“The decision ensures voters are protected from an unauthorized national database that would have been a goldmine for hackers and a tool for intimidation,”
Naw, the hackers already got that from other places. It’s fraud they are protecting.
It’s a tough call to make, but I have to side with the states on this issue.
Wouldn’t be surprised if this ruling went all the way to the SCOTUS. If state and local elections belong to the state per the Constitution as present so be it. Yet if federal elections (President, Congress etc.) have illegal foreigners voting in them these would be uncharted waters that will need to be settled.
It doesn’t seem proper that in one state that millions of illegals voting might put in a commie at the federal level (like Omar) while other states enforce legal citizens only.
There has to a legal precedent set for federal elections.
I wonder if these are efforts are “halfhearted” because “career DoJ” is doing the work…
OK, all Federal money, every penny is cut off from those states until they comply, beginning Monday.
Does the Federal Government need to recognize votes from States whose rolls are not authenticated? Asking for a friend….
There is a reason they are refusing.
“unauthorized national database”
The left has borrowed this argument used against a national gun registry. However in this case they don’t want the dead to be disturbed.
Mace amendment would require natural-born citizenship for members of Congress and federal judges:
The federal government knows where most people live via the IRS, I-9s, census and Medicare.
*******
Optionally, The Republican Party can send out letters to registered Republicans:
Dear Republican:
This is the voter registration list for Cavallini Road:
....
If you know of anybody on the voter registration list who shouldn’t be on it, let us know via the postage-paid envelope.
THEN
Dear Mr. Likely Moved, 3 Cavallini Road:
The local Republican Party will pay you, Likely Moved, $20 in cash if you can prove at local Party headquarters that you still live at 3 Cavallini Road by 9/30/2026 by the following means:
....
The census might be done every eight years.
WIKI
April 1, 2020: Census Day is observed nationwide. By this date, households received an invitation to participate in the 2020 census. There are three options for responding: online, by mail, or by phone.
April 2020: Census takers begin following up with households around selected colleges and universities. Census takers also begin conducting quality check interviews (delayed).
May 2020: The Census Bureau begins following up with households who have not responded (NRFU [Nonresponse Followup] delayed to August 11 – October 31). In August 2020, the 3-month NRFU enumeration period was compressed to two 1/2 months, ending October 15, 2020.
September 23–24: People experiencing homelessness counted by officials who visited shelters, at soup kitchens and mobile food vans, and non-sheltered, outdoor locations such as tent encampments.
October 15: Self-response data collection ends with over 99.9% of households having self-responded or been counted by census takers.
October 16, 2020: The count ends
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_census
The Postal Service has forwarding information.
Address lists can be rented.
“Informed Delivery by USPS
See Photos of Your Mail Before It Arrives, Free”
https://www.usps.com/manage/informed-delivery.htm
The Postal Service and the Census Bureau could team up to build a very accurate residential database.
The Constitution requires the census to count every person.
The Constitution’s Amendment XIV accurate census counting requirement supersedes so-called states rights.
Would it not be better to have continuous tracking using Postal Service informed delivery information rather than 10-year tracking?
My mother was removed from the Social Security payout system promptly after death.
Judges in Maine and Wisconsin dismiss Justice Department’s attempts to force turnover of voter rolls
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
From related threads...
Given the broad language of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, that section a penalty for states where voting integrity has been compromised, the referenced judges are wrongly obstructing the due process of that section imo.
Note the zero tolerance "hair triggers" in that section that the Supremes, Pence and the J6 Congress wrongly ignored imo when lawmakers voted to accept Biden's electoral votes in 2020 despite allegations of vote-counting problems.
is denied to any
or in any way abridged,
Section 2 of 14A: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]
Section 5 of 14A: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
In fact, here's third-party opinion that Section 2 is being wrongly ignored, evidence of the corrupt uniparty imo.
No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate § 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946). —Apportionment Clause
The Section had long been dead. But there are two camps of legal scholars who wish to revive it. The first consists of those who would like to see Section Two enforced to punish states that abridge their citizens’ right to vote, especially in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder. Recently, Joshua Geltzer, the executive director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, added himself to this camp. The second camp is using Section Two, which distinguishes on the basis of gender, as evidence that Section One’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit gender-based discrimination. Jonathan Mitchell spearheads this movement. —The Worrisome Ghost of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Second Section
In stark contrast to the political parties blatantly ignoring Section 2 on J6, note Thomas Jefferson's advice against ignoring parts of the Constitution.
The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445