AP Admits Noncitizens Vote In U.S. Elections While Insisting It’s No Big Deal

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GORGbx3XsAAXaPR?format=jpg&name=small

AP Admits Noncitizens Vote In U.S. Elections While Insisting It’s No Big Deal


https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/22/ap-admits-noncitizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-while-insisting-its-no-big-deal/

https://apnews.com/article/voting-immigrants-noncitizen-trump-republicans-2024-1c65429c152c2a10514b5156eacf9ca7

[Black Diamond]

Well as long as their candidate wins.

[revelarts]

the Playbook

It's not happening!
If it is happening it's rare. <-- You are here.
If it isn't rare it's good!
If it's good you should support it!!
If you don't support it, you'll be punished... &/Or it's your fault.:unsure:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GORr7f1XkAEptY7?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

AP Admits Noncitizens Vote In U.S. Elections While Insisting It’s No Big Deal


https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/22/ap-admits-noncitizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-while-insisting-its-no-big-deal/

https://apnews.com/article/voting-immigrants-noncitizen-trump-republicans-2024-1c65429c152c2a10514b5156eacf9ca7

I'm not sure AP admitted anything. A political reporter wrote a story about some political news.

On a related note; the Federalist seems to have been moving towards more reactionary stories over the past half decade or so.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure AP admitted anything. A political reporter wrote a story about some political news.

On a related note; the Federalist seems to have been moving towards more reactionary stories over the past half decade or so.

I find both the Federalist and AP and nearly all media moving more and more towards the extreme of their favorite pov.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure AP admitted anything. A political reporter wrote a story about some political news.

On a related note; the Federalist seems to have been moving towards more reactionary stories over the past half decade or so.


I find both the Federalist and AP and nearly all media moving more and more towards the extreme of their favorite pov.

Is what the Federalist said about AP false?

Or is your concern more about the tone?

[Kathianne]

Is what the Federalist said about AP false?

Or is your concern more about the tone?

I'll let fj answer for himself. What I'm saying is that if the two were to write on exactly the same topic, with same 'facts,' both would present in a way to make the story fit their preconceived pov-reinforcing most of their readers expectations. It's not 'news' rather it's propaganda.

[Gunny]

Faux outrage, IMO. Not saying it is or isn't true. What's more important to me is that illegals count on census and census dictates reps in Congress. And where are all these illegals flocking too? Or being sent (unintended consequences). Big, blue cities. That IS fact and you don't hear any of these "experts" pointing it out. It's a surprise:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Is what the Federalist said about AP false?

Or is your concern more about the tone?

Yes. If you can show that so-and-so reporter at the AP, or AP itself, has for years been denying the obvious evidence that non-citizens are voting in federal elections then the Federalist piece would be correct. It's not a gotcha moment IMO. And also unfortunately IMO the Federalist has been going for these types of "articles" of late. The sad reality these days is trump says something that might have a grain of truth but is greatly overstated then we see "journalists" offering cover stories. Kathianne is spot on (cause she's a genius ;) ).

The problem you, Mr. whatever-happened-to-the-Constitution, should be worried about is further federalization of clear state responsibilities being pushed by the Republican party. This is more populist rabble.

[revelarts]

I'll let fj answer for himself. What I'm saying is that if the two were to write on exactly the same topic, with same 'facts,' both would present in a way to make the story fit their preconceived pov-reinforcing most of their readers expectations. It's not 'news' rather it's propaganda.

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that's true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV that all of the MSM and alt media have their own povs.
It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than MSM, to those some here consider "fringe". Or they won't even consider seriously because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases.
And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively on a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a response/review of the AP story.
So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story seems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messengers issues.

[Kathianne]

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that,s true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV all of the MSM and alt media have there on povs. It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than those some here consider "fringe". Or won't even condsider because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases. And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively one a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a rsponse/review of the AP story. So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story eems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messegers issues

Humans have bias, that imo is a given. In what is now referred to as MSM or legacy media it used to be the norm to be aware of biases and try to control for them, there were also editors to check for bias, (add grammar). LOL! Those days have been gone since at least 2000 and the progression has been accelerating since.

Now alternative media or new media also used to call out the legacy for its biases and correct, often in a fisking format. Those days too are gone. Now they often outdo the MSM in not hiding bias, simultaneously calling the MSM intentionally lying and using social media to amplify said lies. Which the new media does too, on some issues much more effectively. Tech advances, including now AI will only make this whole mess worse.

[fj1200]

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that,s true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV all of the MSM and alt media have there on povs. It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than those some here consider "fringe". Or won't even condsider because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases. And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively one a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a rsponse/review of the AP story. So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story eems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messegers issues

Why is there defense of the Federalist here? It openly accused the AP of something that isn't true; the AP didn't "admit" anything. The counter to bias in the MSM isn't, or shouldn't be, extreme bias the other way which is what we have here IMO. My opinion of them is falling and has been. Actually it appears I need to back up a little bit. I presumed the Federalist was related to the Federalist Society. I don't know that is true. My opinion of the Federalist Society (https://fedsoc.org/about-us) has been restored and my opinion of the Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/) wasn't screechingly high in the first place.

[revelarts]

Why is there defense of the Federalist here? It openly accused the AP of something that isn't true; the AP didn't "admit" anything. The counter to bias in the MSM isn't, or shouldn't be, extreme bias the other way which is what we have here IMO. My opinion of them is falling and has been. Actually it appears I need to back up a little bit. I presumed the Federalist was related to the Federalist Society. I don't know that is true. My opinion of the Federalist Society (https://fedsoc.org/about-us) has been restored and my opinion of the Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/) wasn't screechingly high in the first place.
Britannica Dictionary definition of ADMIT
: to say usually in an unwilling way that you accept or do not deny the truth or existence of (something)/


Seems the AP article did "admit" that illegals have voted.
how did the federalist make a FALSE accusation?
Maybe you prefer they used the word "reported" or "says" but the word "admit" is not technically used incorrectly.

seems in your previous post YOU are assuming some history etc that there's NO need to go into.
the AP article admits the reality that some illegals have voted. And they quote many who minimize that fact without mentioning the counter evidence that the Federalist points out in it's review.

I'm not here to edit your view of the federalist OVERALL, my point with most articles is the Article/Story/Commentary ITSELF.
Not the OVERALL credibility or bias of the "source" that so many seem bond too.
Sorry you don't like the Federalist bias. And your idea of them has lessened.
But that doesn't mean most of what they say should be ignored, at least if one is trying to be objective and find facts.

Everyone on this board has said things that have been wrong/false/biased, That doesn't mean I should dismiss you or others out of hand.
or put it in the worse possibly light.

CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX,PBS, NYTS, WashPOst, CDC, FBI, CIA, Harvard, Lancet, Websters, TuckerCarlson, Reason mag, theBlaze, PJmedia, RedState, RonPaulreport, dailycaller, Federalist, NewsMax, HuffPost, FACTcheck.org, Military newssites, ZeroHedge, COPWatch all the way to yes Alex Jones.
ALL have been wrong (or lied) on somethings, and ALL have been correct on somethings.
We all can play favorites, but bottom line is the SOURCE isn't the most important thing. It's what's the best evidence for whatever is presented.

How we each interpreted or LIKE any facts presented is up to us.
& Everyone on this board, at least, are smart enough to do so.

And IN THIS CASE the Federalist is not saying anything false or extreme.
Maybe the way it's said is uncomfortable to you and not the way you'd say it,
or what you would like them to say it, but it's not false.

All media is like boney fish at this point. take the meat and leave the bones.
but don't pretend that just because you don't like the taste or smell that it MUST have MORE bones.

[Gunny]

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that's true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV that all of the MSM and alt media have there own povs.
It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than MSM, to those some here consider "fringe". Or they won't even consider seriously because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases.
And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively on a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a response/review of the AP story.
So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story seems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messengers issues.Right idea, wrong method. Ignoring the MSM and paying attention only to alternate sources is every bit as bad as getting your news from MSNBC and the View.

[fj1200]

Britannica Dictionary definition of ADMIT
: to say usually in an unwilling way that you accept or do not deny the truth or existence of (something)/


Seems the AP article did "admit" that illegals have voted.
how did the federalist make a FALSE accusation?
Maybe you prefer they used the word "reported" or "says" but the word "admit" is not technically used incorrectly.

seems in your previous post YOU are assuming some history etc that there's NO need to go into.
the AP article admits the reality that some illegals have voted. And they quote many who minimize that fact without mentioning the counter evidence that the Federalist points out in it's review.

I'm not here to edit your view of the federalist OVERALL, my point with most articles is the Article/Story/Commentary ITSELF.
Not the OVERALL credibility or bias of the "source" that so many seem bond too.
Sorry you don't like the Federalist bias. And your idea of them has lessened.
But that doesn't mean most of what they say should be ignored, at least if one is trying to be objective and find facts.

Everyone on this board has said things that have been wrong/false/biased, That doesn't mean I should dismiss you or others out of hand.
or put it in the worse possibly light.

CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX,PBS, NYTS, WashPOst, CDC, FBI, CIA, Harvard, Lancet, Websters, TuckerCarlson, Reason mag, theBlaze, PJmedia, RedState, RonPaulreport, dailycaller, Federalist, NewsMax, HuffPost, FACTcheck.org, Military newssites, ZeroHedge, COPWatch all the way to yes Alex Jones.
ALL have been wrong (or lied) on somethings, and ALL have been correct on somethings.
We all can play favorites, but bottom line is the SOURCE isn't the most important thing. It's what's the best evidence for whatever is presented.

How we each interpreted or LIKE any facts presented is up to us.
& Everyone on this board, at least, are smart enough to do so.

And IN THIS CASE the Federalist is not saying anything false or extreme.
Maybe the way it's said is uncomfortable to you and not the way you'd say it,
or what you would like them to say it, but it's not false.

All media is like boney fish at this point. take the meat and leave the bones.
but don't pretend that just because you don't like the taste or smell that it MUST have MORE bones.

Your entire premise is incorrect. You believe unwilling. There's no evidence for that.

The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does.

BTW you tossed this bit of meat out with the bones.


The problem you, Mr. whatever-happened-to-the-Constitution, should be worried about is further federalization of clear state responsibilities being pushed by the Republican party. This is more populist rabble.

[revelarts]

Right idea, wrong method. Ignoring the MSM and paying attention only to alternate sources is every bit as bad as getting your news from MSNBC and the View.
I should have worded that post better, instead of saying:
"I've pointed out for years and it's the MAIN reason I look at sources other than MSM, to those some here consider "fringe"....."

I should have said:
"I've pointed out for years and it's the MAIN reason I look at sources AS WELL AS the MSM, to others some here consider "fringe"....."


I read and refer to plenty of MSM material. I just rarely believe they are giving the whole story.... therefore ergo ALT media... for the Paul Harvey like "Rest of the story". But on some issues the MSM regularly gives false reports.

[revelarts]

Your entire premise is incorrect. You believe unwilling. There's no evidence for that.
The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does.


As mentioned before
the Playbook:
It's not happening!
If it is happening it's rare. <-- You are here.
If it isn't rare it's good!
If it's good you should support it!!
If you don't support it, you'll be punished... &/Or it's your fault.http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/unsure.gif

Washington DC Judicial Watch just FOIAd gov't documents that train local non-citizens how to vote in local elections.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2024/05/read-washington-dc-training-on-how-to-get-illegal-immigrants-registered-to-vote/

Ohio
"The Secretary of State’s Public Integrity Division and Office of Data Analytics and Archives recently completed a review of identification records provided by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). The data found 137 voter registrations assigned to Ohio residents who have twice confirmed their non-citizenship status to the BMV. ..."
https://www.ohiosos.gov/media-center/press-releases/2024/2024-05-14a/

Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379414000973
"...Our exploration of non-citizen voting in the 2008 presidential election found that most non-citizens did not register or vote in 2008, but some did. The proportion of non-citizens who voted was less than fifteen percent, but significantly greater than zero. Similarly in 2010 we found that more than three percent of non-citizens reported voting....

More detail from that study here > https://www.justfacts.com/news_non-citizen_voter_registration
Studies estimate between 6% & 27% of non-citizens voted.

Seems there is some real meat to throw.
Should right headed proper republicans never look into it or mention it because someone might call them names like populist?






BTW you tossed this bit of meat out with the bones.



The problem you, Mr. whatever-happened-to-the-Constitution, should be worried about is further federalization of clear state responsibilities being pushed by the Republican party. This is more populist rabble.

You're right, the states should be dealing with it. See OHIO above.
The only thing the Feds might help with are some tools, studies and closing the broader and proper deportations.

[fj1200]

<-- You are here.

Great. You're not listening. I'm used to it.

[revelarts]

Great. You're not listening. I'm used to it.

maybe you could give some context for you comment.

"Your entire premise is incorrect."
What do YOU think my premise is?


"You believe unwilling."
I believe unwilling? umm what? I believe what? what do you think i believe... unwilling? wha?


"There's no evidence for that."
I assumed "THAT" was non-citizens voting. so i replied with evidence.

"The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does."
Since there's evidence there is MEAT to be thrown... and should be.
it's what a good citizen does if they see election problems.

So what did I not listen to exactly?
Seems i listened to & replied to every point i could.

BTW
you didn't reply to this:

Should right headed proper republicans never look into it or mention it because someone might call them names like populist?

[Gunny]

Skipping over the fluff to the point: we've (almost) ALL been saying Biden's Border policy was to get the bodies and then let them vote assuming they would be grateful to his fine self:rolleyes: I put the Dems above no shenanigans to figure out a way to try and make it happen.

The damage is done. Looking for the Republicans, IF they gain any control of anything, to put a bandaid on it and say it's the best they can do. There's no going back and I'm not seeing mass deportations going anywhere.

[fj1200]

maybe you could give some context for you comment.

"Your entire premise is incorrect."
What do YOU think my premise is?


"You believe unwilling."
I believe unwilling? umm what? I believe what? what do you think i believe... unwilling? wha?


"There's no evidence for that."
I assumed "THAT" was non-citizens voting. so i replied with evidence.

"The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does."
Since there's evidence there is MEAT to be thrown... and should be.
it's what a good citizen does if they see election problems.

So what did I not listen to exactly?
Seems i listened to & replied to every point i could.

BTW
you didn't reply to this:

You provided a definition that said that they were "unwilling" and then proceeded to go under the premise that that unwillingly admitted. There is no evidence for that. It seemed pretty clear to me since it was all in one paragraph.

It's populist to try and fix a problem that doesn't exist especially when it's under the purview of the states and is also currently illegal for illegals to vote in federal elections.

[revelarts]

You provided a definition that said that they were "unwilling" and then proceeded to go under the premise that that unwillingly admitted. There is no evidence for that. It seemed pretty clear to me since it was all in one paragraph.

It's populist to try and fix a problem that doesn't exist especially when it's under the purview of the states and is also currently illegal for illegals to vote in federal elections.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79635-Inside-the-disinformation-industry-government-sponsored-agency-censoring-journalism

[fj1200]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79635-Inside-the-disinformation-industry-government-sponsored-agency-censoring-journalism

Objection: Non-responsive.

Sustained. /gavel

[revelarts]

anecdotal story:


"American Business Owner has illegal migrant come to him for a job, he says the “Illegal Immigrant has Social Security Card and Drivers License with Work ID in 4 months” of entering America

“So yesterday, I ran into somebody that I haven't seen in a while. I haven't seen this guy for months. He's been here for about five months in the United States, six months, something like that. And he says, hey, I'm looking for work. And I said, well, I can't hire you, man. I got to hire legitimate people or whatever.

And he was like, No, no, no, I'm legitimate now. And he's broken English kind of bits and pieces together and he pulls his ID and stuff out of his pocket. He says, I've got social security card now and I got workers ID and permit for working everything all legit. Stamp, city stamping, specialized social security envelope. And I said, let's go inside real quick. I need a translator.

I have a couple of my guys, they speak Spanish and I'm talking to them and I says, so, where are we at with time frame wise? How long did it take you to get your social security card and your workers permit?

He said maybe three and a half, four months. Finished in my hand. This dude got his freaking work permit and social security card, came here illegally, got documented, got on the buses from Texas to Chicago, got in process here in Chicago, found an apartment building within the first week in Efficiency apartment, moved into the apartment building and has been working cash jobs under the table for the last four months until recently got his workers permit.

Now he's working for a roofing company but they're laid off right now. They're laid off right now and he's looking for work. And I said, I don't necessarily need anybody right now, buddy. I'm sorry, I'll have to pass. This shocks me, the fact that this guy can't even speak English. Almost not a lick of English. Very broken, can barely understand, gotta have a translator around.

Luckily I speak enough Spanish to know what he's saying and I'm like this is absolutely crazy.

Four months already has a driver's license, insurance, he bought like a 2012-2011 Ford Focus.

— Now within four months this guy's got a social security card, he's got his workers identification card for working, he's got a driver's license, he's got insurance, he just bought a car, all in four months. And it has an efficiency apartment that he pays $500 a month for with government assistance.
*
That's f**ked up, man. We have people literally trying to do everything they've been waiting for years that still don't have what this guy has in four months. That's how fucked up our government is. That's how much they care about the illegal migrants more than they care about their own people.

— It's messed up man. It's really really really messed up that they would do this for people that are not even from this country. They didn't help build this country. They didn't help contribute to this country and they just walk right in like they do and just get handed IDs, Social Security card, just get them on the payroll and stuff. Let's just let's just let's just do it for them. Let's get them let's get them set but not take care of our own people that are on the streets. It's messed up.”

Letter from President Biden:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GR_QKk7XQAAXyrs?format=jpg&name=small

[Gunny]

anecdotal story:

"American Business Owner has illegal migrant come to him for a job, he says the “Illegal Immigrant has Social Security Card and Drivers License with Work ID in 4 months” of entering America

“So yesterday, I ran into somebody that I haven't seen in a while. I haven't seen this guy for months. He's been here for about five months in the United States, six months, something like that. And he says, hey, I'm looking for work. And I said, well, I can't hire you, man. I got to hire legitimate people or whatever.

And he was like, No, no, no, I'm legitimate now. And he's broken English kind of bits and pieces together and he pulls his ID and stuff out of his pocket. He says, I've got social security card now and I got workers ID and permit for working everything all legit. Stamp, city stamping, specialized social security envelope. And I said, let's go inside real quick. I need a translator.

I have a couple of my guys, they speak Spanish and I'm talking to them and I says, so, where are we at with time frame wise? How long did it take you to get your social security card and your workers permit?

He said maybe three and a half, four months. Finished in my hand. This dude got his freaking work permit and social security card, came here illegally, got documented, got on the buses from Texas to Chicago, got in process here in Chicago, found an apartment building within the first week in Efficiency apartment, moved into the apartment building and has been working cash jobs under the table for the last four months until recently got his workers permit.

Now he's working for a roofing company but they're laid off right now. They're laid off right now and he's looking for work. And I said, I don't necessarily need anybody right now, buddy. I'm sorry, I'll have to pass. This shocks me, the fact that this guy can't even speak English. Almost not a lick of English. Very broken, can barely understand, gotta have a translator around.

Luckily I speak enough Spanish to know what he's saying and I'm like this is absolutely crazy.

Four months already has a driver's license, insurance, he bought like a 2012-2011 Ford Focus.

— Now within four months this guy's got a social security card, he's got his workers identification card for working, he's got a driver's license, he's got insurance, he just bought a car, all in four months. And it has an efficiency apartment that he pays $500 a month for with government assistance.
*
That's f**ked up, man. We have people literally trying to do everything they've been waiting for years that still don't have what this guy has in four months. That's how fucked up our government is. That's how much they care about the illegal migrants more than they care about their own people.

— It's messed up man. It's really really really messed up that they would do this for people that are not even from this country. They didn't help build this country. They didn't help contribute to this country and they just walk right in like they do and just get handed IDs, Social Security card, just get them on the payroll and stuff. Let's just let's just let's just do it for them. Let's get them let's get them set but not take care of our own people that are on the streets. It's messed up.”

Letter from President Biden:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GR_QKk7XQAAXyrs?format=jpg&name=small

Seems to me everything politicians are doing now concerns only now. How can we get an immediate return we can wave in the other guys' faces? Zero thought to the future.

It's a shame Biden's illegals can get mass processed while others have waited for years. But the very same government will say with a straight face to use the system because it works. Which one?

[Kathianne]

Wow! 7/9/24, revelarts and Kathianne agree again!

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/06/house-democrats-oppose-gop-noncitizen-voting-bill


Updated Jul 6, 2024 -Politics & Policy
Scoop: Democrats whip against GOP's latest election crackdown
headshot
Andrew Solender


Share on facebook (opens in new window)


Share on twitter (opens in new window)


Share on linkedin (opens in new window)


Share on email (opens in new window)
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, wearing a blue suit and standing in front of the Capitol.
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark at a press conference outside the Capitol on June 27, 2024. Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images.


House Democratic leadership is bringing out the big guns against a Republican bill set to be voted on next week that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections, Axios has learned.


Why it matters: House Republicans have made non-citizen voting in federal elections — for which there is no evidence of a widespread phenomenon — a marquee issue going into the 2024 campaign.


House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), largely ignoring House Democrats' drama this week, has posted on X about non-citizen voting multiple times since Wednesday.
State of play: The House is set to vote next week on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which would require "documentary proof of United States citizenship" to vote in federal elections.


That could include a passport, a photo ID card that proves a voter was born in the U.S. or another form of photo ID along with supporting documentation such as a birth certificate, the bill says.
The legislation would require non-citizens to be removed from voter registration rolls, require election officials to ask voter registration applicants for proof of citizenship and open them up to legal consequences if they do not.
Driving the news: In a whip question — a roundup of the coming week's votes with instructions for how leadership wants rank-and-file members to vote — House Minority Whip Katherine Clark's (D-Mass.) office told House Democrats they are "urged to VOTE NO" on the bill.


That means that Democratic leadership will send its whip team to cajole colleagues into not supporting the legislation.
The bill, Clark's office said, would "prevent Americans from registering to vote with their drivers' license alone" and would make a passport the "only acceptable standalone form of identification."
They added that the bill would create an "extreme burden for countless Americans" and "further intimidate election officials and overburden states' abilities to enroll new voters."
The other side: Johnson's office released a 22-page report making the case for the SAVE Act, which points to a "loophole" in current federal law that only requires voters to attest to their citizenship status, rather than being asked.


The report points to examples of non-citizens being removed from voter rolls in a handful of states: 70 in Massachusetts, 137 in Ohio and 1,481 in Virginia.
NRCC spokesperson Will Reinert told Axios: "Joe Biden isn't fit for office. Of course extreme House Democrats would want illegal migrants voting to boost their failing President."
Flashback: House Republicans previously held a vote in May to block non-citizen voting in local Washington, D.C. elections, on which 52 Democrats broke away from their leadership and voted yes


Democratic leadership similarly whipped against that bill, but the National Republican Congressional Committee countered by warning it would go after any Democrat who voted for it.
That bill stalled in the Senate, and the SAVE Act is likely to as well if it passes the House.
Between the lines: The GOP fixation on the topic echoes former President Trump's unfounded claims of widespread immigrant voting in past elections, as well as his equally baseless claims about the 2024 election.


It is also a response to ordinances and proposals in a handful of liberal localities around the country allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections – but not federal ones.
Go deeper: Democrats brace for defections on non-citizen voting bill



I agree also that the Trump supporters are obsessed with past election, but now there's a real response to make sure that elections are 'free and fair,' meanwhile:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/21/80-of-americans-support-voter-id-rules-but-fewer-worried-about-fraud-poll-finds/


BREAKING80% Of Americans Support Voter ID Rules—But Fewer Worried About Fraud, Poll Finds
Alison Durkee
Forbes Staff
Alison is a senior news reporter covering US politics and legal news.
Follow


0
Jun 21, 2021,02:17pm EDT
Updated Jun 21, 2021, 02:17pm EDT
This article is more than 3 years old.
TOPLINE Americans adults overwhelmingly support both making in-person early voting easier and voter ID laws that critics say are unfairly discriminatory, a new Monmouth poll finds, suggesting the public remains largely conflicted on the national debate over voting rights legislation as the Senate considers major voting rights legislation this week and GOP state lawmakers continue to impose new restrictions.
US-VOTE-FLORIDA
A poll worker drops off a vote-by-mail ballot at Miami-Dade County Election Department in Miami, ... [+]AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
KEY FACTS
The poll, conducted June 9-14 among 810 U.S. adults, found overwhelming support for certain proposals that would expand voter access, with 71% saying in-person early voting should be made easier and 69% backing national guidelines that mandate early voting and mail-in voting in every state for federal elections.


An overwhelming majority (81%) of respondents also said they support voters being required to show ID in order to vote, including 62% of Democrats, even as critics contend voter ID laws suppress turnout and unfairly discriminate against groups like low-income, elderly and minority voters.


Only 50% of respondents said voting by mail—which former President Donald Trump falsely criticized during the election as being more susceptible to fraud—should be made easier, versus 39% of respondents who said it should be made harder.


That support was driven by Democrats, as only 26% of Republicans said voting by mail should be easier versus 89% of Democrats.


More Americans were likely to believe voter disenfranchisement is a “major problem” as compared with voter fraud: 37% believe voter fraud is a “major problem” as compared with 50% who say the same about voter disenfranchisement.


A further 32% believe voter fraud is a “minor problem,” however—adding up to 69% of respondents in total who are somehow concerned about voter fraud, despite it being exceedingly rare—and only 29% say it is not a problem at all, versus 76% who are at least somewhat concerned about voter disenfranchisement.


BIG NUMBER
32%. That’s the percentage of respondents who continue to believe that President Joe Biden won the presidential election because of voter fraud, a theory that Trump and his allies have pushed but is not backed up by any credible evidence. That figure is unchanged from when Monmouth asked that question in previous polls in November, January and March, though slightly fewer voters now say Biden won the election “fair and square.” In January, 65% said Biden had won fairly and 62% said the same in March, versus 61% who believe he won fair and square now.


TANGENT
Respondents were also largely opposed to the Republican-led election audit of the 2020 election that’s now taking place in Arizona and efforts like it across the country. A growing number of GOP state officials have expressed interest in auditing their own states’ vote counts in recent weeks, despite concerns that the investigations—which will not change the election results—will undermine public trust in the election results. A slight majority (57%) of respondents believed the audits are “partisan efforts to undermine valid election results,” though 33% believed they are “legitimate efforts to identify potential voting irregularities.” The poll also found 40% of respondents believe the audits will weaken American democracy, versus 20% who say they will strengthen it and 35% who believe the audits will have no effect.


KEY BACKGROUND
Republican lawmakers in state legislatures across the country have moved to enact new voting restrictions in the wake of the 2020 election after Trump and his allies alleged widespread voter fraud, enacting new limits in the name of “election integrity” and security. Laws have been enacted in major battleground states like Arizona, Florida and Georgia and are moving forward in other states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Brennan Center for Justice reports 22 new restrictive laws in 14 states have been enacted since January as of May 14, and an additional 61 bills are moving through state legislatures in 18 states. The laws have been met with widespread opposition from both Democrats and corporate America, and many are now being challenged in court.


WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The Senate will vote this week on the For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights bill that would counteract many of the state-level restrictions now being imposed. Though the bill has passed the House, it stands little chance of success of getting the 60 votes it needs in the Senate, as Republicans remain staunchly opposed to the legislation and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.V.) has said he would vote against the bill in its present form because it is too “partisan.” Manchin has put forward changes to the bill that would get him on board with the legislation—which largely mirrors the measures voters backed in the Monmouth poll, with provisions that would both mandate early voting in federal elections while also imposing new requirements for voter ID. While Democrats have expressed openness to the senator’s changes, however, amending the bill is still unlikely to get the GOP on board, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saying Manchin’s proposal retains the legislation’s “rotten core.”

[Black Diamond]

Seems to me everything politicians are doing now concerns only now. How can we get an immediate return we can wave in the other guys' faces? Zero thought to the future.

It's a shame Biden's illegals can get mass processed while others have waited for years. But the very same government will say with a straight face to use the system because it works. Which one?

They may think Bringing in more and more Illegals may secure more election wins for dems in the future as well as now

[Gunny]

They may think Bringing in more and more Illegals may secure more election wins for dems in the future as well as nowI posted on this awhile back. While it is hard to envision and immediate return on illegals in most places, the back door presents opportunity. Representatives are based on population, not voters, illegal or not. Load these blue cities with illegals and their numbers still count down the road with more Dem reps in Congress.

[Black Diamond]

I posted on this awhile back. While it is hard to envision and immediate return on illegals in most places, the back door presents opportunity. Representatives are based on population, not voters, illegal or not. Load these blue cities with illegals and their numbers still count down the road with more Dem reps in Congress.

More and more destruction

[Kathianne]

I posted on this awhile back. While it is hard to envision and immediate return on illegals in most places, the back door presents opportunity. Representatives are based on population, not voters, illegal or not. Load these blue cities with illegals and their numbers still count down the road with more Dem reps in Congress.

and I think we've both mentioned that living near many Hispanics, that have been here for generations, they tend not to be any more happy about the illegals than any of us. Their families either were grandfathered in for many years or their families came in legally or were amnestied long ago. Around here, they are more vocal about prosecuting and calling ICE than their neighbors.

This may be a big backfire, down the road for Dems.

[Gunny]

and I think we've both mentioned that living near many Hispanics, that have been here for generations, they tend not to be any more happy about the illegals than any of us. Their families either were grandfathered in for many years or their families came in legally or were amnestied long ago. Around here, they are more vocal about prosecuting and calling ICE than their neighbors.

This may be a big backfire, down the road for Dems.

Depends on how it rolls. I don't know many Hispanics who are okay with illegals. Being a blue city, we do have our idiots though.

I want to see how this woke, prog craps rolls with these illegals once they get some standing. If they ever do. Dem MO is to keep them in the dark, feed them crap and dangle citizenship in front of them. Most of your average Jose Hispanics I know go to church and are extremely family oriented.

[Kathianne]

Depends on how it rolls. I don't know many Hispanics who are okay with illegals. Being a blue city, we do have our idiots though.

I want to see how this woke, prog craps rolls with these illegals once they get some standing. If they ever do. Dem MO is to keep them in the dark, feed them crap and dangle citizenship in front of them. Most of your average Jose Hispanics I know go to church and are extremely family oriented.

Yep, of course the real issue today with Biden's no borders, we're not talking about Mexicans. Nope, it's a world wide influx, many of whom do not seem like they should be welcomed here. Indeed, their home countries shut the door upon their exits. Interestingly, there seems to be more than a few from countries that are actively wishing for the demise of the US.

[Black Diamond]

Depends on how it rolls. I don't know many Hispanics who are okay with illegals. Being a blue city, we do have our idiots though.

I want to see how this woke, prog craps rolls with these illegals once they get some standing. If they ever do. Dem MO is to keep them in the dark, feed them crap and dangle citizenship in front of them. Most of your average Jose Hispanics I know go to church and are extremely family oriented.

Yeah very low divorce rates and how does machisimo gel with LGBTQRST?

[Black Diamond]

Yep, of course the real issue today with Biden's no borders, we're not talking about Mexicans. Nope, it's a world wide influx, many of whom do not seem like they should be welcomed here. Indeed, their home countries shut the door upon their exits. Interestingly, there seems to be more than a few from countries that are actively wishing for the demise of the US.

Yeah i am more afraid of the middle easterners coming across than Mexicans. If that's racist well....

[Kathianne]

Yeah i am more afraid of the middle easterners coming across than Mexicans. If that's racist well....
Not racist, just realistic.

[Gunny]

Yeah i am more afraid of the middle easterners coming across than Mexicans. If that's racist well....Lest we forget, China is a BIG player in this game. Wonder what the ratio is to those seeking freedom and a new life to hardcore, indoctrinated, card-carry members of the PLA setting up sleeper cells. Flooding the border with poor latinos is a conveniently perfect smokescreen.

[Kathianne]

Lest we forget, China is a BIG player in this game. Wonder what the ratio is to those seeking freedom and a new life to hardcore, indoctrinated, card-carry members of the PLA setting up sleeper cells. Flooding the border with poor latinos is a conveniently perfect smokescreen.
Big numbers of Chiese, Iranians, Turks, Chinese influenced African nations, the STANS....

[Gunny]

Big numbers of Chiese, Iranians, Turks, Chinese influenced African nations, the STANS....Just a thought: Wonder why there aren't a bunch of Europeans clamoring to get in. Maybe they know something we apparently don't a la "been there done that".

[fj1200]

Just a thought: Wonder why there aren't a bunch of Europeans clamoring to get in. Maybe they know something we apparently don't a la "been there done that".

They've already got it good plus their countries are suffering a population decline.

[revelarts]

Here's and interesting factoid that applies to making the elections secure.
"Argentina hand-counted 99.9% of their 27M paper ballots in less than 6 hours.There's no reason it can't be done here."
There's NO legit reason for electronic or closed door vote counts.

Concerning illegals voting, there's a news report floating around where a homeless shelter admits to being used as the home address for hundreds of illegals that likely voted in the last election.
the Admin cant confirm or deny who, but they legitimately let homeless people use the address for mail and as home address to put on job applications & the like.
But he was surprised to see all the official voter mail that came there

[Kathianne]

Here's and interesting factoid that applies to making the elections secure.
"Argentina hand-counted 99.9% of their 27M paper ballots in less than 6 hours.There's no reason it can't be done here."
There's NO legit reason for electronic or closed door vote counts.

Concerning illegals voting, there's a news report floating around where a homeless shelter admits to being used as the home address for hundreds of illegals that likely voted in the last election.
the Admin cant confirm or deny who, but they legitimately let homeless people use the address for mail and as home address to put on job applications & the like.
But he was surprised to see all the official voter mail that came there
I totally agree. Pen, ballot, locked box until polls close. Count at precinct or whatever polling place breakdown there is. Then votes locked up along with tally sheet onto the county, then repeat and send to state.

[Gunny]

Here's and interesting factoid that applies to making the elections secure.
"Argentina hand-counted 99.9% of their 27M paper ballots in less than 6 hours.There's no reason it can't be done here."
There's NO legit reason for electronic or closed door vote counts.

Concerning illegals voting, there's a news report floating around where a homeless shelter admits to being used as the home address for hundreds of illegals that likely voted in the last election.
the Admin cant confirm or deny who, but they legitimately let homeless people use the address for mail and as home address to put on job applications & the like.
But he was surprised to see all the official voter mail that came there

I'm all for paper ballots with ID required to fill them out, and a deadline is a deadline. They can tell us hourly how many people are watching, and in and out of watching, the Superbowl before the game's over. For all the "election/voting reform" ideas they have, none seem to want to actually address the issue. Most of the "reform" I've seen suggested is different ways to circumvent "free and fair" and the rules.

[fj1200]

There is no going back to paper ballots. Though Georgia might technically be paper ballots. You make your choices on screen which then prints out and you take your printed ballot to a copying machine type device which might be the thing that actually counts your vote. I'm guessing that they have checks and balances built into that whole process.

And the SAVE Act is Federalization of state responsibilities.

[Gunny]

There is no going back to paper ballots. Though Georgia might technically be paper ballots. You make your choices on screen which then prints out and you take your printed ballot to a copying machine type device which might be the thing that actually counts your vote. I'm guessing that they have checks and balances built into that whole process.

And the SAVE Act is Federalization of state responsibilities.Both good points.

Can't say I've got a lot of faith in the machines. When the read goes off on its own program? It is a man-made machine, regardless how technologically advanced we think we are or claim to be. I'd even have more faith if the people responsible would just say, hey, the machine screwed up, we're recounting by hand. Instead, they double down the machine's infallibility.

But yeah, we aren't going back.

[Gunny]

There is no going back to paper ballots. Though Georgia might technically be paper ballots. You make your choices on screen which then prints out and you take your printed ballot to a copying machine type device which might be the thing that actually counts your vote. I'm guessing that they have checks and balances built into that whole process.

And the SAVE Act is Federalization of state responsibilities.BTW ... I have zero problem with federalization of voting for President. It's the one thing I've always believed should be federal, given the position being voted for. For all the 10th Amendment arguments, I don't see it as a state responsibility. President of the United States. Not an individual state.

[fj1200]

Both good points.

Can't say I've got a lot of faith in the machines. When the read goes off on its own program? It is a man-made machine, regardless how technologically advanced we think we are or claim to be. I'd even have more faith if the people responsible would just say, hey, the machine screwed up, we're recounting by hand. Instead, they double down the machine's infallibility.

But yeah, we aren't going back.

Can't speak to all states but here if the results are within a certain margin then the recount is automatic. Ultimately it could even go down to a hand recount and I'd rather have a printed document than someone interpreting intent via dimpled chads.

[Kathianne]

BTW ... I have zero problem with federalization of voting for President. It's the one thing I've always believed should be federal, given the position being voted for. For all the 10th Amendment arguments, I don't see it as a state responsibility. President of the United States. Not an individual state.
We disagree on federalization. State should set rules. Local is better on most issues.

[revelarts]

There is no going back to paper ballots...
why?

[Kathianne]

Can't speak to all states but here if the results are within a certain margin then the recount is automatic. Ultimately it could even go down to a hand recount and I'd rather have a printed document than someone interpreting intent via dimpled chads.

I wonder just how many times the 'dimpled chads' were an issue? Once? Even if the machines were totally foolproof, which is in serious doubt, I don't see how they are superior to hand counts, both are able to be manipulated after the fact. With the machines you ALSO have an issue of garbage in/garbage out with programming.

Like voter ID, I think the appearance of free and fair is truly important. Thanks to Democrat machinations and Far right gullibility and manipulation of followers, the system has been seriously undermined. At the same time, due process has also been undermined and if these two pillars fall, the system is doomed.

[Kathianne]

I wonder just how many times the 'dimpled chads' were an issue? Once? Even if the machines were totally foolproof, which is in serious doubt, I don't see how they are superior to hand counts, both are able to be manipulated after the fact. With the machines you ALSO have an issue of garbage in/garbage out with programming.

Like voter ID, I think the appearance of free and fair is truly important. Thanks to Democrat machinations and Far right gullibility and manipulation of followers, the system has been seriously undermined. At the same time, due process has also been undermined and if these two pillars fall, the system is doomed.

Related:

https://azmirror.com/2024/07/09/prominent-az-republicans-urge-gop-allies-to-stop-spreading-election-conspiracies/?emci=6452ae28-be3e-ef11-86d2-6045bdd9e096&emdi=e4473ec3-c43e-ef11-86d2-6045bdd9e096&ceid=63455

I agree this actually shows the system works in the main. Problem is, that those setting out to undermine, keep bleating. Those trying to hold the system to good parameters do not.

[Black Diamond]

Related:

https://azmirror.com/2024/07/09/prominent-az-republicans-urge-gop-allies-to-stop-spreading-election-conspiracies/?emci=6452ae28-be3e-ef11-86d2-6045bdd9e096&emdi=e4473ec3-c43e-ef11-86d2-6045bdd9e096&ceid=63455

I agree this actually shows the system works in the main. Problem is, that those setting out to undermine, keep bleating. Those trying to hold the system to good parameters do not.

537

[Kathianne]

537
537?

[Black Diamond]

537?

Number of votes separating bush and gore in Florida

[Kathianne]

Number of votes separating bush and gore in Florida

Yep, the one I was referring to.

[fj1200]

why?

For the same reason that we're all not going back to voting on the first Tuesday after the first Monday or whatever the formula is.


I wonder just how many times the 'dimpled chads' were an issue? Once? Even if the machines were totally foolproof, which is in serious doubt, I don't see how they are superior to hand counts, both are able to be manipulated after the fact. With the machines you ALSO have an issue of garbage in/garbage out with programming.

Like voter ID, I think the appearance of free and fair is truly important. Thanks to Democrat machinations and Far right gullibility and manipulation of followers, the system has been seriously undermined. At the same time, due process has also been undermined and if these two pillars fall, the system is doomed.

I'm sure we could function with paper ballots but I'm not sure that they're any more secure than machines. Fraud could happen with either and possibly more easily with only paper. Georgia's system seems pretty secure but I have no idea how other states do it.

[revelarts]

For the same reason that we're all not going back to voting on the first Tuesday after the first Monday or whatever the formula is.



so i'm not putting words in your mouth or misunderstand you.
What reason is that specifically?

[fj1200]

so i'm not putting words in your mouth or misunderstand you.
What reason is that specifically?

A majority of elected bodies will not vote for it. Nobody is going to be seen as going backwards, technologically, sociologically, societally. Just because that's the way we used to do it doesn't mean it was superior. Either way this isn't a hill I plan to come close to dying on.

[revelarts]

A majority of elected bodies will not vote for it. Nobody is going to be seen as going backwards, technologically, sociologically, societally. Just because that's the way we used to do it doesn't mean it was superior. Either way this isn't a hill I plan to come close to dying on.

I'm part of the electing body and I'd "go back" and support leaders that would.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Electronic voting is as compelling and modern as "new coke".
And it can be shown that it's NOT as good.

[fj1200]

I'm part of the electing body and I'd "go back" and support leaders that would.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Electronic voting is as compelling and modern as "new coke".
And it can be shown that it's NOT as good.

Whatevs. I don't really care. You'd have to show how the former is automatically better though. I do recall some shenanigans.

[Gunny]

We disagree on federalization. State should set rules. Local is better on most issues.We can disagree :)

[Gunny]

I'm part of the electing body and I'd "go back" and support leaders that would.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Electronic voting is as compelling and modern as "new coke".
And it can be shown that it's NOT as good.The issue with me is not about the electronic voting. Seems to me, electronic voting would be more secure having less hands on a vote.

My concern is with the "found" or accepted "late" votes. Deadline extensions where more "found" or "late" votes are counted. WAY too easy to commit fraud if you know the count and are given the time to come up with just the right amount of votes to decide. That being a possibility in several states last election didn't fly with me.

Nothing was factually proven otherwise. However, the lengths Dems will go to in order to get votes is pretty factual. They should not have been given the opportunity to even appear compromised, whether or not they actually were.

[revelarts]

The issue with me is not about the electronic voting. Seems to me, electronic voting would be more secure having less hands on a vote.

My concern is with the "found" or accepted "late" votes. Deadline extensions where more "found" or "late" votes are counted. WAY too easy to commit fraud if you know the count and are given the time to come up with just the right amount of votes to decide. That being a possibility in several states last election didn't fly with me.

Nothing was factually proven otherwise. However, the lengths Dems will go to in order to get votes is pretty factual. They should not have been given the opportunity to even appear compromised, whether or not they actually were.
I think there's plenty of info out there shows that the votes during 2020 and both Bush elections were corrupt. Using various means.
Whether not people want to believe it or not is another issue. we love to think our elections are good it's only in OTHER 3rd rate countries where elections are stolen.
But many computer experts and university students, and hacker conventions have shown that it's not hard to hack the machines.
Computer experts that work on security for banking ATMs LAUGH at the voting machines.
And have suggested basic safety features that the voting machine companies refuse to implement.
As well as NOT allowing many outsiders to review their software & hardware.
At least one computer programer testified before congress that he was hired to rig the machines to flip the votes to one candidate invisibly. He said he thought he was doing it as a test to STOP the corrupt other side, but found out that it was to be used.
(gain of function just in cases a virus like it comes around... not bio-weapons, bio-research)

[revelarts]

Whatevs. I don't really care. You'd have to show how the former is automatically better though. I do recall some shenanigans.
Some of the elected would like to move in the direction of paper ballots.
Have for wanted to for some time.

2006
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060921/020114.shtml
Maryland Republican Governor Wants To Scrap E-Voting Machines; Go All Paper For The Election

current moves in that direction
https://www.governing.com/next/america-moves-decidedly-toward-paper-based-elections

[Kathianne]

Whatevs. I don't really care. You'd have to show how the former is automatically better though. I do recall some shenanigans.

A start:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-paper-is-considered-state-of-the-art-voting-technology/

Sort of a hybrid, but I personally think that it would be much easier to monitor the paper, it's on site:




COMMENTARY


Why paper is considered state-of-the-art voting technology
Raj Karan Gambhir and Jack Karsten
August 14, 2019


A woman exits the voting booth after filling out her ballot for the U.S presidential election at the James Weldon Johnson Community Center in the East Harlem neighbourhood of Manhattan, New York City, U.S. November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly - D1BEULQVQHAB
5 min read


Print


Print
TechTank
Tech Tank blog banner
Read more from
TechTank
Cybersecurity and Election Interference
Cybersecurity & Election Interference
Read more from
Cybersecurity and Election Interference
Follow the authors
@jtkarsten
More On
Campaigns & Elections
Cybersecurity
PROGRAM
Governance Studies


CENTER
Center for Technology Innovation


Editor's note: This post is part of “Cybersecurity and Election Interference,” a Brookings series that explores digital threats to American democracy, cybersecurity risks in elections, and ways to mitigate possible problems.
Cybersecurity & Election InterferenceOn June 27, the House passed a bill that would bolster America’s high-tech voting infrastructure with a low-tech fix: paper. Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-19), the SAFE Act requires that all voting machines involve “the use of an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voter’s vote.” While the inclusion of paper ballots may seem like a technological step backward, the SAFE Act’s affinity for paper is not a quirk. Election security experts from Harvard, Stanford and the Brennan Center for Justice all recommend the phasing out of paperless voting, and twelve of the thirteen Democratic candidates who have declared a position on election security support mandating the use of paper ballots.


Yet despite expert consensus, political activism, and availability of funding, opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate makes it unlikely that the SAFE Act or any paper ballot standard will be implemented by 2020. With no method to verify votes in the case of software or hardware failure, paperless voting machines represent a large vulnerability. Failure to act on election security risks not only a loss of trust in the next election, but in the democratic process as a whole.


The role of paper ballots in voting machines
Broadly speaking, there are three classes of voting machines. Today, the most commonly used devices are optical scan machines. In this system, poll workers use an optical scanner, a device which registers marks on a page, to process voters’ paper ballots, storing the results electronically. This system has a paper audit trail by design, and election officials can compare the paper ballots each voter fills out with the scanner’s tabulation.


A less common class of voting machines is ballot marking devices, in which voters select their choice on a screen. Rather than storing the selections electronically, the machine then prints a paper ballot to be either hand counted or scanned by a computer.


The only widely used machines that do not incorporate paper as a necessary part of their design are direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines. When using DREs, voters select their choices onscreen, transmitting the data straight into the voting machine’s memory. While DREs can record voters’ choices onto paper, many do not. These DREs that completely forgo paper ballots are among the most vulnerable parts of American election infrastructure.


From paper to paperless and back again
America’s turn to paperless voting has its roots in the confusion caused by ambiguous ballot marking during the 2000 election. In its aftermath, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which allocated $3.9 billion to help voting precincts replace old lever and punch card systems with state-of-the-art equipment. While computer scientists warned Congress at the time of the dangers of paperless systems, HAVA passed both chambers of Congress without requiring that funds be used to purchase systems that utilize paper ballots.


When HAVA came into effect, DREs were seen by many as the most accessible, convenient, and high-tech option. The fully-electronic systems displayed text in multiple languages, accommodated the hearing- and visually-impaired, and simplified logistics for poll workers. According to the New York Times, over two-thirds of precincts used DREs after HAVA.


The DRE honeymoon was brief, with problems surfacing as early as the 2002 election. Concerns over paperless DREs came to a head in the 2004 election in which Democratic activists and politicians claimed that error with the newly installed DRE machines had swung the election in Bush’s favor.


High-tech voting systems need low-tech paper
Without a paper audit trail, it can be difficult to detect errors or breaches in the voting machine’s software or hardware, possibly allowing an incursion into American voting systems to go unnoticed. Even if an error is found, performing an audit of a paperless system can be difficult or impossible given a lack of redundant records to verify vote totals.


These concerns are not hypothetical: At the 2018 DEF CON hacking conference, a computer scientist easily manipulated a paperless DRE system such that every vote for one candidate registered as a vote for their opponent. Even more troubling was that without a paper audit trail, it was not possible to know the true count for each candidate.


The vulnerability of paperless systems became a real issue during the tight Georgia gubernatorial and Texas senate races of 2018. In both cases, paperless DRE machines allegedly switched votes for Democratic candidates into Republican votes. While this was likely a software glitch, the lack of a paper audit trail confuses what the intended votes were, and whether these allegations were true.


Why have these machines not been replaced yet?
As controversy over paperless DREs has mounted, states have gradually adopted systems that use a paper audit trail. However, as of the 2018 midterm election, 12 states representing 150 electoral college votes use paperless DREs as their primary election infrastructure in some of their precincts. Many election officials would like to replace insecure machines but are limited by shortages in funding. While the aforementioned SAFE Act would provide a much needed $600 million with a continuing $175 million every two years for election machine upgrade and renewal, it may take a new Senate or president to enact new election infrastructure standards.


In the meantime, those drafting proposals in Congress on the campaign trail would do best to remember the mistakes of HAVA and listen to the recommendations of election security experts for voting machines. Experts are currently sounding the alarm over certain types of ballot marking devices, and even DREs with paper audit trails.


Should lawmakers committed to election security have the opportunity to enact substantive legislation, they should take great care in specifying the security requirements for voting machines that precincts be permitted to buy with allocated funds. Needlessly employing vulnerable infrastructure will not only undermine the integrity of the 2020 election but will tear into the very fabric that undergirds democratic society, the electoral process.





https://my.lwv.org/south-carolina/paper-ballots-versus-ballot-marking-devices-2019


Paper Ballots Versus Ballot Marking Devices (2019)Share: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
The League of Women Voters supports only voting systems that are secure, accurate, re-countable, accessible, and transparent. We support replacing our current voting computers with a new technology of hand-marked paper ballots, which will be:


The ballot is marked by the voter (may be assisted by a marking device).
The voter casts the ballot by feeding the ballot into an optical scanner at the precinct.
The scanner counts the vote and drops the ballots into a box, where they are retained for a recount or audit.
The paper ballots are the official record of the election.
The new-generation paper ballots have the following advantages:


Correction by the voter if the scanner rejects for bad marking. This is a precinct count fail-safe mechanism that does not exist with a central count.
Long lines and broken machines should not be a problem with paper ballots. Additional voting stations can be added using additional tables and inexpensive cardboard privacy screens.
Ranked Voting and Instant Runoff Voting becomes possible with paper ballots.
Paper ballots can be recounted and/or audited.
Vote reporting will be simpler and faster because the paper ballots are not complicated. By contrast, reporting the statewide vote for the iVotronic requires the processing of approximately 12,500 memory chips and 2,200 PEBs.
The best election is one that the people trust/. The new generation of paper ballots inspires trust because people can verify and hold their ballots, deposit them in the ballot box (scanner) themselves, and know that the actual ballots can be recounted if necessary.
South Carolina's iVotronic computers have a troubled history:


In 2007, an examination of the iVotronic computers by three security groups recommended against using them. Problems existed with both the design and coding.
When we first looked at computer records of the vote in several SC counties, we found thousands of missing/miscounted/uncounted votes.
The State Elections Commission adopted new procedures and wrote computer code (similar to our code) in order to improve the accuracy of the certified totals.
Errors are still occurring in reporting the vote totals. Although the manufacturer has provided updates to the software, incorrect totals and anomalies are still occurring.
Paper ballots and tabulating computers are the only obvious choices to replace the iVotronic computers. Tabulating computers pose a number of problems:


Tabulating computers, such as the ES&S ExpressVote, may be understood as an iVotronic computer with an attached printer. The iVotronic computers accumulate the total vote in electronic data files in their memories. Tabulating computers also accumulate the total vote in electronic data files in their memories.
When using tabulating computers, the vote can be counted from the paper ballots or from the electronic data files. Since these two methods can result in different totals, the South Carolina Code of Laws must specify which method produces the official totals.
Currently, the electronic data in the memories of the iVotronic computers are used to count and recount the vote, setting a precedent that will allow the tabulating computers to count and recount the vote. If so, the paper ballots will never be used for anything except taking up storage space.
These electronic data are vulnerable to undetected coding errors, machine failure, and other types of computer problems.
Electronic data is vulnerable to fraud, hacking, and cyber-attack. The danger from cyber-attack, not the larger cost of tabulating computers, may be the most important factor favoring the adoption of paper ballots.
The ES&S ExpressVote tabulating computer uses barcodes on its ballots to count the vote. The text that the voter verifies, is not used to count the vote. Because the voter cannot verify his ballot, the ES&S ExpressVote is unacceptable.
Tabulating computers are unacceptable if they can alter the ballot after the voter has verified it.
The use of wireless communication, mobile telephone connection, optical scanners or the internet to transmit vote totals is unacceptable because they open pathways for cyber criminals to modify the vote totals.
The estimated cost of equipment (Statehouse Report, Nov. 26, 2018):


Tabulators/Computers: Estimated $62.5+ million (12,500 tabulators x $5,000 each). In addition, expect at least $1 million annual fee, as in now paid by the counties.
Paper ballots and one tabulating computer per precinct: Estimated $22 million. ($5,000/tabulator X 2,200 precincts plus $5,000/scanner x 2,200 precincts). In addition, expect an annual fee of $100 per tabulating computer.
The requirement of one tabulator computer per precinct is to accommodate visually challenged voters.
The expected lifetime of the new equipment must be considered.
Tabulators/computers are undesirable because they are expensive, not transparent, have been shown to result in incorrect counts, and constantly raise serious issues of computer security.


Paper ballots, on the other hand, produce a permanent official record that is inexpensive, easily understood by the voter, re-countable, difficult to hack, and trusted by voters.


Voting Experts Letter to Speaker of House and President of Senate, Jan. 2019
Letter to Speaker of House and President of the Senate


Verified Voting's Statement on Hand-Marked Paper Ballots as Primary Voting Method, Jan. 2019


SC Legislature's Join Voting System Research Committee
91.27. (LEG: Voting System Research Committee) There is created by the SC Legislature a joint legislative committee, entitled the "Joint Voting System Research Committee." The committee shall identify and evaluate current voting system technologies that meet the standards established by Title 7 of the 1976 Code.


The committee shall issue a report which shall include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) an evaluation of each form of voting system technology considered by the committee, including costs, usability, reliability, accessibility, ability to conduct random audits of election results, and security matters related to each, as well as any possible solutions to address any concerns raised; (2) consideration of best practices established by the United States Election Assistance Commission; and (3) analysis as to which technology should be implemented in South Carolina. This analysis shall include costs to acquire and fully implement the recommended technology for a statewide uniform voting system. The analysis must include proposed milestones and success measures for implementation.


The report shall be submitted to the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee no later than January 30, 2016, after which the committee shall be dissolved.


League Member Duncan Buell, a USC professor in the Computer Science and Engineering Department, presented the following testimony at this meeting. (Nov. 2015)


An Example of an RFP for Acquisition of New Equipment
Stephanie Singer, city commissioner for Philadelphia, has drafted a Request For Proposals (Jan. 2015) for new voting equipment for that city.


Presentation to the Legislative Audit Council
LWVSC presentation to the Legislative Audit Council on voting systems/voting machines (June 2012)


Election Audits
An Audit of the November 2012 Election Results in South Carolina


Dr. Duncan Buell performed an audit on results from the Nov. 6, 2012, General Election in Richland County. He consulted with the Richland County Board of Elections and Voter Registration in their investigation of problems that arose on Election Day. He co-chairs the LWVSC Election Technology Taskforce.


The election in Richland County on November 6, 2012, saw very long lines and a large number of voters who voted after closing time. The county election commission contracted with an attorney for a report on the election. In part to provide an analysis and numerical data as to what happened on Election Day, Duncan Buell ran his programs against the Richland County election data. These three reports are the initial results of that analysis. Although there is some significant overlap, they are not merely versions of the same report because different issues arose as the data were being studied. Further study is being conducted, and comparisons against the rest of South Carolina will be forthcoming.


The main caveat to be observed in reading these reports is that the numbers do not tell the whole story. Although there were too few voting terminals in use on Election Day, and this almost certainly contributed to the long lines, there are instances that show that this is not the only factor to be looked at. Springville Precinct in Richland County is a large precinct, with a large number of votes cast on Election Day, but only one vote after closing time. And the initial look at data statewide shows that Greenville County had more votes per voting terminal than did Richland, but only a tiny number of votes after closing.


A statewide study is being conducted and will be posted when a report has been prepared by Dr. Buell.

[fj1200]

Some of the elected would like to move in the direction of paper ballots.
Have for wanted to for some time.

2006
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060921/020114.shtml
Maryland Republican Governor Wants To Scrap E-Voting Machines; Go All Paper For The Election

current moves in that direction
https://www.governing.com/next/america-moves-decidedly-toward-paper-based-elections

More power to 'em.


A start:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-paper-is-considered-state-of-the-art-voting-technology/

Sort of a hybrid, but I personally think that it would be much easier to monitor the paper, it's on site:

https://my.lwv.org/south-carolina/paper-ballots-versus-ballot-marking-devices-2019

I think that's the way to go so that it has a paper trail. When I was referring to paper it was mostly to 2000 and before that we'll never go back to. The beauty of 50 states is 50 experiments on how to do it best and also the ability to limit potential fraud.

[Gunny]

I think there's plenty of info out there shows that the votes during 2020 and both Bush elections were corrupt. Using various means.
Whether not people want to believe it or not is another issue. we love to think our elections are good it's only in OTHER 3rd rate countries where elections are stolen.
But many computer experts and university students, and hacker conventions have shown that it's not hard to hack the machines.
Computer experts that work on security for banking ATMs LAUGH at the voting machines.
And have suggested basic safety features that the voting machine companies refuse to implement.
As well as NOT allowing many outsiders to review their software & hardware.
At least one computer programer testified before congress that he was hired to rig the machines to flip the votes to one candidate invisibly. He said he thought he was doing it as a test to STOP the corrupt other side, but found out that it was to be used.
(gain of function just in cases a virus like it comes around... not bio-weapons, bio-research)You face the same problem Donald Trump does: lack of evidence. Sure, there's onesy-twosy evidence of cheating. People are involved. It's going to happen. That is far cry from the accusation of some vast, coordinated movement to steal the whole election.

People expecting an infallible, 100% accurate and honest system from other people is unrealistic. Especially when the voting systems are run by government employees and volunteers who for the most part are Dems. It's the nature of the beast. You support that which supports you and when in doubt, default in favor of the system.

I firmly believe Dems will try anything they think they can get away with to gain/maintain power. I do not believe in any vast, coordinated conspiracy to steal elections. Too easy to get caught and again, people are involved. If there is one thing people are more loyal to than political affiliation it's selling a story to the MSM for $. Too many self-interested people involved nation-wide for any conspiracy to succeed.

[revelarts]

You face the same problem Donald Trump does: lack of evidence. Sure, there's onesy-twosy evidence of cheating. People are involved. It's going to happen. That is far cry from the accusation of some vast, coordinated movement to steal the whole election.

People expecting an infallible, 100% accurate and honest system from other people is unrealistic. Especially when the voting systems are run by government employees and volunteers who for the most part are Dems. It's the nature of the beast. You support that which supports you and when in doubt, default in favor of the system.

I firmly believe Dems will try anything they think they can get away with to gain/maintain power. I do not believe in any vast, coordinated conspiracy to steal elections. Too easy to get caught and again, people are involved. If there is one thing people are more loyal to than political affiliation it's selling a story to the MSM for $. Too many self-interested people involved nation-wide for any conspiracy to succeed.

I seen more than onesy-twosy's, maybe you haven't looked in the same places I have.
Haven't seen the testimonies videos etc..

no one's expecting 100% accurate. but the fact is there has been ol skool Chicago mob level voting issues.
and with that style of cheating, it's not often clearly reveled in the courts or in all the respectable places.
But if people are willing to take some time to lift up the carpet they'll see plenty of the dead bodies there.

[revelarts]

FYI.
Gov Social security website
tracks people getting new SSnumbers, and supposedly tries to attach to people
with ID
or without ID
if the people are real
or real but dead

ssa.gov/open/havv/
havv = "Help America Vote Verification"

Some folks have looked at the details of various states and seen odd activity over the past few months.
especially in Arizona, Alabama & Pennsylvania to name a few...
allegedly...

So folks can take a look for themselves... I 'm sure there's nothing going on,
probably nothing anyone has or could prove in court... so its all legal & A-Ok.

[revelarts]

More old red meat.


https://www.judicialwatch.org/new-jw-study-voter-registration/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQaALKoaIAQzhNG?format=jpg&name=small

[Gunny]

FYI.
Gov Social security website
tracks people getting new SSnumbers, and supposedly tries to attach to people
with ID
or without ID
if the people are real
or real but dead

ssa.gov/open/havv/
havv = "Help America Vote Verification"

Some folks have looked at the details of various states and seen odd activity over the past few months.
especially in Arizona, Alabama & Pennsylvania to name a few...
allegedly...

So folks can take a look for themselves... I 'm sure there's nothing going on,
probably nothing anyone has or could prove in court... so its all legal & A-Ok.If that is fact, where's the lawsuit? Nobody has said voter fraud is okay. No kind of fraud is okay. None of these people are okay. They all suck.

Unfortunate reality in this country and the way the left has rigged the game to be played is if you don't have anything to bring to court, you're just crazy or a sore loser or whatever. They exploit the law itself with semantics and no one seems to have a clue how to combat it. They've ruined this whole damned country and the intent of law, not just voting. Everything. Where a man can be all the woman he wants to:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

current red meat
https://mynbc15.com/news/local/al-secretary-of-state-reports-thousands-of-registered-voters-are-not-us-citizens

[Kathianne]

current red meat
https://mynbc15.com/news/local/al-secretary-of-state-reports-thousands-of-registered-voters-are-not-us-citizens

Good they were caught. I don't know if the majority of fraud is discovered before, during, or immediately after elections, but there are always these discoveries and usually trials. They also usually end in sentencing for some.

The fact that we hear and read about them actually speaks somewhat favorably for rooting out the fraud.

[revelarts]

Good they were caught. I don't know if the majority of fraud is discovered before, during, or immediately after elections, but there are always these discoveries and usually trials. They also usually end in sentencing for some.

The fact that we hear and read about them actually speaks somewhat favorably for rooting out the fraud.

I'd say it's speaks somewhat favorably for the CAPABILITY of rooting out the fraud.
Not that we should assume that rooting out the fraud happens by default in enough cases to make the problem a non-issue.
Think about it in this case, IF the officials there had wanted the immigrants to vote, all they would have had to do is NOT investigate the question, be silent and just count the votes.
They controlled who had access to the information that exposed it in this case.
Without general suspicion, and an open investigation it probably wouldn't have been revealed prior to the vote, IF ever.

In contrast to what happened here where officials were doing their jobs and honestly & openly checking for problems, rather than assuming the best.
What if it had only been some insider, as whistle blower, who pointed out the SAME EXACT FACTS. But the info was only reported by local or ...a foreign... or partisan... or "unknown"... news outlet. ....or even on some radical or conspiracy website.
And it was met by scoffing backhanded denials from officials, who delayed more questions until after the elections. And that it never makes it "to trial". And there are "no lawsuits". So it's never officially investigated for the discovery of more hard evidence.

Then it could be dismissed by many in the public as "lacking evidence" & "red meat" for the faithful. IF the incident is heard of AT ALL.
No need for any major cover ups, just denials and assumptions that the systems are generally working fine.

As uncomfortable as it may be, it'd be better if we took a posture of constantly probing the systems to expose problems and deal with them openly.

Also we have to remember, when there are close votes it doesn't take a LOT of major, or widespread fraud.
A few hundred or thousands of votes in one or 2 places can swing whole states.

[revelarts]

From the news report:
"...Allen says finding this out wasn't easy. Non-citizen identification numbers are issued by the Department of Homeland Security, but he says the feds wouldn't supply the information.

"We met roadblock after roadblock after roadblock, red tape bureaucracy, so we had to, had to go a different route. And it's taken a little while to do that. And we built this from scratch, from really day one," said Allen.

Allen says they obtained the non-citizen identification numbers through the Alabama Department of Labor and Alabama Law Enforcement Agency. Allen says he's turned over his findings to Attorney General Steve Marshall.... "

Should we feel confident that the effort these Alabama officials went through is the norm around the country? Does it speaks somewhat favorably about the systems overall?

Or point to the idea that others states have better systems in place?
Or that the feds are doing better at helping other states have a handle on who and where legal and illegal immigrants are.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV6o16zWYAAL6Wg?format=jpg&name=small

Governor Abbott Announces Over 1 Million Ineligible Voters Removed From Voter Rolls
August 26, 2024 | Austin, Texas | Press Release

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-over-1-million-ineligible-voters-removed-from-voter-rolls

wow. that's cleaning house.
But 1 million seems like a LOT to me.
Hope all the records are public & the other side is double checking.

the days of "trust us" have long gone.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV6rPL1WgAA1rFP?format=jpg&name=360x360

[Gunny]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV6o16zWYAAL6Wg?format=jpg&name=small

Governor Abbott Announces Over 1 Million Ineligible Voters Removed From Voter Rolls
August 26, 2024 | Austin, Texas | Press Release

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-over-1-million-ineligible-voters-removed-from-voter-rolls

wow. that's cleaning house.
But 1 million seems like a LOT to me.
Hope all the records are public & the other side is double checking.

the days of "trust us" have long gone.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV6rPL1WgAA1rFP?format=jpg&name=360x360

I take that list with a grain of salt. Ken Paxton is on a crusade. He just ransacked the home of a Dem running to replace another Dem in the State legislature, and the offices of the PAC supporting her. She's running to represent Bexar country in the Texas House. That would be here, San Antonio. He's got a snowball's chance in Hell of getting a Republican out of this blue city and harassing Dems surely isn't the way to go about it.

Sorry, but anything he puts out is questionable in my book. If there was ever a mafioso AG, it's him. He's as dirty as it gets and the answer to those who impeached him and wanted him to stand trial is the machine chewed them up and spit them out and he got his job back.

I'm all for cleaning up the voter rolls. I just don't trust him to do it.

[revelarts]

I take that list with a grain of salt. Ken Paxton is on a crusade. He just ransacked the home of a Dem running to replace another Dem in the State legislature, and the offices of the PAC supporting her. She's running to represent Bexar country in the Texas House. That would be here, San Antonio. He's got a snowball's chance in Hell of getting a Republican out of this blue city and harassing Dems surely isn't the way to go about it.

Sorry, but anything he puts out is questionable in my book. If there was ever a mafioso AG, it's him. He's as dirty as it gets and the answer to those who impeached him and wanted him to stand trial is the machine chewed them up and spit them out and he got his job back.

I'm all for cleaning up the voter rolls. I just don't trust him to do it.

like i said,
seems like a lot.
AND I hope the info is PUBLIC so it can be reviewed by 3rd parties.

Trust but verify, or don't trust and verify... either way verify.

[Gunny]

like i said,
seems like a lot.
AND I hope the info is PUBLIC so it can be reviewed by 3rd parties.

Trust but verify, or don't trust and verify... either way verify.LULAC has already cried to DoJ to open an investigation. They'll probably hop right on it since it's libs crying in a red state. Unlike their hands off in blue states, leaving it to the states to cover their own asses.

I don't know if the number is high or not. I am more concerned about Paxton and the damage he does to conservatives every time he pulls one of his far-right antics. I'm pretty sure he's suing half the libs in the State for one thing or another.

One for instance is going hard after some woman that went out of state for an abortion. For or against abortion, his internal business with Texas citizens ends at the border unless they request help from the state. He's just a petty asshole. I didn't vote for him. I left that space open.

[revelarts]

8/21/2024
SECRETARY LAROSE REFERS EVIDENCE OF NON-CITIZEN VOTER REGISTRATIONS TO OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR POTENTIAL PROSECUTION


(Columbus) – Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced today that he has formally referred evidence of non-citizen voter registrations to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for further review and potential prosecution.

“I’m duty-bound to make sure people who haven’t yet earned citizenship in this country do not vote in our elections,” said Secretary LaRose. “We’ve so far identified 597 individuals who’ve registered to vote in Ohio despite not being citizens of the United States, as our state constitution requires. The evidence includes 138 individuals who appear to have cast a ballot in an Ohio election during the time state and federal records show they lacked citizenship status. The law requires me to refer these individuals to the attorney general, and that’s what we’re doing today.”

Earlier this year, Secretary LaRose launched a comprehensive audit of Ohio’s voter registration database, resulting in the removal of 154,995 registrations confirmed to be abandoned and inactive for at least four consecutive years....

https://www.ohiosos.gov/media-center/press-releases/2024/2024-08-21/

[revelarts]

LULAC has already cried to DoJ to open an investigation. They'll probably hop right on it since it's libs crying in a red state. Unlike their hands off in blue states, leaving it to the states to cover their own asses.

I don't know if the number is high or not. I am more concerned about Paxton and the damage he does to conservatives every time he pulls one of his far-right antics. I'm pretty sure he's suing half the libs in the State for one thing or another.

One for instance is going hard after some woman that went out of state for an abortion. For or against abortion, his internal business with Texas citizens ends at the border unless they request help from the state. He's just a petty asshole. I didn't vote for him. I left that space open.

So, In your opinion, ....not about the character of the official... but the accuracy of "Paxton's" count of the problems voters.
Would you say it's all completely made up, because you don't trust Paxton? So all the Paxton" data should be ignored 100%?

or would you guess that maybe there is some disturbing data there that is important to review before November, even though Paxton's no good?

[revelarts]

https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-sues-all-15-counties-in-arizona-for-failing-to-take-action-to-remove-illegal-aliens-from-voter-rolls/


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWwpO8DWEAE8KGG?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWpCF5iWcAA2-nG?format=jpg&name=small


----------------------

What some Arizons are saying about the 2020 election


"the official results of the Arizona Senate Audit of the 2020 election.

+ 4,000 registered and voted after the Oct 15th deadline.

+ 11,000 voted not on the November voter rolls but magically showed up on December,

+ 18,000 voted but only to be removed from the rigged voter rolls right after the election.

+ 74,000 mail in ballots cast with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF EVER BIENG SENT OUT.

Internal MEMO CONFIRMS, election officials encouraged Dominion’s best friend SHARPIES just for election day.

+37,000 security queries logs deleted, including the official results of the 2020 election before the very same audit,

[Security logs can be used to: Monitor activity within the IT infrastructure, Identify policy violations, Pinpoint fraudulent or unusual activity, and Highlight security incidents]

And Katie Hobbs belongs in prison with her own very cellmate Adrian Fontes".

[Gunny]

https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-sues-all-15-counties-in-arizona-for-failing-to-take-action-to-remove-illegal-aliens-from-voter-rolls/


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWwpO8DWEAE8KGG?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWpCF5iWcAA2-nG?format=jpg&name=small


----------------------

What some Arizons are saying about the 2020 election


"the official results of the Arizona Senate Audit of the 2020 election.

+ 4,000 registered and voted after the Oct 15th deadline.

+ 11,000 voted not on the November voter rolls but magically showed up on December,

+ 18,000 voted but only to be removed from the rigged voter rolls right after the election.

+ 74,000 mail in ballots cast with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF EVER BIENG SENT OUT.

Internal MEMO CONFIRMS, election officials encouraged Dominion’s best friend SHARPIES just for election day.

+37,000 security queries logs deleted, including the official results of the 2020 election before the very same audit,

[Security logs can be used to: Monitor activity within the IT infrastructure, Identify policy violations, Pinpoint fraudulent or unusual activity, and Highlight security incidents]

And Katie Hobbs belongs in prison with her own very cellmate Adrian Fontes".


TX AG Ken Paxton, who will sue anyone for anything not toeing hard corps right line is suing San Antonio and another blue city for their voter registration drives. I don't disagree with where he's trying to go, but I want to see how he intends to get there. Texas already scrubbed the rolls.

And we all know the Dems will try every shenanigan in the book to get dead bodies to vote. Want to see how Paxton intends to prove it since Dems, halos affixed, usually legalese their way around.

[Gunny]

On August 27, the commissioners court held a public meeting (https://traviscotx.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3270/overview) and approved the hiring of Civic Government Solutions to implement “unregistered voter outreach services.”

The contract tasks CGS with identifying “any current Travis County resident that is at least 18 years of age, a US citizen and not already registered to vote.” It also requires CGS to provide the county with a list of “the resultant, Eligible Resident-Citizens and their current residence address and mailing address.”

Lawsuit: Travis County using taxpayer money on partisan identifying unregistered voters

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXb9K2ZXYAA7bit?format=jpg&name=small



https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/09/oregon-dmv-has-registered-more-than-300-non-citizens-as-voters-since-2021.html

[revelarts]

'Every Last Black Person That I Know...Has A Gov ID!': Wesley Hunt Shreds Dems For Opposing Voter ID

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwKbO-G0BWE

[Gunny]

'Every Last Black Person That I Know...Has A Gov ID!': Wesley Hunt Shreds Dems For Opposing Voter ID

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwKbO-G0BWE

Who doesn't? Even criminals need ID. Just have to wonder how many people out there don't drink, smoke, drive a vehicle. If you're on any kind of subsistence you need ID. Welfare, social security, Medicare/Medicaid. Rental/lease/mortgage.

Homeless people maybe? Wonder what-all would entice homeless people to vote besides some graft?