Federal judge rules against Maryland as Judicial Watch wins big to uncover obvious vote fraud potential
Those Democrats who keep telling us that vote fraud is rare and insignificant fight like hell to make sure that the evidence remains buried. Even when there are obvious danger signs such exist in Montgomery County, Maryland, where there are more registered voters than resident citizens.
You might think that officials would be anxious to find out why that is, and would be eager to clean up their voter rolls. Certainly, any officials that cared about the integrity of the vote would want to ensure that malefactors would not be able to pick-up ballots and vote them (as the practice of “vote harvesting” permits). But for reasons only they can explain, Maryland officials fought in federal court to prevent Judicial Watch from obtaining voter data lists.
And they got skunked.
Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court has ordered the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County, the state’s biggest county. The court ruling comes in the Judicial Watch lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). The decision follows NVRA-related Judicial Watch successes in California and Kentucky that could lead to removal of up to 1.85 million inactive voters from voter registration lists. The NVRA requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up its voting rolls and to make documents about its voter list maintenance practices available to anyone who asks.Judicial Watch had sought the Maryland voter list data after discovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could register. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander rejected Maryland’s objections to providing the voter list information under Section 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act:If Judicial Watch had submitted requests for voter registration data, corresponding to the thousands of Montgomery County voters, the State would have been required to produce each record, pursuant to Section 8(i). Instead, Judicial Watch merely submitted a single request for a voter list containing and compiling the same information about the thousands of voters in Montgomery County. Although both scenarios seek the same information, defendants believe that the NVRA would require compliance with only one of them. Rejecting Judicial Watch’s request based on semantics would be tantamount to requiring Judicial Watch to make thousands of separate requests. Neither the NVRA, the Court, nor common sense can abide such a purposeless obstruction.****Organizations such as Judicial Watch have the resources and expertise that few individuals can marshal. By excluding these organizations from access to voter registration lists, the State law undermines Section 8(i)’s efficacy. Accordingly, [Maryland election law] is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the NVRA’s purposes. It follows that the State law is preempted in so far as it allows only Maryland registered voters to access voter registration lists.The dispute over the voter registration list arose from an April 11, 2017, notice letter sent to Maryland election officials, in which Judicial Watch explained Montgomery County had an impossibly high registration rate. The letter threatened a lawsuit if the problems with Montgomery County’s voter rolls were not fixed. The letter also requested access to Montgomery County voter registration lists in order to evaluate the efficacy of any “programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of Maryland’s official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years.”Democrat Maryland officials, in response, attacked and smeared Judicial Watch by suggesting it was an agent of Russia.
No, Judicial Watch is not an agent of Russia. That is a despicable charge . I donate to JW as often as I can, and I urge those readers with the resources to do so to give them money.
You can donate to Judicial Watch here.
Nearly 1 Million
Californians Registered to Vote Are Ineligible, Says Non-Partisan Group
JUDICIAL WATCH:
ILLEGALS VOTING IN MASSIVE NUMBERS IN
MEX-OCCUPIED CA
‘Eleven of California’s 58 counties have
registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible
citizenry.’
‘California has the highest rate of inactive
registrations of any state in the country. Los Angeles County has the highest
number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country’
''California is going to be a Hispanic
state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does
not like it should leave."
(THIS IS DATED. MEXICO NOW HAS
INVADED ALL STATES )
The Mexican fascist separatist
movement of M.E.Ch.A's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,''
the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of
the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Texas and Utah."
The letter notes that
the percentage in L.A.
County may be as
high as 144%.
The line of voters waiting to cast an early ballot at the Santa
Clara County Registrar of Voters' office winds into the building's atrium in
San Jose, Calif., on Nov. 7, 2016. (Ramman Kenoun/Santa Clara Country Registrar
of Voters via AP)
Nearly 1 Million
Californians Registered to Vote Are Ineligible, Says Non-Partisan Group
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 an increase of
63,376 from the group’s 2017 report, which found 928,035 ineligibles registered
to vote.
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.”
An earlier version of this article incorrectly
stated that EIPCa found an increase of 928,035 ineligible voters over the
group’s 2017 report. The Epoch Times regrets this error.
No comments:
Post a Comment