by Ed Naile
Several states have decided to not cooperate with the Election Integrity Commission. California and Virginia are the first states to start this method of avoiding transparency.
Of course states that promote illegal voting are not going to willingly give their election data to people who can read and understand it. That would fly in the face of why they keep such records secret in the first place. A handful of Virginia counties just lost embarrassing court cases to The Public Interest Legal Foundation and had to turn over the names of non-US citizens who were voting in Virginia for years.
Just in case you run into people who deny there is widespread voter fraud in America, court actions by PILF in Virginia caused the release of the over 1,500 individual names and addresses of illegal voters.
With California being one of the states resisting handing over its highly controversial taxpayer funded statewide database, it will give the public a chance to see how widespread voter fraud, conducted by states, actually works.
California, as with all other states adopting the Help America Vote Act of 2002, was required to create a statewide database of voters with specific details that would identify each voter. In November of 2005 reached an agreement with Federal authorities that it would comply.
California, as of today, has not complied, but did take the almost $400 million in Federal funds to create a legitimate statewide database. It should be noted that the US Government is trying to protect the integrity of Federal Elections and states are required by law to comply with requests from the Justice Department for information regarding their lists.
When Eric Holder was the US Attorney General he had no qualms about helping left wing organizations sue states on behalf of liberal causes. It should be no surprise that California has hired Eric Holder to protect the failed and corrupt California system of identifying voters and hiding public information.
It will be up to new US Attorney General Jeff Sessions to drag reluctant states before courts and to physically seize public information from rogue states, should that be necessary, if we are to ever have transparent and clean elections in this country.
I reached out to California’s premier clean elections activists for some insight into this article. Election Integrity Project
I suggest NH voters look at what can happen here to our elections if the California model creeps into our state.
They offered this helpful bit of news:
“California HAS now ‘complied’ with the requirement to have the state-wide database. The secretary of state certified that database for use in March of last year, 2016.”
That was 12 years after the passing of the law that mandated that list, and we were the last state by a long stretch of time to do so. The certification was completely non-transparent, and as far as we can tell certified only by the SOS rather than by a disinterested third-party or federal observer of some kind.
We are uncomfortable with the way that that was done, and coincidentally it happened just in time for the 2016 primary in June to be “Affected”. EIP received reports of disturbing numbers of voters whose registrations had been altered so that they were unable to vote for the party of their choice in their own primary in June.”
When you look at how election transparency falls away in increments in state after state, patterns emerge.
Check the CNHT website, www.cnht.org and all our associated web site friends for updates on election fraud.