The Whole Story about Voter Reforms in NC

Much has been said and written about the election law reform legislation known as VIVA (Voter Identification Verification Act – HB 589) – but too many of the reports are misleading or just plain wrong.

 

The legislation was passed in the 2013 legislative session and signed by Gov. Pat McCrory in August. Mostly, the old guard media have focused on just three provisions of the new law — the voter ID requirement, the elimination of same day registration and the shortened early voting window. These three parts of the law are the most controversial, so focusing on them gives liberal advocacy groups a platform on which to continue their assault on the people who support election reform. These three items are also the main targets of several lawsuits brought against the law filed by liberal advocacy groups, including the NAACP. Attorney General Eric Holder also announced that lawyers for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division had filed suit against the law in October.

 

But the media have never acknowledged the bigger picture: VIVA is the first comprehensive updating of our election laws in decades. North Carolina’s election system had become a jumble of complicated and sometimes contradictory laws and administrative decisions made by the State Board of Elections, often with little or no regard for the legislature. The voting process had become confusing and dysfunctional, with no built-in security to protect the integrity of a person’s vote.

CONTINUED:  http://www.nccivitas.org/2013/whole-story-voter-reforms-nc/

NC Voter Integrity Project

Same-Day Chaos: Nearly 5,000 NC Voters Still Not Verified Eleven Months Later

October 23, 2013

(Raleigh, NC)-OCT 23, 2013- The Voter Integrity Project-NC, released a report today suggesting that as many as 4,857 North Carolina voters in the November 2012 election may have abused the Same-Day Registration law in order to vote illegally and 2,253 of them were in Mecklenburg County.

“These voters all registered and voted during the last 19 days before the election,” said Jay DeLancy, Executive Director of the Voter Integrity Project, “but election offices were never able to verify the addresses of a significant number. This suggests that they were never residents of the state, but their votes still counted.”

Until January 2014, NC law (§ 163-82.7) requires a “tentative determination” of the voter’s identity within 48 hours, but the follow-on verification is performed by mail and takes longer to complete.

“Anybody registering and voting illegally toward the end of the Early Voting period has a pretty good chance of safely stealing a vote,” said DeLancy. “It all depends on how quickly the county board can do the mailings.”

Under current North Carolina law, if the USPS returns as “undeliverable” the verification notice sent by nonforwardable mail, the county board is required to deny the application. VIP-NC has trouble with that process, which was mandated under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

“Our entire electoral system hinges on all postal carriers being 100 per cent accurate by not delivering any verification letters incorrectly,” he said, “and who among us ever received a misdirected piece of mail?”

To determine the significance of the problem, VIP-NC obtained a public record showing the complete voter history of all NC voters and then screened out all except for the voters who registered at the polls during last November’s one-stop voting period.

 

MORE AT:  http://voterintegrityproject.com/same-day-chaos-nearly-5000-nc-voters-still-not-verified-11-months-later/

     Voter Integrity BootCamp 2013!

September 14, 2013

9:00am – 5:30pm     Morrisville, North Carolina

    

The Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina is proud to present its first state-wide Training BootCamp on September 14!  We need the help of citizens who care about voter integrity and are passionate about ending voter fraud and restoring confidence in the election process.  We need you to work alongside us in our fight to ensure that one of our most fundamental rights, the right to vote, is preserved, protected, honest, and open.

   Learn vital Research and Advocacy Skills from:

• VIP Executive Director Jay Delancy
• Acclaimed author of Waking the Sleeping Giant, Dr. Tim Daughtry
• Heritage Action’s Melody Scalley on Building a Grassroots Organization
• VIP Research and Advocacy Core Team Members
• A Veteran Election Attorney

 ~ BootCamp Registration ~

Register now to take advantage of our early bird price (lunch included).

$32 – Early Bird Price        $39 – Full Price 

(available through Aug 27)                               (after Aug 27)

~ Location ~

Country Inn and Suites

201 Airgate Drive Morrisville, NC   *   Kitty Hawk Meeting Room

Hotel rooms available Fri and/or Sat Night.  Ask for “VIP BootCamp” block room rate of $79.00!

Hotel Information / Reservation Here

Voter Integrity BootCamp Agenda

A detailed agenda will be posted the first week of September, please check back…

• What is VIP-NC
• Plausibility and Scope of Voter Fraud
• Types of Voter Fraud
• Recent Changes to NC Election Laws
• Basic VIP Research
• Advanced VIP Research
• Building a Grassroots Organization
• Legal Environment
• VIP County Teams

.

Register now at

VoterIntegrityProject.com

     Speaker Lineup

Key Note Speaker Dr. Tim Daughtry

Acclaimed author of Waking the Sleeping Giant!

       

.

  

Register now at:   http://voterintegrityproject.com 

THE RACE HUSTLERS KEEP COMING AFTER NC VOTER ID LAW

Why there is no vote fraud in NC. . .

August 18, 2013

(Raleigh, NC)—AUG 18, 2013—After finally discovering the identities of the five persons who voted twice in the November 2012 election, the Voter Integrity Project of NC is ready to announce more stunning news: We can now reveal why there is no vote fraud in North Carolina.

But first, I need to refresh the public memory on this story. . . .

In February, 2013, we completed our research as best we could (at the time) to conclude that up to 33 people who maintained dual residences in both Florida and North Carolina had voted in both states during the November 2012 election. We then forwarded the information to election officials in both states and asked them to investigate.

Don Wright, Chief Counsel to the State Board of Elections, inspired our news announcement on March 20, 2013 when he confirmed that five of our alleged double voters “[were] continuing to be criminally investigated with preparations to refer them to the appropriate District Attorney.” The story garnered coverage from John Fund at the highly regarded National Review Online and on Fox News; but perhaps because this upsetting story happened in the middle of the Legislature’s debate over voter ID, local media ignored the story.

The one exception to this news black-out was a minor amount of interest shown by WNCT-9 news producer, Jenny Moore. She asked us for the names of our “Fab Five,” but Counselor Wright denied our query in a stern reply, “As with all criminal investigations, generally the identification of persons under criminal investigation in all cases is confidential until the suspect is arrested or indicted. The present cases are referrals of criminal cases and it will be up to the District Attorneys involved to release such information they set fit.” [sic]

Sadly, our four-term Attorney General, Roy Cooper,  has shown little interest in [investigating or making referrals for] prosecuting SBoE cases of election fraud, even though the BoE has offered up hundreds of cases. So we decided to dig deeper while we hoped Cooper would do his job . . . and we struck gold!

We finally discovered that five people we submitted had names and dates of birth that were perfect matches between the Florida and NC voter histories! Without revealing any names, some details about their cases—and the NC counties from which they voted—merit elaboration.

The Wayne County Perp is the toughest case of all because of his age. He is a 91-year-old man, living in both Port Richey, Florida and Goldsboro, NC. Maybe we’re mistaken, but it appears that a man with the same name and date of birth has a stunning history of double voting in both states. His civic practice in Florida shows participation in every November election since 2002; but this registered Unaffiliated voter apparently decided to steal extra votes in NC during the 2008, 2010 and 2012 general elections.  Whether a man this old should go to jail is up to the Wayne County DA, but we would at least ask that somebody make him stop stealing votes!

Our Wake County Perp votes from [Holly Springs and from] Jacksonville, and has cast Florida ballots since 2004. In 2008, he voted absentee in NC; but did not vote that time in Florida. Perhaps the temptation was too much for this registered Democrat, so in 2012, he voted in both states.

http://voterintegrityproject.com/why-there-is-no-vote-fraud-in-nc/

Blust says voting changes are meant to strike a 'proper balance'

Doug Clark | Posted: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:23 am

The state legislature is "striking the proper balance between ease of voting and the integrity of the voting," Republican state Rep. John Blust said in an email exchange with me yesterday.

It began when Blust sent Allen Johnson and me a series of articles by conservative analysts claiming that, with these changes, North Carolina's voting laws will fall into line with those in many other states.

I sent this response to Blust:

"Is this really your best reason for supporting rollbacks in voting opportunities – because we still won’t be as bad as some other states? And now we’re seeing the next step – attacks on college students voting by local election boards.

"The intellectual dishonesty behind this movement is staggering. So far you’ve fooled the people who can’t recognize the pattern and don’t understand the cumulative impact of all these individual changes. But please don’t insult me by suggesting I should believe these actions are meant to improve our election system and 'restore confidence' in government. I’m ashamed of it and embarrassed for otherwise good people who have climbed on board because the conductors whistled."

The following is his reply. Notable is his assurance that not one single person will be prevented from voting by the new requirements and restrictions -- and also that he actually doesn't agree with all the provisions or like that they were presented on the last night of the legislative session. Nevertheless, he voted for the entire package. It is also significant that, in portraying the moves as attempts to strike a new balance between "ease of voting and the integrity of the voting," he tacitly acknowledges that the intended effect is to constrain "ease of voting."

From Blust:

"You call me intellectually dishonest and then fail to even understand the point of the articles I sent you. I think the dishonesty of the news coverage of this and several other issues is staggering! I am not arguing that we are not “as bad as other states.” My argument is that we are striking the proper balance between ease of voting and the integrity of the voting.   (EDITOR NOTE: The legislation is actually very weak in protecting voter fraud). 

We are bringing our election laws in line with other states who have struck the same balance without the Washington Post, the New York Times , and the News & Record opining about a “neo Jim Crow.” You have made it clear that attempts to strike such a balance will only be interpreted through your template – those who want to strike the proper balance must be bad people. To disagree with you is to be immediately labeled as a bad person with evil motives. The only way to be a good person is to keep on making elections chaotic and simply trust that nothing untoward will occur.

"The college early voting sites is a whole separate issue from the bill which passed the legislature. I have nothing to do with local “attacks on college students voting” as you erroneously put it. I was always able to vote quite easily while I was in college. But I can tell you I have for years heard complaints that college students ought to vote in their home towns. Are those who think college students are smart enough to vote in a precinct are bad people who do not want the students to vote at all? No it does not.

"If you want to feel insulted that I believe the changes will improve the elections then you are free to feel insulted. That is what I truly believe. People are so used to being required to show a photo ID for everything imaginable that they do not think it is a big impediment to voting – which it is not. The disgusting talk of “voter suppression” has been proven objectively in other states with the photo requirement not to be true. Plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against photo ID (I think it was in Georgia) could not produce a single person who could say they had been prevented from voting by the ID requirement when required to do so during discovery. NOT ONE PERSON. I am sure that fact will be kept out of the News & Record – it doesn’t fit your template.

CONTINUED:  http://www.news-record.com/blogs/clark_off_the_record/article_f8e96a28-0a64-11e3-b95d-001a4bcf6878.html

North Carolina Legislative News

Bill Breakdown: Voter ID and Early Voting

Below is my rundown of the new House Bill 589, the voter ID bill, which also shrinks North Carolina's early voting period, and ends same day registration.

The bill itself is 57 pages long, and the legislative summary is 16 pages. It has a number of campaign finance sections I don't yet understand well enough to describe here, but I'll work toward that.

Here's what I see in the bill, starting with the ID provisions, moving to the more important changes in early voting/registration, then getting into the rest of the things the bill would do.

• Unless there's a natural disaster, photo ID is pretty much required election day starting in 2016 unless you file a religious objection at least 25 days before election.
• ID must not be expired, unless you're 70 and up.
• IDs, for those who don't yet have them, will cost $20-$32, unless the applicant is blind, at least 70 years old, mentally or physically disabled, homeless and can prove it or just signs a document saying they don't have photo ID.
• OK: drivers licenses, passports, military or veterans IDs, tribal enrollment cards, and out of state licenses - but that last one only if thee votere registered within the last 90 days. Not OK: Other IDs, including student IDs.
• If you vote curbside - meaning you come to the polls, but are infirmed and can't/don't go inside to vote - you don't have to have a photo ID. You can use one of the current allowed documents "that shows the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document" as listed in G.S. 163-166.12(a)(2).
• Early voting period cut by a week. Instead of starting the third Thursday before an election, early voting would start the the second Thursday before the election. It will still run through 1 p.m. on the Saturday before the election, but local boards of election can no longer extend that Saturday voting to 5 p.m.
• No more same day registration. That undoes a relatively recent change in election laws that allowed people to register and vote on the same day.
• Say bye-bye to pre-registration, the process of pre-registering 16 and 17 year olds to vote so they don't have to register once they turn 18 and become eligible to vote. Registration will still be available at high schools, but only for 18 year olds and up.
• Straight ticket/party voting is eliminated.
• Right now, before election day, anyone in a county can challenge any one else in the county's right to vote in local elections. On election day, they have to be in the same precinct. The bill changes that to in the state before election day and in the county on election day.
• Absentee ballots would now need the signatures of two witnesses (NOTE: I think this was amended in committee this afternoon to allow notary publics to do this instead, but I am not certain.) The current rule is one. You or a close relative can request an absentee ballot up until 5 p.m. of the Tuesday of the election. The request must include the voter's driver's license number or number from another ID.
• The bill adds 10 new poll observers, appointed by county party chairmen, to work county wide during elections, in addition to the two per polling place each party is allowed now.
• Voter registration forms must be signed by a person, using a pen. No more of this autopen stuff.
• Paper ballots required: As of Jan. 1, 2018, "no voting system (may) be used unlesss that system generates an individual paper ballot marked by the voter."

CONTINUED:  http://www.news-record.com/blogs/north_state_politics/article_082d32de-f3cd-11e2-85c3-0019bb30f31a.html

Voter Integrity PAC Commercial Attacks Voter ID Bill

Voter Integrity Project of NC
919-332-4129
www.VoterIntegrityProject.com


Voter Integrity PAC Commercial Attacks Voter ID Bill


RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA—June 4, 2013— Today at 12:30, in front of the State Legislature, the Voter Integrity Project announces the formation of an Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee to run advertisements that demonstrate how easily a criminal enterprise could steal elections unless the NC Senate corrects flaws in the current voter ID bill (HB 589). Supporters will then fan out to distribute DVD copies of the ad to NC Senators.

“We learned from an April 10 Legislative hearing that people were showing up at the polls with no idea where they lived until they read their address off pieces of paper,” said Jay DeLancy, Executive Director of Integrity Project of North Carolina. “We decided to dramatize how large-scale voter fraud would be a simple task under House Bill 589.

One hearing witness, Louis Stannard, reported seeing “many times over” people not knowing their address until they read it off pieces of paper. Several voters he observed used freshly printed utility bills to proof their identity.

“Beyond vote fraud, we cannot explain how large numbers of people could live somewhere long enough to get a utility bill but still not know their own address,” said DeLancy.

Current law allows utility bills and bank statements to serve as voter ID, but HB 589 would require photo ID cards from 76 public colleges and universities along with expired driver’s licenses and hundreds of various government employee ID cards. The VIP-NC concern is that too many types of ID cards make it impossible for poll workers to spot a fake.

“The main impact of the current voter ID bill,” he said, “is to raise the cost of a fake ID card from a nickel to about a dollar, so our commercial will help explain the problem to the public.”

The ad, called “Stealing Hands,” shows just hands distributing fake ID cards to three different people, while the ring leader explains how they won’t get caught.

“The current bill allows hundreds of different ID’s and none of them can be verified at the polls,” DeLancy said. “With today’s technology, it’s an open invitation to use fake ID cards for stealing elections.”

The ad closes by urging viewers to contact their NC Senators and to fix the House bill. The NC Voter Integrity PAC website (www.Fix589.org) explains the details.



NOTES FOR MEDIA:

1--To view the commercial, please visit,WWW.FIX589.ORG
2--To obtain an HD quality idea, please call 919.332.4129
3--If you want to stay in touch, please surf over to our parent organizationwww.VoterIntegrityProject.com and click the “Subscribe” button.