Gay Patriot Header Image

Illinois Democrats Pass Law to Expand Vote Fraud

The Illinois Legislature — more of a Politburo in that one-party Democrat state – passed a law this week aimed at making vote fraud even easier. Some of the pro-fraud attributes in the bill include:

  • Same day voting registration — To ensure that voting officials have absolutely no chance of determining if a voter is eligible before letting him cast a ballot.
  • Expanded early voting — So the Democrat base can vote even earlier and oftener.
  • Making it easy for college students to vote both at home and at their college residence.
  • Abolishing the Photo ID requirement for early voting.

I know I said Illinois is a one-party state, but it’s more like a state in which the Democrat Fraud Machine in a single city is so effective, it effectively denies the rest of the state any political voice at all

Living in Maryland as I do (temporarily, perhaps), I know exactly how that feels.

Not suppressing the vote in Texas

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:11 am - November 18, 2013.
Filed under: Voter Fraud, Voter Suppression, Voter ID

Via HotAir, a look from Bryan Preston at Texas voter ID laws in action:

For weeks leading up to the 2013 off-year elections, prominent Texas Democrats directly blamed the state’s new voter ID law for problems in registration…

Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable election…

According to the Texas secretary of state’s office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed…Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments.

…nine amendments went up for vote in 2013…The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.

So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections.

…Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.

Of course that doesn’t settle the argument; both from the standpoint that it takes a good deal more facts to prove anything conclusively, and from the standpoint that the Left won’t care about the facts. But, as Preston concludes:

If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov.

Clinton goofs, endorses voter ID checks

He said:

a great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon

Generally, you must show ID to buy an assault weapon. And submit to a background check, perhaps a waiting period, etc.

So, if we, as a great democracy, keep it (say) only one-third as hard to vote as to buy an assault weapon, then we will at least have universal voter ID checks. Right?

Bonus: A Harvard study is said to have concluded that gun bans don’t reduce the murder rate.

Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high…

…several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates.

I don’t have time here to read the study, so I don’t vouch for the above summary. If you read the study and find it said something different, please inform us in the comments.

UPDATE: Here is the study.

One person, one vote

A democratic republic is not honest or fair unless it upholds the principle of “one person, one vote”. All Americans should want to uphold that principle, strictly.

But not all do. Both historically and today, some may benefit from the principle’s two enemies: discrimination and fraud. How do we best combat both discrimination and fraud, in our voting processes?

The Supreme Court has just struck down part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Superficially it sounds like some people could have just lost their voting rights or something, and Yahoo!’s coverage starts out in a mournful tone. But let’s consider the substance, on both sides.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorized by Congress for an additional 25 years in 2006, gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair…[because] many of these states now have near-equal voter turnout rates between minorities and whites.

“The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

The Justice Department used Section 5 of the law to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina last year…

The court has effectively now put the ball back in Congress’ court, writing in its decision that it is up to Congress to write a new formula that is based on current data. States or counties that fit the new formula could still be subject to federal “preclearance” of changes to their elections procedures…

The story there seems to be: In the 60s, they were justly worried about discrimination and passed a law giving the federal government a great deal of power over some States. Today, fifty years later, much (if not most) of the discrimination problem has receded, the States are worried about fraud, and have begun to pass voter ID laws to combat fraud. The Obama administration has used the 1965 law aggressively to block those fraud-fighting efforts. And Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a SCOTUS majority, has just said to knock it off; do a fresh study of the real problem.

For completeness, let’s look at Justice Ginsburg’s objections. The Yahoo! article continues:

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes the “sad irony” of Roberts’ decision is that it strikes down the key part of the Voting Rights Act because it has been so successful at preventing racial discrimination. “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” she writes. Ginsburg also slams the court’s majority for relying on turnout and registration rates “as if that were the whole story” and ignoring so-called second-generation laws and regulations designed to make it harder for minorities to vote…

But Roberts didn’t throw out preclearance; he only said, re-validate its basis to make sure it’s fair, before you use it again. Ginsburg’s imagery, of throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm, is vivid but possibly misplaced. She assumes that we live in a racial “rainstorm” whose intensity is virtually unchanged from the 1950s/60s. But if that were so, we would not have an African-American President.

On the above information, I’m with Roberts: while problems of discrimination may remain, and any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress should indeed take a fresh look at the real problem. Congress should not make a lazy assumption that this is still the 1950s or 60s, nor that efforts to fight the problem of voter fraud must automatically be illegitimate.

CO State Senator Owen Hill: American Badass

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:43 pm - May 3, 2013.
Filed under: Voter Fraud, Voter Suppression, Voter ID

“It’s horseshit!”

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Republicans Caught In Astounding Voter Fraud Scheme

Ooops!  Got that wrong.  My bad.

The son of a prominent Virginia congressman agreed to help an undercover reporter forge documents in what he thought was an illegal voting effort aimed at re-electing the president, a just-published video reveals.

After raising legal and practical concerns, Patrick Moran, son of Virginia Democrat James Moran, encouraged the reporter to create phony utility bills that would allow others to cast multiple votes in the November 6 election.

Supporters of stronger voter ID laws seized on the video as evidence of widespread corruption among liberal get-out-the-vote organizations.

“What he’s doing is soliciting fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent ballots, and that’s a federal crime,” said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. “Even attempting to do that is federal crime — you don’t have to go through with it. Attempting it is a crime.”

This tweet from Ben Domenech pretty much puts the cherry on top. And you may watch the glorious video as well.

 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan whom Congressman Jim Moran once called “jerky”): O’Keefe Video Spurs Son to Resign from Moran’s Campaign