Democrats are still trying to steal elections. In North Carolina, the Justice Department has taken the state of North Carolina to court to try to overturn its voter laws that include voter ID and the removal of same day registration. In Texas, the Justice Department has struck down its strict ID voter law. And California has openly permitted illegal aliens to vote. Watch that state turn even bluer.
The Democrat program to become the permanent majority political Party in the United States involves a three pronged approach:
1) Open borders. Allow as many illegal aliens to swarm into the United States as want to come
2) Allow illegal aliens to vote
3) Liberalize state voter laws by intimidation, court action and federal Justice Department rulings.
Let’s take a closer look at these three states, Californian, Texas and North Carolina:
Maroon-Strict photo ID (9 states) Red-Photo ID (non-Strict) (8 states) Brown- Strict non-photo ID required (3 states) Kahki-Non-photo ID required (non strict) (13 states) Gray- No ID required to vote at
The California State Assembly passed a bill last week that, as far as I can tell, will allow illegal aliens to vote in state and national elections. Known as The California New Motor Voter Act, the bill automatically registers everyone who gets a driver’s license to vote. California gives licenses to illegal aliens and there is no language in the bill that says they won’t be registered as well.
Basically AB 1461 works like this: anyone getting a driver’s license or renewing one will have their information sent to the Secretary of State and automatically be registered to vote. The thing is, California gives licenses to illegal aliens, felons, legal immigrants, and all kinds of people that are banned from voting. So right off the bat, this thing registers ineligible people to vote.
It actually gets more messed up if you can believe it. The bill mentions that it will end up registering ineligible people, but there is no mechanism to stop them from being registered or to purge them from voter roles. The bill straight up admits that it will register illegal aliens to vote and that nothing will be done to stop them from being registered voters in California. And just in case you don’t understand how it works; registered voters can and do vote.
The bill also absolves illegal aliens from fraudulently voting, and puts the blame on the state, for which there are no repercussions:
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.
This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.
The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
It’s only voter fraud if it’s not sanctioned by the state, I guess.
Marking this thing all that much more screwed up is why it was passed in the first place. Democrats believe that people who are too lazy to register to vote would inevitably vote for democrats. California is a super-blue state that already votes overwhelmingly for lefty nutjobs. This bill isn’t going to bring any more power to the Democratic Party; they already have it all. This bill isn’t going to change the complexion of a presidential race; California already gives all of its Electoral College votes to the democratic candidate.
The only thing it will do is blow up in liberal’s faces when scads of illegal aliens are caught voting in elections. Democrats love to pretend that voter fraud doesn’t exist and they just created a bill that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it does.
A federal appeals panel ruled Wednesday that a strict voter identification law in Texas discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — a decision that election experts called an important step toward defining the reach of the landmark law.
The case is one of a few across the country that are being closely watched in legal circles after a 2013 Supreme Court decision that blocked the voting act’s most potent enforcement tool, federal oversight of election laws in numerous states, including Texas, with histories of racial discrimination.
While the federal act still bans laws that suppress minority voting, it has been uncertain exactly what kinds of measures cross the legal line since that Supreme Court ruling
The plaintiffs, including individual voters, civil rights groups and the Department of Justice, said it was discriminatory because a far greater share of poor people and minorities do not have these forms of identification and lack easy access to birth certificates or other documents needed to obtain them.
A second case in Texas, involving a challenge to the state’s redistricting, could also set an important legal precedent.
In the Texas ID case, the Fifth Circuit said that Judge Ramos had used improper historical and other evidence to conclude that Texas had intended to discriminate and that the district court should “give further consideration” to the issue.
“This is a narrow but important victory coming on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Voting Rights Act,” wrote Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the editor of Election Law Blog.
The recently concluded federal trial over North Carolina’s election rules proved one thing beyond a reasonable doubt: The Obama administration and its partisan, big-money, racial-interest-group allies will stop at nothing to win elections. And using the courts to change election rules is a key part of their strategy.
That was clearly evident in the federal courtroom in Winston-Salem. The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, challenged a number of election reforms implemented in 2013 that were designed to reduce the cost and complexity of running elections and make it harder to commit voter fraud.
The administration pushed a novel legal argument. In its telling, if a change in election rules might statistically affect blacks more than whites, it constitutes illegal discrimination. For example, if 98 percent of whites have a voter ID but only 97.5 percent of blacks have one, then requiring voters to present ID violates federal law. Never mind the fact that getting an ID is free, easy, and open to everyone without regard to race. And never mind if a policy change is in line with the rules of many other states, or if it’s explicitly sanctioned by federal law. The mere act of changing the law in the wrong direction is discriminatory.
In other words, the Obama administration would turn the Voting Rights Act into a one-way ratchet to help Democrats. The court refused to go along.
None of the reforms had an obvious racial angle. For example, North Carolina required voters to vote in the precinct where they actually live. This commonsense reform—returning to the law the state had prior to 2003—prevents chaos on Election Day, from overcrowded polling places to precincts running out of ballots because election officials can’t predict how many voters will show up. Thirty-one states do not allow voting outside of your precinct. The Justice Department claims that North Carolina broke the law when it returned to this policy.
North Carolina was wrong to end same-day registration, too, according to Justice. North Carolina implemented same-day registration in 2007. Shortly thereafter, a local election in Pembroke, N.C., had to be done over because of voter fraud and unverified ballots. The problem with same-day registration is that people can register and cast a ballot simultaneously—leaving election officials unable to verify the accuracy of a voter’s registration information. So the state changed that. In North Carolina, you now have to register at least 25 days before the election, well within the voting standard set by federal law, which makes 30 days the maximum. Only about a dozen states today have same-day registration.
The state also shaved a few days off early voting to cut down costs, but North Carolina’s new ten-day period falls well within the norm. The number of early-voting days allowed by states varies from just four to 45, with the average being 19. At least 16 states don’t allow early voting at all. Additionally, more than 20 early-voting states do not allow either any weekend voting or Sunday voting, both of which are available in North Carolina. And yet, according the Justice Department, this reform was also illegal.
To no one’s surprise, given the current Justice Department’s partisan history on voting-related issues, North Carolina’s new voter-ID requirement was also challenged, although that law will not be in effect until 2016.
Incredibly, the Justice Department, the NAACP, and the other plaintiffs claimed that all of these changes were “discriminatory” and violated the Voting Rights Act—a law designed to break down racial barriers to the ballot box. Apparently, in 2015 North Carolina, not being able to register when you are 16, having to register 25 days ahead of time, having only ten days before the actual date of an election to vote, and being required to vote on Election Day in the precinct where you actually live are not only racist, but barriers to voting itself. Contrast these “conditions” with the ugly discrimination of the early ’60s.
Times have certainly changed. When the racial interest groups sued North Carolina over its reforms, a swarm of lawyers from gigantic law firms donated their services. The Justice Department devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars and man-hours to attack the law. But no witnesses could be found to say they couldn’t vote because of the changes.
The Justice Department also pumped untold thousands of dollars into a database run by a company called Catalist. This database has been populated with data provided by the Democratic National Committee, unions, and other liberal organizations and is used to help them win elections. Catalist’s infrastructure and database are expensive to maintain, but fear not: the Justice Department, in the North Carolina trial and elsewhere, has provided federal tax dollars to its expert witnesses so that they could purchase Catalist’s proprietary data. Yes, federal dollars were used to fund a database that will be used next year to try to win the 2016 election for Democratic candidates.
For all the resources expended, the Justice Department’s entire case was built on speculative claims. Not able to produce a single eligible voter who was or would be unable to vote, the plaintiffs relied on hypothetical statistical arguments to claim that the turnout of black voters would be “suppressed” because they might use early voting and same-day registration slightly more than white voters, and because black voters are “less sophisticated voters.” DOJ experts actually made the borderline racist argument that “it’s less likely to imagine” that black voters could “figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting.” That’s a shameful way to enforce a law that was used to protect real victims of real discrimination in the Deep South.
In the end, real statistics destroyed the Justice Department’s case. The reforms the plaintiffs claimed would disenfranchise “less sophisticated” black voters didn’t depress turnout at all. Indeed, in comparison with the 2010 primary, the turnout of black voters actually increased a whopping 29.5 percent in the May 2014 primary election, while the turnout of whites increased only 13.7 percent. The same thing happened in the general election. This knocked the stuffing out of the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.
The Justice Department still holds a thoroughly demeaning view of civil-rights law. It is a view that insists that blacks are incapable of performing basic societal functions, and therefore the law must step in any time they are asked to comply with a simple procedural step to participate in the electoral process. This is not only an abuse of the department’s authority; it’s a misuse of the Voting Rights Act. It should not be tolerated.