Tag: voting

LA Democrats Move to Use Illegal Aliens to Erase Citizens from Their Own Elections

A proposal introduced by Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez would ask voters to grant the City Council authority to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, including races for mayor, City Council, and the Los Angeles Board of Education.

Soto-Martínez, who represents a district spanning Echo Park to Hollywood, released the proposal on Wednesday.

If advanced, the measure would be placed before voters in the Nov. 3 election.

The proposal must first receive approval from the City Council to appear on the ballot.

If voters approve the measure, the council would then need to pass an ordinance revising city election laws to implement the change.

The proposal has been signed by Councilmember Ysabel Jurado and is scheduled to move to the council’s rules committee for consideration.

Soto-Martínez said the measure is intended to address concerns within immigrant communities.

He referenced his own family background while explaining the proposal.

Keep reading

Does Someone Want to Tell Him? Pete Buttigieg Gets ROASTED as He Forgets An Inconvenient Fact While Calling for Abolishing the Electoral College

Pete Buttigieg likes to fancy himself as a sophisticated and intelligent man, but ended up looking dumb while at a recent town hall event in Oklahoma.

As FOX 23 reported, the former Secretary of Transportation held a “Win the Era” town hall at Will Rogers High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma two weeks ago where he discussed a variety of topics including artificial intelligence, LGBTQ rights, and healthcare.

But in a clip that has gone viral today, Buttigieg also pondered how great it would be if just got rid of the ‘pesky’ electoral college and used the popular vote to elect presidents.

This movement has been a Democrat clarion call ever since George W. Bush defeated Al Gore back in 2000 while losing the popular vote.

“One thing that would make a huge difference is if we selected our president by letting the person who got the most votes take the office, instead of the national Electoral College,” Buttigieg said to the roughly 2,000 people in attendance.

The audience responded to this by erupting in cheers for several seconds.

“It would be a really good idea,” Buttgieg continued. “Because any Democrat wanting to be president would have to campaign in Oklahoma.”

“By the way, any Republican would have to campaign in Brooklyn! that would be good for our democracy.”

Keep reading

Do Elections Still Decide? The People of the United States v. Norm Eisen

Democracies do not usually collapse in a single dramatic moment.

They erode over time. Quietly and persistently. Often, through the habit of treating certain electoral outcomes as formally valid, yet morally unacceptable. Outcomes that must be managed, constrained, or corrected through legal, institutional, and media pressure.

No modern figure illustrates this pattern more clearly than Norm Eisen.

Eisen’s public record reflects a near-continuous arc of opposition to Donald Trump and the political movement that elected him.

From the pre-inauguration Brookings Emoluments Clause paper he co-authored, to early litigation through Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, to the 2017 Brookings obstruction report, to his role as special counsel guiding the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment, the effort did not pause.

Eisen’s efforts expanded through books, legal frameworks, advocacy platforms, and coordinated institutional responses.

The work continued through A Case for the American People, the edited volume Overcoming Trumpery, multiple editions of the Democracy Playbook, legal clearinghouses, ballot challenges, and ongoing leadership roles in organizations such as the Democracy Defenders Fund.

These are not isolated actions. They form a sustained ecosystem.

Keep reading

Alaska Governor Vetoes Election Reform Bill Due To ‘Significant Operational Burdens’

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed a major election reform bill on April 30, arguing it would place “significant operational burdens” on the state’s Division of Elections months before high-stakes statewide and federal contests.

The bill, at least a decade in the making, sought to allow absentee and other ​voters track their ballots and see when they had been received and ​counted.

Dunleavy announced the veto of Senate Bill 64 after the measure arrived following its passage in both chambers of the legislature.

The legislation, which had won bipartisan support in the state’s House of Representatives and Senate, also sought to expand acceptable voter identification, modify voter roll ⁠maintenance, change the absentee ballot timeline, and create a rural community liaison position.

“Going forward, I encourage those who wish to continue this work to use this bill as a starting point to ensure that any proposed changes comply with state and federal law and pass any election legislation on a timeline that allows the Division of Elections to develop, test, and implement the necessary systems properly,” Dunleavy said in an April 30 statement. “While the Alaska gasline bill is the most important bill this session, I am open to a conversation with lawmakers on how we can address the legal and operational issues this session.”

In his veto letter, the Republican governor noted his misgivings about provisions requiring expanded ballot tracking and the curing of minor errors on mail-in ballots. He said such changes would be particularly difficult to implement securely and reliably ahead of the November elections.

“Taken as a whole, the bill would impose significant operational burdens on the administration of Alaska’s elections during an election year,” Dunleavy wrote. The Division of Elections had warned such mid-cycle alterations would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible,” to complete without risking reliability.

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, an independent, said the veto was disappointing.

Keep reading

More Devastating News for Democrats

The Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling striking down racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act sent shockwaves through the political landscape this week — and Southern Republican governors wasted no time acting on it. For Democrats, who have spent years leaning on race-based district engineering to protect their congressional seats, the timing couldn’t be worse.

Alabama and Tennessee both called special legislative sessions on Friday to redraw their congressional maps, and the dominoes are already starting to fall across the South.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey moved quickly, calling lawmakers into special session and signaling she wants the state ready to hold new primary elections if the courts move fast enough to allow it. Right now, Alabama’s May 19 primaries are set to proceed using a court-ordered map that artificially packs black voters into two districts — a map the Supreme Court’s ruling makes unconstitutional. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed an emergency motion Friday asking the court for a quick answer on whether the state can revert to its previously drawn map, which has just one majority-black district and would almost certainly deliver an additional Republican seat in Congress.

“By calling the Legislature into a special session, I am ensuring Alabama is prepared should the courts act quickly enough to allow Alabama’s previously drawn congressional and state Senate maps to be used during this election cycle,” Ivey said Friday afternoon.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee followed suit, calling his own special session to review the state’s congressional map. The current map includes a single Democratic-controlled district anchored in Memphis, and Lee’s office has warned that “any change to Tennessee’s congressional map must be enacted as soon as possible,” ahead of the August 6 primary.

It’s not hard to read the tea leaves on where this is headed.

Keep reading

Los Angeles City Councilman Wants Illegals to be Able to Vote in City Elections

Los Angeles city councilman Hugo Martinez recently remarked that he wants illegals to be able to vote in city elections.

He claims that some of these people have lived in the city for years and pay taxes but they don’t have a say in the policies that affect their children. You know what? Tough.

If Democrats are ever given this concession, next year it’ll be state elections and then of course, federal elections. That’s how the left works. It’s baby steps from here all the way to presidential elections.

ABC 7 in Los Angeles reports:

LA councilmember wants to allow noncitizens to vote in city elections

A Los Angeles city councilmember is pushing to explore whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote in future city elections – a proposal still in its earliest stages but already drawing sharp criticism.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez said he hopes his motion will make it onto the November ballot, claiming it could eventually open the door for noncitizen residents to participate in local elections.

Federal law bans noncitizens from voting in national races, but several U.S. cities – including some in California – and the District of Columbia allow limited forms of noncitizen voting. Eighteen states, however, have enacted outright bans.

Soto-Martinez said the idea is about fairness for longtime residents who contribute to the city but have no electoral voice.

“We have folks living in this country who have been here 20 years,” he said. “They started a family, they pay their taxes, many of them are homeowners, but they don’t have a say over the policies that affect their children and families on any given day.”

Keep reading

Governor Kay Ivey Calls Special Session to Redraw Alabama Maps – Delivering a COMPLETELY REPUBLICAN Congressional Delegation

It is now official.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has called a special session of the Alabama Legislature for Monday, May 4, ordering lawmakers back to Montgomery to redraw the state’s congressional maps after the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring race-based gerrymandering unconstitutional.

In a formal proclamation issued Friday, Ivey stated the Legislature would consider “primary elections” legislation and redraw districts whose boundaries were altered by prior court rulings, injunctions, or judicial orders.

That means Alabama Republicans are moving swiftly to reclaim control of congressional lines that had been reshaped through years of legal warfare and activist court intervention.

For years, Alabama has been at the center of a bitter redistricting battle after left-wing groups sued to force the state into creating a second Black-opportunity congressional district. Federal courts repeatedly interfered with maps passed by elected lawmakers, overriding the will of Alabama voters.

But the legal landscape changed dramatically this week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the use of race as the predominant factor in redistricting, dealing a massive blow to the race-based mapmaking agenda pushed by Democrats and activist groups.

Keep reading

Barack Obama Weighs In On Supreme Court “Gutting” Voting Rights Act by Striking Down Louisiana’s Racially Gerrymandered Map and It Instantly Backfires

Former President Barack Obama lashed out at the United States Supreme Court for crippling the racial gerrymandering schemes practiced by his party, and Americans were quick to put him in his place.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday, correctly declaring Louisiana’s newly-drawn Democrat-friendly Congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s cowardly lawmakers caving to activist left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district designed to elect a Democrat.

While the decision does not abolish the Voting Rights Act (VRA) or Section 2, ABC News notes that it raises the bar for challenges to election maps that liberal critics claim limit the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing, even if lawmakers did not intend to discriminate.

Leftist Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan whined in her dissent that the “gutting of Section 2 puts that achievement in peril.”

“If other states follow Louisiana’s lead,” Kagan added, “the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.”

Obama agreed with Kagan that the VRA was gutted and slammed the Court for not only “weakening” minority voting power but “abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias,” Obama wrote.

“And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach,” he added.

“The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high-profile races, but in every election and every level.”

Keep reading

How Interstate Licensing Agreements Became Shadow Governments Policing Your Job

This month, Virginia became the 18th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This provoked an agitated response because, if the agreement ever goes live, it will deliver all the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, rather than the person Virginia voters selected.

With a war to cover, the news cycle moved on. While the country breezes past the question of whether states can compact away the Electoral College, the same loophole is being used to build compacts arguably more invasive.

A network of professional licensing agreements that would govern not just how Americans vote, but how they work, what they’re taught, and what ideological commitments they must demonstrate to keep their careers. In states where professional compacts have been enacted, there’s no need to ask for further consent.

The Constitution’s framers must have eyed compacts with suspicion, because they limited state authority to enter such agreements without congressional approval unless they were being actively invaded. Looking at the NPVIC, their concerns were justified. The Supreme Court relaxed those restrictions to facilitate states solving shared problems, such as coordinating water supplies or managing forest fires. But the risks remain.

The NPVIC isn’t an agreement to solve a shared problem. It is a mechanism for accomplishing, via compact, what Article V reserves for the amendment process. And professional licensing compacts are exploiting that same loophole to achieve a quiet revolution in governance.

Private Rules with the Force of Law

Professional licensure compacts achieve the worst of their outcomes by distributing rulemaking authority to private industry bodies through required exams or accreditation. This is how privately crafted codes of ethics or educational standards now bind practitioners on a national level with the force of law. Should one of these private bodies require professionals to understand the pervasive impact of white supremacy, or affirm gender identity, that sticks. 

There is no pathway to adjust these compacts through elections or legal accountability. This is rule without consent, delivered through one’s licensed career.

The details of how these compacts function are a significant part of the problem. The American social contract is based on consent, but these compacts destroy it on three levels.

First, they’re run by unelected industry insiders. Second, they hand rulemaking to professional associations and private bodies. Third, they give those private bodies’ codes and standards the weight of law. The result is a parallel government structure that sidesteps the Constitution to govern practitioner behavior.

Keep reading