Special Election Turns NY9 into GOP District

Bob Turner, a New York businessman who became a novice Republican candidate, defeated longtime Democrat state legislator David Welprin in the race to replace disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner in New York’s 9th Congressional District. This also happened to be Senator Chuck Schumer’s district when he was in the House.  Turner had won a court injunction to impound absentee ballots because of gross incompetence of election officials who repeatedly sent unrequested absentee ballots to dead people.  But the post election lawfare was unnecessary as Turner won by about 8%,  which is beyond the margin of fraud.

The spin responding to this loss is laughable.  DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL 20th) dismisses the loss as this was a difficult district for Democrats to win, since it got the 2nd lowest Democrat votes in New York City.   OK, the district was a D +5 district which Barack Obama carried by 15% in 2008.  Moreover, Democrats had held the NY9 seat since 1923.  Oops! It makes one wonder if Sgt. Schultz is one of the DNC Chair's  political braintrust.

Left side spinners may minimize Rep.-elect Bob Turner’s (R-NY 9th) victory as being short lived since New York legislators were set to eliminate NY9 as part of redistricting.  That might explain why the Democrats put up a party hack who did not even live within the Congressional District to stand for the post.  Democrats threw $600,000 in independent expenditures to try to hold NY9 because a Democrat insider confided: “This isn’t about one seat. It’s about two or three. The party’s $500,000 investment is insurance for the delegation, not for Weprin.”  But Congressmen-elect Turner’s victory may throw a monkey wrench into the redistricting plans to eliminate NY-9. Now New York legislators may eliminate another downstate seat and pack more Republicans into NY-13 in Brooklyn and Staten Island.

The results in this Special Election in New York are a marked contract to the routes in traditional Republican strongholds in NY-26 near Buffalo this spring and the Dee Dee Scozzafava fiasco in NY-23 in 2009.  One difference is who chose the candidates.  Republican Party insiders were the decision makers for Scozzafava (who eventually endorsed the Democrat in the race) as well as Jane Corwin in NY-26.  Turner was a television executive who did not have local GOP insider connections.  For the NY-9 race, Queen’s Democrat Party Chair Joe Crowley selected the underwhelming Welprin, who carried baggage of supporting the 9/11 mosque in a heavily Orthodox Jewish district.  The internal numbers show that Democrats lost by a 67%-33% margin in Brooklyn, where many Orthodox reside.

The lack of support in the Jewish community shown in the NY-9 results should be quite worrisome to Democrats and Obama 2012 campaigns.   Welprin’s 45% showing is in stark contrast to the 55% that Barack Obama won the district in 2008.  The internal election results show that Democrats lost by a 67%-33% margin in Brooklyn, where many Orthodox reside.  This does not bode well for Democrats, as the Jewish vote has always been reliable at the ballot box and they have been key fundraisers.

To echo how these special elections were a referendum on the Obama Administration, consider the results from Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District to replace Senator Dean Heller (R-NV).  This is a reliably Republican district ( R +5) , so the win was no surprise.  What was eye opening was the margin of victory.  In 2008, by virtue of the top of the ticket, Sen. John McCain barely won the district, but in the Special Election, Congressman-elect Mark Amodei (R-NV 2nd) won by 21%. Be it red state or blue state, the electorate is unhappy with the leadership in the Oval Office.

Badger State High Court Grudge Match

David Prosser 2nd from L, Ann Marie Walsh Bradley 3rd from L , Shirley Abrahamson C

Union politics in the Badger State have been quiet contentious as of late.   In February, mobs of union sponsored protesters had a prolonged standoff in the state capitol in Madison that caused $7.5 million in damages. In a feeble attempt to circumvent the proper political process, 14 liberal state Senators became fleebaggers to deny quorum to vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) budget that reformed Wisconsin state union’s collective bargaining abilities about pension issues.  National activists dumped $3.5 million to contest the re-election of Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge David Prosser.  When the vote did not defeat Prosser, who could have been the deciding vote on legislation to nullify the state budget on procedural grounds, the left sought to do a costly state recount to win the contest for JoAnne Kloppenburg  in “overtime”.  Since the election was not close enough to for Democrats to steal, Prosser continued in his post and the Walker budget was passed.

Apparently, the situation has not cooled and politicos remain pugnacious.  Prior to ruling on the judicial roadblock to passage of the Walker Budget, there was a black robed melee. The initial reports from Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism were that  Supreme Court Associate Justice David Prosser held fellow Justice Ann Marie Walsh Bradley in an angry chokehold.  The brute!

In a written statement, Prosser did not categorically deny this violent incident against women in the workplace:

Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment.

But as Oscar Wilde pithily put it “The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.”  The lamestream media reports left out a salient detail–Prosser was defending himself from Walsh Bradley charging him with fists a flying.

It seems that six justices met in Walsh Bradley’s office to discuss when to release ruling on the budget impasse.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court was tasked with an appellate decision on District Court Judge Sumi’s objection to the Walker Budget on the grounds of the open meeting requirement.  Wisconsin legislative leaders wanted an expedited ruling to complete their work on the state budget.  When Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was non-committal about releasing the decision in June, Prosser vocalized that he had lost all confidence in Abrahamson’s leadership.

Justice Walsh Bradley reportedly did not take kindly to any attacks on Abrahamson’s leadership so Walsh Bradley went to throw Prosser out with her fists up.  It seems that Prosser went to defend himself by putting his hands up and was said to have brushed against Walsh Bradley.  Walsh Bradley alleged that she had been choked.  Another unnamed justice immediately disputed Walsh Bradley’s accusation. Still the matter was reported to the Wisconsin Capitol Police Chief and seemingly referred to Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which can neither confirm nor deny that the incident was brought to their attention. Despite filing the report and offering damning press availabilities over the alleged incident, it is unclear if Justice Bradley is seeking justice and pressing charges over this supposed battery in the workplace.

The Prosser hit piece seems strikingly like agitprop to achieve where the electoral, legislative and judicial processes failed, to force a majority liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court, which acts as a roadblock to changes that adversely impact their union comrades. When all else fails, fall back on the politics of personal destruction.

Right now, the only beautiful thing associated with the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the artwork in the Supreme Court Chambers by Albert Herter (1871-1950). Herter's paintings, including the Signing of the American Constitution, is supposed to represent great moments in history which influenced the law in Wisconsin.  It seems unlikely this will be depicted on canvass even though the alleged incident might still be framed.

H/T:  Verum Serum

H/T:  Red State

Baja Arizona? The Gall of Gadsden

Some voters from Pima County Arizona are so frustrated with the political direction of the rest of their state that they are seeking to secede from the Sunset State.  The area roughly corresponds to the Southern Arizona portion of the “Gadsden Purchase”, which was a peaceful treaty transfer of territory between the United States and Mexico in 1854 to facilitate a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. 

A group of lawyers from the Democrat bastion of Tucson have launched a petition drive to include a non-binding secession proposition for “Baja Arizona”  for the November, 2012 general election for Pima County and possibly Santa Cruz County.  In order to qualify for the ballot, the Start Our State organizers must round up 48,000 valid voter signatures by July 5th.  

If this proposition drive is successful, it would only be the start of an arduous process.  The Arizona Legislature would need to sign off on the secession, and then the “Baja Arizona” break-off would need to win approval in a binding statewide referendum.  The chances of all of that occurring is pretty slim, particularly for “Alto” Arizona, which gained a Congressional seat from the 2010 Census.                                                                                           

In the abstract, a case can be made for “Baja Arizona” as its land mass would be larger than four states and its population greater than five states, including Alaska. But over half of the 980,000 inhabitants live in the city of Tuscon, which is (currently) Arizona’s second largest city.  Another 75,000 live in the Tucson suburbs.  But the rest of the population is scattered in the sparsely populated Arizona Sonoma desert. 

There have only been two successful state splits in American history.  West Virginia secession was associated with the War Between the States and Maine’s statehood was part of the Missouri Compromise.  Contingent to the admission of the Republic of Texas to American statehood, it has the right to split up into five states, but it is dubious if the Lone State State will exercise that option at this late date.

When considering the rationale for a Gadsden secession, it seems more like partisan Pima County pique than lack of representation.  While Arizona statewide party representation is 35.8% Republican, 31.6% Democrat, in Pima County Democrats outpace Republicans by a 38% to 31% margin.  The Start Our State mission is: 

To establish a new state in Southern Arizona free of the un-American, unconstitutional machinations of the Arizona legislature and to restore our region’s credibility as a place welcoming to others, open to commerce, and friendly to its neighbors.

Those are not bread and butter issues but partisan pushback to the initiatives that Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and the conservative Arizona Legislature have done regarding Immigration, Health Care, and Candidate Qualifications.  It also seems like a reaction against the aggressive policing in Maricopa County by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

My cynical suspicions is that Secession Proposition is driven less for successful passage than to provide partisan political theater that should be a safe state for the eventual Republican Presidential nominee.  Additionally, such a local wedge issue should light a fire for liberals to go to the polls.  It also may have an ancillary intention of creating controversy by the participation of “undocumented” voters.  Or it could be just to stop Tea Party proponents from appropriating the Gadsden Flag.

At a time when there are serious challenges to the American way of life with porous borders, bankrupt state coffers and the costs of the growing burdens of a bureaucratic nanny state, it seems silly to exert such energy on this Pima County pipe dream.  If Pima County liberals do not like the directions of government, garner a majority and change the policies rather than threaten to secede over such partisan slim pickings. 

The True Costs of Gerrymandering

Representative Corrine Brown (D-FL 3rd) is a Jacksonville based Congresswoman who has represented parts of Alachua, Clay, Duval, Lake, Marion, Orange, Putnam, Seminole, and Volusia counties since 1993.  This gerrymandered district was drawn to ensure minority representation in Florida by linking demographic pockets in Jacksonville, Gainesville, the outskirts of Orlando down to Sanford.  The district has one instance where the boundaries look as wide as a highway.

Aside from being a ten term incumbent, Rep. Corrine Brown is in a safe D+18 district.  Yet her campaign coffers are virtually barren with a balance of $417.  According to Brown's  2010 expenditure report, she spent $35,977 in hotel bills,  $34,192 for catering, $32,242 for paid media, $24,266 for media consulting, $35,549 for fund raising consultants and $54,730 of direct mail publicity. The fund raising, media consulting and direct mail costs seem like payola and expenses for the insider campaign machinery.  Some might interpret the catering and hospitality costs as living large while on the campaign hustings.  But spending so much on “incidental” expenses on the campaign trail points to the perils of having an extremely gerrymandered district.

While it is unlikely to need to travel from stem to stern in the 3rd Congressional district in a day, it spans over 142 miles by surface roads.  The district is in the major media markets of Orlando and Jacksonville along with Gainesville. This safe seat can be quite a costly district to defend.  More importantly, it serves as a significant structural barrier for campaign challengers.  The latter consequence of gerrymandering explains why Rep. Corrine Brown is fighting to challenge Amendment 6.

Florida voters decided during the 2010 general elections to enact a couple of measures to try to remove politics from the redistricting process.  The newly drawn districts required legislative districts be compact, reasonable, and follow city, county, and geographic boundaries. The initiatives were designed to  prevent the district's shapes from being drawn to favor a particular race, language, incumbent politician, or party affiliation.  Amendment 5 applied to state legislative boundaries and Amendment 6 applied to Florida’s federal congressional redistricting.

Critics of the redistricting amendments observed that organizations tied to George Soros had contributed $7 Million to support passage of the amendments.   Amendment opponents opined that the initiatives will result in court cases that will eventually result in judges drawing the districts.  If it helps orient a novice to which way the wind blows, former Florida Gov. “Good Time” Charlie Crist favored passage of the ballot initiatives.  In the end, an electorate which was weary of partisan politics and grotesque gerrymandering passed both propositions by a resounding  63% to 37% margin.

Rep. Corrine Brown is challenging Amendment 6 in court, joined in spirit by former Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL 25th) who had represented a geographically large district that seemed carved out to be R +5.  Rep. Brown is going against her party and unions in arguing that Amendment 6's impetus to draw compact districts that do not favor political parties would not protect the “minority access” districts, of which she derives great benefit.

Other states are trying to implement non-partisan redistricting with questionable results.  Virginia’s Independent Commission on Redistricting presented a couple of purely partisan proposals drawn by ivory tower academics which palpably punished Republicans in a Commonwealth that has been strongly trending red in the last few elections.   California also just passed a ballot initiative to steer redistricting to consider a “community of interests” to ensure effective and fair representation.

Fortunately, the so called “bipartisan” Redistricting Commission’s report was only advisory.  Ballot initiatives will lead to extended lawfare.  It seems likely that unelected “Men In Black” will eventually draw the districts.

If one thinks that the Judicial branch can create legislative districts in an innocuous and efficient manner should consider the case of Texas.  After the 1990 census, Texas gained three seats in Congress.  But litigation prevented the permanent application of the Census results when redistricting.  The eventual answer was to draw the districts using the old 1980 census data, in which Democrats had signficantly more proportional strength than they had in the 1990s. So the Democrats gained more power through lawfare and such incumbents had substantial advantages against challengers for the next few election cycles.

Republicans had been chastened by judicial interference in implementing the Voting Rights Act when redistricting, so the Grand Old Party embraced cynically embraced minority access districts by applying a packing strategy.  Effectively, the GOP endorsed creating minority districts that had solid minority majorities creating safe districts to create more competitive districts elsewhere, thereby improving their lot elsewhere.  Packing is nothing new, but it was taken to a whole new level of precision through the power of computers in applied statistical demographics.  That can lead to districts that are co-joined by narrow Interstate highways.

Ever since the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the body politic has been minimizing the role of state legislators in our application of Federalism.  The Judicial Branch stepped in to enforce Voting Rights Act and prevent any potential disenfranchisement.  The solution to has been to get pre-clearance of any changes through the federal government, which can be as banal as switching polling place locations to approval of redistricting.  

The advent of the Tea Party has awakened the great silent majority who want good governance and ideally less partisanship when spending our tax dollars.  Such non-political types tend to recoil at the messiness of politics and governing.

 Even though politics is my favorite contact sport, it is understandable that most people do not want to dwell on the minutia and recoil from adversarial debate.  It calls to mind the quote attributed to Otto von Bismark “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”  But buying your meat prepackaged in a grocery store does not mean that it is not butchered.

 As messy as it is, it is preferable to have elected officials accountable for their actions than to have political solutions imposed by the Judiciary or supposed non-partisan Commissions who apply their skewed predilections covertly or without consequence.

Making a Mockery of Non-Partisan Redistricting

In compliance with the US Constitution, there is a decennial census to determine apportionment of Congressional representatives.   The re-apportionment process often becomes partisan and victors receive the spoils, even if the gerrymandered districts look like surreal ink spots. Computers have allowed psephologists to create precise yet grotesquely drawn districts that protect most incumbents and favors a dominant majority party in a state.  Lawfare can thwart Republican efforts to assert their strength in redistricting, as was evidence during the 1990 apportionment.

There has been a trend lately to establish non-partisan commissions to recommend redistricting plans.  This appeals to many independents who seek good governance through a supposed non-partisan process.  In fact, California voters approved Proposition 20--a Fair Districting initiative, and the California peoples' will may even be respected by the Judicial Branch.

In the abstract, a non-partisan redistricting process sounds wonderful.  But the devil is in the details.  And academic insiders are betting that the public will not pay attention to the details this far out from November 2012. Witness what went on in Virginia.

National Review  reports that a draft plan by George Mason University Professor Michael McDonald on behalf of the supposedly “Bipartisan” Advisory Commission on Redistricting recommended carving out Republican Majority Leader Representative Eric Cantor’s (R-VA 7th) district.  That is strange, as Virginia will not be losing any members due to redistricting. Amongst the thousands of plans to choose from, the Commission’s backup plan drew out long time Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA 10th), Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA 4th) and newcomer Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA 9th) who defeated long time incumbent Rick Boucher (D-VA 9th).  These suggestions are coming in the wake of an 18% landslide victory of Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2009 and the defeat of 3 Virginia Democrat during the 2010 cycle.

Even mere mortals do not need the Professor Larry Sabato’s crystal ball to know how skewed are those suggestions.  But in case there was any doubt about the partisan hack trick, Professor McDonald’s first Powerpoint side thanked the über left wing Brennan Center for Justice for its assistance.  The Brennen Center pushed the propaganda that voter fraud is a myth and that the major motivation of Voter ID checks is to suppress the minority vote.

Because the Virginia Assembly majorities are split between the two chambers so neither party is likely to get exactly what they want.  Analysis from the Washington Post expects that due to population shifts to Northern Virginia, Rep. Gerry Connelly (D-VA 11th) who won by less than 1000 votes in 2010 and Rep. Wolf will be drawn into safer districts.

Since this independent Redistricting Commission is only advisory, it would be wise for Gov. McDonnell to put the skewed Commission’s plans into the circular file and let the General Assembly duke it out while in Special Session to decide redistricting.

May this escapade be a lesson to those who yearn for less partisanship in politics that faceless functionaries and bureaucrats do not necessarily act for good governance reasons act as partisan without electoral consequences. We live in a democratic Republic where we hold our representatives responsible for their actions not a bureaucracy manipulated by partisan jackasses.

H/T: National Review
H/T: Washington Post

Reid Casino Voter Intimidation Case On the Table

The Justice Department is reviewing a complaint made by Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle’s campaign that the re-election campaign for Senator Harry Reid’s broke campaign finance laws and engaged in voter intimidate.

The National Review exposed a string of e-mails between a Reid campaign staffer Harrah’s International Government Relations demanding that the casino to get out its employees to vote for Harry Reid.  In fact, the campaign suggested that Harrah’s should put their employees into a headlock to get them to follow through. The campaign even offered to have Senator Reid call in order to get the backing of Harrah’s executives.

This desperate message from the incumbents campaign scored points with Harrah’s executives, as internal e-mails from Harrah’s Vice President Marybel Bejar implored:

 [D]o whatever we need to do to get the supervisors to know that there is NOTHING more important than to get employees out to vote. Waking up to a defeat of Harry Reid Nov 3rd will be devastating for our industry's future

 Election Law expert Hans A. von Spakovsk postulated that there was enough there for the DOJ to open an investigation since the materials suggest that both Harrah’s and Harry’s staff may have run amiss on coordinating in-kind contributions to a political campaign and coordinating GOTV efforts with a business.  Harrah’s and the unions spent money and time on the work clock to engage in partisan activities at the behest of Harry Reid’s re-election.

Von Spakovsk indicated that Harrahs might be culpable on coercing its employees to vote or not.  Harrah’s was not just encouraging their workers to be good citizens and do their civic duty. It seems that employees who had not voted were threatened and they were coerced to vote for a particular candidate. According to 18 U.S.C. section 594, that sort of coercion may be a federal crime.

Should we expect that the Justice Department will act swiftly to preserve the integrity of the ballot box.  Judging from the Holder Administrations withdrawal of the Philadelphia Black Panther voter intimidation VERDICT– I would not bet on it.

Connecticut Compromised in Gubernatorial Election

There has been chaos in counting and announcing the winner of the Connecticut gubernatorial contest. The day after the midterm elections, the AP declared Stamford Mayor  Dan Malloy (D-CT) the winner of Connecticut’s gubernatorial election by a margin of 3,000 votes over Republican nominee Tom Foley.   This press pronouncement was despite objections to by the Republican Governors Association about the number of photocopied ballots used due to a shortage of ballots in Bridgeport and keeping the polls open late.  AP quickly retracted when official counts with 98% of the precincts reporting had Foley ahead by 8,500 votes.

The Connecticut Secretary of State has refused to declare a winner after two days waiting for additional results from Bridgeport (an urban area that would lean for the Democrats).  Now there is documentary evidence of from a poll watcher showing the mixing of official and unofficial ballots along with giving voters multiple ballots or properly checking Ids.

Amazingly enough, the Bridgeport vote was able to overcome Foley’s 8,500 vote lead . Now it seems that Malloy is winning by 5,465 votes.  The results were announced at 6:20 am Friday after election workers counted throughout the night.  It seems to me that the Governor’s race in Connecticut has been compromised, which cost the Republicans another Governor’s race.

UPDATE 11/05  Tom Foley is unwilling to concede the race at this time and is contemplating a court challenge.  The only thing Foley concedes is that Connecticut is being laughed at nationwide.

UPDATE 11/08  Despite calls from the Connecticut GOP to investigate irregularities in the gubernatorial election, Republican nominee Tom Foley conceded his race to Democrat Dan Malloy.  Foley thought that things were chaotic due to the shortage at Bridgeport voting stations so they used photocopied ballots, he did it was a good faith solution which he would not protest.

This plants an acorn to grow voter fraud for the future, especially in Blue states.

Cali-fraud-ia?

There are reports that there may be significant voter fraud occurring in California 20 that would overturn election results.  On election night, Republican challenger Andy Vidak beat three term incumbent Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA 20th) by 2% with all 564 precincts reporting.   Now there is talk that 150,000 uncounted drop-off votes have been “found” in Fresno and Bakersfield, urban areas that will lean heavily Democrat.  There are perhaps 80,000 other votes uncounted too.

Not all of the 150,000 votes of the found ballots will be for CA-20.  Even if only 1/4 of the votes are for the district, it is shocking to have 35,000 votes mysteriously appear.  It makes one wonder what is the real story.

This may show a flaw in California’s process to have permanent absentee ballots.  Traditionally, a voter needed to request that an absentee ballot is sent.  Now the ballots are automatically sent and dropped off to election offices.  Could this be like scam that Brian Murphy campaign manager perpetrated in PA-08?  Voters received absentee ballots from the “Pennsylvania Voter Assistance Center” with a return address run by the Murphy campaign manager.

The extremely large number of uncounted found ballots from Democrat leaning districts makes one wonder if SEIU or Acorn was involved.

While more facts and additional sourcing will add credibility to the story, the initial reports are from John Batchelor, one of the most elitist Republican voices in the media.  This is a story that should be watched.  If it’s true, it could have significant effects on positions up the statewide ballot and may be a vanguard of other state-wide shenanigans.

UPDATE 11/04   Bakersfield.com quotes Kern County Auditor Comptroller Ann Barnett that a remarkable 40,000 ballots by mail and provisional ballots were delivered, which seems to comprise over 38% of ballots cast.  What raises eyebrows is the the circumstance that tears and other damage to ballots have required workers to duplicate an extraordinary number of ballots and process those copies. It makes me wonder if voter's intent was transcribed or if the ballots were manufactured. 

Show Me Some Voter Fraud

The other day while listening to the talking heads shows I heard someone say that Jack Valenti, the chief lobbyist of the Motion Picture Association of America, quipped that we wanted to be buried back home in Texas so that he could remain active in politics in the afterlife.  Even though Chicago is notorious for votes from the graveyard, inflated voter roles also allow deceitful, desperate partisans from cheating our democratic republic of proper representation.

When 15 counties in Missouri have more registered voters than citizens 18 years or older, it is situation rife for voter fraud.  It is hard to believe that is an improvement on the situation than in 2005 when 37 Missouri counties had more registered voters than actual population.

Before one flies off the handle at this voter roll disparity and scream out charges of “Voter Fraud”, it is prudent to consider the Missouri Secretary of State’s suggestion that the situation may be caused by federal law the prevents voters from being purged from the rolls for two federal election cycles.  That might account for some inflation of voter rolls.  But a couple of counties that did not make the top 15 counties but still flagged some concern is that St. Louis County had 98.2% voter registration and Jackson County (Kansas City) had 88.6% voter registration.  It is hard to believe that there is such civic activism amidst underprivileged urban demographics.

These systematic challenges are compounded by court cases that limit state and local governments which actually conduct the elections from requiring voters to show proof of citizenship.  A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which included former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) struck down Arizona’s right to inquire about citizenship status of voters, citing federal supremacy on conflicting laws as well as ensuring that voter registration was widely available and free of obstacles.  This ruling overturned a prior Ninth Circuit ruling in 2008 that Arizona Proposition 200 did not violate the National Voter Registration Act. So now a photo ID along with a utility bill is sufficient to be registered to vote, along with an affidavit of veracity under penalty of perjury.  The penalty of perjury does not inspire fear amongst undocumented individuals who fake social security numbers, so this enables  illegal voting mischief which dilutes citizens’ voice as expressed at the polls.

Once again, the 9th Circuit rejects the expressed will of Arizona to protect the state and its citizens from the flood of illegal aliens flooding into the state in favor of federal capriciousness and abstract ideals of openness.