Census-taking or Voter I.D? The Electoral College threat…..

Census-taking or Voter I.D? The Electoral College threat…..

By Walter E. Williams

Voter ID laws have been challenged because liberal Democrats deem them racist. I guess that’s because they see blacks as being incapable of acquiring some kind of government-issued identification. Interesting enough is the fact that I’ve never heard of a challenge to other ID requirements as racist, such as those: to board a plane, open a charge account, have lab work done or cash a welfare check. Since liberal Democrats only challenge legal procedures to promote ballot-box integrity, the conclusion one reaches is that they are for vote fraud prevalent in many Democrat-controlled cities.

There is another area where the attack on ballot-box integrity goes completely unappreciated. We can examine this attack by looking at the laws governing census taking. As required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau is supposed to count all persons in the U.S. Those to be counted include citizens, legal immigrants and non-citizen long-term visitors. The law also requires that illegal immigrants be a part of the decennial census. The estimated number of illegal immigrants ranges widely from 12 million to 30 million. Official estimates put the actual number closer to 12 million.

Both citizens and non-citizens are included in the census and thus affect apportionment counts. Counting illegals in the census undermines one of the fundamental principles of representative democracy – namely, that every citizen-voter has an equal voice. Through the decennial census based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of illegal immigrants, such as California and Texas, unconstitutionally gain additional members in the U.S. House of Representatives thereby robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation.

Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation scholar and former member of the Federal Election Commission, has written an article, “How Noncitizens Can Swing Elections: Without Even Voting Illegally.” He points to the fact that 12 million illegal aliens, plus other aliens who are here legally but are not citizens and have no right to vote, distort representation in the House. Spakovsky cites studies by Leonard Steinhorn of American University, scholars at Texas A&M University and the Center for Immigration Studies. Steinhorn’s study lists 10 states that are each short one congressional seat that they would have had if apportionment were based on U.S. citizen population: Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, states with large numbers of illegal aliens and other non-citizens have congressional seats they would not have had. They are: California (five seats), Florida (one seat), New York (one seat), Texas (two seats) and Washington state (one seat). Moreover, the inflated population count resulting from the inclusion of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens increases the number of votes some states get in the Electoral College system, affecting the actual process of electing the president of the United States.

There is a strong argument for counting non-citizens, whether they are here legally or illegally. An accurate population count is important for a number of public policy reasons as well as national security – we should know who is in our country. But as professor Mark Rozell, acting dean of the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University, and Paul Goldman, a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, say in their Politico article, there is no “persuasive reason to allow the presence of illegal immigrants, unlawfully in the country, or noncitizens generally, to play such a crucial role in picking a president.”

Hans von Spakovsky concludes his article saying, “It is a felony under federal law for a noncitizen to vote in our elections because voting is a right given only to American citizens. It is a precious right that must be earned by becoming a citizen. Giving aliens (particularly those whose first act was to break our laws to illegally enter the country) political power in Congress and allowing them to help choose our president strike at the very heart of our republic and what it means to be an American.”

INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS AT RISK

INTEGRITY OF OHIO ELECTIONS AT RISK

MARY SIEGEL 

Guest columnist 

Mary Siegel is co-founder and co-leader of the Ohio Voter Integrity Project.


As one of the leaders of Ohio Voter Integrity Project, a nonpartisan voter education and research organization, I disagree with most of the op-ed “Ohio should focus on better voter access” (March 15). But author Sean Wright’s underestimation of the impact of non-citizens voting in our elections is particularly disturbing in light of President Obama’s recent Executive Actions on Immigration.

To date Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, in coordination with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), has discovered 453 non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio. Although this number may seem “miniscule,” it can still affect the outcome of our elections, especially at the local level.

Results from the Ohio November 2013 and May 2014 elections revealed that 63 races tied or were decided by just one vote. This demonstrates that every vote has the potential to determine the outcome of any race or ballot issue.

I believe most people would agree that every case of voter suppression is harmful and should be investigated. Since illegal non-citizen votes negate or suppress the votes of legitimate citizens, non-citizen voting is actually voter suppression and should be considered as damaging as any other form of voter suppression.

Instead, the op-ed minimizes the issue by disregarding the 453 cases as “Republicans’ alarmist” propaganda.

What Wright fails to mention is that 5 million potential new cases of non-citizen voter fraud are waiting at America’s doorstep. President Obama’s 2015 Immigration Order, granting Social Security numbers to approximately 5 million new legally present non-citizens, is the largest single threat to the integrity of today’s elections. While the BMV reports citizenship status to the Secretary of State’s Office based on drivers’ licenses and state identification cards, citizenship information related to Social Security numbers is held by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is not shared with the 50 states. Some states are now trying to pass legislation requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. But for most states, including Ohio, the verification of U.S. citizenship through a Social Security number is not possible.

In response to the dangers of this “expanding loophole,” Husted sent a letter to Obama in January asking for the states to receive access to the names, date of birth and last four digits of Social Security numbers for all non-citizens who receive a Social Security number. On Feb. 12, Husted, along with the secretaries of state from Maine and Kansas, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, reiterating the threat of the President’s Executive Actions on the integrity of state and federal elections. As of today, Obama has not responded to Husted’s request. Federal law mandates that any person who registers to vote must be a U.S. citizen. Providing a name, address, date of birth and citizenship information is neither a “trick” question nor racially biased. Every U.S. citizen regardless of race, religion or political affiliation should be alarmed at the potential for non-citizens to register and vote in our elections without being detected by the system.

If our federal government refuses to support Ohio and all states in their verification of citizenship on voter applications, then our government is promoting voter fraud and destroying our electoral freedoms.

AMNESTY PITS LAW VS. RELIGION

AMNESTY PITS LAW VS. RELIGION

Anonymous Attorney, Ohio

If nothing else, President Barack Obama’s executive decision to grant amnesty to a large subsection of illegal immigrants has polarized the country more than any other action he has taken in his six years as president. Praise from his constituent left has been as joyous as condemnation from his antagonist right has been shrill. As a Catholic lawyer, my own thoughts about this action are deeply conflicted. Powerful, persuasive commitments pull me both ways.

On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the argument that the president is flaunting the rule of law. In his speech Thursday night, he said that illegals “can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.” But that is not what will happen. The law has not changed, and will not change. The people that will benefit from this action will still be in the United States in violation of laws in the U.S. Code.

Their presence here will still be illegal.

The president is simply not going to execute these laws, despite his obligation under the Constitution to do so, and despite his oath that he would do so faithfully. Let us not parse it: This is a lawless act by what many see (and perhaps rightly so) as a lawless president. The president’s cynical caveat that this does not open the door to citizenship because “only Congress can do that” is laughingly disingenuous. The president has hurt himself and his office in deeply significant ways. On the other hand, I write these words on the weekend that a broad swath of Christians celebrate as the Feast of Christ the King. This feast reminds Christians that our first allegiance is to God, who is not bound by, or interested in, national and political boundaries. Indeed, this is a God who has no regard for such boundaries.

This is a God who has commanded Christians and Jews to welcome, love, and embrace the stranger, motivated by the powerful narrative of the Egyptian captivity. “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you,” says Leviticus 19:34; “you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Why does the accidental place of my birth give me a privilege over those who, by similar chance, found themselves citizens of a hostile, oppressive, or hopelessly impoverished country?

And of course, this is also the threshold of Advent, in which Christians begin to anticipate the arrival of a stranger among us. This was a stranger born to two immigrants, who found themselves in an inhospitable and unwelcoming land that was not their own. And he was a stranger who soon was forced to flee to an even stranger land, in order to avoid death from a jealous ruler.

Of course this analogy is far from exact, and I have already lamented the president’s lawlessness. But as a Catholic Christian, I cannot avoid the power of the narratives of Israel’s escape from, and the Holy Families’ refuge in, a strange land.

I invite others to join me in not simply having a knee-jerk reaction to immigration as a political issue, but in taking inventory of our priorities and prejudices, and balancing those against our commitment to the rule of law and the need for orderly progress.