Trashing the Vote

Ray Hartwell, Washington Times

Today is Tuesday, Nov. 2. Election Day. According to my desk calendar, it’s also the Day of the Dead in Mexico. South of the border, this is a religious holiday. Tragically, with drug cartels butchering police and civilians alike, our neighbors have too many dead to remember.

North of the border, sadly, our electoral process is a “day of the dead” as well. Here, the dead may vote by the thousands Tuesday, and they are not the only illegal “voters” who will corrupt the election. Indeed, those who genuinely care about integrity at the polls are wishing it were only the dead who raise the issue. In fact, the departed are but the tip of a growing iceberg. Citizens of both parties who favor honesty in elections should be concerned.

A combination of factors contributes to this problem. For example, the National Voter Registration Act, the 1993 statute better known as the “Motor Voter” law, ostensibly was intended to promote registration and participation in federal elections and to assure the integrity of the electoral process by guaranteeing “accurate and clean” voter rolls. It hasn’t worked out that way.

Fraudulent voter registrations have occurred by the millions because of inadequate procedures for confirming a registrant’s citizenship and qualifications. Incredibly, a federal appeals court recently held that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration should not be enforced. Estimates vary, but it’s reported that about 16 million registered voters should be taken off the rolls for one reason or another.

Certainly, the dead figure significantly in this group. Press reports indicate that there were 181,000 of them on the voter rolls in six swing states in 2004, including 65,000 in Florida. Today, more than 116,000 dead are still registered to vote in Massachusetts, and tens of thousands more in Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Iowa, North Carolina and other states.

Read more.

Mr. President, If You Support the Troops, Help Them Vote

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

One of the president’s aims in his address last night was to clean up his image as the community-organizer-in-chief, the president who refuses to wear a flag pin on his lapel or put his hand over his heart for the national anthem. He attempted to boost his patriotism by rhetorically hitching himself to George W. Bush In his address last night, Barack Obama said:

This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future. (Emphasis in original.)

The emphasis was deliberate. Obama intended to put himself on the same level as President Bush, who regularly got misty in the presence of the military and sobbed openly with those who had lost family members. Obama’s speech made it sound as though Bush’s patriotism were being questioned.

Left-wingers display unmatched outrage when they believe anyone “questions” their patriotism. (They spend the rest of their time telling us how much America sucks.) If President Obama wants to enjoy the respect of patriotic Americans, he should do it the old fashioned way: he should earn it.

Even as this is being written, thousands of military men are threatened with being disenfranchised in the midterm elections. And the Obama administration seems to be going out of its way to make sure their votes do not count.

Read more.

New Allegations: DOJ Says “Don’t Purge Dead or Ineligible From Voting Rolls”

(Update: Here is Julie Fernandes talking about voter ID laws, you know those laws that keep illegal immigrants from voting?)

“Its not whether it makes sense or is rational for states to have voter ID laws because they serve some interest that they think is worthy. Right?”

Here’s the article from J. Christian Adams which recounts how Julie Fernandes at the DOJ decided not to take dead people off the polls.


It’s not just the New Black Panther case: in November 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes told a packed room of Voting Section employees to simply ignore this provision of the “Motor Voter” law.

By J. Christian Adams,

I was at the Voting Section of the Justice Department for over five years. This office is responsible for enforcing most federal election laws which do not involve criminal matters. My previous articles at Pajamas Media have spoken of the DOJ’s lawless abandonment of race-neutral enforcement of voting laws, and other outrageous conduct. I will continue to publish here at Pajamas Media more instances of failure to enforce the law equally by the Department.

One such instance relates to the Motor Voter law, and will shock Americans who care about integrity in the electoral process.

The “Motor Voter” law was passed in 1993 to promote greater voter registration in the United States. It did this — most Americans now know from visits to the DMV — by requiring states to offer voter registration materials whenever someone had contact with a variety of state offices. These included welfare offices, social service agencies, and motor vehicle departments.

A lesser-known provision also obliged the states to ensure that no ineligible voters were on the rolls — including dead people, felons, and people who had moved. Our current Department of Justice is anxious to encourage the obligations to get everyone registered, but explicitly unwilling to enforce federal law requiring states to remove the dead or ineligible from the rolls.

In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political employee serving at the pleasure of the attorney general. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions.

The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity:

We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.

Jaws dropped around the room.

Read More