Amending the NC Constitution: The Six Proposed 2018 Ballot Initiatives | Eastern North Carolina Now

    "There are three take-away points:

      •  The right to vote in a free and fair election is the most basic civil right, one on which many other rights of the American people depend.

      •  Congress and the states should guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote and that no one's vote is stolen or diluted.

      •  Voter fraud is real and hundreds of convictions have been made and documented."

    First of all, let's review constitutional jurisprudence on regarding state Photo ID voter laws.

    In the years after the turn of the century (2000 onward), the states began becoming aware of voting fraud and voting irregularities. One by one they began instituting laws designed to reduce the likelihood of fraud and to ensure integrity in their election process. A federal commission was even empaneled to study voter fraud and it concluded that it exists and recommended that each state enact some sort of law to address voter integrity. In the aftermath of that conclusion, more and more states began enacting laws. These laws essentially fell into four categories: those with a strict photo ID requirement, those with a relaxed photo ID requirement, those requesting an ID (but photo not required), and those with a strict non ID requirement. The strictest voter law and the one potentially posing the greatest burden to a person's right to vote is a Strict Photo ID law. A challenge to such a Photo ID law was heard by the Supreme Court in 2008, in the case Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. [For an overview of the laws in the 50 states: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx ]

    In 2005, the Indiana state legislature passed a law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present an acceptable photo ID, issued either by the United States (a federal ID) or by the state of Indiana (such as a driver's license). Again, Indiana's Voter ID law was of the strict photo ID type. The Democratic Party of Indiana and interest groups representing African-Americans and elderly citizens filed suit and challenged the law, alleging that it constituted an undue burden on the right to vote.

    At trial, the challengers could not produce any witness who could not meet the law's ID requirement, who could not obtain an acceptable identification. (The Indiana law, as did NC's Voter ID law, includes a provision that should a person not be able to afford a photo ID or not be able to obtain one, the state would provide one for them, free of charge). The federal district court (federal trial court) upheld the law but on appeal, the appellate court appeared to be divided. The dissenting judge claimed that the law was a "thinly-veiled attempt to dampen turn-out by those likely to vote for Democratic candidates." The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

    Note: It was not alleged that Indiana's strict photo ID voter law negatively or disparately impacted any other minority group, other than African-Americans. It should also be noted that almost all minority groups vote Democratic. (Why are African-Americans singled out? Could it be that they are incapable of the same responsibilities that other citizens are capable of? Or is it more likely related to the fact that 90% or so of African-Americans identify as Democrats and that African-Americans make up the largest of America's minority groups?)

    The Supreme Court heard the case and handed down its opinion in 2008. There were actually two majority opinions written by the court (something very rare). One was written by the very liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, and the other was written by the very conservative justice, Antonin Scalia. The Court held that Indiana's strict Photo ID law was closely-related to the state's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud and ensuring integrity in its elections. The Court further held that the photo requirement was merely a slight burden imposed on a person's right to vote which in no way outweighed that legitimate state interest. The Court characterized the strict photo requirement in Indiana's law as "Neutral and Non-Discriminatory."

    The Crawford case tells us, and each state legislature, that a strict photo requirement in a voter law: (1) Poses no meaningful burden to the right to vote; and (2) is, on its face, "Neutral and Non-Discriminatory." It should also instruct every court in the federal judiciary of the same. Supreme Court opinions, once handed down for the first time on a particular issue, become precedent. Precedent refers to a "preceding" opinion which is to be regarded as a guide to be applied in subsequent similar cases.

    The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals should have applied the Crawford opinion when it heard the appeal from the NAACP and other interest groups regarding the NC Voter ID law rather than substituting its own judgement for that of the NC General Assembly on a law that was, on its face, neutral and non-discriminatory (and in fact, more relaxed than the Indiana law), and therefore it should have upheld it.

    Discussing Voter Fraud and the unfortunately opinion by the 4th Circuit, Jay Delancy of the NC Voter Integrity Project explained that 90% (or more) of African-Americans are registered as Democrats and vote Democratic. And so there will always be a racial impact, or a racial component or racial argument, in anything having to do with politics, political posturing, political decisions, or political policy. There will always be a racial impact when a state legislature does any tweaking to its election laws or when it re-draws its district lines, or gerrymanders. Because of the extraordinarily high political identity of African-Americans with the Democratic Party, one can never truly separate race from politics or from political party.

    He continued, explaining that a law designated to prevent voter fraud (which has been consistently and historically perpetrated primarily by the Democratic Party) will of course be seen racial. The re-drawing of district lines designed to benefit the political party in power, which happens to be allowed by law, will necessarily also have a racial component. It is NOT intentional discrimination based on race and there is NO impact based on race. It is what it is simply because of the extraordinarily high racial political identity.

    Jay has educated groups, the NC legislature, the NC Board of Elections, other states, the FOX News audience, and even Rachel Maddow over the years on voter fraud, instances of actual voter fraud, the many insidious ways that fraud is committed, the various ways that the potential for fraud exists, and how such potential can be mitigated. For example, in 2012, the NC Voter Integrity Project reported to the State Board of Elections 30,000 deceased voters still on the NC voter registration rolls. Under Democratic control at the time, the Board chose to do nothing and the names were never purged. Also in 2012, the Voter Integrity Project noted that 175,000 "inactive" voters suddenly became active by in-person, on-the-day-of-election voting. Most of those 175,000 "inactive" voters had been highly suspicious to begin with. They had unreliable addresses or had mail returned to the Board of Elections. Yet suddenly, a huge number of such voters showed up to vote.

    Looking for instances of fraud, Jay decided to use a novel method which cross-referenced two different lists of individuals. He looked at the information provided by the state Board of Elections of those who voted in the 2012 election and cross-referenced those names with those individuals who had sought to be disqualified to serve jury duty in the state. In North Carolina, persons can legally get out of jury duty, subject to perjury, if they fall into any one of 4 categories: (1) felon; (2) non-citizen; (3) reside outside the district; (4) cannot speak English. Jay looked at the list of individuals who got out of jury duty by asserting they are "non-citizens" and cross-checked to see how many of them voted in the 2012 election. He found thousands of such potentially fraudulent voters. He took the information to the NC Board of Elections (state Board of Elections) and after several years, they finally settled with the matter out of court. Jay said he is pleased with the outcome.

    Here are some of the ways that voter fraud is committed:

      •  Voting early and voting often (or just voting often), in the same jurisdiction

      •  Duplicate voting - registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction

      •  Using the name of a person that has died (but whose name still remains on the state voter registration rolls) to vote

      •  Voting as an illegal alien (Jay has found many persons who presented, under penalty of perjury, that they couldn't serve jury duty because they were not a legal citizen yet voted)

      •  Voting using the name and address of someone who has moved away

      •  Voting using the name and address of a convicted felon (felons temporarily lose the right to vote but remain registered)

      •  Voting even though the person is a convicted felon

      •  Voting using a false identity

      •  Voting using a false registration: (voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote). In Wake and Durham counties, 150 fake voters were created by ACORN. The NC Voter Integrity Project believes there were more, but they stopped looking at some point. They took the information to the state Board of Election by it chose not to investigate or prosecute

      •  Fraudulent use of absentee ballots (requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter's signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for)

      •  Voting using a non-existent address (those campaigning for office and who canvass neighborhoods to talk to voters, using information provided by the Board of Elections will find addresses on the list but no physical address existing)

      •  Using the address of someone the person knows for purposes of voting fraudulently (Ex: sometimes there will be 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 persons voting using the very same address, even when the address is in an area zoned only for single-family)

      •  Buying votes (paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate)

      •  Voting in multiple counties for the same election

      •  Voters creating fake addresses

      •  Unions providing funds to have its members establish "temporary" residences in targeted states prior to elections (while not actually moving or living there) and then voting in those states

      •  Persons misappropriating other person's addresses (a friend of mine, just for the heck of it, looked up her address with the Board of Elections and found that several persons were registered to vote from her address, in addition to her and her husband, the only legal residents)

      •  Political "community-organizers" going into high schools to register students, including those who are illegal, by giving out false information (such as "you can vote even if you aren't a citizen")

      •  Groups intent on perpetrating fraud on the election process have gone through cemeteries, taking down names and other information from gravestones of those who recently passed away (each state has a law that instructs the Board of Elections of how often it must purge the names from its voter rolls of those who have passed. See the Appendix at the end of the article)

      •  Voters intent on committing voter fraud have purposely voted in more than one state for the same election (for example, Jay has found several who have voted not only in North Carolina, but also in Tennessee and Florida in the same election)

      •  Volunteers with a political party (usually Democratic) going to nursing homes, retirement communities, and other elder care facilities to register or re-register members, and then filling out their mail-in ballots or busing them to the polling location and voting for them (under the guise of being a caregiver); many elderly persons in such homes, communities and facilities lack the mental capacity to know how they are voting or lack the ability to prevent the volunteer from coercing their vote

      •  Handing out fake ID's to homeless persons, addicts, or other persons who cannot provide proof of residence (usually providing a free lunch or $5.00) and then taking them to the polls

      •  Illegal "assistance" at the polls (forcing or intimidating voters-particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language-to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with "assistance")

      •  Altering the vote count (changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted)

      •  Ballot petition fraud (forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot)

    Jay Delancy is the foremost expert in North Carolina on voter fraud and speaks about it frequently. He is a watchdog who works tirelessly to identify instances of voter fraud, to identify schemes, to support efforts by our state legislature to protect against voter fraud, to suggest ways to minimize potential voter fraud, and to educate about voter fraud. He provides updates on his Facebook page, including this one video he made: https://www.facebook.com/11818728/videos/10105605658577189/?id=11818728

    With all the opportunities and potential for voter fraud, the state values the procedures and provisions put into our election laws to address the problem, including the provisions for cleaning out voter registration lists and the provision for "Confirmation Mailings" (to confirm that a listed voter still resides at the address registered). These provisions are common-sense and valuable.

    However, liberal judges don't necessarily think so. There have been several instances where courts have instructed Boards of Election to reinstate voters who have been removed from the voter registration rolls for good and documented cause and recently, a judge struck down a provision allowing voters who have been determined to no longer reside at a certain address to be removed from the voter rolls.

    On August 8, a federal judge invalidated part of North Carolina's election law - the provision that allows one voter to challenge another's residency. This provision was used successfully by watchdog and election integrity groups to scrub thousands of names off the voter registration rolls in NC ahead of the 2016 election. (Not one error was made and no one was disenfranchised of his or her right or ability to vote). The goal of this provision, of course, was to prevent someone seeking to fraudulently cast a vote or to cast an additional vote by using the name and address of someone no longer living or no longer residing at the address.

    Volunteers with the NC Voter Integrity Project had used this provision to purge 3500 - 4000 voters from the voter registration rolls in Cumberland, Moore, and Beaufort counties. The NAACP challenged the removal of those names, and challenged the provision itself, alleging that the purge of voters disproportionately targets African-American voters. (Again, everything negatively impacts only African-Americans). The NAACP, however, did not make clear how it believes the provision so disproportionately targets them.

    Jay Delancy, the director of the NC Voter Integrity Project, said the effort in those counties had one purpose and one purpose only and that was reduce the potential for voter fraud.

    In striking down the provision, the judge (Judge Biggs) said that the provision is pre-empted by the 1993 federal "Motor Voter" law, an initiative by the Clinton administration aimed at expanding voter opportunities by registering teens when they go for their drivers permit and license. The "Motor Voter" law (officially name: "The National Voter Registration Act") mandates certain procedures to reduce the risk that a voter's registration might be erroneously cancelled. The judge said that allowing one voter to challenge another's residency contravenes these procedures and frustrates an important goal of the law.

    It should be noted that the residency challenges under the challenged provision are not frivolous challenges, but are in line with established election law. Each residency challenge in Cumberland, Moore, and Beaufort counties followed after a postcard was mailed to a particular voter and it was returned as "Undeliverable." [This scheme was devised by a member of my Tea Party group]. County Elections Boards are allowed to accept returned mail as evidence that the particular voter doesn't currently live at the address. But that isn't the end of the inquiry or determination. Before the name is removed from the voter registration rolls, a hearing is called where the challenged voter can present evidence to show that he or she still lives there. If the voter doesn't appear for the hearing or cannot or does not refute the evidence, then he or she is removed from the voter roll. In other words, North Carolina election laws ensure that their provisions meet due process requirements.

    Regardless of the fact that due process requirements are met, Judge Biggs nevertheless struck down the common-sense provision and ordered the Boards of Elections in Cumberland, Moore, and Beaufort counties to reinstate all of the 3500-4000 cancelled voter registrations.