Liberals are again yapping about popular voting for president. They can try to pass and ratify the constitutional amendment required to make it possible.

It can’t get the two-thirds votes needed in the House or Senate without provisions requiring every U.S. county prove, before each election, it had purged all illegal voters from voter registration.

With those provisions, Democrats will vote no. Democrats need non-citizen voters to win local elections. Without those provisions, Republicans will vote no, and 37 states have indicated they will not ratify any amendment for popular voting. Ratification requires 38 states' approval.

Yapping is as close as Democrats ever will get.

Gary Miller

Texas City

Locations

(82) comments

Mike Zeller

I bet "Dumb and Dumber" is your favorite movie.

Bailey Jones

With the single exception on W's re-election in 2004, more Americans have voted Democrat than Republican in every presidential election since 1992. The electoral college is the only thing that keeps the Republican Party alive. But that's fine, the founding fathers didn't found a democracy. "Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure." - James Madison

Gary Miller

Bailey. Wrong again. It was not citizens who increased the popular vote. It was non citizens. Without the non citizen vote California would be the largest RED state. Non citizens are legal voters in California because the constitution gave states the right to write their own election laws. Regardless of how many non citizens vote in California they still only get the number of electors the last census gave them.

Dan Freeman

Non citizens cannot vote in California. This is a often repeated false claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/false-claim-of-california-registering-noncitizens-to-vote/

Carlos Ponce

"Non citizens cannot [LEGALLY] vote in California..." nor in Texas, but they still do.

Steve Fouga

How many, Carlos?

Carlos Ponce

Ken Paxton's office has prosecuted quite a few which carries a sentence of "second-degree felony and carries a penalty of 2-20 years in prison".
Wait for the exact number to come in since there will be differentiation between:
a) Non-citizens who registered but did not vote
b) Non-citizens who registered and did vote
c) Other forms of voter fraud
The numbers are rolling in. Wait if you want an accurate count.

Gary Scoggin

In other words, he doesn't know.

Carlos Ponce

I'm not a clairvoyant Gary Scoggins. Suffice it to say there are "many" being investigated including several referred "to the district attorney’s office for investigation" by Cheryl Johnson. GCDN April 16, 2019
How many statewide will be prosecuted for illegal voting by non-citizen will not be known until due process has occurred. Until then, "Marites Canete Curry, a noncitizen living in Corsicana, was indicted on one count of illegal voting, a second-degree felony that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison."

Mike Zeller

Carlos says, "illegal voting by non-citizen will not be known until due process has occurred". We've been holding elections in Texas for over 150 years, how much more time do you need to give us a non-citizen voter number? That "due process" thingy, sure takes a long time.

Carlos Ponce

Mike, time to wake up. The investigation was started then stopped by lawsuits. The investigations have just resumed.

Bailey Jones

Yes, Mike - wake up and fear the illegal brown menace. You know - the guy who risked his life to get here, who works menial jobs and stays on the down low to avoid any contact with law enforcement, but loves voting for people in a political system he's completely disconnected from sooooo much he's willing to walk into a polling place with a fake ID and risk being deported. I mean, if I was hiding out in a foreign country trying to scrape up a few bucks to send back home that's totally what I would do - vote.

Carlos Ponce

"Yes, Mike - wake up and fear the illegal brown menace."
That's a racist remark Bailey! Are you under the impression that ALL illegals are "brown" or "people of color"? The illegals include people from Mexico, Central and South America, Canada, Asia, and Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Some are labeled "white". Ever see the movie "Green Card"?

Bailey Jones

"That's a racist remark Bailey! " !!! Yes, Carlos, I'm quite aware. In fact, the greatest number of illegals overstaying their visas in the US are Canadian. I'm just not seeing any walls being built on our northern border. But, if you're asserting that brown skinned illegals from the south are not a threat to our system of voting, I agree with you 100%.

Carlos Ponce

Good idea, Bailey - Border walls on the NORTHERN border. Since that border is longer, it might take a while.

Randy Chapman

That more Democrats vote is not surprising. It's called the dumbing of America. Ignorant folks are outpacing conservatives.

Gary Scoggin

Gary Miller is right for all the wrong reasons. We need to keep the electoral college. But not because of the specter of voting by illegal immigrants. (By the way, it’s Russia trying to steal elections here, not Honduras.)

With nationwide popular voting, every single Presidential election will be subjected to a total recount. Imagine the chaos that will create in every state, ever county and every precinct. Imagine Florida 2000 taken nationwide. What the Electoral College does is partition off the challenges, because with most states there is a clear winner. This wasn’t the reason the EC was constructed by our founders but it’s reason enough to keep it.

Besides, as Gary points out, it won’t get ratified by 38 states anyway. The small states benefit by being over represented in the EC composition. And for a Constitutional Amendment, Montana counts the same as California..

Bailey Jones

Not only that, but the whole reason for the electoral college - especially as originally envisioned - is so that the president is chosen, not by the people, but by "responsible" representatives of the people, who would hopefully have more sense. A big fear of the founders was that a despot would be elected president - as we've seen in many countries that have pure democracies. ("The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots." - Elbridge Gerry.) In the old days the president was chosen by electors who were chosen by state representatives. Even after the awarding of electors became a matter of popular vote (at the state level), the parties decided who would run, not the people. You can decry the old smoke filled backrooms, but at least the parties knew to choose a candidate that would represent the interests of the party. Now, with the primary system, even though the president isn't elected democratically, the candidates are - at least in the states that have primaries. The popular election of candidates allowed for the election of D J Trump, who the party would never have chosen, and could have allowed for the election of Bernie - who is not even a Democrat. The Dems idea is short-sighted and wrong headed. Who's the next popular candidate - Clint Eastwood, Oprah? The solution to fewer Trumps isn't more democracy, it's less. I'd like to see a return to the days when candidates were chosen by party delegates, irrespective of the popular primary vote.

Gary Miller

Bailey. The popular vote in each state decides who that states EC electors will vote for.

Dan Freeman

Again not true. Electors generally are pledged to vote for a particular candidate, but the can break their pledge legally in many states. Moreover an elector may or may not be pledged. Even at 85 you need to keep your facts straight.

Carlos Ponce

Eliminating the Electoral College would concentrate political power in a handful of cities. They consider where we live "flyover country" inhabited by "smelly Wal-Mart people".
Remember we are the United STATES of America.
Look at the breakdown during the 2016 election by county:
https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
and by state:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/map.html
I see a red country with blue on the east and west coasts.

Jim Forsythe

The Electoral college does not evenly distribute power to citizens...
CA has 21.5 Million registered voters and has 55 electoral votes - 456,363 people represent 1 electoral vote in CA
Montana has 711,844 registered voters and 3 electoral votes - 237,281 people represent 1 electoral vote
That means people in Montana have more of an influence on the election of a new president by near double those in CA.....How is that fair?

Gary Miller

A states number of electors is determined by the most recent census. Not by the number of voters.

Bailey Jones

Maps show land, not population. Acreage doesn't vote, people do. (Plenty of smelly Wal-Mart people in the cities - the ones conservatives are afraid of.)

Don Schlessinger

Actually Bailey it was the FBI's Peter Strzok who coined "Plenty of smelly Wal-Mart people in the cities". Isn't he one of your hero's? Why would you put that off on conservatives?

Dan Freeman

Actually it was Sean Hannity: https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/george-papadopoulos-on-what-he-wants-the-american-people-to-know

Don Schlessinger

Dan, Hannity is a pundit, Strzok was a FBI agent, that's quiet a difference considering his comments were about anyone who didn't love Hilary.

Bailey Jones

Don, Dan, I'm actually not aware of anything that Strzok ever said - I don't follow failed FBI agents. Or failed pundits.

Carlos Ponce

Bailey posts, " I'm actually not aware of anything that Strzok ever said - I don't follow failed FBI agents."
Rather than what he said it's what he did and texted to girlfriend FBI Lisa Page.
It's evident from his posts he wanted Hillary to win and despised Trump.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he [Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40."
Strzok investigated Hillary in the e-mail investigation.
Strzok led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections investigating Trump.
Lisa Page was on Mueller's team to investigate Trump.
Both were removed from the investigation when the texts were revealed and were eventually fired from the FBI.
See: "Mueller Removed Top Agent in Russia Inquiry Over Possible Anti-Trump Texts"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/politics/mueller-removed-top-fbi-agent-over-possible-anti-trump-texts.html
and "Top FBI official assigned to Mueller’s Russia probe said to have been removed after sending anti-Trump texts"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/two-senior-fbi-officials-on-clinton-trump-probes-exchanged-politically-charged-texts-disparaging-trump/2017/12/02/9846421c-d707-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.8373a6f0488d

Jim Forsythe

The most likely change, would be the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which would be the easiest change.
12 states signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, pledging their Electoral College votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. The bill would take effect if the law is passed by states controlling at least 270 votes, which is the figure needed to win the presidency. It currently has 181.

Donald J. Trump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
8:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012
After Barack Obama in 2012 on reelection, Trump declared his win “a total sham and a travesty” and called for a revolution and march on Washington.
“The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation,” he wrote in deleted tweets, and then added, “[Obama] lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!”


Gary Miller

Jim. That Compact is invalid, and illegal because each states number of electors are required to be counted in the EC. It's just another attempt by liberals to circumvent the Constitution.

Jim Forsythe

A state can allocate their electoral votes however they want.
Gary, it has already ruled to be congressional. A state can allocate their electoral votes however they want and that's the reason that 2 states do not award all Electoral College votes to the winner of the most votes in that state, they are legal in doing so.
The Compact is simply the agreement of a state to appoint electors ,who would vote for the national popular vote winner. This is a state power, and it does not challenge the supremacy of the federal government. Therefore, in accordance to Virginia v. Tennessee, this Compact does not require congressional approval – the states are entirely allowed to do it themselves.

As far as The Compact being invalid because of the counting of the electors, it would still be done by the Certificate of Ascertainment which declares the winning presidential candidate in your state, which could be votes for more than one person. Electors will represent the state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year.
So that would not change the way votes are counted by the Electoral College.
The Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) that a compact or agreement between states only requires congressional approval if it would “encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States.” Justice Field would further write, “Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” It is clear here that the proper reading of this clause would be that congressional approval is only necessary and required if an interstate compact infringes upon the powers of the federal government.
The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” A state can allocate their electoral votes however they want – most states do it in a winner-takes-all system, where all their electoral votes go the winner of their own state, but Maine and Nebraska do it differently, as is within their power. The Compact is simply the agreement of a state to appoint electors who would vote for the national popular vote winner. This is a state power, and it does not challenge the supremacy of the federal government. Therefore, in accordance to Virginia v. Tennessee, this Compact does not require congressional approval – the states are entirely allowed to do it themselves.

Carlos Ponce

"pledging their Electoral College votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote."
And when the popular vote is for Donald J. Trump what will they say? Nooooooo!

Jim Forsythe

What will be said, the person that received the most votes won!

Carlos Ponce

I doubt it.

Jim Forsythe

Most people did not doubt that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, except for Trump and a few of his---.
2020 will be the same, with the one getting the most votes will win the popular vote.
No matter what, some will not agree with the facts, just as it was in 2016..

Carlos Ponce

"Most people did not doubt that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, except for Trump and a few of his---."
Trump knows the vote totals, Jim, especially the one that counts - the Electoral College vote. It's Hillary who did not grasp that concept. Bill Clinton told her to go after as many states as possible but she ignored certain states.

Jim Forsythe

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
3:30 PM - Nov 27, 2016

Hillary did not say, I won the Electoral College votes after the results were final.
She did say, I won the popular vote.


Carlos Ponce

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"
Can you DISPROVE that statement???????

Jim Forsythe

"Most people did not doubt that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, except for Trump and a few of his---

Carlos Ponce

That's not proof, Jim.

Jim Forsythe

Most people did not doubt that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, except for Trump and a few of his---

I do not need too prove that, because the Total is in, as to the popular vote.
"I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally" is a statement that Trump has no bases for.
The official count Clinton's beat Trump by 2,864,974 votes, a 2.1% margin.
You can whine all you want to about the official total, but it stills stands.

Why is this so important to you that you neglect the proof that Trump won the EC and lost the popular vote.
Maybe you are thinking of the 95,000 votes in Texas that they are still trying to prove is illegal.
Oh that's right, Trump won Texas, so that did not make a difference.
Even if votes are proven to be illegal, no one can prove whom they would have voted for.
Since the largest group of people that should not be here ,are visa overstays, no one knows whom they would vote for.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, you don't get it. Trump knows that was the popular vote but it was wrought with fraud. Remove the fraudulent votes and he wins both the Electoral and popular vote. There are those out there in blue states and even in the state of Texas trying to deter the investigation as to how many were fraudulent.

Jim Forsythe

Removing any proven fraudulent votes is not just waving a wand and results are changed. Proven is the key word.
As it is a secret vote as to whom a person votes for, are you suggesting that if 2,864,975 illegal voters were found that you could just erase that amount from the total.. It would require a revote between Trump and Hillary on a national scale, and who would win is anybody's guess. Hillary would be all for that.
This so called investigation has been going on longer than the Muller investigation did.

Jan. 24, 2017
Back in November, former House speaker Newt Gingrich told USA TODAY that Trump's biggest misstep after his win was to assert claims of widespread voter fraud. "The president of the United States can't randomly tweet without having somebody check it out," Gingrich told USA TODAY. "It makes you wonder about whatever else he's doing. It undermines much more than a single tweet."
Only the ones that think that illegal votes were cast has to prove it, as the vote has been certified and official.

Carlos Ponce

"The president of the United States can't randomly tweet without having somebody check it out," Gingrich.
Does that mean Newt disagrees with Trump's statement about fraudulent voting?
"[Trump wrote that] given California voter law where illegal immigrants can get drivers licenses and a drivers license is all you need in order to vote, how do we know how many people who have voted who aren't citizens? This is not some guy who is a nut," said Gingrich. "Why shouldn't we be sure that the [people voting] are both alive and [are] citizens?" he asked.
I guess nobody checked out Newt's statements before he made them.[rolleyes]

Jim Forsythe

Removing any proven fraudulent votes is not just waving a wand and results are changed. Proven is the key word.
As it is a secret vote as to whom a person votes for, are you suggesting that if 2,864,975 illegal voters were found that you could just erase that amount from the total.. It would require a revote between Trump and Hillary on a national scale, and who would win is anybody's guess. Hillary would be all for that.
This so called investigation has been going on longer than the Muller investigation did.

Carlos Ponce

"This so called investigation has been going on longer than the Muller investigation did."
With so many obstacles trying to stop the investigation no need to wonder why.
Speaking of Texas:
"A Federal judge, Frances H. Stacy has denied the county’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Public Interest Legal Foundation, a law firm dedicated entirely to election integrity. The foundation sued Harris County Voter Registrar Ann Bennett last year under a transparency provision of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), after Bennett’s office refused a request for access to voter records."
February 6, 2019
https://s29017.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Harris-County-PILF-Denied-Motion-2019.pdf
and
“A complaint says the Texas Democratic Party asked noncitizens to register to vote, sending applications with citizenship box prechecked,” Abbott said. “This is being investigated. If true, there will be serious consequences.”
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-democrats-accused-asking-non-citizens-vote-sending-applications-1179205

Jim Forsythe

Is this tied to the 95,000 or some other thing that may be, say, a computer clinch..
What does all this have to do with Trump and the votes he said he did not receive.
Trump will never prove that he did not get votes because of this issue, because even if votes are proven invalid, who did they vote for? That can not be proven.
If he does prove illegal votes, then what? A new election! Hillary may still have a second shot.
Or forget all this none provable hunt, and not chance a second vote by the American people.

Carlos Ponce

"Is this tied to the 95,000..." No, it is not.
The 2016 election will not be redone. But we need to look at ways to prevent any fraudulent votes in 2020. That is the aim. Voting by non-citizens is just part of the problem.

Jim Forsythe

Then why does Trump say, restore votes to Trump. It is impossible to do, so he needs to drop it.
"Voting by non-citizens is just part of the problem." and the other parts are?

President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani is trying to dip his beak into the Ukraine waters. He canceled the trip because he realized seeking foreign assistance for President Trump’s re-election campaign, is not a good look.
Kind of sounded like a “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” moment

"Is this tied to the 95,000"
Kind of hard to know what is tied to what, with finger pointing at every rock.

Carlos Ponce

"Then why does Trump say, restore votes to Trump."
Where does he say that, Jim? It's not restoration of votes, it's about counting only legitimate votes.
" 'Voting by non-citizens is just part of the problem.' and the other parts are?"
Multi-state voting, zombie voting, precincts turning in vote totals higher than the number of registered voters, etc. Any fraudulent voting.
"He [Rudy Giuliani] canceled the trip because he realized seeking foreign assistance for President Trump’s re-election campaign, is not a good look." -That's not what he said, Jim. Rudy discovered that there was Ukrainian interference with the 2016 election and there was a Joe Biden connection.
"Giuliani, a former Republican mayor of New York City, said that he believed he would be 'walking into a group of people that are enemies of the president', and in some cases, enemies of the United States and in one case, an already convicted person who has been found to be involved in assisting the Democrats with the 2016 investigation."There was a great fear that the new [Ukrainian] president would be surrounded by, literally, enemies of the president [of the United States] who were involved in that and people who are involved with other Democratic operatives," he told host Shannon Bream of FOX.
"'I'm convinced from what I've heard from two very reliable people tonight that the president [Ukrainian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky] is surrounded by people who are enemies of the president [Trump], and people who are -- at least [in] one case -- clearly corrupt and involved in this scheme,' Giuliani said."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-i-am-not-going-to-ukraine-because-id-be-walking-into-a-group-of-people-that-are-enemies-of-the-us
“' 'Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,' moment" - That was a joke, Jim.

Jim Forsythe

Fraudulent voting, and all that you outlined is fraudulent voting, keeps some people busy trying to prove it exist, in the Quantities that some think,has not been too fruitful yet. Out of the 95,000 in Texas that were under suspicion, how many have been found too have violated the law? Out of the 3 Million in California, that Trump is looking for,how many have been found?

July 1, 2017
President Trump once again sought to raise suspicions about virtually nonexistent U.S. voter fraud, wondering aloud in a tweet what “numerous” states were “trying to hide” by not agreeing to share registered voters’ personal information with the voter-fraud commission Trump ordered shortly after becoming president. Trump, as both a candidate and president, has repeatedly sought to spread the falsehood that the U.S. election system suffers from widespread voter fraud. As president, Trump has repeatedly promoted, without supporting evidence, the far-right conspiracy theory that millions of votes in the 2016 presidential election were cast illegally — a theory Trump purports to believe is the reason he lost the popular vote. Then in May, Trump formed the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity both to investigate his unfounded claims and, more likely, to advance a radical agenda of voting-rights restrictions.

Rudy Giuliani canceled the trip to Ukrainian!
Why,because of the optics of being seen as another Russia type affair.

“' 'Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," - was not a joke,it was a request.

Carlos Ponce

Fraudulent voting exists. I'm glad our elected officials are trying to end it. Of course Democrats will say, "Nothing here, nothing here" because they are behind much of the fraudulent voting.

Jim Forsythe

Fraudulent voting exists now and in the future, but not at the rate some try and depict as happening!
How many voter fraud cases have been found too have violated the law?
Is it in the Millions, Thousands, Hundreds ?
Texas Prosecuted 15 Illegal Voting Cases, None Involving Impersonation.
Only 15 voter fraud cases have been prosecuted by the attorney general's office between the 2012 primary election and July.Eleven of those are cases in which “politiqueras” collect and mail ballots for elderly voters. Aug. 22, 2016.
Does not seem like out of control voter fraud.
This does not include the 95,000 voters case in progress in Texas. What will that investigation yield as far as facts are concerned? Will it just be another attempt to make a big splash, only to be another belly flop. How much will we have to pay to settle the lawsuits from this latest attempt in Texas?

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), in response to Trump’s claims that millions of individuals illegally voted, said: “I’ve seen no evidence to that effect. I’ve made that very, very clear...”
Senator James Lankford (R-OK) said: “our election system does not have millions of people that have violated the process. Our states do a good job of checking it.”
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “I would urge the president to knock this off; this is the greatest democracy on earth, we’re the leader of the free world, and people are going to start doubting you as a person if you keep making accusations against our electoral system without justification...”
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said: “I don't see the evidence [of election fraud].”
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican, said: “I have no evidence whatsoever, and I don't know that anyone does, that there were that many illegal people who voted…”
Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) said Trump’s claim of mass voter fraud “undermines the idea of an election.”
President of the New Hampshire Senate Chuck Morse, a Republican, said: “I have been assured by the secretary of state that our elections are good and clean.”
The National Association of Secretaries of State, in a press release, stated: “We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump… In the lead up to the November 2016 election, secretaries of state expressed their confidence in the systemic integrity of our election process as a bipartisan group, and they stand behind that statement today.”

Carlos Ponce

One vote can make a difference, one vote.

Jim Forsythe

What happened to the 3 Million in California and 95,000 in Texas?
I guess it was just to stir up the base.
3 Million does sound more exciting than ONE.

Carlos Ponce

"What happened to the 3 Million in California and 95,000 in Texas?"
Doubtful that California officials will cooperate with any investigation.
Looks like Jim forgot that 95,000 was just the number of self reported non-citizens that were registered. Of that number 58,000 had actually voted.

Carlos Ponce

Of that 58,000 who self reported non-citizen status and voted there were just supposed to be INVESTIGATED, not charged with anything, hence the letter. 80 letters were sent in Galveston County.
As I posted on Jan 30, 2019 10:53am,
"I am certain that many of the 80 will produce the proper documentation. It will point out holes in the citizenship identification process. This can be taken care of. But if only ONE is identified as voting as a non-citizen then follow the letter of the law."
So far, more than one has been referred to the Galveston County District Attorney for adjudication.
Galveston County 2019
January, 1 non citizen dropped from voting rolls (8 statewide)
February, 2 non citizens dropped from voting rolls (108 statewide)
March, 2 non citizens dropped from voting rolls (11 statewide)
So far in 2019, 5 Galveston County non citizens dropped from voting rolls, 127 statewide
And the investigation continues....
https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/team/cancellation-trend-reports/index.shtml

Jim Forsythe

Out of the 95,000, how many lawsuits will result. Ken Paxton‏ said of these, 58,000 voted!
Ken Paxton‏ knows what he is talking about or he would not be The Texas Attorney General.
Ken Paxton‏
Verified account
@KenPaxtonTX
VOTER FRAUD ALERT: The @TXsecofstate discovered approx 95,000 individuals identified by DPS as non-U.S. citizens have a matching voter registration record in TX, approx 58,000 of whom have voted in TX elections. Any illegal vote deprives Americans of their voice.
12:37 PM - 25 Jan 2019

Carlos Ponce

At least NOW you remember, Jim. With those stupid lawsuits now out of the way the purging will continue. Problem is: some counties like Harris are not going to cooperate.

Jim Forsythe

You may think they are stupid lawsuits, but the ones that are still going on,that are pursuing this path, it is not stupid. This includes the ones that will be filed.
Lawsuits have just started, as well as the cost to us.

The voter purge was just a disaster from the very beginning. The number of people Whitley accused of being illegally registered to vote was outrageous.
After the judge approved the settlement, the original list of voters was scrapped. Under the agreement, Texas officials now will only flag names of people who have said they’re not citizens after they have registered to vote.
To complain about Harris county not wanting to be part of this cluster, is just complaining against the fact that they understood a purge of that magnitude, is beyond common sense. By not buying in on the 95,000 purge, they did not have to send out letters saying , sorry if we messed up your life, because we did not do everything possible before we accused you of violating the law.

The leader of the pack provided more red meat for his base.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
58,000 non-citizens voted in Texas, with 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. All over the country, especially in California, voter fraud is rampant. Must be stopped. Strong voter ID! @foxandfriends
8:22 AM - Jan 27, 2019

Carlos Ponce

They were STUPID lawsuits taken before an Obama appointed judge.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts, "Under the agreement, Texas officials now will only flag names of people who have said they’re not citizens after they have registered to vote."
That's what was done before the lawsuits.

Jim Forsythe

The settlement puts Texas on notice. no more threating a large group such as the 95,000 anymore.
No more sending out bulk letters that say, prove you have a right to vote.
No more using this tactic for political reasons.

When you have The Texas Attorney General and the President using this to try and say we have a huge problem as in 58,000 accused, when we do not have, this type of problem, this is all a political stunt.

Are we only to follow the rulings of the party you agree with? (They were STUPID lawsuits taken before an Obama appointed judge.) If this is true, it is the end of any type of court system.
Should Democrats' only follow what Democratic judges rule?
Should a new President be able to kick out a judge of another party? Kind of sounds like what a King would do.
To whine that the judge is not fair, only reflects on the whiner.
The big bad Obama judge did not agree with me! Pass the pacifier.

Carlos Ponce

"The settlement puts Texas on notice. no more threating (SIC) a large group such as the 95,000 anymore."
"Threatening", Jim????? Nonsense. The Letter sent out simply asked for verification of citizenship. And if the person in question cannot produce a naturalization paper then action must be taken. If they did not vote their name was removed from the voting rolls- that's all. But if they did vote, more action is taken. My dad had his Naturalization papers and had to show them to government officials when re-entering the United States. No big deal. Guess what - they still give them out to persons who are NATURALIZED!
It's the LAW, Jim. If you are NOT a citizen then the LAW says you must face the consequences, due process which may result in up to 20 years in prison. No one who is a citizen is threatened. Your statement is nonsense hyperbole.
Then what does Jim say should be done with non-citizens who vote, which is against the LAW???? Nothing?

Carlos Ponce

Corrected omission:
It's the LAW, Jim. If you are NOT a citizen and vote then the LAW says you must face the consequences, due process which may result in up to 20 years in prison.

Jim Forsythe

"The Letter sent out simply asked for verification of citizenship" or we are coming for you.
If Texas does this again, the judge will not be happy.
If a judge had not stopped it, 58,000 letters would have been sent to people that did not deserve it.
For no reason, but Texas did not want to do its job and wanted the county to do it for them, in reducing numbers,
Now the state will have to do its job first.

Carlos Ponce

Jim: "If Texas does this again, the judge will not be happy."
The purging continues. From the settlement "Local officials can continue to find out if in fact someone is registered who is not a citizen..." What's different? Before new letters are sent out the court must approve. In other words - MORE PAPERWORK.
"However, the Secretary of State is affirmatively ORDERED to advise and direct local voting officials not to send notice of examination letters nor remove voters from registration without prior approval of the Court."
https://texascivilrightsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Voter-Purge-MTD-Order.pdf

Jim: "If a judge had not stopped it, 58,000 letters would have been sent to people that did not deserve it."
The individuals receiving the letters indicated they were NOT citizens. It's what the LAW states must be done:
"If the registrar has reason to believe that a voter is no longer eligible for registration, the registrar shall deliver written notice to the voter indicating that the voter's registration status is being investigated by the registrar. The notice shall be delivered by forwardable mail to the mailing address on the voter's registration application and to any new address of the voter known to the registrar. If the secretary of state has adopted or recommended a form for a written notice under this section, the registrar must use that form.
(c) The notice must include:
(1) a request for information relevant to determining the voter's eligibility for registration; and
(2) a warning that the voter's registration is subject to cancellation if the registrar does not receive an appropriate reply on or before the 30th day after the date the notice is mailed." TEC 16.033

Jim: "For no reason, but Texas did not want to do its job and wanted the county to do it for them, in reducing numbers,
"no reason"?????? "NO REASON"????????????????
The law says it is the COUNTIES' responsibility. See Texas Election Code 16.033
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.16.htm
NO REASON???? Following the LAW is a DARN good reason!!!!!!!
And as the settlement states "Local officials can continue to find out if in fact someone is registered who is not a citizen...."

Jim: "Now the state will have to do its job first."
The state was doing what it is legally supposed to and so were the counties. Nothing has changed except more paperwork as ordered by the judge.

Jim Forsythe

"The state was doing what it is legally supposed to" if was true the judge would have ruled differently.
"except more paperwork as ordered by the judge." No, just what they should have been doing all along and tried to pass off to others. By not doing the required investigations on the 58,000, before they were trying to pass the work and cost to the local level. All Ken,Trump and others in this group wanted was the publicity about a non event which turned into more cost for Texas In the form of the cost of the lawsuit .

If they try and pull a similar type of stunt, the courts will intervene.

Carlos Ponce

"if was true the judge would have ruled differently."
The judge did not rule but resided over a settlement, Jim.
Compare what was being done before to what the settlement has. The same thing asides from the extra paperwork.
I provide quotes from the Texas Election Code and the Legal settlement. You provide Liberal talking points. Your posts lack merit.

Jim Forsythe

If they try and pull a similar type of stunt, the courts will intervene.

Carlos Ponce

It's being pulled as we speak as per the court's directive. ""Local officials can continue to find out if in fact someone is registered who is not a citizen..." Another difference is that the media is out of the information loop.

Carlos Ponce

The winner of the 1992 won with only 43% of the popular vote, not a majority.
A popular vote with a run-off would possibly delay the election results into the next year unless you moved Election Day up creating a longer lame duck period. Not good.
In a popular vote with a plurality winner, the "winner" could possibly have far less than Bill Clinton's 43% depending on the number of candidates on the ballot.
Let's say you have two strong candidates A and B. Candidate A's people could guarantee victory with the addition of additional candidates similar in ideology to B - like H. Ross Perot becoming the "spoiler" in 1992.
What would have happened in 2016 if Bernie was added to each state's ballot in November?

Gary Scoggin

Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the Presidency. If most of Nader's voters had voted for Gore (a reasonable assumption), Gore would have clearly won Florida in 2000.

Gary Miller

Carlos. A runoff system could solve that problem. Bush would have easily beat Clinton in a run off. Third party spoilers would be eliminated unless the third party candidate was in first or second place.

Carlos Ponce

Agreed that Bush would have easily beaten Gore in a run-off but when would that run-off election be held? The next week, the next month, January?

Bailey Jones

Should have said "plurality".

Gary Miller

Without a run off system a candidate in a ten candidate race could win with only 11 % plurality. How many votes would win if the Independent, Tulip, Rose, sloppy and GOP- RNC parties all ran candidates. If a popular vote system were used that could be what we would get. A winner with less than 20%.

Gary Miller

Several polls on the subject found only 14 % support a popular vote system. The main objection by the 80+% was it would not be fair to states that do not permit non citizen voting.

Jarvis Buckley

Lot of really negative comments , about the future of our country.

Steve Fouga

Back to the original premise of the article...

I don't consider myself a Liberal, but I admit to getting a lot of my news from rabidly left-wing sources like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, The Galveston County Daily News, and MSNBC. I can guarantee all of you that there is no clamor for eliminating the Electoral College. In fact, Mr. Miller's letter was the first time it came to my attention since, oh, November 2016. It wasn't practical then, either.

Maybe there's a little "yapping," but nobody takes it seriously.

This is just Gary riling up his base. [cool]

Bailey Jones

Lots of yapping here!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.