ACRU Commentary Archives - Page 22 of 39 - Voting Integrity Institute

ACRU’s Charles Cooper Sues Virginia Gov. McAuliffe over Felon Voting

By Robert Knight The Democrat felon voting express train in Virginia hit a sharp curve on Monday when Republican lawmakers went to the state's highest court to derail it. Constitutional attorney Charles J. Cooper's law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Republican leaders in the Virginia legislature asking the state Supreme Court to block 206,000 felons from voting in November. The lawsuit Howell v. McAuliffe states that Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe abused the separation of powers in an April 22 executive order that gives a blanket restoration to convicts who've completed their sentences. McAuliffe is countermanding longtime policy, in which Virginia's governors have restored voting rights by individual cases, the suit states. The felons who received the blanket amnesty include inmates convicted of rape, murder, and other major offenses. It's worth noting that McAuliffe, who served as a fundraiser for Bill and Hillary Clinton, ignored the fact that his two predecessors, Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Bob McDonnell, both attempted blanket amnesty for some felons but abided by opinions from state attorneys general ruling this out as unconstitutional. The current hyper-partisan attorney general, Democrat Mark Herring, who refused to defend the state's constitutional marriage amendment, has no such qualms, which is why the GOP leaders resorted to the lawsuit. "In his blanket restoration, the Governor didn't consider the violence of the offense, the number of offenses, or whether the offender has paid his victim's medical bills," said a press release from Virginia 58th District delegate Rob Bell. "The executive order covers felons who are still on unsupervised probation. It makes 40,000 violent felons eligible to sit on juries, and is already being used by a defendant accused of murdering a state trooper to demand that these felons be included in his jury pool."

ACRU Staff2016-05-24T14:28:58+00:00May 24th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, In the Courts|

Giving Violent Felons the Automatic Right to Vote Is Not Morally Defensible

By J. Christian Adams Giving violent felons the automatic right to vote is not morally defensible. In elections, just as in society, it is important that everyone follow the rules. Automatically restoring the right to vote for felons is a bad idea. Before felons enjoy the full measure of citizenship, at a minimum, they should seek an individualized determination that they deserve the right to vote. Redemption loses its value when redemption is automatically bestowed. If the goal of felon voting restoration is to integrate felons back into society, it should be an active and contemplative exercise by the applicant seeking redemption, not an automatic one. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's decree that felons will enjoy automatic voting rights in the swing state of Virginia was a bad idea and contrary to state law. When the integrity and credibility of American elections is involved, it is essential that everyone follow the rules. Breaking the rules is particularly corrosive when it appears to have a brazenly partisan aim, as in Virginia. Giving violent felons the automatic right to vote is not morally defensible. Violent criminals who have shown contempt for other members of society and our laws should not have a voice in the process of writing laws. When a violent felon helps to choose lawmakers, laws will invariably skew more toward the criminal to the detriment of the law-abiding citizen. If you commit violent crimes, in nearly every state you forfeit multiple constitutional rights, including the right to vote and the right to own firearms. Most advocates for restoring rights never seem to get around to Second Amendment rights. That's no accident because the national campaign to restore felon voting rights is first and foremost an effort to help Democrats win elections. Studies have shown that felons vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and the advocates for felon voting know it, and usually like it. Automatically restoring felon voting rights is the latest instance of normalizing criminal behavior. Voters with violent criminal tendencies are the last thing we need anywhere close to the American election process

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00May 9th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Early Voting, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

Virginia Gov. McAuliffe Breaks the Constitution to Plump the Democratic Vote

By Hans von Spakovsky In what is likely an unconstitutional state action seemingly calculated to ensure that the purple state of Virginia goes blue in the November election, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D.) signed an order on Friday restoring the voting rights of 206,000 ex-felons in Virginia, including those convicted of murder, armed robbery, rape, sexual assault, and other violent crimes. The order also restores their right to sit on a jury, become a notary, and even serve in elected office. McAuliffe believes that ex-felons can be trusted to make decisions in the ballot booth and the jury box but apparently not to own a gun. He draws the line at restoring their Second Amendment rights; that would be a bridge too far. His order specifically does not restore their "right to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms." And while his order requires that felons complete probation and parole before enjoying restoration of their rights, it applies regardless of whether they have paid any court fines or restitution to victims. What McAuliffe entirely dismisses is the principle that if you won't follow the law yourself, you can't demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote.

ACRU Staff2016-04-25T11:59:51+00:00April 25th, 2016|ACRU Commentary|

Democrats and the New Jim Crow

By J. Christian Adams Imagine an election for president where votes cast at the ballot box mean next to nothing. While activist groups gripe about long lines and the return of Jim Crow whenever someone has to pull out a photo ID, it's the Democratic Party primary that deserves scorn for disenfranchising voters this year. With Hillary stacking up the super-delegates even while Bernie Sanders keeps winning, why should anyone bother voting? This is nothing new. The Democrat Party has a long history of disenfranchising its party members and voters through Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised the vast majority of African Americans. Jim Crow was invented by Democrats and administered by Democrats. While the hyperbole of Jim Crow is tossed at Republicans who seek to bring integrity to elections, it is the Democrats practicing systematic disenfranchisement again in 2016. Bernie Sanders won seven of the last eight Democratic primaries or caucuses but he is no closer to winning the Democratic Party nomination.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00April 21st, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Voter ID|

Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Noncitizens Shouldn’t Be Counted

By Hans von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery In a loss for voters, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against two residents of Texas who had argued that the Texas legislature diluted their votes when it used total population to redraw state Senate districts. In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court allowed states to use total population in redrawing district lines, even though that this includes a large number of noncitizens (legal and illegal), felons, and others who are ineligible to vote. Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger challenged the state Senate districts drawn by the Texas legislature using total population in 2013.They claimed that both the number of citizens of voting age and the number of registered voters in their districts deviated substantially--between 31 and 49 percent--from the "ideal" population of a Texas Senate district. They argued that this disparity significantly diluted their votes in comparison to those of voters who live in districts with large numbers of non-voters. According to this logic, their votes were worth roughly half those of voters in other districts. In other words, they claimed that their Senate districts had the same number of representatives as other districts that contained the same number of people but only half the number of eligible voters. This is a particular problem in Texas, which has almost two million illegal aliens, about seven percent of the state's population.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00April 5th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Voter ID|

Heloise Gets It about How to Prevent Vote Fraud

The household advice column "Hints from Heloise" weighed in this week on the importance of accurate voter registration rolls: Dear Heloise: In 2012, my father died, and in 2014, I was still getting voter mailings in his name. I went to the voter-registration office in our town and had his name removed. I also checked when we went to vote to make sure his name was removed. I did the same last year for my mother. By doing this, no one can use their names to vote. - Nancy J. in North Carolina Dear Nancy: I am sorry about the loss of both of your parents in such a short time. Hopefully others reading this hint will keep this in mind. It's amazing how many dead people vote, in every state. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires that every state "make reasonable efforts to remove persons who have died," but there is no set standard for doing this. Each state is different, so take the time to make sure a deceased person's name is no longer on the roll. Notify your voter-registration office yourself, and follow up when you go to vote. - Hugs, Heloise

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00April 5th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

Voter ID Laws Do Not Suppress the Vote

By Hans von Spakovsky Polls consistently show that Americans -- regardless of race or ethnicity -- agree that requiring identification to vote is a common-sense way to ensure the integrity of our elections. The repeated narrative pushed by critics that this "suppresses" votes is a myth. That claim has been disproven by the turnout results in states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter ID laws have been in place for years. In fact, these states experienced almost no problems despite apocalyptic predictions of opponents. The number of Americans who don't already have an ID is minuscule -- and every state with a voter ID law gives a free ID to anyone who can't afford one. Opponents who say there is no voter fraud are wrong. As the Supreme Court noted in 2008 when it upheld Indiana's photo ID law, we have a long, documented history of voter fraud in this country -- and it could make the difference in a close election. That is why states should also be requiring proof-of-citizenship to register to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:34:41+00:00April 4th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Proof of Citizenship, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

CBS Evening News Sounds the Alarm Playing the Race Card Against Voter ID Laws

Amidst their voluminous Super Tuesday 3 coverage, the CBS Evening News found just over two minutes to trot out the tired liberal argument that voter ID laws, like the one in North Carolina, have a racist angle. Anchor Scott Pelley set the scene from the start of the segment before correspondent Mark Strassamann took over by making it clear that it would be a left-leaning piece on the issue: "In North Carolina, about 1,000 voters cast provisional ballots because they didn't have enough identification to meet the state's new, strict voter ID law. The law was passed even though voter fraud is almost unknown there. Opponents say the law is meant to silence minority voters."

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:34:41+00:00March 16th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

Non-Citizen Voting Case Pits Justice Department Against States that Require Proof-of-Citizenship

By Hans von Spakovsky The free-for-all boxing match between the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, Kansas, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) resumed on Wednesday, March 9. They're tussling over the right of states to require proof-of-citizenship from people using the federal voter registration form. In Courtroom 18 of the D.C. federal courthouse, Judge Richard Leon presided over a sometimes contentious hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that would rescind the Election Assistance Commission's change of the instructions on the federal voter registration form to accommodate a request by Kansas. The Sunflower State wants the form to note that Kansans wishing to register must meet a proof-of-citizenship requirement. At the first hearing in this case on Feb. 22, Leon refused to grant a temporary restraining order requested by the League of Women Voters and the NAACP, the plaintiffs who don't want the Election Assistance Commission to mention proof-of-citizenship. Justice Department Unwilling to Defend Election Assistance Commission Normally, the Justice Department would be expected to defend the Election Assistance Commission in court. Instead, the Justice Department lawyers tried to throw the case by agreeing to a temporary restraining order. Leon expressed astonishment at the Department of Justice's behavior, calling it "unprecedented" and "extraordinary." Rather than take that as a warning about the Department of Justice's potentially unethical and unprofessional behavior in refusing to carry out its duty to defend its client, the Federal Programs Branch came into this week's hearing once again trying to lose the case.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00March 15th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

Faulty Data Fuel Challenges to Voter ID Laws

By Don Palmer The use of photo identification to confirm the identity of voters serves an essential election security function in America's polling places and boosts citizens' confidence in the voting process. In perhaps their most prevalent means of attack, opponents of laws requiring photo ID greatly exaggerate the number of voters without a valid ID. In legislative, litigation, and public relations battles, opponents use wildly inflated numbers in an attempt both to portray these laws as burdensome and to gain partisan electoral advantage. They cite a highly inflated number of voters who do not possess a driver's license as the universal number of those who are not able to vote, even though, under all state photo ID laws, various other forms of ID, such as federal and state government IDs, U.S. passports, tribal IDs, or even employer-issued or university student IDs, are also acceptable.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:34:41+00:00March 7th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Voter ID|

SUBSCRIBE