Twisting The Concept Of Voting Rights

I would like to go on the record to say that my definition of voting rights is that every American who is legally entitled to vote would be able to cast their vote without government interference and that every person in America who is not legally entitled to vote would be prevented from voting. Every illegal vote cast cancels out a legal vote. Most Americans want their votes to count. Unfortunately there are those in power in America who do not share my definition.

On Friday, The Hill posted an article about the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act which is currently proposed in Congress (it seems that HR1 is not receiving the support needed to pass it).

The article reports:

Beware the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — a backdoor way of implementing some of the worst provisions of H.R. 1 and stopping commonsense election reforms like voter ID.  

This legislation summons the ghost of Eric Holder, the former attorney general who abused federal power under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to badger states such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida and North Carolina over election integrity laws. 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a permanent, nationwide provision that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. Section 5 was a temporary measure that required the worst states — places like Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi — to get pre-approval (or preclearance) of any changes in their voting laws from the U.S. Justice Department. The conditions prevailing there in 1965 justified this impingement on state sovereignty, but those conditions no longer exist.  Eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out Section 5, ruling in Shelby County v. Holder that 40-year old data did not justify continued federal oversight.  

The newly introduced act would resurrect the Section 5 preclearance process and give control over state elections to leftwing lawyers in the Biden Justice Department. Lawyers in the voting section of the civil rights division — where both of us once worked — would have the power to approve or reject the smallest change in state election procedures, from polling locations to redistricting to voter ID laws. 

We witnessed this power being abused while we were at Justice. But, the Holder Justice Department took abuse of preclearance power to a whole new level, blocking states from implementing citizenship verification and voter ID requirements. 

Please follow the link to the article to see exactly how this power would be used.

The article concludes:

In the entire history of the Justice Department, it has never interfered with, nor investigated, a single election audit. That’s because it has no legal authority to do so. Karlan (Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pam Karlan) even made the claim that auditors can somehow retroactively “intimidate” voters whose ballots were already cast.  

The DOJ’s actions in the Arizona case exemplify the dangers to come under any Voting Rights Advancement Act scenario that would give partisan political appointees in the civil rights division the power to veto any state election law or rule they don’t like — without having to go to court to prove that it is actually discriminatory.   

Leftist voting groups may be willing to trade H.R. 1 in the short run for the Voting Rights Advancement Act today. Doing so would return the center of gravity back to D.C. on voting process issues and remove power further from the people, which is exactly what they want.  

Unfortunately under the Biden administration, our elections and our freedoms are at risk.

Unintended Or Intended Consequences?

On Friday, Christian Adams posted an article at PJ Media about the proposed change to the census questions. The proposal is to add a question to the U.S. Census asking the person filling out the census about their citizenship status.

An article posted at The Washington Examiner on March 28 details some of the history of the question.

The article reports:

When the census switched to sending out two different census forms, the short form and the long form, the long form (which went to one out of every six households) contained a citizenship question as demonstrated by the 2000 form.

The long form was discontinued after the 2000 census and replaced with the American Community Survey. The U.S. Census Bureau sends out the ACS “on a rotating basis through the decade,” but it goes to only one in 38 households, according to the Census Bureau, which uses it to provide only “estimates of demographic” characteristics. It contains a citizenship question — which neither Holder nor Becerra has ever complained about. Holder certainly did not act to stop its use when he was the attorney general. But using the very limited ACS data is problematical because it is “extrapolated based on sample surveys,” according to Kelley.

The Commerce Department consulted with so-called “stakeholders” who opposed adding the citizenship question before it made its decision. As Kelly pointed out, however, many of the opponents did not know “that the question had been asked in some form or another for nearly 200 years.” They were also apparently not aware of the accuracy problems with the very limited ACS survey.

So what is the impact of asking the question? PJ Media notes:

In many urban areas, blacks compete with Hispanics for local office, particularly in Democratic Party primaries. Miami, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, and Chicago are places where local Democratic Party politics have deep African-American and Hispanic constituencies. In November, they are rock-solid Democrat voters to defeat Republicans. But in primaries, they often compete.

More importantly, the two groups also compete in line-drawing exercises, where districts are created for school board, county council, statehouse, and Congress. Racial line-drawing — an exercise compelled by the Voting Rights Act whether you like it or not — is reality. Racial line-drawing relies on census data, and each district must have essentially equal population under existing law.

This line drawing counts non-citizen Hispanics to generate Hispanic-majority districts with the minimum total population (citizen and non-citizen combined). But blacks have to ride in the back of the redistricting bus, because they are almost all citizens.

So in essence, the citizenship question on the census restores representation to the black community in places where there are large numbers of non-citizens. That alone is a really good reason to return the question to the census.

Expect To See More Cases Like This Before November

Voter fraud is a problem in America. As more states are becoming aware of voter fraud, they are beginning to take action against it–requiring voter identification or keeping a better watch on voter registration rolls.

The Blaze posted a story today about some recent action taken in Philadelphia:

The Indiana-based Public Interest Legal Foundation announced that it is suing the city of Philadelphia in federal court Monday for its failure to respond to information requests regarding possible non-citizen voters.

PILF filed the lawsuit Monday against the Philadelphia City Commissioners on behalf of the Virginia-based American Civil Rights Union election integrity group, according to the Washington Free Beacon. ACRU and PILF sought answers to their inquiries about Philadelphia’s surprisingly high number of registered voters in comparison with the number of citizens actually eligible to vote during elections. But when the city’s commissioners did not respond to the inquiries, PILF filed the lawsuit against them.

The article explains that the lawsuit states that because the county involved has more registered voters than eligible citizens living in the county. it is possible that they are mot properly monitoring their voter registration lists.

The article concludes:

But the city of Philadelphia did not respond to PILF’s requests for updated registration data, the number of voters ineligible for various reasons, the source agencies that provided this information, the records indicating citizenship or immigration statuses, and more, the Free Beacon noted.

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud. Failure to clean the rolls aggravates longstanding problems of voter fraud in Philadelphia,” said J. Christian Adams, PILF’s president and general counsel, according to its website. “Philadelphia may not be using all the available tools to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Concealing list maintenance records from the public isn’t good government, and it violates Federal election law.”

It is much easier to commit voter fraud in a large city than a small town. Generally in a small town people know each other; in a large city, a poll worker might not know that someone had recently died and was not voting. In a national election, this is particularly relevant because one or two large cities in a state can determine who gets the electoral college votes of that state. Voter registration lists need to be purged on a regular basis to keep our elections honest.

Sometimes You Just Have To Wonder

North Carolina recently passed some voting laws designed to prevent voter fraud. Despite what you have heard, voter fraud is a problem in America.

As I reported in 2011:

“Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

That is just one example. I actually think 24,000 voters in one city could make a difference in the election results. That is why I believe in voter identification.

There seem to be a number of people in North Carolina protesting the new voter identification laws. Protest is their right, but one has to wonder why they would not want to be sure that only voters legally entitled to vote do so.

Yesterday ABC News (Channel 11) posted a story about the protest. It seems that many of the protesters were not from North Carolina. One man interviewed was from Boston. These are paid protesters!

The is the video posted on YouTube:

The article reports:

However, the movement’s de facto leader, NAACP head Rev. William Barber says the GOP video shows no such thing. He points out that the NAACP invited anyone who wanted to support the cause to go to Winston-Salem for that voting rights rally and says he’s not at all surprised people in other states took them up on it.

As for the GOP’s broader charge that out-of-state unions are both footing the bill and providing the foot soldiers for Moral Mondays, Barber told us he “won’t dignify the accusation.” His only comment: “I’m going to pray for them and their shameful attempt to change the subject away from voter suppression. Our fight is in the courts and with the legislature.”

The protester in the video just admitted that the unions were paying the protesters. I guess the Reverend may have missed that. As far as voter suppression goes, anytime a person who is not legally entitled to vote casts a ballot in an election, he suppresses the vote of someone who is legally entitled to vote. The voter identification law will end the current voter suppression–it will not create voter suppression.

I Had To Go To Pravda To Get This Story

I am not kidding. I found the link to this information at Pravda (Russian for ‘truth”). I wonder why they are posting the story, considering that President Obama is their friend, but on the other hand, the current Russian government is not known for its pro-American feelings. How would the Russians feel about President Joe Biden? That is just a scary thought.

Anyway, the Tea Party Tribune (who knew they had a publication?) posted a memo by nine state Attorneys General listing the ways the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.

This is the list of violations:

  • FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet
  • PPACA: Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • EPA 1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years
  • NLRB: Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80 percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities
  • EPA: Florida Water; EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria pre-empted Florida standards; U.S. District Judge upheld the state’s site-specific alternative criteria for streams and rivers
  • EPA: Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas
  • EPA: Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan; Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • HHS: Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty and oppose the HHS mandate
  • DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOJ: Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number
  • DOJ: Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law
  • DOJ: South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court issues an Opinion in AZ
  • Congressional: “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)
  • EEOC: Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church
  • DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain
    1. DOI: Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to become another Las Vegas against its will.  Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build a resort and casino.

My question is simple, “Where is the media on this?” Why did I have to go to Pravda to find the link? The current administration needs to be reminded legally in a big way what the U.S. Constitution says about the government’s power in America. If the media won’t do that, the people need to do it in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Additional Support For Voter Identification

Our political views on certain issues are somewhat affected by the area of the country and the particular place we live. I live in Massachusetts. Contrary to what some of our state officials say, there is a problem with voter fraud in this state, as well as in every other state of the union.

It seems natural to me that voters would be required to show some sort of identification when they vote. You need to show identification to buy cigarettes, alcohol, rent a video, board a plane, and apply for welfare or unemployment benefits. If making people show identification would be a hardship for people who are poor, how do they collect their food stamps (which they are entitled to if they are poor)? When I asked my sister about this (she lives in Tennessee), she explained that in the past, excessive requirements had been put on black voters in the south, and many southerners were afraid that voter identification laws would be used to discriminate against minority voters. I understand, but I still think we need some sort of voter identification.

On Saturday, the Washington Examiner reported that Hispanic voters in Colorado, New Mexico and Florida all support laws requiring voters to show identification. During the last Presidential election, voter registration fraud was rampant. When an organization called True The Vote looked into voter registration in Houston, they found that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations submitted by a group known as Houston Votes were valid. (see rightwinggranny.com March 24, 2011). Maybe I am naive, but it seems to me that anyone who loves their country would want fair elections. So why do we have stories in the Washington Examiner that explain:

Also in June, a group of Democratic senators, including Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, asked the Justice Department to investigate state photo ID laws.  “These measures have the potential to block millions of eligible American voters,” the Democratic lawmakers wrote.  The senators asked the Justice Department to use its authority under the Voting Rights Act to “closely monitor the legislative process” in states that have passed or are considering passing photo ID laws and to “track any unlawful intent” of proponents of the laws.  The laws “must be subjected to the highest scrutiny as states justify these new barriers to participation,” the senators wrote.  Testifying at a Senate hearing on September 13, Justice Department Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez said the Department has begun those investigations and is scrutinizing not just the laws themselves but the motives of those who passed them to discover whether “there is a discriminatory purpose that underlies any action in any state.”

The good news here is that the public supports voter identification. At some point we can hope that our representatives will vote according to the desires of the people they represent.

Enhanced by Zemanta