Source: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains-if-hr-1-passes
Feb 28, 2021
H.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states.
Heritage Foundation President, Kay C. James, said in a recent article the right to vote is one of the most sacred rights that we as citizens can exercise. Hardly anyone—Democrats, Republicans and independents—trusts the process anymore, and legitimate concerns exist about the fairness and accuracy of our elections. We saw all of this on display in the 2020 election. If the proposed bill H.R. 1 becomes law, it is certain this would become the new normal in America. This week, we break down H.R. 1 and how it would undermine our election integrity forever.
Tim Doescher: From The Heritage Foundation, I'm Tim Doescher and this is Heritage Explains. Have you heard of H.R. 1 or the For the People Act? The Democrats say this is going to make elections more free, and more fair, and increase democracy for all. And since they now have control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, it's closer than ever to passing. So what does H.R. 1 propose? If you search online for a definition or watch videos of politicians touting H.R. 1, you read and hear general phrases like it will improve access, promote integrity, ensure security, empower citizens, and strengthen oversight, but these are outcomes they hope to achieve. We still need to know how they intend to achieve them. Here's one of the lead sponsors of the bill in the House, John Sarbanes. He's a Democrat from Maryland.
John Sarbanes: If we could get the reforms that are embodied in H.R. 1 into law, it would be absolutely transformational. It would be the most robust, kind of breathtaking set of reforms that we've seen in two generations. And it would, in a way with a kind of quantum leap, it would push our democracy towards a place where Americans could feel faith again and restore their trust in how we operate.
>>> The Facts About H.R. 1: The “For the People Act of 2021”
Doescher: Okay. Nice language. He sounds like a genuine guy, but still no substance. I guess we're just going to have to read this bill the old fashioned way. And when we do, we quickly learn the left believes that in order to have all those wonderful things they said, H.R. 1 would have to federalize the election process and impose unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states. Imagine that, the same body of Congress that has less than a 25% approval rating will have a major hand in the administration of free and fair elections in Bismark, North Dakota and beyond.
Hans von Spakovsky: What this bill does is take the worst aspects of what happened in 2020 and try to cement them into federal law all over the country. The key to stopping H.R. 1 is going to be in the US Senate. And that I think is going to be dependent on the filibuster, unless a couple of Democratic senators realize that this is just a bad bill.
Doescher: This week, Hans von Spakovsky joins us. He runs The Heritage Foundation Election Law Reform Initiative. He's a leading voice on H.R. 1 and a frequent guest of Heritage Explains. This week, he tells us why H.R. 1 is not at all what the left would have you believe. In fact, he argues that if passed, it would be devastating to our election process forever. More after this.
Doescher: Hans, the stated purpose of the bill H.R. 1 is the following, I'm going to, I'm going to read from it, "To expand American's access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy and for other purposes." Now, to me, this all sounds good, but I know who's proposing it. So, obviously the devil's in the details. Explain just a little bit more how or if this bill will do these good sounding things.
von Spakovsky: No, it'll do the exact opposite. A better description of it is that this bill would be a federal takeover and nationalization of the running and administration of elections, basically taking it away from the states. It would change election rules to make it easier to cheat and easier to manipulate election results. And on the ethics and campaign finance rule changes, it's designed to restrict and chill speech, political speech and political activity. So it it's just a, in fact, I'll tell you, Timothy, this is one of the worst bills I've ever seen in my years in Washington.
Doescher: Well, just go a little deeper into that. Why is it a big deal to take the power away from the states to manage the elections? And I know we've covered it a little bit, but I just want to cover that again, because that's a huge part of this.
von Spakovsky: Well, look, there's a reason the framers of the Constitution gave the authority to the states to run elections. And the reason for that was they didn't want the people who are in control in Washington, say one political party, which is apparently the case right now, changing the rules nationally to ensure that they remain in office. By breaking the power up as to how elections are conducted among the 50 states, they were trying to prevent that from happening. And it means, with the national government running elections, that they can put in bad rules, such as one of the provisions in the bill that outlaws all state voter ID laws.
Doescher: And we're kind of just trailing along with this, we all witnessed the outcome of the 2020 election. There's a lot of information flying around about that in general, but I want to clear some things up, put some things to bed, and maybe affirm some of the things. Can you just give us a quick overview of what actually happened in the 2020 election that would cause a bill like H.R. 1 to have legitimacy?
von Spakovsky: Well, I actually don't think what happened last year gives it legitimacy, because in fact, what this bill does is take the worst aspects of what happened in 2020 and try to cement them into federal law all over the country. As you know, we had a huge increase in absentee ballots. And one of the things that folks unfortunately on the left side of the political aisle tried to do was to get rid of the security protocols governing absentee ballots. And to give you just, again, another quick example of this is look, unfortunately, absentee ballots are the ballots most likely to get stolen and altered, because they're the only kind of ballots that are voted outside of the supervision of election officials and outside the observation of poll watchers.
von Spakovsky: So last year, folks on the left filed lawsuits, trying to use COVID-19 as an excuse to say states that require a witness signature for an absentee ballot should not be able to enforce that witness signature requirement. Look, that is a basic security protocol is to make sure there's someone who witnesses that it's really the voter who signed the ballot and filled it out, not somebody else. They were successful in some cases, unsuccessful in others, but guess what? H.R. 1 has a provision in it that said that no state can require a witness signature on an absentee ballot.
Doescher: You recently said in a great article, "For democracy to survive and thrive, it's crucial that every legitimate vote be counted and not diluted by election fraud and other problems. It's time for states to implement these reforms to shore up the people's trust in our elections." Now we saw a couple of days ago, Governor DeSantis in Florida, he's pushing to ban universal mail-in voting and ballot harvesting. Talk a little bit more about states' ability to push back a little bit, but then also talk about the fact that if H.R. 1 is passed, it's all for nothing.
von Spakovsky: Yeah, DeSantis is actually trying to put through a good package of election reforms. For example, banning vote harvesting. For folks who don't know what that means, I actually call that vote trafficking. In states that allow that like California, they allow anybody to show up at your front door and say, "Hey, I'll deliver your absentee ballot for you back to election officials." Well, of course the problem with that is that it puts your ballot into the hands of people who have a stake in the outcome of the election, campaign staffers, candidates, party, activists, political consultants, all of who, once they get your ballot, could change it, alter it, not deliver it.
>>> How To Restore Faith in Our Federal Elections
von Spakovsky: It's just not a good idea. And so, in Florida, they're being smart, they want to ban vote harvesting. Well, guess what? If H.R. 1 passes any state law like that will be voided and thrown out, because H.R. 1 requires states to allow vote harvesting. It's as if Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who are pushing this through Congress, they want to make it easy for people's ballots to be stolen and for fraud to occur. That's the only reason to put in a rule like that.
Doescher: Is there any chance that you think that this could pass? Is there a chance that it could be bi-partisan, Republicans coming along? I'm not exactly sure the lay of the land there, but maybe you have an insight to that.
von Spakovsky: No, H.R. 1, I would hope maybe some members of the Democratic party would rethink it, realize it's not a good idea. But the same bill, virtually the same bill was introduced in 2019 and it passed on a party line vote. So it looks like that's going to happen again. The key to stopping H.R. 1 is going to be in the US Senate, and that I think is going to be dependent on the filibuster unless a couple of Democratic senators realize that this is just a bad bill. It's one that really will damage everybody, because, boy, you think people aren't confident and distrust what happened to the last election? If these roles go in place, they're going to be distrusting the results in all elections going forward.
Doescher: The facts about H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, I'm going to link to this. Hans, you and the shop put this together. It is a comprehensive overview of H.R. 1. And I wanted to just give you an opportunity to kind of, not just talk about H.R. 1, but you can also get into your piece in which you said how we can respond to it. We want to be proactive about going about fighting this. So everything that's bad about H.R. 1, we have a solution to push back for that. And we've mentioned a few of them, but just go through that just a little bit more and contrast the two.
von Spakovsky: This is not a partisan thing. It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or an Independent, you should want fair and secure elections. And that means, yeah, we want access, we want everybody who's eligible able to vote, but you have to balance access with security. So our list of best practices, it's very long, but it's everything from the proper cleanup of voter registration roles in the state to make sure that they are accurate. An easy way for states to do that is to make sure their voter registration lists are tied into other state databases like DMV.
von Spakovsky: So that when you go and get a driver's license and you tell them where you live, it matches your records in the voter registration list. Every state needs a voter ID law, but they need a law that applies, not only to in-person voting, but also to absentee ballot. I mean, it's a whole list of things like that. And by the way, they should not allow vote harvesting. That should be banned as just a basic security protocol to not only prevent fraud in absentee allies, but also to prevent coercion and pressure being brought on voters in their homes by people working for the political parties and candidates.
Doescher: So talk a little bit about some of the more left leaning states, talk a little bit about their goals here. Are they working with the federal government to do this, or are they saying, "Hey, we want to have control over our elections. We don't want the federal government, we don't want Washington telling Oregon how to do their election." Oregon has a different system than most of the country has. Their unique. Are they banding together?
von Spakovsky: I haven't heard that they're banding together. I have heard some grumblings from state officials, including secretaries of state in some of the blue state who are, while they might like of the provisions in H.R. 1, they don't like the idea of the federal government simply taking this whole field over and telling them what to do. And that is the bottom line on this. Again, I don't care whether you're a Democrat, or Republican, or an Independent, you should want the people in your state to make the decisions on how elections are conducted in your state and not a bunch of know-it-alls in Washington, DC dictating to you how to run your elections.
von Spakovsky: That's particularly true, because the there's no one-size-fits-all policy. The rules that govern how you go vote that might be convenient in a dense urban area like New York City are not going to be the same rules that are convenient for people who are voting in the vast wide open spaces of Montana or at Wyoming. And it's just not a good idea for Washington, DC to be dictating the rules, especially when they're bad rules like saying you can't apply a voter ID requirement.
>>> A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States
Doescher: It's probably safe to say that for whatever confusion existed in the 2020 election, that that would probably only increase with H.R. 1, correct?
von Spakovsky: Absolutely correct. Yes.
Doescher: Okay. So, that would become a new normal in elections and probably election integrity would never be the same.
von Spakovsky: Yeah, I think that's a very accurate statement as why this is such a scary bail, because it could affect, in a bad way, our elections for the ongoing future.
Doescher: Hans, I want to impart to you, I want to send to you through the microphone energy vibes, because you have been going nonstop since, well, since really the beginning of 2020 on this. You predicted a lot of this was going to happen. Unfortunately, it did. And I want to impart on you energy and good vibes to keep fighting this, Hans, because really it is, it is so important and necessary. And thank you so much for being with us today.
von Spakovsky: Sure. Thanks for having me.
Doescher: Friends, thank you so much for listening to another episode of Heritage Explains. Hit that share button, hit that like button, send us an email at managingeditor@heritage.org. We'd love to hear from you. Also check out the show notes section, I've linked to a lot of relevant information that helped build this episode. So, please check it out. Michelle Cordero's up next week. We'll talk to you then.
H.R. 1 Is a Threat to American Democracy. Period. By Hans A. von Spakovsky
Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images
Source: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/hr-1-threat-american-democracy-period
Mar 12th, 2021
Key Takeaways
H.R. 1 would usurp the role of the states, wipe out basic safety protocols, and mandate a set of rules that would severely damage the integrity of elections.
It seems pretty obvious that voters should be required to authenticate both their citizenship and their identity before casting ballots.
It is past time for the states to fix these problems—and it will never be time for Congress to interfere and make these problems even worse than they already are.
There are many vulnerabilities in the American election system. These vulnerabilities need to be fixed. Unfortunately, H.R. 1—the “For the People Act of 2021,” which recently passed in the House without a single Republican vote, and is now before the Senate—is not the way to do it. Indeed, H.R. 1 would make things much worse, usurping the role of the states, wiping out basic safety protocols, and mandating a set of rules that would severely damage the integrity of the election process.
H.R. 1 would mandate same-day and automatic voter registration, and encourage vote trafficking of absentee ballots. It would eviscerate state voter ID laws and limit the ability of states to verify the accuracy of their voter registration lists. This would institutionalize the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election. But H.R. 1 would go even further in increasing the security weaknesses inherent in the current “honor” voter registration and voting system that exists in states across the country.
>>> Election Integrity Is a National Imperative
Anyone who doubts that fraud occurs is living in a dreamland. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s new voter ID law in 2008, it noted that America has a long history of election fraud documented by journalists and historians—and that fraudulent voting could make the difference in a close election. After all, we frequently have close elections.
The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database, which is just a sampling of proven cases of election fraud from across the country, now contains more than 1,300 cases, and we are continually adding to it. The database does not include numerous cases—such as those reported recently in New Hampshire, Texas, and California—where those charged with fraud have not yet been convicted.
If H.R. 1 is not stopped, then Americans may never be able to trust the fairness and credibility of future election outcomes. To assure the integrity of future elections, a far better approach is to prod states, which have primary constitutional responsibility for the administration of elections, to fix the holes in their election laws and rules to ensure both eligible voter access and ballot security. Those are the two essential principles of the election process and, unlike what the Left believes, you cannot have one without the other.
So what should state legislatures be doing right now while they are in sessions all across the country? Here are just a few “best practices” taken from a much more extensive and complete list published by the Heritage Foundation.
It seems pretty obvious that voters should be required to authenticate both their citizenship and their identity before casting ballots. Only lawful citizens can vote in federal elections. States should, therefore, require proof of citizenship to register to vote, as well as verify the citizenship of registered voters with the records of the Department of Homeland Security, including the E-Verify system.
States should require voters to present a government-issued photo ID to vote in-person or by absentee ballot—something already implemented by a handful of states such as Alabama, Kansas, and Wisconsin. Claims that this requirement constitutes voter suppression are simply frivolous; virtually every person of voting age already has such IDs, and those who do not can easily get them. Every state with an ID requirement issues a free ID to anyone who doesn’t already have one. Despite the empty howls of “repression,” states that have implemented ID requirements have seen turnout go up, not down.
Absentee ballots are ripe vehicles for fraud because they are the only ballots that are voted outside the supervision of election officials and outside the observation of poll watchers. This leaves the ballots susceptible to being stolen, forged, and altered. Those voting absentee may also be subject to coercion and pressure in their homes—something that can’t happen in a polling place. Absentee ballots should be reserved for individuals who are too disabled to vote in person or who will be out of town on Election Day and all early-voting days.
Similarly, states should ban vote-trafficking by third parties; H.R. 1 would require states to allow vote trafficking. It defies common sense to think it is a good idea to allow candidates, campaign staffers, party activists, and political operatives to obtain possession of, and deliver, absentee ballots in elections in which they have a stake in the outcome.
Just take a look at what happened in the North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District election in 2018—an election “corrupted by fraud, improprieties, and irregularities so pervasive,” the state Board of Elections overturned the results of the congressional race (and two local contests) and ordered new elections.” The problems arose because third parties were allowed to handle absentee ballots.
Voter registration lists are in notoriously bad shape all across the country, filled with registered voters who are noncitizens, have died or moved away, are ineligible because of a felony conviction, or are illegally registered at commercial instead of residential addresses. “Critical Condition,” a 2020 report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation, found over 144,000 instances of potential fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections. It included individuals who illegally cast two votes in the same election because they were registered more than once in the same state or registered in two different states, as well as individuals credited by state election officials with voting after they were deceased.
>>> New Cases in Election Fraud Database Show Vulnerabilities in System
To prevent this from happening states much design their computerized statewide voter registration lists to be interoperable, so that they can communicate seamlessly with each other, frequently exchanging and comparing information in their databases. For example, when an individual changes the residence address on his or her driver’s license, that information should be sent to state election officials so that the voter registration address of the individual is also changed to his or her new Department of Motor Vehicles residence address. States need to compare their lists with other states to find individuals who are dual registered. They should also access federal databases, such as the death index maintained by the Social Security Administration.
We should never see again what we saw last year—legally-designated election observers being shut out of the process in places like Detroit and Philadelphia. Observers must be allowed to have full access to every step of the election process, because transparency is essential to a fair and secure system, as well as maintaining public confidence. States need to strengthen their laws to punish election officials who prevent observers from fulfilling their vital function.
Finally, state legislatures must ensure that they have legal standing to prevent unauthorized state officials, such as governors or secretaries of state, from changing or ignoring state election laws—another thing we saw far too often in 2020. And private funding of election officials by organizations and individuals like Mark Zuckerberg must be banned. Such funding creates a conflict of interest and creates unequal opportunities to vote, potentially influencing the outcome of elections.
Americans want to ensure that all eligible citizens have access to the voting process. But there must guarantees that those votes are not diluted or stolen by election fraud and other problems. It is past time for the states to fix these problems—and it will never be time for Congress to interfere and make these problems even worse than they already are.
This piece originally appeared in The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/feature/hr-1-threat-american-democracy-period-179804
"For the People Act" is really "For the Fraudsters Act."#HR1 codifies election fraud and abuse!
— Rep. Jody Hice (@CongressmanHice) March 2, 2021
➡️Universal mail-in ballots
➡️No voter ID
➡️Ballots harvesting
➡️Taxpayer financed campaigns
➡️Strips states rights
Elections should be 1 legal vote cast, 1 legal vote counted! pic.twitter.com/xiuhqGi5zD
H.R. 1/For the People Act Imperils Free and Fair Elections. Here Are the Worst 8 Parts By Hans A. von Spakovsky
Source: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/hr-1for-the-people-act-imperils-free-and-fair-elections-here-are-the
lakshmiprasad S / Getty Images
Mar 16th, 2021
Key Takeaways
It will interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters.
Not only could states not apply any ID requirement to absentee ballots, they could not enforce any witness signature or notarization requirement.
It would force states to allow online registration, opening up the voter registration system to massive fraud by hackers and cybercriminals.
H.R. 1, the deceptively entitled "For the People Act," has arrived in the U.S. Senate after a party-line vote in the House of Representatives. It is without doubt the most dangerous and irresponsible election bill I have ever seen.
If it becomes law, it will interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, to ensure the accuracy and validity of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, and to participate and speak freely in the political arena.
H.R. 1 is an 800-page monstrosity that would usurp the role of the states. It would not only eliminate basic safety protocols, but mandate new, reckless rules and procedures. Here are the eight worst provisions of this ill-considered bill:
>>> The Election Process if H.R. 1 Passes
1. It would eviscerate state voter ID laws that require a voter to authenticate his identity. Indeed, it would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are. When combined with the mandate that states implement same-day voter registration, it means I could walk into any polling place on Election Day, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming I really am John Smith, cast a ballot, and walk out. Not only would election officials have no way of preventing that or verifying that I am not really John Smith, I could repeat this in as many polling places as I can get to.
2. It would make absentee ballots even more insecure than they already are. Not only could states not apply any ID requirement to absentee ballots, they could not enforce any witness signature or notarization requirement. States that wisely ban candidates, campaign staffers, party activists and political operatives from handling or delivering absentee ballots would see that ban voided. H.R. 1 would require states to give access to absentee ballots to third-party strangers who may have a stake in the outcome of the election. All states also have to create permanent absentee ballot lists for anyone who wants to vote entirely by mail in all elections and mail absentee ballot request forms to all registered voters, a real problem given how inaccurate state voter registration rolls are.
3. It would worsen the problem of inaccurate registration rolls, which are full of people who have died, moved away, are ineligible felons or noncitizens, or are registered more than once. H.R. 1 severely restricts the ability of states to take the basic steps necessary to maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls, such as comparing their lists with those of other states or using the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address System to find individuals who have moved.
4. It would take away your ability to decide whether you want to register to vote. Instead, it requires states to automatically register individuals who interact with state agencies such as DMV and welfare offices, as well as numerous federal agencies. This will not only lead to multiple registrations of individuals in the same and multiple states, but the registration of aliens and other ineligible individuals.
5. It would force states to allow online registration, opening up the voter registration system to massive fraud by hackers and cybercriminals. Worse, it severely restricts the ability of state officials to reject a voter registration application even when it is rejected because the official believes the individual is ineligible to vote.
6. It imposes onerous new regulatory restrictions on political speech and activity, including online and policy-related speech, by candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations. The disclosure provisions that apply to membership organizations like the NRA, Citizens for Life, and other organizations that Americans of all political stripes join to multiply their voices on important issues will subject donors to intimidation and harassment. It is the modern equivalent of the donor-disclosure requirements that state governments tried to impose on civil rights organizations in the 1950s – requirements the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.
>>> The Risks of Mail-In Voting
7. It would authorize the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations when they apply for tax-exempt status. This would enable the political party in control of the White House (and thus the IRS) to use the IRS to go after anyone criticizing them or their policies.
8. It would set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. This would force taxpayers to subsidize the political campaigns of individuals they may vehemently disagree with and wouldn’t vote for in a million years.
Senators who supports H.R. 1 should realize that they are essentially in favor of throwing the validity and credibility of future elections in doubt and taking away the authority of the voters of their states to make their own decisions on how their elections should be run.
How much more anti-democratic can you get?
This piece originally appeared in Fox News
Surprise: Some courts ARE looking at the 2020 election By Mike Huckabee
Source: https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=1405861F-83F4-4CFC-BBF7-7D42B71DDA5DMarch 23, 2021
Don't believe the media narrative that court challenges to the 2020 election are over and that we need to “move along; there’s nothing to see here.” Yes, most courts dismissed their cases without even looking at evidence, but some rulings have been made and there are still cases to be adjudicated. John Solomon has been keeping up with the activity.
In fact, now that Joe Biden is comfortably situated in the White House and Trump has dropped his own legal challenges, courts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia are starting to rule that the way widespread absentee balloting was handled in these states violated state laws.
For example, this month, the State Court of Claims in Michigan ruled that the secretary of state, Democrat Jocelyn Benson, violated state law with her instructions on signature verification for absentee ballots. A month before Election Day, she had told election clerks to "presume" that all signatures on absentee ballots were valid and reject only those with “multiple significant and obvious” inconsistencies. She was challenged in court by Republicans and one election clerk, as the state legislature had not provided this guidance.
Judge Christopher M. Murray ruled March 9 that Benson did not have the authority to establish such standards by herself, that it needed to be a formal process. In other words, you don’t just “presume.” He found her in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
It does seem that under her extremely lax standards, any forged signature that was even somewhat close would have easily gotten through. If the legislature wants that low a standard, it will have to formalize a rule to that effect.
Also, in Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court ruled in December that state and local officials should not have given blanket permission for voters to declare themselves homebound for the 2020 election and skip ID requirements. One of the challenges was in Dane County, the highly populated area around the city of Madison. The justices ruled that county officials as well as Gov. Tony Evers, who had issued an “emergency order” earlier in the year, did not have authority to do this.
As Solomon reported, “The court filings indicated nearly 200,000 voters declared themselves permanently confined in the state’s spring primary, a marked rise over prior years, and even more did so in the general election. Biden won Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes.”
And, yes, Virginia, there’s a law against accepting ballots without postmarks that arrive after Election Day. In Virginia, Frederick County Judge William W. Eldridge IV so ruled in a consent decree in a case brought by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which represented election board member Thomas Reed. J. Christian Adams, who is general counsel and president of the foundation, called this decision “a big win for the Rule of Law.”
Adams said, “This consent decree gives Mr. Reed everything he requested --- a permanent ban on accepting ballots without postmarks after Election Day, and is a loss for the Virginia bureaucrats who said ballots could come in without these protections.”
Additional legal challenges remain –- Solomon calls them “significant disputes” –- and Georgia and Arizona have audits and investigations of the voting machine logs pending. Of course, Solomon includes a statement, by now obligatory, about having no evidence of widespread fraud that impacted the outcome of the election, but we do know for sure that laws WERE broken, and that the outcome certainly COULD have been impacted.
Phill Kline of the Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project told Solomon that they’re “pursuing litigation” over whether hundreds of millions of dollars donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to the Center for Tech and Civic Life –- recall our reports on this –- and routed to local election officials in key battleground states might have unlawfully influenced the election. In fact, they’re expanding their litigation, which includes Wisconsin, land of the unsupervised dropboxes paid for by CTCL.
None of this litigation is going to pry President Biden out of the White House, but Solomon presents it as “the battle over how elections will be governed” in the future. Of course, House Democrats’ HR 1, which would legalize the actions that state judges have just ruled unlawful, would render it all (to use a favorite Supreme Court phrase) “moot.”
In another election update by Solomon, he has just obtained internal emails from election officials in Fulton County, Georgia, that are “heightening the mystery” surrounding the eyebrow-raising late-night counting at State Farm Arena.
At 10:22 p.m. on election night, county spokesperson Regina Waller emailed county officials and the State Farm Arena spokesman that “The workers in the Absentee Ballot Processing area will get started at 8 am tomorrow,” which would imply that they had stopped work for the night. But we know from the video of the arena that some kept working after the observers had left. When asked about this (presumably by Solomon), she said she was responding to an emailed question about when “all” workers would return. But she did not respond to a follow-up request to see that email.
There are other unclear and/or inconsistent emails as well from that night, and sworn affidavits that say everyone was told to leave but that a small group remained behind, as Solomon details.
Finally, in some odd post-election news, Sidney Powell has come up with a novel way to try to fend off Dominion Voting Systems, which has sued her for a trillion trillion dollars. That’s a number you normally see only in Democrat spending bills.
Actually, it’s for $1.3 billion, which is much too small to be a Democrat spending bill but a hefty chunk of change nonetheless. In a 54-page motion to dismiss, her attorneys turn the tables on Dominion, which in their suit have characterized her theories as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” If Powell’s claims were so incredibly wild and outlandish, her attorneys argue, then it must also be true that “reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.” And if reasonable people would not believe what Powell was saying, then Dominion is not harmed.
The motion makes other points as well. “In her motion to dismiss,” writes LAW & CRIME, “Powell does not argue that the statements are true. She claims they are not actionable because they are protected statements of political opinion.”
Powell also doesn’t say she lied. That would be cause for her disbarment, which is what the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit are after.
It’s an interesting argument, although to make it she has to impugn her own claims as over-the-top crazy. Are they crazy? Whether “reasonable people” believe them or not, only an expert examination of the machines will tell us for sure. If Dominion wants to show how off-base she is, that would be an excellent way, unless, of course, there's some reason they don't want to.
No comments:
Post a Comment