Concern about DHS potential role in elections, Part 2

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.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.