Illegal Immigration Impacts All Communities

Yesterday The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina) posted an article about a recent City Council meeting in that city. The article illustrates how illegal immigration impacts the daily life of a city.

The article cites a few items from the City Council meeting:

The contentious national immigration debate pushed its way into Charlotte politics Monday night, as City Council voted to loosen the requirements for advisory boards and committees and allow people who aren’t registered voters to serve.

That would also potentially open up the 35 boards and commissions — which advise City Council on everything from zoning to transit to public art — to undocumented immigrants, as board members who opposed the change pointed out.

It was the second time in one meeting that immigration policy came up, as City Council members also debated whether the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department should be conducting DWI checkpoints in immigrant communities at a time of stepped-up ICE enforcement raids.

The article notes the vote on the idea of loosening the requirements for advisory boards:

City Council approved the change to the requirements for boards and commissions in an 8-2 vote, with Republicans Ed Driggs and Tariq Bokhari voting no.

The article notes that on the public safety issue of DWI checkpoints, common sense won the day:

City Council also voted unanimously to accept a grant allowing CMPD to continue DWI checkpoints, after a police official assured members that the checkpoints are planned based on traffic safety data and not in coordination with ICE.

Drunk driving is not an immigration issue–it is a public safety issue. As far as allowing illegal immigrants on advisory boards, do these people have a knowledge of the laws of America? Are they familiar with the U.S. Constitution? Do they sincerely have a stake in the welfare of the community?

 

A Step In The Right Direction

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article this morning about California and voting.

The article reports:

California and Los Angeles County have agreed to purge as many as 1.5 million inactive voter registrations across the state as part of a court settlement finalized this week with Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog.

Judicial Watch sued the county and state voter-registration agencies, arguing that the California government was not complying with a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations that remain after two general elections, or two to four years.

In August 2017, Judicial Watch reported:

Judicial Watch announced it sent a notice-of-violation letter to the state of California and 11 of its counties threatening to sue in federal court if it does not clean its voter registration lists as mandated by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Both the NVRA and the federal Help America Vote Act require states to take reasonable steps to maintain accurate voting rolls. The August 1 letter was sent on behalf of several Judicial Watch California supporters and the Election Integrity Project California, Inc.

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

Under Section 8 of the NVRA, states are required to make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from official lists due to “the death of the registrant” or “a change in the residence of the registrant,” and requires states to ensure noncitizens are not registered to vote.

There is “strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA,” Judicial Watch wrote in the notice letter sent to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Because the states refused to supply information to the President’s Commission to study election fraud, private groups like Judicial Watch have to to the work themselves. It is good to see that the work of protecting the votes of American voters who are legal voters is proceeding.

Why We Need Voter Identification At The Polls

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about the voting rolls in the 12th District of Ohio. It seems that in that district there are 170 registered voters over the age of 116. It is quite possible that some of those registered have the wrong birth year listed as a result of clerical errors or computer errors, but for the sake of argument, let’s just say half of those voters have the right birth year. That is 85 voters that are not likely currently living. Troy Balderson’s current lead in that election is 1700 votes.

The article reports:

Soros pledged $5 million to fund Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias’s efforts to fight voter ID laws in Ohio and two other states ahead of the 2016 election. Elias would file that suit in Ohio on behalf of several groups, including the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, that would have an employee sentenced to prison for voter fraud.

In 2016, liberal activist groups Demos and the ACLU filed suit against the state of Ohio in an attempt to stop its efforts to remove inaccurate voter registrations from its rolls. Soros gave 1.25 million to Demos in 2016, on top of the more than $3 million he had given in previous years. And Soros has been even more generous with the ACLU, giving over $35 million for Trump related lawsuits.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ohio’s efforts in a 5-4 decision earlier this year.

The article concludes:

Consider that 170 registered voters listed as being over 116 years old still existed on the rolls of Ohio’s 12th Congressional when GAI accessed the data last August. That’s 10 percent of Balderson’s current margin of victory, pending provisional ballots. And 72 voters over the age of 116 who “live” in Balderson’s district cast ballots in the 2016 election.

But the Left hasn’t given up trying to create conditions favorable for voter fraud in Ohio. As former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has pointed out, “hyper-partisan liberals…have their eyes on Ohio.” Electing a Democrat as the state’s top elections official would undoubtedly roll back the hard-won safeguards Ohio has implemented. And as Blackwell points out, as goes Ohio, so goes the Presidency.

An illegal vote cancels the vote of a legal voter. We need to clean up the voter rolls in all states. I seriously doubt that 72 voters over the age of 116 voted. If they did, I want to know what their lifestyle is because evidently they are on to something!

When Judges Don’t Read The Law

According to the Legal Information Institute, 18 U.S. Code § 611 – Voting by aliens states:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—

(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;

(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and

(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.

(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if—

(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);

(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and

(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

That is the law. Judges are supposed to uphold the law. However, that does not always seem to be the case.

Last Monday The New York Times posted an article about a ruling by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson.

The article reports:

A federal judge ruled Monday that Kansas cannot require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, finding such laws violate the constitutional right to vote in a ruling with national implications.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson is the latest setback for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has championed such laws and led President Donald Trump’s now-defunct voter fraud commission. The 118-page decision came in two consolidated cases challenging a Kansas voter registration law requiring people to provide documents such as a birth certificate, U.S. passport or naturalization papers.

The decision strikes down the Kansas proof-of-citizenship registration law and makes permanent an earlier injunction that had temporarily blocked it.

The article explains the history of non-citizens attempting to register to vote in Kansas:

But the decision drew criticism from Steve Watkins, the Republican candidate for Kansas’ 2nd Congressional District, who called it “the latest example of unelected judges replacing their wisdom for that of voters.”

“There is nothing controversial about requiring United States citizens to show identification when they register to vote; it protects American citizen’s right to free and fair elections. Instead of mocking or playing politics with the integrity of our electoral process — the judiciary should be protecting it,” Watkins said.

Kansas has about 1.8 million registered voters. Kobach has told the court he has been able to document a total of 127 noncitizens who at least tried to register to vote. Forty-three of them were successful in registering, he says, and 11 have voted since 2000. Five of those people registered at motor vehicle offices, according to Kobach.

In the first three years after the Kansas law went into effect in 2013, about one in seven voter registration applications in Kansas were blocked for lack of proof of citizenship — with nearly half of them under the age of 30, according to court documents. Between 2013 and 2016, more than 35,000 Kansas residents were unable to register to vote.

I have a question. If the law says non-citizens cannot vote in national elections, doesn’t it make sense to ask people who are registering to vote to prove they are citizens? This is another really bad example of a judge making a ruling that goes against established law. When this occurs, judges who do this need to be impeached and removed from the bench.

When The Numbers Don’t Add Up And The Politicians Don’t Care

Today’s Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, vetoing a bill that would require investigations of jurisdictions in the state whose voter rolls contain more registered voters than citizens who are eligible to vote. Now I don’t claim to be a genius at math, but it seems to me that a jurisdiction that has more registered voters than citizens who are eligible to vote might have a problem with its voter rolls.

The article reports:

The bill, first introduced by Republican state Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, was prompted by a report that shed light on eight Virginia counties that had more registered voters on their voter rolls than eligible voters.

Obenshain’s bill would require “the local electoral boards to direct the general registrars to investigate the list of persons voting at an election whenever the number of persons voting at any election in a county or city exceeds the number of persons registered to vote in that county or city,” according to its summary. “The Department of Elections is required to provide certain data to any general registrar conducting such an investigation for the registrar’s use during the investigation. The local electoral boards are required to make reports of the findings to the State Board. These reports are public documents.”

Why would any elected official of either party be okay with more registered voters in a jurisdiction than there are citizens eligible to vote? I would hope that all elected officials would support the idea of honest elections.

Governor McAuliffe made the following statement when he vetoed the bill:

“By requiring 133 individual general registrars to conduct an investigation of voters under undefined standards, this bill raises serious constitutional questions,” McAuliffe said in a statement. “It could expose eligible and properly registered Virginians to the risk of improper disenfranchisement.”

“Further, Senate Bill 1105 would increase the administrative burden on local election officials. Rather than imposing unnecessary investigative requirements on those officials, we should focus attention and resources on the Commonwealth’s proven and efficient methods of list maintenance, which serve as a national model.”

At some point we need to remind people that any illegal vote disenfranchises the vote of a legal voter. Keeping honest voting rolls is not an unnecessary investigative requirement–it is the job of the election officials.

The article reminds us of some discoveries during the last election:

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), an Indiana-based group that litigates to protect election integrity, released the report last year that sparked Obenshain’s bill.

PILF’s report found 1,046 aliens who were illegally registered to vote in a small sample of eight Virginia counties that responded to its public records requests.

Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the group, said it is reasonable to ask questions about voter rolls with more voters than citizens.

“It is entirely reasonable to ask questions when a voting jurisdiction has more registered voters than citizens,” Churchwell told the Washington Free Beacon. “The Justice Department for the past eight years refused to perform similar studies using powers it was already vested with. Virginia lawmakers and private parties like PILF were forced to pick up the slack. It’s astonishing to see a sitting governor calculate political blowback when voter roll integrity is at stake.”

“As PILF previously reported, these eight problematic jurisdictions had more than 1,000 alien voters removed from the rolls in years past with roughly 20 percent casting ballots before being caught.”

“There’s smoke, fire, and damage right in front of Governor McAullife’s eyes. When will he stop playing politics with Virginians’ voting rights?”

Honest elections are the backbone of our representative republic. We need to make sure our elections follow the basic rules of common sense. The number of registered voters in an area should not exceed the number of eligible voters. If it does, something is wrong.