Sanctuary State Under Attack

December 17, 2020

IRLI urges Third Circuit to overturn New Jersey's sanctuary order

 

WASHINGTON—The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) stepped up its battle against dangerous and unconstitutional sanctuary state policies yesterday by filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the Third Circuit Court of appeals urging the court to overturn an order by the Attorney General of New Jersey that directs state law enforcement officers not to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement.

 

The order, known as the Immigrant Trust Directive, restricts the ability of law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Pursuant to this order, officers in New Jersey may not even tell immigration authorities when criminal aliens in state prison will be released from state custody, or transfer custody of these aliens to federal immigration agents. These prohibitions have the intended effect of making it much more difficult for federal agents to apprehend, detain, and deport criminal aliens as they are required to do under federal law.

 

In a deeply-flawed opinion, the federal district court for the District of New Jersey upheld this order, claiming that it did not really operate as an obstacle to federal immigration law enforcement, but was only an inconvenience to that enforcement, and that the order was a valid exercise of New Jersey's police powers.

 

In its brief in the Third Circuit, IRLI shows that the Immigrant Trust Directive is an obstacle to federal immigration law enforcement because it is an action by the state that—as even the district court admitted in its opinion—makes that enforcement more difficult. State policies that are obstacles to the purposes of federal laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which makes federal law supreme over state law.

 

IRLI then shows that the district court misunderstood the Tenth Amendment, which only reserves the power to adopt a given policy to the states if that power is not prohibited to the states by the Constitution. The power to adopt sanctuary policies such as the Immigrant Trust Directive is prohibited to the states, because such policies violate the Supremacy Clause. Thus, the power to make sanctuary policies is not reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

 

IRLI further shows that the Immigrant Trust Directive also violates the Supremacy Clause (and the power to issue it thus is not reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment) in another way: it commands state officers to commit the federal crime of harboring illegal aliens.

 

"The Constitution does not give states power to interfere with federal law enforcement," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "By holding otherwise, the district court endorsed not states' rights, but chaos. About half of the nation's population now lives in one form of sanctuary jurisdiction or another," Wilcox added. "That extraordinary situation is not only a grave threat to Americans' safety, but a shocking affront to federal supremacy. We hope the Third Circuit brings New Jersey's non-enforcement zone to an end by vindicating the clear text and structure of our Constitution."

 

The case is Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Ocean v. Attorney

Supreme Court to Hear Wall Case

IRLI, Rep. Barr urge Court to reverse lower court's injunction

 

WASHINGTON—Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed—or suspended—an injunction a California federal district court had issued against the Trump administration's transfer of defense funds to build a border wall. That decision—and a like decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a related case—has allowed the administration to keep building the wall while the cases against it wind their way through the courts. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), on behalf of Congressman Andy Barr of Kentucky, had filed briefs in both courts in support of the stays.

 

Now the Supreme Court has accepted the case involving the injunction it stayed for review on the merits, and yesterday IRLI, again on Rep. Barr's behalf, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to find that injunction unlawful.

 

In IRLI's brief, Rep. Barr shows that the plaintiff, the Sierra Club, lacks standing to challenge military spending decisions based on its aesthetic objections to the military construction projects being built. It is basic to the law of standing that, to sue under a given statute, a plaintiff must claim that a right conferred on him by that statute has been violated. Here, the military appropriations statute the Sierra Club is suing under does not confer on it, or anyone else, any rights to aesthetic enjoyment.

 

"It is beyond ridiculous that a group like the Sierra Club should be able to halt a military construction project because it doesn't like the way it looks," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "That may make sense under environmental protection laws, but not under the military appropriations statutes they are suing under. It is particularly ironic that the Sierra Club is bringing this suit, because illegal aliens cause far more environmental destruction—including massive amounts of trash in our national parks—than any border wall could. We hope the Supreme Court recognizes the major stretch this lawsuit is, and puts an end to this overreaching injunction once and for all."

 

The case is Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 20-138 (Supreme Court).

Should Temporary Protected Status Go on Forever?

December 14, 2020

IRLI shows TPS program recipients are not immigrants

 

WASHINGTON—On Friday, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a friend-of the-court brief in the District of Columbia federal district court urging it to reject a case in which aliens in the United States under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program are seeking to use their TPS status to obtain permanent immigration benefits.

 

The aliens, who received permission to travel abroad while in TPS status, are challenging administrative guidance clarifying that following that travel, they are still in TPS status, and thus still ineligible for immigration benefits such as lawful permanent residence.

 

In its brief, IRLI shows that TPS was intended to be a temporary program to protect aliens from natural disasters in their home countries, and was never meant to be transformed into an immigration program. The administrative guidance at issue merely states the obvious: TPS recipients are non-immigrants, remain so even after traveling abroad, and are only supposed to be in the United States temporarily.

 

"As its name suggests, the Temporary Protected Status program is temporary," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "Congress never would have passed TPS if it had thought it would be made permanent through lawsuits such as this. By trying to turn TPS into an immigration funnel, the plaintiffs undermine the very program that protected them from natural disasters in the first place. We hope the court respects congressional intent and the clear text of the statute and dismisses this case."

 

The case is Central American Resource Center v. Cuccinelli, No. 1:20-cv-2363 (D.D.C.).

Election Integrity Under Threat in North Carolina

Election Integrity Under Threat in North Carolina

 

IRLI investigation puts spotlight on national crisis of non-citizen voting

 

WASHINGTON—An investigation by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has found that some of the largest counties in North Carolina have identified non-citizens in their jury pools, raising questions about the state's election integrity and voter registration procedures.

 

With a growing population of about 10.5 million people, North Carolina is quickly emerging as one of the country's most pivotal swing states for presidential elections and the perennial battle for control of Congress. However, questions have lingered for years over how well state and county officials have acted to preserve the integrity of the election process, particularly in regard to the illegal participation of non-citizens.

 

In Mecklenburg County, the state's second most populous county which includes metropolitan Charlotte, a total of 51 individuals were removed from the jury pool list because of non-citizenship between October 28, 2019 to July 7, 2020, the county's Jury Office confirmed to IRLI. The Cumberland County Clerk of Superior Court, which operates in the state's fifth most populous county, revealed that 18 potential jurors were removed for non-citizenship between October 1, 2019 to July 7, 2020. And lastly, Forsyth – the state's fourth most populous county -- reported a total of 16 potential jurors removed for non-citizenship from December 19, 2019 to October 6, 2020.

 

"These results are a snapshot from a specific area over a specific time," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "While this data alone may not alter an election outcome, it is evidence of the larger crisis of non-citizen voting on the national level. Every vote by a legal or illegal alien cancels out the vote of an American citizen. It is a violation of the core principles of our constitutional republic. If we as a nation cannot remedy the problem of election fraud, then we have surrendered the right to choose our representatives and will instead live under the permanent rule of unaccountable political elites."

 

The relation between jury pools and the voting booth stems from how counties generate their list of potential jurors. A spokesperson for the North Carolina judicial branch confirmed that their jury pool is derived from two sources: The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and voter registration. While the spokesperson claimed that non-citizens manage to make it on the jury pool list via the DMV by using state IDs, driver's licenses, or vehicle registrations, the presence of non-citizens in jury pools creates the potential that state voter rolls include illegal voters.

 

The specter of election fraud in the Tar Heel State has been an ongoing concern. The Voter Integrity Project (VIP) of North Carolina, founded in 2011, was created with the intention of ensuring free and fair election to every lawfully registered voter in the state. Almost immediately after launching the organization, co-founder Jay Delancy uncovered major discrepancies in North Carolina's voting rolls.

 

Delancy and VIP co-founder John Pizzo began analyzing the state's voter rolls in 2012. The pair obtained jury records from the Clerk of Courts in Wake County, the state's second most populous county at that time, and discovered that, during a three-year window of time, roughly 6,000 prospective jurors disqualified themselves by notifying to the court that they were not U.S. citizens.

 

This was not the end of their discovery. Delancy and Pizzo then compared these names to the voter rolls, uncovering a total of 532 registered voters who had informed the court that they were not U.S. citizens. VIP's investigative work had found that, of this group, 130 participated in an election at least once before being disqualified.

 

The issue of non-citizens illegally participating in North Carolina elections has ostensibly persisted throughout the years. VIP, for example, uncovered more evidence in 2016 of malfeasance in relation to a Jamaican citizen who admitted to voting twice in the state.

 

Delancy told IRLI that this problem "runs deep" and that government leaders have done little to address it.

 

"The fact is that every state has mountains of evidence that would make it easy to get non-citizen voters off the rolls and possibly deported," he said. "But so far, all parties have lacked the political will."

  

TONIGHT: Oct. 20th - Craig Johnson to speak at Madison

Journalist, news analyst and commentator

Craig Johnson

will be the Guest Speaker

Tuesday, October 20th,  6:30 - 8:30 PM

at  the Madison County Republican Women's meeting

The menu features Corn Beef and Cabbage, great sides and desserts by MCRW members. Dinner: $8.

Everyone is invited to attend this informative meeting. 

CDC Advice in Place for social distancing.

Location: Fellowship Baptist Church, 725 Gate Road, Madison, www.fbcmva.com.

For more information, call (540) 923-4109.

FRC's New Pro-Life Map Shows Which States Fund Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion Centers

August 18, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today Family Research Council released the fourth in a series of interactive pro-life maps, tracking state funding of the abortion industry through three principal funding streams: Medicaid, Title X family planning funds, and state appropriations.

Twenty-three states have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions with taxpayer dollars. (Some efforts have been stalled or stopped by the courts.)

• Texas is the only state to have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions and abortion providers in Medicaid, Title X and state appropriations, and to have been granted a Section 1115 waiver from the Trump Administration to divert federal Medicaid funds away from abortion providers.
• Six additional states have good laws that defund abortion providers in the three principle funding streams: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
• Sixteen states have only partial defunding laws (not addressing all three principle funding streams) and/or temporary defunding policies (executive orders, state budgets, etc.): Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
• Another 14 states have not taken any action to defund abortion providers: Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. (States that merely enacted a "state Hyde Amendment," duplicating federal protections in Medicaid, are not credited on this map with having taken a significant step in defunding abortion providers.)
• Thirteen states have taken steps to directly fund abortions and abortion providers with taxpayer dollars: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

As early as 1976, Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) lead the effort to ban federal funding for abortions in Medicaid, one of the largest government health care programs. Despite the federal Hyde Amendment and ongoing congressional and state efforts to restrict taxpayer dollars from flowing to the abortion industry, the abortion industry receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

Quena Gonz??lez, Director of State and Local Affairs at Family Research Council, said: "For too long, Planned Parenthood--America's largest abortion company--has taken millions of dollars every year in taxpayer money. Most of that money flows through the states, giving governors and state legislators tremendous opportunities to defund the abortion industry. FRC's map highlights state actions to restrict or stop that flow. Since 1976 the federal Hyde Amendment has recognized the principle that taxpayers should not underwrite abortions or the abortion industry. It's time for Congress and the states to finish Congressman Hyde's work. This map shows voters where states have or have not acted to turn off the main funding streams the abortion industry uses to siphon off taxpayer dollars."

Connor Semelsberger, Legislative Assistant for Pro-life Issues at Family Research Council, remarked: "With renewed efforts to repeal the federal Hyde Amendment which bans federal funding for elective abortions, and the push in some states to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, it is vitally important to pass laws protecting taxpayers from subsidizing abortion. Now more than ever states must do what they can to separate taxpayer funds from the abortion industry. Abortion is not healthcare and should not be funded as such."

To see if your state provides funding for abortions, visit: http://frc.org/prolifemaps.

FRC's New Pro-Life Map Shows Which States Fund Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion Centers

August 18, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today Family Research Council released the fourth in a series of interactive pro-life maps, tracking state funding of the abortion industry through three principal funding streams: Medicaid, Title X family planning funds, and state appropriations.

Twenty-three states have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions with taxpayer dollars. (Some efforts have been stalled or stopped by the courts.)

• Texas is the only state to have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions and abortion centers in Medicaid, Title X and state appropriations, and to have been granted a Section 1115 waiver from the Trump Administration to divert federal Medicaid funds away from abortion providers.
• Six additional states have good laws that defund abortion providers in the three principle funding streams: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
• Sixteen states have only partial defunding laws (not addressing all three principle funding streams) and/or temporary defunding policies (executive orders, state budgets, etc.): Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
• Another 14 states have not taken any action to defund abortion providers: Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. (States that merely enacted a "state Hyde Amendment," duplicating federal protections in Medicaid, are not credited on this map with having taken a significant step in defunding abortion providers.)
• Thirteen states have taken steps to directly fund abortions and abortion organizations with taxpayer dollars: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

As early as 1976, Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) lead the effort to ban federal funding for abortions in Medicaid, one of the largest government health care programs. Despite the federal Hyde Amendment and ongoing congressional and state efforts to restrict taxpayer dollars from flowing to the abortion industry, the abortion industry receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

Quena González, Director of State and Local Affairs at Family Research Council, said: "For too long, Planned Parenthood--America's largest abortion company--has taken millions of dollars every year in taxpayer money. Most of that money flows through the states, giving governors and state legislators tremendous opportunities to defund the abortion industry. FRC's map highlights state actions to restrict or stop that flow. Since 1976 the federal Hyde Amendment has recognized the principle that taxpayers should not underwrite abortions or the abortion industry. It's time for Congress and the states to finish Congressman Hyde's work. This map shows voters where states have or have not acted to turn off the main funding streams the abortion industry uses to siphon off taxpayer dollars."

Connor Semelsberger, Legislative Assistant for Pro-life Issues at Family Research Council, remarked: "With renewed efforts to repeal the federal Hyde Amendment which bans federal funding for elective abortions, and the push in some states to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, it is vitally important to pass laws protecting taxpayers from subsidizing abortion. Now more than ever states must do what they can to separate taxpayer funds from the abortion industry. Abortion is not healthcare and should not be funded as such."

Quote of the Day

"Asked this week if she would accept an offer to serve in the Biden/Harris administration, Hillary Clinton responded, "I'm ready to help in any way I can." Maybe if she goes back to the State Department, she can find those 30,000 missing emails!"

Gary Bauer 

EMET APPLAUDS THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES AND ISRAEL FOR ACHIEVING HISTORIC PEACE DEAL

 
Washington, D.C., August 13, 2020

On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Israel and the United Arab Emirates reached an historic peace deal that will lead to full normalization of diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern nations. President Donald Trump and other White House officials assisted in brokering the agreement. The official agreement will be known as the Abraham Accords and is considered the first of its kind since the signing of a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994. A condition of the deal includes the suspension of Israel's plan to extend sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria.
 
On a private conference call with the White House that EMET was invited to, Ambassador David Friedman said, "In the diplomatic world, there is no higher echelon than peace." Ambassador Friedman also stated that this deal "does not in any way require Israel to cancel the idea of Israeli sovereignty (over parts of Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, and the Jordan Valley) but to suspend it. It is very difficult to go down these two roads at once. We prioritize peace above everything else. It is a suspension, not a cancellation of the sovereignty issue. It is just a question of what you feel to be the most important, and I think that we can all agree that peace is above all else."
 
EMET is profoundly grateful to all parties involved for having the courage and vision to move forward with such an unprecedented agreement. Peace in the Middle East can only be achieved if there is mutual respect and shared vision for a peaceful future between the nations that reside there. EMET is hopeful that this deal will be a force for peace and security in the region. We are hopeful that the Abraham Accords will pave the way for much needed additional peaceful relationships between Israel and its neighbors. 
 
Over the past few decades Israel has tried tirelessly to reach peace agreements with all of her neighbors. In 1979 Israel inked a deal with Egypt, and in 1994 with Jordan. Unfortunately, the disengagement from Gaza created the opposite effect, forcing Israel to defend its borders. Nonetheless, Israel has never stopped trying to pursue peace and will continue to do so with the Palestinian Authority as well with other Arab nations that it is currently in talks with. On this momentous occasion, EMET celebrates not only Israel's new agreement with the UAE, but also Israel's steadfast and eternal commitment to being a secure homeland for the Jewish people. It is noteworthy that this treaty did not expect Israel to give up land. It shows that Israel is valued, and brings to the table sophisticated high tech and cyber capabilities, which is extremely valuable to the way that conflicts are being conducted around the world, today.

Says President and Founder of EMET, Sarah Stern, "Today is a momentous day. This is a historic breakthrough. This shows that another major Sunni Arab nation has finally come to accept that Israel is here to stay and that it has a great deal more to gain by living and working side by side together and penetrating through the decades of old animosities. Both Israel and the United Arab Emirates understand that the real threat to the region remains the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is a peace that I hope will endure for generations to come, and that one-day Israeli and Emirati children will be able to develop the bonds of friendship together and will work together for a just society."

Founded in 2005, The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) is a Washington, D.C. based think tank and policy center with an unabashedly pro-America and pro-Israel stance. EMET (which means truth in Hebrew) prides itself on challenging the falsehoods and misrepresentations that abound in U.S. Middle East policy.

28 Minutes to Apprehend a Predator

IRLI investigation finds Montgomery County's cooperation with ICE "a joke"

WASHINGTON—After elected officials in Montgomery County, Md., announced that they had reversed their non-cooperation policy with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a result of public pressure from a slew of sexual crimes by illegal aliens, an investigation by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) shows that the sanctuary county is not acting in good faith to notify ICE when illegal aliens charged with crimes are released into the community.

Through data obtained from the county, IRLI's investigation found that while local officials had pledged to cooperate with ICE agents and to allow them in identified areas of detention centers, they are only giving ICE agents extremely small windows of time to arrive at their facilities, which means dangerous illegal aliens are being released to the community before ICE agents can arrive to assume custody of them.   

In one of the most flagrant examples of this practice, the county gave ICE 28 minutes of notice before releasing into the community an illegal alien charged with second-degree rape and sexual abuse. When ICE issues a request to detain an illegal alien in custody, it typically asks the local law enforcement agency to notify ICE and hold the alien for at least 48 hours.  

Timestamps obtained by IRLI show that Montgomery County officials gave very abrupt and inadequate notifications. Since the county announced its policy change calling for greater cooperation with ICE, it has booked at least 84 criminal aliens subjected to ICE detainers since November 1, 2019 (when the policy change was announced) and June 5, 2020. Of those, 56 ICE detainers were deemed "valid." Among these "valid" detainers, IRLI found at least eight examples of aliens being released after the county gave less than a four-hour notification.

When contacted by IRLI for a clarification on the definition of a "valid" detainer, a spokesperson for the county said only that the "Department of Correction and Rehabilitation honors ICE detainers received for undocumented individuals, charged or convicted of serious crimes." However, the spokesperson did not respond to a subsequent request asking for what constitutes a "serious" crime. 

"Montgomery County claims to be cooperating with ICE, but the implementation of this policy is a joke," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director of general counsel of IRLI. "The data suggests a very cynical attempt to claim cooperation while doing the bare minimum to uphold it. The losers in this are the residents of Montgomery County, where aliens charged with serious crimes roam free and avoid removal from the country they may deserve."

In such situations, ICE agents usually travel from the agency's Baltimore field office to pick up aliens from Montgomery County jails. The Baltimore-Washington area has some of the nation's most congested roads. Even under ideal traffic conditions, a drive between Baltimore and a Montgomery County city like Rockville can take more than 45 minutes.

Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich signed into law the "Promoting Community Trust Executive Order" in July 2019. While the county was already considered a sanctuary jurisdiction as it did not honor ICE detainer requests, the new order further restricted ICE's ability to catch criminal aliens by prohibiting county law enforcement from asking an individual about their immigration status and largely barred them from cooperating with ICE agents. Shortly after the announcement, the county arrested illegal aliens in a slew of rape and sexual assault cases, with underage girls victimized in a number of incidents.

After an exhaustive study of crime data, IRLI in 2019 ranked Montgomery County seventh in its list of America's Ten Worst Sanctuary Communities.

"White House Siege"

By Gary Bauer

 

The radical group behind the Occupy Wall Street movement is back. This time it is setting its sights on the White House. The group is calling on activists to "lay siege to the White House" for 50 days. The "revolution" begins on September 17th. 

Remember the chaos BLM activists created outside the White House not that long ago? Dozens of Secret Service agents were injured. They want those images on the nightly news every night for 50 days leading up to November 3rd.

Make no mistake about it: This chaos and turmoil is part of the radical left's strategy to destabilize America. And it comes at a time when the nation is already deeply divided and on edge about foreign interference in our elections.

America’s Elections: Fair Or Foul?

By Kim Smith

 

American citizens have a "sacred duty and responsibility" to take part in our republican form of government (we're not a democracy!).  That right and duty is voting.  Yet, increasingly, the protections that ensure a fair and honest election are being whittled away.

 

Mail-in voting appears to be the latest assault on the system.  "Mail-in voting, unless changed by the courts, will result in the most CORRUPT ELECTION in our Nation's History!  #RIGGEDELECTION", President Trump recently tweeted.

 

Others suggest that it's an okay practice, "with safeguards in place" or "if done properly".  The difficulty seems to lie in those safeguards or lack thereof.  Some states actually only do by-mail voting (no place to physically cast a ballot).  Some states send ballot applications to ALL who are on the voter rolls – whether they've moved, whether they're registered in multiple states, whether they've died…you get the picture.  Others send the actual ballots.  The Government Accountability Institute warns that if this is expanded to the nation, 24 million ballots will be delivered this year to ineligible voters. 

 

California recently eliminated one of those safeguards – authorizing ballot harvesting (illegal in most of the country) whereby "helpful" citizens "sweep through every nursing home in the state, get the patients to sign a blank ballot, and offer to FILL IT OUT FOR THEM AND TURN IT IN – AS A PUBLIC SERVICE, OF COURSE". (emphasis added)  There are also the so-called ballot "brokers" that prey on the "poor, elderly and minority communities". 

 

Persons such as Elizabeth Warren have allegedly demanded "that all jurisdictions be prohibited from actually cleaning their voter rolls".  (Pew Charitable Trust report indicated one in eight voter registrations are "significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.)  But this is usually not done through the legislative process with elected officials making the decision – but by "politically motivated and compromised bureaucrats".  It has also been alleged that Politico is already "gearing up to air digital ads in battleground states on how to cheat vote by mail".

 

Mail-in voting, supported by the cheating system, has been documented by the Heritage Foundation to have at least 20 voter fraud cases that resulted in overturned elections between 1992 and 2018.  One New York candidate convinced voters to give their ballots to his campaign, which dutifully altered the ballots, inserting his name in place of the preferred candidate.  Notaries were paid to steal ballots from mailboxes and vote the ballots in place of the intended voters.    And the list goes on – but the facts don't.  "The absentee ballot is the 'tool of choice' for those engaging in election fraud" or "Vote by mail is a disaster" (Public Legal Interest Foundation).

 

Then there's the case of the 28 million ballots that are still missing (between 2012 and 2018- 6 million unaccounted mail-in ballots were never counted in 2016 – President Trump's year) according to the federal Election Assistance Commission.  Where they are is anyone's guess – but ballots have been found in trays at post offices (or in illegal bundles), outside apartment complexes, on community bulletin boards, and the all-time receptacle – the trash.

 

With the increase in mail-in voting, there have been NO new safeguards, scrutiny, or additional research on the risks of this practice.

 

And since this is a relatively new way to avoid honesty and fairness and "one man, one vote", the money has started emerging.   On the conservative side, organizations such as Judicial Watch, the Honest Elections Project, True the Vote and the Public Interest Legal Foundation are spending vast sums litigating cases across the US -or suing where voter rolls haven't been properly maintained.

 

On the other side, the Democrats are pushing to eliminate "hurdles" such as the required witness signature or allowing third parties to collect the ballots.  They're mounting legal challenges that threaten voting laws championed by conservatives and sending thousands and more directly to cities in various states.

 

All this threatens the fairness and integrity we seek in our government and its systems.  As Ben Franklin said to the question whether we had a monarchy or a Republic, "A Republic, if you can keep it."