Hillary Clinton has a new excuse for her 2016 loss to now-President Donald Trump: voters in places like Wisconsin, which she notoriously did not visit, were disenfranchised by voter identification laws and prevented from casting ballots in her favor.
Clinton told an audience at George Washington University that she&#8217;s been counseling 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/news/461723-hillary-clinton-voter-suppression-has-led-to-crisis-in-democracy-in-the-us">according to The Hill</a>, and among her pearls of wisdom is a warning to watch out for Republican &#8220;voter suppression,&#8221; which she believes comes in the form of laws requiring a photo ID to vote.
Clinton specifically blames Republican voter suppression for Stacey Abrams losing the election for Georgia governor, but, for the first time, extrapolated the problem to the 2016 presidential election, claiming that around 200,000 voters in Wisconsin were turned away from the polls because of that state&#8217;s voter ID requirement (Clinton, of course, lost Wisconsin in a brutal swing state defeat, despite what she claims were internal polls showing her far ahead of Trump)
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Hillary Clinton: &#8220;You can run the best campaign. You can have the best plans. You can get the nomination. You can win the popular vote. And you can lose the Electoral College and therefore the election for these 4 reasons. Number One: Voter suppression.&#8221; 
Via The Hill <a href="https://t.co/Ks4S6tDdfI">pic.twitter.com/Ks4S6tDdfI</a>
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) <a href="https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1174055558019764225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
&#8220;You can run the best campaign, you can have the best plans, you can get the nomination, you can win the popular vote. And you can lose the Electoral College and therefore the election for these four reasons. Number one, voter suppression,&#8221; Clinton told the crowd of around 300.
&#8220;We saw what happened in Georgia where Stacey Abrams should be governor of that state,&#8221; Clinton continued.
&#8220;Registered voters were kept off the rolls. Their registrations just piled up in some back office with no intention to ever enroll them so that they could actually vote. We also saw what happened in 2016. Experts estimate that anywhere from 27,000 to 200,000 Wisconsin citizen voters, predominantly in Milwaukee, were turned away from the polls. That’s a lot of potential voters.&#8221;
Abrams lost by more than 50,000 votes, and early claims of &#8220;voter suppression&#8221; turned out to be largely false. Brian Kemp, who defeated Abrams, did purge thousands of voters from the rolls over the course of his tenure — under a massive database cleanup project — but <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/2018-midterms-whats-the-truth-about-the-53-000-pending-voters-in-georgia">subsequent investigations</a> showed those voter profiles featured information mismatches or had long gone dormant.
But Stacey Abrams&#8217; claim of voter suppression in Georgia is far more solid than Clinton&#8217;s claim of voter suppression in Wisconsin. Clinton&#8217;s &#8220;200,000&#8221; number actually appears to be a misquote of a &#8220;300,000&#8221; number that originated in a tweet shortly following Clinton&#8217;s Wisconsin loss. The tweet claimed &#8220;300,000 voters were turned away by the states strict Voter ID law,&#8221; thereby offering proof that the election had been &#8220;rigged&#8221; for Donald Trump, ostensibly by the Russians. The number also, it seems, appeared in a New York Times article post-election.
<a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/300000-wisconsin-voters-turned-away-due-to-voter-id-laws/">Even Snopes</a>, which is undeniably a left-leaning &#8220;fact checker&#8221; organization, didn&#8217;t buy the claim. Upon a cursory investigation, Snopes discovered that the &#8220;300,000&#8221; number originated with a court finding striking down a Wisconsin voter ID law that the court claimed may have disenfranchised 300,000 voters — but that the exact number of people prevented from voting by the law was unknown.
By the time Clinton ran for President in 2016, the legislature had already changed the law, so even if 300,000 people were actively prevented from voting by the law as it existed in 2014, when the court analyzed it — something even the court itself doubts &#8212; the number was certainly outdated by November of 2016.
But, as Clinton has proven time and again in the wake of her loss, the facts matter little. Clinton lost Wisconsin not because voters were kept from the polls, but because she failed to overcome Donald Trump&#8217;s message of economic populism in a purple state, where moderate Democrats — and particularly union workers — don&#8217;t find themselves beholden to their party leadership. Clinton never made her case to Wisconsin voters, so they voted for the other guy.
That would mean, of course, that certain Trump voters aren&#8217;t racist, and that&#8217;s a reality Clinton can&#8217;t accept.
“We are witnessing a deliberate and ongoing effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and silence millions of Americans &#8230; particularly women, the elderly and people of color,” Clinton said at the end of her speech. “It’s no accident. It’s in service to their larger goals of obtaining and keeping power.”

hillary_clinton_gi.jpg

WATCH: Hillary Clinton Now Claims &#8216;Voter Suppression&#8217; Caused Her To Lose The 2016 Election

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

Voting Rights

Wisconsin

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams stated on Sunday that the American voting system is rigged against African American citizens and has only become more &#8220;insidious&#8221; since the 1960s.
&#8220;We have always struggled with voter suppression, but what&#8217;s happened in the last 20 years is that it&#8217;s gone underground,&#8221; Abrams told ABC news correspondent Linsey Davis. &#8220;It&#8217;s no longer hoses and laws that say you cannot vote.&#8221;
&#8220;It is this insidious nature that says it&#8217;s race-neutral, that we&#8217;re just putting these laws into place for everyone,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;But we know that it has a disproportionate effect on the communities that have long been marginalized.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">&#8220;We have always struggled with voter suppression but what&#8217;s happened in the last 20 years is that it&#8217;s gone underground,&#8221; Stacey Abrams tells <a href="https://twitter.com/LinseyDavis?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LinseyDavis</a>.
&#8220;&#8230;we know that it has a disproportionate effect on communities that have long been marginalized&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/Q7P3zsDSV2">https://t.co/Q7P3zsDSV2</a> <a href="https://t.co/kyB0kEITyo">pic.twitter.com/kyB0kEITyo</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1163209729080012806?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Abrams and her 2018 gubernatorial campaign have been routinely accusing both the state of Georgia and her Republican challenger, now-Gov. Brian Kemp of racist voter suppression going back even prior to election day. Kemp, however, handily won the statewide election by more than 55,000 votes and there has been no evidence to corroborate her claims.
&#8220;We have a right to vote in the United States that is afforded to eligible American citizens, but we have seen over the last 20 years a constriction on who has the right to use that right,&#8221; Abrams replied when asked if she believes the voting system is &#8220;rigged.&#8221;
&#8220;We have seen it through voter ID laws – you can&#8217;t get on the rolls and if you get on the rolls you can&#8217;t stay – you may not be able to cast your ballot because they close your precinct or they change the rules,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;That&#8217;s rigging the game.&#8221;
Interestingly, Abrams and her fellow Democrats have continued to <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/23/democrats-gop-racist-voter-suppression-georgia/">tout the proposal to close</a> off a handful of voting precincts in a predominately black county as an example of Republican-led voter suppression. If enacted, the closure could have led to possible disenfranchisement. However, the decision to do so rested solely in Democrats&#8217; hands.
Regardless, Abrams has insisted that since Kemp was serving as Georgia Secretary of State at the time, the blame ultimately rests with him. Kemp and the Georgia GOP both publicly opposed the closure, but Abrams continues to refer to it as &#8220;suppression tactics.&#8221;
&#8220;In America, we can choose to vote or not vote. Good candidates give you a reason to vote, but good government makes certain you can cast that vote,&#8221; Abrams told Davis. &#8220;What I take exception to is that we do not have people in government who are living up to their obligations. In fact, they are thwarting the will of the people by denying them access and that&#8217;s just wrong.&#8221;
The former Georgia lawmaker revealed a week earlier that she would forgo running for president in favor of focusing her efforts on preventing voter suppression in the upcoming 2020 election, both in Georgia and around the country.
Accordingly, Abrams launched a new initiative called Fair Fight 2020 to establish &#8220;free, fair, and secure elections.&#8221; Despite how it presents itself, its focus appears to be to elect Democratic lawmakers rather than a non-partisan effort to ensure universal voting rights. The organization will only be working with Democratic state parties and local allies, according to the <a href="https://fairfight.com/fair-fight-2020/">Fair Fight 2020</a> website.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Stacey Abrams on her efforts to combat voter suppression: &#8220;For me, the decision not to run for president was one of saying, &#8216;where could I do my best work?&#8217; and that&#8217;s making certain that we set up voter protection teams across the county&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/ROVDDgW44b">https://t.co/ROVDDgW44b</a> <a href="https://t.co/7RkuUmz93U">pic.twitter.com/7RkuUmz93U</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1163110568259141632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;When I looked at this current crop of candidates running for the Democratic nomination, I think they&#8217;re extraordinary and I think voter suppression is an intrinsic problem that is bigger than just Georgia,&#8221; Abrams said. &#8220;Georgia was emblematic of it and certainly was a singularity in terms of how grotesque the process was, but we&#8217;re not alone.&#8221;
&#8220;For me, the decision not to run for president was one of saying &#8216;where can I do my best work&#8217; and that&#8217;s making certain that we set up protection teams across the country,&#8221; she added.

Stacey Abrams

WATCH: Stacey Abrams: Voter Suppression More ‘Insidious’ Today Than It Was In The 1960s

2020 Election

On Thursday, while hosting former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who has complained that she was cheated out of victory in 2018 against Georgia governor Brian Kemp because of voter suppression and is now heading a PAC titled Fairfight2020, CNN host Alysin Camerota eschewed any attempt at non-partisanship and helped Abrams sell the PAC by telling voters where they could find it online.
Camerota started by asking why Abrams decided not to run for president. Abrams answered that she was an “expert on fighting back against voter suppression”:
<blockquote>We ran the scenarios and there certainly is a pathway, but my responsibility is to run for office when I think I’m the person who can do the best job and also when it’s the right time. And what I really wanted to access what was the best value that I could add to this primary season. We have an extraordinary crop of candidates who are running, but what we’re missing is a plan for the general election. We cannot wait until the general happens to take action.
And when I thought about the work that I’ve been doing since 2018, I know that I’m an expert on fighting back against voter suppression, that I have lessons learned from 2018, but also new information that we’ve gathered. And my best value, my best contribution is using this primary to make sure we can win the general election and take back the House, White House, and take back the Senate.</blockquote>
Camerota asked if Abrams worried the 2020 election would be “marred by voter suppression.”
Abrams replied, “Every election that we’ve had in the last twenty years has faced some vestige of voter suppression,” arguing that it “accelerated in the wake of the Shelby decision, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act.” She added, “We’ve seen stricter and stricter laws that make it harder to vote.”
Asked whether she would be interested in a vice-presidential slot in 2020, Abrams answered, “I would certainly be open to that.” When Camerota asked if any candidate had asked her, Abrams said they had not, then segued to saying, “What I do know is that voter suppression is real, that we saw just this year in Texas, Tennessee, in Arizona and Florida steps taken by Republicans to further restrict the vote. And if you go to FairFight 2020.org, you can find out more about our initiative.”
After Abrams repeated her intentions with her PAC, Camerota wanted to make sure viewers knew exactly where to go to help Abrams, saying, “And one more time, people who want to know more should go to fairfight2020.org?”
Abrams repeated, “So, yes. Fairfight2020.org, that’s our 20-state strategy. We launched it in Nevada just yesterday, and we’re going to have a launch in Georgia coming up this Saturday because Georgia is a battleground state …”
Camerota interjected, “Yeah.”
Abrams concluded, “We’re the state that has the largest percentage of African-American voters of any battleground in the presidential and we want people to know that Georgia is not just a place where voter suppression happens, it’s a place where we’re going to fight it back and we’re going to win.”
Video below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vEJPhoI314M?start=356" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
H/T <a href="https://grabien.com/story.php?id=247431&amp;utm_source=cliplist20190816&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=cliplist&amp;utm_content=story247431">Grabien</a>

Camerota

WATCH: CNN Host Helps Promote Dem Stacey Abrams’ PAC

Alisyn Camerota

Presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) promulgated the unfounded claim that failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams would have won her election had it not been for racist voter suppression.
“The truth is, we have Republican legislatures across this country that are trying to deny black people the right to vote,” Gillibrand said at a National Urban League conference on Thursday. “Just look at what happened in Georgia. Look what happened to Stacey Abrams.&#8221;
&#8220;But for voter disenfranchisement, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia,&#8221; she continued.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">&#8220;But for voter disenfranchisement, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia.&#8221;
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand speaks at the National Urban League Conference in Indianapolis. <a href="https://t.co/UQFr2oxiOy">pic.twitter.com/UQFr2oxiOy</a>
— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1154787209494425601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Now-Gov. Brian Kemp handily won the 2018 statewide election by more than 55,000 votes, however, Abrams and her campaign have routinely accused Kemp of racist voter suppression going back even prior to election day.
Following Abrams’ loss, she appeared regularly on cable news shows and delivered speeches repeating those assertions, but there has been no evidence to corroborate Abrams’ claims of voter suppression.
She has refused to refer to Kemp as the “legitimate” governor and has repeatedly declined to concede the election because, she stated, a concession implies the race was “right and true and proper.”
“We had this little election back in 2018 and despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have one very affirmative statement to make: we won,” Abrams said in April. “I am not the governor of Georgia — remember I told you about my opponent? You see not only was he the secretary of state, he was also the architect of suppression.”
Following the election, Abrams and her voter initiative Fair Fight Action <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5331615/Fair-Fight-Action-v-Crittenden-Complaint.pdf">sued the state of Georgia</a> over alleged widespread voter suppression. Interestingly, the lawsuit condemns legislation that Abrams herself <a href="https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/the-jolt-blue-democratic-debate-for-governor-takes-vouchers-early-voting/vWMKIkWj3DfX7YlwmcgBPO/">helped pass</a> as a member of the Georgia General Assembly.
Gillibrand referenced Abrams when she was asked if she would commit to expanding voting rights legislation if she won the presidency in 2020.
“Yes, very hard yes,” the New York senator responded. &#8220;And this reason is this: I’ve been working with [Rep.] John Lewis (D-GA) in the U.S. Senate for the last five or six years on a comprehensive approach to fixing the voting rights in this country.&#8221;
Gillibrand asserted that the legislation she has been crafting with Lewis goes beyond merely ending voter suppression, vote dilution, and vote discrimination — claiming that it also restores the Voting Rights Act preclearance provision that was invalidated in the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case of Shelby County v. Holder.
“Our plan has those things that you just mentioned specifically,” Gillibrand said. “But also things like make election day a federal holiday, guarantee early voting in all states, guaranteeing vote by mail in all states, making sure that we have the resources in every state to have a paper receipt so the next time the Russians try to hack our election and try to undermine our democracy, we can fight back with real paper receipts and paper ballots.”
“So I have a very comprehensive approach about how to restore our voting rights,” she added.

WATCH: Gillibrand Amplifies Unsubstantiated Claim: ‘Stacey Abrams Would Be Governor’ If Not For Voter Suppression

Democratic Party

Kirsten Gillibrand

On Tuesday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Andrew Klavan Show,&#8221; Klavan discusses where the Never-Trump movement has gone wrong in its criticism of President Donald Trump and why Trump is winning in the culture. Video and partial transcript below:
Sometimes I look at Never-Trumpers. The guys who were Never-Trumpers. You know, I understand this is their conscience. But sometimes I think that a lot of them were that kid in school who would get punched or something and they&#8217;d say, &#8220;Well just because you punched me doesn&#8217;t make you right.&#8221; You know, because sometimes when kids are kind of like, little weedy intellectuals they&#8217;d like to tell themselves, &#8220;Well yeah, you&#8217;re bigger than me and you get all the girls and you&#8217;re on the football team and maybe you beat me up. But you know I&#8217;m a smarter, better person than you.&#8221;
A lot of times that&#8217;s true. They are smarter, better people than the bullies and all that. I think they look at Donald Trump and they think here is that guy, that bully in the office doing more than I could ever do.
I&#8217;m not, you know, mentioning Bill Kristol or anything like that but I just say, I look at that guy and I think he&#8217;s the guy who thought like, &#8220;Oh yeah, well I&#8217;m a lot smarter than you are.&#8221; And there&#8217;s Donald Trump doing all the stuff that Bill Kristol couldn&#8217;t get done and doing it better and he hates him for it. The reason that Donald &#8230; somebody wrote in the Claremont Review the other day. &#8230; Oh, it was Nathan Podhoretz. He was giving an interview and he said &#8220;Donald Trump may not be a man for all seasons. He may not be a man for every hundred years. He is the man for this season.&#8221; The reason he is the man for this season is because all of our institutions have been eaten away inside by leftism. Our most important institutions have been eaten away by this censorious small minded pinch-hearted philosophy of leftism, this anti-freedom philosophy of leftism and they&#8217;re walking around like the guy in &#8220;Men In Black.&#8221;
They still look like the New York Times. You know, kind of misshapen version of The New York Times. Still looks like this misshapen version of Harvard, still looks like this misshapen version of Yale. But inside it is just this small, mean, anti-freedom philosophy that does nothing for anybody, that destroys our cities and would destroy our country. It has destroyed the culture of Europe. Utterly gutted Europe. I mean Europe is just a shell of its former self walking around. Europe is a good example. Europe is walking around, and people go, &#8220;Oh, it&#8217;s Europe.&#8221;
But it&#8217;s not Europe anymore. It&#8217;s not the Europe of Michelangelo or Shakespeare or Mozart. It&#8217;s the Europe of nothing. It&#8217;s the Europe of &#8220;Oh you know I don&#8217;t want to work &#8212; I&#8217;m going to riot because you made me work more than 38 hours a week.&#8221; That is the Europe that&#8217;s left. Walking around looking like the Europe of its great culture. Let&#8217;s see if they can rebuild Notre Dame and then I&#8217;ll tell you if there&#8217;s anything left of Europe.
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y-I0VPq4uNk?start=429" width="560"></iframe>
George Will made this comment recently. I have time for George Will. He&#8217;s just like kind of an old fashion guy. Andrew Breitbart always used to say &#8220;yeah George Will is great. He&#8217;s from the time when the Republicans were in the minority and they figured they always would be, and they didn&#8217;t want to win&#8221;. But he made this comment the other day about all this anti-elite nationalism populism that&#8217;s rising up throughout the West.
<blockquote>
George Will: What Mr. Trump represents is a pandemic, indiscriminate revolt against elites ignoring the following fact. The question is never, &#8220;will elites&#8217; rule?&#8221; Of course, they will, by definition. The question is which elites. The problem of democracy is to get public consent to worthy elites. And the kind of constant harping about elites, again the crybaby conservatism, people are picking on us, people are manipulating us. We don&#8217;t have real moral agency, we&#8217;re just passive. It&#8217;s victimology, now embraced by conservatives.
</blockquote>
Nonsense. That&#8217;s nonsense. It doesn&#8217;t even make any sense, right? He just said that people are throwing out the elites. That&#8217;s not victimology. These elites deserved it. They lost this fight. They lost it on the Right by ceding the ground to these leftists by being afraid to speak out. By being afraid to be called racist. By being silenced like the people in A Quiet Place. You know, they walk around not saying anything because they&#8217;re afraid that the leftist, racist monster is going to come and eat them up. You know, you&#8217;re a racist!
&#8220;No, no please, please don&#8217;t call me racist I&#8217;ll do anything.&#8221; That&#8217;s why they&#8217;ve been rejected. They gave away the country. They gave away the culture and now they&#8217;re saying, &#8220;Why did you kick us out?&#8221; We kicked you out because you failed. Donald Trump may be a bully. He may be obstreperous. He may be a loud mouth and a bore. But at least he stands up for the country and for what it should be and what it is and what it has been all these years.
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/andrew-klavan-show&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1560605948520000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE5xfts6bdjLZPmerJuGVPsE693Lg" href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch more of The Andrew Klavan Show here</a>.
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt%3D2&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1560605948520000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFUJZTLGaQI92TQrrpZ8TvlSQbzAw" href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Listen to more of The Andrew Klavan Show on iTunes here.</a>

KLAVAN: What The Never-Trump Crowd Gets Wrong About Trump

Andrew Klavan

Conservatism

New York

New York Times

Trump Administration

Just as in 2016, Democrats and their media supporters are suggesting President Donald Trump may not accept the results of the 2020 election. At the same time, these same people are ignoring that it is actually Democrats who are refusing to accept election results.
In early April, Rolling Stone published <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-2020-election-817074/">an article</a> asking, &#8220;Will Trump Accept the Results of the 2020 Election?&#8221; On Saturday, The New York Times published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/us/politics/nancy-pelosi.html">an interview</a> with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) where she warned Democrats they needed to win decisively in 2020 so Trump couldn&#8217;t challenge the results.
But as Democrats and the media suggest Trump will not accept the results of an election he loses, politicians on the Left actually aren&#8217;t accepting the results of elections they lose.
During her speech to the Detroit, Michigan, chapter of the NAACP, 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) claimed that voter suppression led to Democrat losses in Florida and Georgia in 2018, echoing the claims of the two candidates who lost those races.
&#8220;Let&#8217;s say this loud and clear &#8211; without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia, Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida. So, the truth is, we need a new Voting Rights Act.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KamalaHarris</a> speaks to Detroit <a href="https://twitter.com/NAACP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NAACP</a>: &#8220;Let&#8217;s say this loud and clear &#8212; without voter suppression, <a href="https://twitter.com/staceyabrams?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@StaceyAbrams</a> would be the governor of Georgia, <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewGillum?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewGillum</a> is the governor of Florida. So the truth is we need a new Voting Rights Act.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/j37Rjkhcmb">pic.twitter.com/j37Rjkhcmb</a>
&#8212; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1125232431995473920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Each of these candidates have refused to concede their elections. Abrams is on a countrywide tour claiming she actually won. Just <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46551/election-denier-democrat-stacey-abrams-still-ryan-saavedra">last week</a> she told an audience that she refuses to concede. In that same speech, she also bragged about increasing Democrat turnout, so it&#8217;s hard to see how she still gets away with the absurd claim that voters were suppressed.
&#8220;I won because we transformed the electorate, we turned out people who had never voted, we outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history,&#8221; Abrams said.
She did not win but she did transform the electorate. The number of people who voted in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race was double the number who voted in the same race in 2014.
Abrams lost and simply refuses to accept it.
Gillum hasn&#8217;t been on a U.S. whining tour like Abrams, but he did tell HBO &#8220;Real Time&#8221; host Bill Maher <a href="%22I%20won%20because%20we%20transformed%20the%20electorate,%20we%20turned%20out%20people%20who%20had%20never%20voted,%20we%20outmatched%20every%20Democrat%20in%20Georgia%20history.%22">back in March</a> that votes weren&#8217;t counted in Florida.
&#8220;Had we been able to legally count every one of those votes not just in Florida but in Georgia, I wonder what the outcome may be,&#8221; he claimed.
As The Daily Wire previously reported, Democrats aren&#8217;t calling the Florida election illegitimate, even if Gillum does.
And we can&#8217;t forget that Hillary Clinton still refuses to accept she lost the 2016 presidential race because she was a bad candidate. She has blamed everyone and everything from racism, sexism, Russians, former FBI Director James Comey, and more for why Trump won over her. She simply can&#8217;t accept that she ran a bad campaign that assumed she&#8217;d win all the states that voted for President Barack Obama and ignored activists on the ground warning her they needed more resources.
Clinton set the tone for the Democrat Party in 2016, and others have just been following suit since then. Maybe Trump will refuse to accept a loss in 2020, but we can pretty much guarantee that Democrats will refuse to accept the results if and when they lose next year.

Kamala Harris Refuses To Accept Election Results In Florida, Georgia

Kamala Harris

Americans really don&#8217;t want the voting age lowered to 17, and they really, really don&#8217;t want it lowered to 16, a blow to a recent proposal by many Democrats.
A Hill-HarrisX poll released Thursday found a clear majority, 75%, of registered voters were against lowering the voting age to 17, and a whopping 84% opposed lowering it to 16. As The Hill reported, &#8220;Every age group in the poll was against lowering the voting age to 16 or 17, though younger respondents were more supportive than older participants.&#8221;
That&#8217;s not good for Democrats <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44345/grabbing-more-votes-far-left-dem-congresswoman-hank-berrien">who have been</a> <a href="https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03/15/nancy-pelosi-supports-lowering-voting-age-16-fox-friends-guests-debate">recently calling for</a> the voting age to be lowered to 16.
Of the younger participants who were more open to the idea, 39% favored the idea of lowering the voting age to 17 and 27% favored lowering it to 16. This &#8220;younger&#8221; group included respondents who were between the ages of 18 and 34. Conversely, older Americans were even less favorable to the idea than the average. Just 13% of respondents aged 65 and older were open to the voting age being lowered to 17 and a miniscule 5% supported lowering it to 16.
The poll also found, predictably, that Democrats were less opposed to the idea than Republicans, but an overwhelming majority still opposed the plan.
&#8220;Eighty-eight percent of GOP respondents said that 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote, and 89 percent opposed letting 16-year-olds vote,&#8221; The Hill reported. &#8220;Among Democrats, 65 percent said 17-year-olds should not be allowed to vote, with 78 percent saying the same about 16-year-olds.&#8221;
So far only one Democrat 2020 hopeful has suggested lowering the minimum voting age to 16: Andrew Yang. This is the same candidate who has proposed giving almost everyone $1,000 a month, so it&#8217;s not all that surprising he would suggest such a crazy idea.
In March, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) introduced an amendment to a House resolution that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44345/grabbing-more-votes-far-left-dem-congresswoman-hank-berrien">would lower the voting age</a> to 16 ahead of the 2020 election. As The Daily Wire previously reported, the move was seen as a way to bolster Democrat support, since younger voters tend to lean Democrat when they don&#8217;t have &#8220;the attendant responsibilities contingent on reaching adulthood.&#8221; It&#8217;s easy to be a Democrat when it&#8217;s not your money being spent by the federal government.
Pressley, however, tried to claim her amendment wasn&#8217;t a power grab but about the youth:
<blockquote>
Our young people are at the forefront of some of the most existential crises facing our communities and our society at large. I believe that those who will inherit the nation we design here in Congress by virtue of our policies and authority should have a say in who represents them.
</blockquote>
Pressley&#8217;s amendment failed to secure enough votes, but still managed to get the support of 126 representatives &#8212; which should frighten anyone concerned about democracy.
Rather than standing up for sanity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) agreed with the idea of lowering the voting age, saying she thought it was &#8220;really important to capture kids when they&#8217;re in high school, when they&#8217;re interested in all of this, when they&#8217;re learning about the government, to be able to vote.&#8221;
Can we expect Democrats to reverse course after this poll? Probably not.

POLL: Americans Do NOT Want Voting Age Lowered To 16

Poll

So Soviet Union-<a href="https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/">honeymooning</a>, Fidel Castro-<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-unearthed-video-recalling-excitement-castro-revolution-cuba">kowtowing</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43796/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">socialist</a> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants to let the Boston Marathon jihadist <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46295/bernie-sanders-let-terrorists-sex-predators-ryan-saavedra">vote</a> from his high-security prison while he awaits his already-overdue death sentence. Specifically, as The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ryan Saavedra <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46295/bernie-sanders-let-terrorists-sex-predators-ryan-saavedra">reported</a>, Sanders said: &#8220;I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away&#8230;you&#8217;re running down a slippery slope&#8230;I believe even if they are in jail, they&#8217;re paying the price to society, that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.&#8221;
But there is one major problem for the near-octogenarian Vermont loonbag: The franchise, in our system of governance, is not properly construed as a &#8220;right&#8221; that is &#8220;inherent to our democracy.&#8221; Rather, going back to the Founding generation and continuing through the Reconstruction Amendments well into the 20th century, the franchise in our constitutional order has long been generally understood as a privilege for which the states have something closely akin to plenary power to regulate &#8212; and, indeed, limit &#8212; as they see fit.
The extensive congressional debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, held in the tumultuous years immediately following Lee&#8217;s surrender to Grant at Appomattox, are telling. Congressman John Bingham (R-OH), the single principal draftsman of the Fourteenth Amendment, <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/everything-leftists-declare-constitutional-right-results-democrat-votes/">declared</a> at the time that &#8220;we all agree, and the great body of the people of this country agree, and the committee thus far in reporting measures of reconstruction agree, that the exercise of the elective franchise, though it be one of the privileges of a citizen of the Republic, is exclusively under the control of the States.&#8221; In the Senate, the influential Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI) was perhaps even more <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/everything-leftists-declare-constitutional-right-results-democrat-votes/">explicit</a>: &#8220;the right of suffrage is not, in law, one of the privileges or immunities thus secured by the Constitution. It is merely the creature of law. It has always been regarded in this country as the result of positive local law, not regarded as one of those fundamental rights lying at the basis of all society and without which a people cannot exist except as slaves, subject to a despotism.&#8221;
In Sanders&#8217; limited defense, James Madison does refer, in <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed52.asp">The Federalist No. 52</a>, to &#8220;the right of suffrage&#8221; as a &#8220;fundamental article of republican government.&#8221; But this is lofty natural rights language delinked from the very Constitution that The Federalist Papers sought to help ratify. Indeed, in the very same paragraph, Madison expressly concedes that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 left the general regulation of the franchise to the states as a compromise measure: &#8220;To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option.&#8221; It is this compromise by the men of the Constitutional Convention &#8212; to generally leave the regulation of the franchise to the states &#8212; that Bingham and Howard referenced decades later during the Fourteenth Amendment ratification debate. Madison&#8217;s possible personal lamentations to the contrary do not countermand constitutional text or rudimentary constitutional structure.
Finally, consider how emphatic the leading originalist Supreme Court justice of the past half-century (and likely of all-time), Clarence Thomas, has been on this issue. &#8220;States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,&#8221; Thomas wrote in his 2013 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf">Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.</a> dissent. &#8220;States&#8230;retain the authority to decide the qualifications to vote in federal elections, limited only by the requirement that they not establish special requirements for congressional elections that do not apply in elections for the state legislature,&#8221; he continued (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, in his 2018 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf">Husted v. Philip Randolph Institute</a> concurrence, Thomas emphasized that the states have the &#8220;constitutional authority to set and enforce voter qualifications.&#8221; Finally, in his 2016 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.PDF">Evenwel v. Abbott</a> concurrence, Thomas noted that Congress has proper regulatory authority &#8220;only over the when, where, and how of holding congressional elections, not over the question of who can vote&#8221; (internal citations omitted).
In short, then, Bernie Sanders is wrong here &#8212; as he is in so many other areas of life.

HAMMER: Bernie Sanders Is Wrong. Voting Is a Privilege That Can Be Forfeited.

Bernie Sanders

Constitution

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) might be backing off her promise to let felons vote while still incarcerated, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) appears to have no intention of walking back statements made in a Monday night town hall event, where he pledged to restore voting rights to felons across the board, including those convicted of terrorism.
Sanders drew sharp criticism for an answer given Monday night in response to an audience question about whether he would, as president, work to restore voting rights to convicted felons, even those who remain behind bars. The audience member followed up by asking Sanders whether he believed voting rights should extend to those convicted of truly heinous crimes, like Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
&#8220;Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, &#8216;Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,&#8217; you&#8217;re running down a slippery slope,&#8221; <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/04/23/bernie-sanders-voting-rights-boston-marathon-bomber-buttigieg-harris/3548232002/">Sanders responded</a>. &#8220;Even if they are in jail, they&#8217;re paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our Democracy.&#8221;
A handful of progressive-leaning 2020 Democratic presidential candidates quickly boarded that bandwagon, but by Tuesday afternoon, both Harris and surprise upstart candidate, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, had disavowed Sanders&#8217; idea, admitting that &#8220;voting rights for convicted terrorists&#8221; was not a hill they&#8217;d prefer to die on.
Sanders, however, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/04/23/bernie-sanders-voting-rights-boston-marathon-bomber-buttigieg-harris/3548232002/">The Washington Free Beacon reports</a>, is intent on doubling down on his commitment to &#8220;voter rights,&#8221; and his campaign plans to &#8220;lean in&#8221; on the idea as they move into early primary states.
&#8220;Yes, I did get to speak to some voters, but I do want to say Bernie Sanders just wrapped up an event and he is not backing down from the issue at all,&#8221; NBC reporter Shaquille Brewster told MSNBC Tuesday during an interview. &#8220;I spoke to a senior campaign official who told me this is something the campaign plans to lean directly into. They see this as an opportunity to educate people on the Reconstruction era of restrictions on felons&#8217; ability to vote.&#8221;
&#8220;This is something that this official told me that really is going to expand on with hard substantive policy as they go to South Carolina,&#8221; Brewster added.
All but truly dedicated progressives are backing away from what they see as a losing proposal at the ballot box, so why is Sanders doubling down? <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04/23/report-bernies-campaign-planning-lean-directly-message-letting-prisoners-vote/">Allahpundit at Hot Air</a> has a theory that seems to make sense: Sanders has routinely lagged behind with African-American voters, and he seems to believe that allowing felons to vote will resonate with the same minorities who completely avoided his campaign in 2012. South Carolina, in particular, is a tough state for Sanders &#8212; he lost it to Hillary Clinton by a 4 to 1 margin.
This time around, Sanders isn&#8217;t just dealing with the same gap in popularity among minority voters, he&#8217;s actively campaigning against minority candidates, putting him at a deeper disadvantage.
But Sanders is walking a fine line &#8212; a problem Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham pointed out on Twitter. Although restoring voting rights to incarcerated felons may be a somewhat popular idea among some voters, in South Carolina, it means restoring the right to vote to a particularly notorious racist murderer.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I look forward to hearing his explanation &#8212; in South Carolina &#8212; why Dylan Roof should be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections.
&#8212; Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) <a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1120694758047911937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
The good news for Sanders, though, is that he&#8217;s got Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s (D-NY) backing on the idea &#8212; or, at least the backing of her Chief of Staff.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
What&#8217;s the reason NOT to let incarcerated people vote? Shouldn&#8217;t the people most affected by unjust laws have some say in electing people to change them?
&#8212; Saikat Chakrabarti (@saikatc) <a href="https://twitter.com/saikatc/status/1121029236607864832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
The bad news is, that&#8217;s probably not a line most Americans are going to swallow.

Bernie Won&#8217;t Take It Back! Sanders Campaign Says They&#8217;ll &#8216;Lean In&#8217; On Voting Rights For Incarcerated Felons

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

When music icon Cher becomes the Democratic Party&#8217;s voice of reason, we are a long, long way from Kansas. Now, after blasting the idea of flooding sanctuary cities with illegal immigrants, the &#8220;Moonstruck&#8221; star has dared to question socialist Bernie Sanders&#8217; radical proposal of allowing incarcerated felons to vote in elections.
In a now-deleted tweet, Cher openly pondered: &#8220;Does Bernie Sanders Really Believe Ppl In Prison Who Are Murders!? Rapists!? Child Molesters!? BOSTON BOMBERS &#8230; STILL DESERVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE!?&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Cher deleted this tweet. <a href="https://t.co/cZtWD4C87Y">pic.twitter.com/cZtWD4C87Y</a>
&#8212; #ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottPresler/status/1120835902689902592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Cher did not explain why she deleted her tweet; the second of its kind this month in which she allowed herself to publicly express the inner-stirrings of some non-radical thoughts. Just last week, she blasted the idea of sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities by tweeting: &#8220;I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE HUNGRY? If My State Can&#8217;t Take Care of Its Own How Can it Take Care Of More.&#8221;
Speaking at a CNN town hall on Monday, Sen. Sanders (D-VT), the current 2020 front-runner, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46295/bernie-sanders-let-terrorists-sex-predators-ryan-saavedra">actually said that voting rights should be extended</a> not just to convicted felons who have already served time (a <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats">Democratic Party constituency</a>, BTW) but to men and women currently sitting behind bars, which would include: murderers, kidnappers, rapists, child molesters, thieves, and terrorists, like the Boston Marathon bomber.
&#8220;Would [you] support enfranchising people like the Boston Marathon bomber, a convicted terrorist and murderer?&#8221; an audience member asked Sanders on Monday night. &#8220;Do you think those convicted of sexual assault should have the opportunity to vote for politicians who could have a direct impact on women&#8217;s rights?&#8221;
&#8220;Thank you for the question, and let me just say this: What our campaign is about and what I believe is creating a vibrant democracy,&#8221; Sanders responded. &#8220;If somebody commits a serious crime, sexual assault, murder, they&#8217;re going to be punished. They may be in jail 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole life. That&#8217;s what happens when you commit a serious crime.&#8221;
&#8220;But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away &#8230; you&#8217;re running down a slippery slope &#8230; I believe even if they are in jail, they&#8217;re paying the price to society, that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.&#8221;
When CNN moderator Chris Cuomo asked Sanders to clarify if he actually meant to extend voting rights to people who have committed some of the vilest crimes on the books, the socialist from Vermont doubled-down.
&#8220;Look, this is what I believe. Do you believe in Democracy?&#8221; Sanders continued. &#8220;Do you believe that every single American 18 years of age or older who is an American citizen has the right to vote? Once you start chipping away at that, believe me that&#8217;s what our Republican governors all over this country are doing. I believe every single person does have the right to vote.&#8221;

Bernie Burned: Even Cher Thinks Prisoners Voting Goes Too Far

Cher

There&#8217;s a push to change laws to permit both criminals serving time and ex-criminals the right to vote. Guess which party is pushing the most for these legal changes. If you guessed that it was the Democrats, go to the head of the class. Bernie Sanders says states should allow felons to vote from behind bars. Elizabeth Warren doesn&#8217;t go that far but believes felons should have the right to vote. Democrats want the criminal class to have voting rights restored because they could become a significant part of the Democratic base.
These are America&#8217;s murderers, rapists, burglars, child molesters and drug dealers. Over two million of these people are in prison. If we add in the number of people on probation and parole, there are 6.7 million people currently under correctional control. If cons and ex-cons get the right to vote, it&#8217;s almost a guarantee that most of these people will cast their vote for a Democratic candidate.
Democrats don&#8217;t stop with wanting cons and ex-cons to vote. It turns out that more than 50 percent of Democrats surveyed want illegal immigrants to have the right to vote, as they already do in some Democratic-controlled cities.
America&#8217;s gun control advocates have the belief that outlawing guns would drastically reduce crime. Almost all handguns have been outlawed from private citizen use in the U.K. since 1996. Nonetheless, violent crime in the U.K. has risen almost every year since the ban. Criminals love the idea of a disarmed populace. While there are few gun crimes in the U.K., there&#8217;s a recent report that in 2018 there were over 40,000 knife crimes committed. It&#8217;s gotten so bad that some stores have stopped selling kitchen knives.
America&#8217;s gun control advocates might have some solutions for the citizens of the U.K. They might advocate a thorough MI5 (U.K.&#8217;s secret service) background check for anyone wishing to purchase any kind of knife, including kitchen knives. They might advocate knife registration. There might be lengthy prison sentences for anyone caught with an illegal unregistered knife. With London&#8217;s murder rate higher than New York City&#8217;s, Mayor Sadiq Khan has implemented knife control policies as violent crime surges. Khan deployed over 300 additional London police officers to stop and search anyone they suspect is carrying a knife.
Here&#8217;s something else to ponder: Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential elections are calling for reparations for slavery or for the study of reparations. Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren are leading the charge. Slavery was a gross violation of human rights. Justice would demand that slave owners make compensatory payments to slaves. Since both slaves and slave owners are no longer with us, such punishment and compensation is beyond our reach.
So which white Americans owe which black Americans how much? Reparations advocates don&#8217;t want that question asked, but let&#8217;s you and I ask it. Are the millions of European, Asian and Latin Americans who immigrated to the U.S. in the 20th century responsible for slavery? What about descendants of Northern whites who fought and died in the War of 1861 in the name of freeing slaves? Should they cough up money for black Americans? What about non-slave-owning Southern whites, who were a majority of Southern whites &#8212; should their descendants be made to pay reparations?
On black people&#8217;s side of the ledger, thorny questions arise. Some blacks purchased other blacks as a means to free family members. But other blacks owned slaves for the same reason whites owned slaves &#8212; to work farms or plantations. Would descendants of these blacks be eligible for reparations?
The bottom line is because blacks are doing well in the economic arena under the Trump administration, Democrats fear losing a significant portion of the black vote. Their call for reparations is another attempt to use the promise of handouts to insure that the black vote remains in their pocket. Reparations talk is simply another insulting Democratic rope-a-dope strategy.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

WILLIAMS: Some Things To Ponder

Illegal Immigration

Progressivism

On Sunday, Hillary Clinton attended the annual &#8220;Bloody Sunday&#8221; commemorative service in Selma, AL. While speaking to the crowd, she claimed that voter ID laws kept her from winning Wisconsin &#8212; a state she didn&#8217;t even bother to visit while running for president in 2016. She was the <a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/hillary-clinton-hoping-to-win-wisconsin-without-setting-foot-in/article_b39afbf6-c85c-5cba-becd-addfa03f841a.html">first candidate since 1972 to ignore the Badger State</a>.
&#8220;I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, and I will tell you, it makes a really big difference. And it doesn&#8217;t just make a difference in Alabama and Georgia; it made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 [thousand] and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting,&#8221; she said.
&#8220;Just think about it: Between 2012, the prior presidential election where we still had the Voting Rights Act, and 2016, when my name was on the ballot, there were fewer voters registered in Georgia than there had been those prior four years,&#8221; she added.
Though The Washington Post acknowledged some studies claim voter ID laws disenfranchise minority voters (even though getting a proper ID is not difficult for any U.S. citizen of legal voting age), <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/06/hillary-clintons-claims-about-voter-suppression-georgia-wisconsin/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.33294c2cac16">it noted that Clinton</a> &#8220;made several factual errors, offered questionable claims about a couple of studies, and ended up giving a misleading assessment of her loss.&#8221;
For starters, the part of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down only applied to nine states and a few counties &#8212; none of which were in Wisconsin. Georgia, which was covered by the VRA, saw voter registration increase between 2012 and 2016, counter to Clinton&#8217;s claims.
The Wisconsin voter ID law gave people plenty of options for what ID could allow them to vote. The Post reported that it required &#8220;voters to show a U.S. passport or a photo ID issued by Wisconsin state agencies, the military, Veterans Affairs, a university or college, or a federally recognized Indian tribe.&#8221;
The author of one of the studies, Clinton&#8217;s spokesperson Nick Merrill, pointed to surveyed people in two counties and said the results could not be extrapolated to the whole state. He even suggested some people who said they didn&#8217;t vote because of the voter ID &#8220;might not have voted even if the law were not in effect.&#8221;
Merrill also pointed to other evidence &#8212; a memo from a Democrat super PAC which made the absurd claim that more than 200,000 additional people would have voted in Wisconsin were it not for the voter ID laws. As for the 80,000, it looks like Clinton&#8217;s people just made it up.
&#8220;The 40,000 number comes from the more conservative estimate,&#8221; Merrill told the Post. &#8220;The 80,000 number is also a conservative estimate well within the range of the two studies.&#8221;
But the Post also spoke to Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine. He&#8217;s an &#8220;elections expert&#8221; and told the media outlet that black voters didn&#8217;t come out for Clinton like they did for Obama &#8212; and this happened in states with and without voter ID laws. Further, Hasen told the Post that Clinton&#8217;s 40,000 to 80,000 estimate was &#8220;ludicrous&#8221; because Wisconsin wasn&#8217;t affected by the Voting Rights Act (he still managed to claim that voter ID laws deter voters).
The Post&#8217;s Salvador Rizzo concludes:
<blockquote>
The Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in 2013 had no bearing on Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin-Madison study she relied on for her 40,000 estimate says its findings from two counties should not be extrapolated to form statewide conclusions. Her spokesman did not cite any study for the 80,000 estimate. Voter registration in Georgia did not decline from 2012 to 2016.
</blockquote>
&#8220;Wrong on multiple levels, seriously misleading, and worth a cumulative Four Pinocchios,&#8221; he added.
<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/hillary-clintons-latest-excuse-for-losing-the-2016-presidential-election/">h/t Jim Geraghty of NRO</a>

Washington Post Fact Checks Hillary Clinton’s Absurd Claim That Voter ID Laws Cost Her The Election

On Friday, the historically leftist &#8212; but often quirky &#8212; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surprised many when it came out in <a href="https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-house-rules-committee-hr-1">opposition</a> to House Democrats&#8217; omnibus <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text">H.R. 1</a> bill, dubbed the &#8220;For The People Act Of 2019.&#8221;
As the name signifies, H.R. 1 is the bill label often given to a new House leadership&#8217;s most <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/01/05/682286587/house-democrats-introduce-anti-corruption-bill-as-symbolic-first-act">symbolic</a> or highly pressing legislative priority. In January, NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/01/05/682286587/house-democrats-introduce-anti-corruption-bill-as-symbolic-first-act">described</a> the For The People Act Of 2019 as &#8220;a 571-page compendium of existing problems and proposed solutions in four political hot zones: voting, political money, redistricting and ethics.&#8221;
Among other things, H.R. 1 provides for automatic voter registration, makes election day a national holiday, restores many felons&#8217; voting rights, cuts back further on states&#8217; ability to control their own voter rolls, revives the previously gutted <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/42334/federalism-restored-trump-administration-reverses-josh-hammer">coverage formula</a> of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, mandates the disclosure of donors to politically active 501(c)(4) organizations, mandates that presidential inaugural committees disclose expenditures in addition to donors, and mandates that presidents and vice presidents must release their tax returns.
Some institutional free speech advocates have opposed H.R. 1 since its incipience. &#8220;This is obviously a pretty radical expansion of the regulation of political speech,&#8221; said David Keating in January, president of the conservative Institute for Free Speech, according to NPR.
The ACLU now publicly similarly opposes H.R. 1, which is <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/4/hr-1-democrats-election-reform-bill-unconstitution">due for a vote</a> on the House floor later this week. Here is an excerpt of the ACLU&#8217;s Friday <a href="https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-house-rules-committee-hr-1">letter</a> to House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Ranking Member Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK):
<blockquote>
The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of its 3 million members, supporters and activists, opposes H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019 as it was reported out of the House Administration Committee. We strongly urge the Rules Committee to allow floor amendments that would mitigate our concerns with the provisions that unconstitutionally infringe the freedoms of speech and association. &#8230;
[T]here are&#8230;provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.
</blockquote>
&#8220;While there are many aspects of H.R. 1 that we strongly support, the provisions outlined above must be changed to avoid unconstitutionally burdening political speech,&#8221; the letter concluded.
Although H.R. 1 is due for a House floor vote later this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/aclu-democrats-election-reform/2019/03/05/id/905566/">said</a> that he will not even bring the measure for a full vote in the senior legislative chamber.
Conservatives have not been reluctant to glom onto the ACLU&#8217;s opposition as a means of arguing for H.R. 1&#8217;s heavy-handed, extremist mandates. &#8220;When groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, who have traditionally supported the Democratic party, echo my concerns with H.R. 1, it underscores why election reform legislation should not be developed in a partisan manner,&#8221; said Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL), the Ranking Member on the House Administration Committee, according to <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/4/hr-1-democrats-election-reform-bill-unconstitution">The Washington Times</a>.

ACLU Blasts House Democrats’ Big ‘Election Reform’ Bill As Unconstitutional

ACLU

Leftism

U.S. House of Representatives

Pennsylvania has finally released the results of an investigation of its voter registration rolls which was concluded last summer.
As Jazz Shaw at Hot Air notes, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf had <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/31/pennsylvania-admits-thousands-registered-non-citizen-voters/">blocked the release of the results</a> using legal maneuvers, but the information is finally out. More than 11,000 non-citizens are on the Keystone State&#8217;s voter rolls, <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/30/pennsylvania-11000-non-citizens-registered-vote/">according to the Washington Times</a>. This is far less than the estimated 100,000 &#8211; a number that could have changed the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
&#8220;Pennsylvania officials have admitted to finding names of 11,198 non-citizens registered to vote on the state&#8217;s rolls &#8212; though top lawmakers suspect the number could still be higher,&#8221; the Times reported.
&#8220;I believe that we need to take action and have those people removed immediately from the tolls. They were never eligible to vote,&#8221; Republican state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe told the Times.
President Donald Trump won the state of Pennsylvania in 2016 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/pennsylvania-president-clinton-trump">by 44,292 votes</a>, according to The New York Times. If every non-citizen on Pennsylvania&#8217;s voter rolls had voted, Trump still would have won (obviously). But as Shaw points out, the real issue here is how hard the governor fought to keep this information from the public until after the midterm election in 2018:
<blockquote>
Making this problem worse isn&#8217;t the fact that there are that many non-citizens registered to vote, but that the Governor fought tooth and nail to prevent this information from going public until after the election. The original investigation took place in plenty of time for the news to be released last year, but the Governor dragged his feet until a hearing was scheduled for December. Once the election was safely out of the way, the Governor withdrew his objections.
</blockquote>
Shaw reports that the reason so many states have thousands of non-citizens on their voter rolls is that they are tied to motor vehicle registration. For some reason, the DMV lets people register to vote when they renew their license or register a vehicle. And many states allow illegal aliens to obtain driver&#8217;s licenses.
In Texas, a state investigation found <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42716/texas-finds-58000-people-who-identified-non-hank-berrien">95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls</a>, 58,000 of whom had voted in at least one election since 1996.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said of the results of the 11-month investigation:
<blockquote>
Every single instance of illegal voting threatens democracy in our state and deprives individual Texans of their voice. Nothing is more vital to preserving our Constitution than the integrity of our voting process, and my office will do everything within its abilities to solidify trust in every election in the state of Texas.
</blockquote>
These numbers don&#8217;t add up to an amount that could change an election &#8211; at least not yet &#8211; but it does speak to a bureaucratic error that could become a problem at some point in the future, especially if Democrats continue to oppose the need for voters to verify who they are and if they are citizens when they go to the polls.

Pennsylvania Finds Thousands Of ‘Non-Citizens’ On Voter Rolls

On Friday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/us/noncitizens-voting-texas.html">after an 11-month investigation</a> by the Texas Department of Public Safety perusing state records going back to 1996, 95,000 people who identified themselves as non-citizens were discovered listed on the voter rolls and an astonishing 58,000 had voted in at least one Texas election.
Paxton stated, &#8220;Every single instance of illegal voting threatens democracy in our state and deprives individual Texans of their voice. Nothing is more vital to preserving our Constitution than the integrity of our voting process, and my office will do everything within its abilities to solidify trust in every election in the state of Texas.&#8221;
Paxton was echoed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who tweeted, &#8220;I support prosecution where appropriate. The State will work on legislation to safeguard against these illegal practices.&#8221;
Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the secretary of state, noted that the voters who identified themselves as non-citizens would be contacted by local officials asking them to offer proof that they were indeed citizens. He pointed out that if non-citizens vote in Texas, that&#8217;s a felony; if they register to vote, that&#8217;s a misdemeanor.
The process discovering the voters identifying as non-citizens was an arduous one, utilizing names, birth dates and full or partial Social Security numbers as the investigation examined voter rolls and public safety records.
As <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-says-it-has-discovered-95000-non-citizens-on-voter-rolls-58000-have-voted">Fox News</a> noted, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dismantles-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did">&#8220;President Trump created a commission</a> in 2017 to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the 2016 election. But it was eventually dismantled by Trump after the group faced lawsuits, opposition from states and in-fighting among its members. Trump said at the time that Democrats refused to hand over data &#8216;because they know that many people are voting illegally.&#8217;&#8221;
Texas <a href="https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id.html">voter ID laws</a> offer a list of acceptable forms of photo ID for voting. These include: a Texas Driver License issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS); a Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS; a Texas Personal Identification Card issued by DPS; a Texas Handgun License issued by DPS; a United States Military Identification Card containing the person&#8217;s photograph; a United States Citizenship Certificate containing the person&#8217;s photograph, or a United States Passport (book or card.)
If a voter does not possess one of the foregoing methods of identification and cannot obtain one, here is a list of the supporting forms of ID that can be presented: a copy or original of a government document that shows the voter&#8217;s name and an address, including the voter&#8217;s voter registration certificate; copy of or original current utility bill; a copy of or original bank statement; a copy of or original government check; a copy of or original paycheck; or a copy of or original of (a) a certified domestic (from a U.S. state or territory) birth certificate or (b) a document confirming birth admissible in a court of law which establishes the voter&#8217;s identity (which may include a foreign birth document).
Last April, a federal appeals court <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/us/texas-voter-id.html">upheld</a> Texas&#8217; voter identification law, which had been challenged by those who felt it was discriminatory against black and Hispanic voters. The federal appeals court overturned a lower-court ruling <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/federal-judge-rejects-a-revised-voter-id-law-in-texas.html?module=inline">striking down</a> the law in 2017.

Texas Finds 58,000 People Who Identified As Non-Citizens Have Voted Since 1996

Texas

In legal filings this week made in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Department of Justice made clear that it <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/16/trump-admin-decides-texas-doesnt-need-federal-oversight-redistricting">opposes</a> bringing Texas&#8217;s electoral map-drawing back under the federal oversight of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Voting Rights Act established numerous legal tools to protect the franchise for minority voters. Section 2 of the Act contains a cause of action through which private plaintiffs can prophylactically sue to enforce the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10301">statute&#8217;s proscription</a> of any voting jurisdiction implementing a &#8220;voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure &#8230; in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.&#8221; Section 5 of the Act additionally <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10304">contains</a> a federal preclearance mechanism by which certain jurisdictions separately specified in Section 4(b) are precluded from making any changes affecting voting without receiving the preapproval of the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96">Shelby County v. Holder</a> invalidated Congress&#8217;s specific &#8220;coverage formula&#8221; contained in Section 4(b) of the Act, but left intact the Section 5 preclearance mechanism. Justice Clarence Thomas <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96#writing-12-96_CONCUR_4">concurred</a> separately to note that he would have found unconstitutional the entirety of the Section 5 preclearance edifice as well.
Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-586_o7kq.pdf">Abbott v. Perez</a>, a Texas-based case which upheld 10 of the 11 congressional and state House districts being challenged for alleged intentional discrimination against minority voters. That case was a major setback for Texas activist groups seeking to place the Republican-controlled state legislature&#8217;s map-drawing under greater federal scrutiny.
And now, following Perez, the Department of Justice is officially taking the legal stance that the federal government does not support placing Texas back under any new congressionally prescribed Section 4(b) &#8220;coverage formula&#8221; vis-à-vis federal preclearance. The Texas Tribune <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/16/trump-admin-decides-texas-doesnt-need-federal-oversight-redistricting/">reports</a>:
<blockquote>
In legal filings this week, the Justice Department indicated it would side against the voters of color, civil rights groups and Democratic lawmakers who want a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio to require Texas to seek pre-approval of its legislative and congressional maps, given previous maps that the federal judges ruled discriminatory.
&#8220;The United States no longer believes that [federal supervision] is warranted in this case,&#8221; federal attorneys said in their filing to the court.
</blockquote>
The move by the Department of Justice is a salient marker in the Trump administration&#8217;s broader efforts to promote federalism in areas of law that that the Obama administration sought to bring under a national microscope.
The Constitution&#8217;s basic structure establishes that voting is a state issue unless and until constitutional amendments and/or statutory dispensations speak directly to the contrary. At the constitutional level, the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments all federalize certain voting rights. At the statutory level, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark federalization of voting regulation that had hitherto been relegated to the states.
In the 1966 case of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/383/301">South Carolina v. Katzenbach</a>, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Voting Rights Act&#8217;s Section 5 preclearance mechanism against constitutional challenge. In 2013&#8217;s Shelby County, Chief Justice Roberts began his majority opinion by <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96">noting</a> that &#8220;[t]he Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem.&#8221; The Trump administration, this week, has taken a concrete step to signal its concurrence with Chief Justice Roberts&#8217; description of the &#8220;extraordinary&#8221; nature of a key Voting Rights Act remedy.

Federalism Restored: Trump Administration Reverses Obama On Federal Oversight For Texas Electoral Map-Drawing

Department of Justice

Broward County&#8217;s supervisor of elections, Brenda Snipes, has &#8220;withdrawn her resignation,&#8221; <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/419312-snipes-rescinds-resignation-after-scott-moves-to-immediately-suspend-her">the Hill reports</a>, after Florida Governor Rick Scott threatened to cut off her pension.
Snipes, who presided over an utterly embarrassing recount effort in Broward County following the 2018 midterm elections, told reporters on Saturday, through her attorney, that she refuses to be shamed by Scott and would not simply leave office quietly.
&#8220;Dr. Snipes hereby rescinds her resignation,&#8221; attorney Burnadette Norris-Weeks told media, adding that the governor&#8217;s efforts to remove Snipes from office before January were nothing more than an attempt to &#8220;tarnish [Snipes&#8217;s] record.&#8221;
Snipes will be &#8220;fighting this to the very end,&#8221; Norris-Weeks said.
Snipes officially resigned her position after the Broward Country recount was completed, and after days of errors and missteps that saw Broward lag far behind neighboring counties in handling ballot issues (Snipes&#8217;s team, even, at one point, lost more than 2,000 ballots, with hours remaining until the election results had to be certified). She would have remained in office until January, and would have been eligible for a $170,000 state pension.
But Governor Rick Scott announced late last week that Snipes was overstaying her welcome, and Scott officially removed her from office, appointing a Republican supervisor of elections to take over immediately.
&#8220;Every eligible voter in Florida deserves their vote to be counted and should have confidence in Florida&#8217;s elections process,&#8221; Scott said in a statement about his actions last week.
&#8220;After a series of inexcusable actions, it&#8217;s clear that there needs to be an immediate change in Broward County and taxpayers should no longer be burdened by paying a salary for a Supervisor of Elections who has already announced resignation,&#8221; Scott added.
That turned out to be a bad deal for Snipes, who is now refusing to leave office unless she is removed by the state of Florida. Her current term isn&#8217;t scheduled to end until the 2020 election year.
In a separate statement at a press conference held Saturday, Snipes accused Scott of being &#8220;vindictive&#8221; &#8212; even though Scott ultimately won the recount in Broward county and will now serve as Florida&#8217;s junior senator &#8212; and pledged to seek out transparency.
She urged the audience to &#8220;have an open mind about this whole process,&#8221; and claimed that &#8220;we have always done our work in an air of quality and integrity.&#8221;
Other Democrats piled on early Sunday, backing Snipes, <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/2/brenda-snipes-rescinds-resignation-broward-county-/">according to The Washington Times</a>.
&#8220;Cynthia Busch, chairman of the Broward County Democratic Party, questioned why Scott did not appoint someone from the community and appointed someone who is a &#8216;Republican Party stalwart,'&#8221; the Times reported. &#8220;Rep. Shevrin Jones, a Democrat from Broward, called the suspension a &#8216;play on his politics on his part.'&#8221;
The way forward may be easier than it looks, though. Snipes can be removed by state action, though Scott may leave any further movement to the Florida legislature rather than to his own office.

Broward County Election Official Brenda Snipes &#8216;UN-RESIGNS&#8217; After Florida Gov Threatens To Revoke Her Pension

Florida

Rick Scott

Laura Ingraham is sounding the alarm for the GOP to fix voter fraud or else risk losing the 2020 election at their own peril.
In an <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/laura-ingraham-if-election-chaos-isnt-cleaned-up-the-gop-can-kiss-2020-goodbye">op-ed for Fox News</a>, Ingraham began by recalling the John F. Kennedy victory over Nixon, where voter fraud in Illinois and Texas is believed to have been what propelled the young Democrat to victory in 1960.
&#8220;We may be witnessing yet another in a series of stolen elections in Florida,&#8221; she began. &#8220;Democrats are experts at pulling swifties at the ballot box, you know, it is widely believed that they resorted to voter fraud in Illinois and Texas to tilt the election of John F. Kennedy over Nixon in 1960. And they may be up to their old tricks again.&#8221;
Since last week&#8217;s mid-term election, all eyes have been focused on Broward County in Florida, where County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes has been exposed as a woman of either gross incompetence or shrewd machinations. Finding ballots in the trunks of people&#8217;s cars, lack of transparency with officials on the ballot counting process, and mixing illegal provisional ballots in with legal ones are just a few of the allegations leveled against her. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416497-broward-county-chief-on-jeb-bush-calling-for-her-resignation-thats-his">has even called for Snipes to step down</a>.
Ingraham rightly noted that Republicans who raised the issue of voter fraud in Florida were roundly dismissed by the media, with both The New York Times and Chris Cuomo of CNN asserting that no proof exists of voter fraud. She provides some helpful facts:
<blockquote>
Things are so bad in Palm Beach that Governor Rick Scott, who is in a tight Senate race there, sued the county election supervisor, Susan Bucher.
The judge determined that she had illegally withheld over voted and under voted ballots from the canvassing board. And worse, she has refused to allow public scrutiny of the ballots.&#8203;
And the governor has also sued Broward County election supervisor &#8212; something of, kind of her own rock star, these days, Brenda Snipes. Now, Snipes is a piece of work. Her predecessor literally walked out of her office in 2003 for a grave and neglect mismanagement and incompetence. Practically a tradition down there in Broward. And in May, a judge found Brenda Snipes guilty of illegally destroying ballots during a primary election in 2016. Then in August, a court found her guilty of secretly opening mail-in ballots, which is illegal in her state.
Then on Friday, Governor Scott won his lawsuit against Snipes. The court found that in this election, she continued to &#8220;discover&#8221; new ballots. She was found in violation of the state&#8217;s public records law and has been ordered to release information to Governor Scott. So far, she hasn&#8217;t complied with the order.
</blockquote>
Ingraham concluded her piece by warning the GOP that they have to take voter fraud seriously or risk losing the 2020 election, which could come down to close calls in key swing states.
&#8220;We cannot allow this flouting of the rules and procedures by corrupt officials or political hacks,&#8221; Ingraham asserted. &#8220;We can&#8217;t let it stand. If we allow this to go unchecked, it will undermine our democracy, and like a contagion, it&#8217;s going to spread across the nation.&#8221;
&#8220;If this isn&#8217;t cleaned up, I&#8217;m telling you, the GOP can kiss any hopes of restoring their majority, let alone a presidential victory, well, they can kiss it bye-bye in 2020,&#8221; she concluded.

Laura Ingraham To GOP: Fix Voter Fraud Or Kiss 2020 Goodbye

2018 Election

Laura Ingraham

Federal officials may be looking into charges that the Florida Democratic Party changed dates on &#8220;on forms used to fix vote-by-mail ballots sent with incorrect or missing information,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/11/13/federal-prosecutors-reviewing-altered-election-documents-tied-to-florida-democrats-695299">Politico reports</a>.
Although the Florida recount examining ballots cast in both the Florida Senate and Florida gubernatorial race has been a series of massive &#8212; and often very public &#8212; errors, from allegations of misplaced and mishandled ballots to vote-counting machines being pushed so far beyond their limit they&#8217;re overheating, so far there have been only a few allegations of true &#8220;vote manipulation,&#8221; and this is the first allegation to be referred to the federal government.
The Florida Department of State says it flagged a series of &#8220;irregularities&#8221; in documents filed last week &#8212; &#8220;cure affidavits&#8221; designed to help voters fix mistakes they believe they might have made on absentee and mail-in ballots. Those affidavits were supposed to have been mailed in before Election Day and postmarked before November 5th.
&#8220;But affidavits released on Tuesday by the DOS show that documents from four different counties said the ballots could be returned by 5 p.m. on Thursday, which is not accurate,&#8221; Politico reports.
Those ballots may have been deliberately changed.
&#8220;Altering a form in a manner that provides the incorrect date for a voter to cure a defect &#8230; imposes a burden on the voter significant enough to frustrate the voter&#8217;s ability to vote,&#8221; the interim head of Florida&#8217;s Department of State said in a letter to the federal government.
&#8220;The records released by DOS, which is part of Gov. Rick Scott&#8217;s administration, point the finger at the Florida Democratic Party,&#8221; Politico reported.
It looks as though the Democrats might have contacted absentee voters whose ballots were rejected to supply a &#8220;cure affidavit,&#8221; which they then provided by mail. But whomever sent out the &#8220;cure affidavits&#8221; appears to have physically altered the specified due date to read &#8220;November 8th,&#8221; two days after the ballots were actually due.
Unsurprisingly, the &#8220;mix-up&#8221; affected absentee voters in Broward County (though it extended to several other localities).
Officials with the DOS say they aren&#8217;t as worried about the conflicting dates, but that the ballots were physically changed. One official said in an email obtained by Politico that while the mix-up was a concern, &#8220;a bigger problem is the fact they actually changed one of the DOE forms.&#8221;
Those forms have since been submitted to federal investigators.
The Florida Democratic Party called the situation a &#8220;distraction&#8221; in a statement.
&#8220;The courts have already forced Rick Scott to drop a lawsuit after false claims of fraud, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement rejected his desperate attempts to interfere with the important work of counting ballots,&#8221; they told Politico. &#8220;Now, Scott is once again trying to divert attention and resources from a smooth and successful recount.&#8221;
Despite reports of mistakes, slow recounts, and other oddities, the Florida Department of State &#8212; which is Republican-controlled &#8212; has maintained that they do not believe there is widespread voter fraud at issue in the recounts currently taking place across south Florida.
There is one significant problem, however: recounts were supposed to be certified by Tuesday night at midnight and several significant counties missed the deadline. Democrats have filed for injunctions in both state and federal court to prevent Florida&#8217;s Department of State from calling a &#8220;premature&#8221; end to recount efforts.

UH-OH: Federal Government May Begin Probe Into Florida Democratic Party Citing Potential &#8216;Voting Irregularities&#8217;

Georgia&#8217;s Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams, filed suit in a federal court Sunday, seeking to stop Georgia&#8217;s election officials from tossing out more than a thousand absentee and provisional ballots &#8212; a move that she hopes could send the state&#8217;s gubernatorial election into a runoff.
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/11/politics/georgia-governor-race-stacey-abrams-lawsuit/index.html">CNN reports</a> that Abrams&#8217; team is convinced that they&#8217;re just a few thousand votes away from forcing a runoff, even though they currently run 59,000 votes behind the Republican candidate, Brian Kemp, and 100% of precincts have reported in.
Kemp currently has 50.3% of the vote. If that share dips below 50%, he&#8217;ll be forced into a runoff with Abrams.
&#8220;This race is not over. It&#8217;s still too close to call. And we cannot have confidence in the secretary of state&#8217;s numbers,&#8221; Abrams&#8217; campaign manager told media on Sunday. &#8220;In short, our legal strategy is simple: Count every vote.&#8221;
Abrams seeks to have more than just &#8220;every vote&#8221; counted, however. She wants all votes, even those apparently cast illegally and rejected by election officials, counted toward her total. Her team&#8217;s federal lawsuit covers around a thousand absentee ballots that CNN says were rejected because of &#8220;missing information,&#8221; but also several thousand provisional ballots cast in &#8220;Gwinnett and Dekalb counties&#8230;[rejected] because [the voters] are registered in a different county.&#8221;
Those voters may have voted by mistake, or they may have voted twice, in their home county and in a separate county, hoping a provisional ballot cast in a different county would be counted. Provisional ballots are only counted in the event of a very close race, and even then, election officials abide by very strict standards.
Even if Abrams wins the lawsuit, she may not have enough votes to topple Kemp. <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abrams-campaign-files-federal-lawsuit-in-hopes-to-force-runoff">According to Fox News</a>, Abrams would need more than 20,000 additional votes to pull Kemp under 50%. But the lawsuit filed Sunday could at least result in a temporary injunction, delaying Georgia counties from certifying their final votes &#8212; an action which must happen by Tuesday.
Delaying the final certification could give Kemp&#8217;s campaign the time needed to find thousands more discarded votes to challenge in Georgia&#8217;s other counties.
But even that&#8217;s still a long shot, an expert told Fox News :&#8221;So her margin in those uncounted votes needs to be really high. &#8230; To put it simply, she&#8217;s running out of votes.&#8221;
&#8220;That said, I think the Abrams campaign still faces an uphill battle in first convincing a court about the need for a recount and second, having the recount net enough votes to force a runoff. As a general matter, recounts rarely end up changing the outcomes of elections,&#8221; said another.
Abrams lost the election by a clear margin on Election Day, but has been pushing &#8212; and, it seems, raising money &#8212; for a recount, charging that Kemp, who served as director of the state&#8217;s election board before and during his run for governor, &#8220;suppressed&#8221; the vote in Georgia by purging long-time non-voters from the rolls just months before the 2018 midterms. Abrams has also charged that voters faced long lines and additional suppressive efforts at the polls on Election Day.
Georgia is now one of three states left with uncertain election results. In Arizona, count and recount efforts are ongoing in the battle for Sen. Jeff Flake&#8217;s vacated seat between Democrat Kyrsten Sinema and Republican Martha McSally. Two races in Florida &#8212; the gubernatorial race between Democrat Andrew Gillum and Republican Ron DeSantis, and the Senate race between Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Bill Nelson &#8212; remain too close to call, mired in recounts in the Southern Florida counties, Broward and Miami-Dade.

Menu