Trying To Keep Our Elections Secure

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about Ohio’s Proof-Of-Citizenship Law.

The article reports:

A pair of election integrity groups are asking a federal appellate court to uphold Ohio’s law requiring proof-of-citizenship to vote, The Federalist has learned.

“Ohio is right to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote,” Honest Elections Project (HEP) Executive Director Jason Snead told The Federalist. “This case is yet another baseless attempt by left-wing activist litigants to create chaos in elections and to fight any reasonable steps states make to ensure that only citizens are registered to vote.”

Citizenship is a requirement to vote in federal elections. Some jurisdictions have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections, but that is strictly a local matter. If you have to be a citizen to vote, why is having to prove you are a citizen even up for discussion?

The article notes:

Filed by HEP and the Center for Election Confidence (CEC) on Wednesday, the amicus brief obtained by The Federalist urges the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a temporary ruling by Ohio-based Senior District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. The Clinton appointee issued a preliminary injunction last month halting enforcement of a state requirement that individuals provide documentary proof-of-citizenship when registering to vote.

As described by Courthouse News, Oliver argued that the contested provision is “preempted by the National Voter Registration Act and increases the likelihood that U.S. citizens fail to register for elections.” The preliminary injunction “suspends the requirement for documentation ahead of the Oct. 5 registration deadline for the midterm election.”

How difficult is it to prove you are a citizen? A birth certificate, a social security card, a passport are accepted as proof of citizenship. A married woman may include her marriage certificate to show a name change. It’s really not that hard.

The article concludes:

HEP and CEC further contended that Ohio is likely to succeed on the merits of the case because the U.S. Constitution’s qualifications, electors, and elections clauses “give States exclusive authority to set and enforce voter qualifications in federal elections.” They argued that Ohio’s law complies with that authority and that “Congress lacks power to preempt it.”

“CEC is honored to support Ohio’s common-sense protection for the integrity of its elections,” CEC Executive Director Lisa Dixon told The Federalist. “Like millions of other Ohioans, the voters challenging the law offered proof of citizenship and registered to vote successfully, so this lawsuit should end now.”

At least 12 states have enacted laws requiring proof-of-citizenship in order to vote in elections, according to Ballotpedia.

The ‘Elephant’ In The Room

On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article about the question that was not asked during the Republican debate on Wednesday night.

The article reports:

The first Republican presidential primary debate hosted by Fox News on Wednesday featured no questions on election integrity, despite polls showing the issue is important to conservatives.

“Not one question about election Integrity tonight,” former Arizona governor candidate Kari Lake posted on X. “If we can’t talk about our broken elections, how are we ever going to be able to fix them?”

Could that possibly be that no one wants to fix them?

The article notes:

A recent poll conducted by the Honest Elections Project (HEP) from July 13-16 showed that the vast majority of U.S. voters support election integrity initiatives such as voter ID requirements and limiting mail-in voting, according to a report last month by the Federalist.

The poll found some 88 percent back voter-ID rules — including black (82 percent) and Hispanic voters (83 percent), according to the report. It also found three-fourths of voters think in-person voting is better than mailed-in ballots, and “overwhelming opposition” to noncitizens and minors voting in U.S. elections.

The article concludes:

Former U.S. Senate candidate for Pennsylvania Sean Parnell posted on X, “For the most part, this debate was not in anyway representative of where the base of the Republican Party is. Most of these candidates miss the moment. It’s not difficult to see why Trump is by far & away the front runner.”

None of the candidates on the state last night have any idea what Americans are thinking. This is illustrated by where their campaign money comes from. It is interesting that (according to The Daily Caller on August 3rd):

Over 80% of Trump’s campaign fundraising has been financed by small donors, contributing less than $200, which political experts say underscores his large advantage over DeSantis, who is reliant on wealthy donors.

According to The Tampa Bay Times on August 22nd:

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy

Campaign’s cash on hand: $9 million

Cash on hand at super PAC supporting the candidate: $225,000

Portion of individual contributions that came from small-dollar donors: 52%

Notable facts: Ramaswamy personally loaned his campaign more than $15 million, providing by far the largest chunk of his campaign’s cash. His small-dollar donor percentage is high in part because the total sum of donations from individuals is only about $3 million. Still, the roughly $1.6 million his campaign has received from those small-dollar donors is comparable or higher than some other, more established political veterans.

Who is backing the majority of the Republican candidates? That is something that voters need to investigate before they vote?