by Monica Showalter
The Associated Press, unquestioningly promoting the aims of the pro-illegal-alien NGO known as CHIRLA, has trumpeted the NGO's claim that forty percent of the Department of Justice's non-citizen voter list is nowhere to be found on California's voter rolls. The idea, of course, was to suggest that the list was riddled with errors and therefore discredited.
According to the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 4 in 10 names flagged as possible noncitizen voters in California by the Trump administration cannot be found on the state’s voter rolls, according to a legal filing Saturday by an immigrant-rights group.
It’s the first outside analysis of a list that the Department of Justice has used to threaten prosecution of election officials. The analysis also found that thousands of U.S. citizens appear to be flagged as ineligible to vote on the government’s list.
The contention was made in a filing by two data analysts at the University of California, Los Angeles. They analyzed the 20,930 names that the department demanded that California election officials treat as possible illegal voters by separating their ballots during the vote count on Election Day.
Multiple judges have rejected the demand as unconstitutional and a threat to democracy, and local and state officials have said the list appears riddled with errors.
They mentioned CHIRLA much further down in the piece, knowing that the radical pro-illegal-alien group is, well, crazily radical.
In response, the U.S. Attorney's Office has called the UCLA-CHIRLA report 'bogus' saying that a private university or an NGO wouldn't have access to official voter records to make the claim from in the first place.
Maybe someone from the State of California, which was presented with the noncitizen voter list by the feds -- and in Los Angeles, claimed they didn't even open the thumb drive -- did leak it to the radical activists. One news report says
How the noncitizen voter list was compiled was not clear -- different reports said it was from immigration records, Social Security records, tax records, all of which would have indicators of citizenship.
But it couldn't be easy for them, given that California, and the other targeted states -- Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania -- were not cooperative with their own records of who was on the voter rolls. But the federal list did clearly state that the noncitizen voters were 'likely,' not a sure thing. After all, with illegals getting by using stolen identification and Social Security numbers, as well as many aliases, imagine the task of sorting out who is a citizen and a noncitizen in such a criminal milieu?
Meaning, it was possible that some were legitimate citizen voters, e.g., the recently naturalized with records still not updated. The lawsuit against California filed by the feds can be read here, with careful wording about potential and likely noncitizen voters, not certain ones. A counter lawsuit filed by CHIRLA, according to the AP, is how the radicals got access go U.S. voter records, although there were complaints that they didn't get voter IDs.
Saturday’s broader analysis was possible because a federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to share the list with the plaintiffs in the case.
CHIRLA and the UCLA project sued the Homeland Security Department in early October to prevent it from using federal immigration data to challenge state voter rolls. The lawsuit cited examples in other states where the federal government’s data has been proven to mistakenly include thousands of citizens.
That's some mighty fast analysis for 20,000 names, suggesting they may have had the data illicitly earlier.
There are a lot of possibilities as to why forty percent of the names were not on the voter rolls. A dirty, corrupt secretary of state's office, for one, could have removed a few of the noncitizen names, so that CHIRLA could make its claims of an error-filled list, given that the two of them may be working hand in hand.
CHIRLA's and UCLA's work, as the U.S. Attorney says, could be slipshod, or simply not the right data.
Or, CHIRLA and UCLA could be right and forty percent of the names of likely noncitizen voters could simply be not there.
And that's the most disturbing thing of all. If CHIRLA/UCLA are right and forty percent of the federal likely noncitizen voter names are not on the voter rolls, what about the sixty percent which are? That would be 12,000 noncitizen voters, a large chunk of whom likely voted in our elections.
No word from the State of California about disenrolling those names -- and in fact, they fully plan to count any ballots from these individuals, cancelling out the votes of that many citizens, disenfranchising them. Your vote matters? Not in California it doesn't, where at a minimum, 12,000 noncitizens are on the voter rolls alongside you.
It underlines the severity of the problem with illegals voting in California. One city councilwoman in the city of Santa Ana alone, Thai Viet Phan, said that fully a third of the residents of her city were here illegally and in need of services. She openly called for them to have the right to vote, and at an August conference put on by the Harbor Institute for Immigrant Justice where Phan made that statement, the CEO, one Carlos Perera, said that illegals were indeed voting but the struggle was continuing. See the fourth minute of this YouTube video here.60
The buried lede here was that sixty percent of the likely noncitizen voters were probably out voting. That validates the Trump administration case that California's voter rolls are full of ineligible voters and rigging is the name of the game in the state given that they all either vote Democrat or allow someone to fill out their ballots for them, which is probably even more likely.
That thing that never happens, in other words, happens in the thousands. Where is the scandal there?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.