Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Posted on 11/02/2020 8:39:16 AM PST by jazusamo
In the American Revolution, people gave up their lives to secure our system of government. During the women’s suffrage movement, some protested and risked it all so women could participate in elections. And during the civil rights movement, some endured violence and prosecution to secure the right to vote.
Americans throughout history have made tremendous sacrifices to safeguard our democratic republic—and with it, the right to vote. We cannot disregard their sacrifice or squander their precious gift to us.
Today, the threat to our voting system is election fraud. This is a very real issue, as recognized by the Supreme Court . Every instance of fraud undermines the efforts so many Americans have made to earn their right to vote.
Steps must be taken to combat fraud and other weaknesses in our electoral system that could result in stolen votes and elections.
Nobody knows for sure how much election fraud actually is committed. But it is beyond dispute that American elections are vulnerable to fraud and administrative errors that could make the difference in a close election—especially in state and local elections , and even federal elections. Example: the 9th Congressional District race in North Carolina that was overturned in 2018 due to absentee ballot fraud and illegal vote harvesting.
Despite the threat that fraud poses to our democratic republic, the left consistently denies the existence of election fraud. Even after being presented with case after case after case of evidence, those on the left often dismiss the problem as “not widespread” enough to warrant action.
How “widespread” does it have to be before it should be taken seriously? I doubt the voters of the 9th Congressional District share that attitude, or the voters of Paterson, New Jersey, where a new municipal election recently was ordered due to absentee ballot fraud that tainted the results.
To say that “widespread” is the only criteria worth considering is absurd.
My organization, the Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database demonstrates that there are many ways to engage in election fraud, and that it occurs often enough that we should be concerned about it and should try to address it. Media attacks on the database have not been able to find a single instance of an error.
Instead, media attacks try to diminish the culpability of those found guilty of fraud despite the fact that every single case represents an instance in which a public official, usually a prosecutor, thought the offense serious enough to act upon it.
A 2005 report by the Commission on Federal Election Reform, a bipartisan commission led by former President Jimmy Carter, was clear that election fraud does exist, that it must be deterred to preserve election integrity, that it could make the difference in a close election, and that absentee ballots “remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” We have an obligation to secure our elections against these vulnerabilities.
In fact, one has to consider: Why has a legion of election fraud deniers so suddenly and so rapidly materialized at this moment in history? And why are they against common-sense reforms that the vast majority of Americans support, such as voter ID and maintaining the accuracy of voter registration rolls?
Tragically, election fraud has become a politicized topic. Americans—especially those in vulnerable communities who are the most susceptible to fraud—will suffer if we let partisanship come before what should be our shared goal of ensuring our elections are secure, accurate, and transparent.
A popular claim among election fraud deniers is that working to ensure the integrity of our elections is simply a cover for making voting more difficult—presumably for those who will vote for leftist candidates. This is a complete misunderstanding of our election integrity efforts, and likely a willful one.
Every eligible American citizen should have the opportunity to participate in our electoral system. One of the greatest gifts of American citizenship is political participation. But that gift is subverted when election integrity is not taken seriously and safeguards to protect it are not put in place.
When election fraud or administrative errors by election officials occurs, that means someone else’s vote was stolen, diluted, or rejected.
Common-sense protections help promote election integrity. Simple steps such as witness signatures on absentee ballots, official postmarks, in-person voting by all who are able, and photo ID at your polling place and with absentee ballots ensure that every American’s vote counts.
These reforms do not make it more difficult to vote and do not “suppress” anyone’s vote, as election turnout data over the past decade proves in states that have implemented such reforms. The reforms are intended simply to ensure that we have fair and secure elections. Any claims to the contrary are wrong.
The media and the left have decided to focus on foreign interference in our elections, which is deserving of our attention. But they seem uninterested in taking the time to find and prevent the threats from within that could undermine our election integrity.
I became passionate about this issue after witnessing voter intimidation while volunteering as a poll observer at a local election at the beginning of my legal career.
I long have been interested in protecting individuals’ votes and the integrity of our elections, particularly because I am a first-generation American whose parents experienced the horrors of tyrannical dictatorships without the liberties and freedoms that our election process helps ensure.
I have fought to ensure that each eligible voter’s ballot counts, including when I served as a county election official in Georgia and Virginia. I joined the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws in order to help safeguard our elections.
Our job was to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans—and that’s what I did. In fact, the Bush administration filed four times as many cases as the Obama administration to enforce the main provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2.
Election fraud deniers are signaling that they intend to do nothing about this very real problem. In fact, leftists are pushing for changes that would make election fraud more likely.
The Heritage Foundation will continue to work tirelessly to protect the integrity of our elections despite the unfair, unjustified, and dishonest attacks on Heritage and my personal work on this vital issue.
The survival of our democratic republic depends on Americans’ belief that their vote counts and their continued faith in the fairness and security of our electoral process.
Yet another...ahem...'intelligent' person who doesn't know America is a Constitutional Republic.
If America were a democratic republic, as this person claims, then why is he mentioning constitutional rights?
Our rights would be determined by a majority in a democratic republic and not held inviolate like within our Constitutional Republic.
He contradicts himself within his own article and seems oblivious to it.
Half credit for mentioning “republic” instead of just “democracy”.
You're far more generous than I.
A spoiled generation will never give a rat’s rear how they got to live in the greatest nation ever. Never dealt with a war nor lack..they dont know how fortunate they are... and do not care.
All is taken for granted and nary a thought Kamala could possibly make their lives difficult.
I wish there was a way to impart the importance of voting.. but first I is who and what and why.
I wish.. but most do know much or Trump would be double digits ahead.
I wish there was a way to add misery to the lives of the spoiled.. a taste might change minds
I think you’re being a bit harsh.
Both terms are correct given the context.
We are a “democratic republic” in reference to our electoral process. We use voting by the citizens to elect our representatives.
We are a “constitutional republic” in reference to the limits put on our representatives after they are elected and the laws they must follow in their elected offices.
The author’s overall point is a good one(all American fought hard to give every citizen the right to vote, and now the greatest threat to that right to vote is election fraud by the Left, not the ‘systemic racism/sexism’ that barred some groups from voting, as the Left claims).
Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
bookmark
These would be the same people who think anyone born here or elsewhere with an American parent is eligible to be President, like the last King of Thailand or Winston Churchill.
Both just as eligible as Rubio, Jindal, Haley, George P. Bush, Obama, Harris or Ted Cruz.
I read ATLAS SHRUGGED as a teenage sailor and with every passing day it seems more and more as if, at age 76, I am LIVING in that book! Donald Trump, Kayleigh McAneny, and many others remind me of heroic figures from that book. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and many others remind me of the villians in that book. I am reminded daily of this and the other thing that becomes more and more evident is that IDIOCRACY is, in so many ways, a documentary of modern times.
All the millions who vote for democrats in this election, no matter who wins, are fools and if Biden is somehow “ELECTED” they will wind up regretting their participation in destroying the last hope of the American REPUBLIC. Unless of course they simply continue to refuse to accept responsibility, in which case they will still be miserable.
Yeah....some of the posters here are debating semantics while missing the main point of the author, which is protecting voting integrity.
Bump!
Well said.
"Mostly legal voting"
They “found reason” to go 4 yrs after my President.. Trump deserves 4 more yrs to even it up.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I haven't even begun to be harsh.
Both terms are correct given the context.
Again, thanks for sharing your opinion. I unequivocally disagree with your opinion.
We are a “democratic republic” in reference to our electoral process. We use voting by the citizens to elect our representatives.
That is a specious argument. You stipulate "in reference to our electoral process". We have democratic elements in our electoral process but that in no way changes our Constitutional Republic to a “democratic republic”.
Simply ask yourself this...did the democratic elements/process within the Constitution come before the Constitution? Which is preeminent?
We are a “constitutional republic” in reference to the limits put on our representatives after they are elected and the laws they must follow in their elected offices.
Another specious argument. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 shows how our representatives are to be elected as well through the usage of a democratic process.
The Constitution does place limits on the powers granted to Congress, as you say, but that isn't the sole reason America is a Constitutional Republic as you claim.
The author’s overall point is a good one...
I'm not addressing his overall point, I'm addressing his complete lack of understanding as to what our form of government is in America.
When commenting on FR with my phone, it changes words and makes other changes I dont always catch.
I’ve been told I need to reset it.. but have to save everything and cannot do without a phone for that long..
It seems that I'm the poster you're addressing on the sly so why not address me directly if you have a beef with what I'm saying?
BTW, the issue is far more than a simple matter of semantics.
The issue (describing our form of government as something it isn't) drives directly to the heart of our inalienable rights, yet you think it's nothing more than a word game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
