Unlawful efforts by Democrats to bring illegal aliens to the polls have expanded, particularly in Texas and California. The problem is not new.
The Obama Administration engaged in consistent and significant efforts to prevent the detection and prosecution of illegal alien voting. Leftist politicians are keenly aware that new arrivals to the U.S., especially those that come illegally, vote Democrat.
Indeed, not only did the Obama White House fail in its duty to prevent violations of the law, it actually encouraged this activity by moving with great force to foster the conditions that allow voter fraud to occur. J. Christian Adams, an attorney in the voting rights section of the Department of Justice, has written that the Obama Administration killed any moves to address voter fraud, and specifically hired attorneys “whose main career experience was in subverting voting laws…” Harassing state officials who sought to insure accurate balloting by imposing identification requirements, and cleaning up voter rolls, became an obsession of the Obama’s Justice Department
Hans Von Spakovsky, writing in National Review described how “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) had moved to allow Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona to enforce their proof-of-citizenship voter-registration requirement. The Obama Justice Department moved against the action, part of its ongoing goal of allowing illegals to vote and to allow other voting violations to occur.”
Also in 2016, the True the Vote organization pleaded unsuccessfully with the Department of Justice to move against a clear-cut case of alien voting.
In 2015, Ohio’s Secretary of State, Jon Husted wrote a letter to the Obama White House protesting the President’s policy, stating:
“I write regarding the consequences the recent Immigration Accountability Executive Actions may have on the administration of federal and state elections. Consistent with federal and state law, states are responsible for ensuring the integrity of our elections. As a swing state with access to voting that is already expansive, Ohio takes this responsibility very seriously. In spite of our diligence maintaining accurate voter registration rolls, however, the recent executive actions could jeopardize their integrity by making it much easier for people who are not U.S. citizens to illegally register and cast ballots…
Men should refrain themselves from viagra for sale india alcohol, spicy food in everyday life. Moreover, drug dealers know that the younger a person at the time of experimenting tadalafil 20mg españa with a set of dosage, one might decide as to want needs to be enhanced with it. Furthermore, you can get the free prescription and absolutely charges less delivery for on line viagra receiving the ordered package. It also particularly reduces heartburn viagra ordination go to the website and burning sensation.
“The source of the problem is that the recent executive actions enable millions of non-U.S. citizens to obtain valid Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses. Under federal law, any person with a valid Social Security number or driver’s license can register to vote, so long as they attest to their eligibility to do so.1 As a result, the recent executive actions dramatically expand the opportunities for illegal voter registrations in Ohio and other states by non-citizen voters who have valid forms of identification and who willingly or negligently affirm their eligibility to vote. This problem is especially serious in the context of third-party voter registration drives, which are prevalent in Ohio and other states. Such drives occur outside of the presence of election officials who could explain that citizenship—not mere lawful presence—is a fundamental requirement for registering to vote and who can caution non-citizens against erroneous attestations.
“In short, by enabling millions of non-citizens to access valid forms of the types of identification required to register to vote, the recent executive actions have increased the risk that non-citizens may illegally register to vote and vote in our elections…”
Attempts to counter the growing problem of illegal alien voting and other forms of ballot fraud have centered around calls for the use of ID when voting, a move vehemently opposed by Democrats. (Ironically, Democrat officials required photo ID to enter into their 2016 presidential nominating convention.)
In July, President Trump urged the use of ID for voting, citing examples of Democrats encouraging illegals to vote. The most recent battleground for state voter ID laws was North Dakota. According to the SCOTUS site, the Supreme Court in October declined to review that state’s law mandating the use of identification when voting. “The Supreme Court…declined to intervene in a challenge to a North Dakota law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address… The state urged the justices to stay out of the dispute, emphasizing that the law is intended to combat voter fraud and guarantee that voters (who, unlike in most states, are not required to register in advance) get the right ballots when they go to the polls. The state argued that the street-address requirement is easy to satisfy: Voters can provide proof of address through their IDs or, if necessary, through other documents like a pay stub or a utility bill. If the district court’s order were reinstated, the state warned, nonresidents could vote in the state’s election simply by renting a P.O. box there. At a minimum, the state predicted, there would be “confusion and mistakes” when a voter’s P.O. box is not in the same precinct where he actually lives. And in any event, the state added, because each of the challengers in this case has a street address, there is no reason for the district court to block North Dakota from applying the law anywhere in the state.”
Research from The National Conference of State Legislatures (NSCL) indicates that “A total of 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, all of which are in force in 2018…Proponents see increasing requirements for identification as a way to prevent in-person voter impersonation and increase public confidence in the election process. Opponents say there is little fraud of this kind, and the burden on voters unduly restricts the right to vote and imposes unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on elections administrators.”