There Are Nearly 300 Cases of Voter Fraud in America

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Signal.  

 Eric The Lawless Holder told us voter fraud does not happen.

What a load of crap.

The Heritage Foundation’s list of nearly 300 documented cases of voter fraud in the United States continues to grow.

Recent additions reveal that voter fraud is not just an individual or isolated crime; in some counties and communities, election fraud is almost a way of life.

These additions again reinforce the need for measures such as voter ID laws and procedures designed to verify the accuracy of voter registration information are needed to prevent these crimes in the first place.

Take East Chicago, Ind., for example, a town made infamous by the extensive voter fraud that occurred there in the 2003 Democratic mayoral primary election.

The fraud was so pervasive that the Indiana Supreme Courtoverturned the results of the primary and ordered a new special election that resulted in a different winner.

A local judge found “direct, competent, and convincing evidence” that supporters of the election’s apparent victor, incumbent Mayor Robert Pastrick, orchestrated an elaborate scheme of absentee ballot fraud.

Pastrick won the primary by garnering more absentee ballot votes than his nearest opponent, George Pabey, who received more in-person votes. Once that result was overturned, a new primary election was held and Pabey prevailed.

State and local officials convened a voter fraud task force to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of this scheme.

The task force secured 46 convictions over a few years.

Many of these would-be election thieves submitted absentee ballots despite not even living in the city of East Chicago.

Joseph Pedraza and Constance D. Simmons-Pedraza, for example, falsely claimed residence in East Chicago so they could vote there in the 2003 Democratic primary.

City employment records revealed that both actually resided in the nearby town of St. John. They pleaded guilty in 2008 to voting in a precinct where they did not live and were each sentenced to a one-year suspended prison sentence.

Larry Battle, who had a prior history of “crimes of dishonesty,” also pleaded guilty to voting outside his precinct for the election.

At his sentencing hearing, Battle’s lawyer, Willie Harris, asked the judge for leniency, pointing out that everybody was voting outside their precincts.

Unpersuaded by the “everybody was doing it” defense, the judge sentenced Battle to two years in prison.

Another defendant, Tamika Lay, echoed Harris’s sentiments, expressing frustration to the judge at her sentencing hearing at being held accountable for her fraudulent vote. “People have been doing it [fraudulent voting] for years, and all of a sudden they want to do something about it,” she lamented.

These comments indicate an extraordinary and unsettling nonchalance toward crimes that undermine the integrity of the democratic electoral process.

Moreover, they suggest that a culture of voter fraud pervades communities like East Chicago across America, to the point that voter fraud is no longer seen as an insidious and illegal activity but rather an accepted way of life.

East Chicago is certainly not the only home of systematic attempts to steal elections; another new addition to Heritage’s ever-growing list of documented voter fraud convictions is a collection of cases from Benton County, Miss., stemming from a 2007 election in which 16 individuals orchestrated an elaborate vote-buying scheme.

In Knott County, Ky., Judge Executive (the chief executive of that county) Donnie Newsome and co-conspirator Willard Smith were convicted on federal charges for organizing a conspiracy to pay several impoverished, handicapped, illiterate, or otherwise impaired persons to vote for Newsome and others by absentee ballot in the 1998 Democratic primary election.

Newsome was sentenced to 26 months in prison. Smith got a 24-month sentence.

Just a few years later, Randy Thompson became the second consecutive Knott County Judge Executive to be sent to federal prison on voter fraud charges.

A jury convicted Thompson and three co-conspirators of a vote-buying scheme that involved use of public funds.

Voter fraud also pervaded Lincoln County, W.V., over the years.Six Lincoln County Democrats pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges relating to a vote-buying conspiracy covering presidential and congressional elections dating back to 1990.

This was hardly the end of voter fraud in Lincoln County.Local public officials pleaded guilty in 2012 to falsifying absentee ballots and stuffing the ballot boxes in an effort to rig the 2010 Democratic primary. A judge overturned the results of one of the primary elections after throwing out 300 fraudulent ballots.

Justice ultimately prevailed in these cases. The fraudsters and thieves were held accountable for their crimes.

It is imperative that we root out these cultures of entrenched voter fraud in communities throughout the country.

It goes without saying that elections should be won by those who win through a fair democratic process, rather than by those with the most unethical supporters. That is why efforts to crack down on voter fraud are critical.

And though it may come as a surprise to the partisans who claim that efforts to maintain electoral integrity are sinister, there is one final lesson from the East Chicago Democratic primary: The perpetrators of voter fraud are not just committed to cheating their ideological opponents.

They’ll take out members of their own party if they have to.

Legislators and officials in states and localities across the country can and must act now.

Our posterity should not have to dream of something called a “fair election.”


Trayvon Martin Being Used As Poster Boy To Promote Voter Fraud

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

These race hustlers know voter fraud helps their DemocRat plantation owners.

So they look for whatever means promote voter fraud.

Al Sharpton,Jessie Jackson and Rep. Alan B. Williams (D-Fl) are shameless

race baiters and hustlers that exploit Trayvon Martin every chance the get.

Even more shameless are Trayvon’s parents in their silence are condoning

the exploiting of Trayvon as they exploiting him also.


Last month, the US Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  That section was a special provision that allowed the federal government to have a discretionary control of state voting laws in areas where there was historically voter discrimination against minorities.


This provision was aimed mostly at southern states and certain counties in other states.  The Act spells out certain criteria to define which states or counties would come under the special provision of Section 5.

The Obama administration has used Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to stop states from passing election laws that required photo IDs or that regulated or restricted the time and dates of early voting.

Attorney General Eric Holder used it nullify voter ID laws passed in Texas and South Carolina prior to the 2012 elections.  Since Obama took office, at least 30 states have tried to pass some kind of voting law to require a valid photo ID or to restrict the number of days available to early voting.

Obama and his henchmen have used Section 5 to attack every one of those laws and squash the states’ rights to enact them. Losing this legal tool, even though it was used wrongly in many cases, has not set well with Obama or Holder.

On Monday, they held a meeting with civil rights leaders at the White House to discuss plans to fight to restore the provisions of Section 5. Of course you wouldn’t expect the Democrats to have any kind of civil rights meeting without inviting one of the most racist people in the country, Al Sharpton.

Emerging from the meeting, which was closed to the media even though Sharpton is a commentator for MSNBC, he stated: “There is a wound in the Voting Rights Act, but it is far from dead.” Also in attendance was Rep. Alan B. Williams a Florida Democrat.

In what I deem as an act of tasteless desperation, Williams tried to push the issue of voting rights using Trayvon Martin as a poster child, because Martin would have turned 18 next year and would have been eligible to vote.

Williams stated: “One thing that’s not lost upon many of us down there, post the Shelby decision but also post the Zimmerman verdict, we know that next year would have been the first year that Trayvon Martin would have had an opportunity to vote, and we know that it’s very sacred, and it’s not lost on us.

We want to make sure that everyone has that opportunity.” Williams use of Martin with the voting rights issue is callous, incentive and offensive.  First of all, the voting rights issue of Section 5 is supposed to be about whether poor people can obtain a voter ID card or not.

From everything I read on Trayvon Martin, he was certainly mobile enough to go and register to vote, so he is a non-issue in this case. Secondly, what about all of the white, Hispanic, Asian or American Indian teens that have tragically died at the hands of someone else who would also be eligible to vote?

Singling out Martin should be an offense to the families of all of these other kids whose lives were cut short.  My three best friends growing up were killed by a drunk driver when they were 19.  The voting age at the time was still 21.

A year later, the voting age was dropped to 19 and they would have been able to vote. Thirdly, what happened to Trayvon Martin is tragic, but let’s face it, he wasn’t the little angel that everyone made him out to be.  He was a pot smoking, angry teen who owned a set of burglary tools.

He even stated on his social media sites that he wanted to start a fight with someone.  Obviously, the kid had an attitude problem and apparently took it out on George Zimmerman. As for Obama, Holder and company fighting for the voting rights of poor minorities,

it’s very hypocritical of them to make such an argument.  I’ve yet to have any of them explain to me why these same poor minority people are required to have an ID in order to receive the government assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc.) but it’s unconstitutional to require them to have a voter ID.

If they have a car, they have to have driver’s license and proof of insurance, but it’s unconstitutional to require them to have a voter ID.  Obamacare will require them to have health insurance which will require some form of ID, but it’s unconstitutional to require them to have a voter ID. It’s not about the rights of poor minorities; it’s about allowing avenues for voter fraud.

The truth is that Obama, Holder and company need to fight voter ID laws so they can continue to win elections via voter fraud.  Without voter IDs, they can repeat what happened in a number of precincts in the country who saw 100% of the vote going to Obama.

No voter ID allows dead people, pets, non-citizens and illegals to be able to cast their votes for Democrats. I honestly believe that if every state required a photo voter ID for last November’s election that there would be some Democrats still looking for a job, as many should be.






@ProjectVeritas_ : Jim Moran’s (D-Va.) Field Director Conspires to Commit Voter Fraud, Forge Docs

1 Comment

This is from Project Veritas.

This is the son of 11 term Virginia 8th District Representative Jim Moran.

How many more DemocRats are giving advice on how to commit voter fraud?

Let’s make this video go viral.

People of  Virginia and America this is your wake up call.


PROJECT VERITAS EXCLUSIVE: DNC Staffer Assists Double Voting In Support Of Obama

Leave a comment


This is from Project Veritas.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder says there is no evidence of voter fraud.

Mr.Holder just what do you call this? A tennis match?


Our undercover reporters ask OFA (Organizing for America, President Obama’s Grassroots arm of his re-election campaign) staffers for advice on double voting. In each circumstance the staffers are complicit in the illegal implications of voting twice.



Justice used research by Dem ‘agent’ to build case against Texas voter law

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.
From the same DOJ that lets The New B;ack Panther Party skate.
The same DOJ that will not prosecute any black person.
The same DOJ that calls patriots terrorist.
And terrorist patriots.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday accused the Justice Department of using data from an “agent of the Democratic Party” to bolster its case for blocking Texas’ controversial voter ID law.

Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who represents Texas, said he’s “disappointed” and concerned by the “unacceptable” move, demanding an explanation in a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The letter notes that the Justice Department is using data compiled by a company whose client list has included President Obama’s own election campaign.

“The Department of Justice has a responsibility to enforce and uphold the laws of the land without the influence of partisan politics,” Smith wrote. “When the Department goes to court, it represents the United States of America, not the Attorney General’s political party.”

Smith’s letter comes just days before a federal judge in Washington is set to hear arguments over whether to overrule the Justice Department, which concluded in March that the Texas law requiring voters to have state ID to cast a ballot is illegal under federal law because it disproportionately disenfranchises Hispanic voters.

“(A) Hispanic registered voter is at least 45.6 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack (state-issued) identification,” the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, told Texas officials in a letter in March. “Even assuming the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card issued by (the state), and that disparity is statistically significant.”

According to Perez’s letter, the Justice Department based its decision to block the law on “the state’s own data” — data handed over by Texas months earlier after the department requested more information. But hoping to bolster its upcoming case in court, the Justice Department recently submitted a report from Harvard University political science professor Stephen Ansolabehere – who used the Washington-based firm Catalist for information.

In his letter to Holder on Thursday, Smith took direct aim at that firm, citing a “conflict of interest.”

“Though Catalist is technically a private, for-profit company, it is really an agent of the Democratic Party,” Smith wrote. “There is at least the appearance that, rather than election laws that protect Texans’ right to vote in a secure and fair election, Catalist might prefer that Texas’s election laws favor Democratic Party candidates.”

In fact, Catalist’s client list posted online features prominent liberal and Democratic causes, including Obama’s 2008 election campaign, the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL – Pro-Choice America Foundation, and the Texas Democratic Trust.

In his letter, Smith called Catalist “an explicitly partisan operation founded, run, and staffed by dedicated Democratic activists,” noting that Catalist’s president is “a key player in the Democratic Party.”

Smith asked Holder to “vouch for Catalist’s non-partisan independence and reliability,” and if Holder can’t do so “then I request that you drop the Department’s objections to Texas’s voter identification law.”

In his report, Ansolabehere determined that of registered voters in Texas, 11 percent of those without a state ID are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and 21 percent are black. He came to that conclusion by first matching voter registration lists with names of those registered for a driver’s license or firearms license. He found that 1.9 million people are registered to vote but don’t have those state IDs, so he then turned to Catalist to determine the likely races of those 1.9 million people.

“The voter identification requirement will affect Whites and Minorities differently, and the difference is substantial,” Ansolabehere wrote.

Ansolabehere described use of Catalist data as “appropriate,” noting that “independent confirmation of the quality of the Catalist data files, their record matching algorithms, and their methodology for identifying races based on names and Census data come from recent industry-wide competitions.” He also said he independently tested their data several times to validate its reliability, and he “found that nearly all persons identified by Catalist as Black, White or Hispanic identified themselves” the same way in his own survey of them.

Ansolabehere’s report said Catalist “specializes in voter registration data” by matching voter registration records to commercial lists, such as National Change of Address, Axciom and InfoUSA, and then determining “the likely racial identity” of registered voters.

A legal aide to Smith acknowledged that Catalist’s data is “more in-depth” and “more refined” than what the Justice Department was likely looking at when it first objected to the voter ID law, but the aide said the issue now really comes down to “whether Catalist is providing the data in good faith” to Ansolabehere and whether the information was manipulated at all.

On Thursday, Smith also asked Holder for information on how it came to choose and pay Catalist for its data.

“Equally troubling, nothing in the record indicates that the Department conducted an open bidding process when it obtained Catalist’s data services,” Smith wrote in his letter. “If the Justice Department intentionally chose an organization with a left-leaning bias to review Texas’ voter ID law, this would be a disturbing misuse of taxpayer dollars and undermines the credibility of the Department’s challenge to the law.”

A spokeswoman for Catalist declined to comment for this article. The Justice Department said it’s reviewing Smith’s letter.

Texas lawmakers passed the voter ID law more than a year ago, touting it as a way to help deter and detect election fraud. In January, the state filed suit in Washington, asking a federal judge to green-light implementation of the law. Under the Voting Rights Act, Texas must get pre-approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge before making any changes to state voting laws.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has said the lawsuit in January was “in anticipation” of opposition from the Justice Department, which came two months later. A “bench trial” begins in Washington on Monday.

Read more:


%d bloggers like this: