A few days before the November election, Mike Miner, a New York vote, went to cast his vote, only to be told that someone had previously voted in his name. Miner was informed that he could put a temporary ballot that would count along with the erroneous vote cast in his title, shocked and perplexed.
” This election is so important to me, and for somebody to voting in my title — I feel so violated”, Miner told The Federalist.
Why, then, does Democrat-led New York, along with 14 different states, continue to cause this kind of panic by forbidding voting identification?
Because election conflict serves the media’s ultimate objective, which is to undermine the legitimacy of the vote and make the system vulnerable to manipulation.
Voting ID
Miner’s practice is far from special.
Democrats have nevertheless taken a strong stand in opposition to actions designed to protect elections from potential fraud. Merrick Garland, the former attorney general, falsely claimed that such laws would be “burdensome” and “discriminatory, and that he would combat election security measures like those that do require vote ID.
But Democrats don’t actually believe voter ID laws are “discriminatory.” If they did, then the Democratic National Convention would have never required proof of ID in order to enter for “security purposes.” Voting ID laws serve the same purposes as ID requirements at the DNC: both prevent ineligible persons from participating.
Voting ID laws are not only reasonable, they’re essential in securing elections (or Democrat-events).
Why wouldn’t Democrats want to just require voter identification to protect elections from possible fraud?
Noncitizens Voting
The Supreme Court of New York is hearing objections to a 2022 law that would allow some noncitizens to cast ballots in provincial elections. The law has recently been struck down as illegal.
New York isn’t only. Washington, D. C., allows noncitizens to voting in local elections. As reported by M. D. Kittle next February,” The Republican-controlled U. S. House passed a decision overturning the D. C. rules, but the Democrat-controlled Senate killed the action”.
In Burlington, Vermont, noncitizens in the country legitimately may voting in local elections, according to The Associated Press. In Maryland’s Hyattsville, Mount Rainier and Takoma Park, noncitizens perhaps even voting in local votes. Also Californian cities have considered allowing noncitizens to cast ballots.
Logical hallucinations are caused by allowing noncitizens to voting. The risk of noncitizens unintentionally voting in national elections is currently illegal when separate ballots are cast for noncitizens in addition to possibly under-trained poll workers.
However, even noncitizens can be added to the voter rolls and even go on the ballot in provincial elections without authorization.
In Ohio, six ontimes.com/news/2019/jan/30/pennsylvania-11000-non-citizens-registered-vote/” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>noncitizens were charged after they supposedly cast ballots in previous elections, a Taiwanese school student who is not a U.S. member cast an outlawed ballot in Iowa in July of 2024, onaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/Post-Election%20Audit%20Report_2016%20General%20Election/Post-Election_Audit_Report.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>41 noncitizens cast ballots in North Carolina in 2016, and more than 11, 000 were registered voters in Pennsylvania in 2019 — the list goes on and on.
In fact, the Biden-Harris administration sued the state after it discovered more than 1,500 self-identifiable noncitizens on its vote rolls. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia has the right to reduce noncitizens from its voter rolls.
Liberals fought tooth and nail to stop the Protect Act despite overwhelming evidence that our voting registration system is extremely vulnerable. The legislation would alter the 1993 National Voter Registration Act to make it necessary for potential voters to provide video membership evidence in order to register to vote. It may stop noncitizens from appearing on voter rolls and probably casting ballots.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed that if the SAVE Act was tied to a budget, there would be more of the “odds of a closure.” Joe Biden, the previous president, was against the estimate.
It’s now illegal for noncitizens to vote in national elections, but present laws are mainly bald. The SAVE Act had merely give the current national legislation some more teeth. But Liberals fought for work.
Mail-In Votes
Mail-in votes are probably the only thing that causes more conflict in elections.
Consider Pennsylvania, for instance. The United States Supreme Court ruled that mail-in vote letters that had the incorrect date or lack a day should not be counted after many constitutional opposition. The problem has been litigated numerous days since the 2020 election. At least four Pennsylvania state election offices must look into possible fraudulent voting registration and mail-in vote demands, which makes them particularly vulnerable to fraud.
In 2020, according to Fox 8, Bruce Bartman “voted in place of his lifeless family” and reportedly attempted to file his dying mother-in-law’s vote but was denied an absentee ballot for her.
Utah reportedly certified its primary poll results despite claims that thousands of mail-in ballots from voters in Utah’s southern districts were turned down because of a alleged postmarking problem. According to my partner Shawn Fleetwood, it appeared the problem” stemmed from how the U.S. Postal Service processes email for nearly nine southern Utah regions.”
]READ NEXT: 5 Ways California’s Month-Long Vote Counting Process Invites Fraud]
A jury in Arizona determined that the secretary of state’s office’s guidance on “ballot personal verification” “did not have the force of law.” According to state law, county recorders are required to compare the signature on the ballot box to the” name of the voter on the elector’s enrollment record.” However, a recommendation was made for state recorders to” read and examine no only registration forms but also “additional known signatures…”
For a practice is definitely confusing and turbulent for election administrators. The mail-in voting system is set up for the possibility of disqualified ballots being counted due to lack of convey instructions and appropriate instruction.
Liberals benefit from a resilient system because the whole electoral system is prone to fraud, and they are aware of it. And why would they resist laws preventing elections like voter ID, the SAVE Act, and the transfer of in-person elections?
Brianna Lyman is a journalist for The Federalist on primaries. With a diploma in International Political Economy, Brianna received her diploma from Fordham University. Her job has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Following Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
