Pelosi Defends Push To Overturn Iowa House Race GOP Won: ‘Well, It Was Six Votes’

—-

Pelosi Defends Push To Overturn Iowa House Race GOP Won: ‘Well, It Was Six Votes’

Pelosi Defends Push To Overturn Iowa House Race GOP Won: ‘Well, It Was Six Votes’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended Democrats moving forward to overturn an Iowa congressional race captured by Republicans after recounts decided the contest by six votes.

Iowa freshman GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won the close contest, which was certified by state election officials. She was seated in the House of Representatives in January. Her failed Democrat opponent, Rita Hart, however, bypassed state avenues for appeal and triggered a congressional mechanism to contest the results directly in the U.S. House controlled by her own party.

“The votes were counted, re-counted, certified by the state, but the House Administration Committee began a process this week that could lead to unseating the congresswoman,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said on “This Week” Sunday. “Why investigate an election that was certified by the state?”

“Well, it was six votes,” Pelosi said on the flagship Sunday political program, dismissing the democratic process and those voters’ civil rights. “It was six votes and our candidate, Rita Hart… asked for this process to begin. What the committee did, the House Administration Committee, was very narrow to take the process to the next step and see where it goes from there.”

Pelosi said at an afternoon press conference last Thursday that the House speaker presiding over the slimmest majority of her congressional career could see a scenario play out, governed by Democrats, where Hart could take a seat in the lower chamber. Pelosi currently holds a nine-vote advantage over Republicans, raising the stakes of the Iowa contest to offer the House speaker more room to control her caucus.

“I respect the committee … We’ll see where that takes us,” Pelosi said.

Miller-Meeks railed against Democrats’ efforts to undermine the voters in Iowa’s 2nd congressional district on Fox News Friday.

“There is no doubt in my mind, and there is no doubt in the bipartisan executive council who has certified me the winner. So it was not only the secretary of state, it was a bipartisan executive council,” Miller-Meeks said of the likelihood she won the race fairly. “Iowa law is what determines what our election process is, how the ballots are included, and all of that was done. What my opponent wants to do is to violate Iowa law, to go against Iowa law, and go against the representation of the voters of Iowa, and disenfranchise 400,000 voters.”

Hart’s challenge rests upon 22 ballots the Democrat’s campaign alleges were improperly rejected. Hart’s campaign argues had they been counted, the Democratic candidate would have won the race by a nine-vote margin.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Zuckerberg Grant Allowed Outsider to Infiltrate Presidential Election in Wisconsin

Emails and other documents show that grant money from left-leaning groups funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg led to Democrats’ infiltrating the presidential election in Wisconsin’s five largest cities. Pictured: A voter casts his ballot last April 7 in a primary election at Journey Church in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Photo: Kamil Krzacznski/Getty Images)

MADISON, Wis.—When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife handed out hundreds of millions of dollars last year for a national safe-voting initiative, the “donation” was heralded as vital support to “protect American elections” and to “bolster democracy during the pandemic.”

But what the grant money really purchased in battleground states such as Wisconsin was infiltration of the November presidential elections by liberal groups and Democratic activists, according to hundreds of pages of emails and other documents obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight.

In the city of Green Bay, which received a total of $1.6 million in grant funding from the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, a “grant mentor” who has worked for several Democratic Party candidates, was given access to boxes of absentee ballots before the election.

Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state leader for the National Vote at Home Institute, in many ways became the de facto city elections chief.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

The emails show Green Bay’s highly partisan Mayor Eric Genrich, a Democrat, and his staff usurping City Clerk Kris Teske’s authority and letting the Zuckerberg-funded “grant team” take over—a clear violation of Wisconsin election statutes, say election law experts.

And the liberal groups were improperly insinuating themselves into the election system and coordinating with what became known as the “Wisconsin 5,” the state’s five largest communities that split more than $6 million in Zuckerberg money.

The emails expose the dangers of handing over the administrative keys to private “fair election” groups with a clear political agenda.

In final official results in Wisconsin, Democrat nominee Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by 49.6% to 48.9% of the vote, flipping a state that Trump won in 2016.

State Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, who chairs the Wisconsin State Assembly’s Campaigns and Elections Committee, said the Green Bay emails, first obtained by state Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, through an open records request, was to be front and center Wednesday at a hearing before the elections committee.

“Going forward, if we don’t address them, I think we have a breakdown in Wisconsin’s political system,” Brandtjen said.

Outside Help

In July, the Center for Tech and Civic Life announced it was awarding grants totaling $6.3 million to the state’s five largest cities. Green Bay received nearly $1.1 million, and then picked up another half-million dollars in a supplemental grant.

The money ostensibly was to be used to “support election administration in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The “Wisconsin 5,” heavy Democratic strongholds, worked together to secure the funding.

The grants were thanks to the $250 million “gift” from the CEO of Facebook, the social network giant that has silenced conservative speech. Zuckerberg would drop another $100 million on his “safe elections” agenda before the pivotal November presidential election.

It was clear early on that the grant would come with a side of politics.

“I’ve been reading things on Facebook about people complaining where the million [-dollar grant] is coming from. I think it might get political,” Teske, then-Green Bay city clerk, wrote in a July 14 email to Diana Ellenbecker, the city’s finance director and Teske’s boss.

Teske wrote that Celestine Jeffreys, the mayor’s chief of staff, “talked about having advisers from the organization giving the grant who will be ‘helping us’ with the election and I don’t know anything about that.”

Eventually, the advisers would play an extensive role in “helping” administer Green Bay’s election.

“We are really excited to put the funds to work to make sure that every Green Bay resident has the opportunity to vote safely and securely in August and November,” Genrich said in a press release announcing the grant.

The mayor championed the grant and the Green Bay City Council approved the funding—with conditions from the grant provider.

“CTCL said, if you don’t follow our requirements, we get the money back,” said Erick Kaardal, an appellate law attorney representing the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, which challenged the constitutionality of election procedures in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin following the election. “The city had to report to CTCL how it was spending the grant money, then [CTCL] introduced all of the nonprofits.”

Can We Help?

One of the key players involved was Spitzer-Rubenstein, the state leader for election security for the National Vote at Home Institute.

The institute, one of many left-leaning subcontractors in the “election support” network, is tied at the hip to the Center for Tech and Civil Life. CTCL’s founder and executive director is in the “Circle of Advisers” for the National Vote at Home Institute.

Spitzer-Rubenstein, who was tapped as point man for his organization’s efforts in Wisconsin, has a history of working for Democratic campaigns, according to his resume. In 2012, he interned for Melissa Mark-Viverito, a “fiercely liberal” Democrat and former speaker of the New York City Council.

Spitzer-Rubenstein sought to assist Green Bay elections officials correct or “cure” absentee ballots returned to the city clerk.

“Can we help with curing absentee ballots that are missing a signature or witness signature address?” he wrote to Teske, the city clerk, in an Oct. 7 email.

Although the Wisconsin Elections Commission permitted clerks to fix absentee ballot errors or omissions, it didn’t say former Democratic Party operatives could “help.”

The city clerk declined Spitzer-Rubenstein’s offer.

The mayor’s office applied pressure.

“The grant mentors would like to meet with you to discuss, further, the ballot curing process. Please let them know when you’re available,” Jeffreys, Genrich’s chief of staff, demanded of Teske.

Spitzer-Rubenstein assured the clerk that the National Vote at Home Institute had done the same for others.

“We have a process map that we’ve worked out with Milwaukee for their process,” he wrote. “We can also adapt the letter we’re sending out with rejected absentee ballots along with a call script alerting voters (We can also get people to make the calls, too, so you don’t need to worry about it.).”

Jeffreys told Wisconsin Spotlight that she hadn’t seen the emails (though she sent them), so she couldn’t comment on them. She said she probably wouldn’t have time to review them, even if they were sent to her.

Too Much ‘Help’

Teske was losing her patience—and control of her office. Several emails show the city clerk’s growing frustration with the mayor, his chief of staff, the city’s ad hoc elections committee, and the nonprofit interlopers who were making themselves at home in Green Bay election administration.

“As you know I am very frustrated, along with the Clerk’s Office. I don’t know what to do anymore,” the city clerk wrote in late August to Ellenbecker, her boss as finance director. “I am trying to explain the process but it isn’t heard. I don’t feel I can talk to the mayor after the last meeting you, me, Celestine, and the mayor had even though the door is supposedly open. I don’t understand how people who don’t have knowledge of the process can tell us how to manage the election.”

On Oct. 22, things apparently reached a boiling point. Teske told Ellenbecker that two members of the clerk’s staff wanted to quit, and another was looking for a new job. They were being ignored or bullied by the mayor’s office.

“They call me crying or they say they went home crying,” the clerk said.

Teske wondered if the grant team consultants understood Wisconsin election law.

“I also asked when these people from the grant give us advisers who is go [sic] to be determining if there [sic] opinion is legal or not,” she wrote July 9 in an email to Ellenbecker. “Every state has different election laws. And this group is from Illinois. They already should have pointed out that additional in-person early voting sites can’t happen because the deadline has passed.”

Eventually, Teske could take no more. On Oct. 22, she wrote in an email that she was taking a leave of absence. By the end of the year, she officially had resigned to take a similar position with the nearby community of Ashwaubenon.

Teske did not return Wisconsin Spotlight’s requests for comment.

Keys to the Election

In Teske’s absence, it appears that Spitzer-Rubenstein and his team ramped up their involvement in the upcoming election. The state leader for the National Vote at Home Institute seemed to be everywhere, leading just about every aspect of Green Bay’s election administration.

“Are the ballots going to be in trays/boxes within the bin? I’m at KI now, trying to figure out whether we’ll need to move the bins throughout the day or if we can just stick them along the wall and use trays or something similar to move the ballots between stations,” Spitzer-Rubenstein wrote in an email to city liaison Amaad Rivera two days before the election.

The KI Convention Center at Green Bay’s Hyatt Regency was where the election team decided to locate the city’s Central Count and where the absentee ballots were stored, late in the game.

Central Count originally was to be at City Hall, but space limitations and COVID-19 concerns forced the move to the convention center. At one point, a city official, after talking with a representative from the National Vote at Home Institute, was “brainstorming” about how the city could livestream Central Count at City Hall “so that [election observers] do not enter the building.”

Spitzer-Rubenstein was given the keys to the room where the absentee ballots were stored. A Hyatt Regency checklist instructed staff: “DO NOT UNLOCK GRAND BALLROOM UNTIL Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein IS WITH SECURITY WHEN UNLOCKING THE GRAND BALLROOM DOORS.”

Sandy Juno, who retired from the post of Brown County clerk in early January, said the contract stipulated that Spitzer-Rubenstein would have four of the five keys to the KI Center’s ballroom “several days before the election.”

The city of Green Bay literally gave the keys to the election to a Democratic Party operative from New York.

Green Bay Goes Rogue

Juno raised concerns about how the election was conducted in Green Bay. She told the Wisconsin Elections Commission that she believed the Central Count location was “tainted by the influence of a person working for an outside organization affecting the election.”

Nathan Judnic, Elections Commission staff attorney, said nothing prohibited the city from working with the groups, but “the inspectors and the absentee board of canvassers working the location are the individuals that are to be making decisions, not the consultants.”

It’s clear by the emails, though, that Spitzer-Rubenstein and crew were calling a lot of the shots.

Juno said Green Bay city officials, led by the mayor’s office, broke off communications with the Brown County clerk’s office long before the election.

“We had one municipality in Brown County that really went rogue,” she said. “In 2020, Green Bay was just on their own.”

Although the city may not have been communicating with the county, it was communicating and coordinating with the “WI-5,” particularly Milwaukee elections officials, the emails show.

Kaardal, the lawyer for the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, asserts that the liberal nonprofit groups worked with the mayor’s office, the Green Bay City Council, and the ad hoc election committee to usurp the city clerk’s authority.

Wisconsin election law clearly spells out that municipal clerks are in charge of administering elections. Kaardal said Center for Tech and Civic Life’s election security funding came with conditions that bound the city to give these left-leaning actors power they could not legally take.

The mayor and his team, as well as the City Council, had no legal right to limit the city clerk’s role in the elections, or take them over.

Kaardal said the question isn’t about election fraud; it’s about the laws broken by the third-party groups and the city, leaving doubt about the integrity of the election system.

“What’s critical to understand is how legally unauthorized all of this is,” said the lawyer, who also is special counsel for the Thomas More Society.

A top official for the Center for Tech and Civic Life did not return Wisconsin Spotlight’s request for comment.

Brandtjen, chairman of the Assembly’s Campaigns and Elections Committee, said liberal voters would have the same concerns if the shoe were on the other foot.

“I would liken it to if someone had the tea party running the elections in [Republican] Waukesha County,” the lawmaker said.

The Republican-controlled Legislature recently has introduced several reform bills, a response to myriad election integrity concerns leading up to and through the heated presidential election.

The package of bills includes legislation prohibiting clerks and election officials from curing ballots, returning to the original intent of the law that electors and witnesses for absentee voters fix mistakes or omissions.

Another reform measure would require private funding to go through the state, which would divide the money among more than just Wisconsin’s largest, most liberal cities.

“My constituents have had a lot of concerns about the 2020 elections. What we’ve seen in the back and forth of these emails in Green Bay legitimizes their concerns,” Brandtjen said.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.

7 Ways the 2005 Carter-Baker Report Could Have Averted Problems With 2020 Election

On Sept. 19, 2005, former President Jimmy Carter (left) returned to the White House to provide President George W. Bush a copy of the report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform. Carter co-chaired the commission with former Secretary of State James Baker. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

They called on states to increase voter ID requirements; to be leery of mail-in voting; to halt ballot harvesting; to maintain voter lists, in part to ensure dead people are promptly removed from them; to allow election observers to monitor ballot counting; and to make sure voting machines are working properly.

They also wanted the media to refrain from calling elections too early and from touting exit polls.

All of this may sound eerily similar to the issues in the prolonged presidential election battle of 2020. But these were among the 87 recommendations from the 2005 report of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission.

The bipartisan commission’s co-chairmen were former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican who served in the George H.W. Bush administration.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

The commission was created to address voting and election integrity issues raised by the tumultuous 36-day postelection battle of 2000, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that resulted in awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the presidency to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

Had Congress and state governments adopted many of the panel’s recommendations, the 2020 postelection mess between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden might have been avoided, said Carter-Baker Commission member Kay C. James, now the president of The Heritage Foundation.

“So many of the problems we’re now hearing about in the aftermath of the 2020 election could have been avoided had states heeded the advice of the Commission on Federal Election Reform,” she said.

James continued:

Simple protections against fraud, like voter ID and updated voter registration lists, make perfect sense if we truly believe that every vote must count. Election officials should take another look at the commission’s recommendations and make sure they’re doing everything possible to protect the integrity of our elections.

Several state legislatures adopted aspects of the recommendations, particularly voter ID proposals. However, Congress reportedly was unenthusiastic about the report.

Major media outlets have called the race for Biden, but election litigation is still playing out in courts, and votes are still being counted.

However, 70% of Republicans do not believe the 2020 election was free and fair, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll. Before the election, just 35% of Republicans didn’t believe the election would be free and fair. The shift was different among Democrats, where 95% believed the election was free and fair afterward, compared with 52 who said the same before the election.

Here’s a look at the 2005 panel’s recommendations relevant to this year’s elections.

1) Voter IDs

With the vast expansion of mail-in voting this year, voter ID requirements were less likely.

Today, states have a patchwork of voter ID laws, with 36 states either requiring or requesting voters to present identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The conference says only six states have “strict” photo ID requirements—Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

The Carter-Baker Commission called for voter ID standards nationwide in its 2005 report.

“To ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005,” the Carter-Baker Commission report said.

“The card includes a person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. This card should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an [Election Assistance Commission]-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.”

Carter, when speaking months after the release of the report, said other countries not known for being examples of democracy had fairer elections than the United States, and stressed the need for photo IDs.

“It’s disgraceful and embarrassing,” the former president said in May 2006. On IDs, Carter said, “Americans have to remember you have to have the equivalent to what we’re requiring to cast a ballot to cash a check or board a plane.”

2) Mail-In and Absentee Voting Risks

In a brief filed supporting the Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania litigation over mail-in ballots, a group of Republican state attorneys general reference the Cater-Baker Commission report among other items regarding mail-in voting and ballot harvesting.

The 2020 election trends seemed to shift dramatically as mailed-in votes were counted. Further, many questions have emerged about the point of origin for ballots.

Specifically, the report called on states to prohibit third parties or political operatives from collecting ballots—a practice commonly known as “ballot harvesting.”

The report stated: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

“State and local jurisdictions should prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal Service, or other legitimate shipper, or election officials,” the 2005 commission report said. “The practice in some states of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots should be eliminated.”

However, this year, as mail-in voting veered into becoming a partisan issue, the Carter Center issued a statement promoting support for mail-in voting, but maintaining safeguards against ballot harvesting.

The Carter Center, founded by the former president and first lady Rosalynn Carter, is affiliated with Emory University and promotes peace and democracy efforts globally and domestically.

A Carter Center press release in May said the commission report “noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots.”

“However, the Carter-Baker Commission found that where safeguards for ballot integrity are in place—for example in Oregon, where the entire state has voted by mail since 1998—there was little evidence of voter fraud,” the Carter Center statement continued.

The commission’s main recommendations on vote-by-mail and absentee voting were to increase research on vote-by-mail (and early voting) and to eliminate the practice of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots.

Fortunately, since 2005, many states have gained substantial experience in vote-by-mail and have shown how key concerns can be effectively addressed through appropriate planning, resources, training, and messaging.

Carter himself is quoted in the press release saying, “I urge political leaders across the country to take immediate steps to expand vote-by-mail and other measures that can help protect the core of American democracy—the right of our citizens to vote.”

3) Avoiding Duplicate Registration Across State Lines

In Nevada, the Trump campaign asserts there were potentially thousands of out-of-state votescast in one of the most closely contested states.

The Carter-Baker Commission report called for states to make it easier to track registered voters who move from one state to another to reduce duplication of registrations.

The report states, “Invalid voter files, which contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, or deceased voters, are an invitation to fraud.”

“In order to assure that lists take account of citizens moving from one state to another, voter databases should be made interoperable between states,” the Carter-Baker report stated. “This would serve to eliminate duplicate registrations, which are a source of potential fraud.”

The report calls for states to maintain and update their voter registration lists.

“When an eligible voter moves from one state to another, the state to which the voter is moving should be required to notify the state which the voter is leaving to eliminate that voter from its registration list,” the report said, adding:

All states should have procedures for maintaining accurate lists, such as electronic matching of death records, driver’s licenses, local tax rolls, and felon records.

Federal and state courts should provide state election offices with the lists of individuals who declare they are non-citizens when they are summoned for jury duty.

4) Election Observers for Integrity

In Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada, Republicans have complained that qualified election observers have been prohibited from watching the counting.

The Carter-Baker Commission report stressed the need for election observers to maintain the integrity of the ballots.

“All legitimate domestic and international election observers should be granted unrestricted access to the election process, provided that they accept election rules, do not interfere with the electoral process, and respect the secrecy of the ballot,” the 2005 report said.

Such observers should apply for accreditation, which should allow them to visit any polling station in any state and to view all parts of the election process, including the testing of voting equipment, the processing of absentee ballots, and the vote count.

States that limit election observation only to representatives of candidates and political parties should amend their election laws to explicitly permit accreditation of independent and international election observers.

5) Reliable Voting Machines

Voting machines have also been a significant issue in 2020, particularly in Michigan, as one county there flipped from Biden to Trump after a hand recount showed the machine count to be inaccurate.

The Carter-Baker Commission suggested that machines print out paper receipts for voters to verify their vote was accurately counted.

“States should adopt unambiguous procedures to reconcile any disparity between the electronic ballot tally and the paper ballot tally,” the 2005 report says. “The Commission strongly recommends that states determine well in advance of elections which will be the ballot of record.”

6) Media Calling Elections

On election night, Fox News Channel was the first to call the state of Arizona for Biden, prompting outrage in the Trump camp. Moreover, major media outlets have projected Biden to have won the election, even as vote counting and litigation continue.

The 2005 commission report also addressed problems with the media, suggesting news outlets voluntarily offer candidates free airtime and also show restraint in calling a state for one candidate or the other. The First Amendment would prevent any such rule from being mandatory.

“News organizations should voluntarily refrain from projecting any presidential election results in any state until all of the polls have closed in the 48 contiguous states,” the report states. “News organizations should voluntarily agree to delay the release of any exit-poll data until the election has been decided.”

7) Prosecuting Voter Fraud

The Carter-Baker Commission suggested that federal and state prosecutors should more aggressively monitor voter fraud.

“In July of even-numbered years, the U.S. Department of Justice should issue a public report on its investigations of election fraud,” the report says.

This report should specify the numbers of allegations made, matters investigated, cases prosecuted, and individuals convicted for various crimes. Each state’s attorney general and each local prosecutor should issue a similar report. … The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Public Integrity should increase its staff to investigate and prosecute election-related fraud.

—-

John Fund

Voter Fraud is real and can affect the outcome of close elections!!!

Voter Fraud in Missouri: Wrong Candidate Was Elected

May 17, 2013 at 2:58 pm

Voters in voting booths

Newscom

A guilty plea in a Kansas City, Missouri, voter fraud case this week illustrates something the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out when it upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008:

[F]lagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history [and] occasional examples have surfaced in recent years that…demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

On Monday, John C. Moretina pleaded guilty to a federal felony count of voter fraud in the August 2010 Democratic primary in Missouri’s 40th legislative district. Moretina falsely claimed he was living in the 40th district just so he could vote in the primary. This is a Democratic district where the winner of the primary, John J. Rizzo, was highly likely to become the district representative in the state house and, in fact, was elected. But Rizzo beat his Democratic opponent, Will Royster, by only one vote: 664 to 663.

Moretina did not inform the court whom he voted for, but since he is Rizzo’s uncle, it is not too much of a stretch to guess that he gave his nephew the winning margin of victory. Moreover, there were also allegations that Moretina’s wife fraudulently voted in this primary election as well, although she was not charged.

What is undeniable is that, as the Kansas City Star says, “the wrong candidate was declared [the] winner of the 2010 Democratic primary.”

Some opponents of voter ID mistakenly claim that this fraud shows that “stricter voter ID” requirements are not needed because voter ID would not have stopped this fraud. While no one claims that voter ID is a solution to all types of voter fraud, it is one of the critical steps that should be taken by states to improve the integrity of the election process.

As John Fund and I outlined in our book Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and as the Supreme Court said, voter fraud is real, and it can change the outcome of a close election. It certainly changed the outcome of this state legislative race in Missouri.

Related posts:

John Fund on the issue of voter fraud

I got a chance to visit with John Fund the last time he came to Little Rock to speak and he made a great case that there is voter fraud happening in recent times and something has to be done about it. Here is an article that shows how liberals are denying reality when they […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 5):

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund discusses the stimulus bill during Missouri Chamber Day at the Capitol Part 2 Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by  KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 4):Responding to liberals who criticize states like Texas that don’t have the red tape that California has

John Fund at Chamber Day, Part 1 Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by  KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund. John […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 3):

Ep. 7 – Who Protects the Consumer [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Milton Friedman served as economic advisor for two American Presidents – Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Although Friedman was inevitably drawn into the national political spotlight, he never held public office.   In the clip above you can see Milton Friedman […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 2):Arkansas is a right to work state and gets new businesses because of it, Obama does not get that, but Milton Friedman does!!!(Royal Wedding Part 18)

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Speakers at the First Richmond Tea Party, October 8-9, 2010 John Fund   John Fund is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal and its OpinionJournal.com and an on-air contributor to 24-hour cable news networks CNBC and MSNBC. He is the […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 1):Carter, Clinton and Obama all governed from left when first elected (Royal Wedding Part 14)

Today I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by  KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund. John Fund writes the weekly “On the Trail” column […]

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: