell by about 8% to 12% after states adopted the secret ballot.

You wouldn’t know any of this listening to the media outcry over Mr. Trump’s remarks. “There is a lot of dishonesty going on with mail-in voting,” the president said Tuesday. In response, a CNN “fact check” declares that Mr. Trump “opened a new front in his campaign of lies about voter fraud.” A New York Times headline asserts: “Trump Is Pushing a False Argument on Vote-by-Mail Fraud.” Both claim that voter fraud is essentially nonexistent. The Carter-Baker report found otherwise.

Intimidation and vote buying were key concerns of the commission: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.” The report provides examples, such as the 1997 Miami mayoral election that resulted in 36 arrests for absentee-ballot fraud. The election had to be rerun, and the result was reversed.

There are more recent cases, too. In 2017 an investigation of a Dallas City Council election found some 700 fraudulent mail-in ballots signed by the same witness using a fake name. The discovery left two council races in limbo, and the fraud was much larger than the vote differential in one of those races. The case resulted in a criminal conviction.

In a 2018 North Carolina congressional race, Republican Mark Harris edged out Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes. Fortunately, the state had relatively complete absentee-ballot records. Election officials became suspicious when they discovered that the Republican received 61% of mail-in votes, even though registered Republicans accounted for only 19% of those who had requested mail-in ballots.

A Republican operative, L. McCrae Dowless Jr., had allegedly requested more than 1,200 absentee ballots on voters’ behalf and then collected the ballots from voters’ homes when they were mailed out. Mr. Dowless’s assistants testified that they were directed to forge voters’ signatures and fill in votes. A new election was required, but Mr. Harris didn’t run. Mr. Dowless faces criminal charges for absentee-ballot fraud in both the 2016 and 2018 elections and has pled not guilty.

It is often claimed that impossibly large numbers of people live at the same address. In 2016, 83 registered voters in San Pedro, Calif., received absentee ballots at the same small two-bedroom apartment. Prosecutors rarely pursue this type of case.

Mail-in voting is a throwback to the dark old days of vote-buying and fraud. Because of this, many countries don’t allow absentee ballots for citizens living in their country, including Norway and Mexico. Americans deserve a more trustworthy system.

Mr. Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author, most recently, of “The War on Guns.”


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: 16.4 mail in ballots went missing in 2016, 2018
« Reply #1106 on: April 13, 2020, 07:00:21 AM »
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/federal-data-16-4m-mail-in-ballots-went-missing-in-2016-2018-elections/

Sound like a good system we should try to do more of?  Begs the question, which ones went missing??  In Minneapolis to win the 60th vote in the Senate, 2008-2009, they found some of the missing ballots in the trunk of a car.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122644940271419147.html

We used to have something in America called 'election day', and you needed a good reason to vote absentee.

The early voting in 2020 could kill the Democrats - if Biden is replaced on the ballot in the last days.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
JW on the job!
« Reply #1109 on: May 02, 2020, 06:49:00 AM »



Judicial Watch Sues Pennsylvania to Force Voter Roll Clean Up

Judicial Watch hasn’t let the coronavirus crisis slow down our essential legal efforts to protect and promote clean elections. Our legal team just filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania and three of its counties for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from their rolls as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). According to Judicial Watch’s analysis of voter registration data, these counties removed almost no names under NVRA procedures for identifying and updating the registrations of those who have moved (Judicial Watch v. Pennsylvania, et al (No. 1:02-at-06000)). The lawsuit also points out that the Commonwealth has over 800,000 “inactive” registrations on its voter rolls. One Pennsylvania county almost immediately removed 69,000 inactive names earlier this year in response to a Judicial Watch letter.

In its complaint, Judicial Watch points out that the State’s abnormally low number of removals under NVRA procedures designed to identify voters who have changed residence indicates that it is not removing inactive registrations as the law requires. According to data the State certified to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), in the most recent two-year reporting period:
•   Bucks County, with about 457,000 registrations, removed a total of eight names under the relevant NVRA procedures;
•   Chester County, with about 357,000 registrations, removed five names under those procedures; and
•   Delaware County, with about 403,000 registrations, removed four names under those procedures.
Judicial Watch also argues that an abnormally high percentage of registrations compared to the population over 18 years of age is an indicator “that the jurisdiction is not taking steps required by law to cancel the registrations of ineligible registrants.” It alleges that “[t]he registration rates for Bucks, Chester, and Delaware Counties are high in comparison to other counties in Pennsylvania, and high in comparison to other counties throughout the U.S.”  As of April 2020, Pennsylvania’s own data shows it has over 800,000 inactive registrations.

Other Pennsylvania counties have acted to avoid being sued by Judicial Watch. On January 14, 2020, CBS Pittsburgh reported that because of the threat of a lawsuit from Judicial Watch, Allegheny County removed 69,000 inactive voters. David Voye, Elections Manager for the county told CBS, “I would concede that we are behind on culling our rolls,” and that this had “been put on the backburner.”

Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections – that’s one reason why we’re going to court to force Pennsylvania to follow federal law to clean up its voting rolls. Pennsylvania must take the simple steps necessary to clean from its rolls the names of voters, which number over 800,000, who probably have moved away or died.

Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the NVRA.

Recently, a federal court ordered the State of Maryland to produce complete voter registration records for Montgomery County that include the registered voters’ dates of birth. The judge found that Judicial Watch made “reasonable justifications for requiring birth date information, including using birth dates to find duplicate registrations and searching for voters who remain on the rolls despite ‘improbable’ age.”

Judicial Watch recently filed a lawsuit against North Carolina to force the state to clean its voter rolls that included over one million inactive voters. In December 2019, Judicial Watch provided notice to 19 large counties in five states that it intended to sue unless they took steps to comply with the NVRA by removing ineligible registrations from their rolls. In addition to North Carolina and Pennsylvania, Judicial Watch sent letters to counties in California, Virginia, and Colorado.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from a Judicial Watch settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled an NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and last year began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

Despite successful litigation by Judicial Watch to bring counties and states into compliance with the NVRA, voter registration lists across the country remain significantly out of date. Judicial Watch’s 2019 study found 378 counties nationwide that had more voter registrations than citizens old enough to vote, i.e., counties where registration rates exceed 100%. These 378 counties combined had about 2.5 million registrations over the 100%-registered mark. This is a drop of about one million from Judicial Watch’s previous analysis of voter registration data in 2017.

Two federal lawsuits in one month to clean up nearly 2 million “inactive” names from voter lists is something that only Judicial Watch is able and willing to do – thanks to your support!

Until next week …
 
 






ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
the process of rigging already beginning
« Reply #1111 on: May 02, 2020, 03:46:25 PM »


"LA County to send vote by mail ballots to all registered voters in November"

The Dem mob controlled areas already prepping to rig the counts.

Waiting for other strongholds to follow suit


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
of course if it helps the Dem party lets do it
« Reply #1112 on: May 09, 2020, 07:51:25 AM »
Rahm Emanuel biggest achievement is making famous the phrase " 'Never let a good crisis go to waste"

This will be as far as I am concerned the only thing he will be remembered for

And the Democrats took the hint:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/08/california-gavin-newsom-orders-vote-by-mail-for-november-election/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
WSJ on Faithless Electors
« Reply #1113 on: May 13, 2020, 11:06:41 AM »
‘Faithless Electors’ at the Supreme Court
A constitutional case could destabilize presidential elections.
By The Editorial Board
May 12, 2020 7:26 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
170

Bret Chiafalo speaks outside the U.S. Courthouse in Seattle, Dec. 14, 2016.
PHOTO: ELAINE THOMPSON/ASSOCIATED PRESS
In December 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign called for members of the Electoral College to be briefed on Russia-related intelligence before voting to ratify Donald Trump’s November election victory. This was unprecedented and amounted to an effort to nullify the judgment of 137 million voters.

Yet such gambits could become more common depending on the outcome of two cases before the Supreme Court Wednesday. In Colorado Department of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington, ex-Electoral College members want the Justices to declare that they can’t be bound by their states’ voters. They say all 538 presidential electors can instead vote their conscience like Senators or members of a jury.

The Supreme Court is right to settle this ahead of what looks to be a fiercely contested 2020 election. While the Founding-era ideal of an Electoral College of philosopher-kings may be appealing in the abstract, the Constitution leaves responsibility for selecting and regulating electors to the states. Those that want to enforce electors’ pledges should be allowed to do so.

Voters expect a state’s electors to vote for whichever presidential candidate wins the state. That’s the basis of the ubiquitous red-blue Electoral College map showing a path to a 270-vote majority. “Faithless electors” have historically been rare.

Thirty-two states require that an elector vote for the candidate he or she has pledged to. Among those states are Colorado and Washington, where Hillary Clinton won in 2016. When a Colorado elector sought to cast a ballot for a different candidate in 2016, the Secretary of State removed him. When electors did the same in Washington state, they faced a $1,000 fine. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the fine, while the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Colorado couldn’t constitutionally enforce electors’ pledges.

The electors—represented, ironically, by anti-Electoral College crusader Lawrence Lessig—argue that the Founders intended the Electoral College to be independent or they wouldn’t have created it. They point to Alexander Hamilton’s ruminations in the Federalist Papers about the electors serving as an intermediary between the masses and the Presidency.

Yet the states note that Hamilton’s views weren’t shared by all the Founders. If there had been a consensus around Electoral College independence, it would have been protected in the Constitution. The framers of the original Electoral College also did not envision parties. The 12th Amendment in 1804 rewrote the Electoral College rules to prevent a President and Vice President of opposite parties.

Most important, the Constitution gives states broad control over their Electoral College process. States appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” implying they can attach conditions to serving. They can bind electors—or not—and decide what if any penalty to impose for breaking a pledge. In the absence of a constitutional restriction on states’ authority, federalism ought to carry the day.

The Republican National Committee in its amicus brief argues the real mission of this lawsuit is “to sow chaos in the Electoral College.” More chaos is coming as Democratic state legislatures seek to nullify it through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which could also one day end up at the Supreme Court. Meantime, the Justices should not swoop in to create more opportunities for 2016-style shenanigans after votes are cast this fall

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
Michigan
« Reply #1114 on: May 20, 2020, 06:57:44 AM »
already sent out 7.7 mail in ballots [so their operatives can get started on
harvesting votes - me]:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/20/donald-trump-threatens-to-punish-michigan-for-mailing-absentee-ballot-applications-to-voters/

gotta get Michigan to vote against Trump
reason whitmore may be chosen as VP cand.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Absentee ballot fustercluck in WI
« Reply #1117 on: May 22, 2020, 10:22:28 AM »

Wisconsin’s Election Mess: Thousands of Missing or Nullified Ballots
As Wisconsin scrambled to expand voting by mail for its election on Tuesday, many absentee voters said their ballots went undelivered.


Nick CorasanitiStephanie Saul
By Nick Corasaniti and Stephanie Saul
April 9, 2020

Three tubs of absentee ballots that never reached voters were discovered in a postal center outside Milwaukee. At least 9,000 absentee ballots requested by voters were never sent, and others recorded as sent were never received. Even when voters did return their completed ballots in the mail, thousands were postmarked too late to count — or not at all.

Cracks in Wisconsin’s vote-by-mail operation are now emerging after the state’s scramble to expand that effort on the fly for voters who feared going to the polls in Tuesday’s elections. The takeaways — that the election network and the Postal Service were pushed to the brink of their capabilities, and that mistakes were clearly made — are instructive for other states if they choose to broaden vote-by-mail methods without sufficient time, money and planning.

More than 860,000 completed absentee ballots had been returned by Tuesday, already a record for Wisconsin spring elections. But for thousands of other voters, who never received their ballots, there was only one recourse: putting their health at risk and defying a stay-at-home order to vote in person during the coronavirus pandemic. Many chose not to show up.

Federal health officials have suggested that expanding voting by mail could help reduce crowds at polling places and therefore make elections safer amid the outbreak. The issues that have arisen in Wisconsin offer a warning for other states of the potential pitfalls of a rapid, last-minute expansion of absentee balloting, particularly one marred by a flurry of court challenges and 11th-hour rulings that created confusion and chaos.

The mix of missing and mismarked ballots suggests that thousands of Wisconsin voters were effectively disenfranchised, an issue that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned of in her dissent to a Supreme Court decision on Monday that blocked extended absentee balloting in the state. Tens of thousands of people who did not receive their ballots in time, Justice Ginsburg wrote, “will be left quite literally without a vote.”

But many Republicans, and even some Democrats, have continued to cast concerns on the security and veracity of vote-by-mail systems, especially ones expanded so rapidly.

“It’s a harder system to administer, and obviously it’s a harder system to police writ large,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, Democrat of New York, said in a radio interview on Thursday, when asked about the downsides to expanding voting by mail. “People showing up, people actually showing ID, is still the easiest system to assure total integrity.”

In Wisconsin, the missing votes could also portend a long legal battle over the results; one race on Tuesday’s ballot was a hotly contested State Supreme Court seat that, in a normal election, was expected to be extremely close. The margin in the state’s 2019 Supreme Court race was about 6,000 votes.

“This has all the makings of a Florida 2000 if we have a close race,” said Gordon Hintz, the Democratic minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Mr. Hintz, who lives in Oshkosh, was one of the voters who never received his absentee ballot — even though the state’s website said it had been mailed to him. He chose not to vote in person.

Others in Mr. Hintz’s district may have encountered the same problem. On Tuesday, calls began flooding the office of Dan Feyen, the state senator whose district includes Oshkosh, from voters saying they never received their ballots, even though they were told their ballots had been sent out. Nearly every one of those voters had requested their ballots on one of three dates: March 18, March 22 and March 23, more than two weeks before the election.

Mr. Feyen, a Republican, filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission, asking it to investigate. He also wants those voters to be given a chance to fill out and return ballots.

On Wednesday, the commission received a phone call from a postal worker in Milwaukee who said three bins of absentee ballots had been located that had never reached their destinations, mostly in Oshkosh and nearby Appleton. The number of ballots in the bins was not clear.

A spokeswoman for the Postal Service, Martha Johnson, said Thursday that officials were “aware of potential issues with absentee ballots in Wisconsin and are currently conducting an investigation into the claims.”


Meagan Wolfe, the elections commission’s administrator, said she did not think the U.S. Supreme Court decision left any room for ballots to be counted if they were not postmarked by Tuesday’s deadline. “There really isn’t any additional things for this election that a voter could do if their ballot didn’t make it by the deadline,” she said in a news conference on Wednesday.

Many of the complaints from voters came from the Oshkosh and Appleton areas, but voters from all over the state said they had not received the absentee ballots they requested.

Dianne Ostrowski of Waukesha, about 20 miles west of Milwaukee, said she had filed an online request for an absentee ballot but never received one.

“I’m talking via Facebook with my family in Madison. Same thing. They never got their ballot either,” said Ms. Ostrowski, who is retired from the financial services industry. Madison, the capital, is more than an hour west of Waukesha.

Tamera Goodwin and her husband, who live in Madison, also said they hadn’t received ballots. “I was looking all over the place, I was looking on the news, Facebook, my state assemblyman’s page, talking to neighbors at a distance, but everyone was confused,” Ms. Goodwin said. “None of us has gotten our ballots and none of us had clarity of where to go.”

Lacking other options, Ms. Goodwin and her husband went to vote in person on Tuesday.

In Racine, about 40 minutes south of Milwaukee, Dawn and Jeff Loken, also retired, complained that they did not receive their ballots. The two Democrats finally trudged to the polls Tuesday night, not to be deterred by what Mr. Loken, who describes himself as a “die-hard Democrat” viewed as an intentional effort by Republicans to suppress his vote. (State Republican lawmakers rebuffed the Democratic governor’s request to postpone the election.)

Some absentee voters who received their ballots and mailed them back in time are running into a separate issue: postmarking.

After much legal wrangling over this year’s absentee ballot deadlines, the Supreme Court’s decision held that ballots must be postmarked by Election Day to count. But in at least one city, Madison, a number of ballots received by the clerk were never even postmarked to begin with.


“We are still receiving mail now from the post office, and about half of it is postmarked,” said Maribeth Witzel-Behl, the city clerk. “It’s probably by now a couple thousand that we’ve received from the post office with no postmark.”

She said her office is dating the ballots with its own stamp as soon as they arrive, and is working with the city attorney to determine what to do with them.

Even when postmarks are applied, they can prove problematic, particularly for some rural voters. Michelle Schwenneker, who lives in rural Jackson County, said that the mail truck in her town comes once a day, at 7:30 a.m., so if she put her ballot in the mailbox on Election Day it wouldn’t be postmarked in time.

“For me, basically, mailing your ballot and having it postmarked are basically two different things,” said Ms. Schwenneker.

With ballots still trickling in and results yet to be released, there has been no major legal challenge to Tuesday’s election. But activist groups and election lawyers in Wisconsin are still reviewing their options and monitoring reports of missing ballots.

Even in states that already vote entirely by mail, lost ballots can plague a system. In Colorado, Secretary of State Jena Griswold excoriated the Postal Service last November after 828 ballots arrived in Denver-area mailboxes on the afternoon of a tight mayoral race in suburban Aurora — too late for many people to vote.

But perhaps nothing presented as great a challenge for Wisconsin as the vast expansion of the absentee system in such a short period of time. More than 1.2 million ballots were requested this year; only about 250,000 were issued in Wisconsin’s 2016 spring election.

Kim Wyman, the secretary of state in Washington, a mail-voting state, said it is important for elections officials to work with local postal systems to make sure they can handle the sudden increase in volume.

“These states are going from 0 to 100,” she said.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
JW sues Gov. Nancy's Nephew over EO
« Reply #1118 on: May 22, 2020, 12:46:30 PM »
   
Judicial Watch Sues to Stop California Governor Newsom’s “Vote by Mail” Mandate

Plaintiffs Include Voters and Congressional Candidate Darrell Issa
 
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced yesterday it filed a lawsuit to stop the special, statewide vote-by-mail mandate issued by California Governor Gavin Newsom. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include former U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (a candidate in the upcoming November election) and individual California voters from across the political spectrum. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento against Gov. Newsom and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (Darrell Issa, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, et al. (No. 2:20-cv-01044)).

The Judicial Watch complaint argues that Newsom’s Executive Order N-64-20, requiring all California counties to conduct all-mail ballot elections, violates the U.S. Constitution and California state law. According to the U.S. Constitution, only state legislatures may determine the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” and only state legislatures may establish the manner in which electors to the Electoral College are appointed. The lawsuit points out that “[n]either defendant in this case is a ‘Legislature,’” as required under the Constitution, and “[t]he California Legislature never delegated to [Newsom] its authority under the Elections Clause or Electors Clause to regulate the manner of conducting elections for senators, representatives, or presidential electors.”

Judicial Watch also contends that Newsom’s mandate violates the California Voter’s Choice Act of 2016, which grants counties the option to qualify for and opt in to a system of mail-in voting. Judicial Watch argues the law reflects the legislature’s deliberate choice to delegate to each county the decision about whether to qualify and opt in to the all-mail ballot system. During the March 3, 2020 primary election, only 15 of California’s 58 counties qualified and opted-in to the all-mail balloting system.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs will be harmed by Newsom’s mandate for all-mail voting because it imposes an entirely new election system that ignores the extensive qualifications required by California law before a county can opt in to all-mail balloting. Judicial Watch argues its plaintiffs will be at risk of having their votes thrown out or diluted by invalid votes under Newsom’s illegal system, and that Mr. Issa will have to expend additional resources to respond to the illegal mandate during his campaign.

“Governor Newsom’s vote-by-mail mandate is unconstitutional and may cause the votes of countless voters to be thrown out or not counted,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “California law prohibits blindly mailing out ballots to every registered voter in the state. This scheme raises the risk of Election Day chaos as well as voter fraud.”

In 2018, California settled a federal lawsuit with Judicial Watch and began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Judicial Watch late last year sent notices to 11 additional California counties warning them of voting list maintenance issues. Judicial Watch recently sued North Carolina and Pennsylvania to force them to clean up their voter rolls.


###





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1120 on: May 22, 2020, 04:57:57 PM »
Dick does not look so good
I heard he is battling some type of cancer.

he looks closer to 90 then 73 .

we need his voice

he has atoned for getting Jerry Nads elected to high school president and Clinton re elected in '96.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1121 on: May 22, 2020, 05:05:52 PM »
Yes, cancer.  Sounds serious.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
heritage foundation on mail in ballots
« Reply #1123 on: May 30, 2020, 08:07:44 AM »
https://thefulcrum.us/voting/vote-by-mail-2646068275

all plainly obvious

as Tucker points out.

yet the crats and their media propaganda machine encourages cheating.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1124 on: May 30, 2020, 05:35:49 PM »
Thanks for this.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
like it or not, here we come
« Reply #1125 on: May 31, 2020, 05:33:00 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/mail-in-voting-2020-election/

no doubt there are already swing locations that have teams of Dem operatives ready
to harvest the "crops" of ballots.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: like it or not, here we come
« Reply #1126 on: May 31, 2020, 06:30:45 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/mail-in-voting-2020-election/

no doubt there are already swing locations that have teams of Dem operatives ready
to harvest the "crops" of ballots.

Burning major city US post offices to the ground in the name of racial justice and the police headquarters that defends it, and knowing this will get worse and spread across the nation throughout the heat of the summer, doesn't help the case for mail in elections in my humble opinion. 

Was my ballot in that carnage?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1127 on: May 31, 2020, 06:37:34 AM »
".Was my ballot in that carnage?"

yes.

But guess what someone found it and I have to ask
Doug , when did you switch to Democrat?
 :wink:


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
WSJ: PA's mail in pains
« Reply #1130 on: June 09, 2020, 03:51:44 PM »
Pennsylvania last year passed legislation to allow mail-in voting, and the June 2 primaries were the first test of this new system. Nearly a week later, voters still don’t know the victors for some races, and don't be surprised if some candidates challenge the results in court. Behold the messiness of mail-in voting—and brace for November.

The vote-by-mail law passed before the coronavirus hit, but the pandemic prompted many to ditch the ballot box for the mailbox. Pennsylvania saw some 1.8 million applications for absentee and mail-in ballots, up from some 108,000 in 2016. In some counties, mail-in ballots must be opened by hand before they can be counted. That meant some delays were inevitable, even if Election Day went as planned. It did not.

Protests broke out across Pennsylvania in the days leading up to the primary. In Pittsburgh police cruisers were set on fire over the weekend, and in Philadelphia police arrested more than 250 people on June 1 and the morning of June 2. Citing the unrest, Gov. Tom Wolf issued an executive order extending the mail-in deadline.

Ballots were supposed to be received by Election Day. But in six counties any ballot postmarked by June 2 and received by June 9 will now count. As a result, some Pennsylvanians got more time to vote than others, and the final results for some contests won’t be in until a week after the election. Mr. Wolf’s executive order may also set a problematic precedent for unilateral eleventh-hour rule changes. This time it was a protest, but in November it could be a snowstorm. Last-minute interventions fuel partisan suspicions that can undermine public trust in the result.

Such complications are especially troubling in close contests, like the race for a state house seat in the 188th district in Philadelphia. Progressive Rick Krajewski, who is challenging a longtime incumbent, is a proponent of mail-in ballots but admits “we really have to step up how we’re handling this.” As of Monday, about half the votes in his race hadn’t been counted. “Now we’re in this holding pattern,” he said.

Mr. Krajewski says his impression is that “everyone’s in a state of ‘how do we get the votes counted’ rather than questioning the legitimacy of this.” But that attitude may not hold statewide once the winners—and losers—are declared. State lawmakers are already planning hearings to look at what went wrong, and don’t be surprised if at least one thwarted contender challenges the outcome because of Mr. Wolf’s executive order.

All of this bodes ill for the general election. Donald Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016, but Joe Biden is leading in the polls in this critical swing state. The public needs confidence in the electoral process. The last thing a divided America needs is a mail-in morass in Pennsylvania in November.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
CIA's Mike Morell on foreign threats to 2020 election
« Reply #1131 on: June 10, 2020, 03:35:15 PM »
IIRC Morell had ambitions of the Dowager Empress appointing him as head of the CIA and to that end was part of the Benghazi coverup so caveat lector:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/cbs-radio-news/intelligence-matters/e/69949891

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Serious Security Issues w OmniBallot Online Voting System
« Reply #1132 on: June 19, 2020, 12:28:14 AM »
Source: https://www.sans.org/newsletters/newsbites/xxii/46

--Researchers Find Serious Security Issues in OmniBallot Online Voting System

(June 7 & 8, 2020)

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of Michigan have released a report detailing their findings about the security of the OmniBallot Internet voting and ballot delivery system. OnmiBallot, which is produced by Democracy Live, has been used in the past to let voters print ballots, complete them by hand, and return them by mail. For the 2020 election, the system will include online ballot return. The researchers, J. Alex Halderman and Michael Specter, write that the safest option is to avoid using OmniBallot. They note that OmniBallot is vulnerable to vote manipulation by malware on the voters device and by insiders or other attackers and that it appears not to have a privacy policy.[Editor Comments][Pescatore] Two analogies here: (1) A few years ago, I had rotator cuff surgery and the morning of the operation the surgeon came to the prep room with a black marker and wrote This arm and his signature on my right arm; (2) I have never seen, and never want to see, a traffic light that is showing green in all four directions. Errors in presidential elections are pretty much up there with operations on the wrong body part or cars colliding at intersections. There needs to be both manual mechanisms and auditing and safety interlocks built-in to any software-based voting system, just as it is built into surgical procedures even though we have Electronic Health Records, and in traffic signal controller hardware even though we have online light control systems. Every state has rigorous control of traffic lights and there are national standards for them, as well.

Since election systems are considered part of the critical national infrastructure, they should be treated just as rigorously.[Neely] If you must use OmniBallot, the most secure option for remote voting remains printing, hand marking, and then returning a paper ballot by mail. The electronic ballot return mechanisms dont include sufficient anti-tampering protections, and even when printing paper ballots, if youre using the application to mark your ballot, OmniBallot collects and sends privacy information from the voters for tabulation. As electronic voting continues to move forward, rigorous testing and validation of security is essential to election integrity and voter confidence.[Murray] There is a fundamental flaw in all such systems. If one makes the ballot unique, even though it would require collusion between the issuer and the counter of ballots, the voter cannot be sure that it cannot be identified with him.  Read more in:

Internet Policy: How to Protect Your Vote
https://internetpolicy.mit.edu/omniballot-advice/

Internet Policy: Security Analysis of the Democracy Live Online Voting System (PDF)
https://internetpolicy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/OmniBallot.pdf

Statescoop: Researchers say OmniBallot online voting platform is vulnerable to manipulation
https://statescoop.com/researchers-say-omniballot-online-voting-platform-is-vulnerable-to-manipulation/

NYT: Amid Pandemic and Upheaval, New Cyberthreats to the Presidential Election
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/politics/remote-voting-hacking-coronavirus.html


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Beware the Fall Ballot Harvest
« Reply #1134 on: June 20, 2020, 04:32:10 PM »


Beware the Fall Ballot Harvest
Too many states aren’t preparing for a potential vote-by-mail mess.
By The Editorial Board
June 19, 2020 7:01 pm ET


When Donald Trump gripes about mail voting, Democrats see an attempt to discredit the result if he loses in November. “This president,” Joe Biden said last week, “is going to try to steal this election.” If they truly believe this, Democrats should do more to safeguard the ballot.

They’re now doing the reverse. The Democratic House passed a bill that would mandate “ballot harvesting” nationwide, letting paid activists canvass neighborhoods to collect absentee votes. The bill would also force states to count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as the postmark meets that date. In that case, the next President could be in doubt for weeks.

Trump, Dreamers And The Supreme Court


SUBSCRIBE
Local Democrats seem equally uneager to shore up the ballot box. By a 3-3 vote Wednesday, the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission failed to advance a proposal to effectively ban ballot harvesting. According to the reigning interpretation of state law, third-party ballot collection is legal. Activists wearing Trump hats or Biden shirts can knock on doors and take possession of votes.

A petition for rule-making, filed on behalf of five voters by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, claimed that this legal reading is incorrect. The law says that absentee ballots “shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk.” As the petitioners said: “That statute obviously means that the elector shall mail it, or the elector shall deliver it.” They sought new rules to enforce this view.

The commissioners, three appointed from each party, split on partisan lines. Democrats argued that the proposal could penalize a husband carrying his wife’s ballot; that setting policy is the Legislature’s job; and that ballot harvesting isn’t a problem. “It’s just made-up stuff,” said Commissioner Mark Thomsen, “and we should not give any credence to it.”

Republicans countered that the number of absentee ballots in 2020 will be substantially higher than ever. Given the margin in 2016, the presidential campaigns will be jockeying for every one of them. “If you think there’s no ballot harvesting in Wisconsin,” said Commissioner Dean Knudson, “you buckle up, because there most definitely will be.” Mr. Trump won the state in 2016 by a mere 22,748 votes.

It’s a possibility elsewhere, too. In 2016 Florida’s Division of Elections offered this guidance: “Any person can collect and return other voters’ voted absentee ballots to the Supervisor of Elections. No limit exists.” A small stipulation: There’s a “criminal offense for pecuniary or other beneficial exchange,” meaning apparently that harvesters must volunteer.

In 2017 the Palm Beach Post reported that two local candidates “took advantage of gaping holes in Florida’s vote-by-mail laws to pressure and cajole voters in their living rooms.” In canvassed neighborhoods, “where nearly every resident voted absentee,” reporters found a woman who said she felt “forced” to vote, as well as a blind Creole-speaking man who said the candidate filled out his ballot.

A day before Pennsylvania’s June 2 primary, Governor Tom Wolf signed an order extending the ballot deadline in six counties. As long as mail votes were postmarked by Election Day, they could arrive on June 9 and be counted. What followed did not inspire confidence. Nine days after the election, Philadelphia said it had 42,255 ballots untallied. Mr. Trump won the state in 2016 by 44,292 votes.

On Thursday Mr. Wolf signed a bill to perform an autopsy of the primary, which his office said “will help identify any necessary changes to the Pennsylvania Election Code before the general election.” Are they paying attention next door in Ohio? Ballots there can be counted if they arrive 10 days late, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Even if the voter gets to the mailbox in time, there’s a risk of tardiness. In 2018 the U.S. Postal Service delivered 95.6% of election and political mail on schedule, according to an audit by the inspector general. The score was 86.6% for a processing facility in Wisconsin, 79.4% for one in Ohio, and 75.7% for one in Florida. Last month in Butler County, Ohio, some 300 mail ballots were delivered 13 days after the election, thanks to an “unintentional missort.”

Ballot access is important, but so is ballot integrity. In exchange for the convenience, mail votes should have to be postmarked several days in advance of the election. Democrats ought to act in their own self-interest: If they really fear that Donald Trump will try to delegitimize November’s result, why not deny him material by buttoning things up now?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Gatestone: Vote by Mail
« Reply #1135 on: June 25, 2020, 12:43:24 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19777
    • View Profile
from gatestone above
« Reply #1136 on: June 25, 2020, 01:46:17 PM »
Chris IAP Cuomo would scream with face an inch from the screen and right in our faces  - so "where is the proof" of election fraud?

So where is 95 yo James Earle Carter - who supposedly has a special interest in election fraud all around the world.
Except for democrat party fraud in the US.:

***************

On Vote-By-Mail
by J. Christian Adams
June 16, 2020 at 5:00 am


Vote by mail might sound good, until you look at the data. The federal election assistance commission keeps tabs. Their data show that 28 million ballots mailed since 2012 simply vanished. They were sent out, but never came back and were counted. Some say they are in landfills, others figure they are in file cabinets.

It gets worse. Hundreds of thousands came back but had defects that prevented them from being counted. The voters who sent these ballots probably do not even know that their ballot was not counted after they sent it back.

Making all of this even worse are the hundreds of millions of dollars that leftist foundations dedicate to this process fight. There is money for media outlets to publish stories that voter fraud is a myth. They even lend struggling newspapers foundation-funded "reporters" to work for free, as long as they publish stories saying voter fraud is a myth.

Mail voting also destroys the transparency of our elections. Observers from each side are unable to watch the process. Mail ballots are uniquely vulnerable to fraud because they are voted behind closed doors where third parties regularly attempt to influence the process.

It surprises people to learn that in the middle of an Ebola epidemic in 2014, Liberia conducted an in-person national election. Ebola had a fatality rate of 46%, yet people still came into polling places and voted in person. The solutions were simple -- sanitization protocols, distancing, disinfectant on surfaces.


(Image source: iStock)

Never before in the history of the country has the election process system been under greater attack. In the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, heavily funded organizations and lawyers with fat trust deposits have been seeking to undo how we elect the President, Congress and state officials.

Like the rioters in the streets of American cities, they are taking advantage of a crisis to try to fundamentally transform American institutions.

They are seeking to throw out state laws designed to protect the integrity of American elections.

The first target of the election transformation was Congress. Soon after the pandemic reached our shores, House Democrats passed emergency legislation that would have federalized election process rules.

The Constitution decentralizes how we run elections because decentralization promotes individual liberty. When elections are decentralized, no single malevolent actor can manipulate or control the outcome.

During both the Bush and Obama administrations, I worked in the Voting Section at the United States Department of Justice. I witnessed firsthand how federal bureaucrats could manipulate, coerce and threaten state officials who did not conform to the bureaucrat's sensibilities about how elections should be run.

Naturally the federal government has a role in ensuring that elections are conducted in a way that complies with federal laws and the Constitution. For example, the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 do not allow discrimination on the basis of race.

But apart from these limited federal carve-outs, the Constitution vests states with the power to run their own elections and set the qualifications to vote.

The bill that passed the House would have mandated automatic vote by mail in every state. It would have mandated same-day voter registration as well as weeks of early voting. It would have banished voter photo identification laws. It would have legalized vote harvesting in every state. Other proposals in Congress would have allowed mail ballots to be counted even if they were not postmarked by election day.

What the bills would actually do is foment chaos. The election would not be decided on election day. Millions of mail ballots would keep appearing, keep rolling in, until there were enough votes to make the difference. If there was a dispute, lawyers would steal the show, subjecting America to weeks of post-election court contests to force a particular outcome.

Making all of this even worse are the hundreds of millions of dollars that leftist foundations dedicate to this process fight. There is money for media outlets to publish stories that voter fraud is a myth. They even lend struggling newspapers foundation-funded "reporters" to work for free, as long as they publish stories saying voter fraud is a myth.

Of course, there is money for lawyers. When the House election transformation bill failed in the Senate– largely thanks to Majority Leader McConnell and Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) -- those trying to transform the elections rushed to the courts. The bill would have nationalized vote by mail, banned voter ID, and mandated that every state offer a month of early voting and allow same-day registration.

Across the country there are dozens of lawsuits trying to force states to abandon state election integrity procedures. My organization has been involved in a number of them, and it is quite an eye-opener. In Virginia, for example, the League of Women Voters sued the state to force the end of the witness requirement on absentee ballots. They argued that finding a witness would be a violation of federal voting rights.

Unbelievably, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring capitulated and surrendered. The purported adversaries decided to enter into a collusive consent decree, tossing out the law.

Remember, the duly elected legislature of Virginia -- both the House and Senate -- passed a witness requirement and an elected governor signed the bill. The agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants in the case of League of Women Voters of Virginia vs. Virginia State Board of Elections erased the democratic will of the people of Virginia manifested in law.

This story is repeating itself all over the United States. Lawsuit after lawsuit is being filed to cancel state election integrity laws. One case in Texas actually claims the stamp you put on your absentee ballot is the same as a Jim Crow era poll tax.

All of this diminishes the real fight for civil rights that occurred a half century ago.

Lawyers are trying to accomplish in courts what could not be accomplished in Congress. Judges are being used as substitutes for the will of the people. People who seemingly would like to be able to manipulate election results are forum-shopping for the most sympathetic courts. And in some places, the plaintiffs and defendants are in agreement that state election laws should be struck down without contested litigation. The case is filed, and the states surrender.

When I attended law school, this is not what they taught. Laws, at least we were told, represented the will of the people. They were to be respected. Lawyers, particularly lawyers for a state attorney general, are under an ethical obligation to defend a law, even if they did not agree with it.

Yet in one hearing I attended in the Virginia litigation, the federal judge asked the Virginia Attorney General if they ever intended to file any pleading in court to contest the case. The lawyer hemmed and hawed. The answer should have been yes. Instead it was a successful attempt to obscure the answer.

Virginia's only response was a white flag.

So now the same people who support the lawsuits around the country are still trying to move elections to an all-mail election. This would put the fate of the election into the hands of the same people who regularly deliver to you and your neighbor's mail.

Vote by mail might sound good, until you look at the data. The federal election assistance commission keeps tabs. Their data show that 28 million ballots mailed since 2012 simply vanished. They were sent out, but never came back and were counted. Some say they are in landfills, others figure they are in file cabinets. The truth is, we do not know. All we know is that the mail ballots never accomplished what they were intended to accomplish.

It gets worse. Hundreds of thousands came back but had defects that prevented them from being counted. The voters who sent these ballots probably do not even know that their ballot was not counted after they sent it back.

Mail voting also destroys the transparency of our elections. Observers from each side are unable to watch the process. Mail ballots are uniquely vulnerable to fraud because they are voted behind closed doors where third parties regularly attempt to influence the process. Senior citizens already enjoy rights to request an absentee ballot in every state.

It surprises people to learn that in the middle of an Ebola epidemic in 2014, Liberia conducted an in-person national election. Ebola had a fatality rate of 46%, yet people still came into polling places and voted in person. The solutions were simple -- sanitization protocols, distancing, disinfectant on surfaces.

Putting the Presidency into the hands of the United States Postal Service would be a serious mistake. Some factions, however, do not care about mistakes. They care more about transforming an election system so they can transform a nation.

J. Christian Adams is President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, at 501(c)(3) law firm devoted entirely to election integrity. He served on President Trump's election integrity advisory commission and in the Voting Section at the United States Department of Justice.********


The Dems will win this election - one way or another - then it will be pay back time for us .

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
WSJ: Mail Voting Gone Wrong Again; 3 groups organize for mail-ins
« Reply #1137 on: July 01, 2020, 09:30:58 AM »
Mail Voting Gone Wrong—Again
Fraud charges and piles of ballots thrown out in New Jersey.
By The Editorial Board
June 30, 2020 7:15 pm ET

New Jersey politics isn’t known for probity, but at least today it offers a useful warning to the nation. Four men are accused of committing fraud last month in the city of Paterson’s entirely vote-by-mail municipal elections. For one reason or another, county election officials have thrown out about 20% of the ballots submitted.

With nearly 150,000 people, Paterson is the state’s third-largest city. Its May 12 local elections were conducted wholly by mail. Governor Phil Murphy signed an executive order in March saying that ballots would be sent to “all registered voters without the need for an application.”

WSJ OPINION POTOMAC WATCH
On Abortion, The Chief Justice Rules

SUBSCRIBE
By Election Day, claims of fraud were already in the local news. The Passaic County Board of Elections disqualified about 800 ballots that “were improperly bundled in mailboxes in apparent violation of state laws,” according to the Paterson Press. A group of about 360 ballots was placed into a mailbox in Haledon, one town over. The U.S. Postal Service alerted the county to the possibility of impropriety.

As the tabulating began, 1,214 ballots were tossed due to issues with the voter’s signature. Another 1,000 ballots were rejected because the “bearer” who purportedly dropped them off did not correctly fill out the envelope to say so. New Jersey law allows people to collect and deliver up to three ballots per election, but candidates are excluded from doing so.

Last week New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal announced charges against four men, including two winning city council candidates. All are accused of illegally collecting or possessing ballots. In one case, the ballot allegedly had not been voted or sealed but was “delivered to the Board of Elections in a sealed envelope.”

At least three dead people tried to vote, the Paterson Press reported. NBC New York found a Spanish-speaking resident who’s listed in county records as having voted. “We did not receive vote by mail ballots and thus we did not vote,” she said. “This is corruption. This is fraud.” Others say they mailed their votes, yet their names are shown on the list of ballots with “bearer” problems.

Across 31 municipalities that voted May 12, “election officials did not count 9.6% of ballots sent in,” according to NJ Spotlight. The Village of Ridgewood, where tight races were decided by 137 and 127 votes, has sued the Bergen County Board of Elections for invalidating 710 ballots. Ridgewood blamed lax ballot deadlines and “the failings of the postal service.”

Democrats and the media are touting mail ballots as a panacea for voting in a pandemic, but the problems are evident, even putting fraud aside. In 2016 about 1% of absentee ballots nationwide were thrown out, and it could be much higher this year, as many people vote by mail for the first time. A study of Florida in 2018 found rejection rates of 2% for black and 2.1% for Hispanic voters. At one USPS processing facility in Florida, almost 25% of political and election mail in 2018 was delivered late.

If the country is lucky, the 2020 presidential race won’t be a photo finish. But the potential for a brawl over the winner’s legitimacy is much too close for comfort.

=========================================

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/06/23/these-3-groups-organized-to-support-mail-in-voting/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=these-3-groups-organized-to-support-mail-in-voting?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmpBd016QTNORFJqTlRBNCIsInQiOiJ2NFpLZU5ZRWtvdXZRM0FreTZJM3NSRGlnRXhZTDI3RktGdDdIUEdkS2tndGZpNWh6XC9HUm5HaEJySkZLcVwvNWJDMXJmb3BrMCtQZjV0NnRZejZmUjExNGI3RmY5MVRrNFk3eGtUZVB3TE1MTk9pZnFtbDZnOE1WN1dQUE5pcGdmIn0%3D

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile








Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
WSJ: Madison warned about Sanctuary States
« Reply #1146 on: August 03, 2020, 08:24:58 AM »
Madison Warned About ‘Sanctuary’ States
He foretold their interest in ‘exaggerating their inhabitants’ to ‘swell’ their numbers in Congress.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and John S. Baker Jr.
Aug. 2, 2020 3:32 pm ET

President Trump met wide derision last month when he issued an executive order excluding illegal aliens from the census numbers used for apportioning House seats. “Persons means persons,” Thomas Wolf of the Brennan Center for Justice told a reporter. “Everyone must be counted.” But counting is different from allocating political power, and Mr. Trump has the better constitutional argument.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment provides: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” This revises a provision in Article I that uses similar language but also includes the infamous Three Fifths Clause.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
Nuke The Filibuster? Delay The Election?


SUBSCRIBE
When voting on the latter provision, the Constitutional Convention used the term “number of inhabitants.” The Committee on Style shortened that to “numbers,” but that linguistic change was of no import. As Chief Justice Earl Warren noted in Powell v. McCormack (1969), the committee wasn’t authorized to make substantive changes to previously voted provisions. In Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), Justice Hugo Black wrote for the court that “the debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that . . . in allocating Congressmen, the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State’s inhabitants.”

The administration argues that illegal aliens don’t qualify as inhabitants, and it’s right. The definition of “inhabitant” at the time of the Founding had an important political and economic context because of the legal responsibility of localities to care for the destitute under the 1601 Act for the Relief of the Poor. An inhabitant was a person who rightfully resided in a jurisdiction, contributing to and qualifying for available benefits. Like illegal aliens today, those whose presence was unlawful were not considered inhabitants and were subject to removal.

According to the 2018 Yale study, there are at least 16.7 million, and more likely around 22.1 million, illegal aliens in the U.S. The apportionment following the 2010 census yielded congressional districts containing roughly 710,000 people each. That means the illegal-alien population is the equivalent of around 30 districts, more than any state except California (53) or Texas (36).

States inflating census numbers has been a ever-present danger to the proper functioning of America’s federalist system. In Federalist No. 54, James Madison addressed what he called states’ “interest in exaggerating their inhabitants” to bolster their representation in Congress: “It is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers.”

Millions of illegal aliens are distributed disproportionately throughout the U.S., more than enough to cause shifts in apportionment of congressional seats, which also affect the Electoral College. In an example of the kind of swelling Madison warned about, some states and localities entice illegal aliens with “sanctuary” laws promising to shield them from federal law enforcement and provide them free health care and other benefits. In the years ahead, that could make the illegal alien population become larger and more concentrated in these states.

Yet this is not simply a blue vs. red state conflict over political power. Sanctuary state California will lose representatives if illegal aliens are excluded from apportionment, but so will Texas and Florida. It is also a Sun Belt vs. Rust Belt conflict. States like Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio are the ones that stand to gain (or at least not lose) in apportionment under the president’s plan.

Since only a few states lose representation after each decennial census, this gradual erosion of political power has rarely been challenged. The Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of including illegal aliens in congressional apportionment and has only occasionally been asked to do so (including in a 2011 case in which we represented Louisiana). When the court rejected Mr. Trump’s proposed citizenship question on the census, it was on technical administrative procedure ground, not the merits.

That leaves it to the political branches to carry out the constitutional mandate of counting only inhabitants for reapportionment. Congress has done so, by enacting statutes giving the president wide discretion on reapportionment decisions. Mr. Trump is right to take the next step.

Mr. Rivkin practices appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served in the White House Counsel’s Office and Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Mr. Baker is a visiting professor at Georgetown’s Center for the Constitution and a professor emeritus at Louisiana State University Law Center.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
An invitation to Election Fraud
« Reply #1147 on: August 03, 2020, 08:47:50 AM »
second

An Invitation in the Mail for Election Fraud
Washington state sent a ballot to my home—which is now in Texas.
By Scott Hogenson
Aug. 2, 2020 12:23 pm ET
WSJ

Uncertainties over Covid-19 have spurred significant interest in voting by mail. The process differs substantially from absentee voting, which requires a voter to file an application and creates a documented paper trail. Vote by mail is simpler: Ballots are printed and sent to registered voters, who complete and return them.

Consider Washington state. Vote by mail was required in 2011, so the government has had nearly a decade to refine the process. True to form, I received my Aug. 4 primary ballot several weeks ahead of the election date, leaving me ample time to consult my conscience and return my ballot.

The Postal Service appears to be operating fairly well. I still had plenty of time to vote because the USPS helpfully forwarded my ballot to my new address—in Texas.

Our family moved from Washington state to suburban Dallas in mid-June, but I have been invited to participate in Washington state’s August elections. So has my wife. Given that we aren’t residents of Washington, we won’t vote there. That would be fraudulent. I could probably get away with it, but the little angel on my shoulder shouted down the little devil on the other.
Therein lies but one of a cavalcade of problems with vote by mail. There’s no way of knowing how many nonresidents will receive ballots they’re not legally allowed to cast. There is no way to confirm how many eligible voters don’t receive ballots, how many dead people receive ballots, how many people receive multiple ballots, how many ballots actually make it through the mail in time, and how many ballots aren’t delivered to the place where they’re to be counted.

This anecdote isn’t unique, but you wouldn’t know that by reading the news. A Google search of “vote by mail fraud” returns articles mostly about how fraud is some sort of “myth,” a “false narrative,” something “not likely” to occur.

Even if every bureaucrat and election volunteer involved in every part of the process is honest and efficient, voting by mail is still fraught with problems. In my case, I don’t suspect malfeasance on the part of election officials. It takes time to purge voter rolls, and it’s entirely reasonable for this not to happen in the month between my move and the delivery of my ballot to Texas.

We can hope that individual voters will be honest. But passions run high in presidential election years, especially this one. Vote by mail may sound like a good idea, but it isn’t. It can’t be. It is subject to too many vagaries, too many errors, too much malevolent temptation. The American republic has done reasonably well with voting at polling places, and a radical revision of the voting process three months ahead of a presidential election would be doomed to inaccuracy and, yes, fraud.

Mr. Hogenson is president of Hogenson Communications