ACRU Policy Board Member Col. Allen B. West expresses ACRU’s support for Texas lawsuit demanding state legislative authority over election protocols be upheld
“The lawsuit filed by Texas against Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is needed to protect the American electoral process from executive and judicial actions that usurp the constitutional powers of state legislators. ACRU encourages principled leaders across the country to join Texas in the fight against assaults on election integrity and the Constitution.”
Honestly conducted elections, with each American’s vote counting once, is the foundation of a nation whose Constitution begins “We the People…”
The government derives its legitimacy from free and fair elections and is bound by them. Vote fraud cuts at the very heart of American freedom. When an illegal vote is cast and counted, it cancels out the legal vote of a lawful citizen. (Watch the undercover videos).
In recent years, close elections and news of vote fraud have awakened Americans to the importance of protecting the integrity of the ballot box.
This site is a one-stop shop about voting requirements in every state, current state efforts to strengthen ballot integrity and the push-back from the Left.
Get involved — help prevent vote fraud from stealing your most precious civil right!
ACRU is dedicated to protecting seniors from vote fraud. Through our Protect Elderly Votes project, we created “Stranger Danger” to warn seniors and those caring for them to take steps to protect their ballots. If you suspect vote fraud, call ACRU’s Vote Fraud Hotline at 877-730-ACRU (2278). NEVER LET A STRANGER TOUCH YOUR BALLOT!
Listen to our new radio ads to learn more.
ACRU Commentary
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Latest Election News
USPS failures contribute to suppressing votes
The current tally of mail in votes voided by California election officials in its March primary is 102,000+. Most were rejected because they arrived too late for counting. Combine the famous inefficiency of the post office with the potential of dishonest officials keeping ballots in the bottom drawer for a day or two, and what you’ve got is stolen votes.
New York election officials skipped math class
Many important things happen immediately after elections for outgoing, newly incoming, and even incumbent officials. Time wasted counting votes means constituents are ignored and fraud gains an edge. A month after New York’s mail in primaries, winners and losers are still in limbo. New York’s nearly mail-only election is a mess and it’s not going to get better by November.
Dead cats voting: funny, not funny
Former Atlanta feline Cody Tims passed away in 2008 after a lifetime of service to his loving family. This cat apparently was signed on to a mailing list at one point that was then sold to vote activists (yet another mail-only voting problem.) Cody is a purrfect example of why voting lists need constant updating. It is appalling that this cat not only was a registered voter but is still a registered voter after having passed away twelve years ago.
Liberals’ call for mail ballot security identifies its problems
A leftist coalition and leftist former officials are asking the federal government for “security” funds for states advocating for mail-only elections. NO! But their request does identify important points. 1. The left is admitting there’s a problem. 2. What is stopping global bad actors from mailing perfect ballot facsimiles to American addresses? China counterfeits everything else - why not ballots?
Inaccurate voter registration is an incubator for fraud
The difference between absentee voting and mail-only voting is that absentee voting requires a request for a ballot, but mail-only voting means a ballot will be sent to a house where a voter once lived. This article provides a great primer on why this is an invitation for fraud, and also uses Honest Elections Project data to show how widespread voter registration inaccuracies truly are.
PDF Download: Defending Honest Elections in America
