The decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute helps clarify the steps states can take to remove someone from their voter rolls, and it could encourage them to be more aggressive. The case was brought on behalf of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, a labor and civil rights group, and an eligible Ohio voter the state had removed from its voter rolls. The voter had been living at the same address for about 16 years.
In Ohio, officials send anyone who doesn’t vote for two consecutive years a notice in the mail to determine whether they’ve moved. If someone fails to respond to the notice and then doesn’t vote for four consecutive years, the state removes them from its voter rolls.
Ohio had argued that the process was necessary to make sure its voter rolls were accurate and up to date ― but the challengers said it violated a federal law that prohibits states from canceling someone’s voter registration simply because they haven’t voted. Ohio countered that it canceled registrations not only because of a failure to vote, but also because people didn’t respond to the notice.
Writing the opinion for the five-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that a 2002 law, the Help America Vote Act, amended the National Voter Registration Act and clarified what states could do to remove people from the voting rolls. HAVA, Alito wrote, says a state cannot remove someone from the voting rolls only and because of their failure to vote. What Ohio does, Alito wrote, is permissible because people are removed if they fail to vote and fail to respond to the state mailing.
This decision is validation of Ohio’s efforts to clean up the voter rolls and now with the blessing nation’s highest court, it can serve as a model for other states to use.
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)
“HAVA dispelled any doubt that a state removal program may use the failure to vote as a factor (but not the sole factor) in removing names from the list of registered voters,” Alito wrote. “That is exactly what Ohio’s Supplemental Process does. It does not strike any registrant solely by reason of the
failure to vote.”
The challengers in the case also argued Ohio’s process did not amount to a reliable way of figuring out if someone had moved. Alito dismissed that argument, saying the method of choosing how to remove people from the rolls was an estimation for lawmakers, not the courts, to decide.
“Today’s decision is a victory for election integrity, and a defeat for those who use the federal court system to make election law across the country. This decision is validation of Ohio’s efforts to clean up the voter rolls and now with the blessing nation’s highest court, it can serve as a model for other states to use,” Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) said in a statement.
In the dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued the Ohio process was unlawful for two reasons. First, he said, someone’s failure to vote triggered Ohio’s address confirmation mailing and the process for removing them from the rolls. The fact that the entire process was initiated by someone’s failure to vote, he said, showed the state was targeting people only based on the fact they hadn’t voted ― something clearly prohibited by the law.
Second, he said, the NVRA requires states to conduct a “reasonable” effort to remove people from the voter rolls, but Ohio’s process isn’t reasonable. The process, he said, is not an accurate way to identify if someone has really moved.
He noted that in 2010 the state identified 1.5 million voters who had likely moved. Of those 1.5 million, the state got back about 60,000 mailings from people indicating they had moved, but 235,000 people sent back the mailings saying they had not. Breyer wrote there was no reason to think the remaining 1 million people had in fact moved.
The fight does not stop here. If states take today’s decision as a sign that they can be even more reckless and kick eligible voters off the rolls, we will fight back in the courts, the legislatures, and with our community partners across the country.
Stuart Naifeh, senior counsel at Demos
Stuart Naifeh, senior counsel at Demos, which helped represent the challengers along with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group would continue to fight efforts to aggressively remove voters from the rolls.
“The fight does not stop here. If states take today’s decision as a sign that they can be even more reckless and kick eligible voters off the rolls, we will fight back in the courts, the legislatures, and with our community partners across the country,” he said in a statement.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissenting opinion but also wrote her own separate dissent. In her dissent, Sotomayor highlighted the disproportionate effect the Ohio law had on low-income, minority, disabled and veteran voters. She noted that 10 percent of African-American voters in downtown Cincinnati had their voter registrations canceled since 2010 compared with 4 percent of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood. The NVRA, she wrote, was designed precisely to prevent the kind of unfair effect the Ohio process is having. She ended her opinion with a plea for communities affected by the Ohio law and other voting restrictions to exercise their right to vote.
“Communities that are disproportionately affected by unnecessarily harsh registration laws should not tolerate efforts to marginalize their influence in the political process, nor should allies who recognize blatant unfairness stand idly by,” she wrote. “Today’s decision forces these communities and their allies to be even more proactive and vigilant in holding their States accountable and working to dismantle the obstacles they face in exercising the fundamental right
J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a group that has sued to force places to more aggressively purge their voting rolls, praised the court’s decision.
“Today’s ruling empowers local officials and concerned parties to utilize the NVRA to ensure the most accurate and reliable voter rolls possible. The days of trying to hamstring maintenance responsibilities in the absence of federal guidance are over,” he said in a statement.
During January’s oral arguments, Alito, Breyer and Chief Justice John Roberts appeared sympathetic to Ohio’s argument that the state needed the aggressive process to maintain accurate rolls. Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan seemed more skeptical of Ohio’s argument, and Sotomayor expressed concern that poor people and minorities might not vote because of long lines at the polls.
The League of Women Voters noted in a friend-of-the-court brief that only five other states ― Georgia, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia ― use someone’s failure to vote to trigger the process for canceling their voter registration. But all those states, the League noted, give someone longer than two years of not voting before they begin the cancellation process.
Paul Smith, a lawyer for the challengers, argued that the state could rely on information from the post office and other government agencies for a more reliable indicator that someone had moved. He noted that in 2011, 70 percent of people who received the confirmation notices didn’t send them back.
As the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice made the unusual move of switching sides. When the case was at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the Justice Department, under President Barack Obama, filed a brief supporting the challenge. After President Donald Trump took office, the Department of Justice supported Ohio’s process.
This story has been updated with details from the court opinions and reactions to them.
- This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-voter-purge-law-upheld-141250860.html
The majority of likely voters in 2018 midterm swing districts across the United States say immigration to the U.S. has made American life worse, a new poll reveals.
In the latest CBS News/YouGov Poll, which surveyed likely voters in 2018 midterm battleground districts, Americans by a majority say overall immigration to the country is making their life worse off.
About 56 percent of likely voters said immigration is making their area “worse” while only 17 percent say their area has been made “better” because of immigration.
Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import roughly 15 million new foreign-born voters. Between seven and eight million of those foreign-born voters will arrive in the U.S. through chain migration.
A majority of men and women likely voters in the swing district say immigration is hurting American life, rather than improving the quality of their neighborhoods and communities.
Nearly 60 percent of male likely voters and 53 percent of female likely voters in the swing districts say immigration is having a negative impact on life in America.
The poll comes as the Republican establishment and their donors have refused to take up the issue of reducing immigration to the U.S., despite mass legal immigration being vastly unpopular with Americans.
As Breitbart News has reported, illegal immigration has contributed to a booming “anchor baby” population, where the children of illegal aliens are granted U.S. citizenship simply for being born within the parameters of the country.
There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. under the age of 18-years-old, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This estimate does not include the potentially millions of anchor babies who are older than 18-years-old, nor does it include the anchor babies who are living overseas with their deported foreign parents.
The 4.5 million anchor babies estimate exceeds the four million American children born every year. In the next decade, the CBO estimates that there will be at least another 600,000 anchor babies born in the U.S., which would put the anchor baby population on track to exceed annual American births – should the U.S. birth rate not increase – by more than one million anchor babies.
Likewise, mass legal immigration has imported more than 10 million legal immigrants to the U.S. over the last decade, a population that exceeds the number of residents living in New York City, Breitbart News reported.
Mitt Romney announced his candidacy for the United States Senate yesterday. Having covered him closely as a radio talk show host on WRKO in Boston while Mr. Romney was governor of Massachusetts, I know his record inside and out. Mr. Romney claims to be a social and fiscal conservative. But his actual record demonstrates that he is nothing more than Ted Kennedy in a Ronald Reagan costume. Utah voters deserve to know the documented truth about Mr. Romney. Here it is.
Mitt Romney, Fiscal and Social Liberal:
- Illegally & unconstitutionally instituted same-sex “marriage” falsely claiming the Massachusetts Supreme Court “ordered him to.” Proofhere and here
- Signed $50 tax-subsidized abortions into law (2 years AFTER his fake “pro-life conversion.” Proof here
- Boosted funding for homosexual “education” starting in kindergarten. Proofhere
- Opposes a ban on homosexual scoutmasters. Proofhere
- Promised the homosexual Republican “Log Cabin Republicans” he wouldn’t oppose “gay marriage” in return for their endorsement. Proofhere
- Instituted a quasi-socialist healthcare plan endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and Planned Parenthood that destroyed the Massachusetts’ economy. Proofhere and here.
- Increased taxes and fees by close to a billion dollars which destroyed the Massachusetts’ economy and opposed the Bush Tax Cuts. Proofhere
- Voted # 8 RINO by Human Events. Proofhere.
- Passed over Republican lawyers for three quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he faced and nominated 2 open homosexuals. Proofhere
- Criticized Joint Chief’s of Staff, Peter Pace for saying that homosexual acts were “immoral.” Proofhere
- Supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would force churches and other religious organizations to hire homosexuals and transvestites or face criminal fines and prosecution. Proofhere
- Romney supported McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform”, McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e. amnesty), and parts of the McCain-Lieberman “carbon cap and trade” bill and opposed the Bush Tax Cuts. Proofhere
Gregg Jackson is the national best-selling author of Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, We Won’t Get Fooled Again, and 40 Things to Teach Your Children Before You Die. His newest book is 40 Rules to Help Boys Become Men.
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/lQb_bEcM7ao/
President Donald Trump has signed an order to collapse his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The Trump administration had faced opposition or limited cooperation from most states, when the commission controversially requested voter information, such as Social Security numbers and addresses.
In a statement, the White House said,
“Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry. Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.”
After announcing that he was dissolving the committee, Trump tweeted on Thursday morning that the “system is rigged, must go to Voter ID,” adding that it was “mostly Democratic states” that refused to share voter data because “they know that many people are voting illegally.”
Only Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Washington State had complied with all of the commission’s requests. California, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico and South Carolina had all signaled their unwillingness to cooperate.
EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has declared victory in the commission’s demise. The non-profit, which was the first to sue the Trump administration over the issue, noted that it has a pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the US Department of Homeland Security “for records concerning the federal government’s collection of personal data on voters.”
Late last month, a US appeals court gave the Trump voter fraud commission a minor victory, dismissing EPIC’s lawsuit claiming the commission violated federal privacy protection requirements of the 2002 E-Government Act.
In January 2017, one week into Trump’s presidency, Trump tweeted that at least 3 million illegal votes had been cast in the 2016 election, citing an unverified claim by the app VoteStand.
The commission had been expected to release a report in 2019. Its vice chair, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, recently told Fox News that there have been 938 voter fraud convictions since 2000, which he called just the “tip of the iceberg.”
Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/373065-Trump-dissolves-voter-fraud-commission
Alabama’s secretary of state laughed off the assertion by Roy Moore campaign spokeswoman Janet Porter that there is an incredibly high probability there was voter fraud in the state’s special U.S. Senate election this month.
“People are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts,” Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill said on CNN.
Merrill was responding to Porter’s comments in an earlier CNN interview in which she defended the Republican candidate’s 11th-hour attempt to block certification of Moore’s historic loss to Democrat Doug Jones in the traditionally deep-red state.
“Whether you’re a Republican or whether you’re a Democrat; whether you like Roy Moore or whether you like Doug Jones, you ought to care about the fact that the people of Alabama should be making that choice,” Porter said. “The chances that this was not fraud? One in 15 billion.”
Merrill said that his office has investigated each claim of voter fraud submitted by the Moore campaign and found no evidence any fraud occurred.
In one complaint, it was alleged that five busloads of African-Americans had been brought in from Mississippi to vote in Mobile, and that three vanloads of Mexicans had been arrested and incarcerated for doing so. Both allegations were investigated and dismissed, Merrill said. Another claim said that more than 5,000 people had voted in Brodalama, a town with a population of 2,200.
“That would make some sense and cause a lot of consternation — except there is no town or community in Alabama called Bordalama,” Merrill explained. “So that was completely fabricated.”
His remarks came shortly before an Alabama judge denied Moore’s lawsuit to block the state from certifying the results of the Dec. 12 special election, which Jones won by more than 20,000 votes. A four-member panel, including Merrill, certified those results Thursday afternoon. Jones will be sworn in by Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 3.
“As I said on election night, our victory marks a new chapter for our state and the nation,” Jones said in a statement.
The Jones campaign called the Moore campaign’s lawsuit a “desperate attempt by Roy Moore to subvert the will of the people.”
“The election is over,” Jones campaign spokesman Sam Coleman said in a statement. “It’s time to move on.”
Yet Moore again refused to concede the election.
“Election fraud experts across the country have agreed that this was a fraudulent election,” Moore said in a statement after the results were certified. “I have stood for the truth about God and the Constitution for the people of Alabama. I have no regrets. To God be the glory.”
In a wide-ranging complaint filed late Wednesday night, the Moore campaign cited three “election integrity experts” who say voter fraud occurred. One of them, Richard Charnin, argued in a recent book that President Trump won the “true” vote in the 2016 presidential election (Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes) and that “historical statistical evidence is conclusive: every election is fraudulent.” In another, Charnin argues that there is scientific proof of a conspiracy surrounding President John. F. Kennedy’s assassination.
“I don’t vouch for everyone’s opinion on everything,” Porter said when asked about the theories offered in Charnin’s books.
Porter also defended Moore’s inclusion of an affidavit in the lawsuit saying he had passed polygraph test that purportedly disproves the allegations of sexual misconduct by multiple women against him. But when pressed for details about the test or the person who conducted it, Porter struggled to provide any. The affidavit was from Moore, not the unnamed polygraph expert.
“All I know is that it was a renowned independent expert,” Porter said.
Read more from Yahoo News:
The November 3 episode of Netflix’s Chelsea, titled “Gwen We Meet Again,” included a segment on the judicial system and “voter suppression.” Jason Kander, President of Let America Vote, and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bridget McCormack were the guests Chelsea Handler tasked with educating America (and herself).
After Chelsea admits her ignorance (again) about America by saying, “I have a really hard time understanding the judiciary system,” Justice McCormack explains the state and federal court systems. McCormack, it should be noted, is the sister of Handler’s best friend and occasional show guest, the liberal Mary McCormack. Thankfully, she remains professional throughout this segment as she stresses that judges are to be non-partisan in their work. That’s difficult for most of us to believe in practice, but at least she says the words.
Kander, however, pipes up with all the standard liberal talking points. He is happy to agree when Handler says, “Voter fraud doesn’t exist. Trump made it up.” Really? I have supported a group called True the Vote, founded in my city, for many years. This group certainly pre-dates Trump’s political campaign (founded in 2009) and their focus is precisely on voter fraud. You may have heard of the legal battles instigated by the Obama administration’s I.R.S. against the group’s founder, Catherine Engelbrecht. Her battle continues to this day.
Despite the articles written about voter fraud cases, as recently as the past few days, Kander lobs one Democratic talking point after another. “The Republican Party has tried to pretend there’s a difference between the parties, that one party believes voting should be harder. That’s not it. The Republican wants to make it harder for folks to vote if they’re less likely to vote Republican.” He continues, “They go out and tell everybody there’s an epidemic of voter fraud when you’re more likely to be struck by lightning as an American than you are to commit voter impersonation fraud. They do it to undermine faith in democracy so that they can pass laws that make it harder to vote. It’s like the centerpiece of Donald Trump’s reelection strategy.” Well, that’s quite a stretch, isn’t it?
Then, of course, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is brought into the mix. Kander says, “But when you have Jeff Sessions in charge of DOJ and then you have Donald Trump picking the judges, what happens is now you can’t just have a legal argument, you also have to have an argument in the court of public opinion.” He claims Sessions has “the DOJ against voting rights” and “being on the side of making it harder to vote.”
Fortunately, Justice McCormack pushes back on his prattling. She says, “It should not matter who appoints the judges. I want you to be optimistic.” She gives an example of a new justice now her colleague on Michigan’s Supreme Court. The woman is a Trump appointee and she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with a bipartisan vote. “She’ll be excellent,” McCormack says.
The Justice wraps up the discussion aptly, I thought. She says, “I believe that when the founders set up this, you know, lovely system in our federal government, they made that branch different from the others, not subject to partisan elections, for a reason.” She calls it the “non-political” branch of government. Hey, it was nice to have an adult in one of Chelsea Handler’s discussions to counter the juvenile partisanship of most liberals.
Handler often admits her ignorance of basic American history and the various parts of our government. This show is no different. Sadly, I do not have the impression that she ever really learns anything. Maybe I’ll take the Justice’s advice and “remain optimistic.”
On Monday’s MTP Daily, frequent MSNBC guest Zerlina Maxwell made the latest claim of “voter suppression” perpetrated by Republicans as she ludicrously declared that voter ID laws were “making it sort of impossible” for blacks to vote in Wisconsin and Michigan. Her claim was not disputed by substitute host Steve Kornacki or either of the other two panel members.
Near the end of the show at 5:54 p.m. ET, host Kornacki observed that Senate Republicans may have to endure more competitive than expected elections against Democrats if there are strong primary challengers, Maxwell began her response by advising that Democrats “stay focused on building our own base.” She then went after voter ID laws as she continued:
I think we have to ignore what the Republicans are doing and essentially the civil war that’s going on over there and focus on turning out our own voters and making sure that the voter suppression and voter ID laws that were so successful in keeping so many African-American voters home in Wisconsin or, you know, and basically making it sort of impossible for them to vote in states like Wisconsin and Michigan…
After she concluded with her advice about Democrats focusing on turning out their base, no one made an argument about the need for voter ID laws or against the claims that a substantial number of black voters have been prevented from voting, as Kornacki simply wrapped up the segment:
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Yeah, no, it is fascinating. It’s been seven years now — it’ll be eight years in 2018. In 2010, you had that first sort of uprising, these primaries, and we thought it might be dying down there a little bit, but those winds, they seem to be blowing again. Caitlin, Zerlina, John, thank you for joining us. Appreciate the very good discussion here.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Monday, October 23, MTP Daily on MSNBC:
ZERLINA MAXWELL, FORMER CLINTON CAMPAIGN ADVISOR: But I think the only way that we’re able to reap the rewards is if we stay focused on building our own base. I think we have to ignore what the Republicans are doing and essentially the civil war that’s going on over there and focus on turning out our own voters and making sure that the voter suppression and voter ID laws that were so successful in keeping so many African-American voters home in Wisconsin or, you know, and basically making it sort of impossible for them to vote in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, that we’re making sure that those younger millennials and those African-American voters are excited to turn out because the Democratic message is something that they’re excited about, and that they’re able to go cast their ballots.
But until we do that, I think it’s going to be competitive no matter where it is. I think that the civil war is opening up opportunities in places beyond the normal map that Democrats look at, and it’s telling them that you should look to those states that you’ve pretty much written off in past previous generations of Democratic politics, but now, with Trump in the White House, really everything’s on the table.
STEVE KORNACKI: Yeah, no, it is fascinating. It’s been seven years now — it’ll be eight years in 2018. In 2010, you had that first sort of uprising, these primaries, and we thought it might be dying down there a little bit, but those winds, they seem to be blowing again. Caitlin, Zerlina, John, thank you for joining us. Appreciate the very good discussion here.
September 12, 2017
5:51:11 PM Eastern
KRIS KOBACH: Simply looking at some of the numbers, hard statistics about individuals who used an out of state driver’s license to vote on the same day, register and vote on the same day in New Hampshire. This has been an issue the legislature has been grappling with for some time here.
CHUCK TODD: Welcome back. That was Kanas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the vice chair of President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity explaining one of the reasons he took the panel all the way up to New Hampshire today.
First, New Hampshire is a same day voter registration state. It drives some Republicans crazy that college campuses in New Hampshire get to see a surge of new voter registrations on those days. They use out of state IDs. This is what he was trying to highlight. It is not voter fraud. It is certainly a different decision that New Hampshire does that other states don’t. Where is this headed?
MARIA TERESA KUMAR: I mean, the majority of states do allow for folks that are out of state as long as they are paying tuition and they are demonstrating they are living there.
KUMAR: But the fact it has been certified. And what he’s saying. He’s trying to push this narrative that there is voter fraud when the secretary of state is saying there has not been voter fraud. This is legitimate voters. It speaks to a larger narrative. Kris Kobach wants to figure out how to prevent young people and disproportionately people of color, and poor people from participating at the rolls.
TODD: John, it does feel like he’s trying conflate. He knows this was not fraud that was perpetrated in New Hampshire. Yes, you can say students made the difference between Maggie Hasan and Kelly Ayotte. Okay. But it was perfectly legal.
JOHN PODHORETZ: Okay, but look. There are problems with the voter rolls. I’m sorry, I know this is like not something you’re supposed to say. I am myself registered to vote in two different places in New York City. Because I lived in Brooklyn. I now live in Manhattan. I get mailings from both.
TODD: He’s no longer hip. He’s no longer hip. Since you left Brooklyn.
PODHORETZ: Totally unhip, that’s exactly right. But I am not off the rolls in Brooklyn Heights. In theory, I could go right back to my polling place from 2000–
KUMAR: Nobody is arguing –
PODHORETZ: The point I’m trying to make is: In a razor thin election, like let’s say the Wellstone/Franken—the Franken/Coleman election in 2008. That was won by 350 votes. You think out of 11 million votes, there’s not, there are not 350 questionable votes being cast? It is preposterous.
PODHORETZ: It’s preposterous to claim that’s not a plausible theory. The Democrats are now in the position of arguing that there is no voter fraud whatsoever in the United States. 130 million people are voting.
KATY TUR: You have to look at the independent studies down this. You might say there are questionable cases and people don’t argue there are questionable cases. But there have been so few cases that have been questionable that have proven to have resulted in fraud. I mean, there’s a Loyola City that said out of a billion votes cast, it could find 30 questionable cases. The Brennan Center.
PODHORETZ: The Brendan center is not independent. Come on that liberal Democratic institution.
PODHORETZ: It is beyond logic to say that in a country in which 130 million votes are cast, that there is not voter fraud. We know as a matter of statistics that one percent of votes are either spoiled or false or wrongly cast or potentially fraudulent. It may be to clean these rolls and go after voter fraud the way they’re going at it is draconian and intended to benefit one side and on side only, that doesn’t mean this is not an issue.