By Alice Salles
A non-partisan group has reported that there are still several counties in California where the number of registered voters is greater than the number of eligible citizens, with the total nearing one million people.
The Election Integrity Project California (EIPCa) stated in a release on July 8 (pdf) that if voter problems are not promptly addressed by state officials, fraudulent election activities may continue to haunt the state.
Using the state’s own data on active and inactive status registrants, the organization found that eight counties have not cleaned up their inactive registrant lists, despite a 2018 legal settlement that requires California counties to properly maintain their voter rolls and remove inactive voters according to federal law.
According to EIPCa, there are currently 991,411 people registered who are ineligible to vote. This is a staggering increase of 928,035 persons over the group’s 2017 report.
As the number of names with inactive status continues to grow, the organization noted that these excess registrants open up the doors to fraud.
Voter registration rates that exceed the eligible population range from 103% in Ventura, San Benito, and Plumas counties to 115% in San Diego. Other counties include San Mateo at 104%, Solano and Santa Cruz at 107%, and Los Angeles at 109%.
Just months ago, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) acknowledged making 105,000 registration errors, with at least one noncitizen claiming the DMV improperly added him to the voter rolls.
In an interview with The Epoch Times, EIPCa Chief Analyst Ellen Swensen confirmed that the DMV’s practices still need improvement, although the EIPCa doesn’t have a way of finding out who is or isn’t a citizen by just looking at their voter registrations.
In addition to the errors made by the DMV, she said, people who are ineligible to vote might also be getting registration forms from people who are paid to register voters and who might be unaware of the law.
“This can harm [immigrants’] future chances of gaining citizenship, so it’s important that non-citizens become educated about this,” she said. Furthermore, there are “thousands of duplicated [and ineligible] registrations” that can be used during elections “with or without the person’s knowledge.”
Recently, nine people were accused of offering cash or cigarettes in exchange for forged signatures on voter registration forms and petitions in Los Angeles. Prosecutors claim the group was active during the 2016 and 2018 election cycles, targeting the homeless to help them register fictitious persons.
EIPCa says this type of abuse may have been enabled by the state’s voting laws.
“Because California does not require an ID for a person to vote, and because some counties include the names of inactive registrants on their publicly-displayed Election Day rosters, anyone can claim to be the inactive registrant and receive a ballot,” Swensen said.
“All that is required is an oath (verbal or signed) that they are who they say they are.”
Swensen said officials need to do more to fix this problem.
“EIPCa would like to see counties become more proactive with list maintenance by mailing a card to every registrant on the list, not just those with inactive status,” she explained.
“This would allow all registrants to update their information and would, for those who have moved, died, etc., begin the lawful [process of inactivation and cancellation]. This would go a long way to reduce the almost 1 million ineligibles currently on CA’s list.”
In early 2019, the Sacramento Bee reported that Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s office was investigating whether noncitizens had voted in the June 2018 primary. At the time, Padilla admitted that voters were losing their trust in the system due to registration errors, echoing others such as State Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), who said that despite his “high level of confidence in California’s election systems,” he knew that the state should “do more to assure the voters that the system doesn’t have holes in it and that the boat isn’t leaking.”
Meanwhile, in November 2018, San Francisco became the largest city in the United State to give noncitizens the chance to vote in a local election. While the city’s move did not impact any election in the state or federal levels, some believe that the trend could spread to the rest of the state, and errors could continue to occur.
“Noncitizen voting is a very contentious issue,” said Robin Hvidston, executive director of We the People Rising, a Claremont organization that lobbies for stricter immigration enforcement, at the time, according to the Los Angeles Times. “The move to extend voting rights to those illegally residing in San Francisco has the potential to backfire among citizens with a moderate stance on illegal immigration.”
Listen to this cretin, matter-of-factly admitting his company meddled in an Irish election by blocking pro-life ads from being seen by voters. Just fine to show pro-abortion ads. And his "echo chamber" presumption is pro-life ads are some kind of speech that has to be suppressed, that pro-life views are "bad."
Bottom line is, Zuckerberg makes it very clear they meddle in elections AROUND THE WORLD by censoring content they don't want voters to see.
New research reveals that Google built biases into its search results that influenced the 2018 midterm elections - possibly costing Republicans three congressional districts.
First things first - the study was conducted by Dr. Robert Epstein - a San Diego-based Harvard Ph.D. who founded the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. He's also a Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), a UCSD visiting scholar, and served as editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
He also supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 (just like Google!).
Down to the findings:
Epstein and AIBRT analyzed Google searches linked to three highly competitive southern California congressional races in which Democrats won, and found that Google's "clear democrat bias" may have flipped the seats away from Republican candidates. According to the study, at least 35,455 undecided voters within the three California districts may have been persuaded to vote Democrat due to the biased Google search results.
Epstein says that in the days leading up to the 2018 midterms, he was able to preserve “more than 47,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results linked.”
Analysis of this data showed a clear pro-Democrat bias in election-related Google search results as compared to competing search engines. Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.
As Epstein’s previous studies have shown, this can have a huge impact on the decisions of undecided voters, who often assume that their search results are unbiased. Epstein has called this the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). -Breitbart
If anyone is manufacturing facts concerning border security it is the leftist train wreck known as the Democratic Party.
The numbers the Democrats choose to ignore are staggering.
“The number of families snared trying to sneak into the U.S. soared by 50 percent in one month alone, setting an all-time record with more than 36,000 family members apprehended, Homeland Security officials announced Tuesday,” as reported by the Washington Times.
It is difficult to ignore the preferential consideration the illegal alien that murdered Mollie Tibbetts is receiving or the Somali gangs turning the streets of Minneapolis into a war zone.
MORE YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP!
YOU CANNOT KNOW THIS INFO ACCORDING TO YOUTUBE!
By Ned Ryan
People think the real problems with the integrity of our elections involve non-citizens voting, or lack of photo ID, or voter rolls needing to be cleaned, or ballot box stuffing. While those are all problems, people are missing the elephant quietly sitting in the corner of the room.
The real threat moving forward is the practice of ballot harvesting.
Observers of our elections know something fishy went on in Orange County, California and in Arizona last fall, and they know that there are strange happenings in North Carolina. For most, however, the details remain fuzzy. These happenings have to do with the practice of ballot harvesting: that is, the practice of having union members or partisan volunteers coordinate and go house to house to pick up absentee ballots that haven’t been returned and then drop those ballots off at a polling place or precinct board within the voter’s correct jurisdiction.
Mind you, these volunteers or activists don’t have to be election officials. They can be literally anyone. It feels like a complete understatement to ask, but what could possibly go wrong in this scenario? In a word, everything.
When you put millions of ballots into an un-secure environment, for days on end, in the hands of partisan activists, you’re begging for shenanigans and potential vote manipulation. Imagine for a second Granny Smith opening her door to find Teamsters or the Black Panthers standing there saying, “You’re on our list and we’re here to talk about your ballot. Why don’t you hand it over and we’ll take care of it for you.” Implausible? Nope, because ballot harvesting is basically the old-fashioned urban machine way of getting voters to the polls: you send hooligans out to stand over voters while they dutifully vote for Tammany Hall.
By Guy Benson
One pillar of dogma among leftist activists is that voter ID laws, under which citizens are required to present a valid form of identification in order to cast ballots in elections, amount to insidious and racist forms of "voter suppression." That term deserves to be placed in scare quotes because it's often employed as a catch-all phrase to describe any policy or idea that liberals believe would reduce their chances of winning. Voter ID laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional, and enjoy overwhelming public support -- including approval from large majorities of racial minorities, who evidently don't share the professional Left's racialized hysteria. We've written previously about how, if reducing turnout among certain populations truly were the goal of such laws, they've failed miserably. This example out of Georgia comes to mind:
When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote...Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period...“I think the rhetoric on both sides has been overstated,” said Edward Foley, executive director of an election law center at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. “It hasn’t had the voter-suppressing effect that some people feared,” Foley said.
Far more useful details are available here. Speaking of Georgia and alleged voter suppression, and given the recently-raised profile of that state's failed 2018 gubernatorial nominee, please read this primer on the wild allegations that arose during that election. Now back to the immediate issue at hand -- common sense voter integrity safeguards such as mandating identification aren't about suppression, and they don't achieve suppression. A new academic study reviewed the data and reached important conclusions:
Strict voter ID laws do not suppress turnout, a new paper finds, regardless of sex, race, Hispanic identity, or party affiliation...In total, 10 states, ranging from Georgia to Wisconsin, require voters to show ID in order to vote. Seven of those states require a photo ID, and three do not. An additional 25 states "request" that voters display ID, but may still permit them to vote on a provision ballot if they cannot. The remaining states "use other methods to verify the identity of voters," according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The new research, from an economics professor at the University of Bologna and another at Harvard Business School, indicates that "strict" voting laws of the type implemented in those ten states do not have a statistically significant effect on voter turnout..."Strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation," the paper's authors found. "Most importantly," they write, strict ID laws "do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. The laws' overall effects remain close to zero and non-significant whether the election is a midterm or presidential election, and whether the laws are the more restrictive type that stipulate photo IDs."
Confirmed: The top talking point against Voter ID laws is bogus. As the Free Beacon write-up also notes, however, the study found that such measures have had negligible impact on the number of recorded instances of voter fraud. Of course, documented cases of in-person voter fraud are very rare, and it's impossible to quantify instances that may go undetected. And a major part of the argument in favor of ID laws is that it's a straightforward deterrent. The analysis' authors conclude: "Our results suggest that efforts both to safeguard electoral integrity and enfranchise more voters may be better served through other reforms." I strongly agree that voter ID laws alone are hardly sufficient to prevent fraudulent and unlawful voting activity. They're widely-favored low-hanging fruit that should be implemented universally, but they're just one piece of the bigger puzzle.
As we've been covering recently, "ballot harvesting" and chain of custody issues surrounding absentee and mail-in ballots remain very serious and pervasive concerns. And yes, improper voter registration processes and deeply flawed voter rolls are real problems, too. Conservatives sometimes go overboard in emphasizing the scope and nature of voter fraud, but sober efforts to combat illegal voting -- which absolutely exists -- are endlessly demagogued as racially-motivated "suppression" by people who seem to have no interest in taking any steps to prevent the practice. Why is that? The study quoted above is another useful retort to the demonization crowd. It may be time for them to seek out a new scare tactic.
In a previous appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight Epstein revealed that Google can take a 50-50 split among undecided voters and change it into a 90-10 split with no one knowing they had been manipulated and without leaving a paper trail… It has to do with their search suggestions.
On Thursday Dr. Epstein revealed that just one Google shift in search results on Election Day 2018 shifted from 800,000 to 4.6 million votes to Democratic candidates.
This follows the shocking Breitbart exposé by Allum Bokhari published Thursday that proves Google has been manipulating search results.
Of course the Big Tech companies have only been targeting only conservative websites and publications since the 2016 election.
By Starla Simms
Proponents of ranked-choice voting, which is also known as instant-runoff voting or RCV, argue that it creates a more fair and functional system. Those proponents, of course, are Democrats. The Dems figured out that changing the way people vote could change the outcome of elections regardless of what the majority of voters want. Keeping that in mind, we should also think of RCV as rigged-choice voting.
Ranked-Choice Voting Explained
Maine Democrats came up with RCV as a direct response to having their candidate having his ass handed to him in two elections when the Republican competitor received 48% of the vote. The main difference between ranked-choice voting is that rather than voting for your candidate of choice, voters vote for every candidate, ranking them in order of preference. Using this system, the candidates who rank last are eliminated round by round, like a game of political Musical Chairs.
Where is RCV in Use?
Going into 2019, the states in which cities are already using RCV include California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico. According to the rating system used at the website MAGAGuides.com, all of these states rated either MAGA Lite or No MAGA because they have few—if any—Republican representatives at the higher levels of government. Coincidence? Absolutely not.
Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah are also slated to use RCV, though it has not had its first use there yet. Florida, Tennessee, and Utah rated as Strong MAGA, which means three-quarters or more of the state’s higher-level reps are Republican. The strong Republican foothold these states enjoy will be put at direct risk once RCV is put into action in these states.
The Case Against RCV
Rather than contributing to fair elections, RCV has had the opposite effect on our elections, leading to low voter turnout, an increased number of disqualified ballots, and no majority support. This disheartens voters who feel like their votes don’t matter because they may not be counted. How does this empower voters and contribute to lessening inequalities within our country’s electoral process? The simple answer is it doesn’t.
What We the People Can Do to Stop It
This past November Republican congressman Bruce Poliquin of Maine’s 2nd congressional district sought an injunction against state Attorney General Matthew Dunlap on the grounds that RCV is unconstitutional as “The right to vote ‘is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.’” The lawsuit sought to invalidate the runoff election he lost to Democrat challenger Jared Golden, who would not have won the seat if this crooked voting system had not been implemented. In December a federal judge struck down the suit.
With activist judges refusing to uphold the constitution that is the backbone and foundation of this country the fight against voter fraud can feel like a losing battle, but that is the reason it is crucial for American citizens to stand up and fight. In Santa Fe, New Mexico the high court refused to force RCV on the voters. They fought it, and you can too. It’s time to demand that our constitutional right to vote be upheld and honored—before 2020 is here and it’s too late to take action.
Here’s a list of things you can do to make sure your voice is heard
- Support politicians who are fighting against RCV
- Show up to meetings for your state’s Republican party
- Use social media to raise awareness of this issue. Tweet directly to President Trump and join Conservative social media sites that support your rights as citizens.
- Write letters to your representatives. Call, email, and make some noise! If you are in a state or city with RCV, start at the local level and work your way up. If your state doesn’t have RCV, go straight to the top with your demands. You can find contact information at MAGAGuides.com and on ProAmericaOnly.org in the State Forums section.
Ranked-choice voting impedes our constitutional right to have our votes count. It favors states’ majority parties, period. Any claim to the contrary is just more Democrat voter fraud. And they’re getting away with it.
Former FEC Commissioner Hans Von Spakovsky debunked the argument that President Donald Trump broke campaign finance laws by paying women he allegedly had affairs with prior to becoming president.
The president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced to three years in jail on Wednesday for a litany of crimes, including making an illegal campaign contribution amounting to $130,000 to Stormy Daniels, who alleges she slept with Trump in 2006, so she would keep quiet about the affair.
Despite the guilty plea, Spakovsky said that Trump should not be worried because it would have to be a “campaign-related expense” for the contribution break any campaign finance laws.
He also pointed out that the only other time the Justice Department tried to say payments like these were campaign-related expenses was with John Edwards. Donations to Edwards’ campaign actually went to paying his mistress, a woman who worked for the campaign and ended up having his child. (RELATED: Trump Hits Back At Michael Cohen, Justice Department Claims)
A jury, however, ruled that Edwards’ donations were not a campaign-related expense.
Spakovsky went on to say that Trump has nothing to worry about and that the U.S. attorney’s office is being “overly aggressive” in their pursuit of the matter.