The Motives of Those Refusing to Comply with Election Integrity Measures

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government examines the reasons given by those refusing to comply with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in this two-part review.

Some state officials are refusing to comply with The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity’s request for information. Their motives need to be examined.

The Commission was established by an Executive Order on March 11, 2017. Its purpose is to study laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; what actions undermine public confidence in the voting process; and what vulnerabilities exist in the system that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting.

Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity describes the Commission’s initial action. “On June 28, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity issued a letter requesting that states provide publicly available voter data as permitted under their state laws. At present, 20 states have agreed to provide the publicly available information requested by the Commission and another 16 states are reviewing which information can be released under their state laws. In all, 36 states have either agreed or are considering participating with the Commission’s work to ensure the integrity of the American electoral system…14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission’s request for publicly available voter information.”

The reasons for the Commission’s existence are clear and ample.

In a 2012 study, the Pew Center on the States found “millions of voter registration records nationwide that are either inaccurate or no longer valid…based on data [indicating] a voter died, moved, or had been inactive from 2004 to March 2011.” The study revealed that 2,758,578 individuals were registered to vote in more than one state. In addition, “12.7 million records nationwide…appear to be out of date and no longer reflect the voter’s current information, more than 1.8 million records for people who are no longer living, but have active registrations on voter rolls, and 12 million records with incorrect addresses…once duplicates among categories are eliminated, approximately 24 million registration records, or nearly 13% of the national total, are estimated to be inaccurate or no longer valid.”

During 2016, news reports and studies verified the reality of voter fraud, and the growing influence of illegal aliens. Here’s a sampling:

The Dallas News Complaints have been filed that in early voting, votes cast for Trump have been ‘switched’ by faulty machines into votes for Clinton.
The Washington Post: “a group of undocumented immigrants is knocking on doors in Northern Virginia in support of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates…The vote-seekers are some of the 750,000 recipients of temporary legal status under the Obama administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. …‘All DACA recipients should take this on as an added responsibility, to change the power structure,’ said Luis Angel Aguilar, 28, who received his protected status in 2013 and is helping to coordinate the effort. ‘Our voices need to be heard”
Project Veritas: NYC Democratic Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin stated at a United Federation of Teachers party that there is widespread voter fraud in New York City…”Schulkin, a Democrat, said that to effectuate illegal voting, people are bussed to various polling sites. He places a blame on NYC’s radical-left Mayor de Blasio. “He gave out ID cards. De Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There’s a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud.”
A Science Direct white paper notes: “We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”
The Gateway Pundit’s examination of a wikileaks release finds that Clinton campaign chief John Podesta stated it was OK for illegals to vote if they have a drivers license . The quote: John Podesta: On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.
California: Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation allowing convicted felons the right to vote.
Some threats were prevented. Click Orlando reports that “A federal judge has rejected the Florida Democratic Party’s request to let people cast a ballot during early voting even if their registration application hasn’t been verified.”

You can ask your doctor before using any kind of herbal medicine that made of herbs in natural, these herbs can be foods as well, like red flower, it can make the circulation of the blood smooth. viagra uk buy cute-n-tiny.com This results in reduced blood supply cute-n-tiny.com cialis levitra online to the male reproductive system. Maintain your wellbeing and adjusted your resistant super generic cialis framework, Maximizes your Intercourse timings and improved your stamina. Just make sure you do not take too much zinc because it can cause problems with http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/my-cute-new-kitten/ buy viagra your immune system.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

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.