• Home
  • Elections/Vote Fraud

'Suppression,' Debunked: Study Concludes Voter ID Laws Do Not Depress Voter Turnout

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.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Research Psychologist Epstein: Google Manipulation Shifted 800,000 To 4.6 Million Votes In 2018 Election

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.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

How Ranked-Choice Voting Harms America

And what we can do about it

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.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump Did Not Violate Campaign Finance Laws

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.




  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

What Is ‘Ballot Harvesting,’ And How Did California Dems Use It To Nuke The GOP?

By Scott Morefield

As the polls closed on election day last month, six California Republican House candidates, including Representatives Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight, and Mimi Walters, were ahead in their respective races. However, as the absentee and provisional ballots rolled in over the intervening weeks, all six lost to their Democratic opponents.

The case of Korean-American GOP candidate Young Kim was one of the most prominent examples. On election night, Kim held an 8,000 vote lead over her Democratic opponent Gil Cisneros, and even attended freshman orientation in Washington, D.C. before watching her lead, and her victory, slowly evaporate over the subsequent weeks.

Republican Congressional candidate in California’s 39th District Young Kim is greeted by supporters as she arrives
at an election night event in Rowland Heights, California on November 6, 2018. (ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)


The results drew the attention of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“California just defies logic to me,” said Ryan at a Washington Post live event. “We were only down 26 seats the night of the election, and three weeks later, we lost basically every California contested race. This election system they have — I can’t begin to understand what ‘ballot harvesting’ is.” (RELATED: Bloomberg Drops Millions On California Dems Ahead Of Midterm Elections)

The stunning turnaround in California, of all states, can be attributed to several factors, as conservative critics like The Federalist’s Bre Payton wrote, but the most significant of those seemed to be the practice of “ballot harvesting.”

Passed as a barely noticed change in the state’s vote by mail procedures in 2016 and signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown, California’s AB 1921 allows voters to give any third party — not just a relative or someone living in the same household, as was previously the law — to collect and turn in anyone else’s completed ballot.

Called “ballot harvesting,” critics say the practice is ripe for fraud. Consider “Lulu,” who was recorded trying to “harvest” what she thought was a Democratic voter’s ballot in Rep. Knight’s district.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Obama’s Organization: Voter Fraud & Pay-to-Play

This video covers Obama's organization called Organizing for Action. This has seldom been discussed.  While a FEW big outlets have mentioned the group, this is my attempt to bring it to the forefront yet again and shine a light on it.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

It’s now CLEAR: Democrats STOLE Congressional Seats In California… Here’s How They Did It

By JD Heyes

Vote Fraud: Last week prior to the Thanksgiving Day holiday a caller into talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh’s program made a bombshell revelation, provided it was accurate, into how Democrats may have flipped several congressional seats blue during the 2018 midterms in districts that, until now, had long been held by Republicans.

Limbaugh was discussing how every Republican incumbent lawmaker in reliably red Orange County lost their seats to Democrats, though results on Election Day indicated that most of them would retain their seats.

“Over half of those Republicans won on election night. Some of those Republicans won by eight points — and then counting the undervotes and counting the overbites and counting the late votes” occurred, he said. “I mean, we didn’t see what was going on out there because everyone was focused on Florida, the recounts in Florida. But they played games out in Orange County. To show you how odd it is, in Orange County the vote for the Republican candidate for governor of California was 200,000 votes higher than the Democrat got.

“Yet every Republican member of Congress loses? Some people think this is highly suspicious and are looking into it,” he added.

As well they should.

Shortly after Limbaugh began that segment he got a call from a woman named Mary who said she lived in Coronado, Calif. What she told him was nothing short of earth-shattering:

I am probably the last Republican in California, and because I got so fed up with the RINOs that I re-registered as an independent, and before the election, because I’m somewhat disabled, I requested online an absentee ballot as an independent. Immediately, I received two emails with absentee ballots and an invitation and welcome from Taylor Swift, and would I be able to help other voters to the polls? The following day I received four more ballots in the mail. So here I am with six ballots, and there’s nobody to report it to because nobody in the state would do anything about it.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' investigates Brenda Snipes

Broward County's embattled election supervisor Brenda Snipes has a history of mismanaging close races in Florida; insight from Eric Eggers, author of 'Fraud: How The Left Plans to Steal the Next Election.'


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Florida Governor Rick Scott Discusses Transparent Ballot Fraud Ongoing, Yet Again, In Well Known, Corrupt, Broward County

Anyone with a reasonable amount of political knowledge is aware that within Florida the epicenter of voter fraud takes place in Broward and Palm Beach counties.  Both of these areas are not just filled with corrupt election officials; as was noted in the background of the Parkland school shooting, every element of county and city government is corrupt.

Broward County Supervisor of Elections, Brenda Snipes, has an exhaustively documented history of rampant and ‘in-your-face’ unapologetic fraud within the election process.  In the latest example, Snipes is once again producing ballots -filled out by her political operatives- long after the election is over.  Everyone in Florida knows the Snipes routine.

Brenda Snipes keeps “her peopleworking to produce ballots until law enforcement arrive.  Once she is confronted she shouts “racism”, and officials back away allowing the corruption to continue.  This process has worked very well for her in the past and she is openly compensated by left-wing political operations for her efforts.  In the 2016 election the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Brenda Snipes to send two ballots to every democrat.

So it doesn’t come as a surprise to see Ms. Snipes at the center of the operation to steal yet another set of election in 2018; the objective this time is to give the governors race and senate race to the democrat party…  Prior endeavors in 2012 and 2014 were successful.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)