On Sunday morning, I helped out at my home parish which has become a hotbed of social justice warrioring and people steeped in the culture of fear which is feeding the quarantine mentality of the day. (That’s quite a change from when I was a kid.) It was announced from the pulpit that at a certain time, three parishioners had volunteered to notarize mail-in ballots on the lawn of the church.

That was certainly nice of those people given that notary publics can be hard to find, but the reality is that my state, Missouri, requires notarized live signatures on mail in ballots.

That is interesting, as across the nation, that is not always the case, and in some states, mail in ballot scams and finding mail in ballots on the side of the road seems to be the order of the day.

Well, now that is interesting. If it wasn’t for voter fraud, no Democrat could be elected in the People’s Republic of California where the Democrats have been in control for the better part of four decades.

Interesting.

And given some background information and empirical evidence, most likely completely true.

In 1965, in the midst of all the civil rights uproar, a landmark piece of legislation was passed known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The act itself was supposed to ensure equal rights for voting nation wide, especially in the South where it was said that some demographic groups were discriminated against.

The bill contained several special provisions that targeted certain state and local governments: a “coverage formula” that determined which jurisdictions were subject to the act’s other special provisions (“covered jurisdictions”); a “preclearance” requirement that prohibited covered jurisdictions from implementing changes to their voting procedures without first receiving approval from the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the changes were not discriminatory; and the suspension of “tests or devices”, such as literacy tests, in covered jurisdictions. The bill also authorized the assignment of federal examiners to register voters, and of federal observers to monitor elections, to covered jurisdictions that were found to have engaged in egregious discrimination. The bill set these special provisions to expire after five years

Fifty-five years later, with twenty one challenges to the act and/or its provisions in the Supreme Court, and the darn thing is still with us.

So, what were the special provisions? After all poll taxes had been outlawed the year before.

Section 4(b) contains a “coverage formula” that determines which states and local governments may be subjected to the act’s other special provisions (except for the Section 203(c) bilingual election requirements, which fall under a different formula). Congress intended for the coverage formula to encompass the most pervasively discriminatory jurisdictions. A jurisdiction is covered by the formula if:

1. As of November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972, the jurisdiction used a “test or device” to restrict the opportunity to register and vote; and
2. Less than half of the jurisdiction’s eligible citizens were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972; or less than half of eligible citizens voted in the presidential election of November 1964, 1968, or 1972.

As originally enacted, the coverage formula contained only November 1964 triggering dates; subsequent revisions to the law supplemented it with the additional triggering dates of November 1968 and November 1972, which brought more jurisdictions into coverage.^[40] For purposes of the coverage formula, the term “test or device” includes the same four devices prohibited nationally by Section 201—literacy tests, educational or knowledge requirements, proof of good moral character, and requirements that a person be vouched for when voting—and one further device defined in Section 4(f)(3): in jurisdictions where more than five percent of the citizen voting age population are members of a single language minority group, any practice or requirement by which registration or election materials are provided only in English. The types of jurisdictions that the coverage formula applies to include states and “political subdivisions” of states.^{[42]:207–208} Section 14(c)(2) defines “political subdivision” to mean any county, parish, or “other subdivision of a State which conducts registration for voting.”^[95]

As Congress added new triggering dates to the coverage formula, new jurisdictions were brought into coverage. The 1965 coverage formula included the whole of Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia; and some subdivisions (mostly counties) in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina.^[40] The 1968 coverage resulted in the partial coverage of Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming. Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming filed successful “bailout” lawsuits, as also provided by section 4.^[40] The 1972 coverage covered the whole of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.^[40]…

Section 5^[98] requires that covered jurisdictions receive federal approval, known as “preclearance”, before implementing changes to their election laws. A covered jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race or language minority status; if the jurisdiction fails to meet this burden, the federal government will deny preclearance and the jurisdiction’s change will not go into effect. The Supreme Court broadly interpreted Section 5’s scope in Allen v. State Board of Election (1969),^[99] holding that any change in a jurisdiction’s voting practices, even if minor, must be submitted for preclearance.^[100] The court also held that if a jurisdiction fails to have its voting change precleared, private plaintiffs may sue the jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s local district court before a three-judge panel.^[e] In these Section 5 “enforcement actions”, a court considers whether the jurisdiction made a covered voting change, and if so, whether the change had been precleared. If the jurisdiction improperly failed to obtain preclearance, the court will order the jurisdiction to obtain preclearance before implementing the change. However, the court may not consider the merits of whether the change should be approved.

Note that California, the Golden State, and in 1972 the place where a lot of people were moving, was ADDED to the states needing to prove non-discrimination in voting practices. (Also note the number of now “swing states” listed as having to prove they don’t discriminate. There are also states with HUGE numbers of electoral votes in comparison to the states not even mentioned.)

Fast forward a bit to 1982, and the Ronald Reagan administration. Reagan, as it turns out, was not supposed to win. He was most assuredly not the choice of the powers that wannabe, The Big Club that most of us are not a part of. Given that at the top of the food chain there really is no difference between the parties, somehow it was agreed that Republicans, the party presenting the more pro-American messaging in word if not in deed, would acquiesce to Democrats, and whenever a question of voter fraud would arise, it simply would not be prosecuted.

Courtesy of Gail:

As I explained in my post of November 15, 2012, “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud,” in 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the Republican National Committee (RNC), the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.

The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.

The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance.…

To put it bluntly, the Consent Decree in effect gave a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined….

Since 1982, the Consent Decree had been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, who, even after he retired, returned every year for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year. Debevoise died in August 2015.

The 1982 Consent Decree died in January 2018 thanks to being handled by a different judge who did not agree that Republicans had violated said decree, and not a moment too soon.

The problem by then, though, was that voter fraud was more or less institutionalized and had been denied for so long, even undercover Project Veritas videos were denied as being what they clearly proported to be: evidence of voter fraud.

Simply, the Republicans could not fight back, nor were efforts to institute voter ID universally successful. The Supreme Court would inevitably tell the various states that having to spend money on state identification was “disenfranchising.”

My passport renewal was expensive, yes, but a valid state identification card is not.

In addition to Republicans being hamstrung regarding suing Democrats over voter fraud, the states were, shall we say, lax in being sure the voter rolls are accurate. In an attempt to clean that up, the Trump Administration did actually form an election integrity commission, but abandoned it when it was clear the states themselves would not cooperate.

“Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and he has asked the Department of Homeland Security to review its initial findings and determine next courses of action,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

The commission, led by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, had asked all 50 states and the District of Columbia to hand over reams of personal voter data, including voters’ names, voting histories and party affiliations.

Multiple states — including Virginia, Kentucky, and California — as well as D.C. declined to comply with the commission’s requests.

Now why would that be if elections were honest, and the voter rolls were in pristine, up to date condition.

Plain and simply, they wouldn’t be, and in one of many states being watched, where current representatives always seem to win by razor thin margins, and the total number of voters always seems to be higher than the number of people living in the district…there seems to be the odor of dead fish.

As reported by the National Review’s Deroy Murdock, who did some numbers-crunching of his own, “some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America’s adult citizens. Such staggering inaccuracy is an engraved invitation to voter fraud.”

Murdock counted Judicial Watch’s state-by-state tally and found that 462 U.S. counties had a registration rate exceeding 100% of all eligible voters. That’s 3.552 million people, who Murdock calls “ghost voters.” And how many people is that? There are 21 states that don’t have that many people.

Nor are these tiny, rural counties or places that don’t have the wherewithal to police their voter rolls.

California, for instance, has 11 counties with more registered voters than actual voters. Perhaps not surprisingly — it is deep-Blue State California, after all — 10 of those counties voted heavily for Hillary Clinton.

Los Angeles County, whose more than 10 million people make it the nation’s most populous county, had 12% more registered voters than live ones, some 707,475 votes. That’s a huge number of possible votes in an election.

But, Murdock notes, “California’s San Diego County earns the enchilada grande. Its 138% registration translates into 810,966 ghost voters.”

Well, that might explain a lot, especially when all those voters “vote.”

Just imagine if that happens not just in California, but in a whole lot of other states, like, say, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Florida…places with transient populations….

And the states are not cooperating when it comes to cleaning up the voter rolls both of those who have passed on to their rewards, and those who moved and registered to vote in another state.

And then there’s this year’s boondoggle: mail in voting.

It is true that a handful of states have had mail in voting for a while now, and wouldn’t you know it, all of them consistently sport Democrat “leadership.” (See Oregon for how that works out.) But now, in states that are known to swing, like Ohio, there is a push for no holds barred mail in voting using the fear stoked over COVID-19 as the reason why it should be accepted.

And the usual suspects are trying to be sure that all ballots are counted even if the signatures on them don’t match.

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Ohio, Lawyers’ Committee and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP announced they filed a motion in Cincinnati federal court for a preliminary injunction against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

The legal action is on the behalf of plaintiffs League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and several impacted Ohio voters, according to an ACLU news release.

They call Ohio’s system “flawed,” particularly in light of the unprecedented numbers of voters statewide likely to vote by mail this November.

The motion asks the court “to ensure voters have sufficient notice of purportedly mismatched signatures and the opportunity to fix those mismatches when boards of elections mistakenly reject their ballots and ballot applications on the basis of signature mismatches.”

Is this REALLY about election integrity, or is there an organized, concerted effort to subvert the 2020 election of any and all offices using any and every method of cheating that has ever worked?

Some might call that a coup.

What it really is is an attempt to keep the will of the people from being realized, which we are all now coming to understand has been in motion for decades including the move away from paper ballots and toward electronic voting machines that just happen to be sold by a company financed by America hater George Soros.

This thread is about putting stories and evidence of election shenanigans in one spot. Please, put any personal accounts, posts from other forums, video, etc., in the comments below.

We’re in for the fight of our lives with this election. We all need to be able to spot fraud when we see it.