Nineteen Foreign Nationals Charged for Voting in 2016 Election and why Dems want ICE gone

a reply to: Xcathdra

The commission was disbanded due to Democrats.

False.

The commission was primarily an inept attempt to prove that Trump won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. It failed miserably.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The commission was disbanded due to Democrats.

False.

The commission was primarily an inept attempt to prove that Trump won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. It failed miserably.

False - there is no national popular vote.

Voter fraud on the other hand is real and Democrats deny its existence.

a reply to: Xcathdra

False - there is no national popular vote.

Of course there is. Add up all of the votes and you get the popular vote total. Why else would Trump claim he would have won the popular vote if it hadn't been for the 3.5-5 million illegal votes?

Voter fraud on the other hand is real and Democrats deny its existence.

No they don't. But they (and many normal Republicans, see the comment from Wyoming) agree that the level of voter fraud is very low.

originally posted by: Phage
Of course there is. Add up all of the votes and you get the popular vote total.

No, really there is no national popular vote.

originally posted by: Phage
No they don't. But they (and many normal Republicans) agree that the level of voter fraud is very low.

They deny it exists and claim any investigations into it are nothing more than voter suppression attempts on minorities. Just like Democrats bitch about securing our elections yet do everything in their power to make sure it doesnt happen.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I know the popular vote doesn't matter but why would Trump claim he would have won the popular vote if it hadn't been for the 3.5-5 million illegal votes if there was no such thing?

a reply to: Phage

How do we know there was no such thing if the voting irregularities that were found cant be investigated?

From the CA Secretary of State on irregularities and the investigations into them -

Padilla and others, however, have countered that the commission — and Judicial Watch, too — is motivated by an agenda to upend the voting rights of Americans.

“To me, it's clearly part of a concerted effort, a continued attack on voting rights and setting the stage for the Trump administration to roll back voting rights,” Padilla told the Los Angeles Times.

Color me shocked... Democrats use disenfranchisement as an excuse not to investigate.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How do we know there was no such thing if the voting irregularities that were found cant be investigated?

Did you not read the OP?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

How do we know there was no such thing if the voting irregularities that were found cant be investigated?

Did you not read the OP?

Did you not read what the CA SoS stated?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you not read your quote from Wyoming?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you not read your quote from Wyoming?

Did you not read what the CA SoS said?

a reply to: Xcathdra

You're repeating yourself.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

You're repeating yourself.

You're deflecting.

a reply to: Xcathdra

"California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach.

Massive voter fraud. A far cry from no voter fraud.

Your statement:

Voter fraud on the other hand is real and Democrats deny its existence.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

"California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach.

Massive voter fraud. A far cry from "no voter fraud."

There were confirmed cases in California. California refuses to investigate and instead accuse Republicans of trying to disenfranchise voters. Once again your deflecting.

From the CA SoS own mouth -

Padilla and others, however, have countered that the commission — and Judicial Watch, too — is motivated by an agenda to upend the voting rights of Americans.

“To me, it's clearly part of a concerted effort, a continued attack on voting rights and setting the stage for the Trump administration to roll back voting rights,” Padilla told the Los Angeles Times.

They refuse to investigate even with verified cases. They refuse to comply with federal law concerning their maintenance of voter rolls.

It's like presenting you with evidence of the nazi atrocities committed at Auschwitz and you tell me the SS said its bs and not true.

The evidence is there.

a reply to: Xcathdra

California refuses to investigate

False.

What we do know is that confirmed cases of voter fraud in California are extremely rare. There were 149 cases investigated by state officials in 2016, more than most years over the past decade. Investigators only found six cases out of 23.1 million votes cast worth sending to local district attorneys.

www.latimes.com...


Why are you ignoring the statement from Wyoming?

They refuse to comply with federal law concerning their maintenance of voter rolls.

Citation?

a reply to: Phage

Why do you keep referring to Wyoming and ignoring what the Ca SoS stated? Why do you ignore there refusal to comply with federal law on voter rolls?

“To me, it's clearly part of a concerted effort, a continued attack on voting rights and setting the stage for the Trump administration to roll back voting rights,” Padilla told the Los Angeles Times.

I will say it again.. It is like presenting you with evidence of nazi atrocities at Auschwitz and you telling me the claims are false because the SS investigated and found nothing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Padilla was expressing his opinion. Is there something wrong with that? It sounds about right to me, actually.

Why do you ignore there refusal to comply with federal law on voter rolls?

What federal law? Please cite what you are talking about.

originally posted by: Phage
Citation?

* - California Joins Amicus Brief to Defend Against Unlawful Purging of Voter Rolls

SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced today that California joined eleven other states as well as the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court to defend against unlawful purging of voter rolls.

* - Supreme Court says states can remove voters who skip elections, ignore warnings

WASHINGTON – Failing to vote can lead to getting knocked off voter registration rolls, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that probably will help Republicans and hurt Democrats.

The court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that Ohio did not violate federal laws by purging voters who failed to vote for six years and did not confirm their residency. Ohio has the strictest such law in the nation.

The ruling protects similar laws in six states, including several electing governors or U.S. senators this fall. They are Pennsylvania, Georgia, Oregon, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Montana.

Civil rights groups challenged Ohio's procedure for cleaning up voter registration rolls, arguing that it disproportionately affects minorities, the poor and people with disabilities. The Trump administration reversed the position taken by its predecessor and sided with Ohio.

Once again liberal groups playing the race card.

The National Voter Registration Act REQUIRES states, among other requirements, to maintain accurate voter rolls. California refuses to do that.

DOJ - Title 42 - The Public Health And Welfare Chapter 20 - Elective Franchise Subchapter I-h - National Voter Registration

Sec. 1973gg Findings and purposes

(a) Findings

The Congress finds that -

(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;

(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and

(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.

(b) Purposes

The purposes of this subchapter are -

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;

(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and

(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Padilla was expressing his opinion. Is there something wrong with that? It sounds about right to me, actually.

Why do you ignore there refusal to comply with federal law on voter rolls?

What federal law? Please cite what you are talking about.

He is the Secretary of State and was responding to what was occurring in his official capacity as California's Secretary of State. This is not his opinion - it is the official position of California Secretary of State and the state of California.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not against the purging of voter rolls, within reasonable limits. But the section you cited seems quite vague. Perhaps that's the problem. Is there a definition of current? Does that mean everyone has to be verified every election?

Does your state do that?