ACRU Commentary Archives - Page 23 of 39 - Voting Integrity Institute

A Big Win for Election Integrity

By Hans A. von Spakovsky Electoral integrity has scored big -- District of Columbia federal district court Judge Richard Leon just issued an order denying the request by the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and the U.S. Justice Department for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Thus, there will be no TRO preventing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from instructing residents of Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas that they must comply with state laws requiring proof-of-citizenship when they register to vote. Judge Leon said in a four-page order that because "the registration deadlines for the Alabama and Georgia primaries and for the Kansas Republican Caucus had already passed at the time this TRO motion was filed . . . and that the effects of the [EAC's] actions on the ongoing registration process for the Kansas Democratic Caucus . . . are uncertain at best, plaintiffs have not demonstrated they will suffer irreparable harm" before the scheduled March 9 hearing on the request for a Preliminary Injunction. Judge Leon was also "not yet convinced that plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and looks forward to the benefit of full, adversarial briefing on the complex and important issues this case presents." This is a tremendous victory, particularly given the questionable conduct of the Justice Department, which came into court on Monday refusing to defend the actions of the EAC and saying it would consent not only to a TRO, but to a preliminary injunction. Judge Leon castigated DOJ during the hearing and added a footnote to his four-page order about the behavior of Justice after he said he expects a "full, adversarial briefing."

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:02+00:00February 24th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

Obama Administration Fighting Efforts to Keep Non-Citizens from Voting

By Hans von Spakovsky Several well-funded organizations -- including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP -- are fighting efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting illegally in the upcoming presidential election. And the United States Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is helping them. On February 12, these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission's decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22. Under federal law, the EAC is responsible for designing the federal voter-registration form required by the National Voter Registration Act, or Motor Voter, as it is commonly called. While states must register voters who use the federal form, states can ask the EAC to include instructions with the federal form about additional state registration requirements. Some states are now requiring satisfactory proof of citizenship to ensure that only citizens register to vote.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:02+00:00February 21st, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

Hang in there, Governor Hogan

By Roger Clegg & Hans A. von Spakovsky -- January 15, 2016 The Maryland state legislature is back in session, and the Democrats have announced that one of their priorities is overriding Governor Larry Hogan's veto last year of a bill that would automatically re-enfranchise felons when they are released from prison, even if they are still on parole or probation (Maryland already automatically re-enfranchises felons once they are no longer on probation or parole). Governor Hogan is adamant that this is a bad bill. And Governor Hogan is right, so here's hoping that the veto-override effort fails. If you aren't willing to follow the law yourself, then you can't demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. We don't let everyone vote -- not children, not non-citizens, not the mentally incompetent, and not felons -- because we have certain objective, minimum standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that must be met before someone is given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. People who have committed a serious crime against their fellow citizens don't meet those standards. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison -- let alone when parole and probation have not yet been served. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Deep down, the Left knows all this; that's why, though it is happy to let felons vote, it is somehow reluctant to restore their Second Amendment rights.

ACRU Staff2016-01-15T14:25:41+00:00January 15th, 2016|ACRU Commentary|

The New Frontiers of Vote Fraud

By Barbara Joanna Lucas Capital Research Center The Left seeks power, and at least for the time being, that requires winning elections. So the Left pursues every scheme it can concoct to boost votes for its favored causes and candidates. This report details how the Left not only opposes every law, like voter ID, that aims to ensure honest elections, it is also passing laws and regulations that aim to swamp the polls with Left-friendly voters. And so non-citizens, and illegal immigrants, and underage voters are being welcomed to voting booths, while voter registration and even voting itself are on the road to being made compulsory for every person with a heartbeat. Where does this notion that anyone with a pulse must vote come from? Why is it that even the most modest measures to ensure an election has integrity provoke hysteria from the Left and shameless comparisons to Jim Crow measures that unconstitutionally denied large numbers of Americans the right to vote? The Left has long used shrill rhetoric to stifle many electoral integrity laws across the country. More recently, it has become increasingly emboldened as it parades illegal voters to the polls. There is a simple explanation: Voter fraud and illegal immigrant votes have historically favored Democrats, as we shall see.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:37:08+00:00December 15th, 2015|ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

How Democrats Suppress the Vote

By Eitan Hersh (fivethirtyeight.com) In the ongoing fight between Democrats and Republicans over election procedures like voter ID and early voting, the Democrats are supposedly the champions of higher turnout and reducing barriers to participation. But when it comes to scheduling off-cycle elections1 like those taking place today, the Democratic Party is the champion of voter suppression. Indeed, few people will vote today (Nov. 3). Many elections are taking place, but almost all are for local offices. School boards, for example, are up for election in Houston; Fairfax County, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina and in hundreds of other communities that oversee the education of millions of schoolchildren. But only a small number of highly engaged voters will participate in the elections for these offices. Scheduling local elections at odd times appears to be a deliberate strategy aimed at keeping turnout low, which gives more influence to groups like teachers unions that have a direct stake in the election's outcome. But before getting into the details of off-cycle elections, consider the parties' basic positions on issues of voter participation. As election law expert Rick Hasen has noted, there is a philosophical divide between the parties. Supposedly, for Republicans, small barriers to participation can help the functioning of a democracy. For instance, in recent years, Republicans have been pushing a requirement that voters present identification when they show up to cast a ballot. They argue that voter ID laws can prevent fraud and foster confidence in the electoral system. But they also argue that if an ID requirement deters people who aren't particularly well-informed or invested in the political process, this might be a net benefit for the electoral system. The Democratic philosophy is different. For Democrats, universal participation is a value: All voices ought to be represented in the electoral sphere, so the government should not put up any unnecessary barriers to participation. Debates over issues like voter ID are politically explosive because each side suspects the other of having a strategic motive, not a philosophical one, for its position. Maybe Republicans want lower turnout not because it yields an informed electorate, but because it favors their side. Maybe Democrats promote higher turnout not because of an ideological commitment to civic engagement, but because higher turnout helps elect Democrats (though there is substantial disagreement on whether that is true). Nowhere are the strategic motivations -- and the hypocritical rhetoric -- of both parties more apparent than in the timing of elections. The election calendar in the United States is an insane mess. Exhibit A is New Jersey. New Jersey holds federal elections with the rest of the country on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. But elections for state office in New Jersey are held in November of odd-numbered years. School district elections are held on the third Tuesday in April or else in November. And fire district commissioner elections are held on the third Saturday in February. It isn't just New Jersey. Most states -- 44 out of 50 -- hold some state and local elections off the federal cycle. Why? Political scientist Sarah Anzia, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, gives a compelling explanation in an outstanding book published last year. The first point that Anzia makes is that the off-cycle election calendar is not a response to voter preferences; voters do not like taking multiple trips to the voting booth. Anzia asked a nationally representative sample of Americans if they prefer elections held at different times for different offices "because it allows voters to focus on a shorter list of candidates and issues during each election" or all at the same time "because combining the elections boosts voter turnout for local elections." Voters of all political stripes prefer consolidated elections, and by wide margins. But that's especially true for people who identify as Democrats, who prefer consolidated elections 73 percent to 27 percent. Consolidation is popular, and during the decade-long period between 2001 and 2011 that Anzia studied, state legislatures across the country considered over 200 bills aimed at consolidating elections. About half, 102 bills, were focused specifically on moving school board election dates so that they would coincide with other elections. Only 25 became law. The consolidation bills, which were generally sponsored by Republicans, typically failed because of Democratic opposition, according to Anzia. By her account, Democrats opposed the bills at the urging of Democratic-aligned interest groups, namely teachers unions and municipal employee organizations.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:37:08+00:00November 18th, 2015|ACRU Commentary, Early Voting, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

Meet the Police Officer Who’s Been Charged with Voter Fraud

By Hans von Spakovsky Call the cops! It looks like someone is committing voter fraud in Indiana again! Ironically, in this case, however, the alleged fraudster who has been arrested by the Indiana State Police was a cop. Unfortunately, even officers who graduate from the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy are capable of violating the public trust by allegedly trying to steal an election. That is the case with Officer Lowell Ross Colen of the Rising Sun Police Department, a small Indiana town of around 2,300 people on the Ohio River across from Kentucky. Colen was apparently an average guy at the police department. According to his chief, Dave Hewitt, Colen was "fairly well liked and very loyal." Hewitt described Colen as the "kind of guy that would come in and put his time in." However, it seems Colen was doing more than providing for the public safety while on duty at the Rising Sun Police Department. Colen wanted individuals to vote for his father, Francis "Swede" Colen, in the 2015 May primary for city council. So, he allegedly proceeded to fill out absentee ballot applications for people who were not even eligible to vote in the election, and then voted with these ballots after he received them from election officials. According to the Indiana State Police Department, he forged the signatures of the supposed voters on some of the documents before turning them into the Ohio County, Ind. clerk's office. In some cases, Officer Colen is even believed to have been in uniform and on duty while committing the acts. In a twist of fate, the voting scofflaw was arrested in his home on charges of official misconduct, forgery, voter fraud and ghost employment. He has been charged with 13 felony counts, and is, of course, entitled to a presumption of innocence, so it remains to be seen what the final disposition will be. Nonetheless, this goes to show that, contrary to what some skeptics say, voting fraud does occur in this country. In local elections with small margins of victory, fraud is especially able to be the deciding factor.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:36:33+00:00November 12th, 2015|Absentee / Mail-in Voting, ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

Destroying Your Vote

By Walter Williams Voter ID laws have been challenged because liberal Democrats deem them racist. I guess that's because they see blacks as being incapable of acquiring some kind of government-issued identification. Interesting enough is the fact that I've never heard of a challenge to other ID requirements as racist, such as those: to board a plane, open a charge account, have lab work done or cash a welfare check. Since liberal Democrats only challenge legal procedures to promote ballot-box integrity, the conclusion one reaches is that they are for vote fraud prevalent in many Democrat-controlled cities. There is another area where the attack on ballot-box integrity goes completely unappreciated. We can examine this attack by looking at the laws governing census taking. As required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau is supposed to count all persons in the U.S. Those to be counted include citizens, legal immigrants and non-citizen long-term visitors. The law also requires that illegal immigrants be a part of the decennial census. The estimated number of illegal immigrants ranges widely from 12 million to 30 million. Official estimates put the actual number closer to 12 million. Both citizens and non-citizens are included in the census and thus affect apportionment counts. Counting illegals in the census undermines one of the fundamental principles of representative democracy --- namely, that every citizen-voter has an equal voice. Through the decennial census-based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of illegal immigrants, such as California and Texas, unconstitutionally gain additional members in the U.S. House of Representatives thereby robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:37:08+00:00November 10th, 2015|ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

Carson: Voter ID Laws Not Racist

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson dismissed the idea that restrictive anti-voter fraud requirements could be racist, echoing the position of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach -- a champion of such measures who has called accusations of racism a personal insult. "I've made it my personal project, every time I visit a country outside the U.S., to ask what do they do to ensure the integrity of voting? There's not one single country anywhere -- first world, second world, it doesn't matter -- that doesn't have official requirements for voting," Carson said on Oct. 16. "My question to those people who say we're racist because we apply those standards: Are all the other countries of the world racist? I don't think so. Voting is an important thing. Obviously, you want to make sure that it's done by the appropriate people." Carson made the comments in an interview with The Topeka Capital-Journal ahead of a planned appearance in Topeka. Kobach, who is also a Republican, drew fire from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who posted a tweet linking to a New York Times story on Kansas' plan to purge incomplete voter registrations older than 90 days. She commented: "We should be doing everything we can to get young people more engaged in our democracy, not putting up obstacles." The tweet was the second time Clinton has criticized Kobach in recent months. In August, Clinton called the purge of the incomplete registrations a "targeted attack on voting rights." In both cases, Kobach hit back. Last week, he said every noncitizen vote cancels out a citizen's vote. "The Hillary Clinton campaign is unhappy with the fact that Kansas has the most secure election system in the country," Kobach said.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:34:42+00:00November 4th, 2015|ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

About That Voter-ID Fracas in Alabama: Much Ado About Nothing

By Hans A. von Spakovsky Many on the left are in a ferment over Alabama's closure of some part-time Department of Motor Vehicles offices. It's being done for budgetary reasons, but liberals are claiming it's being done to raise a "barrier for poor and minority voters" in getting an ID to vote, according to the Washington Post. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said that "it's a blast from the Jim Crow past" and Jesse Jackson claimed that "this new Jim Crow isn't subtle." It's really a sign of how desperate critics of voter-ID laws are that they would raise such inflammatory, ridiculous claims over a budget issue that has nothing to do with race, Jim Crow, or discrimination. After all, they've been steadily losing their fight against voter ID in the courts, with only a few exceptions, and in the realm of public opinion. Alabama's new voter-ID law for both in-person and absentee voting went into effect last year. Despite the outcries that it would "suppress" votes, there have been no problems or complaints that anyone has been unable to vote because of the new requirement. It's been the same in all of the other states, such as Georgia and Indiana, that have implemented such ID laws. I've written numerous papers looking at turnout data in states after ID laws became effective -- ID laws have no discernible effect on decreasing or preventing turnout. Alabama has 44 driver's-license offices throughout the state. It apparently also had 31 satellite offices that were open only part-time and that accounted for less than 5 percent of the driver's licenses issued each year. Because of the budget passed by the state legislature, Alabama's state government had to "allocate scarce limited resources in Fiscal Year 2016," according to a letter sent by Governor Robert Bentley to Representative Terri Sewell (D., Ala). So the state government decided to close these satellite offices. Sewell is one of the critics whose "impulsive, ill-informed" comments about that decision were, Governor Bentley says, "based on irresponsible media reports." What all of the media and critics missed or deliberately ignored is that, in addition to being able to use a driver's license to meet the voter-ID requirement, you can get a free voter ID in every single county in the state. In addition to DMV offices, the secretary of state offers free voter IDs in all 67 counties through the local election registrar.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:35:34+00:00October 8th, 2015|Absentee / Mail-in Voting, ACRU Commentary, Voter ID|

How Non-Citizens Can Swing Elections

By Hans von Spakovsky In an article in Politico, Mark Rozell, acting dean of the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University, and Paul Goldman, a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, point out a fact that should greatly concern all Americans: that the presence of millions of noncitizens, both legal and illegal, could tilt the presidential election toward the Democrat Party and decide the election in favor of the eventual Democratic nominee. Voter Fraud Happens As I have outlined in many different articles and a recent book on voter fraud, illegal voting by noncitizens is a growing problem. Most election officials are not taking the steps necessary to detect or stop it, and many prosecutors including the current Justice Department seem reluctant to prosecute it. A study released in 2014 by three professors at Old Dominion and George Mason Universities in Virginia concluded that 6.4 percent of the noncitizen population voted illegally in the 2008 election, enough to have changed the outcome of various contests in a number of states. That includes the winner of North Carolina's electoral votes, which went to Barack Obama by a relatively small margin, since a majority of foreign-born residents favor the Democratic Party. That may also be why Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the governor of a battleground state, vetoed a bill that would have required jury commissioners to provide local election officials with the names of individuals called for jury duty from the state's voter registration list who were excused for not being U.S. citizens. Some States Have Congressional Districts They Shouldn't Have But as Rozel and Goldman accurately point out, noncitizens may be changing the outcome of presidential elections even without voting illegally. This is related to the problem of some states having more representatives in Congress than they should, and others being shortchanged unfairly due to the huge--and growing--population of illegal aliens whom the Obama administration and its political allies want to provide permanent amnesty. All of this stems from the way apportionment is conducted. There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Under Sec. 2 of Article I of the Constitution and Sec. 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, every ten years, after the "Enumeration" (the Census), we redistribute those 435 seats based on the "whole number of persons in each State." In other words, the number of members of the House that each state gets is based on the total population of each state relative to the total population of the U.S., which includes noncitizens. Thus, the upwards of 12 million illegal aliens present in the U.S., combined with other aliens who are here legally but are not citizens and have no right to vote, distort representation in the House.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:02+00:00October 7th, 2015|ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

SUBSCRIBE