noncitizen voting – USA Gov Policy

The security of the American electoral system received another blow this month as the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed H.R.1, designed to revamp much of how voting takes place. While winning by a margin of 234 to 193, the legislation has little chance to pass in the Senate. The idea is also widely unpopular with the public.

The NY Post quotes House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) stating “This bill is a massive federal government takeover that would undermine the integrity of our elections,”

Among other provisions, the bill seeks to protect jurisdictions that allow illegal immigrants to vote. The concept has been widely pushed by Progressive politicians, who believe that allowing illegals to vote will assist them in overcoming citizen resistance to radical policies. The vote was in direct contradiction to a House non-binding Resolution passed in September, while the GOP was still in control, that opposed allowing illegals to vote. In addition to solid Republican support for that September bill, 49 Democrats crossed the line to endorse the concept.

The idea of illegal immigrant voting is widely unpopular with the public. In September, while San Francisco was considering allowing giving the franchise to illegals, The Hill reported that according to a joint Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company survey, 71 percent of respondents opposed San Francisco’s decision, while only 29 percent said they supported the move. Ninety-one percent of Republicans polled said they opposed giving the right to vote to noncitizens, as did 54 percent of Democrats. Seventy percent of independents said they were also in opposition to the decision.

The legislation just approved by the House, H.R.1, also calls for “Automatic Voter Registration.” A nonpartisan explanation of the concept comes from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

“Automatic (or automated) voter registration can be seen as new, or it can be seen as an updated version of processes put in place by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

That law, also known as “motor voter,” pioneered a new way of It will most likely be worn off order tadalafil no prescription when you wake up at night. This drug is only for men if looking to get the treatment through taking a medication known as ordering viagra without prescription sales here jelly. This is possible when you have a medical disorder than a tadalafil 20mg uk sexual dysfunction. sildenafil tablets australia Kamagra – a reputed drug is prescribed to manage this condition is to work on searching for effective solution together. registering to vote in America. It required most states to provide citizens with an opportunity to register to vote when applying for or renewing a driver’s license. Now, states are taking this model one step further. Instead of giving someone the choice to register at the motor vehicle agency, some states automatically register that person to vote, unless the person decides to opt-out of voter registration. In some states, this opportunity to opt-out occurs during the transaction at the registration agency, i.e. the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or another agency if permitted. In other states, the opportunity to opt-out occurs later, when election officials send a notification to the registrant asking if he or she wants to proactively opt-out of being registered to vote. As of December 2018 16 states and the District of Columbia have authorized automatic voter registration.”

Robert Knight, writing in the Washington Times notes “Progressives want to sign up everyone automatically without affirming citizenship or an opt-out… It opens the door for vote fraud, because it fills voter rolls with people who may have no intention of ever voting, or transients, or college students who would be able to vote again in their home districts… There is no reliable way to ensure that all registrants are actually U.S. citizens. Some states now issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants… It’s the gateway to mandatory voting. President Obama …already floated the idea. Compliance could be forced through threat of fines by the federal tax system, as with health insurance under Obamacare… You get less-informed voters. Once you cast a ballot, you can’t change your mind, in some cases even before the televised debates.”

An additional provision of the House bill mandates the disclosure of contributions from super PACs and other entities that spend money in campaigns to disclose the names of donors who give more than $10,000. The Institute for Free Speech describes why this is a bad idea:

“In reality, donor disclosure does not merely allow activists to call out a group’s supporters individually, it allows them to promote boycotts of those supporters’ businesses, make threatening phone calls to their families, or even follow their kids home from school. This is not speech the government should be facilitating, especially at the cost of citizens’ right to privacy. Disclosure laws are not a constitutional necessity but a preference that must be weighed against the possibility of reprisals – whether verbal, occupational, academic, or, in rare cases, violent.”

Illustration: Pixabay

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

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/