Posts

Transgender Activist’s Super PAC Sent Misleading Texts to Thousands of Voters

A left-wing “voter mobilization” group admitted sending misleading texts to voters that told them they had already voted when they had not.

Charlotte Clymer, a transgender activist and spokesperson for AllVote, told CNN that the texts were sent out to “several thousand registered voters” in Pennsylvania.

The texts told voters they had already voted in the November election, but the group said that they intended the texts to say that records showed they had voted in the previous election in 2022. The message left out the “in 2022″ part and confused voters, the group said.

Clymer said the “unfortunate copy-editing error” was made by “staff working long hours.”

However, the group has also been accused of voting-text shenanigans in Michigan as well. The Wisconsin Election Commission said the group sent out texts with links that “at first appeared to be the voter’s municipal website” but were incorrect. The commission also criticized AllVote for appearing to portray itself as an official source of voting information. (Read more from “Transgender Activist’s Super PAC Sent Misleading Texts to Thousands of Voters” HERE)

Up to 5.7 Million Noncitizens Voted in Past Presidential Elections, Study Finds

As many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the 2008 election and potentially more voted in 2016, according to a new study by Just Facts, a New Jersey-based research group, drawing on information from other studies.

The study—based on data compiled from Harvard University’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study, an analysis published in the journal Electoral Studies co-authored by Old Dominion University faculty, and Census data—also provides some support for what then-President-elect Donald Trump tweeted in late November, when he asserted he won the popular vote if the fraudulent votes were deducted. The Just Facts study did not look specifically at 2016.

The study by Just Facts, which identifies its point of view as conservative/libertarian, but says it maintains independent inquiry, determined as few as 594,000 and as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in 2008, in the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. Eighty-two percent of noncitizens who admitted to voting in a survey said “I definitely voted” for Obama.

An estimate from 2012, which the study finds to have less complete data, is between 1 million and 3.6 million noncitizens registered to vote or voted, including both the “self declared” and the “database-matched” populations.

Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote over Trump by about 2.9 million votes in 2016.

Previously, an Old Dominion University professor’s analysis found that, extrapolating on a more extensive 2014 study, an estimated 800,000 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election—falling well short of enough to affect the popular vote.

James Agresti, president of Just Facts, was cautious about stating whether this would have changed the result of the popular vote in the 2016 election. He concluded it is likely the number of noncitizen voters in the most recent presidential election was higher than eight years ago.

When asked if noncitizen voters changed the popular vote outcome in 2016, he said, “There is a distinct possibility.”

“The 3 million vote margin would be smack in the middle,” Agresti told The Daily Signal. “I don’t want to say it would. There are a lot of uncertainties. It’s possible.”

There are two ways of looking at the noncitizen voting figures for 2012, Agresti said. Based on the Harvard and Census data, between 1 million and 2.6 million noncitizens voted under “self-declared.” However, there are between 1.2 million and 3.6 million “database-matched” noncitizens who voted that year. So the full range is 1 million to 3.6 million. Because of the overlapping information, Agresti is particularly cautious about drawing conclusions here.

“Just Facts does not have all the data needed to calculate inclusive figures for the 2012 election, so these figures are undercounts,” Agresti said.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation who has written extensively about voter fraud, was not very familiar with Just Facts, but he said if the findings were true, it lends more evidence to a growing problem.

“This is just another indication of how serious the problem may be and why it is even more important to investigate the possibility of noncitizens voting,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

In May, Trump named Vice President Mike Pence to chair the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

The difference between the Just Facts finding and the estimate from Old Dominion University research is likely because of a different methodology, said Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, who did the aforementioned study that arrived at 800,000 noncitizen votes in the 2016 election.

“My impression is that the differences arise principally from the different assumptions we made about how to treat individuals for whom there was some ambiguity about whether they voted or not, e.g. individuals who said they didn’t vote but had a validated vote, etc.,” Richman told The Daily Signal in an email. “There are a variety of assumptioans one could make about how to treat those individuals, and my general impression is that this is the main thing driving the differences between our results.”

Richman’s figure was based on the 2014 study he co-authored that looked at noncitizen voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections. Richman applied the methodology from the study of those years to arrive at an estimated 800,000 noncitizen voters in 2016. (For more from the author of “Up to 5.7 Million Noncitizens Voted in Past Presidential Elections, Study Finds” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Standing up to Political Bullying Is What Voters Want

After a month of counting absentee and provisional ballots, exploring voter fraud, and recounting 90,000+ ballots in one of the progressive strongholds of the state that were turned in at 11:30 p.m. on election night, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory conceded that he lost his re-election on Dec. 5.

McCrory lost his re-election by only 10,277 out of 4.7 million votes, or two-tenths of 1 percent. However, repeal of the H.B. 2 “bathroom bill” is not the lesson to be learned from the election.

The governor’s race in North Carolina had barely concluded before the Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT groups began taking credit for having unseated the one-term governor over his refusal to back down to their bullying.

The Human Rights Campaign engaged in an eight-month smear campaign against the state of North Carolina—with McCrory as the primary target—over the passage of North Carolina’s privacy law, which blocked a Charlotte city ordinance that would have allowed men into women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and other intimate facilities.

The Human Rights Campaign points to highly suspect internal polling as proof that this issue was his downfall, but the facts bear out a different conclusion. McCrory’s strong stance for privacy and safety and ensuring that local laws do not impose financial and legal liability on businesses actually helped him in his re-election bid, rather than hurting him.

So how does a governor who has presided over a massive economic comeback lose his re-election bid?

The most compelling evidence that the privacy law was not a deciding factor in the governor’s race is the fact that Lt. Gov. Dan Forest (who had championed the law) and the Republican majorities in the General Assembly (who crafted and passed the law) ended up winning re-election overwhelmingly.

Forest won 51.8 percent to 45.3 percent, a higher winning margin than President-elect Donald Trump, Sen. Richard Burr, or the Democrats who won the governor and attorney general races received. In fact, Forest brought in more total votes than either Trump or Gov.-elect Roy Cooper.

Republican state legislators, who had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, retained those veto-proof majorities in both chambers, actually picking up a seat in the Senate and retaining the same number of seats in the House.

Rep. Dan Bishop, who championed the privacy law in the House, was elected to the Senate by almost 14 percentage points. If H.B. 2 were really a factor, it would have been a factor in these races as well as the governor’s race.

The truth is that voters in North Carolina were enthusiastic about re-electing those who preserved dignity, privacy, and safety by standing strong even in the face of bullying and extortion from the media, Fortune 500 companies, the NBA, and the NCAA.

The most measurable reason for McCrory’s downfall can be attributed to his refusal to scrap a toll road as the means for expansion of an interstate highway used heavily by commuters north of Charlotte.

The dispute arose over three years ago and peaked a year before the election, when four Republican state lawmakers called for the governor to kill the I-77 toll lanes and start over.

A Republican grassroots group threatened not to vote for McCrory in his re-election bid unless he scrapped the toll construction—and sure enough, those voters made good on their promise. Planned Parenthood was even caught red-handed posing as an anti-I-77 toll group.

A post-election comparison of votes from this highly Republican part of the state reveals that McCrory received 33,775 fewer votes in 2016 in these areas of the state than he did in 2012—enough to cost him the election.

To add further support to this argument, Republican Rep. John Bradford lives in the middle of this I-77 toll corridor, and he won his re-election race handily (56.5 percent to 43.5 percent), despite the fact that his opponent ran solely on her opposition to H.B. 2. Bradford won by a larger margin in 2016 than he did in 2012, another indicator that H.B. 2 was not what influenced his race or the governor’s race.

The toll road wasn’t McCrory’s only problem, unfortunately. For over three years leading up to the passage of North Carolina’s privacy law, McCrory was trailing in public opinion polls. In fact, in the 16 polls taken before the privacy law was passed, McCrory was trailing in nine of them.

Social conservatives were not enthusiastic about McCrory before H.B. 2 because of his veto of a previous religious liberty bill, his opposition to passing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and his threatened veto of a pro-life bill. McCrory himself admitted that he is not known for his support for social issues.

Only in the summer of this year did McCrory earn higher marks in the polls than his opponent, Cooper. It was then that the Republican base began to realize McCrory was standing strong on restroom and locker room privacy and safety, indicating that his handling of H.B. 2 and his determination not to give in to bullying, threats, and misrepresentations on the issue actually helped him gain ground with voters.

In addition, his handling of relief efforts for the destruction caused by Hurricane Matthew gave him a bump in public opinion polls right before the election.

Even the left-leaning group Public Policy Polling admits that McCrory’s approval right before the election (and post-H.B. 2) was the highest it’s been in over three years: “We’d found Pat McCrory with a negative approval rating every single month since July 2013 until now—45 percent of voters give him good marks to 43 percent who disapprove.”

The logical conclusion is that the negative trend for McCrory started long before North Carolina ever passed its privacy law, and his surprisingly strong stand in favor of H.B. 2 helped him gain enough support to run almost even with Cooper on Election Day.

But rising public opinion alone was not enough to help McCrory win, especially when he was being outspent by his opponent by almost $8 million.

Cooper raised $21.6 million to McCrory’s $13.75 million. That type of disparity between the candidates’ campaign budgets was destined to put McCrory at a disadvantage.

Republican insiders said that McCrory had not built his fundraising base outside of Charlotte, and that he was ill-prepared as a result. When money drives elections, not having it is critical.

The most damaging assault on McCrory’s re-election bid came from the “Blueprint for North Carolina” effort led by progressive groups to retake the state. They crafted a plan that directed their members to “eviscerate, mitigate, litigate, cogitate, and agitate,” and politically wound the state’s leadership, well before H.B. 2 became an issue.

One thing is for sure: Any claims that McCrory lost re-election because of North Carolina’s privacy law must be taken with a big grain of salt. The truth is that all politics is local, and McCrory’s refusal to act on conservative priorities such as the I-77 toll road and a larger progressive plan to target and take down the governor are to blame.

If anything, H.B. 2 helped the governor shore up the millions of North Carolinians who were skeptical about his commitment to religious freedom and conservative causes.

Although he narrowly lost the closest governor’s race in recent history, McCrory was right to stand on principle and not give in to the left’s bullying and attacks.

He may be leaving office, but North Carolina’s families and businesses will benefit from his bold stand for dignity, privacy, and safety, as well as his economic reforms, for years to come. (For more from the author of “Standing up to Political Bullying Is What Voters Want” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Up to 15 Percent of Noncitizens in US Are Voting, Alleges Expert

The Obama administration opposes states verifying citizenship status of registered voters. Inquiries into voter fraud are typically met with derision from both government and the media—and in at least one instance with prosecution. Prosecutors don’t prioritize voter fraud, while convictions only garner light sentences.

These are among the voter fraud problems facing the United States, experts noted this week, even as prominent voices on the left say such fraud is a myth.

The left’s opposition to voter integrity laws or even inquiry can be simply explained, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

“Why on earth would you not want to make sure that only citizens are registered and voting?” Fitton, author of “Clean House: Exposing Our Government’s Secrets and Lies,” said at a forum at The Heritage Foundation Tuesday. “That to me shows that the Obama administration and the left generally, which is behind this, wants to be able to steal elections if necessary. To me, that’s a crisis.”

A 2014 study by Old Dominion University found that 6.4 percent of all noncitizens voted in the 2008 election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm elections. The study concludes this likely put Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat, over the top in the race in his 312-vote statewide victory over Republican Norm Coleman in 2008.

Fitton said this is approaching 15 percent of all noncitizens voting.

In the past, opponents have argued that ID requirements hurt minority participation. Meanwhile, studies have found minority voting has increased after voter ID was implemented.

“If you think your vote is going to be stolen, especially in urban areas where you have political machines controlling the voting process or the perception that they control the voting process, you may not bother to vote,” Fitton said. “But, if you think your vote will be counted, of course you’re going to be more likely to turn out.”

Some recent cases cited by the panelists demonstrate the reality of voter fraud.

In August, in St. Louis, a court ordered a do-over in a Democratic primary for a Missouri state legislative seats after finding absentee voter fraud.

Last year in Bridgeport, Connecticut, a state legislator was convicted of voter fraud and given a suspended sentence.

Still, some commentators contend there is no voter fraud problem in the United States. For example, this week a New York Times editorial called voter fraud a “myth” and “fake”:

As study after study has shown, there is virtually no voter fraud anywhere in the country. The most comprehensive investigation to date found that out of one billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were 31 possible cases of impersonation fraud. Other violations—like absentee ballot fraud, multiple voting and registration fraud—are also exceedingly rare. So why do so many people continue to believe this falsehood?

Credit for this mass deception goes to Republican lawmakers, who have for years pushed a fake story about voter fraud, and thus the necessity of voter ID laws, in an effort to reduce voting among specific groups of Democratic-leaning voters.

However, it was in New York City where the city’s Department of Investigation (DOI) determined the city’s Board of Elections (BOE) was doing a poor job of preventing ineligible voters from voting. During the 2013 mayor’s race, 63 city investigators went to polling places impersonating someone who was either dead, moved outside the city, or was in jail. Of those, 61 were cleared to vote. The department’s report stated:

The 60 investigators, among other investigative activities, conducted quality assurance surveys of voters at poll sites throughout the five boroughs, logging complaints from 596 of 1,438 voters relating to subjects such as ballot readability, poll workers, and poll site locations. DOI’s operations also revealed that there are names of ineligible voters (e.g. felons and people no longer City residents), and deceased voters, on the BOE voter rolls, some for periods of up to four years.

Accordingly, DOI investigators posing as a number of those ineligible or deceased individuals, were permitted to obtain, mark, and submit ballots in the scanners or in the lever voting booths in 61 cases, with no challenge or question by BOE poll workers. Investigators were turned away in 2 other cases. No votes were cast for any actual candidate or on any proposal during the course of the DOI operation.

Interestingly, the result was not to demand more accountability from the city’s Board of Elections. Rather, the New York City Council voted to prosecute the investigators for impersonating voters, said John Fund, a National Review columnist, previously with The Wall Street Journal, during the panel.

Progressive critics reference the rarity of voter fraud prosecutions as evidence of a “myth.” Fund said it is actually because such cases can be politically disadvantageous to elected district attorneys.

“Most prosecutors run for election. Most prosecutors want to have higher election,” Fund said. “The last thing you want to do is take on voter fraud cases which are highly politicized and infuriate half the people in your community on partisan basis. Judges require incredible standards of proof and often the sentences of the few people who are convicted of voter fraud are community service.”

Maintaining clean voter rolls from ineligible voters is also important and required by law, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation. And New York isn’t the only place with a problem. In Indiana, 16 counties had more registered voters than voting-age adults based on U.S. Census Bureau data, he said.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the “Motor Voter Law” allows people to register to vote when they get their driver’s license law. But it also requires local governments to maintain clean voter rolls, which the federal government can enforce. The Obama administration has never enforced this provision, von Spakovsky said at the forum.

“There has been a war being waged against election integrity for the past decade,” von Spakovsky said. “The leader in this has been the U.S. Justice Department. Instead of making sure every voter can vote and that no one’s vote is stolen through fraud, they have been on the other side of that, waging war against any efforts to prove election integrity.” (For more from the author of “Up to 15 Percent of Noncitizens in US Are Voting, Alleges Expert” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election

Several well-funded organizations — including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP — are fighting efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting illegally in the upcoming presidential election. And the United States Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is helping them.

On February 12, these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission’s decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22.

Under federal law, the EAC is responsible for designing the federal voter-registration form required by the National Voter Registration Act, or Motor Voter, as it is commonly called. While states must register voters who use the federal form, states can ask the EAC to include instructions with the federal form about additional state registration requirements. Some states are now requiring satisfactory proof of citizenship to ensure that only citizens register to vote.

Under Article I, Secion 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, states have the power to set the “Qualification requisite for electors.” As with many issues, the Left disdains the balance the Framers adopted in the Constitution and objects to this delegation of power to the states. They prefer to see power over elector eligibility centralized in Washington, D.C. (Read more from “The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election” HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Voters’ Anger Will Only Increase

BallotCastingStationsAccording to the latest batch of polls, Iowa Caucus voters are literally “mad as Hell” at Washington, D.C. and the Republican Party.

But if pollsters think voters are fed up now, they ain’t seen nothing yet. Because you can rest assured this fall the surrender caucus GOP Establishment has another round of “Failure Theater” all lined up and ready to go on every issue conservatives care about.

That’s when the latest fictional budgetary D-Day occurs. You know, either some kind of spending deal is hammered out and signed by then or its Great Depression meets Zombie Apocalypse. Otherwise known as shutting down less than 20 percent of the federal government almost everybody hates.

Scary stuff.

Back in 2013, the fight to defund Obamacare was the leverage spectacularly squandered by the GOP after 16 days of mostly fake missing government. This time, the defunding of Planned Parenthood is the cause macabre.

One approach being discussed on that front doesn’t even shrink the overall budget per se, but simply transfers all the federal money now directed at baby butchers to other women’s health programs that don’t kill babies and sell their parts for illegal profit. And even if the budget was cut, it would be a victory on a simply financial level dwarfed in its significance by eliminating Obamacare’s drag on the economy.

Furthermore, simply stripping Planned Parenthood of taxpayer money doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t continue to execute as many innocents as it pleases for the time being. Seems like something the establishment would be ready and willing to demagogue as unwilling to go to war over. But there is a window open for action because of the gruesome Planned Parenthood videos that have exposed the intrinsic evil that is that death merchant.

Of course, right on cue, Quisling-in-chief “Ditch” McConnell has already woke up from his usual nap to signal his willingness to side with death over decency yet again, just as he has for years. And yet recent polling out of Iowa (and everywhere else) is absolutely brutal for the poor saps interested in following in the clay footsteps of Mitt Romney and John McCain. For example, a whopping two-thirds of Iowa Caucus goers are currently split among Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Carly Fiorina – the four outsiders pursuing the nomination.

Quick, somebody smack the GOP establishment on the forehead and scream “hello, McFly.”

Instead, it’s “stupid is as a stupid does” for the surrender caucus, who’s getting the jump on an autumn’s worth of pre-capitulation show votes by pretending to oppose Obama’s Faustian Bargain with Iran. Oh, yes, they’re planning a resolution of disapproval. Boy that will certainly have the Marxist in the White House putting away his pen and his phone out of fear. And if that doesn’t work, Boehner-McConnell are really going to escalate hostilities by threatening a sharply-worded joint blog in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.

Scary stuff.

So what will be left to try in just a matter of weeks when the establishment’s 2016 presidential hopes will almost certainly be on the wrong side of oblivion? Well, a financial windfall of donations from their sugar daddies on K-Street. Otherwise known as “manna from Heaven” to the GOP establishment. This is a government by the lobbyists and for the lobbyists after all.

And while they’re raking in the dough, they will willfully ignore the anger of the party they’re supposed to be leading, which cuts across all previous ideological divides. The GOP establishment has managed to finally unite the Republican Party’s disparate factions—against themselves.

In the meantime, the outsider candidates will grow even stronger than they are now, as we head into the winter’s first votes in Iowa after an entire fall of Boehner’s “crying game” and McConnell-scowls. Trump will go Spinal Tap and dial the putdowns up to eleven. Carson will become a more transcendent force in politics by uniting people against the system as a whole. Cruz will become the champion of the conservative grassroots after he’s seen leading the fight against the Washington Cartel at every turn. Fiorina’s sense and sensibility will be a glaring contrast to the “can’t do” rancid spirit of the beltway.

The entire whitewashed tomb that is the GOP establishment is being choked out before our very eyes. Not only that, it has no shot at coming back to life without elevating some of the very conservative causes it has scorned for so long, and even if it does elevate them it is likely to work for the benefit of somebody far more deserving instead.

There’s a full loaf of GOP establishment toast now, and the torches and pitchforks crowd want it burned to a crisp, God bless ‘em. (For more from the author of “Why Voters’ Anger Will Only Increase” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Most Hispanic Voters Don’t Think a Path to Citizenship Is Solution

More than 60 percent of registered Hispanic voters do not think a pathway to citizenship for illegals would benefit the country, and most do not see it as the best way to solve the country’s immigration problems, a new poll shows.

Of the 62 percent who felt a pathway to citizenship for illegals would not benefit the country, 33 percent felt it would hurt the economy, 7 percent felt it would overly burden public schools and 10 percent felt it would create public safety issues, the McKeon & Associates Wednesday poll found.

“The economy is still the issue,” Michael McKeon told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “When 33 percent think immigration will hurt the economy, that’s what’s on their mind.”

“It’s going to be very interesting to see if Republicans choose people with government experience to create jobs, or people like Trump who did it in the private sector,” he added . . .

McKeon and Associates surveyed 804 registered voters with Hispanic surnames in the United States July 15. An overwhelming majority identified themselves as Democrats, and most said they were between the ages of 31 and 60. About 20 percent of the interviews were conducted in Spanish, and the rest in English. (Read more from “Poll: Most Hispanic Voters Don’t Think a Path to Citizenship Is Solution” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

37% of Voters Fear the Federal Government

Secretary Of Defense Leon Panetta Hosts Ceremony At Vietnam Veterans MemorialThirty-seven percent (37%) of Likely U.S. Voters now fear the federal government, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) do not, but another 17% are not sure.

Perhaps in part that’s because 54% consider the federal government today a threat to individual liberty rather than a protector. Just 22% see the government as a protector of individual rights, and that’s down from 30% last November. Slightly more (24%) are now undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

As recently as December 2012, voters were evenly divided on this question: 45% said the federal government was a protector of individual rights, while 46% described it as a threat to those rights.

Two-out-of-three voters (67%) view the federal government today as a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Just 17% disagree, while 15% are undecided.

Only 19% now trust the federal government to do the right thing most or nearly all the time, down from 24% in June of last year. Eighty percent (80%) disagree, with 44% who trust the government to do the right thing only some of the time and 36% who say it rarely or never does the right thing.

Read more from this story HERE.

Court: No Mail-In Ballots for Colorado Recall Election for Anti-Gun Legislators

Photo Credit: Reuters

Photo Credit: Reuters

With mail ballots out of the question, recall elections for two Democratic state senators who backed new firearm restrictions will test how enthusiastic their backers are about getting to the polls in person — and how badly gun-rights advocates want to kick out the lawmakers.

At a time when most Colorado voters prefer voting by mail, a court ruling this week that requires in-person voting injects uncertainty about which side has the advantage in the state’s first legislative recalls…

Democrats were hoping that an elections law they passed this year requiring mail ballots to all voters would boost turnout with their base. But a Denver district judge ruled this week that third-party candidates should have until Aug. 26 to qualify for the Sept. 10 recall ballot. That means there won’t be enough time to send mail ballots to everyone, except for overseas voters and those requesting one in an emergency.

Recall supporters say the court decision gives them an advantage because gun-rights advocates who pushed for the election are more driven to go to the polls and make sure Morse and Giron are kicked out of office.

“We happen to be pleased with the decision. We think it’s in our favor that people actually have to show up at the ballot box to vote,” said Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, which is supporting the recalls. “We feel like we have a very motivated base.”

Read more from this story HERE.

NYC May Give Non-Citizen Immigrants the Right to Vote

Photo Credit: AP

A controversial proposal in New York City to give voting rights to hundreds of thousands of non-citizen immigrants could make them into a key vote in America’s largest city.

The Big Apple proposal, though, could resonate with other municipalities, inspiring them to follow suit — and, if Congress approves an otherwise unrelated immigration overhaul, the number of newly eligible immigrant voters could swell into a potent voting bloc on the local level.

That’s because the national overhaul being considered in Washington creates a so-called pathway to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants. By itself, this does little in the near-term to give non-citizens the right to vote. But if New York City approves its plan to give its 800,000 legal immigrants a say in city politics, illegal immigrants could eventually join the voter rolls there as well. And they wouldn’t have to wait for citizenship to vote.

Read more from this story HERE.