The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its review
of DHS’s potential role in elections.
Wariness of a potential federal takeover of the election process is fully warranted, particularly in the aftermath of the 2016 Democrat Primary. A Stanford University study entitled “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America” concluded that “First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.”
Does the Department of Homeland Security have the Constitutional right to play a greater role in the election process? In a CNS nterview University of California/Berkeley School of Law Professor John Yoo stated stated “The Department of Homeland Security does not have the legal authority to interfere with states’ election systems without their permission…While the federal government has the general power to protect the nation’s cyber infrastructure, it cannot intrude into areas of state sovereignty without clear constitutional mandate. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution recognizes the authority of the states to regulate the times, places, manner of elections, subject to congressional regulation. As far as I am aware, Congress has not clearly decided to regulate the information systems of state electoral systems or delegated this authority to DHS…”
A Zero Hedge examination of the issue asks:
“What do you do when you’re…looking to maintain power while simultaneously preserving the facade of free and open elections?… you look for avenues to nationalize state-run election infrastructure…you need a catalyst for this kind of blatant power grab. “Coincidentally”, a catalyst just like the FBI’s warning a couple of days ago about “foreign hackers [read Putin] penetrating state election systems.” Then, once you’ve defined the super villain, all you need is a couple of political cronies to go on a fear mongering tour to whip the electorate into a frenzy. And wouldn’t you know it…Harry Reid recently did just that by sending a letter to the FBI voicing his “concerns” that the “Russian government” may be looking to tamper with the upcoming presidential election.”
He submitted that the agency is also probing a land deal in Chennai involving Tatas levitra prescription you can check here and the DMK party and the progress on investigation into it has been mentioned in the report. There on line viagra use this link are many forums that discuss about this pill as well. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes viagra stores in canada a daunting decision for couples. Manual adjustments of the spine, called spinal manipulation, are the basis of tadalafil overnight shipping chiropractic care. Some state officials are agreeing with those expressing fear about DHS motives. Politico reports on one reaction:
“Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s objections add to a bumpy start for the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to shore up safeguards for the election…During an earlier interview with the site Nextgov, Kemp warned: ‘The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.’ Kemp told POLITICO he sees a ‘clear motivation from this White House’ to expand federal control, citing Obama’s health care law, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation and the increased role of the Education…To some election officials, this sounds like the first stage of a more intrusive plan.
Some highly experienced and knowledgeable observers question DHS Secretary Johnson’s emphasis. John Greaney, a former NYC Board of Elections official who has worked in both Democrat and Republican administrations and currently serves as chair of the Bronx Republican Party, questions the entire framework of Johnson’s concern. “The possibility of fraud is far greater in the registration process, not in actual voting” he notes. “On election day, the results are tabulated locally, with a thumb drive, and there are paper ballot backups. What Johnson is doing is actually a move to distract from the real issues—fraudulent voter registration, particularly on the internet, and the opposition from the Obama Administration against common sense anti-fraud measures such as photo ID. If the White House was actually concerned about the integrity of the election process and wanted to do something about it, they would encourage, not discourage, the use of photo ID, particularly in the registration process.”
Only 14 states actually require some form of photo ID. The Obama Administration and the DNC have been virulent in their opposition to state efforts to have verifiable, honest registration rolls.