Hope all is well as there is so much going on around our country these days. Lots of tension. Lots of fuel being thrown into different fires – from the “ready to explode” situation in Ferguson, Missouri to the ever-controversial situation with Obama & the Illegal Immigrants…Which one will explode first?
The situation in Ferguson is one that is so easy to avoid – but, when it comes to racial tension and dissension, how can our wonderful country not invite the salivating media to this tiny town just to blow things out of proportion and ignite the fuse to light the entire country on fire – pitting Black America against White America. This issue will never go away in our lifetime as the great Martin Luther King, Jr., must be rolling in his grave knowing what is about to happen when they acquit a white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teen. We’ve seen it play out over and over again – and we can never get it right…Only because we don’t want to. Our culture loves to see people fight against each other – specially the Blacks vs. the Whites – so they set these situations up to rattle our citizens, to wreak havoc on our cities and to sell newspapers. From the riots in Miami (1980, with Arthur McDuffie) to the riots in Los Angeles (1992, with Rodney King) – to the pivotal situation in Ferguson (2014, with Michael Brown) – America loves racial controversy…
Simply put, we need to come “Two-gether” as One Nation Under GOD – taking a low profile with this Ferguson situation by settling it in the courts outside of Missouri – and NOT inviting or even saying a word to the “biting-at-the-bit” media – as this can easily be done in a peaceful manner. Settle it privately and quietly, do the right thing, and let justice prevail in an orderly fashion without making a big deal about it. If the white officer is guilty, read out his sentence and let him begin it right away. If he is found Not Guilty, put it in the local Ferguson newspaper, only; let the police chief meet with the Brown family and explain to them in a prayerful manner what the court saw and make sure the town is prepared for any local outbursts. Church leaders and pastors need to step up – take it all to prayer with all its citizens – and be civil about the outcome – which we all pretty much know what it will be. Be prepared to diffuse this explosive situation or we will get a huge explosion…and, it may just spill out all over the country. After all, our United States of America is more than over-due for a controversial racial outburst – since we skipped the decade of the Year 2000.
And, speaking of controversy – lets’ take a quick look at the ever-looming situation with this critical Immigration issue. Not sure if I missed something during these “6” years that we have been blessed to have Obama in “our” White House – but, can somebody tell me when did our fearless president begin to be so loving and compassionate towards the Illegal Immigrants? I know that he always bends over backwards for them when it comes to elections and trying to gain more votes & power, but, I think he has gone way too far this time around. In the 2012 Presidential elections, he promised to take care of the Immigration issue immediately and to make sure that “no migrant was deported on his watch”. Well, he succeeded in getting the Hispanic vote (74% of the Catholic Hispanics voted for him in 2012) – and they are all still waiting for that promise that he made to them over two years ago, while thousands have been deported on his watch.
Barack Obama saying that he cares about our beloved Migrants in this country is like saying that Hitler was looking out for the Jews in the 1930’s…Strong statement, but it has a lot of validity to it… Obama could not care less about these unfortunate Illegals as in the 6 years that he has been in “our” office, he has never dealt with this critical Immigration issue – only when it came time for the elections. That is exactly how Obama became our 44th President, voted in twice – by simply lying to the Hispanic population (those who were legal to vote) – promising them that he would take care of their beloved families and not separate them. Speaking of “Dreamers” – that is all Obama has done these past 6 years…but, it’s been a nightmare for the rest of us.
By doing the Hispanic population (which is growing faster than any other group in our country), a favor & slyly catering to them – those illegals who some day, may become legal to vote – will automatically become Democrats – thus, building up the voter’s base for this liberal, Pro-abortion party. And, at the same time, it also serves as a dilemma for the country’s Hispanics (who truly adore Our Lady of Guadalupe – the Patron Saint of the Unborn) – because as Pro-Life as they claim to be – Obama has placed them between a rock and a hard place – basically, forcing them to vote for abortion, same sex marriage and the fiasco of Obamacare, in order to be able to stay in this country. Now, if you do not call that evil corruption, I don’t know what is…They have no choice – Be deported or be aborted…In order to not be deported they have to vote for the aborted…it’s all distorted…intrinsic evil at work.
So, with the Republicans taking over and Mitch McConnell taking the lead, and with the fiery John Boehner saying that he will not put up with any more Obama shenanigans when it comes to Immigration matters and Executive Orders – what is going to give? Is the Republican Party going to stand strong against Obama, who has nothing to lose, nothing to gain…nothing to do…Is his “lame duck” title going to be just that – a lame duck – or is Obama going to play even dirtier and try to mess things up in our country like the sore loser that he is? Folks, if Obama can’t get his way, he will play dirty. And, for the next two years, expect nothing less.
Just think if Obama would illustrate as much love, concern and compassion that he deceivingly shows these Illegal Immigrants when it comes to manipulating them, as to the Innocent Unborn in our country…I would dare to say that if these unborn were able to vote – Obama would show them as much mercy and spare their lives…Strong statement, but it has a lot of validity to it…Only because in the 6 years that Obama has been in the White House, millions of innocent unborn have met their fate by him embracing, endorsing, promoting and funding abortion by way of the “abortion giant”, Planned Parenthood. Evil lures evil and in Obama’s tenure, we have seen our beloved country turned upside down – from being a “culture of life” to being a “culture of death”.
So, like I have said time and again for the past “6 years of the culture of Obama” – we must Pray and pray some more – for his conversion during his last two years; for the helpless Illegal Immigrants who are stuck in the middle of this entire ordeal; for the innocent unborn who continue to have no voice; and for a peaceful, prayerful and productive solution to the Immigration problem in our country. And, we must pray for the ever-explosive situation in Ferguson, Missouri…The last thing our beloved United States of America needs right about now is riots in the Midwest and all hell to break loose all over the country with this controversial Immigration problem. We must pray as One Body in Christ – “Two-gether” – regardless of the color of our skin; regardless of what country we migrated from; and regardless of what our economic or social status may be…Let us Pray.
OBAMA, THE BISHOPS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & IMMIGRATION:
What is a Catholic to think?
We are called to welcome the stranger, but also to respect the law. We are morally bound to respect the dignity of every human person, but cannot create civil disorder.
Reports suggest that President Obama may soon act by Executive Order to expand ‘deferred action’ for parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. By doing so, the Obama administration would no longer enforce our immigration laws as applied to an estimated 4-5 million people living illegally in the United States.
A good idea? Necessary? Legal?
Unfortunately this constitutionally suspect move has the apparent support of Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, who chairs the migration committee for the U.S. Bishops. Bishop Elizondo said this week: “it would be derelict not to support administrative actions … which would provide immigrants and their families legal protection.”
With deep respect for our Bishops, we strongly disagree.
First, let me say we applaud our bishops for their steadfast demand that our immigration system be reformed. Our Bishops have rightly placed the needs of real people — human persons — at the heart of their pleas for reform. Children and families are not political pawns. Our bishops are right: people are suffering, our immigration system is broken, and it must be reformed.
Catholics in good conscience can disagree on the appropriate level of immigration to allow and how to best reform our broken system. There is no dogma on immigration policy. Careful reasoning, respect for human dignity, persuasion, and prudence are all necessary tools.
That’s why we believe an executive order will only make the problem worse — making real reform even more difficult.
If the president unilaterally short-circuits lawmakers elected to represent the American people, anti-immigrant sentiment will inevitably be inflamed. A knee-jerk executive order will only harden existing divisions, and perpetuate the real suffering our bishops hope to end. Partisans on both sides will have less incentive to find real solutions.
Immigration, like health care, is a complex issue. Resolving big questions like this through the democratic process isn’t easy and requires patience. President Obama knows this and has admitted as much. President Bush encountered resistance to his own immigration reforms. And President Obama chose to avoid this issue during his first term and focused instead on Obamacare.
Building a bipartisan consensus on reform takes time. Real leadership requires garnering trust, subduing passions, and working with an honest desire to make some progress, even when your ultimate goals are not achieved immediately. Exhibit A: the pro-life movement
So, if not an executive order, then what?
Washington D.C. loves to demand 2,000 page “comprehensive” bills to solve 20 problems at once. The Senate passed such a bill and it has gone nowhere. Politicians from both parties love passing these bills so they can claim they’ve “solved” the problem. The truth is these massive laws largely hand off responsibilities to the numerous alphabet government bureaucracies to do the dirty work for Congress.
Democrats failed to solve (or even address) the issue while they controlled Congress. Now a Republican Party, clearly divided over the best path forward, will soon be given the leadership role.
We believe the Bishops should encourage leaders of both parties to offer up one or two basic reforms which could generate bipartisan consensus in Congress. Find some common ground however modest. And start to build from there.
The antics of the past have failed. Yet real progress on this issue remains possible.
Start small. Calm the waters.
Build some trust.
Get something done.
Urgent Obama Amnesty Update
Unrestrained, unaccountable, and unhinged …
That’s the best way to describe President Obama’s approach toward immigration policy in the aftermath of the election giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress. As early as next week, the president is expected to announce a substantial and far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s immigration enforcement system that would allow up to five million illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. free from the threat of deportation. The plan would also provide illicit work visas to millions of illegal immigrants. In reality, this is but the latest in a series of Obama maneuvers aimed at granting amnesty at the expense of the public interest, national sovereignty – and the law of the land. I told Fox News yesterday, that “if experience is any guide, [Obama’s latest plans] will lead to one of the greatest mass migrations in history” into our country.
There’s a largely unreported element of this story that deserves greater attention and scrutiny as it provides insight into the administration’s aims and ambitions-and reveals the backroom conniving and outright duplicity inherent in the entire Obama amnesty scenario.
On January 29, 2014, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted a “Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought: Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children” seeking a contractor to provide the following services:
The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC [Unaccompanied Alien Children] or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air. Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier), property inventory, providing juveniles with meals, drafting reports, generating transport documents, maintaining/stocking daily supplies, providing and issuing clothing as needed, coordinating with DHS and HHS staff, travel coordination, limited stationary guard services to accommodate for trip disruptions due to inclement weather, faulty equipment, or other exigent circumstances.
In January, the Obama administration put out a call saying there would be “approximately 65,000 UAC in total.” And in June, 52,000 UACs illegally crossed the U.S. border. A mere coincidence? Perhaps. But very likely not. Now, remember that that ICE RFI was posted inJanuary 2014. And it was not until June 2014-some six months later-that the U.S. news media began reporting what the New York Post described as a “‘Katrina’ of illegal immigrants flooding into border states daily.” On July 3, 2014, the New York Times reported that “240,000 migrants and 52,000 unaccompanied minors…crossed the border illegally in recent months.”
To get to the truth, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against DHS seeking “any and all records” relating to the ICE plan to handle the deluge caused by Obama’s lawlessness.
And yet, there’s more. . .
As President Obama readies a post-election immigration power play to provide amnesty for millions of illegals, his immigration czar said recently that the border is bracing for another surge of undocumented children, raising this year’s wave across the southern border to some 130,000. Leon Rodriguez, the new director of U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, said that the federal government is already working to “prepare for another potential surge” across the border.
Make no mistake about it: There’s a direct connection between President Obama’s nullifying of our nation’s immigration laws and the breakdown of security along the border. Public safety, health, national security, transparency and the rule of law are all afterthoughts in this administration’s reckless abandonment of immigration enforcement. Obama’s actions run counter to the clear convictions of the electorate.
In fact, a Judicial Watch-Breitbart poll on the night of the recent historic election showed that voters oppose Obama’s lawless approach to immigration:
- A majority of voters (58 percent) believe “We should enforce current laws that require illegal immigrants to return to their home countries.” And half of all Americans (50 percent) believe the United States should change current immigration law to slow the rate of legal immigration.
- Among minorities, 57 percent of Blacks and only 53 percent of Hispanics agree with the statement, “We should change immigration law to provide legal status to illegal immigrants present in the United States.” Only 25 percent of white respondents agree with that statement.
- When asked, “Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should through executive action allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, 63 percent disagree (53 percent “strongly,” 10 percent “somewhat”). Only 30 percent agree. Among minorities, 52 percent of Blacks and 60 percent of Hispanics agree that Obama should allow illegal immigrants to remain through executive action.
In short, just as he has done repeatedly since taking office, Obama is ignoring, in a lawless and unconstitutional way, the will of the American people-including a substantial number of the minority populations Obama and his media enablers pretend are fully behind his lawless amnesty actions. And this time, with his leaked executive “action” granting blanket amnesty coming within days after the “wave” election, there is no glossing over Obama’s unbridled contempt not only for the Constitution but for the views of Americans who expect that he obey and uphold the law.
And just as we go to press today, there have been some new developments…
We announced just yesterday the filing of another FOIA lawsuit against DHS seeking “all records” concerning a February 25-27 Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office Juvenile Coordination meeting.
ERO is the division of ICE that, according to the government website, has the responsibility, “To identify, arrest, and remove aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally….” Juvenile Coordinators have the responsibility for enforcing ERO directives nationwide with regard to UACs.
Quite clearly, neither agency has been doing its job. In the summer of 2014, they let down their guard altogether. And we need to know why.
Perhaps we were given a hint shortly after the February ERO Field Office Juvenile Coordination Washington meeting when, in March 2014, the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) issued a National Center for Border Security and Immigration “Unaccompanied Alien Children Report.” In its interviews with ICE and ERO agents, it found that they were then blaming the “lack of deterrence” for the substantial increase in UAC border crossings. According to the UTEP report:
Both Border Patrol and ICE ERO officers agreed that the lack of deterrence for crossing the US-Mexican border has impacted the rate at which they apprehend UACs. Officers are certain that UACs are aware of the relative lack of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the U.S. border. UTEP was informed that smugglers of family members of UACs understand that once a UAC is apprehended for illegal entry into the United States, the individual will be re-united with a U.S. based family member pending the disposition of the immigration hearing. This process appears to be exploited by illegal alien smugglers and family members in the United States who wish to reunite with separated children.
What JW intends to find out now is whether the ICE and ERO officers raised the same concerns at their February Washington meeting as they did at UTEP. If not, why not? Were they intimidated-or, perhaps, even instructed not to do so? And if they did raise those same concerns, why didn’t the Obama administration clamp down on the borders instead of allowing the ongoing “Katrina” of illegal aliens that has now overwhelmed our country? These are questions that need to be answered.
Let’s cut right to it: the Obama administration is trying to cover up the truth about the border crisis caused by President Obama’s lawless amnesty. I have little doubt that the Obama administration knew from its own immigration enforcement personnel that its refusal to enforce immigration law was going to cause a border crisis. Yet, rather than secure the border and follow the law, the Obama administration aided and abetted the human trafficking operations that planted hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens all over the nation-overwhelming our schools and putting the health and safety of Americans at risk. And now President Obama wants to grant illicit amnesty to those who rushed here this summer thanks to his previous lawless amnesty! The DHS is breaking immigration law on orders from this president and is now engaging in illegal secrecy to cover it up so Obama can do another round of immigration law-breaking.
Obama’s future plans are a menace, but our lawsuits show that his lawless amnesty is already here. The new Congress may act with lawsuits and funding cut-offs. Republicans are afraid of impeachment, so I doubt that they will stand fast on refusing to provide funding, the only other “constitutional option” to rein in Obama. I had some advice for Republicans grappling with Obama’s lawlessness:
“If the new Republican leadership in the Senate is only talking about what they can’t do, that’s going to be very demoralizing,” said Thomas J. Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group that convenes a regular gathering called Groundswell. Any sense of triumph at its meeting last week was fleeting.
“I think the members of the leadership need to decide what they’re willing to shut down the government over,” Mr. Fitton said.
This statement appeared on the front page of the New York Times, so I hope it gets the attention of Republicans and Democrats who have decided that throwing out the Constitution isn’t worth the mess of pottage that is political power.
Though I must say, even if impeachment and funding cut-offs were to begin tomorrow, Obama would not be impressed. Self-government, elections, laws, and other essential aspects of our constitutional system seem of little concern to the corrupt leader of this gangster administration. Judicial Watch will continue to take the lead in exposing and stopping this lawlessness. Your Judicial Watch is considering major litigation to stop Obama’s dictatorial amnesty agenda. We will keep moving forward toward accountability, and won’t wait for Congress and the rest of Washington to catch up.FCC versus Free Speech
For centuries, our nation’s press has become accustomed to exercising its own news and editorial judgments largely free from government interference. It’s all part of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. But now, all of that could be about to change, if Obama administration officials have their way.
In May 2013, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced its intention to proceed with what it described as a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs” that would probe into how members of the news media make editorial decisions on the stories they cover. At the time, the FCC said the “pilot” study would enable the agency “to ascertain the process by which stories are selected … perceived station bias … and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.” [Emphasis added] Government officials would, of course, determine what they perceive as “bias” and who they decide are “underserved populations.”
Here are some of the invasive-and, in fact, chilling-questions FCC Critical Information Needs (CIN) agents were to ask private news media companies, some of whom whose broadcast licenses could depend upon providing the FCC the “right” answers:
- “What is the news philosophy of the station?
- “Who decides which stories are covered?”
- “How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?”
- “What are the demographics of the news management staff?”
- “What are the demographics of the news production staff?”
The FCC plans also called for government monitors “crawling” the Internet sites of newspapers, local governments, blogs, non-profits, and citizen journalists. All of which is an affront to the law and the First Amendment.
One committee chairman in the House sent a letter demanding more information. In a December 2013 letter to the FCC, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) termed the CIN study an attempt “to control the political speech of journalists” and urged the agency to “put a stop to this most recent attempt to engage the FCC as the news police.” Since then? Crickets-from both Congress and the Obama gang (and, despicably, most of the liberal media.)
That’s why on October 16, 2014, JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FCC after it failed to respond to a FOIA request in February asking for:
“Any and all records in the possession of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relating to the Multi-Market Critical Information study to be conducted by the FCC, including, but not limited to, studies, memoranda and communications between FCC commissioners and/or staff members related to Multi-Market Critical Information Needs study.”
We want to know exactly how the Obama FCC overlords came up with their CIN interrogatories-and how high up this assault upon freedom of the press originated. Fortunately, we are not alone. The FCC’s hostility toward First Amendment freedoms has elicited a strong response from prominent voices. In a letter to the FCC, the National Association of Broadcasters termed the FCC proposal “constitutionally questionable.” And FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, warned that the study would “thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country.”
In response to the controversy, the FCC in late February announced that it would suspend the study. The operative word there, of course, is “suspended,” rather than “abandoned.” Specifically, the FCC has also said it will no longer ask media outlets based in South Carolina to participate in a pilot program where they would be compelled to share their newsroom philosophy.
The problem, of course, as Weekly Update readers well know, is that in Washington nothing is as it appears to be. So, while the study has supposedly been suspended, we still need to find out why it was initiated in the first place. The actions of the Obama administration have demonstrated a record of hostility to the First Amendment freedoms of citizens and the press. This much is evident in the latest Reporters Without Borders recent survey of world press freedom that now ranks the United States forty-sixth, below even that of Botswana and Romania and only one position above Haiti. Little wonder USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page told a White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) seminar on October 25 that the Obama administration is “more restrictive” and “more dangerous” to freedom of the press than any in history. You can ask James Rosen of Fox News about this. You can also ask the Associated Press. Both had their records rifled through on orders of alying Attorney General Eric Holder or his minions.
Unfortunately, the study is simply the latest version of the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ a FCC regulatory scheme ended during the Reagan administration that was used to regulate political speech on radio and television. This time, true to the Obama administration’s racialist agenda, the FCC sought to pressure media under the guise of racial diversity and community organizing language. Given all this background, is it any surprise that President Obama, earlier this week, personally endorsed the federal takeover of the Internet by the FCC?
This FCC scandal also echoes the Obama IRS abuse, which illegally targeted groups and individuals based upon their political philosophy. The FCC, which is charged with making sure regulated media companies obey the law, refuses to obey the Freedom of Information Act and tell the American people why it wanted to interrogate newsmen and monitor the blogs of everyday citizens. JW will continue to do the work of defending our freedom through this latest lawsuit to help keep the Obama FCC news police at bay.
Election Integrity Project: The New Hampshire Report
While voter identification is a technical requirement in New Hampshire, the law is riddled with loopholes that threaten to render it ineffective as any sort of check on fraud. That’s what a team of Judicial Watch attorneys and volunteer observers, who were in the Granite State on Election Day, determined. Although election officials will accept standard IDs such as drivers’ licenses and passports, potential voters may also present any other photo ID less definitive “deemed reasonable” by those officials.
And, that’s not all.
A potential voter who has no photo identification-either standard or “alternative”-may still vote after simply filling out an affidavit and swearing to his or her identity and asserting that he or she is eligible to vote in New Hampshire. How can the state’s voter ID law have any real effect with these broad exemptions in place?
In close elections, voter fraud can make the difference between the will of the people and the wiles of the political elite. That’s why we sent this team of lawyers and volunteer observers to New Hampshire on Election Day as part of our Election Integrity Project, which is directed by Robert Popper, a seasoned attorney and former Deputy Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Voting Section. Our goal is to prevent voter fraud so legitimate voters are not disenfranchised. This year alone, Judicial Watch successfully resolved lawsuits in Ohio and Indiana built around a provision of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) that requires state officials to maintain clean voter rolls. We have also released data that shows 11 states plus Washington D.C. have out-of-date voter rolls in various counties where the number of registered voters exceeds the voting age population. We are pressing ahead as we consider potential NVRA litigation in Colorado, Iowa and the District of Colombia. And we are also investigating the voter rolls in Alabama, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, and West Virginia.
In New Hampshire, citizens have a right to monitor elections so long as they do so unobtrusively, and this is how we operated. The attorneys on our team included Chris Fedeli and Lauren Burke and were led by veteran poll watcher Robert Popper. The volunteers were local Judicial Watch members who patriotically contributed their time to assist with this effort. In the weeks leading up to the election, Judicial Watch attorneys had trained these volunteers to be on the lookout for a variety of poor electoral practices or outright violations of state election laws.
Team members were told not to make challenges or otherwise to interfere with the conduct of elections. Rather, their purpose was simply to take notes and to gather evidence regarding the State’s electoral practices. Where particular problems were observed on Election Day, Judicial Watch attorneys would notify the appropriate State authorities. Our team was able to observe voting and registration procedures in about 20 polling sites throughout the state. They concentrated their efforts on the more populous locations in Nashua and Manchester, as well as polling places in Pelham, Exeter, Litchfield, Keene and elsewhere.
What our team found in New Hampshire was disturbing.
They saw many individuals submitting affidavits in lieu of any actual photo IDs. They also saw extremely high rates of same-day registration. At most of the sites we visited, the same-day registration rate varied between 6-10 percent of all those voting. At one site, the rate was an extraordinary 12.7 percent, or about one out of every 8 voters. At another site, there were at one point three individuals waiting to vote-while another 17 individuals were waiting to same-day register. And some of them had Massachusetts T-shirts.
A major challenge to ballot integrity in New Hampshire, and in other parts of the country, stems from the practice of same-day registration. This procedure allows an individual to register to vote on Election Day at any polling site, and then to walk over to the voting booths and cast a ballot. This is a problem for obvious reasons. For starters, state officials do not have time to confirm the validity of the registration. Even when there is good reason to suspect a fraudulent vote, the only response is a meaningless post-election investigation (kind of like when the NFL front office agrees to “review” a bad call in a pivotal game-on Monday).
The person who gave a false name and address is long gone, leaving nothing but false paperwork. More to the point, in any case where fraud is suspected but not proved, the resulting vote still counts. There’s also a huge opening for students, and other out-of-state residents to vote illegally thanks to permissive “domicile” requirements. This past summer, a Stafford County judge overturned a state requirement that someone claiming state residence had to register their car and obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license. And top state officials encouraged polling places to set aside a special “no photo ID” table for voters who did not bring photo identification. This directive came from the state’s attorney general’s office, which does not seem overly concerned with raising standards and protecting the rights of legitimate voters. These “no photo ID” tables were too busy for those of us concerned about election integrity.
Our poll watching experience in New Hampshire shows that voter identification requirements need to have real teeth to them.
