Bloated voter rolls - a major democrat tool for committing massive repetitive voting fraud

M

mark francis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
25,756
For decades election laws have required states to purge voting rolls of the names of voters no longer elibible to vote, and for decades democrat election workers have ignored, disobeyed, discounted, or otherwise rebelled against the election security requirement. 2020 was no different and Americans are again having to sue California this year to try to force officials to obey the law.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/calif...as-part-of-judicial-watch-lawsuit-settlement/ 6-19-19

PRESS RELEASES|JUNE 19, 2019

California Begins Massive Voter Roll Clean-Up – Notifies Up to 1.5 Million ‘Inactive’ Voters as Part of Judicial Watch Lawsuit Settlement

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://www.judicialwatch.org/california-clean-up-voting-rolls/ 5-7-24

PRESS RELEASES |MAY 07, 2024

Judicial Watch Sues California to Force Clean-Up of Voting Rolls

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit to force California to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California, asks the court to compel California to make “a reasonable effort to remove the registrations of ineligible registrants from the voter rolls” as required by federal law (Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al. (No. 2:24-cv-3750)).

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to compel the defendants to comply with their voter list maintenance obligations under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

The National Voter Registration Act requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence. The law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections.

In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory. In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since the year before, under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2017. (Legal pressure from Judicial Watch ultimately led to the removal of up to four million ineligible voters from voter rolls in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and elsewhere.) (Note: The lawsuit filed in 2017 to clean up voting rolls stuffed with fraudulent voters was filed in 2017 and California finally claimed it cleaned up its rolls in 2023 after the 2020 and 2022 elections, but now has 1.5 million fake voters on its rolls again heading into the 2024 election. This is not just criminal and incompetent, it is also election fraud.)

Judicial Watch filed the latest lawsuit after uncovering a broad failure to clean up voter rolls in dozens of California counties.

The complaint details that, in correspondence with Judicial Watch, that California:

admit[ted] that 21 California counties removed five or fewer registrations pursuant to [the NVRA] … for failing to respond to a Confirmation Notice and then failing to vote in two general federal elections … from November 2020 to November 2022. Sixteen of the 21 counties removed zero such registrations during this period. The 21 counties are: Alameda (1 such removal), Alpine (0), Calaveras (0), Imperial (0), Lake (1), Modoc (0), Placer (0), Plumas (0), San Benito (0), San Bernardino (0), San Luis Obispo (5), San Mateo (0), Santa Barbara (0), Santa Cruz (0), Shasta (0), Siskiyou (2), Solano (0), Stanislaus (0), Trinity (0), Ventura (0), and Yolo (2).

Together, these 21 counties reported a combined total of 11 removals under Section 8(d)(1)(B) during this two-year reporting period. ...

The Judicial Watch lawsuit also points out that another 16 California counties could not even “tell how many registrations were removed pursuant to [the NVRA] … The 16 counties are: Del Norte, El Dorado, Inyo, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Mono, Nevada, Orange, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Tulare.” These 16 counties together “contain about 28% of the population of California.”

“Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. And California’s voting rolls continue to be a mess,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch litigation already caused the state to remove over a million outdated names from the rolls in California but our new lawsuit shows there is more work to do.” ...

In March 2023, Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director, Bernadette Matthews, over their failure to clean Illinois’ voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by federal law. (More clear election fraud.) ...

In December 2023, Judicial Watch sent notice letters to election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the NVRA, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, D.C., officials admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, promptly removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as “inactive.” (More admitted violations of election laws = election fraud.) ...


In April 2023, Pennsylvania settled with Judicial Watch and admitted in court filings that it removed 178,258 ineligible registrations in response to communications from Judicial Watch. The settlement commits Pennsylvania and five of its counties to public reporting of statistics regarding their ongoing voter roll clean-up efforts for the next five years. (An admission that potentially nearly 200,000 ineligible voters were on the books in the 2020 and 2022 election.)

In March 2023, Colorado agreed to settle a Judicial Watch NVRA lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove ineligible voters from its rolls. The settlement agreement requires Colorado to provide Judicial Watch with the most recent voter roll data for each Colorado county each year for six years.

Judicial Watch settled a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter registration lists.

Kentucky also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled a voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive registrations from its voter rolls.

In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme” congressional-districts gerrymander.
 
Werbung:
Boris Norris said:
Where's the evidence they refused to abide by the electoral laws?
Click to expand...
Those who disobeyed election laws have been clearly exposed through lawsuits brought by concerned Americans intending to force the bent officials to comply with election laws. Here is a brief outline of laws requiring regular voting registry purges:

https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-list-maintenancerint

All U.S. states except North Dakota require prospective voters to register with their state and/or local elections office before casting a ballot. While the process varies by state, it usually entails filling out a form with one’s name, address, birth date, and, in 31 states, political party affiliation. Eligible voters are then added to a list regularly monitored and maintained by the state’s election administrators.

This explainer was last updated on January 18, 2024.

Voter list maintenance refers to the process of adding, removing, and updating voter registration information to maintain an accurate voter roll. States’ lists are constantly changing as new voters are added and existing voters become ineligible for reasons including death and moving. Keeping lists up-to-date and accurate is essential for protecting against potential fraud, minimizing voting wait times, and reducing the number of provisional ballots cast (which simplifies post-election procedures). List maintenance also helps election officials save money and maximize resources for Election Day by, for example, not sending mailings to people no longer registered at an old address.

HOW DO STATES MAINTAIN VOTER LISTS?

The framework for voter list maintenance is determined by federal law. Most notably, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), or “motor voter” law, requires states to offer voter registration at DMVs and other state agencies, and that bulk removals cannot occur within 90 days of an election. The law also mandates voter list maintenance to be non-discriminatory and conducted in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. The act limits the reasons for a voter’s removal from a voting list to a voter’s death, felony conviction, mental incapacity, a change in address outside of the previous jurisdiction, or at the voter’s request. The NVRA does not specify the procedures states must follow for the removal process except for requiring a mailed notice to voters who are suspected to have changed their address. A handful of states are exempt from the NVRA (Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), since at the time of NVRA passage, they all offered same-day registration at polling places. North Dakota is also exempt since it does not have voter registration.

A decade after the NVRA became law, Congress also passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which required states to develop a “single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list,” and to coordinate voter records with other state agencies. HAVA also clarified the language in the NVRA that bars removing a voter simply for failure to vote in an election. However, HAVA does permit the removal of voters who do not respond to an address confirmation mailing and subsequently don’t vote for two federal general elections.

LIST MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

While all states are obligated to comply with the NVRA and HAVA, federal law allows individual states to enforce their own voter list maintenance procedures and to define the parties responsible for conducting list maintenance itself.
 
mark francis said:
Those who disobeyed election laws have been clearly exposed through lawsuits brought by concerned Americans intending to force the bent officials to comply with election laws. Here is a brief outline of laws requiring regular voting registry purges:

https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-list-maintenancerint

All U.S. states except North Dakota require prospective voters to register with their state and/or local elections office before casting a ballot. While the process varies by state, it usually entails filling out a form with one’s name, address, birth date, and, in 31 states, political party affiliation. Eligible voters are then added to a list regularly monitored and maintained by the state’s election administrators.

This explainer was last updated on January 18, 2024.

Voter list maintenance refers to the process of adding, removing, and updating voter registration information to maintain an accurate voter roll. States’ lists are constantly changing as new voters are added and existing voters become ineligible for reasons including death and moving. Keeping lists up-to-date and accurate is essential for protecting against potential fraud, minimizing voting wait times, and reducing the number of provisional ballots cast (which simplifies post-election procedures). List maintenance also helps election officials save money and maximize resources for Election Day by, for example, not sending mailings to people no longer registered at an old address.

HOW DO STATES MAINTAIN VOTER LISTS?

The framework for voter list maintenance is determined by federal law. Most notably, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), or “motor voter” law, requires states to offer voter registration at DMVs and other state agencies, and that bulk removals cannot occur within 90 days of an election. The law also mandates voter list maintenance to be non-discriminatory and conducted in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. The act limits the reasons for a voter’s removal from a voting list to a voter’s death, felony conviction, mental incapacity, a change in address outside of the previous jurisdiction, or at the voter’s request. The NVRA does not specify the procedures states must follow for the removal process except for requiring a mailed notice to voters who are suspected to have changed their address. A handful of states are exempt from the NVRA (Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), since at the time of NVRA passage, they all offered same-day registration at polling places. North Dakota is also exempt since it does not have voter registration.

A decade after the NVRA became law, Congress also passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which required states to develop a “single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list,” and to coordinate voter records with other state agencies. HAVA also clarified the language in the NVRA that bars removing a voter simply for failure to vote in an election. However, HAVA does permit the removal of voters who do not respond to an address confirmation mailing and subsequently don’t vote for two federal general elections.

LIST MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

While all states are obligated to comply with the NVRA and HAVA, federal law allows individual states to enforce their own voter list maintenance procedures and to define the parties responsible for conducting list maintenance itself.
Click to expand...
And no one charged. Got it.
 
Werbung:
pjmret said:
he did what he promised to get rid of. lol.
draining the swamp...by hiring his family. lol.
Click to expand...
I must admit Trump's family members seem well-adjusted, responsible, successful, and so forth while poor Biden's family is plagued with problems of immorality and irresponsibility.
 

Similar threads

M
Washington D.C. forced to finally comply with voting laws
2
Replies
28
Views
562
pjmret
P
GenSeneca
    • Like
Voter Fraud
Replies
13
Views
3K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
M
    • Like
Voting fraud supporters sue GA officials for removing non-citizens from voting rolls
3 4 5
Replies
71
Views
379
Randomguy
R
Little-Acorn
Hillary's eligibility challenged in Supreme Court
Replies
4
Views
2K
Mr. Shaman
Mr. Shaman
M
    • Like
Why do Democrats fight election securities?
2 3 4
Replies
48
Views
2K
pjmret
P
Back
Top