A “significant victory for the people of Wisconsin” and election integrity:

A federal appeals court declined Friday to hear an appeal before a full panel of judges on the court to Wisconsin’s voter ID provision before November.

The decision deals a setback to the American Civil Liberties Union and other challengers to the law.

The court said the provision of the law can remain in place for now based on the representation of the state that it had enacted a rule for the next election that requires the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles to automatically mail a free photo ID to anyone who comes to the DMV one time and initiates the free ID process.

A Wisconsin Department of Justice spokesman called the Seventh Circuit’s decision to deny plaintiffs’ en banc petitions “a significant victory for the people of Wisconsin” that “ensures that Voter ID will be in place for the upcoming election in November.”

According to the Left, requiring an ID is bad, except when it’s not.  From marriage to welfare benefits, petitioning government to public accommodation, access requires ID.  And “ID is always required to purchase a firearm.”

But the Left can’t think of a single reason why a voter’s identity should be verified except discrimination.

The anti-voter ID ACLU wasn’t available for comment.

The Territory of Guam is arguing this week in federal court “that it may exclude any residents of the island who are white, black, or non-Chamorro from registering to vote and from participating in a plebiscite over the future relationship of Guam to the United States.”

Such “use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve.” To base decisions on your ancestry when parceling out political power is anathema to the 15th Amendment. It is the sort of vile evil that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 rooted out. But it is alive and well on Guam and will continue unless a federal judge finally acts to stop this modern, progressive “identity politics” version of Jim Crow discrimination.

Yet in the face of such blatant, unapologetic racial discrimination, the Justice Department is nowhere to be found in the Guam litigation. The NAACP is likewise absent, as well as a host of other civil-rights organizations that have spent millions of dollars making the questionable claim that requiring an ID to vote or reducing the number of days of early voting is discriminatory.

Arguing that states “don’t need to be authorized by the federal government” to set up state and local election process rules, Kansas last week asked the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate its requirement that Kansans provide proof of U.S. citizenship before being registered to vote:

The mandate that Kansans present passports, birth certificates or other proof of citizenship when registering to vote while obtaining driver’s licenses was challenged by a U.S. District Court judge in May.

“Every time a noncitizen votes, it effectively cancels out the vote of a citizen,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in court filings ahead of Tuesday’s oral arguments… “We don’t need to be authorized by the federal government” to set up rules to manage state and local elections.

Ensuring that only eligible citizens are able to vote wasn’t always considered a controversial affront to civil rights, as the ACLU now claims, but a commonsense safeguard.

The 2005 report of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform included in its recommendations on voter identification: “The right to vote is a vital component of U.S. citizenship, and all states should use their best efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters.”

Help Wanted

Election officials across the nation are taking to the airwaves and interwebs to scream “HELP WANTED!” before the November 2016 election. Click on your state to find appropriate contact information for your local elections office. Then, tell them that you’re ready to volunteer!

CO | FL | IA | MI | NH| NV | NC | OH| PA | VA | WI

Voter ID is killing it right now

Not many things can enjoy near-universal support over multiple election cycles – but new polling continues to show our favorite election integrity tool can go the distance. New numbers from Gallup note 80% overall support for the concept. How did it get that popular? Simple -- it transcends racial divisions that many vote-fraud deniers love to use to split this country. Roughly 77 percent of “nonwhite” voters offer their support.

But aren’t the courts going to have more to say about voter ID? Not exactly. Excepting North Carolina’s ongoing case, professional plaintiffs have set out to uproot voter ID laws entirely in places like Texas, South Carolina, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Oklahoma – only to settle for little more than a stalemate (at best) -- where additional forms of ID are to be accepted under temporary court orders. Think about that: your Department of Justice has spent millions of dollars to work against you, telling courts that minorities are “less sophisticated” when it comes to following rules like voter ID. Keep the pressure on folks … this war is almost won.

Schedule a TTV speaker today!

Just in time for the height of the 2016 Election, True the Vote has fanned out staff and speakers around the southern and southeastern United States -- with more to come. Do you have a meeting or conference coming up and would like to book a speaker on the subject of election integrity? We’ve streamlined the request process with a form now available on the website, here. We can’t wait to attend your next event!

An update on the TTV Knowledge Network

Can you have too much of a good thing? Well, yes, evidently we can. Over the past two weeks, our Knowledge Network has seen a record influx of interest and new accounts that have overloaded our system. It’s not a bad problem to have, but it’s annoying all the same. You might have seen this issue when trying to set up a new account or log into your existing one. Don’t worry, all information is safe. We just want to assure you we’re working overtime to accommodate all the new faces. Once all upscaling work is complete in the days ahead, we’ll send an announcement via email. If you would like to be updated as soon as that happens, you can click here.

Sign up for the August 30th  National Webinar TODAY

Did you know the Democrat Party has a court-ordered block on the Republican Party when it comes to performing “ballot security” operations? This is nothing new, but every election year we must remind ourselves of what we can and cannot expect from political leaders in terms of safeguarding and improving election integrity.  And, realistically, we can’t expect much! We are the difference-makers. Join us on Tuesday, August 30 at 7pm Eastern to learn more about how you can fill the gaps. Register for the webinar here.

Did you know? PEW Research highlighted a study that detailed the total amount it would cost to collect ALL voter files in the country. True the Vote’s national voter roll research databank costs $126,482 -- just for the raw data! If you haven’t yet, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to help underwrite our research efforts.

“Ohio is a national leader when it comes to early voting opportunities.”

Ohio can once again eliminate its controversial “Golden Week,” an early voting period starting 35 days before an election in which people could register and vote early at the same time:

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday reversed a lower court’s decision. It said that the lower court overstepped its authority when it ruled the state could not roll back the early voting period one week – from 35 days to 28 days before the election.

Declining to “become entangled, as overseers and micromanagers, in the minutiae of state election processes,” Judge David McKeague wrote in the majority opinion that Ohio’s 2014 law eliminating Golden Week in no way infringes on the fundamental right to vote and that proper “deference to state legislative authority requires that Ohio’s election process be allowed to proceed unhindered by the federal courts.”


McKeague also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that a state voting accommodation once implemented could never be rolled back:

“Adopting plaintiffs’ theory of disenfranchisement would create a ‘one-way ratchet’ that would discourage states from ever increasing early voting opportunities, lest they be prohibited by federal courts from later modifying their election procedures in response to changing circumstances,” McKeague wrote.

The ruling is a big loss for the Ohio Democratic Party and their allies, including Marc Elias, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign general counsel, and anti-election integrity lawsuit bankroller George Soros, and a big victory for voting integrity. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted acknowledged the win:

“Ohio offers a generous number of days, hours and ways to vote – making us one of the easiest states in which to cast a ballot. This issue has been dragged through the courts by political activists twice over the course of several years, and both times, it has ended with the same result: Ohio’s laws are fair and constitutional,” Husted said. “I hope the Democrats will end their wasteful lawsuits so we can all move forward with this election.”

A new Gallup poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans support “requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote,” including 81% of white and 77% of nonwhite Americans.

Gallup poll 2016

Despite the Left’s incessant narrative that voter ID laws are designed for the sole purpose of disenfranchising minority voters, Americans of all colors want their votes protected from theft by common-sense laws.

first step towards nationalizing election administration?

DHS officials admitted they had no evidence of any “credible threat” of a cyber-attack. But designating the nation’s election system as “critical infrastructure” under a post 9/11 federal statute may be a way for the administration to get Justice Department lawyers, the FBI, and DHS staff into polling places they would otherwise have no legal right to access, which would enable them to interfere with election administration procedures around the country.

Nudging the federal nose under state and local election administration tents, under the guise of protecting elections from threats DHS admits are nonexistent, exploits concerns over the recent spate of cyber-attacks – all on computer systems that have direct access to the internet, unlike most all of our decentralized election system – and the current paranoia about voting machine “hacking,” while diverting attention from the more subtle ways the integrity of our elections is under attack.

And three years later, the administration is still looking for ways around the SCOTUS decision that effectively ended federal preclearance.

DHS’ actions could stem from the administration’s frustration over the 2013 Shelby County decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, about which Attorney General Loretta Lynch has loudly complained, claiming it severely curtailed the ability of DOJ to send official observers recruited by OPM to polling places. Those officials can only go where a court has given them authorization to be present. Otherwise, DOJ is dependent on local jurisdictions giving DOJ permission for its lawyers and staff to be there. Many jurisdictions have wised up and started saying “no” to DOJ. That must be very frustrating to the partisans who inhabit parts of the Justice Department these days and want their staff out there making sure their political friends get elected.

The realistic fear is that this is the first step towards nationalizing election administration. Federal officials who have already shown they will not hesitate to use their power to tilt public policy in favor of their own personal political agenda could bring that same bias to decisions that affect the very integrity of our election process.

A state district court judge upheld the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s voter identification law, rejecting a legal challenge to the requirement.

Oklahoma’s proof of identity requirement, which was approved in 2010 by 74 percent of the state’s voters, is no barrier to any voter. In addition to government-issued photo IDs, Oklahomans can present non-photo voter identification cards and vote a regular ballot. Voters with no ID can sign an affidavit and vote a provisional ballot that will be verified later by election officials.

Lawyers for the state argued the law allows voters to cast a ballot without placing an undue burden on those who don’t have a valid ID or choose not to show one. The state also pointed out that every registered voter is given a free voter identification card that satisfies the requirements of the law.

“Thus, there is no circumstance under which a registered voter will not have the opportunity to vote,” lawyers for the Attorney General’s Office argued in a trial brief.

Thank you for your interest in signing up for online courses with True the Vote's Knowledge Network. Due to the high volume of recent interest in the platform, we are currently completing server maintenance this week to expand the number of voters we can assist at a time. Please check back later once the service is back online.

Not sure what the rules are for you to become a poll watcher or poll worker this election year? Check out our state-by-state guide for local election rules and procedures, here.

If you would like to be notified when the training system available, please send us an email.

How You Can Help

Roll Up Your Sleeves and Get Involved.

Join the movement and sign up for our Knowledge Network to get educated on the issues and opportunities to serve and connect with other citizen activists in your community.


Support True the Vote’s efforts to keep our elections free and fair.

Stay in touch

You can support True the Vote and get current information, insights and updates on various social media platforms.