The left’s argument that election integrity is a smoke screen for discrimination is fallacious. And as the Heritage database — and the Ritter and Mason cases — prove, election fraud is a real issue meriting a serious policy response.
Voters who do not cast a ballot during a full federal election cycle are sent a mailer confirming they are still residents of Ohio who wish to remain registered voters. If the mailer is not returned, and if the individual does not vote for the next four years, they are removed from state rolls.
Secretary Condos is either intentionally or unintentionally perpetuating the incorrect understanding that intent to move into a district (or back into a district after having established a primary domicile outside the district) is enough to allow someone onto the voter checklist. It’s not.
This week, the Heritage Foundation added 26 new entries to its election fraud database, bringing the searchable ledger to a total of 1,132 proven instances of election fraud. That includes 983 cases that ended in a criminal conviction.
While I agree that non-residents voting in Vermont elections would dilute the votes of Vermonters, I could not disagree more with Ms. Bucknam’s premise that my office provided guidance to allow or encourage this activity.
A member of the Board of Civil Authority for the town of Victory says the Secretary of State’s office has not taken responsibility for the town’s election woes, even after a Vermont Superior Court judge ruled that the voter checklist contained unqualified voters and non-residents who voted in recent elections.
The secretary of state’s website provides that individuals with a subjective intent to move to a town are eligible to vote. The website states, “The law creates a subjective standard.” That is not what the law provides.
Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos waded into election integrity issues Tuesday, announcing his fears that a section of a bill moving through Congress could lead to the policing of polling places by armed Secret Service agents.
A conservative legal group is suing Pennsylvania for records that could show thousands of noncitizen residents registered to vote over the last two decades.
The point at issue here is that the BCA contended that these second-home owners were eligible to vote because they had an “intent” to establish a primary domicile in the district at some point in the future, owned property, and that was enough to give them status to vote. The BCA believed this despite the law.
A ruling by a Vermont Superior Court judge has led to the removal of 13 percent of a small Northeast Kingdom town’s electorate from the voter checklist, a win for plaintiffs who argued that part-time residents are not allowed to vote in Vermont elections.