Beginning with the 2008 elections, there have been numerous proven counts of voter fraud, mostly from Democrats. The issue of voter fraud was also raised after the 2012 presidential election with more counts of voter fraud reported.
You’ve all heard the counts dead people voting, voters showing up at the polls only to be told they already voted, voting machines that automatically changed votes from Romney to Obama, poll workers voting for a number of family members including one that was dead, and numerous counts of Democratic staff and voter registration people telling people how to cast multiple votes or vote in more than one state and so on.
Let’s not forget the as yet not-discounted claims of at least 3 million illegal votes cast (mostly for Hillary Clinton) in the 2016 election. Considering that Clinton won the popular vote by less than 2 million votes, those 3 million illegal votes were far more important than many seem to want to admit.
Also consider that Oregon and then California passed laws that automatically registered people to vote when they obtain or renew a valid state driver’s license. There are over 3 million illegal aliens and who knows how many legal non-citizen immigrants and workers in California. With their driver’s license, it’s easy for them to vote. All they have to do is lie about their citizenship if asked.
Ever since the voter fraud started showing up in the 2008 elections, Republicans have been trying to pass voter ID laws, many of which require a photo ID in order to vote. Every time one of these laws is presented or passed, Democrats get all bent out of shape and try to block the laws. They claim they are unconstitutional as they discriminate against minority and poor people.
While Obama was in office, he used his justice department to block many of the voter ID laws, for a lot more reason that any alleged discrimination. Democrats heavily rely on voter fraud in their bid to regain control of Congress and the White House and in 2016, they almost succeeded.
One of the states to pass a voter ID law was Alabama. Their law requires a photo ID in order to vote. After the law was passed, it was challenged in the courts with claims that it unfairly discriminates against minorities and poor people.
The argument allegedly says that many minority and poor people are unable to obtain a valid photo ID. I’ve often countered that argument by saying that poor people have to have some form of ID in order to receive all of the government and non-government welfare and handouts. They also have to have an ID in order to renew those benefits when they run out. Besides, the same poor people travel to apply for their benefits, they travel when they need to shop for food and clothes and anything else they need, so why can’t they travel to get a valid photo ID?
As for arguing that a photo ID discriminates against minorities begs the question as to why these minorities are unable to obtain a photo ID. What makes them incapable. It surely can’t be their ethnicity. Besides, claiming this type of discrimination is nothing more than racial profiling which has already been ruled illegal for everyone else to use.
Earlier this year, the US District Court of the North District upheld Alabama’s voter ID law and dismissed the lawsuit. The court ruled that there is no evidence that the enforcement of the Alabama law causes any harm to minority voters.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has joined with others to appeal the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Judicial Watch has joined with Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in filing an amici curiae with the 11th Circuit court as reported by Judicial Watch:
“Judicial Watch argues that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims in the trial court, there is no evidence that the enforcement of Alabama’s photo ID law has caused any harm to minority voters. The U.S. District Court of the North District upheld the voter ID law earlier this year. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the other plaintiffs then filed their appeal.”
“In its brief, Judicial Watch argues that an earlier Fifth Circuit Court ruling (Veasey v Abbott) upon which the NAACP based its case was ‘fatally flawed, unworkable, and contrary to precedent.’ In that ruling, the Fifth Circuit broke with standing law requiring that a challenged voting practice or procedure must be shown to actually cause a disproportionate racial impact in order to violate the federal Voting Rights Act.”
“The Judicial Watch/AEF brief argues that several other court decisions ‘rightly require that a challenged voting practice or procedure cause a particular, discriminatory result’ that causes the loss of equal opportunity to vote.”
“Opinions in this Circuit and in five others rightly require that a challenged voting practice or procedure cause a particular, discriminatory result, which is significant enough to constitute a loss of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. This standard … properly restricts its use to actual instances of voting-relating discrimination. By contrast, the Fifth Circuit merely requires proof that a challenged procedure disproportionately impacts members of a protected class and that this impact is ‘linked to’ or ‘interacts’ with a history of discrimination against that class.’
“The brief further argues that all elections laws could be overturned if the courts adopt the new legal standard urged by the progressive groups challenging the Alabama voter ID law:”
“Every single voting procedure has a differential effect by race, for every race we choose to consider. This is true of even the most mundane rules concerning clerks’ office hours, the contents of mailings, written materials at the polls, the structure of ballots, translations, kinds of physical accommodations, registration and voting deadlines of every description, and allowable conduct in or near a polling place … If every existing law, and every proposed amendment to existing law, were subject to legal challenge…whenever a social scientist was willing to say that its impact differed by race and ‘interacted’ with our history, the orderly administration of elections would become impossible. Congress never intended this outcome, and the problem of combatting true instances of racial discrimination in voting is hindered, not helped, by such a chaotic state of affairs.”
Democrats claim there is little evidence of voter fraud so there is no need for voter ID laws. The truth is that voter fraud has been very rampant and the vast majority of it has been carried out by Democrats and they believe they need voter fraud to win elections. If they had a decent platform, they wouldn’t have to resort to voter fraud to win control of Congress, but the more socialist Democrats become, the more voters they are losing and the more they need voter fraud.