Tag Archives: voting

Another Federal Judge

Posted on by
Reply

…gets it right.  US District Judge Eric Melgren has ruled that Kansas and Arizona can, indeed, require proof of citizenship as a criterion for registering to vote in Federal elections: American elections are for American citizens only.  The second clause of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on this.

Melgren ruled, in part,

Because the Court finds that Congress has not preempted state laws requiring proof of citizenship through the National Voter Registration Act, the Court finds the decision of the EAC denying the states’ requests to be unlawful and in excess of its statutory authority.  Since the Court’s decision turns on the plain statutory language, the Court need not resolve the question of whether the Constitution permits the EAC, or Congress, to disregard the states’ own determination of what they require to satisfactorily determine citizenship.

As the Kansas City Star pointed out,

Nationally, voting rights experts contend that the court’s ruling—if it survives on near-certain appeals—could open the door for more states to enact laws requiring voters to produce documents proving their citizenship.

One can certainly hope so.  Like I said: American elections are for American citizens only.

Melgren also noted

The Constitution gives each state exclusive authority to determine the qualifications of voters for state and federal elections.  Article I, section 2, clause 1—often called the Qualifications Clause—provides that the voters for the US House of Representatives in each state shall have the same qualifications required for voters of the largest branch of the state legislature.  The Seventeenth Amendment adopts the same requirement for voters for the US Senate.  The US Supreme Court has read these provisions to conclude that the states, not Congress, set the voter qualifications for federal elections.

Melgren went on to note that the same Clause also grants Congress the power to overrule the States’ rules statutorily—and that the Congress has not done so.  We can look forward to further Democratic Party efforts to sully our elections by attempting to get Congress to force the States to accept anyone as voter, citizen or not.

Melgren’s ruling can be read here.

Immigration and Voting

Posted on by
Reply

The central thesis of this post is a brief excerpt from Daniel Hannan’s (MEP) book, Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made The Modern World.

[I]n the 2010 Canadian election, immigrants were more likely to vote Conservative than native Canadians.  Think, for a moment, how exceptional such an outcome is.  In most of the world, newcomers vote overwhelmingly for left-of-center parties.  There are plenty of reasons why.  They are usually penniless when they arrive, and so gravitate to politicians who purport to represent the poor.  They tend to live in districts represented by leftist politicians who, at local level, are the first to help them navigate the political system of their new nation.  And, of course, left-wing parties see themselves as champions of all minorities.

The success of the Canadian Conservatives owed a great deal to their determined campaigning among ethnic minorities and new settlers.  But it was assisted by the non-racial way in which English-speaking societies define themselves. [pg 280]

This shouldn’t be surprising to any of us.  Immigrants come to the US, and to Canada, looking to make better lives for themselves and their families than was possible in their old country.  They bring with them a habit of self-reliance and a powerful work ethic.  By their immigration, they’ve shown themselves to be willing to take risks for gain and not simply to wait on handouts.  Immigrants are more likely to start (and succeed with) small businesses, too, and small businesses are the jobs generators of our economy.  These are principles of modern Conservatism in the US; we should be welcoming them with open arms.

Republican—and Conservative—candidates also should take heed of that last paragraph in the quote: “determined campaigning among ethnic minorities and new settlers.”  They should do this, not only in their own districts—which must come first, surely, as winning the election is a prerequisite to getting anything done in elective office—but also in their neighboring Democrat districts, where many more immigrants—and native minorities—live; these voters should not be dismissed by us.

It would help, also, if we, as a nation, turned to what has been demonstrated to a large degree in Canada: “the non-racial way in which” we define American society—but in practice as well nominally in law.  The Democrats and Progressives cannot let go of their racial (or gender) difference meme (recall the MSNBC bi-racial Cheerios ad kerfuffle, the cries of racism whenever a white man criticizes a black government official, the squawks of sexism when a man criticizes a woman candidate), but we Republicans and Conservatives surely can move beyond such racism and sexism.  Beginning, as alluded above, with going into immigrant and minority neighborhoods and talking directly with those folks—not as Asian or Mexican immigrants, not at Black- or Hispanic- or Asian-Americans, but as Americans and future Americans.

In the end, we shouldn’t be afraid of how immigrants might vote (we shouldn’t be shutting them out of our country over that question at all).  Immigrants in the United States generally would vote with Republicans and Conservatives, if only we would give them the chance.

Certainly, we need have no fear for the Conservative message in any contest of ideas.

Silencing Critics

Posted on by
Reply

It isn’t enough that the Obama administration, and Democrats generally, are so terrified at the Conservative message that the President sicced his IRS on Conservative political entities in an effort to suppress their political speech as it was expressed as financial support for Conservative and Republican candidates in the 2012 elections.

Now they’re attempting to codify that suppression with a new Treasury rule for the IRS regarding what Democrats will permit 501(c)(4) entities to do in the coming elections.

Here is what a 501(c)(4) entity is, according to the Legal Information Institute:

(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

It’s that educational part that’s important: educating the public about political matters and about where politicians stand on those matters is, well, educational.  It’s just that overt political activity can’t be the predominant activity of a (c)(4) entity.  This is one of the outcomes of the Supremes’ 2010 Citizens United decision regarding the unconstitutional ban of a Hillary Clinton documentary in the runup to the 2008 Democratic Party primaries.

Here are excerpts from Treasury’s new proposed rule for executing that suppression:

1.  Communications

Communications that are made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party.
…
3.  Activities Closely Related to Elections or Candidates

Holding an event within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) at which a candidate appears as part of the program.
…
Treasury and the IRS are planning to issue additional guidance…public focus regarding the proportion of a section 501(c)(4) organization’s activities that must promote social welfare.  Due to the importance of this aspect of the regulation, the proposed guidance requests initial comments on this issue.

This timing of activities, also, was addressed by the Supremes in Citizens United.  Moreover, Treasury is moving to keep their follow-on rule regarding proportionality under the radar until after the 2014 elections, thus leaving the claimed ambiguity in place for further 2012-style IRS suppression of Conservative entities.

Clearly, Treasury is intent on facilitating the IRS’ ability to harass and to outright silence government-disapproved organizations—especially those impertinent enough to disagree with the administration.

All of this is in an election year, no less.

The full text of Treasury’s announcement concerning the rule can be seen via The Washington Post.

Immigration, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) had some thoughts on this, which he passed on to the House Republicans as they left for their annual retreat.

As they consider the subject of immigration in their retreat, I expect the Republicans to focus on three things: border and interior security, legalization for some of the existing 11 million aliens, and ensuring that President Barack Obama enforces immigration law.  Within that, Republicans will consider ways to deal with the children of illegal aliens, visas for guest workers, and a legalization process that would require illegal aliens to pay fines and back taxes.

Contained in Sessions’ thoughts for the House Republicans were concerns about

…the negative impact of the House immigration proposal on US workers, taxpayers, and the rule of law.

[Sessions’] analysis said increasing the number of immigrants would hurt an already weak economy, lower wages, and increase unemployment.  He cited White House adviser Gene Sperling’s comment earlier this month that the economy has three people looking for every job opening.

…the House GOP leaders’ plan that’s taking shape would grant work permits almost immediately to those here illegally, giving them a chance to compete with unemployed Americans for any job.  He said it would lead to a surge in unskilled workers and would provide amnesty to a larger number of immigrants in the country illegally, giving them a chance to apply for citizenship through green cards.

I have some disagreement with the Republicans’ focus and with Sessions’ suggestions.

Absent from the focus is any action on easing immigration—making getting entry visas of any type easier and faster to get.  What the Republicans seem to be working on is an excellent start, and if that’s all that can get done this session, that much is worth getting done.  But they—and their Senate counterparts—must recognize that this is only a step on a long journey, and they must return next year (coincidentally, a new Congressional session) and take another step toward rationalizing our immigration system, and hopefully post 2016, finalizing that rationalization.

Unaddressed in both the House Republicans’ and Sessions’ positions is the role of immigrants in our elections.  The fear (carefully unspoken here) is that immigrants are monolithically Liberal in their attitudes and will be in their voting habits.  This is to misunderstand the willingness to take great risks, the initiative involved, the self-reliance inherent in the effort it takes for an alien to make the journey into the United States, whether that journey and entry are carried out legally or illegally (in most cases other than smuggling or terrorist entry, especially those entering illegally, perhaps).  Sessions, and Republicans and Conservatives generally, are overly pessimistic, and they lack confidence in the Conservative message as it regards immigration, immigrants, and our existing illegal aliens.

Sessions misunderstands the relationship between immigrants and jobs.  It’s immigrants who start, and succeed with, small businesses at a vast rate, and it’s small businesses that are the jobs creators in our economy.  Sessions’ jobs concerns are misplaced here.  The job applicant to job ratio claimed by Sperling would be greatly reduced by those immigrants and their new businesses.

Finally, the conflation of legalization or a path to citizenship with amnesty is simply a mendaciously offered red herring.  The plans on offer for legalizing existing illegal aliens all involve penalties of some sort, ranging from self-deportation (which could be satisfied by visiting the nearest consulate or embassy, these facilities being foreign soil) to paying a fine and back taxes (which carry their own penalties).  Amnesty simply isn’t present in any of the plans.

Why Do Progressives Oppose a Safe Ballot?

Posted on by
Reply

Their latest opposition to protecting the sanctity of an American’s vote is in North Carolina, where the state’s government enacted a law that moves to protect a vote by ensuring the one casting it is the one who’s eligible to cast it, only casts it once, and is who he claims to be; and in front of the American Bar Association, in a speech by ex-Secretary of State and President wannabe Hillary Clinton.

The law contains these provisions, among others:

  • changes in how residents can vote that includes requiring them to show a photo ID at polling stations
  • eliminates a week of early voting, while maintaining 10 days of early voting
  • ends same-day registration
  • prohibits “out-of-precinct” voting
  • allows voters to cast a provisional ballot if they come to a polling station without proper ID
  • places additional campaign finance restrictions on lobbyists

Critics argue the true goal is to suppress voter turnout, especially among blacks, the young, the elderly and the poor.  Because blacks—especially blacks—are too…simple…to be able to plan ahead and get their—free—photo IDs well in advance of voting.  The elderly and poor are similarly incapable, claim Progressives; they, too, need to be led by the nose by their Betters.

More, the law suppresses other Progressive demographics—the non-resident voter; voters who don’t always vote, but when they do, they prefer to vote several times; illegal alien voters.

Clinton made similarly insulting allegations:

…she said some observers have defended the US Supreme Court ruling as a sign that discrimination has ended.  She disagreed and said it gave jurisdictions carte blanche to renew discrimination at the polls.

Because it’s impossible for people to change.  Because it’s still 1963, and the Party of Jim Crow still is rampant.  She’s projecting.

In the weeks since the ruling we have seen an unseemly rush by previously covered jurisdictions that will make it harder for our fellow Americans to vote.  Unless we act now, citizens will be disenfranchised and victimized by the law instead of served by it.

No, the only ones being disenfranchised are those ineligible to vote.  The only unseemly rush is the Progressives’ move to place disliked states back under the yoke.  In the mean time, states are moving to protect the sanctity of the vote.