If you want to read Hillary’s idea on how elections should be held you will think she has her head screwed backward. Following that article is the voter fraud cases which illustrates how rampant this is in the USA. Then we have posted an ongoing battle in the State of Texas on voter ID.
This is a good example of Mexico’s voting requirements:
Saturday August 15, 2015
Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for president of the United States, seeks to advance a policy of voter registration and voting in national elections that invites fraud.
Hillary in her re-announcement for POTUS this past week espoused the support for federal laws that would trump state election laws and automatically register every citizen to vote and would allow without excuse or permission up to 20 days of early voting, turning Election Day into election month.
National Review recently reported that: “Both would dramatically complicate the job of already-overburdened voter registrars and make it harder to catch potential fraud. In the case of New York v. United States (1992) and other cases, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that it is beyond Congress’s power to do what Hillary wants.”
The National Review went on to state that Hillary’s goal is to turn out the maximum possible number of votes in 2016. The fact is that election-integrity measures being pushed in many states — such as showing photo ID at the polls — are enormously popular. The public wants to ensure voter integrity.
A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 76 percent of likely voters support photo ID, including 58 percent of Democrats. Such measures guard against the disenfranchisement of voters that occurs when someone cancels out their vote through fraud, but Clinton dismisses the very notion of voter fraud despite numerous recent examples and the virtual impossibility of detecting fraud once it has been committed using a secret ballot.
With regard to early voting, the following analogy makes perfect sense. You celebrate your birthday on the day you were born. You celebrate Christmas on December 25 each year. You celebrate July 4 on July 4. And, you should vote on Election Day.
There is no more precious constitutional right than the right to vote and the integrity of that right must be protected and not eroded in the guise of “convenience” or “inclusiveness.” It is hard enough to ensure the integrity of a day of voting with poll watching and challenges.
The job of voter integrity becomes impossible if voting is available for 20 days for all eligible voters. There simply are not enough paid election workers or volunteers available to watch and report on the integrity of each and every polling station in a country as big as ours.
We should not be making voting so “easy” that it not only invites fraud but also takes away a candidate’s ability to end a campaign with finality. You do not walk out with 30 minutes to go to the end of a movie and you do not put down a book with 50 pages to go to its end, and you should not cheat campaigns from ending their campaigns on a day that’s certain.
Voting should require a duty and time commitment by the voter. It means that they need to register and they need to put time aside to vote on Election Day. If voters show just cause that they cannot vote on Election Day then and only then should they be permitted to vote by absentee ballot.
What are Democrats afraid of with the requirement of voter IDs and Election Day voting? Why are they seeking less oversight?
They answer to me is clear. They seek to steal what they cannot win.
I believe that our nation does need national voting standards that do not invite fraud but instead prevents it. Here is what I suggest: In federal elections there should not be 50 different standards; there should be one. If it is good enough for New York, it should be good enough for Florida.
Uniform federal election law should contain the following with regard to voting:
1. Voter ID: A citizen 18 years of age or older shall produce a valid photo ID from an approved federal or state agency to register to vote. Photo ID has become a necessity post 9/11. You need one to enter a federal building, get on an aircraft, obtain government benefits, etc.
2. Registration: An eligible citizen to vote may register at any time but within two weeks of a federal election by appearing in person at an authorized federal or state office and making application.
3. Voting: An eligible voter may appear at their designated polling place from 7a.m.-9p.m. on the day of a federal election.
4. Early Voting: An eligible voter may vote no earlier than two weeks before a federal election at their designated early voting location between the hours of 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
5. Absentee voting: An eligible voter upon the showing of good cause shall be entitled to vote by absentee ballot provided they petition for an absentee ballot in person at the designated place no more than one month and no less than two weeks before a federal election.
6. Voting machines: Voting machines shall be uniform in federal elections.
7. A uniform standard shall be established to ensure one voting machine for X number of registered voters at a polling place.
8. Voting protocols: There shall be uniform federal rules and protocols for voter I.D., registration, voting, poll watching, voting machines, eligibility, timing, locations, tallying, reporting, challenges, recounts, certifications, candidate eligibility, forms etc.
One person — one vote — on one day.
Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of politics and public policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion.
There Are Nearly 300 Cases of Voter Fraud in America!
Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.
Robert Batista is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.
The Heritage Foundation’s list of nearly 300 documented cases of voter fraud in the United States continues to grow.
Recent additions reveal that voter fraud is not just an individual or isolated crime; in some counties and communities, election fraud is almost a way of life.
These additions again reinforce the need for measures such as voter ID laws and procedures designed to verify the accuracy of voter registration information are needed to prevent these crimes in the first place.
Take East Chicago, Ind., for example, a town made infamous by the extensive voter fraud that occurred there in the 2003 Democratic mayoral primary election.
The fraud was so pervasive that the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the results of the primary and ordered a new special election that resulted in a different winner.
A local judge found “direct, competent, and convincing evidence” that supporters of the election’s apparent victor, incumbent Mayor Robert Pastrick, orchestrated an elaborate scheme of absentee ballot fraud.
Pastrick won the primary by garnering more absentee ballot votes than his nearest opponent, George Pabey, who received more in-person votes. Once that result was overturned, a new primary election was held and Pabey prevailed.
State and local officials convened a voter fraud task force to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of this scheme.
The task force secured 46 convictions over a few years.
Many of these would-be election thieves submitted absentee ballots despite not even living in the city of East Chicago.
Joseph Pedraza and Constance D. Simmons-Pedraza, for example, falsely claimed residence in East Chicago so they could vote there in the 2003 Democratic primary.
City employment records revealed that both actually resided in the nearby town of St. John. They pleaded guilty in 2008 to voting in a precinct where they did not live and were each sentenced to a one-year suspended prison sentence.
Larry Battle, who had a prior history of “crimes of dishonesty,” also pleaded guilty to voting outside his precinct for the election.
At his sentencing hearing, Battle’s lawyer, Willie Harris, asked the judge for leniency, pointing out that everybody was voting outside their precincts.
Unpersuaded by the “everybody was doing it” defense, the judge sentenced Battle to two years in prison.
Another defendant, Tamika Lay, echoed Harris’s sentiments, expressing frustration to the judge at her sentencing hearing at being held accountable for her fraudulent vote. “People have been doing it [fraudulent voting] for years, and all of a sudden they want to do something about it,” she lamented.
These comments indicate an extraordinary and unsettling nonchalance toward crimes that undermine the integrity of the democratic electoral process.
Moreover, they suggest that a culture of voter fraud pervades communities like East Chicago across America, to the point that voter fraud is no longer seen as an insidious and illegal activity but rather an accepted way of life.
East Chicago is certainly not the only home of systematic attempts to steal elections; another new addition to Heritage’s ever-growing list of documented voter fraud convictions is a collection of cases from Benton County, Miss., stemming from a 2007 election in which 16 individuals orchestrated an elaborate vote-buying scheme.
In Knott County, Ky., Judge Executive (the chief executive of that county) Donnie Newsome and co-conspirator Willard Smith were convicted on federal charges for organizing a conspiracy to pay several impoverished, handicapped, illiterate, or otherwise impaired persons to vote for Newsome and others by absentee ballot in the 1998 Democratic primary election.
Newsome was sentenced to 26 months in prison. Smith got a 24-month sentence.
Just a few years later, Randy Thompson became the second consecutive Knott County Judge Executive to be sent to federal prison on voter fraud charges.
A jury convicted Thompson and three co-conspirators of a vote-buying scheme that involved use of public funds.
Voter fraud also pervaded Lincoln County, W.V., over the years. Six Lincoln County Democrats pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges relating to a vote-buying conspiracy covering presidential and congressional elections dating back to 1990.
This was hardly the end of voter fraud in Lincoln County. Local public officials pleaded guilty in 2012 to falsifying absentee ballots and stuffing the ballot boxes in an effort to rig the 2010 Democratic primary. A judge overturned the results of one of the primary elections after throwing out 300 fraudulent ballots.
Justice ultimately prevailed in these cases. The fraudsters and thieves were held accountable for their crimes.
It is imperative that we root out these cultures of entrenched voter fraud in communities throughout the country.
It goes without saying that elections should be won by those who win through a fair democratic process, rather than by those with the most unethical supporters. That is why efforts to crack down on voter fraud are critical.
And though it may come as a surprise to the partisans who claim that efforts to maintain electoral integrity are sinister, there is one final lesson from the East Chicago Democratic primary: The perpetrators of voter fraud are not just committed to cheating their ideological opponents.
They’ll take out members of their own party if they have to.
Legislators and officials in states and localities across the country can and must act now.
Our posterity should not have to dream of something called a “fair election.”
Federal Court Strikes Down ‘Discriminatory’ Texas Voter ID Law
August 06, 2015
Demonstrators protest voter ID laws because they feel the only way they can win is to cheat!
A federal court has struck down Texas’ voter identification law due to what the judges call its “discriminatory effect.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled that the Texas law is in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
“We affirm the district court’s finding that SB 14 has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” the judges wrote in their opinion.
The law requires voters to present photo identification such as a driver’s license or U.S. passport before casting a ballot.
Supporters say that voter identification laws protect the integrity of the democratic process by reducing voter fraud.
“In light of ongoing voter fraud, it is imperative that Texas has a voter ID law that prevents cheating at the ballot box,” Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, said in a statement. “Texas will continue to fight for its voter ID requirement to ensure the integrity of elections in the Lone Star State.”
Opponents say voter identification laws discriminate against low-income and minority voters who may not have easy access to the required documents.
“This is a tremendous victory for Texas voters,” Myrna Pérez, the deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center, said in a statement. “More than half a million registered voters do not have the kind of ID required by Texas’s harsh new law. Texas should heed the admonishment of three courts, abandon their discriminatory law, and start working to make sure Texas voters can make their voices heard.”
The plaintiffs in the case included individual voters, civil rights groups and the Department of Justice.
In a 2014 ruling, a federal district court in Texas sided with the plaintiffs about the “discriminatory effect” the law had on minority voters. But that court also said legislators had intentionally adopted a discriminatory law.
The appeals court did not affirm that Texas purposely intended to discriminate.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that he hopes the ruling will be appealed.
“The finding of the three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit that the Texas voter ID law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it supposedly could have a discriminatory effect on minority voters ignores the state’s actual experience with voter ID in state and federal elections in 2013 and 2014,” von Spakovsky said. “Turnout data shows the voter ID law did not suppress turnout – there is no evidence that anyone was prevented from voting. This decision is completely wrong on both the facts and the law – hopefully Texas will appeal and challenge the ruling.”
The 5th Circuit is sending portions of the law back to the Texas district court for reconsideration.
“The district court must carefully scrutinize whether the tactics employed by the Texas Legislature are indeed evidence of purposeful discrimination,” the judges wrote.