Posted on

FED’s Set Up New Jersey Voter Election Day Hotline for Complaints of Voting Irregularities or Abuses

Vote Ridgewood NJ

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Hackensack NJ,  U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today that Senior Trial Counsel Allen B.K. Urgent will lead the office’s efforts in connection with the Justice Department’s nationwide Election Day Program for the Nov. 6, 2018, general election.

Continue reading FED’s Set Up New Jersey Voter Election Day Hotline for Complaints of Voting Irregularities or Abuses

Posted on

ICE: 19 Foreign nationals indicted for Voter Fraud in 2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

WILMINGTON NC,  Nineteen foreign nationals were charged with unlawfully voting in the 2016 elections Friday, and a U.S. citizen was charged with aiding and abetting an alien to falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register to vote. The indictments follow an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) as part of a newly created Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF) in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Continue reading ICE: 19 Foreign nationals indicted for Voter Fraud in 2016

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Dead People Do Not Have a Right to Vote

old paramus reformed church

June 13,2018
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC , The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of Ohio Monday upholding its practice of purging people from registration rolls if they fail to vote. In a 5-4 decision, in a case know as Husted v. A. Philip Randolph the court ruled Ohio could continue to remove individuals from voter rolls if they had not voted in two federal elections and have not responded to a confirmation notice or updated their registration.

The plaintiffs in the case, Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute, argued the Ohio law violated the National Voter Registration Act – that “just as you have a right to vote, you have a right not to vote” – claiming the state’s purges risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

Voter rolls have been a point of contention for years .Many critics claim inactive voter rolls create opportunity for voter fraud .

Posted on

Judicial Watch Warns California to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit

old paramus reformed church
Data Show LA, San Diego, San Francisco Have More Registered Voters than Eligible Adult Citizens – LA Voting Rolls Have 144% of the Total Number of Eligible Residents
August 5,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced it sent a notice-of-violation letter to the state of California and 11 of its counties threatening to sue in federal court if it does not clean its voter registration lists as mandated by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Both the NVRA and the federal Help America Vote Act require states to take reasonable steps to maintain accurate voting rolls. The August 1 letter was sent on behalf of several Judicial Watch California supporters and the Election Integrity Project California, Inc.

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

Under Section 8 of the NVRA, states are required to make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from official lists due to “the death of the registrant” or “a change in the residence of the registrant,” and requires states to ensure noncitizens are not registered to vote.

There is “strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA,” Judicial Watch wrote in the notice letter sent to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Judicial Watch referred California officials to a settlement agreement it reached with the State of Ohio in which Ohio agreed to update and maintain its voter registration lists and to keep a current voter registration list online and available for public access.

“California’s voting rolls are an absolute mess that undermines the very idea of clean elections,” JudicialWatch President Tom Fitton said. “It is urgent that California take reasonable steps to clean up its rolls. We will sue if state officials fail to act.”

In April, Judicial Watch sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens.  The states are: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee.

On July 18, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the NVRA. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)).

Election Integrity Project California, Inc. is a registered non-profit corporation that seeks to preserve a government of, by, and for the people. To that end, Election Integrity Project California empowers citizen volunteers through education and training to protect the integrity of the electoral process in California.

The director of Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project is senior attorney Robert Popper, who was formerly deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Posted on

Out of state voters and non-residents offered ballots in New Hampshire presidential primary

James_OKeefe_39

February 14,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood

Ridgewood NJ, Four years ago, James O’Keefe released a video which showed how easy it would be for people to vote in New Hampshire using the names of deceased people. As a result of that video, New Hampshire changed its voter ID laws. Project Veritas Action revisited New Hampshire during Tuesday’s presidential primary election and again showed how easy it is to cast fraudulent votes with the new law fully in place. In this new video, multiple election officials and Bernie Sanders presidential campaign staffers offered advice to journalists using hidden cameras about how to circumvent the law.

Posted on

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

Hillary Clinton

By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times – Thursday, January 26, 2017

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

Posted on

Substantial Numbers of Non-Citizens Vote Illegally in U.S. Elections

VOTE_theridgewoodblog

By James D. Agresti
December 15, 2016

The issue of voter fraud was one of the most heated sources of controversy during the 2016 presidential election, and it continues to be so.

After Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that it was supporting recounts in several states won by Donald Trump, Trump responded with a series of Twitter posts accusing Clinton of hypocrisy for refusing to accept the results of the election after she insisted that he “must.” He then tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

Several major media outlets pounced on Trump’s comment. The New York Times, for example, reported that “virtually no evidence of such improprieties has been discovered.” The Times editorial board then called Trump’s statement “a lie,” and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker declared “this is a bogus claim with no documented proof.”

These media reports and Trump’s comment are all misleading. There is material evidence of substantial vote fraud, though it does not prove that Trump would have won the popular vote if such fraud were prevented. It only shows that this is a possibility.

This evidence is documented in a 2014 paper published by the journal Electoral Studies. Based on survey data and election records, the authors of this paper found that the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election ranged “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.” Their “best estimate” is that 1.2 million or “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.”

As detailed below, this paper has uncertainties that the authors readily acknowledge, but attempts to dismiss it have been flawed and deceitful. Moreover, there are several reasons why significantly more non-citizens may have voted in the 2016 presidential election than in the 2008 election.

The Electoral Studies Paper

In 2014, the academic journal Electoral Studies published a paper by three scholars who analyzed the results of a large survey conducted by a group at Harvard University. This study also made use of polling data from YouGov and voter registration and turnout data from Catalist, a firm that equips “progressive organizations” with data to help them “persuade and mobilize” people.

In this 2008 survey of 32,800 respondents, 339 identified themselves as non-citizens, and 38 of these non-citizens checked a box that said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. At face value, this means that 11.2% (38/339) of non-citizens voted in the 2008 election.

Applying this 11.2% figure to the Census Bureau’s estimate of 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the U.S., this amounts to 2.2 million non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a maximum of 2.8 million non-citizens voted in 2008.

On the low side, the authors noted that only five non-citizens who said they voted were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. If these were the only people who voted, it would mean that 1.5% (5/339) of non-citizens voted. Applied to 19.4 million adult non-citizens, this amounts to 290,000 votes. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a bare minimum of 38,000 non-citizens voted in the 2008 election.

Using other data from the survey, the authors refined their high and low estimates to produce a “best guess” that 6.4% or 1.2 million non-citizens cast votes in 2008. The survey also showed that 81.8% of non-citizen voters reported that they voted for Obama.

As the authors explain, these figures are “quite substantial” and “large enough to change meaningful election outcomes, including Electoral College votes and Congressional elections.” More specifically, they noted that “non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass” Obamacare. This is because Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota captured this 60th seat:

with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

In the 2016 election for North Carolina’s governor, the current Republican governor recently conceded defeat based on a shortfall of about 10,000 votes. The Census Bureau’s estimate for the adult non-citizen population of North Carolina is 479,000 people. Hence, if 2.1% of them cast added votes for the Democrat, this supplied the margin of victory.

Trump currently trails in the popular vote by about 2.6 million. Hence, in order for his statement to be true, 12.6% of the 21 million non-citizen adults in the U.S. recorded by the Census Bureau would have had to cast added votes for Clinton. This is within the realm of possibility given that the study also found that “roughly one quarter of non-citizens were likely registered to vote” in 2008 and 2010.

Flawed Critiques

Before the 2014 paper was officially published, two of its authors wrote an overview of it for the Washington Post. Criticism was swift and intense, and the Post placed links to four critiques of this article over the top of it, along with the authors’ reply to three of them.

Most of these criticisms were formalized in a paper published by Electoral Studies in 2015, which accused the authors of the original paper of “cherry-picking.” In the context of public policy, cherry picking means to selectively choose only the data that supports a certain conclusion while ignoring any data that does not. It is the equivalent of lying by omission.

This 2015 paper was written by three scholars, two of whom are managers of the Harvard survey cited in the study, and the third a manager with YouGov.

The central argument of their two-page paper is that all of the people in the survey who identified themselves as non-citizen voters either did not vote or were actually citizens. This argument rests on two flawed assumptions.

First, the critics assume that people who stated “I definitely voted” and specifically identified a choice of candidate did not vote—unless Catalist verified that they voted. This is illogical, because Catalist is unlikely to verify respondents who use fraudulent identities, and millions of non-citizens use them.

This is shown in a 2013 investigation by the U.S. Social Security Administration, which found that about 1.8 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 by using a Social Security number “that did not match their name.” Furthermore, the study found that another 0.7 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 with Social Security numbers that they obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.” Notably, a Social Security number is a common requirement for voter registration.

The Harvard survey and Catalist data evince such identity fraud, because 90% of all survey respondents were matched by Catalist, while most non-citizen respondents were not. In the 2008 and 2012 surveys, only 41% and 43% of non-citizens were matched by Catalist respectively. These low match rates are revealing given that the Catalist database contains reams of data on “more than 240 million unique voting-age individuals.” This amounts to 98% of the 245 million adults who live in the U.S.

Hence, to ignore all votes not matched by Catalist will ensure that most non-citizens are excluded. This is especially true of those who fraudulently use a Social Security number, who are the very same people who have an open door to voting.

Their second irrational assumption is that some citizens in the Harvard survey misidentify themselves as non-citizens, but non-citizens never misidentify themselves as citizens. Hence, they dismiss all votes by people who don’t claim to be non-citizens in two separate surveys. This has the effect of narrowing the field of non-citizens to only those who took the survey in both 2008 and 2010. It also excludes anyone who stated on one survey that they are a non-citizen and stated on another that they are a citizen.

The critics make a legitimate point that random errors by survey respondents will overcount non-citizens. This is because far more citizens were sampled in this survey. For instance, if a survey sampled 100,000 citizens and 100 non-citizens, and 1% of them misidentified themselves, this would mean 1,000 citizens called themselves non-citizens, but only one non-citizen said he was a citizen.

Such logic makes sense in a vacuum where all other evidence is ignored, but the reality is that misidentification of citizenship is not just a random phenomenon. This is because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally.

This is proven by a 2013 study published in the journal Demographic Research, which compared Census Bureau survey data on citizenship to the number of naturalized citizens recorded by the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics. The study found that certain major groups of immigrants—including Mexican men of all ages, Mexican women aged 40 and older, and immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than five years—frequently misrepresent themselves as citizens.

As a worst-case example, the study found that “the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher” in the Census data than the number recorded by the Office of Immigration Statistics. In other words, only about 4% of Mexican men who claim to be citizens and have been in the United States for less than five years are actually citizens.

Now watch how the critics employ their flawed assumptions to claim that “the rate of non-citizen voting in the United States is likely 0.” Again, 38 respondents in the 2008 Harvard survey said they were non-citizens who “definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. Yet:

instead of examining the 2008 presidential election, the critics focus on the 2010 mid-term election when the presidency was not at stake, and turnout was lower. In 2010, 489 people identified themselves as non-citizens in the survey, and 13 of them said they voted or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. This cuts the number of voters from 38 to 13.
then they dismiss anyone who did not also take part in the 2012 survey, which narrows the pool of non-citizens from 489 to 105, or by 79%.
then they dismiss anyone who did not say they are non-citizens in both 2010 and 2012. This further narrows the pool of non-citizens from 105 to 85, leaving only 6 voters.
then they dismiss anyone who did not appear in the Catalist database as voting, which cuts the number of voters in 2010 from 6 to 0.
The critics do this without spelling out the implications of their assumptions, without providing a comprehensive and transparent accounting of these numbers, and without mentioning that this was a mid-term election.

They also analyze the 2012 presidential election, and their methods are even more problematic. In this case, 695 people identified themselves as non-citizens in the survey, and 61 of them said they voted or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. Yet:

they dismiss anyone who did not also take part in the 2010 survey, which narrows the field of non-citizens from 695 to 105, or by 85%.
then they dismiss anyone who did not say they are non-citizens in both 2010 and 2012. This reduces the number of non-citizens from 105 to 85. Note that the survey only asked 15 of these non-citizens if they voted in 2012, and 10 of them said they did.
then they dismiss all 10 of these people, because they do not appear in the Catalist database as voting. Moreover, they do this while failing to reveal that all of these people specifically identified their choice for president—nine for Obama and one for Romney.
then, buried in a footnote, they mention that one person who identified herself as a non-citizen in both the 2010 and 2012 surveys was matched by Catalist as voting in 2012. They say that this “appears to be the result of a false positive match with Catalist,” because the person “stated in both the 2010 and 2012 survey that she was not registered to vote.” This argument is based on the unspoken assumption that non-citizens would never lie about voting, even though such an admission could expose them to criminal penalties.
Throughout the body of their paper, the critics consider Catalist to be the only valid measure of voting, but when this does not serve their purpose, they dismiss Catalist in a footnote. Such duplicity pervades their analysis. They level the charge of cherry picking even as they engage in it.

Beyond all of the evidence above, the authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper have written a working paper that debunks their critics with many more facts.

Legitimate Caveats

The authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper repeatedly explain that there is room for uncertainty in their results. To that end, they provide a wide-ranging estimate for the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election.

However, one major aspect of their analysis does not quantify margins of error, even though it could be a large source of inaccuracy. This is the fact that the Harvard survey does not provide a truly random sample of the American public.

The Harvard survey uses data from an internet poll conducted by YouGov. The weakness of internet polls is that they are extremely vulnerable to selection bias or non-response bias. This occurs because certain people are far more likely to participate in these polls.

As explained in the textbook Mind on Statistics, “Surveys that simply use those who respond voluntarily are sure to be biased in favor of those with strong opinions or with time on their hands.” In other words, such polls are not based on random samples of people, and they can be misleading.

The Harvard survey attempts to correct for this flaw by using a process called “matching.” This entails selecting a portion of the survey respondents that “mimics the characteristics” of the target population. These characteristics include “age, race, gender, education, marital status, number of children under 18, family income, employment status, citizenship, state, and metropolitan area … religion, church attendance, born again or evangelical status, news interest, party identification and ideology.”

Matching is a common and generally accepted procedure for turning non-random samples into random ones. However, as the Harvard survey points out, matching relies on the “assumption” that there is “no difference” in how people would answer the survey if they have the same characteristics (like race, age, and news interest). This assumption may be false in some cases, because people can differ in ways that transcend such characteristics.

The authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper acknowledge this limitation by writing that their conclusions apply “if” the weighted survey data “is fully representative of the non-citizen population.” This is a big “if” given that the underlying data comes from an internet poll, even though it has been matched.

Another source of uncertainty is the fact that the study uses survey data from the Census Bureau to measure the number of non-citizens in the United States. As detailed above, this will produce an undercount of non-citizens, because many illegal immigrants conceal the fact that they are non-citizens. In the words of the Congressional Budget Office, figures for the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. “are subject to considerable uncertainty.”

Along the same lines, the Harvard survey may undercount the number of non-citizen voters, because it effectively asks them to admit in writing to a federal crime. Per the authors:

Non-citizen voters have incentives to misrepresent either their citizenship status or their voting status. After all, claiming to be both a non-citizen and a voter is confessing to vote fraud, and the Federal Voter Registration Application specifically threatens non-citizens who register with a series of consequences. … This possible penalty would tend to reduce the proportion of non-citizen voters who would report having voted.

The 2016 Election

The number of non-citizens who voted in the 2016 election may be significantly higher than in 2008, because:

Trump campaigned on a promise to crack down on illegal immigration, and this may have driven non-citizens to vote against him.
the number of adult non-citizens in the U.S. recorded by the Census Bureau has risen from 19.4 million in 2008 to 21.0 million in 2016.
shortly before the election, Obama publicly stated that election records are not cross-checked against immigration databases and “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.” This let non-citizens know that they stand little chance of being caught if they vote.
Likewise, early in 2016, the Obama administration supported a court injunction to prevent Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia from requiring people to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

So-Called Fact Checks

Some of the nation’s most prominent fact checkers have scoffed at Trump’s assertion that he won the popular vote if illegal votes are deducted.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker dismissed Trump’s claim as “bogus” and attributed it to “a self-described conservative voter fraud specialist” who has “declined to provide any evidence to back it up, even though reporters have asked.”

The Post’s analysis, written by Glenn Kessler, completely ignored the fact that Trump’s statement is supported to a degree by the 2014 Electoral Studies paper. Kessler is clearly aware of this study, because he quotes its lead author and links to an earlier Post fact check that cites the study. Yet, Kessler doesn’t even hint at what the study shows. Instead, he provides a link that says “we’ve previously given Trump four Pinocchios for making a number of bogus claims about alleged voter fraud.”

Worse still, in both of these fact checks, the Post declares that Trump took the study “out of context.” This is a blatant falsehood, but Kessler says it is so because the lead author of the study wrote that “almost all elections in the US are not determined by non-citizen participation, with occasional and very rare potential exceptions.” This does not in any way contradict Trump, who quoted the authors of the study word-for-word as follows:

Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and many other reforms, and other Obama administration priorities. … It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina.

Kessler and his fellow Post reporter had good reason to know that these words are accurate and in-context, for the authors of the study wrote them in the Post, and the Fact Checker linked to their article.

PolitiFact, another popular fact checking organization, also published a misleading analysis of this issue. This pertains to the number of non-citizens who are registered to vote, which is another finding from the 2014 Electoral Studies paper. PolitiFact says that “Trump accurately cites the study” but is still wrong, because the study was “rebutted multiple times for the methodology it uses.”

PolitiFact then gives the distinct impression that the people who conducted the study are nobodies who merely wrote an article for the “Monkey Cage” blog of the Washington Post. PolitiFact does this by failing to mention that the study was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and by failing to cite any credentials of the study or its authors, even though two of them, Jesse Richman and David Earnest, are university professors.

In stark contrast, PolitiFact touts the study’s critics with phrases like “three experts,” “peer-reviewed article,” “a political science professor,” “an election expert,” “an associate policy analyst,” and “experts who actually gathered the underlying data.”

PolitiFact’s analysis provides no indication that anyone in this organization read the body of the original paper, read the authors’ replies to their critics, or judiciously examined any of the attacks on the paper. It simply portrays the authors as unaccomplished and their critics as reliable.

This appeal to authority is especially deceitful given that two of the three “experts who actually gathered the underlying data” have made donations to left-leaning political causes. These are Brian Schaffner and Samantha Luks, who are among the three scholars who wrote the 2015 paper in Electoral Studies that criticized the original paper.

In 2004, Schaffner donated to America Coming Together, a liberal organization “heavily funded by billionaire George Soros” that was “on the cutting edge of national politics.” In 2016, Schaffner gave $250 to Hillary Clinton, and Luks donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Incidentally, the same federal records show no political donations for the three authors of the original study.

In sum, PolitiFact neglects the actual facts of this complex issue and makes it seem as if this is a case of “the experts” versus people with no credibility. That is not fact-checking but shilling for a particular point of view.

Conclusion

Contrary to the claims of certain major media outlets and fact checkers, a comprehensive analysis of this issue shows that substantial numbers of non-citizens vote illegally in U.S. elections. However, contrary to Trump, the data does not prove that he would have won the popular vote if this fraud did not take place. Instead, it only shows that this is a reasonable possibility.

Substantial Numbers of Non-Citizens Vote Illegally in U.S. Elections

Posted on

Democrats Redistricting Amendment Disenfranchises New Jersey Voters

Senate President Sweeney_theridgewoodblog

Nj senate president Steven Sweeney 

In our judiciary committee hearing yesterday I point out the utter hypocrisy of Democratic Party leaders holding a public hearing on an unprecedented four constitutional amendments while keeping the public in the dark and refusing to answer questions.  ( Rep. Holly Schepisi New Jersey GOP)

Academics, others slam Democrats’ redistricting amendment

By MATT FRIEDMAN 2:24 p.m. | Jan. 7, 2016follow this reporter

TRENTON — It’s not just Republican lawmakers who oppose redistricting changes that could secure Democrats’ electoral advantage for decades to come.

Two New Jersey academics who have extensively studied how the state draws its legislative districts gave scathing testimony Thursday against the proposed constitutional amendment.

Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said wording of the amendment is deliberately misleading to voters, who must decide whether to approve it.

“This is a bald-faced attempt to pull the wool over voters’ eyes; making them complicit in a process that will only serve to increase their cynicism about politics,” Murray told a Senate committee.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/new-jersey/2016/01/8587244/academics-others-slam-democrats-redistricting-amendment

Posted on

A solution is Search of a Problem : ‘Democracy Act’ or Voter Fraud Act ?

VOTE_theridgewoodblog

Assembly Appropriations releases fast-tracked ‘Democracy Act’

TRENTON — Moving a step closer on its fast track to the governor’s desk, the Assembly Appropriations Committee voted up acomplex bill aimed at modernizing and streamlining New Jersey’s voter laws today.

Along party lines, members of the committee debated and ultimately passed the bill, introduced by Democratic leaders in both houses last week and dubbed the “Democracy Act” for its intended goal of increasing voting rights access to certain demographics in the state. Sponsors of the bill say it would make it easier for residents to register to vote and vote in state elections by implementing measures like online voter registration, same day registration, and new technologies at the ballot boxes — all of which would help increase voter turnout in the state, which ranks 39th in the country in terms of registered voters at 64 percent, with an average voter turnout of  54.5 percent.  (Brush/PolitickerNJ)

Assembly Appropriations releases fast-tracked ‘Democracy Act’ | New Jersey News, Politics, Opinion, and Analysis

Posted on

Rush Limbaugh Suggests Voter Fraud May Be Only Reason Democrats Stay in Power

imgres-3

850 New York voters were apparently alive when Abe Lincoln was president 

Rush Limbaugh Suggests Voter Fraud May Be Only Reason Democrats Stay in Power

October 23,2014
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Rush Limbaugh believes that Democrats aren’t as popular as they might seem, so why they keep holding power struck him as confusing. But in reaction to a report about possible voter fraud in Cook County, Limbaugh suspected that––voter fraud––must be a big reason for them continuing to win.

Limbaugh makes a good point ,cited polls, as well as less-than-impressive book sales for Hillary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo‘s recent books, to say Democrats aren’t as popular as the media might build them up to be. Of the left in general, Limbaugh said, “They don’t have any audience on their cable news shows. They’re not these rock star, popular, admirable figures that people run around emulating and wish they were like.”

And to him, for some Democrats to be doing well in their elections so far “doesn’t make any sense.” And while he didn’t directly blame voter fraud in every case for Democrats holding power, Limbaugh did say 1) “that kind of stuff is happening all over the country, I’m convinced of it,” and 2) “I’m really starting to be curious about the degree, the amount of voter fraud taking place out there.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-suggests-voter-fraud-may-be-only-reason-dems-stay-in-power/

And he may have a point according to the NY Post , 850 New York voters were apparently alive when Abe Lincoln was president .A single Bronx voter listed in official records as being 164 years old led Board of Elections officials to review their files — where they turned up another 849 New Yorkers who were supposedly alive when Abe Lincoln was president.The stunning discovery came after The Post reported last week that the birth date of Luz Pabellon, a spry 73-year-old who has been living and voting in The Bronx since the 1970s, was recorded as Jan. 1, 1850.This week, a search of the records in all five boroughs found 849 more voters with the same wacky birth date. http://nypost.com/2014/10/22/850-people-officially-over-164-years-old-nyc-board-of-elections/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow

James O’Keefe went undercover in Colorado to reveal just how easy it will be to commit voter fraud with their new mail-in ballot system: http://therightscoop.com/james-okeefe-exposes-mark-udall-advocates-condoning-voter-fraud/#ixzz3GyKD92xo

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas investigators went inside Organizing for America headquarters in Houston, Texas, and captured footage of paid campaign workers and other volunteers conspiring to commit election fraud not in 1 or 2 states, but in five different states. The video above speaks for itself. But there is much, much more.http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/10/okeefe-and-project-veritas-expose-obama-for-americadnc-voter-fraud-enablers/

In March Colorado Sec. of State: 12,000 Non-Citizens Registered to Vote; 5,000 Voted in 2010

and the list goes on…..

But according Donna Brazile: ‘Voter fraud is a big ass lie’…. really ???