Judge Spikes Kansas Voter ID Law, Orders Trump's 'Voter-Fraud' Czar to Take Remedial Legal Classes

Kris Kobach suffers legal, factual, and professional humiliation at the hands of a federal judge, though his conspiratorial cause still lives on at the White House.


Obviously tired from all the winning. ||| Chris Kleponis/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom
Chris Kleponis/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom

Yesterday, Chief Judge Julie Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, a George W. Bush appointee, struck down Kansas's toughest-in-the-country voter ID* law that had required proof of citizenship at the polling booth. The law, authored and enforced by controversial Kansas Secretary of State (and gubernatorial candidate) Kris Kobach, violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the National Voter Registration Act, Robinson ruled.

Kobach's law, enacted in 2013 and then suspended via preliminary injunction by Robinson in March 2016, led to a reported 16,319 Kansans having their voter registrations canceled, and 31,089 being blocked when trying to register. In order to justify those numbers, Kobach was tasked by the judge to demonstrate that noncitizen voter fraud was a "substantial" problem—a tough climb given that he had as of earlier this year prosecuted a grand total of nine illegal voters in Kansas, eight of whom were U.S. citizens who had voted in two states.

So how did Kobach do?

"The Court finds no credible evidence that a substantial number of noncitizens registered to vote under the attestation regime," Judge Robinson found. "He has submitted evidence of 129 instances of noncitizen registration or attempted registration since 1999, but looking closely at those records reduces that number to 67 at most. Even these 67 instances are a liberal estimate because it includes attempted registrations after the…law was passed, a larger universe than what the Tenth Circuit asked the Court to evaluate. Only 39 successfully registered to vote. And several of the individual records of those who registered or attempted to register show errors on the part of State employees, and/or confusion on the part of applicants. They do not evidence intentional fraud."

This is hardly Kobach's first humiliation when tasked with substantiating outlandish numerical claims about illegal-immigrant voting. In January, President Donald Trump dissolved his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which had been run by Kobach, after the group failed shambolically to provide anything like evidence for Trump's factually insane suggestion that between three million and five million people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

But yesterday's new twist was what Volokh Conspiracy analyst Jonathan H. Adler described as Judge Robinson's "quite remarkable" sanction against Kobach for his own disastrous performance defending the case: a mandatory six hours of Continuing Legal Education. There was "a pattern and practice by Defendant of flaunting disclosure and discovery rules that are designed to prevent prejudice and surprise at trial," Robinson found. "It is not clear to the Court whether Defendant repeatedly failed to meet his disclosure obligations intentionally or due to his unfamiliarity with the federal rules."

Kobach's office has announced plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. In the meantime, one of the immigration restrictionist's other hobbyhorses—having the Census Bureau ask all respondents about their citizenship status in the decennial survey for the first time since 1950—proceeds apace. On June 8, in response to a lawsuit, the Justice Department released 1,300 pages of documents related to the formulation of that policy change, which was cheekily justified at the time as an attempt to better enforce the otherwise Trump-neglected Voting Rights Act. What did those documents show? Here's a summary from Mother Jones:

The initial push for the citizenship question now appears to have come from [Steve] Bannon, back when he was a top White House adviser. In July 2017, months before the Justice Department proposed the question, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach—at the time the vice chair of President Donald Trump's now-defunct Election Integrity Commission—wrote to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. He told Ross that he was writing "at the direction of Steve Bannon" and said it was "essential" that the citizenship question be added to the census. Kobach wrote that the absence of a citizenship question "leads to the problem that aliens who do not actually 'reside' in the United States are still counted for congressional apportionment purposes."

Steve Bannon is now in the political wilderness, and Kobach is still smarting from Chief Judge Robinson's unusually personal rebuke, but their nationalist, fact-untethered policy agenda is alive and well. Kobach, a former birther and author of Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" policy, is not just adequately represented in the Oval Office, he's as likely as not to be the next governor of Kansas. This is and will increasingly continue to be what the face of the GOP looks like.

* UPDATE: Election law specialist Rick Hasen, whose website I linked to in the first paragraph, tweets at me that "It is not a voter id law." I presume he is drawing a distinction between providing documentation of citizenship (PDOC, in the lingo) in order to register to vote, and presenting visual identification at the polling booth. Since Hasen has forgotten more election law than most law schools have ever learned, I will defer to his hair-splitting.

NEXT: You Might Have a 'Uniquely Compelling' Reason to Find Out Whether Your Government Has Placed You on a Kill List

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The Court finds no credible evidence that a substantial number of noncitizens registered to vote under the attestation regime,”

    That is nice but who gives a shit? It is not up to the judge to decide whether it is a good or bad idea to require ID to vote. That is the legislature’s decision. If they want to require it, the judge has no authority to tell them no.

    You have to show an ID to do virtually anything in this society. The idea that showing one to vote is some kind of imposition is absurd. If anything, it being an imposition is a good thing. Maybe if it were harder to vote, people voting for the single purpose of getting free shit might not bother to do it. Indeed, considering the Democrats love of making it easier to vote, that is almost certainly the case.

    1. The judge’s logic (which is being misapplied) is that in order to burden the exercise of a constitutional right, the government has to demonstrate a compelling interest. So if voter fraud isn’t an actual problem, then the only effect of the law would just be to prevent voting by people who have the right to vote under the constitution.

      Main problem with this reasoning is that the system is designed not to catch voter fraud, so a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Without an ID requirement, the only way to catch a fraudulent voter is if one of the poll workers happens to know the person who the fraudster is claiming to be. It’s a catch-22: the courts demand evidence of voter fraud in order to allow the ID requirements, but evidence of voter fraud requires having ID requirements in place to begin with.

      1. Exactly that. And I would love to know what dog Libertarians have in this fight at all. Even if it does make it harder to vote since when is Libertarianism about pure democracy? Only a wokatarian like Welch has sadly become could care about this issue.

        1. Libertarians should support making sure our elections are fair and not rigged. If we cannot have fair elections, what is the point?

          If secure borders means that most people in the USA are Americans, then relax the voting requirements. If open borders is the name of the game, then make sure only Americans are voting.

          I doubt Reason will focus on this because it would put another kink in the open border position.

          1. Most people in the US are Americans, so I guess that means relaxing the voting requirements is the right thing to do.

          2. Personally I favor Starship Troopers style voting requirements. You take something more seriously if you had to work for it rather than being handed it for being born.

            Of course that option had to be taken off the table due to abuses by Southern asswipes. Remember that when you fly your slavery flags, assholes.

            1. There was slavery in the North too ya know?

            2. So you favor enslavement by the state in order to get a say in how your master treats you?

              I’d rather have the state remain my servant, thank you very much.

              1. > I’d rather have the state remain my servant, thank you very much.

                When was the state ever your servant? Just curious.

          3. ” If we cannot have fair elections, what is the point?”

            The point is freedom. If you don’t want some people to get free stuff from the government, maybe we stop the government from giving free stuff instead of empowering government employees from messing with people.

        2. Even if it does make it harder to vote since when is Libertarianism about pure democracy?

          Bigoted, disaffected, authoritarian right-winger are among my favorite faux libertarians.

          1. I am not disaffected at all. The world is my oyster. You are the angry loser.

            1. Society has been vindicating my preferences throughout my lifetime; I like progress.

              Right-wingers have been taking it in various orifices during that same period. They hate all of this damned science, tolerance, progress, reason, modernity, and education. They also hate their liberal-libertarian betters, who have effected the progress.

              1. Society has been kissing my ass giving me good paying jobs my entire life. You only worry about anything else because you are a lose who has nothing else.

              2. Who has been “vindicating your preferences throughout your lifetime, hasn’t been society by communist judges, like this one, who should be impeached for making such unjudicious comments.
                Kris Kobach was unable to proved the volume of evidence the “judge”, or shall we say pre-judge, required because tracking down voter fraud is difficult. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, however.
                When this honorable man was tasked with a nationwide effort, he was thwarted at every turn by those in favor of fraudulent votes being cast, by them refusing to turn over voter registration and participation data.
                One fraudulent vote is too man and any effort to prevent it does not “disenfranchise” anyone.
                The idea that requiring voter ID prevents the poor and minorities from voting is one of the biggest canards the left perpetrates.

                1. …hasn’t been society BUT by communist judges…
                  FUCK, I hate that REASON is too cheap to include an “edit” function!.

          2. People who use the word bigot constantly are my favorite dullard assholes.

      2. The thing is – the government’s own evidence, supplied to bolster their case, they can’t get more than 40 potentially legitimate fraud events over several elections.

        So the government can’t show that fraud is a problem – which means we should allow the government to do whatever it wants to combat fraud?

      3. Exactly. Even if you’re not in favor of such a thing, this reasoning is massively flawed at face value. While this isn’t apparently an actual voter ID law, it’s amazing that you have to show an ID to buy alcohol but it’s considered a step too far to do so for voting. You’d think that if libertarians got their way and immigration was opened up entirely that maybe, just maybe, showing an ID to vote might be beneficial.

        1. Yeah, I don’t really understand why it’s considered so frightful.

          1. Faux libertarians are some of the best, most enthusiastic bootlickers.

          2. I can understand the why since the usual refrain of ‘papers please’ illustrates some fear of a totalitarian society where only the ‘chosen few’ can vote, but notably that’s pants shitting on a massive scale that’s completely unhinged from what’s actually being proposed.

            Frankly, without showing an ID to vote there’s functionally no way to know how much voter fraud might be going on and notably if you’re even passingly familiar with history we already know for a fact that there has been a pretty good amount of voter fraud throughout American history.

            That said, the odd’s that it could be so widespread as to seriously change the outcomes of national elections is probably a little delusional, but again how could one gather enough evidence to prove what this judge wants when functionally gathering said evidence is functionally illegal? It’s a baffling catch-22.

            1. As far as changing the outcome of a national election, the Presidential election in 2000 ended up hinging on about 600 votes in the state of Florida, and the Democrats received a filibuster-proof majority for a substantial part of Barack Obama’s first term on Al Franken’s victory in Minnesota with a margin of around 300 votes. So, how much voter fraud is acceptable?

              People keep making the claim that cases of voter fraud are almost never successfully prosecuted, and use this to claim that obviously voter fraud must not exist. But voter fraud is a crime that, while it would be extraordinarily difficult to find and prosecute somebody for casting a fraudulent vote, it should be relatively easy to determine if a fraudulent vote was cast.

              If Joe Smith died in 1997, and Joe Smith has voted in every Presidential election since, then it’s pretty obvious that somebody cast a fraudulent vote in Joe Smith’s name, even if it would be nearly impossible to determine who did and prosecute them. The fact that one of our two major political parties throws a massive fit every time anyone even discusses the possibility of trying to find out just how many fraudulent votes are cast speaks volumes to me. If voter fraud doesn’t exist, then why not conduct a national study and put the matter to rest once and for all?

              1. One could say it should be relatively easy, but we’re not even able to effectively track down identify theft in the United States when the person is still alive and being financially screwed over so functionally it’s not.

                I did say it was only a little delusional, and at the very least in the case of Bush and Gore there was a microscope on that recount so if there was any voter fraud you’d think that if it was relatively simple to find fraud that it would have been found.

                Not that I really care about the specifics in those cases necessarily, since in neither case fraud can be proven, but I actually do specifically note that one reason why it can’t be proven is because no one is looking for proof.

                If someone draws the conclusion that ‘little to no fraud is occurring’ from that data, you already know they are misleading you since they can not know that for a fact. It’s a baseless assumption, or worse based upon anecdotal data.

          3. I think we all know why.

    2. I wish every law had to be proven necessary before it’s allowed.

      1. Yes, that would be a good thing.

      2. Strict scrutiny for everything!

      3. Can’t argue with this, for sure.

      4. I wish the Constitution forced a 1 years sunset clause on every law.

        1. I then wish that every politicians only worked 10 days a year so there is literally no way for them to renew every law each year.

          1. They’d find a way. I mean they vote on 3000 page budgets 4 hours after they are released.

            1. Yea, you’re right. Government is the worst.

              1. Yeah but German Government is the wurst.

      5. I wish every law had to be proven necessary before it’s allowed.

        And all authority – federal, state, municipal – should have to prove its legitimacy. If it is not legitimately needed, it should be revoked.

        1. That, sort of, used to be the case.
          An overriding government interest was needed to reduce the citizenry’s liberty, that all laws do.
          That went by the wayside, mostly because of the century-after-ratification interpretation of the 14th amendment, where the courts decided that laws were to be subjected to the “equality” test.
          You’ll note that the 14th is the basis for most of America’s highly contentious court rulings, yet the clear text shows it was simply inserted to punish those who supported the confederacy and slavery, almost all of whom were dead by the time some activist judges decided to use the “equality” standard – an impossible one.
          “Equal” being a word never used in the original document.

    3. Another day of pretending that John has any thoughts or principles beyond “I’m for whatever helps Republicans gain power over us.”

      1. Tony, you are for anything that leads to power over us.

      2. Another day of pretending that Past Me has any thoughts or principles beyond “I’m for making comments of ever-increasing idiocy on the Reason website.”

        1. You need to check yo’ past self before you wreck yo’ past self.

    4. I don’t think that this case is about having to show ID to vote. Plenty of places have that and it seems to stand up to scrutiny. The question seems to be about showing proof of citizenship. Which is something people don’t have to do nearly so often as they have to show ID. It’s still probably not a terrible imposition on the right to vote.

      I think we have to show ID for way too many things. Why should ID be required to get on a bus or domestic flight (should be up to the bus company or airline if they feel it’s necessary)? But voting seems like a pretty reasonable place to have to show ID.

      1. Lefties love the Nanny-State so you now have to show ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, take Greyhound, check into a hotel, etc.

        30 years ago I never carried an ID.

        Only Americans can vote. If we cannot have elections where only an American gets one vote, then fuck it. Let the civil war begin.

        1. Then what’s the problem now? 30 years ago you still had millions of illegal immigrants (and millions of legal-but-non-citizen ones) so either voter fraud has been a problem for generations or . . . its a new problem?

          If its a new problem, where’s the evidence that it is?

          1. Did we have millions of illegal 30 years ago?

            I lived in illegal immigrant central- California- and I rarely saw illegals doing anything but working the fields and living in shanty towns nearby. I seriously doubt illegals were voting as both Democrats and Republicans were against it.

            1. Did we have millions of illegal 30 years ago?

              Yes. The Reagan admin estimated 4 million illegal immigrants would apply for amnesty.

              1. “estimated” gotcha.

                Let me know when you find paperwork that 4 million illegals submitted their info so we know there was 4 million illegals.

                1. How many are here now? Got a count? Or an estimate?

    5. Well, except this whole ‘constitutional’ thingy that the judiciary is supposed to hold the legislative in check over.

      Or is this one of those ‘we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this’ things because this is something *you* are concerned about?

    6. Washington Post: 65% of Black and Hispanic voters support Voter ID laws

      Select Show results by Race to see these numbers:
      All adults: 74%
      White: 78%
      Non-white: 67%
      Black: 65%
      Hispanic: 64%

    7. I always love the logic – “You can’t point to many cases where you caught somebody while you weren’t allowed to look for voter fraud, so you still can’t look for voter fraud”

      Voter Fraud disenfranchises voters. Every illegal ballot cancels out a legal one, and disenfranchises a citizen

  2. but their nationalist, fact-untethered policy agenda

    You can just see the spittle fly towards the monitor when Welsh typed that. NATIONALISM!!!!

    Fact free nationalism is evil. Fact free internationalism of the variety pushed by reason, however, is all rainbows and unicorns.

  3. Is there really such a thing as a “former” birther?

    1. Hillary is.

      1. In all fairness to Hillary, she’s a reformed everything. Is there any policy or law which her opinion hasn’t changed?

        1. She thinks Obama is a US citizen now. Hillary likes gays now. Hillary like immigrants now. Hillary is okay with violating federal law relating to mishandling classified information.

          She is a changed woman.

          1. She is a changing woman. It will never stop as long as the political winds blow.

        2. She’s been consistent in her belief that she should rule the United States.

    2. I think the technical term is “afterbirther”.

      1. I’ve used an ‘afterburner’ once.

        I got to the hsopital after the birth.

    3. Obama and his fictionalized autobiography publisher.

  4. Kobach was tasked by the judge to demonstrate that noncitizen voter fraud was a “substantial” proble

    Does the judge routinely argue that a law requires a “substantial problem”? Because it seems voter ID is the ONLY type of case where this is an issue.

    Torture is exceedingly rare…yet it remains illegal.

    1. I had the same reaction. The Judge isn’t even pretending to be arguing on the legality of the law. He’s just screaming political talking points. If Kobach came back with a pile of evidence of voted fraud, think this judge would change his totally unbiased mind?

      Sounds ripe for appeal.

      1. When the judge says the law is unconstitutional, that *is* a judgement on the legality of that law.

        1. Which is why we have appellate courts.

        2. And when she says bullshit like damikesc noted, it undercuts her own reasoning and makes it clear she’s legislating from the bench. It’s not a legal opinion at all, just political grandstanding.

          The first link leads to more nonsense from the Judge and the 2nd doesn’t work.

          Unless the Kansas law had some kind of specific violation of the National Voter Registration Act in the removal process of people from the voter rolls, I can’t see how it the two acts conflict at all.


    2. Never in my life have I heard that claim made before as a requirement to either pass or enforce a law in the history of America. What is the definition of a “substantial problem” anyway? It means absolutely nothing, or whatever that particular judge wants it to mean. It’s even more vague than an “emanation” or a “penumbra”.

      It sounds like the type of ruling that’s virtually guaranteed to be overturned by a higher court.

      1. Maybe there s some nugget of legality buried under all that bullshit, if that really is the case and she is upheld, I hope the next court at least blasts her for the preposterous prose.

    3. The law is burdening the exercise of a constitutional right, so govt has to demonstrate compelling interest.

      Unfortunately, the courts do not allow the govt to obtain evidence of voter fraud to begin with, so that’s really not fair. And of course this standard is applied inconsistently, as the courts rule that encumbering exercise of second amendment rights by banning guns with barrel shrouds is OK with no demonstration of a substantial problem with barrel shrouds.

      1. Voting is NOT a United States Constitutional right until the 15th Amendment. Voting was left to the states.

        Its was clearly important like jury service because we cannot have elections if people do not vote and we cannot have jury trials if people do not serve on juries. The Founders just left it up to the states.

        Even with the 15th, 19th (women’s vote), 24th (poll tax), and 26th (18 to vote) Amendments relating to voting, there is nothing that prohibits states from checking for citizenship to vote.

        Amendment XV
        Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

        1. So…. the amendments don’t count as part of the constitution now? Is that your argument?

          1. You cant read. Is that your argument?

            1. Apparently Red John isn’t even reading his own posts now.

              Among lefties.

          2. That seems to be his argument, because the 15th amendment codifies it as a right, and unless my calendar is wrong, we’re living sometime after 1870. Therefore, voting IS a right according to the Constitution.

            1. That seems to be his argument, because the 15th amendment codifies it as a right, and unless my calendar is wrong, we’re living sometime after 1870.

              I’m gonna get back to you on this, but I’m almost certain that you’re wrong about the year.

            2. Its a right that was not granted by the federal government until the 15the Amendment and could be stripped except because of race, color, and/or previous condition of servitude. Later gender was added along with age of 18.

              So your right to vote can be stripped away because of something not listed like being a retard.

              1. I doubt that even in the age of Trump most people here think rights are granted by the federal government.

                1. I doubt that even in the age of Trump most people here think rights are granted by the federal government.

                  Of course, I also suspect most of the people here don’t think those rights flow from god either so…

                2. Cathy L|6.19.18 @ 2:13PM|#
                  I doubt that even in the age of Trump most people here think rights are granted by the federal government.

                  Then you’re a moron. The right to vote is granted and protected by the government.

        2. I believe the key word there is “citizens”.

          1. No, it’s “the”.

      2. The courts haven’t stopped the government from getting evidence. The government submitted evidence of voter fraud.

        It was just shoddy evidence – a good half the number were tossed by the court as not fraud – and there simply wasn’t enough cases to matter compared to the number of votes cast.

        1. Its amazing though. When the government wants to hammer people for violating some drug law, a single instance of drug use is good enough to send you away for years.

        2. How is the govt supposed to get evidence of voter fraud if they are not allowed to check the identity of the person who votes?

      3. The law is burdening the exercise of a constitutional right, so govt has to demonstrate compelling interest.

        Please come to New Jersey and tell the court that in regard to my 2A Rights.

    4. Generally with Strict Scrutiny they do.

      Its a balancing test – since the laws for which SS apply must be narrowly tailored to minimize disruption while achieving that compelling interest, the state has to show the magnitude of the problem they’re trying to combat (within very liberal margins of error).

      If your proposed legislation would fix a tiny problem yet impose a massive burden on otherwise law-abiding people to do so, its not going to pass a SS review.

      If this state could have shown evidence that voter fraud was a real problem (rather than smaller than the margin of error in vote counts – which is what the evidence they supplied shows) then it likely would have gotten a pass.

      1. What if the state’s solution was not a massive burden? Does SS work in both directions?

        The larger the burden the more leeway the state is given to impose on people. Therefore, if the problem exists but is small, the state should still be allowed to impose, but only slightly… like saying, “When you register, fill out this extra line about your citizenship,” or “When you go to register, bring all the things you previously had to bring… plus only ONE additional thing.”

        Given the framework this law should stand.

        It would be best to eliminate voter frauds by sending voting and the state altogether but that’s just my way dream.

      2. Clearly, nothing was going to let this law be “given a pass”, especially in the era of Trump, with the massive number of “judges” who have lost what reasoning minds they might have had, because they suffer from the derangement syndrome that is sweeping the nation.
        And we thought Bush Derangement Syndrome was bad.

    5. The undue burden rule is basically a cost/benefit test. If you’re going to disenfranchise 30K citizens, you need to show more than 40 unlawful voter registrations.

      Torture is exceedingly rare and illegal, but the state can’t ban the sale of watering cans because they might be used for waterboarding. And the state can’t place excessive documentation burdens on citizens because of a phantasm of undocumented immigrants voting.

  5. I think Welch is hitting Dalmia levels of idiocy.

    And to think, he seemed moderately intelligent on “Red Eye”.

    1. He’s a very smooth, silky, and polished con artist and liar.

  6. At the risk of getting banned again by Reason – I would like to ask a question. What’s the opposite of a woodchipper for when a judge does something totally decent?

    1. Particle board?

      1. That’s more of an undo button type approach.

        1. You know who else took an undo button type approach….

    2. Playful tickling?

    3. Nobody expects the comfy chair!

      1. Confess! confess! confess!

  7. Only 39 successfully registered to vote.

    Isn’t one instance evidence of intentional fraud?

    Judge Spikes Kansas Voter ID Law, Orders Trump’s ‘Voter-Fraud’ Czar to Take Remedial Legal Classes

    No need for ObamaCare supporters to take such remedial legal classes as the Constitution specifically allows for Americans to be forced to buy a product.

    1. So proven voter fraud (which is notoriously difficult to catch, let alone prove in court) is far more common than school shootings.

      Someone should leak to the NYT that there’s evidence that 39 Russians voted in US elections. Then a few days later, after the media howls about the danger to our democracy by this foreign interference, the leak could be “corrected” to indicate that they were Mexicans, not Russians. And watch the media lose interest.

      1. I might borrow that idea. In New Hampshire in the 2016 elections around 6000 voters registered using out of state ID’s. New Hampshire allows this under the theory that new arrivals in the State might not have been able to obtain their New Hampshire ID’s yet. Not exactly sure how they establish residency but okay I will buy that. A full year later however less then 10% obtained a New Hampshire ID. The excuse used was that oh not everyone needs a drivers license or state ID so. Let us remember this is New Hampshire. There are few municipalities in New Hampshire that have reliable public transit available. You can’t get around without a drivers license unless you plan to have someone drive you everywhere.. I could easily understand only 75% and could even accept 50% but not only 10%. Hillary won the state by 5000 votes and the Dems won the senate seat by 1000. In the past the state has had issues with Democratic activists getting university students from safe blue states especially from Mass and Vermont registering to vote in NH while they were at school to sway elections. While not illegal it is surely wrong. The state made significant efforts to stop that but were fought every step by Democrats.

        1. I think a lot of the 6000 are probably students, who are not required to get a NH license.

          I find that really annoying, though. If you are just here for school, and you go home to where you came from in the summer, you should vote there. Get an absentee ballot. I never considered voting where I went to college. It’s not my town and not my business.

          1. That was my initial take as well. Definitely not long term residents for sure. You are right it is totally and absolutely wrong. The problem is it isn’t illegal. It is being organized by the Democratic party with no doubt the assistance of the professors at the Universities such as Dartmouth. Those professors are basically using there position to generate votes. In all likelihood that changed the outcome of the Senate election and maybe the Presidential. That could have impacted the balance of the Senate then and now a real good chance it could in 2018 since neither NH Senate seat is up.

            1. I’ll guarantee that every one of those college kids, who register as demoncraps, get contacted to apply for an absentee ballot from back home, so that they get to cast two votes in national elections.
              It is, without question, a tactic of the demoncrap party.
              Some of the biggest howls of protest by demoncraps is when a student ID – basically temporary residence – is not considered valid to register and vote in the state they are attending college.

          2. Unfortunately, they routinely do both.

    2. Isn’t one instance evidence of intentional fraud?

      No. That’s explained in the article.

      1. So one instance of voter fraud is NOT an instance of voter fraud?

        Only a judge would twist logic to fit their lefty ideology.

        1. You left out a word the second time you asked.

          1. You left logic out of your statement.

            a single instance of voter fraud IS an instance of voter fraud. The courts then dismiss any claims of voter fraud if the judge does not deem the problem ‘serious’.

            One instance of voter fraud is serious because that means that in that single polling location someone thinks they can cheat the game.

            Without the rule of single vote for single American, the game is over.

            1. What game?

              1. You lose.

        2. It could be honest ignorance and not intentional fraud.

          1. The court could not prove which instances are intentional and which one’s were mistakes, after the court dismissed a few cases as mistakes and not fraud.

            The court never said there were zero instances of intentional voter fraud.

            Besides, perjury is not legally excused by mistake. People in my state have to sign a sworn statement that they are allowed to vote. Don’t sign it if you are not sure.

            1. To the contrary, perjury IS excused by mistake. A whole lot of stuff is.

              1. Ironically, false statements under oath in an open courtroom are treated more leniently than false statements to an FBI agent in an unrecorded interview where they don’t even have to inform you of their purpose.

              2. Mistake of fact or mistake of law are excusable but not simply a ‘mistake’.

          2. Whether it’s intentional or an honest mistake doesn’t matter — the person should be prevented from voting. Without voter ID it is nearly impossible to do so.

    3. The others were just “confused”. Kind of like trannies. Some days they feel like citizens, other days they’re waving mexican flags.

    4. Balancing act.

      One instance is not sufficient to justify an imposition on the rest of us. No, I can’t say how many are. At some point it goes from ‘this is a non-problem’ to ‘holy shit! All these elections are rigged’ and the line is drawn somewhere in between.

      I mean, how would you like restrictions on 1st, 2nd, or even 4th amendment rights because some people commit crimes?

      1. “1st, 2nd, or even 4th amendment rights”

        Those are natural rights. Voting is not a natural right. You aren’t born with the ability to vote for your government officials.

        1. I would go farther (further?) and argue that the “right to vote” is a misnomer altogether. You do not have a right to vote. You have the right to expect a contract between you and another party (the state) be honored. In that contract you are granted the permission to voice a preference in the leadership of the other party. If the contract (Constitution) goes away, so does your “right” to vote… meaning it wasn’t a right. It was a temporary and contextual privilege.

  8. It’s kind of hard to argue against people who think this ancap position on borders (literally the only anarchist position that woketarians support) is not all about bringing in new voters to dilute the vote of citizens when you are arguing that no one should have to prove they’re a citizen in order to vote.

    Sense, this does not make. But, woke af, Matt. You’re sheer garbage now, but your woke street cred is through the roof

    1. Matt has felt left out of the virtue signalling game and election 2018 is coming up soon.

    2. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    3. Libertarians are supposed to be against laws that punish victimless crimes, not to speak of concentration camps for children, one would presume. Even if you can conjure up some social harm allegedly done by immigration, you’re not supposed to care about that sort of thing either.

      And nobody’s position is anarchist on immigration, except perhaps a few weirdo anarchists. That is what is called a straw man.

      1. That is not a straw man. I don’t fault you for not understanding this, as a progressive, but there is a variant of libertarianism that is called anarcho-capitalism. They don’t believe in borders, but they also don’t believe in any state institution. Reason believes in literally every single state institution and international organization (at least Matt does with his nonsensical support for NATO). Their position makes no sense.

        You can’t argue for open borders and then defend the state being involved in pee pee laws and marriage and everything other than Uber and food trucks.

        1. I wasn’t aware that Reason wanted open borders. I thought they wanted the path to citizenship to change from an arduous process taking ten or more years to something more, I dunno, reasonable.

          1. I don’t want a citizenship process that is quick.

            We have enough lazy Americans, we don’t need a horde of them.

            1. Less than seven to eleven years doesn’t necessarily mean quick.

            2. Oh, and anyone who says Mexicans are lazy has never worked with any.

              1. I will never say ALL Mexicans are lazy. Most work their asses off.

                As new Americans, some get lazy. Welfare does that.

              2. Unfortunately, a person can be industrious and abuse the welfare system. Also, this is in no way limited to illegal immigrant, immigrant, or native populations. It’s something that happens across the board.

                I’ll bet plenty of you know some white person that works odd jobs under the IRS radar, and it’s really not that different at all. I’d be for gutting the welfare state and labor regulations regardless, but apparently for some people this only becomes important when it involves people of another race.

                It’s bizarro world reverse racism, probably born form some weird white collective guilt. Whatever it is, it’s not logical in the slightest.

          2. “I thought they wanted the path to citizenship to change from an arduous process taking ten or more years to something more, I dunno, reasonable.”

            The citizenship process takes seven years from the point of residency, depending on your situation. I have never read an article by Reason discussing how citizenship requirements should be changed. I have read endless amounts of articles critical of border restrictions, but only for those south of the border.

            People in southeast Asia that have to wait upwards of eleven years to immigrate here are ignored in favor of people who won’t even abide by the process, but are able to come here because they are blessed by proximity to the US border.

            1. I have never read an article by Reason discussing how citizenship requirements should be changed.


              Here’s one.

              Here’s another one.

              Here’s one about making it easier for temporary workers to come.

              And here’s a cartoon about the legal process.

              1. So ten year old articles out weigh daily articles pushing open borders? Is this bizarro world? Are you really going to lie and say that Reason does not endorse the open border position?

                1. “I have never read an article by Reason discussing how citizenship requirements should be changed. I have read endless amounts of articles critical of border restrictions, but only for those south of the border.”

                  “Nah uh, here are some ten year old articles about citizenship. Clearly that’s what they’re pushing. Just ignore all the articles over the past two years advocating for no restrictions on immigration (but only from our southern border)”

                  Yeah, you’re clever, Cathy.

                  1. I purposely avoided posting anything recent because it would just be contaminated by arguments about whether they have Trump Derangement Syndrome. You’re the one who claimed you had “never” read such articles.

                2. So ten year old articles out weigh daily articles pushing open borders?

                  The daily articles are in response to current policy and news. It’s called journalism. Look it up.

                  And criticism of current policy doesn’t equate to pushing for open borders.

              2. I love when new randoms show up and instantly display and encyclopedic knowledge of the site, the commenters, and the history of conversations that have ocurred.

                But you’re definitely not a sockpuppet.

                1. She’s Cathy Reisenwitz more likely than not.

                  1. Enjoy dying alone, Reisenwitz

                2. I love when new randoms show up and instantly display and encyclopedic knowledge of the site, the commenters, and the history of conversations that have ocurred.

                  Believe it or not, but there are lurkers who eventually chime in. It happens.

                  1. Yeah no.

                    It’s a sockpuppet.

                    1. You would know.

                    2. Google is really hard for some people, I guess.

      2. Voter fraud a victim-less crime? Hardly if someone who is not authorized to vote in my district votes and votes opposite of me it cancels out my vote. That takes away my vote. That person basically is preventing me from voting. That makes me victim.

  9. Preventing tens of thousands of American citizens from voting is worth it if it stops one illegal. Amiright?


    1. True, red-blooded Americans are proud to be asked for national ID cards as often as possible.

      1. People who can’t get their shit together and provide proper papers to the authorities are probably Democrats.

      2. Thanks to hordes of illegals and Nanny-Staters, we now have national ID card/driver’s licenses.

        1. Not that I have any desire to be subjected the TSA security-theater, but last time I checked I can’t board a plane with my driver’s license since my state refuses to comply with federal ID requirements. I’ll have to get a passport if I want to travel by air within the country.

          Yay America.

          1. That is probably the worst “papers please” thing that is happening. You can barely travel without ID now. If you are driving, obviously you are required to have a license. But now you need a damn ID to get on a bus. Why? Why should it even be required to get on a plane?

            1. Zeb, it’s called freedom. We are only free when we must present our papers upon demand to the authorities before travelling, engaging in commerce, or voting. You wouldn’t be free if you didn’t have to show your papers.

              1. Nanny-State for ya!

            2. They have to verify that (a) you’re not a known terrorist, and (b) your luggage gets off the plane if you do. The no-fly list is abused but at its heart is not a terrible idea.

              Of course, it’s also used to make it harder for fugitives to travel without getting caught.

              1. Their intentions were good.

                1. Pavement and all.

              2. Seems odd that there are people who are known terrorists who are not locked up in prison.

          2. According to the DHS website, the only US subnational entity that is currently noncompliant and does not have a waiver is American Samoa.

          3. Drivers licenses are for driving proficiency anyway. Passports are for travel. I would rather have drivers licenses go back to only for driving and no picture so it cannot be used as an ID.

            My #1 choice would be no drivers licenses anyway since they clearly do not acknowledge proficiency with driving in the USA. Some dumb-dumbs think people on the interstate slow lane need to let you onto the interstate by moving over. These people have never learned about yielding to traffic with the right of way.

        2. Yes, it was definitely the illegals and nanny-staters who responded to 9/11 with Real ID.

          1. Maybe not the illegals, but the Real ID act was bi partisan which includes nanny-staters. Passed the Senate 99 – 0.

            The house not so much. 261 – 161.

    2. “SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS”… At the polls.

    3. The right to vote is not a right to walk into a polling place, check a box, and get a sticker. It is a right to have your vote carry its due weight when the votes are counted. So if a legal voter votes for Candidate A, and an illegal voter votes for Candidate B, the legal voter has effectively had their right to vote taken away; they may as well not have voted at all.

      1. Thank you

    4. Anyway, those supposedly 10k’s of American citizens also can’t legally:
      – Drive a car
      – Open a bank account
      – Start a job
      – Buy a gun
      – Board an airplane
      – Board a long-distance train or noncharter long-distance bus
      – Apply for welfare benefits
      – Enter a federal courthouse
      – Attend an Obama rally

      1. Suppose they can’t. Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

        1. No, but it does mean that it is (a) not the unprecedented outrage that leftists and their useful idiot libertarian allies make it out to be, and (b) implausible that there are many unincarcerated adults who could survive in this day and age without ID.

        2. Most Voter ID laws have free government issued non driver ID.

      2. Almost all of those things are stupid, pointless impositions on people. Except for “apply for welfare”, none of those things should by law require ID.

        1. No Zeb, those things are freedom. We’re not free unless we show our papers to authorities on demand.

        2. Really? You’re against driver licenses? I don’t want to share the road with people who don’t know how to drive and/or are unaccountable for their actions.

          Given the unique environment and criminal/terrorist opportunities afforded by airplanes, the ID requirement there seems legit as well. Ditto for gun purchases. Now if this is used to prevent people from exercising their freedoms, e.g. if the govt requires a special ID that costs $100,000 in order to buy a gun, I would blow the whistle there. But a requirement for cheap and verifiable ID in such uniquely dangerous situations is legit.

          1. The 2nd Amendment does not allow for any infringement to keep and bear Arms.

            It is literally illegal for government to require and ID to buy a gun.

            1. It’s justified by compelling government interest or some other legal bullshit, the same excuse put forth by those who are happy to prevent tens of thousands of citizens from voting if it prevents one illegal.

              1. So a natural right like gun ownership is the same as a civil right like voting? That’s convenient

            2. Which obviously could be amended, yet somehow not one of the gun grabbers seems to think that’s the route that they should take. Or, more likely, they recognize it would be a virtual impossibility so…they do it anyway in direct violation of the second amendment.

              Since that’s considered legitimate by the state, the idea that an ID to vote is somehow illegitimate is laughable.

              I don’t care which side of the argument you agree with, this notion is not logically consistent or even legally consistent.

          2. I don’t want to share the road with people who don’t know how to drive and/or are unaccountable for their actions.

            I’ve got some bad news for you.

            1. Yeah, chicks and illegals. I know.

        3. Nanny-State for ya!

        4. “Open a bank account” and “start a new job” is done by the private sector and there are very rational reasons for requiring this information. And showing ID for boarding a plane follows the same logic as a driver’s license. I don’t see how needing an ID to drive a car is different from needing one to board a plane? Isn’t the same logic employed? The government funds the roads, so it can make the rule. The government provides air traffic control, so it can make the rule.

          1. Actually ID for banks accounts and jobs fall under federal banking laws and e-Verify.

            1. Yes, but I feel pretty confident that those institutions would still require proof of identification. It would make less sense if they didn’t

              1. Banks would. Some employers would. But some might not. And they certainly don’t need to be reporting everyone they employ or do business with to the IRS.

              2. Years ago they didnt require ID for shit.

                I stayed in hotels without ID. I rode a plane without ID. I rode a bus without ID. I drove a car with a piece of flimsy paper and no picture, that licensed me to drive. I had a bank account without an ID.

                1. Boy the way Glenn Miller played…..

                  I weep for those days.

                2. How did they identify the illegalzz back then?

                  1. No habla ingles? An illegal….get ’em!

          2. “Open a bank account” and “start a new job” is done by the private sector and there are very rational reasons for requiring this information.

            That’s why I said “by law”. Yes, there are good reasons for banks and employers to want to know who they are dealing with. But no law is needed there.

            I don’t see how needing an ID to drive a car is different from needing one to board a plane?

            You don’t need ID to be a passenger in a car. How is that different from boarding a plane? Again, airlines might have reasons to want to check ID. But I don’t see any need for a legal requirement. Particularly not a “Real ID” requirement. And I am very uncomfortable with things that look a lot like systems for tracking people’s movements. If security is adequate, what does it matter if people fly anonymously or under fake names?

            1. “Particularly not a “Real ID” requirement.”

              I view that as a separate issue than a state requiring its citizens to show identification before voting

              1. I don’t really have a problem with a voter ID requirement. My problems are with the mechanisms that can easily be turned into a national people tracking system.

                1. Like requiring IDs to enjoy your Constitutional rights?

          3. It depends on what you think the purpose of the driver’s license is. If it’s to indicate that one is officially recognized as being a capable driver, then it differs significantly from asking for ID to board a plane.

  10. Anyhoo. The problem is that we have to stop exporting ‘military aid’ to Central America. This creates only violence and instability, and ending it will staunch the flow of immigrants. Also yes it frightens me that these immigrants have no respect for free speech since they weren’t educated here. (No that is not a put-down. Europeans don’t get it either.) But laws like this will not protect us from that, probably only make things worse. Kudos to the judge for the ear boxing.

    1. “The problem is that we have to stop exporting ‘military aid’ to Central America.”

      Yes. Including the coup in Honduras which has led to a lot of this flood of new migration.

      “No that is not a put-down. Europeans don’t get it either.”

      The Europeans are worse offenders than the Central Americans.

      “But laws like this will not protect us from that, probably only make things worse.”

      This is what I don’t get. Are we just importing immigrants to dilute the votes of citizens? Because that seems like what the intention is if opposing efforts to present and ID before voting is so problematic. If you want people to loss faith in the system real fast, this is a real good way to do that. And when they lose faith they are not going to move in a more libertarian direction. That I assure you

  11. Kobach was tasked by the judge to demonstrate that noncitizen voter fraud was a “substantial” problem

    “A ‘substantial’ problem, Your Honor? Like, say, judicial bullshit?”

  12. Please… everyone knows the only reason any Democrat ever wins an election anywhere is because of voter fraud. /sarc

    1. Hey, the people who are too lazy or incompetent to show proof of citizenship to vote would probably vote for Democrats anyway. As to the illegals. Any impediment to Democrats is a good thing. Because America Fuck Yeah!

    2. How is voter fraud less believable than Russia fever dreams that have so regularly been trafficked on this website? So, Russia did something vague, of which we have not been told, that totally changed the results of the elections somehow, of which we have not been told, and this is more logical than the idea that some people are voting illegally, even when we know anecdotally this has happened before?

      Clearly illegal votes are not what elects Democrats. Rich white liberals are the base of the Democratic Party and they’re love for rent seeking assures Democratic elections (the greatest correlation between Democrats winning elections is the percentage of government workers within the voting area).

      But, how can you call one conspiracy crazy, while pimping the most insane mainstreamed conspiracy of the 21st Century?

    3. We have a sitting U.S. Senator from New Hampshire who’s election can with a strong probability be attributed to fraud.

      Maggie Hassan won by a margin of 1,017 votes. 5,313 votes were counted from out-of-state by people who never changed their licenses or registrations to New Hampshire. Not that it mattered, but Clinton carried the state by less than the margin of fraud.…..-turn.html

      1. It showed that more than 5,500 people who registered to vote last November using out of state drivers licenses never subsequently obtained in-state licenses or registered their cars in the state.

        The state’s laws allow a person to be domiciled in New Hampshire for voting purposes and still be a resident of another state for driver’s licensing purposes. One example are students who are in New Hampshire attending colleges or universities. But state law also requires that people who come to live in the state and have a vehicle register it and obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license within 60 days.

        So…it sounds like this could be 100% explained by some college students who didn’t bring cars to college. Which would be 100% normal.

        1. It could be, but notably college students vote at an incredibly low rate. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying we don’t and can’t know one way or the other.

          1. The conclusion is that no one can determine what actually accounted for this without investigating the matter, but investigating it will be problematic for reasons. Ergo, it’s best to just ignore it, thus maintaining the far fetched notion that there is no such thing as voter fraud.

            1. Pretty much. I don’t buy that line of reasoning, but there is no denying that’s the essential argument at play.

        2. It could more easily be explained that this is a well-know loophole used by liberal Massholes to get Democrats elected in New Hampshire.

      2. Al Franken got into the US Senate on voter fraud.
        Washington elected a Governor on illegal votes

        Then there’s LBJ rigging his election in Texas, and JFK…

  13. Ruling seems to be legally sound, not sure the judge’s reaction in the most professional choice, but this seems to be the way some judges behave so what do I know.

    1. But it isn’t consistent with other legal theory that has been imposed. Obamacare was upheld because it wasn’t the court’s job to strike down a bad law. Yet here we see a judge striking down what she thinks is a bad law.

      Which way leads to justice? Go with one or the other, not both.

  14. How does one register to vote and prove they’re of legal age if not by presenting a document that proves they are also citizens? I’m seriously asking because I don’t understand why this is a big deal, honestly.

    If anything, having to register ahead of voting is a bigger barrier to voting. Why are people ok with having to prove you’re eligible then?

    This doesn’t seem like the hill that libertarians should want to die on.

    1. I’m seriously asking because I don’t understand why this is a big deal, honestly.

      Because voting is a right — like, say, firearm ownership.

      Wait. What was the question again?

    2. How does one register to vote and prove they’re of legal age if not by presenting a document that proves they are also citizens? I’m seriously asking because I don’t understand why this is a big deal, honestly.

      I recall that when I was in college, I registered to vote via some ACORN-ish group that was hanging out on the quad as I walked from one class to another. All I had to do was fill out a little form with my name and address, which they submitted to the state board of elections. No ID or document check whatsoever.

      1. That is all it takes.

  15. Mother Jones? Didn’t Vox have anything?


    1. Nice to see you’ve elevated the level of discourse from your normal posts. Stay sophisticated homie!

  17. Aside from this is about showing a passport, on the less intrusive measure of showing ID at the voting booth, what’s Reason’s or Matt’s position on this?

    I have to produce ID – usually either your health card or driver’s license – when I go vote. No biggie really.

    The thing is, and someone can correct me, I’ve been reading places like California and Massachusetts give our driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants/non-citizens. So even if required, you still get the problem of an illegal voting which is why I think states are asking proof of citizenship?

    And no. Absolutely under no certain terms should a non-citizen vote.

    1. out. give out.

      I typed ‘out’ and it became ‘our’. Weirdo keyboard.

    2. I’ve been reading places like California and Massachusetts give our driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants/non-citizens. So even if required, you still get the problem of an illegal voting which is why I think states are asking proof of citizenship?

      All states give drivers licenses to non-citizens. Green card and student visa holders need to be able to drive. Hopefully citizenship is checked at the time of registration, and the purpose of the ID at the polling place is to verify that you are the same person who was verified to be a legal voter at registration time.

      1. “Hopefully citizenship is checked at the time of registration”

        Motor Voter did away with that

        1. Don’t they have to check a box that says “Suuuuuure, I’m totally an American citizen. I promise!”?

    3. California knows the ID for voting thing is coming to a head and Congress can force their hand by not accepting their voting rules. They decided to sidestep the ID issue by issuing drivers license to illegals and allow them to vote.

      US Constitution, Article I, Section 4: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

    4. Effective fraud prevention would be two parts. One, to register to vote you have to prove you are a citizen. Two, when you vote you would have to prove you are on the list by showing an ID. Thus just having a drivers license would not get you on the voter’s registration list.

  18. > Trump’s factually insane suggestion that between three million and five million people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    11 counties in California have more registered voters than inhabitants.

    Stop with the auto-Trump hate. He’s wrong frequently, and on most subjects, but leave him alone when he’s right, even if it tends to attack one of your sacred cows (open borders).

    1. This a million times. I hate being labeled pro Trump because the only attacks people around me throw at him are pure fantasy. It would be a nice change of pace if some liberal union Democrat said, “Yeah… these tariffs are going to suck.” But a union worker against protectionism? I will have better luck hunting bigfoot.

  19. > Trump’s factually insane suggestion that between three million and five million people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    11 counties in California have more registered voters than inhabitants.

    Stop with the auto-Trump hate. He’s wrong frequently, and on most subjects, but leave him alone when he’s right, even if it tends to attack one of your sacred cows (open borders).

  20. Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

    Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

    Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump… the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have.

    1. An older study:

      Washington Post: Could non-citizens decide the November election?

      How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

      Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this plausibly accounts for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama priorities in the 111th Congress.

      Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

    2. Yea Kevin, all you have to do is ask why would non-American be pushed to vote if it does not matter?

      It matters because it has, can, and will affect outcomes of elections. Otherwise people would not bother to illegally vote.

      There are even Americans who can vote but do not because they are lazy.

      1. There are even Americans who can vote but do not because they are lazy.

        There are also plenty of people who have taken political science and realize that their individual vote literally does not matter.

        I think George Carlin said it best when he noted that if voting mattered, we wouldn’t be allowed to do it.

        1. The individual vote mattering is philosophical.

          Which came first, the vote or the politician?

          One vote can decide an election, so every can count.

          Does every vote count all the time? No.

          With a bunch of individual votes massed together there are no vote majorities.

          Is voting important? YES.

          1. My only point was to note that simple ‘laziness’ isn’t the only factor in non-voting.

            If you want your vote to matter, buy a newspaper and have it shill for your viewpoint 24/7 to convince others. Bonus points if it’s a legacy old-school outlet who’s reputation you can ride into the sunset.

            That, or organize into groups.

            Individually, your vote doesn’t matter. That is inherent to democracy, as I’m sure you’re aware.

  21. Yet more nonsense and drivel intended to bamboozle people into defending elections.

    Eliminate elections altogether and use random selection instead.

    1. Who rolls the dice?

      Maybe we should hold an election to find out who rolls the dice.

      1. It is magnitudes easier to hack an election outcome than it is to hack a random selection outcome

  22. ” struck down Kansas’s toughest-in-the-country voter ID* law that had required proof of citizenship at the polling booth.”

    Some questions;
    1) Do you have to be a citizen to vote? Yes of course
    2) Is the political process, voting , who gets elected , of high value/interest? Of course folks spend,millions and billions trying to get elected
    3) If something of high value can be gained by cheating/fraud isn’t it reasonable to protect against folks cheating/fraud? Yes, of course

    WTF am I missing. You have to prove all kinds of thing to prevent fraud. My God look at the news. Who gets elected is very important. Of course folks will cheat if they can.

    1. Voter ID laws are part of how Republicans cheat to win.

      1. To Tony playing by the rules, that every American gets 1 vote, is cheating.

        1. Republicans have the presidency and Congress despite getting fewer overall votes from Americans.

          Are Democrats just really bad at implementing their illegal voting scheme or what?

          1. At times… yes. Democrats are far less intelligent than they would have you believe. They are fallible.

  23. I have a dream that one day there will be an election and no one will show up to vote because they have better things to do.

    1. Even the candidates not voting for themselves?

      That would be some some.

      1. *some day.

      2. Each candidate getting one vote from himself would be pretty funny.

        Of course this is total fantasy, but a man can dream.

      3. The candidate that didn’t vote for himself? He’s got my vote!

  24. Less democracy, more justice.

    1. Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children?!?!

  25. Bringing out the dead to vote is a large city standard and it is why they do not purge the voter rolls.

    There is definitely voter fraud, it goes on all the time. Do you think harvesting absentee ballots from trash cans is ok? ( Dems in Colo.) or Harvesting votes from the senile in old age homes ( Dems again) or illegals with drivers licenses voting. If there was not significant fraud to protect, why do Democrats fight so hard to stop voting roll cleanups.

    Why do we have precincts where more people vote than there are registered voters??

    Are you surprised that the Democrats who institutionally commit voter fraud in the big cities would investigate them selves?? Is your proof that there is no fraud actually that the people committing the fraud do not investigate themselves??
    If you think minorities are too stupid to have IDs then you are certainly a racist!

    1. it is why they do not purge the voter rolls.

      Voter rolls are not purged because people themselves don’t inform the county clerk that they moved. Which is not fixable unless you want to implant RFID’s in people’s heads attached to a govt database. Denying someone the right to vote merely because they haven’t found a reason to vote in every election is just crap to incentivize negative campaigning.

      Does fraud occur because of that? Of course. But overwhelmingly – like near 100% – that is done by party activists who vote ahead of time using mail-in ballots where presentation of id’s can’t occur. And the duopoly doesn’t have the slightest interest in getting rid of that corrupt method of voting.

      Here in CO (the state you mention – and I live there), the most recent case of that is Steve Curtis, the former chairman of the CO GOP who voted his ex-wife’s ballot (by forging her signature) and mailed it in. A couple of days before he went on the radio and said correct me if I’m wrong here, but virtually every case of voter fraud I can remember in my lifetime was committed by Democrats. And was discovered only because his ex-wife tried to vote from her new state (GA I think) and was told she couldn’t vote because she had already voted. Of course he wasn’t seriously punished for the vote fraud because serious punishment is only reserved for those who are NOT party activists.

  26. More and more tReason is sucking liberal cock.

    1. The open border thing has sent the LINOs over the edge of sanity.

  27. “The Court finds no credible evidence that a substantial number of noncitizens registered to vote under the attestation regime,” Judge Robinson found.

    Maybe Judge Robinson should take “remedial lessons” in basic statistics and economics.

  28. Republicans, conservatives, evangelicals, and the like can continue to rely on voter suppression, gerrymandering, and our system’s structural amplification of yahoo voices to try to maintain a viable electoral coalition for backwardness, intolerance, ignorance, and superstition.

    The liberal-libertarian alliance will continue to rely on an improving American electorate (less rural, less religious, less old-timey white, less backward, less bigoted as the stale-thinking right-wingers die off and are replaced by better Americans).

    Democrats, libertarians, liberals, moderates, and RINOs should not get overconfident, though. If the conservatives ever perfect a machine that mass-produces half-educated, bigoted, rural, economically irrelevant, easily frightened, selfish, white, male, elderly, faux libertarian malcontents, and the Republican Party figures a way to register the newly minted yahoos to vote, we could have a real problem.

    1. *chuckles

  29. Last election, I voted 4 times for Gary Johnson and he still lost.

  30. I know this is off subject, but how does this logic work for this law, but not other useless laws that actually violate rights of American citizens? This should be used as case law against the unconstitutional SO registry.

  31. “Kobach was tasked by the judge to demonstrate that noncitizen voter fraud was a “substantial” problem”

    They make it impossible to know if illegals vote in substantial numbers, then demand that you show proof that they do before you can do anything to prevent it.

    More arbitrary judicial authoritarianism.

  32. Hair splitting? EVERYONE should be required to prove US Citizenship as a precondition to register to vote. ONLY US Citizens are allowed to vote, Having everyone PROVE they are a citizen to register is “common sense voter verification”.

    Good grief, in my state I had to bring in PROOF I was born in the US……. for the first time ever when renewing my Driving License. I’ve been licensed in my state since 1980. Finall after 38 years I MUST prove US citizenship. Crazy thing is, when I first got my driving license at 16, I had to do that. But I did not mind. Since I WAS born in the US, I had the documentation. Just one more piece of paper to drag along. BUT… if I need to do that to get a passport, or a driving license, or to get a job, what’s the big freakout over having to prove citizenship to VOTE? What, you’d prefer a bunch of non citizen imports from Outer Slobovia voting for YOUR next mayor, city councilmember, school board president, governor, senator? If so, why are you even still HERE? Go somewhere else where YOU could vote for THEIR chief Pooh Bah. I cannot even drive back into the US un a US plted car registered in MY name wihtout submitting PROOF of legal residence. And you think anyone and his dog can vote with any less than that? Whassamadda YOO?

  33. All it takes in my blue state is an envelope with your name on it mailed to any in-state address. OK, John Smith, may vote. Now Plaxico Burris is more likely to be a unique single individual, but on the other hand rich NFL players might own a house in four different states.

    What is to stop the multi-dwelling owner from voting in all those with such lax rules? Nothing. No one is checking. No one is ever proving voter fraud because attempting to do so is ruinously expensive and Dems easily counter it with with biased judges.

    Say you find 99 blatant cases of vote fraud after spending $50K to do so. Then get just one case wrong and instantly by sued by lefties for big bucks.

    Someone in this thread put it exactly right: Dems have fever dreams over the miniscule probability that Russian meddling changed the 2016 results. Dems set up their own grandfathered-in schemes for election fraud decades ago and no one better dare claim those are significant, or, or, or

    Or someday we have the grandmother of all civil wars and start over building a democracy that can’t be rigged. We can take a cue from the world’s largest democracy, India, which now retina scans all voters. Fast, cheap, not very intrusive. The moment a corpse is found they can be identified and purged from voter rolls, etc.

    The only thing India has to watch for is voter fraud by all the techs and computer geeks that make the system work. There are ways to do that by introducing tagged data and setting traps.

  34. It does not matter if it is a “substantial” problem, having to prove you have a right to vote is important. Funny people can come up with IDs for everything else, especially benefits.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.