Official General Election Interference and Fraud Thread: Declass Dump

[Tree of Knowledge]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Looking through some of Joshua Hall's past posts, he has a pretty impressive track record of being extremely wrong about his predictions. According to him, last year Obama, Pelosi, and Schiff were all this close to being indicted. Update? You get em?

Many people have predicted Josh will be stacking Pulitzer Prizes on Pulitzer Prizes over the next decade.  

[Hardcore troubadour]

China hacked into UK election commission in 2021-2022

[Caine Mutiny]

Mike Johnson was asked a single specific question this morning: “Can you cite an example of voter fraud which the Save Act would solve?” He refused to answer, saying “we’re not going to litigate all that.” He refused because the answer is there isn’t any. 
 

 

[Hardcore troubadour]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

China hacked into UK election commission in 2021-2022

Where my fact checkers at? Squishy off today? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

3 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Mike Johnson was asked a single specific question this morning: “Can you cite an example of voter fraud which the Save Act would solve?” He refused to answer, saying “we’re not going to litigate all that.” He refused because the answer is there isn’t any. 
 

 

can you argue why you would be against requiring identification to register to vote?

Save Act isnt about an example of voter fraud its about common sense, Americans agree

 

[Tree of Knowledge]

There you have it
 

Schumer admits illegals DO vote

[Frozenbeernuts]

Democrats want to force republicans to affirm the results of the 2020 election. Kind of weird if there is nothing to hide.

 

[seafoam1]

Well, they don't want voter ID. So fock them. 

[Tree of Knowledge]

Even the esteemed Supreme Court is seeing fraud in all these late arriving paper ballots.  Common sense appears to be coming back.  

[Frozenbeernuts]

5 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Even the esteemed Supreme Court is seeing fraud in all these late arriving paper ballots.  Common sense appears to be coming back.  

Libs are going to resort to convincing their voters they needed to cheat to keep Trump from winning

[Tree of Knowledge]

7 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Libs are going to resort to convincing their voters they needed to cheat to keep Trump from winning

They have been cheating for decades.  TDS made them sloppy. 

[Frozenbeernuts]

35 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

They have been cheating for decades.  TDS made them sloppy. 

They thought they were rid of Donald. They were wrong

[Red White and Blue]

I expect lots of November shenanigans from the GOP. Don knows the Republicans are likely to get shellacked and he’s about to go caged rat.  

[Hardcore troubadour]

Left wing groups pay people to harvest ballots. 

[thegeneral]

Voting by mail Is cheating! -DJT

Donald voted by mail

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump, Who Calls Mail-in Voting ‘Cheating,’ Just Voted by Mail ~~~ President Trump has long fixated on mail-in voting to bolster his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. But he recently used the method in a Florida special election.

<<<

President Trump, who has long railed against mail-in voting — including on Monday, when he called it “mail-in-cheating” — used the method himself in a Florida special election scheduled to take place on Tuesday.

According to voter records on the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections website, Mr. Trump voted by mail in Palm Beach County, home to his Mar-a-Lago Club. Records show he has been registered to vote there since 2019 — and that he mailed his ballot at least one other time, in 2020.

The website noted that Mr. Trump’s voter status was “by mail ballot” and that it had been counted in the special election that will determine whetherDemocrat Emily Gregory or Republican Jon Maples, whom Mr. Trump endorsed, will represent Mr. Trump’s district in the Florida state house.

Mr. Trump’s most recent vote, reported earlier by The Washington Post, comes as the president torpedoed negotiations to end the partial government shutdown to demand Republican lawmakers pass legislation called the SAVE Act that would stiffen voter identification requirements and make mail-in voting significantly more difficult.

The White House said in a statement that the legislation was not designed to eliminate mail-in voting. “The SAVE America Act has common-sense exceptions for Americans to use mail-in ballots for illness, disability, military, or travel — but universal mail-in voting should not be allowed,” the statement said. “As everyone knows, the President is a resident of Palm Beach and participates in Florida elections, but he obviously primarily lives at the White House in Washington, D.C.”

During an appearance in Memphis, Tenn., on Monday, he argued that the voter identification bill was essential to national security. “Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” he said. “I call it mail-in cheating, and we got to do something about it all.”>>>

[Hardcore troubadour]

Imagine believing that Biden got 20 million more votes than Obama.  

[Red White and Blue]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Voting by mail Is cheating! -DJT

Donald voted by mail

Hypocrisy is the brand!  

[SaintsInDome2006]

18 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Imagine believing that Biden got 20 million more votes than Obama.  

Imagine believing a guy who tells you vote by mail is fraudulent when he does it all the time.

[Tree of Knowledge]

4 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Imagine believing that Biden got 20 million more votes than Obama.  

Those Biden voters disappeared into thin air

 

 

 

 

[Fnord]

I don't have strong feelings on voter ID laws generally. It's all the bullshit that comes along with the SAVE Act I object to. 

Should You Need to Prove Citizenship to Vote? Ask Kansas. A Kansas law required a passport, a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship to register, but it was struck down after a court found that around 31,000 eligible voters had been blocked.

Spoiler

As President Trump digs in on his demand that senators pass a strict voter identification bill, lawmakers debating the potential impacts of the Republican-backed SAVE America Act might look to one place that already tried it — Kansas.

In 2013, Republicans in that state implemented legislation passed two years earlier that was so similar it bore a nearly identical name — the Secure and Fair Elections, or SAFE, Act. It, too, aimed to root out voting fraud by noncitizens. As voters nationwide would be required to do under the SAVE Act, those seeking to register to vote in Kansas had to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate.

The results weren’t great.

A federal judge struck down the law within a few years, after it was found to have blocked tens of thousands of eligible voters from registering while catching fewer than thirty noncitizens trying to do the same.

Many of those who were blocked — young Kansans and less politically attuned voters who were seeking to register for the first time — were from constituencies that have flocked to Mr. Trump since his rise in 2016.

Still, the state’s current elected officials are ready to try it again at the federal level. Asked about the Kansas experiment in an interview with The Topeka Capital-Journal, Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican, said that expecting citizens to provide a birth certificate or a passport in order to vote was still reasonable.

“I think that the benefits of having safe and secure elections outweigh that potential concern,” he said.

The Kansas cautionary tale started in 2013, when the documentary proof of citizenship law, which was passed in 2011, went into force. A federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2018, by which time the law had blocked the registration of around 31,000 otherwise eligible voters, or about 12 percent of all those who had tried to register for the first time.

Among them was Steven Fish, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the law. Mr. Fish, hoping to vote for the first time, was prevented from registering when he couldn’t furnish the necessary documents. Like about half of American citizens, he didn’t have a passport, and, having been born on a since-shuttered military base, he was unable to track down his birth certificate.

“With these numbers, with that success ratio, I’m not really sure why anybody would think that nationwide this is a good idea,” Mr. Fish said of the federal bill.

Moreover, the federal judge found that while the state law was in effect, requiring documentary proof of citizenship had thwarted only 28 noncitizen applicants from registering. And in the roughly 13 years leading up to when the law took effect, just 39 noncitizens had successfully registered to vote.

Even those few cases were most likely the result of human or administrative errors, not a real intent to commit voter fraud, said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor at Rutgers University who served as an expert witness in the case that struck down the Kansas law.

“There was very little evidence of noncitizen voting in Kansas, either before 2011 or after,” Ms. Minnite said.

Kansas’ experience has done little to stop what Ms. Minnite said was once a fringe theory of widespread illegal voting from becoming a nationwide doctrine of the Republican Party, pushed in large part by the president.

Among the stricter provisions in the proposed federal legislation are criminal penalties for elections officials who don’t properly verify a prospective voter’s eligibility, and a requirement that voters present proof-of-citizenship documents in person. The Kansas law allowed voters to submit those documents electronically or by mail.

Compared with the Kansas law, the SAVE America Act “looks like it would be much worse in terms of its impact on American citizens who will lose their right to vote,” Ms. Minnite said.

Kansas’ experience — as well as the experience of Arizona, where voters must prove citizenship to vote in state and local elections but not federal elections — has been well studied, though they are not featuring heavily in the current debates in Congress.

A report published late last year by researchers from three different organizations examined the financial impacts of legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship in Arizona and Kansas. Those organizations were the Campaign Legal Center; Demos, a left-leaning think tank; and State Voices, a network of state-based progressive advocacy groups.

The study found that, in addition to blocking eligible voters from the rolls, the SAFE Act had most likely cost Kansas’ government as much as $353,000. That figure didn’t account for expenses incurred by county-level elections officials, who had to bulk up staffing to institute the new requirements.

The cost of enforcing similar requirements across the country would be orders of magnitude higher, said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center. The costs would be spread across thousands of local elections offices, she said, each with its own voter registration system and its own capacity to carry out the new restrictions.

“We can expect the cost for the SAVE Act to be much larger, both because it’s national in scale and because it’s even stricter than the Kansas law,” Ms. Lang said.

Scott Schwab, Kansas’ secretary of state, who backed the SAFE Act as a member of the state’s House of Representatives, told The Associated Press in 2024 that the federal government should avoid replicating it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Mr. Schwab, a Republican who is now running for governor. “It didn’t work out so well.”

Mr. Schwab’s office did not reply to requests for comment on the SAVE America Act.

Other Kansas Republicans have not been so reticent. The state’s attorney general, Kris Kobach, championed the SAFE Act while serving as its secretary of state and later headed a voter fraud commission during the first Trump administration. He has called on Congress to act nationally against noncitizen voting. Kansas’ two senators, Mr. Marshall and Jerry Moran, have also thrown their support behind the SAVE America Act.

Democrats opposing the bill in Congress have argued that in trying to catch an impossibly small number of potential rule-breakers, requiring documentary proof of citizenship would disenfranchise an untold number of Americans.

 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don’t mind giving an ID to vote, I do, it’s just my license. If I left my wallet at home maybe they’d take my car registration or something, I dunno. Basically all you have to do is show you’re the person shown on the line in the voter registration book in your precinct. Same goes with fishing license, etc. They just want an address.

That’s not the issue. Those forms of ID - to vote for city council, to get a fishing license, to get a break tag - ***do not suffice*** under the Save Act. We will all have to effectively seek permission from DC to get an ID to vote if you don’t have a passport.

 

[Hardcore troubadour]

45 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Those Biden voters disappeared into thin air

 

 

 

 

Biden got more black votes than Obama. In all the right places. It’s a joke. 

[Frozenbeernuts]

11 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Imagine believing that Biden got 20 million more votes than Obama.  

This is one of those facts that libs absolutely cannot touch. Their brain short circuits a bit and then at best you will get a whataboutism.

[Frozenbeernuts]

So weird, Biden illegally wiretapped Susie Wiles.

 

[Hardcore troubadour]

56 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

So weird, Biden illegally wiretapped Susie Wiles.

 

Liberals are ok with this. They did it to someone they don’t like. 

[dogcows]

7 hours ago, Fnord said:

I don't have strong feelings on voter ID laws generally. It's all the bullshit that comes along with the SAVE Act I object to. 

Should You Need to Prove Citizenship to Vote? Ask Kansas. A Kansas law required a passport, a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship to register, but it was struck down after a court found that around 31,000 eligible voters had been blocked.

  Reveal hidden contents

As President Trump digs in on his demand that senators pass a strict voter identification bill, lawmakers debating the potential impacts of the Republican-backed SAVE America Act might look to one place that already tried it — Kansas.

In 2013, Republicans in that state implemented legislation passed two years earlier that was so similar it bore a nearly identical name — the Secure and Fair Elections, or SAFE, Act. It, too, aimed to root out voting fraud by noncitizens. As voters nationwide would be required to do under the SAVE Act, those seeking to register to vote in Kansas had to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate.

The results weren’t great.

A federal judge struck down the law within a few years, after it was found to have blocked tens of thousands of eligible voters from registering while catching fewer than thirty noncitizens trying to do the same.

Many of those who were blocked — young Kansans and less politically attuned voters who were seeking to register for the first time — were from constituencies that have flocked to Mr. Trump since his rise in 2016.

Still, the state’s current elected officials are ready to try it again at the federal level. Asked about the Kansas experiment in an interview with The Topeka Capital-Journal, Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican, said that expecting citizens to provide a birth certificate or a passport in order to vote was still reasonable.

“I think that the benefits of having safe and secure elections outweigh that potential concern,” he said.

The Kansas cautionary tale started in 2013, when the documentary proof of citizenship law, which was passed in 2011, went into force. A federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2018, by which time the law had blocked the registration of around 31,000 otherwise eligible voters, or about 12 percent of all those who had tried to register for the first time.

Among them was Steven Fish, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the law. Mr. Fish, hoping to vote for the first time, was prevented from registering when he couldn’t furnish the necessary documents. Like about half of American citizens, he didn’t have a passport, and, having been born on a since-shuttered military base, he was unable to track down his birth certificate.

“With these numbers, with that success ratio, I’m not really sure why anybody would think that nationwide this is a good idea,” Mr. Fish said of the federal bill.

Moreover, the federal judge found that while the state law was in effect, requiring documentary proof of citizenship had thwarted only 28 noncitizen applicants from registering. And in the roughly 13 years leading up to when the law took effect, just 39 noncitizens had successfully registered to vote.

Even those few cases were most likely the result of human or administrative errors, not a real intent to commit voter fraud, said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor at Rutgers University who served as an expert witness in the case that struck down the Kansas law.

“There was very little evidence of noncitizen voting in Kansas, either before 2011 or after,” Ms. Minnite said.

Kansas’ experience has done little to stop what Ms. Minnite said was once a fringe theory of widespread illegal voting from becoming a nationwide doctrine of the Republican Party, pushed in large part by the president.

Among the stricter provisions in the proposed federal legislation are criminal penalties for elections officials who don’t properly verify a prospective voter’s eligibility, and a requirement that voters present proof-of-citizenship documents in person. The Kansas law allowed voters to submit those documents electronically or by mail.

Compared with the Kansas law, the SAVE America Act “looks like it would be much worse in terms of its impact on American citizens who will lose their right to vote,” Ms. Minnite said.

Kansas’ experience — as well as the experience of Arizona, where voters must prove citizenship to vote in state and local elections but not federal elections — has been well studied, though they are not featuring heavily in the current debates in Congress.

A report published late last year by researchers from three different organizations examined the financial impacts of legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship in Arizona and Kansas. Those organizations were the Campaign Legal Center; Demos, a left-leaning think tank; and State Voices, a network of state-based progressive advocacy groups.

The study found that, in addition to blocking eligible voters from the rolls, the SAFE Act had most likely cost Kansas’ government as much as $353,000. That figure didn’t account for expenses incurred by county-level elections officials, who had to bulk up staffing to institute the new requirements.

The cost of enforcing similar requirements across the country would be orders of magnitude higher, said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center. The costs would be spread across thousands of local elections offices, she said, each with its own voter registration system and its own capacity to carry out the new restrictions.

“We can expect the cost for the SAVE Act to be much larger, both because it’s national in scale and because it’s even stricter than the Kansas law,” Ms. Lang said.

Scott Schwab, Kansas’ secretary of state, who backed the SAFE Act as a member of the state’s House of Representatives, told The Associated Press in 2024 that the federal government should avoid replicating it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Mr. Schwab, a Republican who is now running for governor. “It didn’t work out so well.”

Mr. Schwab’s office did not reply to requests for comment on the SAVE America Act.

Other Kansas Republicans have not been so reticent. The state’s attorney general, Kris Kobach, championed the SAFE Act while serving as its secretary of state and later headed a voter fraud commission during the first Trump administration. He has called on Congress to act nationally against noncitizen voting. Kansas’ two senators, Mr. Marshall and Jerry Moran, have also thrown their support behind the SAVE America Act.

Democrats opposing the bill in Congress have argued that in trying to catch an impossibly small number of potential rule-breakers, requiring documentary proof of citizenship would disenfranchise an untold number of Americans.

 

 

The GOP says it’s about election integrity. But if you read the bill, it’s all about making it harder for citizens to vote. I find that to be shameful in a democracy.

[seafoam1]

16 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The GOP says it’s about election integrity. But if you read the bill, it’s all about making it harder for citizens to vote. I find that to be shameful in a democracy.

So it's difficult ("harder") for you to show your ID? 

I really don't think that's harder to vote. Are you like "special" ed or something? 

Can you please describe the difficulty in voting using ID? 

[Hardcore troubadour]

13 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The GOP says it’s about election integrity. But if you read the bill, it’s all about making it harder for citizens to vote. I find that to be shameful in a democracy.

What democracies are you comparing it too? All the ones that require ID to vote or the other ones? 

[dogcows]

48 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What democracies are you comparing it too? All the ones that require ID to vote or the other ones? 

If you boil everything down to a one-liner then you deserve what you get. I said it and others have said it too. This bill goes far beyond just a requirement to show ID to vote.

Bad policy sold to simpletons who are too lazy to read.

[Hardcore troubadour]

10 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If you boil everything down to a one-liner then you deserve what you get. I said it and others have said it too. This bill goes far beyond just a requirement to show ID to vote.

Bad policy sold to simpletons who are too lazy to read.

Yeah, you have to prove citizenship, not just show an ID. Again, what other democracies, seeing as you brought it up, don’t require proof of citizenship? 

[Frozenbeernuts]

6 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Liberals are ok with this. They did it to someone they don’t like. 

They have no idea how big of a deal this is. So many illegal things were done to stop Trump that it will just be one more they are willing to overlook to stop OMB.

[Frozenbeernuts]

5 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, you have to prove citizenship, not just show an ID. Again, what other democracies, seeing as you brought it up, don’t require proof of citizenship? 

The liberals on this site know exactly what it means if voters need to prove citizenship. That is why they will say something like "Yeah a license is fine, but anything more is crossing an imaginary line I made up to preserve my party's existance."

Imagine if we passed the SAVE act today. People have how many months to get proof of citizenship if they for some reason don't have it?

[Tree of Knowledge]

I’d like to see the lefties spin this one   

 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

11 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

So it's difficult ("harder") for you to show your ID? 

I really don't think that's harder to vote. Are you like "special" ed or something? 

Can you please describe the difficulty in voting using ID? 

It’s not the ID you & I use to vote (or fish, etc). You’ll need a Passport or a new ID card. 

[Meglamaniac]

Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s not the ID you & I use to vote (or fish, etc). You’ll need a Passport or a new ID card. 

Nope, My Fl DL is all I'll need

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just now, Meglamaniac said:

Nope, My Fl DL is all I'll need

Now. Me too. Not after this law is passed, if it were passed.

[SaintsInDome2006]

5 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

They have no idea how big of a deal this is. So many illegal things were done to stop Trump that it will just be one more they are willing to overlook to stop OMB.

To do what, vote? And can we just call him Mr. Bad? Everyone seems to agree he’s orange & a man.

[Meglamaniac]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Now. Me too. Not after this law is passed, if it were passed.

Wrong

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just now, Meglamaniac said:

Wrong

I am not, it’s in the bill text.