Advertisements
Home

If Abraham Lincoln had died 1861, who would have replaced him?

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

A historical what if situation.

 

Abraham_Lincoln

 

February 23rd marks one of the oddest anniversaries in American history, as President-elect Abraham Lincoln was smuggled in disguise in 1861 through Baltimore due to perceived assassination threats.

Luckily, Lincoln made it unharmed on his train trip to Washington. But if he hadn’t, a gigantic constitutional headache was in store for a federal government that had no plan to replace a President-Elect as the country’s next President.

Several people responsible for Lincoln’s safety thought the threats in Baltimore were real, as well as several government officials. The President-elect survived the plot and at least one other incident until he was killed by John Wilkes Booth in April 1865.

After Lincoln’s death in 1865, there was a constitutional process for presidential succession, with an elected Vice President, Andrew Johnson, in place to serve, and the Senate Pro Tempore in position to be Acting President if something happened to Johnson.

But back in February 1861, if Lincoln had been killed or incapacitated in the Baltimore plot, the timing couldn’t have been worse constitutionally.

To set the stage for the Baltimore plot, Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election by sweeping the northern states. Maryland, and Baltimore in particular, didn’t vote for Lincoln as a slave-holding state. However, Lincoln decided to make a public train trip to his inauguration from Illinois to Washington, D.C., with speaking appearances at major stops, including Baltimore.

Daniel Stashower, in his book, “The Hour of Peril,” gets into great detail about the plot, which involved southern sympathizers ferreted out by private detective Alan Pinkerton.

The Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad hired Pinkerton to find any plots and to make sure Lincoln arrived safely in Washington on February 23, 1861. Charles Pomeroy Stone, a military official and close associate of General Winfield Hancock’s, also heard about the Baltimore plot rumors as Lincoln was heading toward Washington.

Pinkerton’s scheme involved a disguised Lincoln, wearing a shawl and a cap, switching trains in Philadelphia and Baltimore, with the President-elect briefly stopping in Baltimore in the middle of the night. At his scheduled Baltimore public appearance, news soon spread through the audience that Lincoln was already in Washington.

In August 1864, Lincoln dodged another assassination attempt as he rode out to the Soldiers’ Home area in Washington. A gun shot went through Lincoln’s hat as he rode his horse.

How history would have been altered in the first two incidents is surely a topic that could be debated for a very long time. But in constitutional terms, the February 1861 incident, if it had been fatal, would have been a huge test in crisis management.

The Constitution at the time said very little about presidential succession, and absolutely nothing about the death of a President-Elect (that definition wouldn’t come until the 20th Amendment took effect in 1933).

The Electoral College had certified Lincoln as the President-Elect 10 days earlier on February 13. His running mate, U.S. Senator Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, was also certified as Vice President Elect on the same day.

If Lincoln had died later in Baltimore, the federal government would have faced several options.

Congress had agreed to an unwritten procedure for presidential succession known as the Tyler Precedent. In 1841, then Vice President John Tyler assumed office on President William Henry Harrison’s death, boldly setting the example that a Vice President assumed the full title and power of the presidency on taking over for a President who had died in office. (That custom was followed in 1850 on Zachary Taylor’s death.)

Under this scenario, Hannibal Hamlin would probably have assumed office on March 4, 1861, as the duly elected Vice President with the power to assume the presidency.

But the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 provided another possible scenario: a special election. Under the act, the Senate Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House followed the Vice President in the line of succession, but only as Acting President until a disability were removed or a new President was selected in a special election.

If the President and Vice President were both dead or unable to serve, a general election would be held that fall, or the following fall, depending on when the offices became vacant.

However, seven states had left the Union after Lincoln’s election in late 1860, so a Republican victory in a special election was all but certain. Hamlin also would have needed to likely resign to trigger the special election.

Given that the nation was on the verge of Civil War, with military action less than a month away at Fort Sumter, Hamlin’s resignation would have been very problematic.

In the Lincoln-Baltimore plot scenario, complicating matters was the status of the current President, James Buchanan, and his Vice President, John Breckinridge, a future Confederate general.

There were rumors that Buchanan could be assassinated, allowing Breckinridge to take office until March 4. However, Breckinridge had already been elected as a U.S. Senator for Kentucky, and Hamlin would have administered Breckinridge’s oath.

As for Hamlin, he spent little time in Washington as Vice President and Lincoln replaced him with Andrew Johnson on the 1864 presidential ticket. And it would take Congress another 68 years to find an official way, via the 20th Amendment, to make sure candidates elected as President and Vice President had a constitutional succession plan in place.

Advertisements

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

I have news for Mr. Reince  Priebus the Electoral College is not the problem.

The problem is the Establishment Republicans you have nominated.

Both McCain and Romney did not really want to win.

Like Bob Dole before they got the nomination because it was their turn.

Sarah Palin almost able to drag John McCain to victory.

The Establishment Republicans need to be kicked out of the party.

Then we need to vote out the RINO’s.

Then get back to Conservatism that wins every time it is on the ballot.

 

From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, Republicans who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing laws that give the winner of a state’s popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. They instead want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders also support it — suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum.

There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party’s long-term political prospects.

“It’s something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at,” Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.

Democrats are outraged at the potential change.

Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney’s 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It’s unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.

While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he “could go either way” on the change and doesn’t plan to push it. But he said it’s a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.

“It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion,” Snyder said.

Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.

“We never really pushed it before,” he said, adding that the bill wasn’t designed to help one party more than the other.

Democrats aren’t convinced. And they warned of political consequences for Republicans who back the shift — particularly those governors up for re-election in 2014, who include the governors of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.

“This is nothing more than election-rigging,” said Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.

Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states — Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina — Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office.

Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.

“This is a concept that’s got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential,” said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would “incite different levels of partisan acrimony.” Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.

In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state’s 20 votes.

Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.

“It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is,” said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. “It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections.”

Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor’s spokesman Kevin Harley said.

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an “interesting idea” but that it’s not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.

It’s gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.

“I am open to that idea,” Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. “But I would have to hear all the arguments.”

All 10 of the state’s Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.

Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: “We can’t sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage,” Barrett wrote. “We can’t let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain — just because they don’t believe they can win in a fair election fight.”

So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.

“The Electoral College has served the country quite well,” said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.

He continued: “This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I’m worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/19/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ITDkbEsW

 

 

 

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO CONSERVATIVES

1 Comment

This is from Human Events.

Conservatives need to learn from the past.

We need to keep holding to Conservative values.

When Conservatism is properly presented Conservatism wins.

 

I had a very exciting time at the Republican National Convention.  My conservative allies and I all worked very hard in the presidential election.

When I woke up the day after the election, everything I had worked for appeared to be in ruins.  An extreme leftist had been reelected president of the United States.

Some liberal Republicans immediately began to blame newly activated conservatives for the presidential defeat.  I knew they were wrong.  It was clear to me that these newly active conservatives would be the key to major future victories for conservative principles.

The day was Wednesday, November 4, 1964.

The Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, had suffered a crushing defeat.  He won just six states and 52 votes in the Electoral College.  But from the ashes of that loss sprang a vigorous conservative movement.

The conservative movement grew from modest beginnings to become a major force capable of nominating and electing candidates at the local, state, and national level, including Ronald Reagan.

Waves of newly activated conservatives elected Ronald Reagan, broke the Democratic monopoly in the Congress, and were decisive in the thrilling 2010 elections.  The influx of new conservatives greatly benefited the Republican Party then, as it has again in recent years.

It would be foolish for conservatives, defeated for now, to form a circular firing squad and start shooting at each other.  Each element of our coalition — limited government, free enterprise, strong national defense, and traditional values — has a long and strong background of working together.  These principles will lead to victories in the future as they have in the past, as recently as two years ago.

For those disappointed by the results of this year’s presidential election, remember that it is a long ball game.  Politics has a natural ebb and flow.

Now is the time to study the lessons of this election and to chart a course for conservatives to win in the future.  The stakes could not be higher.  The margins of victory in the public policy process may be smaller now than at any other time in American history.

Conservatives must reach out and identify philosophically compatible individuals among the types of people with whom leftist organizers have had the most success.

Seek out the reasonably conservative people, the younger the better, who happen to be in categories long-targeted for organization by the left, people who share our American view of individual rights rather than group rights.  Help them deepen their understanding of public policy issues.  Many have strong opinions they already share with us.  Then undertake systematic, persistent actions to recruit them into the public policy process, teach them political skills, and place them where they can be effective.

Work hard and wisely to increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists in all categories of people.  Do all you can to advance and to protect them.  Their success will break the leftist organizers’ near monopolies among people like them.

In closing, let me share with you the most important lesson you will learn at any time in your life about success in the public policy process.

Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win.  The winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides.

You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win.  You have a moral obligation to learn how to win.

That was the clinching argument Goldwater conservatives used to revive the power of conservative principles in America in 1964.  I know you will find it helpful today.

Conservatives can and will win big again in presidential elections.  But first we must learn from our experience, do what must be done, and study diligently to become ever more effective.

You have fought for good causes before.  I pray you’ll continue your fight for good causes now.  Victories may be just around the corner.

 

Obama, Romney hit battleground states with closing arguments for the undecided

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

If you undecided at this point in time you’re an idiot.

How can you truthfully say your undecided?

romney_obama2.jpg

 

Mitt Romney and President Obama are hitting the campaign trail Sunday at a furious pace by crossing time zones – and even each other – in a final effort to appeal to the undecided voters who will help determine the close race.

The candidates will make their closing arguments in six key battleground states.

Romney will hold three rallies – in Iowa, Ohio, then Pennsylvania while the president will visit New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio and Colorado.

Their events in Cleveland and Cincinnati respectively are just hours apart.

The candidates are once again tied nationally with two days remaining before Election Day, according to a Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll released Sunday.

Among likely voters, Obama and Romney are deadlocked at 48 percent. And for the first time this year, they are tied among independents voters, at 46 percent each, the poll says.

Romney’s position going into Election Day is in part the result of how he performed in the three presidential debates, The Post reports.

Obama’s campaign is mobilizing a massive get-out-the-vote effort aimed at carrying the Democrat to victory, as Romney makes a late play for votes in Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania.

A new poll in The Pittsburgh Tribune shows the race for Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes locked up at 47 percent in its final week. The poll by Susquehanna Polling & Research surveyed 800 likely voters from Thursday through Saturday and most of the interviews occurred after superstorm Sandy inundated eastern and central Pennsylvania. The poll’s error margin is 3.46 percentage points, according to the newspaper.

Both campaigns were predicting wins in Tuesday’s election. Obama was closing out the campaign with an apparent edge in some key battleground states, including Ohio. But Romney’s campaign was projecting momentum and banking on late-breaking voters to propel him to victory in the exceedingly close race.

“Words are cheap and a record is real and it’s earned with effort,” Romney said Saturday, making a final appeal to voters in Colorado.

The Republican presidential nominee was cutting away briefly Sunday from the nine or so competitive states that have dominated the candidates’ travel itineraries this fall. He and running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have an early-evening event planned in Morrisville, Pa. — Romney’s first rally in the state this fall.

Romney’s visit follows the decision by his campaign and its Republican allies to put millions of dollars in television advertising in Pennsylvania during the race’s final weeks. Obama’s team followed suit, making a late advertising buy of its own.

The Republican ticket cast the late push into the Keystone State as a sign that Romney had momentum and a chance to pull away states that Obama’s campaign assumed it would win handily.

The president’s team called the move a “Hail Mary” and a sign Romney still doesn’t have a clear pathway to reaching the required 270 Electoral College votes.

Democrats have a million-voter registration advantage in Pennsylvania. Obama senior adviser David Plouffe said that means Romney would have to win two-thirds of the state’s independents, a prospect he called “an impossibility.”

The president caught a few hours of sleep back at the White House Saturday night before hitting the campaign trail again Sunday. After Marine One lifts off from the South Lawn Sunday morning, Obama won’t return to the executive mansion again until after Election Day.

The president’s rallies are aimed at boosting Democratic enthusiasm and motivating as many supporters as possible to cast their votes, either in the final hours of early voting or on Tuesday, Election Day. Persuading undecided voters, now just a tiny sliver of the electorate in battleground states, has become a secondary priority.

Obama and former President Bill Clinton drew 24,000 people to an outdoor rally in Bristow, Va., on a cold Saturday night.

Clinton, his voice hoarse after a week of campaigning, said he had “given my voice in the service of my president.” But that didn’t stop him from launching into a 30-minute defense of Obama and his economic policies.

He also slammed Romney for his shifting positions, saying “He could be the chief contortionist for Cirque de Soleil.”

Obama, who spoke second, embraced Clinton as he walked on stage. The president said at this stage of the campaign, he was largely “a prop” and the race was in the voters’ hands.

“The power is not with us anymore,” he said. “It’s all up to you.”

Obama’s campaign said it had registered 1.8 million voters in key battleground states, nearly double the number of voters they registered in 2008. Campaign officials said volunteers had made 125 million personal phone calls or door knocks with voters.

Romney has also attracted large crowds in the final weekend of campaigning. His rally in Ohio on Friday drew more than 20,000 people.

Romney has been using teleprompters to deliver his final campaign speeches. He’s claiming the mantle of change — and highlighting what he says was a bipartisan record as governor of Massachusetts.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/04/obama-romney-hit-battleground-states-with-closing-arguments-for-undecided/#ixzz2BHXdA7Dl

 

Please God: Pundit Predicts 1980 Reagan-like Blow Out for Romney

1 Comment

 

This is from Clash Daily.

Hopefully Romney will have a Ronald Reagan moment during the debates.

I think Romney will wipe the stage with Obama.

The debate I want to see is the one between Slow Joe and Paul Ryan.

Ryan will clean Slow Joe’s clock.

VDH- There was only one presidential debate in 1980 between challenger Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter. Just two days before the Oct. 28 debate, Carter was eight points ahead in the Gallup poll. A week after the debate, he lost to Reagan by nearly ten percentage points.

Reagan’s debate quip, “There you go again,” reminded voters of Carter’s chronic crabbiness. Even more devastating was Reagan’s final, direct question to American voters: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” No one, it seemed, could muster a “Yes!”

Yet there was more to the 1980 campaign than the final game-changing debate rhetoric — and some of the details are relevant to 2012.
Carter conceded that he could not run on his economic record — not with a high “misery index’ driven by high inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices and high unemployment. The lengthy Iranian hostage crisis finally began to highlight rather than mask Carter’s anemic domestic leadership. Without a record to defend, Carter instead pounded Reagan as too ill-informed and too dangerous to be president.

The negative campaigning had not only worked but also seemed to get under Reagan’s skin. He kept going off topic while committing serial gaffes: He claimed that California had eliminated its smog; that trees polluted as much as cars, that Alaska had more known oil than Saudi Arabia, and that new evidence cast doubt upon Darwin’s theory of evolution. Reagan got clumsily bogged down in distracting controversies about everything from Taiwan and the Vietnam War to the Ku Klux Klan and the stealth bomber program.

Reagan fumbled facts and numbers constantly, as the nitpicking Carter blasted him for implausibly promising lower taxes, balanced budgets and vastly higher defense spending all at once. Throughout late summer, Reagan could not tap widespread voter dissatisfaction with Carter’s disastrous economic and foreign policy and his off-putting sanctimoniousness.

Even more unfortunate for Reagan, Republican Congressman John Anderson announced a third-party candidacy. Anderson and a fourth candidate, Libertarian candidate Ed Clark, eventually combined to siphon off more than 6.5 million votes, most of which probably otherwise would have gone to Reagan.

A desperate Reagan also was having difficulty getting Carter out of the Rose Garden to debate. Finally, in late October, Reagan capitulated to Carter’s preconditions and met him one time, face to face, without Anderson present.

In other words, until the very last week of the campaign, Reagan had an uphill fight. True, he eventually won a landslide victory in the Electoral College (489 to 49) and beat Carter handily in the popular vote. Yet Reagan only received a 51 percent majority.

What had saved Reagan from a perfect storm of negative factors — gaffes, additional conservative candidates on the ballot, a single debate and a biased media — was not just the debate. Voter turnout was relatively low at only 53 percent. If Reagan’s conservative base was united and energized, Carter’s proved divided and indifferent.

Reagan also won about a dozen (mostly Southern) states by less than 4 percent. Had just a few hundred thousand votes gone the other way in those states, the race might have been far closer than the eventual electoral and popular tallies indicated.

What does 1980 tell us about 2012? Barack Obama, like Carter, can run neither on his dismal four-year stewardship of the economy nor on his collapsing Middle East policy.

Instead, Obama, as Carter did, must stamp his opponent as too inexperienced, too out of touch and too uncaring to be president. While Carter was a dull speaker and Obama, in contrast, possesses teleprompter eloquence, there is no evidence that Obama is any better a debater than was Carter.
Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2012/09/please-god-pundit-predicts-1980-reagan-like-blow-out-for-romney/#ixzz28294txDY

 

Electoral College Model Predicts Romney Will Win Big in 2012 (And It’s Been Right Since 1980)

3 Comments

 

This is from The Blaze.

Sean Hannity interviewed  Michael Barry and Ken Kickers on his radio show on Friday.

The system they have worked out is amazingly accurate.

They said that the economy will be the determining factor in this race.

They said if the economy turns around Obama can be reelected.

I seriously doubt Obama being able to turn the economy around.

As the economy has steadily declined the entire time Obama has been in office.

University of Colorado Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry have quite a set of bragging rights up their sleeve – namely, they’ve devised a mathematical model of the Electoral College that has predicted every Presidential race correctly since Ronald Reagan won the Presidency in 1980.

And despite recent polls showing the presidential race deadlocked both nationally and in key swing states, Bickers and Berry‘s model shows a race that isn’t even close. According to them, not only will Mitt Romney win, but he will win big, taking 320 Electoral Votes to President Obama’s 218 – a result almost as decisive as President Obama’s win against Senator John McCain in 2008.

Michael Berry and Ken Bickers of the University of Colorado System Predict Romney to Win 320 Electoral Votes in November

The Huffington Post explains how the model works:

To predict the race’s outcome, the model uses economic indicators from all 50 states and it shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 for Obama, according to The Associated Press. The model also suggests that Romney will win every state currently considered a swing state which includes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado.[…]

Berry cautions that just because the model has worked in the past, doesn’t mean it will work this time. “As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict,” Berry said in a statement. Some of those factors include the timeframe of the current economic data used in the study (the data used was taken five months before the November election, but Berry and Bickers plan to update it with more current data come September) as well as tight races. States that are very close to a 50-50 split, the authors warn, can fall in an unexpected direction.

Even given the caveats near the end, this is encouraging news for supporters of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, given that it shows a race where the raw economic data appears to favor a Republican win. Granted, the election is still months away, and given that Berry and Bickers plan to update their model later, this forecast could change.

However, if things stay as they are economically, President Obama could be in for a rout come November.

 

Election Watchdog: 160 Counties Have More Registered Voters Than are Actually Eligible to Vote

Leave a comment

 

This is from The Blaze.

How much if any of this problem be fixed?

This will make for an interesting election.

A nonpartisan election integrity group has sent legal notices to 160 counties across the U.S. that it says have more voters on its registration rolls than actual live, eligible voters — and thus represent potential hotbeds for election fraud, the organization told The Blaze exclusively.

The Houston-based True the Vote said the counties may be in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which mandates that election officials maintain clean voter rolls by removing people who have died, moved away or are no longer eligible to vote. True the Vote is demanding each of the counties show proof of compliance or they’ll bring civil suit.

The counties in question are spread across 19 states that together account for 203 electoral college votes, including six current battleground states. Among the counties are LaSalle, Ill., which True the Vote identified as having 520 percent voter registration; Jefferson, Miss. with more than 230 percent; and Hanson, S.D. with 165 percent.

True the Vote Sends Notice to 160 Counties It Says Have More Than 100 Percent Voter Registration

The Houston-based True the Vote said it has identified 160 counties across 19 states with more registered voters on their rolls than eligible live voters. This chart highlights the 19 states and how they voted in the 2008 election. (Image source: True the Vote)

“It’s simply unacceptable for any county to have more voters on its rolls than people who are alive and eligible to vote,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said in a statement. “Failing to maintain accurate voter registration records is a flagrant violation of Section 8 in the NVRA.

US

Election Watchdog: 160 Counties Have More Registered Voters Than are Actually Eligible to Vote

True the Vote 160 counties more than 100 percent voter registration

AP

A nonpartisan election integrity group has sent legal notices to 160 counties across the U.S. that it says have more voters on its registration rolls than actual live, eligible voters — and thus represent potential hotbeds for election fraud, the organization told TheBlaze exclusively.

The Houston-based True the Vote said the counties may be in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which mandates that election officials maintain clean voter rolls by removing people who have died, moved away or are no longer eligible to vote. True the Vote is demanding each of the counties show proof of compliance or they’ll bring civil suit.

The counties in question are spread across 19 states that together account for 203 electoral college votes, including six current battleground states. Among the counties are LaSalle, Ill., which True the Vote identified as having 520 percent voter registration; Jefferson, Miss. with more than 230 percent; and Hanson, S.D. with 165 percent.

True the Vote Sends Notice to 160 Counties It Says Have More Than 100 Percent Voter Registration

The Houston-based True the Vote said it has identified 160 counties across 19 states with more registered voters on their rolls than eligible live voters. This chart highlights the 19 states and how they voted in the 2008 election. (Image source: True the Vote)

“It’s simply unacceptable for any county to have more voters on its rolls than people who are alive and eligible to vote,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said in a statement. “Failing to maintain accurate voter registration records is a flagrant violation of Section 8 in the NVRA.”

True the Vote identified the county irregularities by matching 2010 Census data to publicly available information from the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission.

“We are deeply concerned by our discovery of voter rolls across America that contain substantial numbers of ineligible voters, possibly resulting in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and the subversion of our nation’s electoral process,” the letters to the counties state.

True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell told The Blaze the notices were sent last week. He said True the Vote expects the counties to take proper action to clean their voter rolls well before Election Day in November.

“We don’t expect these to go ignored,”  Churchwell said.

True the Vote filed a joint lawsuit against the state of Indiana with the conservative foundation Judicial Watch in June, alleging similar violations of the National Voter Registration Act.

Read more about True the Vote and the importance of election integrity in TheBlaze Magazine‘s September issue.

 

%d bloggers like this: