American Thinker on DOJ’s expert in NC:

“It is amazing what Eric Holder’s minions are willing to say in order to facilitate vote fraud. Up to and including demeaning arguments about the intelligence and sophistication of blacks. The mainstream media can relied upon to avoid publicizing the testimony just provided by Charles Stewart, an MIT political scientist hired by Eric Holder’s Justice Department to testify in a case involving election integrity laws in North Carolina.”

Texas Tribune:  After a number of days of early voting, there is no indication of any meltdown or hundreds of thousands being disenfranchised.  A peruse of stories find there is typical re-litigation and debate over the extent of voter fraud, but no stories of Armageddon.

This is just the first prosecution

A months-long investigation into alleged voter fraud in the August general election in Polk County, Tennessee has resulted in a six count indictment against Jo Ann Cronan.

Mug Shots-TN-Cronan

 

District Attorney General Stephen Crump warns that more prosecutions are coming:

“Every election cycle this office will be proactive and aggressive in prosecuting those who seek to influence the outcome of elections by illegal means. This is just the first prosecution to come from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s current investigation. Further evidence will be presented to the grand jury in Polk County… I anticipate that evidence will be presented to the Monroe County Grand Jury in the very near future as well… Those who would try to buy an election should take note and recognize that we will be watching and waiting.”

The Hill reports: Controversial voter identification laws are not the primary reason minority voters are failing to cast their ballots, President Obama said in a radio interview airing Tuesday.

Resource guides engaged voters to placement in their local poll

HOUSTON, TX. -- October 20, 2014: True the Vote (TTV), the nation's leading voters’ rights and election integrity organization, today announced the availability of its poll watcher training and placement guide for engaged voters across the nation.

True the Vote’s 2014 Poll Watcher Training Guide is offered to the general public with easy access on desktop and mobile platforms. Users are guided through four general steps for placement, to include an on-demand video tutorial. The training method is ideal for group and individual settings with simple social sharing capabilities.

"The demand for poll watcher training since 2012 has grown tremendously," True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said. “Voters wishing to become more engaged in the electoral process deserve easy access to training where none may have existed before True the Vote. Fraud, suppression, intimidation, irregularity and even honest mistakes can be greatly minimized when concerned citizens stand up for the rule law on Election Day.”

The True the Vote 2014 Poll Watcher Training Guide may be accessed on the TTV website here: (http://www.truethevote.org/poll-watcher-training).

YouTube video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry-n0qPtBh0

 

True the Vote (TTV) is an IRS-designated 501(c)(3) voters’ rights  organization, founded to inspire and equip voters for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. TTV empowers organizations and individuals across the nation to actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation. For more information, please visit www.truethevote.org.

###

Are you ready to become a True the Vote-trained poll watcher? There are 4 steps to get you ready for Election Day.

Step 1: Watch the TTV training video.

Step 2: Check your state’s poll watcher placement rule. In most cases, a political party or candidate has the power to place you in the poll.

AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV  NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WI  WY

Step 3: Connect with your state/local political party of choice and tell them you’re ready to go.

Democrats:

AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV  NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY

Republicans:

AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV  NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY

Step 4: Get ready for the VoteStand smartphone app. Use this tool to submit reports on questionable occurrences you observe.

See you at the polls!

It seems so in Colorado:

“He noted that voters have to scrounge up postage, an extra hassle. It’s 70 cents in Denver (two stamps) but varies by county based on the ballot’s weight.”

This story is stunning.  After Judge Edith Jones gave a speech to the Federalist Society chapter and criticized the Justice Department and opposition to the death penalty, an ethics complaint was filed against her.  Now we know who the complaining parties are, and they are some of the so-called “civil rights” groups.  The story demonstrates the hostility to free speech so common on the left, and how speech regulators are keen to use the boot of government to stamp out dissent or criticism.

We now know the identity of the complaining parties as they have “appealed” (called a “Petition for Review” under the relevant rules) and they have made their appeal public. The complaining parties are: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), by Luis Roberto Vera, Jr.; NAACP – Austin Chapter, by Nelson E. Linder; National Bar Association, Dallas Affiliate – J.L. Turner Legal Association, by Tatiana Alexander; Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), by James C. Harrington; La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE,) by Juanita Valdez-Cox; Charles W. Wolfram, Professor Emeritus, Cornell Law School; Author, Modern Legal Ethics; Renato Ramirez; Professor Robert P. Schuwerk, Co-Author, Handbook of Texas Lawyer and Judicial Ethics; Susan Martyn, Distinguished Professor of Law & Values, University of Toledo College of Law; Ronald Minkoff, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz; Past President, Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers; Ellen Yaroshefsky, Clinical Professor and Director, Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law, Cardozo School of Law.

Seven indicted on charges of illegal voter activity from Hattiesburg Mayoral Election:

A year-long investigation by the district attorney’s office into alleged voter irregularities in the 2013 Hattiesburg Mayoral Election has resulted in seven indictments by the Forrest County Grand Jury.  District Attorney Patricia Burchell issued a news release on Friday confirming that seven people have been indicted on misdemeanor charges, after two grand juries determined there was sufficient evidence of illegal voter activity.

The court ordered a re-do of the contested mayoral election, decided by a 37-vote margin, based on evidence of mishandled absentee ballots and illegal voting that included voter impersonation, voting by ineligible felons, and even “a 17-year-old voted absentee from the county jail.”

From PJ Tatler:

Overnight the Supreme Court refused to reverse the stay imposed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and thus allowed voter ID to be required in the mid-term election in Texas.  This is procedural delay based on the idea that election rules shouldn’t change at the last second.

So voter ID gets one last hurrah in Texas.

But election integrity advocates shouldn’t celebrate too much.  Texas Voter ID is doomed.  After this next election, it is prohibited from being used.

Nor should much faith be placed in any appeal.  The plaintiffs won on two separate theories under the Voting Rights Act, and both are fatal to the law.  First, the court ruled that Texas voter ID was enacted with a discriminatory intent.  That finding alone dooms the law. And here’s the bad news: the chances of that finding being overturned are next to zero.  Proving discriminatory intent isn’t easy, but the court said the plaintiffs did it.  That’s a fact-based determination and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.  Appeals courts are deferential to lower courts on fact findings.  Why?  Because lower courts conduct the trial.  Lower courts see the witnesses, even if they sweat and squirm.  Appeals judges sitting in New Orleans can’t size up the witnesses like the lower court judge in Corpus Christi.

Second, Texas also lost on the results prong under the Voting Rights Act.  The plaintiffs pushed an outlandish theory for sure, and one that might get overturned on appeal.  They pressed the novel idea that any statistical disparity of the impact of voter ID dooms the law.  If blacks have ID less than whites, game over.  The problem is that the courts have so far rejected that idea.  You can be sure the Supreme Court will also.

But so what?  The intent finding stands and that means that the Texas law likely gets one last hurrah in two weeks.

What’s the solution?  For Texas to pass a new ID law lickety split.  A new law can be in place within a few days of the Texas legislature convening in January.   Pass something identical to the law approved in South Carolina or Georgia, and it’s lights out for the foes of election integrity.

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.