If you believe in honest voting – which, it would seem self-evident, includes making sure the rolls of registered voters are accurate – this story should thrill you.
Excerpted from a just-published update by Judicial Watch:
We’ve achieved another significant victory in our fight to clean up the nation’s voter rolls – this time in our nation’s capital.
We sent notice letters to election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA) of 1993, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls.
The letters point out that these jurisdictions publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letters threaten federal lawsuits unless the violations are corrected in a timely fashion.
In response to our inquiries, Washington, DC, officials admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, promptly removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as “inactive.”
As of this year, Washington D.C. listed about 464,000 registered voters. The above data, therefore, mean that, due to Judicial Watch’s efforts, 103,506 of those registered voters – that’s over 22% – should not have been there at all.
Now, in Washington D.C., fixing the voter rolls isn’t going to change who gets elected; over 90% of D.C. registrations are Democrat.
But if the inaccuracy of voter rolls in other places around the country – think of so-called “purple” states that can go either red (Republican) or blue (Democrat) in elections – are anywhere near as acute as they are in D.C., thus enormously vulnerable to voter fraud, it has the potential to make a huge difference.
With the above in mind, what does it tell you that Democrats have been against virtually every effort to clean up voting, from updating voter rolls, to insisting on personally signed ballots, to insisting on voter ID, to insisting on unsupervised ballot “drop-boxes”, etc. etc. etc.?
Let me ask a different way: if one political party is adamant on maintaining inaccurate voter rolls and making it easier to fudge ballots in various ways, what might you conclude about that party’s intended usage of the opportunities those situations would present?
I think you get the idea.
My congratulations to Judicial Watch for the success of its efforts in Washington D.C. May Judicial Watch, and True The Vote, and the other organizations dedicated to making sure elections are fair have similar success in every state in the country.
