Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • Clean House Chpt 4

Clean House Chpt 4

Clean House Chpt 4

Page 1: Clean House Chpt 4


Number of Pages:32

Date Created:August 8, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:August 08, 2016

Tags:CleanHouse, Fraud, Chapter, Clean, Voting, Voters, Voter ID, Election, Voter Fraud, voter, Amnesty, Indiana, fitton, project, Supreme, acorn, ACLU, justice, Hillary Clinton, White House, Obama, FBI, DOJ, Supreme Court, department, IRS

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Exposing Our Government Secrets and Lies
New York London Toronto Sydney New Delhi
7/5/16 2:54
Threshold Editions Imprint Simon Schuster, Inc.
1230 Avenue the Americas
New York, 10020
Copyright 2016 Judicial Watch, Inc.
All rights reserved, including the right reproduce this book portions thereof
any form whatsoever. For information, address Threshold Editions Subsidiary Rights
Department, 1230 Avenue the Americas, New York, 10020.
First Threshold Editions hardcover edition August 2016
THRESHOLD EDITIONS and colophon are trademarks Simon Schuster, Inc.
For information about special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact
Simon Schuster Special Sales 1-866-506-1949
The Simon Schuster Speakers Bureau can bring authors your live event. For more
information, book event, contact the Simon Schuster Speakers Bureau
1-866-248-3049 visit our website
Interior design Jaime Putorti
Manufactured the United States America
Library Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Fitton, Thomas, author.
Title: Clean house Tom Fitton.
Description: New York Threshold Editions, [2016]
Identifiers: LCCN 2016023471
Subjects: LCSH: Political corruption United States. Obama, Barack.
Classification: LCC JK2249 .F437 2016 DDC 973.932 dc23 record available
ISBN 978-1-5011-3704-4
ISBN 978-1-5011-3706-8 (ebook)
7/5/16 2:54
Stealing Elections The Danger Voter Fraud
and the Fight for Election Integrity have all heard about voter fraud and the attempts liberal media organs like the New York Times and Ivory Tower
academics dismiss nonexistent problem. But
real, widespread, and substantial the point that can decide
elections. also drives honest citizens out the democratic process and breeds distrust our government.
The danger lies not only the results the fraud itself, but
also the reality that voters who fear their legitimate votes will
outweighed fraudulent ones are likely feel disenfranchised
and may not even show the polls vote. The sad truth
that our nation recent history consists far too many elections
that have been called into question due voter fraud.
Many elections, particularly local elections, are decided slim
margins. January 2014, Ohio Secretary State Jon usted reH
leased remarkable statistics showing that thirty-five local races and
eight local issues were decided the Buckeye State 2013
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 117
7/5/16 2:54
one vote using the state designated procedure, such coinflipping, break tie. Often, doesn take much fraud affect election.
The Election Integrity Project
Because our concern over election integrity, Judicial Watch
organized Election Integrity Project designed help ensure
clean elections. This especially important because the lack interest the Obama Justice Department investigating and
prosecuting voter fraud, such noncitizens registering and voting elections. The American public certainly agrees that this serious problem. Rasmussen poll from August 2013 reported that
only percent Americans believe elections are fair. 2012, Monmouth University Poll reported that more than two-thirds registered voters thought voter fraud was problem. 2008,
when Gallup Poll asked respondents around the world whether
they had confidence the honesty election, percent
Americans said that they did not.
There are, unfortunately, numerous examples voter fraud
and even other, admittedly rarer, threats election integrity, such intimidation the polls. outlined just few those examples The Corruption Chronicles, Judicial Watch 2012 book
corruption Washington.1 Former FEC (Federal Election Commission) Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky and National Review
columnist John Fund detailed numerous cases voter fraud
their 2012 book, Who Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats
Put Your Vote Risk.2 The Heritage Foundation maintains database listing over four hundred recent cases convictions for voter
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 118
7/5/16 2:54
fraud, and the Republican National Lawyers Association also catalogues recent cases.3
Instead, our Senior Counsel, Robert Popper, the head our
Election Integrity Project, explained commentary the Wall
Street Journal, opponents election integrity like Barack Obama
cite faulty statistics claim there almost voter fraud. For
example, speech Sharpton National Action Network
April 11, 2014, Obama cited 2012 report issued News21,
Arizona State University project. But that project acknowledged
significant gaps the data had requested from state and federal
officials. Several states did not even respond News21 request
for information about voter fraud cases. Election officials and state
attorneys general admitted they did not track voter fraud. The Justice Department referred News21 its local U.S. attorneys but many those officers referred News21 back the
department. Even when News21 received responses, they lacked
important details about each case. Popper says, hard
believe any valid conclusions about voter fraud can drawn from
this study.4
Furthermore, judging voter fraud counting criminal proceedings is, according Popper, misguided. For any crime,
including voter fraud, convictions are fraction prosecutions, which are fraction investigations, which are fraction known offense, which are, turn, fraction committed
crimes. Popper says, this even more likely true
voter fraud, which often low enforcement priority. Moreover,
such fraud may all but impossible investigate prove
carried out successfully.
That includes odd occurrences that seem defy common
sense where very hard determine they were due fraud.
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 119
7/5/16 2:54
Such Hillary Clinton winning coin tosses six different precincts Iowa the hotly contested 2016 Democratic caucus
where the votes for Bernie Sanders and Clinton were otherwise
tied.5 The odds against winning six out six coin flips are 1.56 percent. prime example intimidation the polls that reveals the
Obama administration disappointing attitude toward election
crimes occurred the 2008 federal election when two members the New Black Panther Party stood doorway polling
place Philadelphia. They were black paramilitary uniforms
and one them carried and brandished nightstick. They argued
with passersby and shouted racial insults poll watchers. They
attempted block poll watcher from entering the polling place
and were recorded poll watcher with his video camera. the time, Robert Popper was deputy chief the Voting
Section the Civil Rights Division the Justice Department. was assigned prosecute civil action against these men
for intimidation and attempted intimidation under the relevant
federal statute, Section 11(b) the Voting Rights Act. The case
against the defendants was strong, and they subsequently defaulted refusing even answer the charges against them.
But the case was abruptly curtailed and all but shut down
the newly appointed officials the Obama administration. the
end, they ordered Popper settle the case for short, limited, and
toothless injunction against only one the four defendants. There
was never convincing explanation from Eric Holder the administration why the case was cut short. Popper believes that was partisan abuse what are supposed neutral law enforcement efforts enforce the Voting Rights Act. This was only
the beginning the Obama administration abuse its power
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 120
7/5/16 2:54
over elections. The damage the reputation the Justice Department was enormous and enduring, and the damage the public
perception the integrity elections was incalculable.
Popper left the Justice Department 2013 come work
for Judicial Watch, where leads the Election Integrity Project. says was liberating moment, reminding him the movie
The Shawshank Redemption, when the main character finally breaks
out prison. DOJ lawyers like him (what few there were) who
did not agree with the Obama administration radical voting and
civil rights agenda and wanted enforce the law nonpartisan, nonpolitical basis were sidelined and ignored. fact, other
lawyers allied with the administration would almost talk code management meetings make sure that dissenters like
wouldn know what the Voting Section was actually doing. Popper says was like scene from Goodfellas.6
Chris Coates, the chief the Voting Section, before the administration exiled him South Carolina, was another lawyer
who didn along with the administration radical agenda and
wanted enforce voting laws racially-neutral, nonpartisan
manner.7 The Obama administration was particularly angry
him because had approved the filing the voter intimidation
lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party the end the
Bush administration. Popper says that the Obama administration
set entire structure bypass Coates, with left-wing subordinates who were trusted Obama political officials being
used get around him. There was essence shadow Justice
Department with subordinates making recommendations regarding Chris Coates and the cases which Coates should have been
consulted. According Popper, and Coates were both treated they were wearing wire inside Mob operation and they
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 121
7/5/16 2:54
might well have been pieces furniture the way they were
ignored even though they were managers the Voting Section.
Voter Rhetoric vs. Reality
The intimidation the New Black Panther Party sheds light
another independent electoral issue, whether necessary
require photo identification order vote. The need for legislation forbidding violence the threat violence and intimidation polling place obvious even evidence shows that rare,
that few voters actually fail vote because it, that has not
swayed the outcome particular, recent election. Similarly, the
value laws against electioneering partisan displays inside
polling place clear even there proof that such activities did
not change anyone vote. The laws forbidding these activities provide some the necessary legal safeguards that should protect the
electoral process.
Voter laws provide the same basic kind protection. Allegations fraud are regular feature every election cycle,
and fraud does sway elections. For those who care look, there steady stream stories concerning electoral fraud various
kinds. But the justification for voter does not depend establishing the existence fraud. enough that fraud should not
permitted, and that the opportunity commit such fraud exists.
That there opportunity clear. begin with, vote fraud both hard spot and hard prove. Particularly where successful, vote fraud may never detected. For example, without requirement the authorities are unlikely discover that someone has voted the still-valid registration his friend who has
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 122
7/5/16 2:54
moved out state. Even where vote fraud detected, successful
prosecution remains unlikely. There may way track down perpetrator where, for example, authorities often have nothing
but bogus signature poll book bogus registration
absentee ballot form. Too many prosecutors are not interested
pursuing these types cases because they represent low priority
compared other crimes will incur political costs.
The typical argument hear from the Obama administration and other leftists that voter laws discourage minorities,
young people, and the elderly from voting. Yet, know from
reputable surveys that the common sense use photo supported every demographic group America. Two-thirds
African Americans support it; two-thirds Hispanics; two-thirds liberals; and even two-thirds those who consider themselves Democrats.
There simply evidence support the contention that the
requirement show photo (which are provided for free
every state with such requirement) discourages legitimate voters
from voting. fact, states such Indiana and Georgia where
photo requirements have been place for almost decade,
studies show that voter turnout has actually increased. Photo IDs
are part and parcel living modern society. have show photo fly plane, cash check, purchase prescription
drugs, and enter federal and private office buildings including
the Department Justice Washington, where the Obama
administration has directed its mostly unsuccessful attacks
voter laws. South Carolina beat the Justice Department
court fight, when former Attorney General Eric Holder tried
stop the state from implementing its law.
That why Judicial Watch has worked hard defend states
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 123
7/5/16 2:54
that have implemented voter laws. For example, filed
amicus brief friend the court brief Pennsylvania
behalf state legislators like Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who was the
author and driving force behind that state voter bill. Nearly
half the members the legislature who supported the bill were
signed the Judicial Watch brief. Pennsylvania law was typical the type law passed most states. allowed voters use Pennsylvania driver license other government-issued photo
ID, such passport, military ID, government employee ID. provided free cost and allowed individual
without identification cast provisional ballot that would counted the identity the voter could confirmed within
six days the election. argued our brief, the legislature
did more than exercise its sound discretion and create common sense regulatory scheme secure free and equal elections.
Although the law was upheld the lower state courts, was overturned clearly politically biased decision higher court.
The decentralized nature our electoral laws and enforcement activity, our national mobility, and the nature our demographics also create opportunities for voter fraud. 2012, the
Pew Research Center the States released astonishing report
noting that [a]pproximately 2.75 million people have active registrations more than one state. That same report observed that million one every eight active voter registrations the
United States are longer valid are significantly inaccurate,
and that [m]ore than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed active voters. Those extra registrations are the basic resource
needed steal votes. highly likely that election results recent years were affected errors, inaccuracies, and outright crimes. What possible
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 124
7/5/16 2:54
explanation can there for the fact that many counties
there are more registered voters than there are residents? Judicial
Watch found this the case all across the country, including Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Perhaps election officials who don maintain clean voter lists share
the viewpoint the chair the Illinois Board Elections, who
said, there nothing can about any this because don
have any money stop the fraud.
Cleaning Voter Rolls
The federal government abuse federal law has made the problem harder address. 1993, the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA) Motor Voter was passed. Section the law
requires driver license offices offer voter registration, and Section requires all government offices providing public assistance,
include welfare, register welfare recipients vote. The Obama
administration has been vigilant forcing states abide Section because believes these efforts are more likely add core
Democratic voters the voter rolls. And worked closely with
Project Vote and ACORN pursuing states force increased
registration welfare offices.
Judicial Watch obtained documents detailing meetings and
emails between White House officials, the Justice Department,
and Estelle Rogers, the director advocacy for the ACORNaffiliated organization Project Vote (and former attorney for
ACORN before declared bankruptcy) discuss suing states
under Section This included meeting April 30, 2009,
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 125
7/5/16 2:54
between Rogers, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sam Hirsch,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Spencer Overton, and two officials from the White House, Cecilia oz, then Director
Intergovernmental Affairs and subsequently Director the Domestic Policy Council, and Tino llar, Special Assistant the
President for Justice and Regulatory Policy. February 23, 2011, email showed Rogers saying that she
had received oral assurances from [Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights Thomas] Perez several occasions that enforcement
action was imminent, suggesting that Rogers was privy internal
discussions inside the Justice Department regarding pending legal
action. One month after this email, March 18, 2011, DOJ
filed its first Section lawsuit against Rhode Island. This lawsuit
and others filed DOJ and Project Vote resulted increased incidents voter registration errors. For example, separate Judicial
Watch investigation found that the percentage invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four
times the national average after Project Vote successfully forced
the state implement new policies the registration welfare
recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons.
Judicial Watch obtained whole series other documents
detailing this partnership between the Obama Justice Department and Project Vote, which once employed Barack Obama.
Both Project Vote and ACORN have been linked massive voter
registration fraud. total seventy ACORN employees twelve
states have been convicted voter registration fraud. documented July 2009 report the House Committee Oversight and Government Reform, the 1.3 million registrations
Project Vote/ACORN submitted the 2008 election cycle, more
than one-third were invalid. Having Project Vote involved the
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 126
7/5/16 2:54
Justice Department voting rights enforcement was like having the
Mafia work with the FBI. And was clear evidence the politicization the Justice Department under Eric Holder. spite all this action enforce Section the Justice
Department refused enforce Section Motor Voter, which
mandates that states make reasonable effort clean the registration rolls removing those who have moved died list
maintenance Obviously, the still-active registration voter
who has moved away deceased provides opportunity
cast fraudulent vote. Yet former Justice Department lawyer Christian Adams reported Judicial Watch that the Obama-
appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,
Julie Fernandes, told the Voting Section staff 2009 that they
would not enforcing this provision the law during the
Obama administration.
According Adams, Fernandes plainly said uncertain
terms that Section the Motor Voter law was not something
they had interest in, because had nothing with increasing minority turnout. The message here was that the Obama
Justice Department decided which aspects existing voting rights
law are enforced based what will make fraud easier
commit. Not single lawsuit was filed under Section during the
entire Obama administration. Judicial Watch stepped into the breach left the Justice
Department refusal after election officials who refuse
clean their voter lists. The Motor Voter law has private right action that allows voters sue enforce the provisions
the law provision that was not used for the first two decades
that the law was force. With the cooperation True the Vote, Texas-based, nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 127
7/5/16 2:54
election integrity, filed lawsuit August 2012 against the
Ohio Secretary State, Jon Husted, because Ohio was not removing dead voters and voters who had moved away from the voter
registration rolls. This was the first private enforcement action ever
filed clean voter rolls.
During eighteen months litigation, learned that the
voter registration rolls had been seriously neglected under the
prior secretary state, Jennifer Brunner, Democrat. Secretary
Husted was very cooperative; Judicial Watch Chief Investigator,
Chris Farrell, says that Husted clearly saw the handwriting the
wall and took the first steps years start clearing the rolls
deadwood. January 2014, Husted entered into historic settlement agreement with Judicial Watch and True the Vote. Ohio
agreed take number actions clean and maintain the
accuracy the list. This was the first settlement such NVRA
lawsuit private party since the NVRA was originally passed
Ohio started use the interstate system known the State
and Territorial Exchange Vital Events (STEVE) database
identify deceased Ohio voters who had moved died out state.
Ohio agreed access the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck
Program administered the Kansas secretary state identify
voters registered Ohio who are also registered vote other
states. Ohio also agreed start automatically using its Bureau
Motor Vehicles driver license database automatically update
its voter registration rolls whenever voter changes his address.
The NVRA specifically requires states implement this list maintenance action, but Secretary Husted admitted, Ohio failed comply with this requirement for twenty years until Judicial
Watch filed suit.
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 128
7/5/16 2:54
Ohio also agreed ensure that county election officials did
monthly checks for duplicate voter registrations and coordinate
with the state colleges and universities that students leaving
college are reminded update their voter registration addresses outdated information can removed. Prior Judicial Watch
lawsuit and the settlement agreement, Ohio had program
place share information with election officials college students who graduated and relocated. Finally, Ohio agreed have
its counties send out yearly vote confirmations all voters who
hadn voted updated their registration two years.
Ohio key battleground state, and yet wasn taking any the steps necessary make sure its voter registration roll was
accurately maintained. The Obama administration had interest doing anything about this, despite the evidence inflated rolls
with duplicate registrations and voters who had died moved out state. was only Judicial Watch intervention that acted
catalyst begin the cleanup Ohio voter registration list, which key step securing the election process.
Judicial Watch was similarly concerned about Indiana. The
Bush Justice Department had sued Indiana 2006 and forced the
state take measures comply with the voter list maintenance
requirement under the NVRA. However, those remedies proved temporary. Publicly available information for 2010 showed
that the number people listed voter registration rolls
twelve Indiana counties exceeded 100 percent the total number residents voting age those counties. That prompted
file lawsuit 2012 against the state, again with the help True
the Vote. good thing did when the registration data
became available for 2012, Judicial Watch discovered that sixteen
counties had more voters than the Census showed they had
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 129
7/5/16 2:54
voting-age population. the problem had gotten demonstrably
worse two years.
The injury our Judicial Watch members Indiana was
real heard from dozens members expressing their concerns and asking protect their voting rights against Indiana
neglect and refusal comply with the NVRA. fact, according Chris Farrell, some our members independently contacted
the secretary state and local county election officials complaining about their inaction. was clear that Indiana failure clean its voter rolls was undermining the confidence our
Indiana members the integrity elections, making less likely
they would vote upcoming elections. finally dismissed this lawsuit June 2014 after two years tough litigation with the state, after successfully caused
major changes the Hoosier state. Early the litigation, the
federal judge refused Indiana request dismiss the lawsuit and
instead issued precedent-setting decision when found that had established our initial claim that Indiana was violating the
voter list maintenance requirement the NVRA. Through the
discovery process, uncovered evidence showing that the state
failure maintain the voter rolls accuracy was deep and systemic. discovered that: times, the Indiana Election Division improperly
discouraged local county officials from conducting list
aintenance lawyer working for the Division even
told county official that conducting public records research into whether registered voters over hundred years
old were deceased was discriminatory against the elderly!
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 130
7/5/16 2:54
According deposition testimony, state election officials
prohibited county officials from removing deceased voters
from the rolls even they read voter obituary the
newspaper attended voter funeral.
Other deposition testimony indicated that the two codirectors the Indiana Election Division were deadlocked about whether the state should undertake even the
most ordinary list maintenance activities, like using the
National Change Address database from the Postal
Service the Social Security Death Index, for years Indiana used neither resource and didn remove voters who
had died moved out state.
The Indiana secretary state and the attorney general were
extremely uncooperative, resisting all efforts clean the state
voter rolls. But because our lawsuit and action Judicial
Watch members Indiana, the state legislature finally got involved and made number changes fix these problems. Our
Chief Investigator, Chris Farrell, says that the federal lawsuit plus
the individual calls Judicial Watch members state officials
telling them just their jobs clearly got under their skin
and finally spurred action.
The legislature then acted make changes such giving the
secretary state the ability break deadlock between the two
election directors; giving local officials the power remove dead
voters based obituaries and other such notices; and making
mandatory that officials use the various state and federal databases
maintained agencies such the Post Office and the Social
Security Administration remove ineligible voters. The legislature
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 131
7/5/16 2:54
also appropriated several million dollars help clean the voter
registration list. essence, the legislature and the governor had overhaul their election code and restructure Indiana election
administration ensure that broken system was repaired and list
maintenance was not neglected.
This was significant achievement for Judicial Watch and
explains why its Election Integrity Project one the most
important the organization has ever initiated. helped correct broken system bipartisan election maladministration
Indiana. Everyone (except perhaps officials Indiana before our
lawsuit) knows how important remove the names dead
people, and people who have moved, from the voter rolls. Leaving
outdated registrations the rolls leaves our elections wide open fraud. The problem that not every state wants roll its
sleeves and the work necessary keep their voter rolls accurate
and date, even though federal law requires them so.
And the Justice Department during the Obama administration
was not interested making states live their legal obligations under federal law maintain accurate voter rolls.
With the same goal mind, Judicial Watch filed amicus
brief 2012 conjunction with the Allied Educational Foundation support Tennessee attempts remove ineligible
registrations from the state voter rolls. lawsuit had been filed Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) seeking injunction stop
the state effort clean its voter registration list. told
the court, the lawsuit had the potential worsen already
significant nationwide problem since voter rolls many states
remained rife with errors and were often highly inaccurate.
was clear from this lawsuit that the political Left was intent
blocking even the most modest attempts ensure clean and fair
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 132
7/5/16 2:54
elections. The state eventually agreed settle the lawsuit through consent decree which simply agreed that election officials
would review the voter histories individuals who had been removed make sure they were ineligible.10
Are Aliens Stealing Our Elections? 2014, disturbing study was released political scientists
Old Dominion University. Their work showed that significant
percentage foreign nationals residing the United States,
whether lawfully unlawfully present, were registered vote elections and that significant number them actually
have voted recent years 6.4 percent 2008 and 2.2 percent 2010. That enough have swayed election outcomes some
states: there reason believe non-citizen voting changed one
state Electoral College votes 2008, delivering North Carolina Obama, and that non-citizen votes have also led Democratic
victories congressional races including critical 2008 Senate race [in Minnesota] that delivered for Democrats 60-vote
filibuster-proof majority the Senate. is, course, illegal for
noncitizens vote federal and state elections. But this study
suggests that hundreds thousands illegal votes may have been
cast the United States every federal election.11 this study results are accurate, the implications are startling. have Obamacare because election fraud. have the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act because election fraud. have Solyndra the alternative energy
company that collapsed leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million federal loan guarantees because election fraud. Without
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 133
7/5/16 2:54
the election fraud that helped put Obama and his allies office,
there lawless amnesty for illegal aliens, Operation Fast
and Furious, Obama IRS assault Americans. This shows
that American can take his her vote for granted. There
real chance that your vote can cancelled out illegal vote
cast legal illegal aliens.
The Obama administration attitude toward the problem
noncitizens voting was demonstrated Florida, when the Justice
Department filed lawsuit 2012 stop the state efforts
comply with the NVRA removing 53,000 registered voters who
were dead well additional 2,700 noncitizens. Judicial
Watch had sent Florida warning letter about its bloated registration list February 2012 part its Election Integrity Project.
When Justice filed its politically motivated lawsuit, Judicial Watch, behalf its client, True the Vote, filed motion intervene
help defend what Florida was doing. was particularly shameful
that the Justice Department was trying stop Florida from
fulfilling its legal obligation remove noncitizens, who are not
just ineligible register and vote, but who violate federal and
state law registering voting.
Because the significant problem now have noncitizens
illegally registering and voting, Judicial Watch filed amicus
brief with the Supreme Court 2012 supporting Arizona
law requiring proof citizenship order register vote. Judicial Watch was representing Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce,
the driving force behind Proposition 200, the law that Arizona
voters overwhelmingly approved 2004. Arizona Arizona
Inter Tribal Council, the Ninth Circuit Court Appeals had ruled
that such requirement violated the Motor Voter law, least with
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 134
7/5/16 2:54
regard the federal voter registration form, decision that was
unfortunately upheld the Supreme Court 2013. This
one the worst Supreme Court decisions election issues, decision that struck real blow against election integrity. should not come surprise that the Obama Justice Department intervened the lawsuit against Arizona. that
defended the refusal the acting executive director the
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) approve request
Kansas with regard the federal voter registration form. Kansas
had also passed law requiring anyone who registers vote
provide proof citizenship, such birth certificate naturalization papers (among other documents). However, the EAC
refused change the instructions for any Kansas residents using
the federal form register vote telling them about this state requirement. The EAC had refused similar request from Arizona
2005, after voters there overwhelmingly passed similar requirement 2004 referendum.
However, the Arizona Arizona Inter Tribal Council decision, the majority opinion written the late Justice Antonin
calia gave Arizona and Kansas roadmap get around the
upreme Court ruling. They could ask the EAC reconsider
its decision and sue the EAC refused, arguing that the decision was arbitrary because the EAC had accepted similar
request from Louisiana change the instructions for any state
resident using the federal form. That instruction told Louisiana
residents attach additional documentation the registration
form they lacked driver license, card, Social Security
Fortunately, after new executive director was hired the
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 135
7/5/16 2:54
EAC, the new director reconsidered the prior decision the EAC January 2016 and agreed change the instructions for Kansas.
Common sense finally prevailed this federal agency.
All the actions the Justice Department these types
voting cases (as well its abusive behavior immigration) make clear that the Obama administration was perfectly happy
allow (and encourage) ineligible aliens both legal and illegal
vote our elections.
Obama Attack Election Reform
The White House close alliance with leftist groups was again
shown the fight over North Carolina election reforms.
2013, the North Carolina legislature passed the Voter Information
Verification Act (HB 589), popularly known the voter law.
This overhauled that state election laws, requiring photo for
in-person voting; eliminating same-day registration during early
voting; reducing the number days early voting; and requiring that provisional ballots cast the precinct where voter
resides. July 29, 2013, only four days after the bill passed the
North Carolina legislature, political activists from the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for
the Advancement Colored People (NAACP), along with Rev.
Sharpton, attended meeting the White House with Attorney
General Eric Holder, Labor Secretary (and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights) Thomas Perez, and President Barack
Obama. Sharpton subsequently told MSNBC that was told
the meeting that North Carolina would sued soon this
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 136
7/5/16 2:54
governor signs the bill and that DOJ would attack other states
implementing voter laws.12
Judicial Watch filed motion intervene the subsequent
lawsuit filed the Justice Department behalf Christina
Kelley Gallegos-Merrill. 2012, she had run for county commissioner Buncombe County and lost very close election due
improperly cast ballots, including voters who had used sameday registration during early voting.
Although the court refused allow Judicial Watch intervene, did allow file amicus brief the case that ended providing crucial analysis the judge. Contrary the dire
predictions the Obama Justice Department, minority turnout North Carolina actually increased the 2014 primary election
after the state contested election reforms had been implemented. the brief explained, expert hired Judicial Watch, Dr. Steven Camarota, compared the 2010 primary election the
2014 primary election.
The result his analysis showed that black turnout increased 2014 every meaningful measure. Black share the total
electorate increased. The percentage black registered voters voting increased there was] increase turnout among blacks voting age. Finally, while turnout increased across the board
May 2014, and while white turnout increased 13.7%, black
turnout increased much faster astonishing 29.5%. Compare this the Justice Department wrong prediction that these
election law changes would disenfranchise two million voters. fact, the court refused the Justice Department request
issue injunction against the law.
The very same thing happened the November general election 2014. Through our briefs, informed the court that
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 137
7/5/16 2:54
North Carolina Board Elections data showed that the percentage age-eligible black residents who turned out vote rose
41.1 percent November 2014, compared turnout black
voters only 38.5 percent November 2010. Furthermore, the
percentage black registered voters increased 42.2 percent
2014 from 40.3 percent 2010. The black share all the votes
cast the election increased 21.4 percent from 20.1 percent.
And the absolute number black voters increased percent,
628,004 from 539,646. Again, the Justice Department experts
who had predicted that North Carolina election reforms would
lower turnout, particularly African Americans, were completely
Caging Gerrymandering
Judicial Watch also intervened another area that affects our
election process and our democratic structure critical way
redistricting. Gerrymandered districts are way that elected representatives manipulate the election process their own benefit
the expense voters and the public. One the most gerrymandered states the entire country Maryland (see map below). The
congressional redistricting plan signed into law October 2011 then Governor Martin Malley (D) was bad that even the
normally liberal Washington Post criticized it, saying that the plan
mocks the idea that voting districts should compact easily
navigable. The eight districts respect neither jurisdictional boundaries nor communities interest. protect incumbents and for
partisan advantage, the map has been sliced, diced, shuffled, and
shattered, making districts resemble studies Cubism.
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 138
7/5/16 2:54
Judicial Watch filed motion intervene the lawsuit
against the plan behalf, which had waged successful petition drive place the controversial new congressional redistricting plan the November 2012 ballot
referendum. Maryland Democrats has gone court stop the
referendum from going forward because they did not want voters have any say the plan. Not only did the court allow Judicial
Watch intervene, but ruled against the Democratic attempt prevent Maryland residents from voting the redistricting
However, the Maryland secretary state, what believe
was obvious effort fool voters and help Maryland Democrats, certified misleading ballot language describing the referendum. said second lawsuit filed, the ballot language
was mere words and omits any reference the fact that
Senate Bill makes material changes existing congressional
districts emov[ing] 1.6 million Marylanders from their previr
ous congressional district. Unfortunately, the court ruled favor the state. essence, the people Maryland were effectively
denied their constitutional right choose their own representation Congress. Voters were purposefully misled manipulative
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 139
7/5/16 2:54
ballot language when they voted approve the gerrymandered
redistricting plan the November election.
When group concerned Maryland voters filed new lawsuit 2013 against the 2011 congressional redistricting plan, Judicial Watch once again took steps the litigation support the
Maryland residents. March 2015, filed amicus brief with
the Supreme Court after the Fourth Circuit Court Appeals
upheld decision single federal district court judge dismissing
the lawsuit. argued, that dismissal violated the Three-Judge
Court Act, which requires three-judge panels hear constitutional challenges legislative redistricting, and would allow
states delay judicial review gerrymandered redistricting plans
that disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court agreed unanimously
with Judicial Watch and issued decision December 2015
Shapiro McManus overturning the Fourth Circuit and holding
that the Maryland voters were entitled make their case before
three-judge panel. said the time, one above the law,
not even the federal courts. This decision would also ensure that separate lawsuit filed Judicial Watch contesting the constitutionality this 2011 congressional redistricting plan the most
distorted and confused plan the country will have faster path
for relief. another redistricting case, Evenwel Abbott, this time out
Texas, Judicial Watch and the Allied Educational Foundation filed amicus brief with the Supreme Court 2015. The brief
supported Sue Evenwel, who challenged the 2013 redistricting
plan drawn the legislature for state senate districts. The plan
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 140
7/5/16 2:54
was based total population rather than the number eligible
voters. This gave voters districts with large numbers ineligible
aliens legal and illegal disproportionate power compared
voters districts with higher numbers legal residents.
said the brief, Texas devaluing the votes certain its citizens improperly including noncitizen nonvoters.
Only citizens can vote federal and state elections and yet
Texas scheme give weight nonvoting noncitizens along with
lawful voters contrary the principles embodied citizen voting laws. This policy has resulted some Texas voters having the
equivalent 1.8 votes while leaving others with only one vote. argued that the Supreme Court should prevent state legislators from deliberately disenfranchising their own citizens
strategic placement noncitizen populations certain districts
order dilute the voting power citizen populations.
This case has national implications. Citing the extraordinary fact that the noncitizen population the United States has
doubled since 1990, the amicus brief Judicial Watch and the
Allied Educational Foundation requested that the Supreme Court
finally settle the issue whether the Constitution requires
that noncitizens counted when setting voting districts. This important question because out total 2012 population
311 million, roughly percent the modern population lacks
citizenship about one fourteen people. Accordingly, the opportunity for legislators resort the tactical use noncitizen
populations dilute the voting power citizens greater than
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that
Texas was constitutionally justified drawing state electoral districts based total population. The Supreme Court decision
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 141
7/5/16 2:54
undermines the principle one man, one vote. The decision
will encourage politicians fill their legislative districts with more
non-citizens and fewer voting Americans. This abuse could lead unequal voting power for voters districts with large numbers alien residents. Under this decision, 100,000 black American
voters one state legislative district would have the same voting
power 10,000 white American voters another district with
90,000 noncitizens. Even though total population the same
both districts, voting power radically different. These types
abuses, already present Texas, will spread nationally. This one
reason this political decision the high court won stand the test time. Jim Crow Election Hawaii these stories attest, Judicial Watch has been involved crucial
election issues all over the country during the past few years, often
substituting the enforcer for work that should have been done absent Justice Department, and often opposing abusive
and unjustified lawsuits that same politicized Justice Department. That politicization was particularly noticeable almost
unbelievable situation Hawaii that arose 2015 racially
discriminatory election reminiscent the Jim Crow South fifty
years ago. And this election, which obviously violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, the Obama administration
Justice Department was not only unwilling enforce the Voting Rights Act, actually filed amicus brief the side the
What started open records request the state
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 142
7/5/16 2:54
government Hawaii obtain copies its Native Hawaiian
voter registration list, became lawsuit August 2015 stop discriminatory election. Working with the Grassroot Institute Hawaii, Judicial Watch filed suit behalf six residents
Hawaii. Registration for the election was restricted Native Hawaiians, who are defined only those whose ancestors lived
the Hawaiian Island prior 1778 and only those willing
confirm statement affirming the unrelinquished sovereignty
the Native Hawaiian people. The election was scheduled run
for the entire month November absentee ballot, and would
elect delegates attend convention set separate Native
Hawaiian government.
This the second time that Hawaii has tried conduct such racially restrictive election, which resembles the whites-only
elections held some parts the South before the Civil Rights
Movement began the 1950s. And the Supreme Court had
already told Hawaii could not this the first time tried. Rice Cayetano, Hawaii allowed only Native Hawaiians register vote for trustees for the Office Hawaiian Affairs,
department the state government, well vote special
election that asked whether Hawaiians should elect delegates
propose native Hawaiian government.
This Native Hawaiian definition that the state Hawaii
used implicates the odious one drop rule contained the racialsegregation codes the 19th and early 20th centuries, according Peter Kirsanow, member the Commission Civil
Rights. former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
ironically pointed out his dissent another case, Fullilove
Klutznick, government make serious effort define racial classes criteria that can administered objectively, must
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 143
7/5/16 2:54
study precedents such the First Regulation the Reich Citizenship Law November 14, 1935, where the Nazis similarly
defined Jews based their ancestry.
The Supreme Court threw out Hawaii discriminatory registration and voting scheme 2000 the Rice case fundamental
violation the Constitution. criticized Hawaii for using ancestry proxy for race based the demeaning premise that citizens particular race are somehow more qualified than others vote
certain matters. the Court said, Race cannot qualify some and
disqualify others from full participation our democracy.
But 2015 the state government tried get around this
decision giving private nonprofit entity, Aupuni,
$2.6 million public funds conduct the election delegates convention. also supplied the nonprofit with the voter registry used. That registry was implemented under state law,
Act 195, passed 2011 and run state entity, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. All the commission members were
appointed the governor Hawaii. Judicial Watch discovered and explained one its briefs,
there was overwhelming evidence showing outright collusion
between the state Office Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and Aupuni (NA): was formed, three years after Act 195 was passed, for other
purpose than hold the election that OHA could not. bylaws refer OHA legislative goals. OHA was, least for time, member NA. vice-president married the CEO
the [Native Hawaiian Roll Commission]. was given millions dollars public money hold election described state
law, Act 195, series contracts with OHA, wherein OHA
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 144
7/5/16 2:54
retains all sorts special rights and privileges. decided
use the race-based Roll the NHRC had been developing for years,
and that OHA statutorily required use[.] ndeed,
particularly telling that gave OHA assurances that would
use the race-based Roll hold race-based election before the two
parties entered into contracts awarding millions dollars
hold that election. our Senior Counsel, Bob Popper, said, this was out
rageous circumvention the law try get around the ban
racist state actions. was identity politics the maximum.
Despite the fact that state action permeated this biased election, however, both federal judge Hawaii and the liberal
Ninth Circuit Court Appeals refused stop the election. The
district judge decision was truly awful, ignoring prior Supreme
Court precedent well the evidence the case. actually
compared the left-wing outside group running this racist election the Kiwanis Club.
What was clearly going was that the Hawaiian state government, knowing that the Supreme Court has barred from directly
conducting this type racially discriminatory election, was trying use private organization its proxy conduct the very same
type election. course, this type organized misbehavior does not occur vacuum. addition filing amicus brief supporting the state, October 2015, the Obama administration Department
the Interior published Notice Proposed Rulemaking for reestablishing formal government-to-government relationship
with new native Hawaiian government established, despite
having legal constitutional authority for this unilateral action.
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 145
7/5/16 2:54
But Judicial Watch did not give up. filed emergency
appeal with the Supreme Court November 2015. rare
move, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit, issuing injunction preventing the defendants from counting the ballots certifying the results the election. were grateful that
the Court effectively put halt race-based, state-sponsored,
awaiians-only election that violates the fundamental constitutional rights Americans. But was another prime example
the continuous effort all too many liberals and the Obama administration Balkanize America and tear apart the ties that bind together one people. this case, amounted plan
grant secession for certain residents Hawaii.
You Can Make Difference
While all these election cases that Judicial Watch has been involved could leave Americans depressed about the state our
democracy and the integrity the election process, they also show
the difference that one organization can make. Through the support our many members and donors, Judicial Watch has been
able mount successful campaigns all over the country force
local governments clean their voter rolls, and support citizens and voters their efforts make their voices heard issues
like the rules governing voter registration, common sense voter
requirements, redistricting, and biased and unfair gerrymandering.
Our Election Integrity Project ongoing project that
will continue vigorously fight secure our most fundamental
right the ability vote fair, nondiscriminatory election
without having our votes stolen diluted.
5P_Fitton_CleanHouse_33584.indd 146
7/5/16 2:54