Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,43
accurate, up-to-date voter registration lists.” Maybe that was the point.
The Court in Husted noted that “24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight—are either invalid or significantly registration inaccurate. And about 2.75 million people are said to be registered in more than one state.”
The millions of voters registered in multiple states are another vulnerability Democrats seem to want to protect. States would be unable to voluntarily participate in cross-check programs like the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck (IVRC) and the Electronic Voter Registration Center (ERIC). These voluntary state-run programs compare voter registration lists to identify voters with multiple active registrations. Since their inception, these programs have been targets of Democrats’ wrath. Not every state participates in these systems, but if H.R. 1 became law, election officials would lose yet another tool to help maintain accurate voter lists.
Beyond opposing the cross-checking of voter registrations, the bill goes a step further, eliminating methods of detecting people who vote in multiple jurisdictions. It compels states to stop using provisional ballots for those who show up on election day asserting that they have moved into the precinct. Those people would now be given a regular ballot, which cannot be later retrieved if the person’s address proves invalid. This creates an opportunity that a corrupt campaign operative or a foreign government could exploit. If someone were to lie about where they live, there would be no way to recall that ineligible vote. Nothing would stop a would-be fraudster—or an organized group of them—from going to one polling place after another claiming to live in that district.
Even if the crime were later discovered, the damage would be irreversible. Election officials are unlikely to audit the election and find such cases. But such illegal voting is sometimes discovered and challenged. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 removes that option as well.
Prevention of eligibility challenges: Challenging fraudulent votes would become much more difficult under H.R. 1, which would override existing state laws governing such challenges. The new federal mandate would require such challenges to be sworn under oath and penalty of perjury. State laws authorizing poll workers, poll watchers, or any other person to legally challenge a vote would be nullified and replaced by a more bureaucratic process that could place a person in legal jeopardy if they report potential fraud.
It’s true. Not only does this bill discourage routine maintenance of voter lists, but it is also written to expose voters to criminal penalties for eligibility challenges that can’t be confirmed. Under current law, if you suspect someone does not actually live in the precinct where they voted, you can challenge that vote. If the validity of that voter is not confirmed, it can be thrown out. Under this bill, many of those votes will be irretrievable once cast and a person who challenges a suspicious vote is at greater risk of criminal penalties than the person who cast the vote.
Why would anyone risk exposing our elections in this way? As we discussed in an earlier chapter, the bill’s proponents are responding to a narrative that any attempt to secure the election process is really just an excuse to suppress votes. They argue that election fraud simply doesn’t happen, therefore security is unnecessary. Meanwhile, in a report shortly after the 2016 election, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged Moscow’s “longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order,” noting that Russia’s activities in that election “demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.” Although past efforts have been primarily hacking and influence campaigns, making voter fraud too easy risks inviting further escalation by the Russians or any other foreign government with a stake in our election outcomes.
Nullification of voter ID laws: One provision of H.R. 1 enables voters in states with ID requirements to bypass that requirement by signing a statement agreeing that they are the person whose registration they are using.
Meanwhile, allegations of fraud in one 2018 race raise more red flags. An audit released in February 2019 found indications of fraud in a New Mexico House race called for the Republican on election night, but won by the Democrat. The tight 3,500-vote margin in that race reversed in favor of Democrat Xochitl Torres Small after absentee ballots broke for the Democrat in a county where voter ID laws are not enforced. The audit, paid for by Republican Yvette Herrell’s campaign, found that a significant number of absentee ballots were time stamped after the 7 p.m.