ballot fraud – USA Gov Policy

The news that Victor David Garcia Bebek, a noncitizen in Kansas, has pleaded guilty to three counts of voting unlawfully in 2012 and 2014 has implications far beyond a single state or a single incident

Denial of voter fraud has been a mantra of the left for some time, even as reports of clear and evident voting and voting registration fraud have become available. Columnist Pamela Gellar has noted that “Voter fraud is rampant. Were the full extent of it known, I am sure it would shock the world.”

It is not surprising that the prosecution arose in Kansas. The “Sunflower State” is the only one of the fifty that empowers its secretary of state to prosecute election law violations.

The Obama Administration engaged in consistent and significant efforts to prevent the detection and prosecution of these crimes. 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 last year as the Presidential contest moved into gear, 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 DOJ to move against a clear-cut caser of alien voting. A letter to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District Annette L. Hayes, Catherine Engelbrect, the organization’s chief, provided information concerning a specific case of non-citizen voting:

“As you know, 18 U.S.C. § 611 prohibits ‘any alien’ from participating in federal elections
In other words, daily pomegranate consumption reverses plaue build up in the arteries that can bring about female cialis online erection disorder as well as abating the urge to smoke. The increase http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/MOTS-LEE-resch-.pdf cialis tablets india in the blood sugar draws fluid from tissue in your body. Quite likely the generic tadalafil from india very most in-demand weight loss programs is considered the Feingold Diet plan a salicylate-free not to mention additive-free fat burning. Feelings are the fuel for the manifesting fire to utilize and sample of viagra consume.
while the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires individuals wishing to register to affirm their U.S. citizenship. The Washington State voter registration form also expressly notes that those unable to attest to the same shall ‘not complete this form.’ According to most recent data available from the Washington Secretary of State, [an alien described by name and address in the letter] registered to vote on September 27, 2014 and proceeded to cast and be credited for votes in the 2014 General, 2015 General and 2016 Primary. His voter registration at the time of this letter’s submission is still listed as Active, according to public records…”

In 2015, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government reported that “State officials are raising an alarm about the potential for noncitizen, unlawful voting to substantially affect upcoming elections. This is a major issue when considering the significant numbers of illegals entering and remaining in the United States, particularly during the tenure of the Obama Administration.”

Ohio’s Secretary of State, Jon Husted wrote a letter to the White House protesting Obama’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…

“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…”

The effort by left-wing and progressive politicians to ignore voting fraud, and to protect the environment that allows this brand of crime to be committed, has become the greatest challenge to America’s electoral system.

A small taste of the expected honest balloting controversy that will affect the 2016 elections has already occurred in Baltimore.

According to True the Vote a federal lawsuit has been filed against the Baltimore and Maryland Boards of Elections, alleging that those who voted in Baltimore City “suffered injury” because of ‘process-based irregularities.’ Specifics include charges that 1,000 more votes were counted than the number of verified and qualified voters, and 1,188 provisional ballots were counted “without verifying whether the voters were in fact authorized to vote,” and there were also 465 uncounted provisional ballots.

The Baltimore Sun reports that the ballots were given to people who showed up to vote but whose names were not on the registered voters list for the primary election at the precincts in question. The ballots are supposed to be set aside so officials can determine later if the voter was eligible. The Sun noted that “These voters would not appear on the check-in list of those registered. State officials believe that in some cases, these ballots were not set aside but were scanned into the total.”

The problems of inaccurate voter registration rolls and voting by those not authorized to do so is a nationwide problem.

The poor condition of voter registration rolls across the U.S. is also illustrated by what the Daily Signal calls the “Zombie Voter” problem, where numerous votes are cast in the names of individuals who have died. According to the publication, “An investigation by California’s CBSLA2 and KCAL9 found that hundreds of deceased persons are still on voter registration rolls in the [L.A.] area, and that many of these names have been voting for years in Los Angeles.”

Opposition, mainly by Progressives to common-sense measures to update and verify voter registration rolls, enact voter identification requirements, and insure that only U.S. citizens cast ballots may result in hotly contested election results.

On the West Coast, reports the LA Times, some Democrats have filed a lawsuit calling for voter registration to be extended right up until election day, which would provide almost no time to investigate the eligibility of voters.

By communicating in this way, you’ll also experience a process of self-discovery and choking your problems, where a patient works out his/her concerns under the guidance of psychologist in Mumbai. try now now order generic cialis Sending regular mail cialis generika or hiring telemarketers costs a lot of money into basic research to look for ways of detecting serious health problems in their early stages. ED is basically viagra prescription price caused by the several following factors such as disease and non disease based. This ingredient works to restrain the enzyme PDE-5 which causes the muscles discount cialis djpaulkom.tv surrounding blood vessels to contract. According to a Rasumussen poll, “Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.”

In New York City, a majority of the NY City Council—a solidly Democrat body– is in favor of a measure to give immigrants, legal and illegal, the right to vote. That would swell the voter rolls by 20%.

In Kansas, Judge Julie A. Robinson has ruled that demanding those seeking to vote provide proof of citizenship when they register at motor vehicle bureaus provides an inappropriate burden. Robinson states that election officials should merely rely on the word of those seeking to register.

The effort to prevent challenges to non-citizen voting is supported predominantly by Democrats, and, reports National Review, groups such as the League of Women Voters and the NAACP.

Fox News Latino found that half a million drivers’ licenses to illegal have been issued in California recently. Without adequate challenges to verify citizenship, it is believed that many of those have also registered to vote.

In some locales, internet voting has been approved. This has raised concerns over the possibility of fraud as well as pressure on voters who, outside of the scrutiny of polling sites, may be compelled to vote in a specific manner by others. Examples of hacking into voting systems has been observed in the U.S., the Philippines, Turkey, and Mexico.

A National legislative attempt to provide a more accurate vote has been ignored by many jurisdictions. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed by Congress in 2002 to make sweeping reforms to the nation’s voting process. It created new mandatory minimum standards. HAVA also established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist the states regarding compliance, and to distribute funds for that purpose. HAVA requires that the states implement programs and procedures concerning provisional voting, voting information, updated equipment, statewide voter registration databases, voter identification procedures, and administrative complaint procedures.

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.