New study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

a reply to: Sillyolme

Don't be obtuse.
When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails. For example, if a federal regulation prohibits the use of medical marijuana, but a state regulation allows it, the federal law prevails.

a reply to: dantanna

What do you have against Latinos?
A good portion of our population is Hispanic.
Perfectly legal United States citizens.
Don't start with the hate speech. This isn't about that.
Stop.

I never knew there were 60,000 to 5.8 million Russians living in the US.

Learn something new everyday.

a reply to: buster2010

I agree but I would really like to see someone get to the bottom of this mess. Its scary. I know, having done multiple investigations for a law firm in Houston that its pretty routine for 20 or more suspected illegals to have their drivers licenses registered to addresses that are vacant lots. That doesnt mean they voted, but somthing is up with that.

I really dont get it. In this digital age.......we cant get this right?

So, if this study is correct, what happens to Hillary's popular vote?

a reply to: TonyS

We can. Democrats just pretend it's racist to get it right. Because they are racists and think all illegal immigrants are brown people.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
So, if this study is correct, what happens to Hillary's popular vote?

If this happened Hillary's popular vote has the same amount of relevance it had before: zero.

But seriously, it probably means she didn't actually win it. No way to know without further study. The one cited by the OP wasn't a slam dunk, but it definitely indicates the potential for a lot of problems. We're running 3 separate investigations into Russian collusion on nothing more than innuendo from the DNC, so this study should be more than enough evidence to justify a real investigation into our voting integrity.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

How about medical marijuana???

Federal Law has supremacy over state law.

Hmmm, your forgetting the Tenth Amendment.

Also, there are exceptions to some that overlap. In the case of DOT laws and regulations governing trucking and Rail transport, Federal law applies....unless the State law is stronger.

California's emission laws for vehicles are the toughest in the nation. The manufacturers, therefore, adhere to those standards, not the lesser Federal ones.

As usual, they've kept the area 'muddy'....

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: D8Tee

Ok so this is the paper the OP study is defending.

First methodology. It used the survey in 2008 and 2010. Here is why the chose the survey the did.
Well its PDF so it won't let me copy and paste right.

I will put it into my words, but encourage everyone to read for themselves to make sure I am not misinterpreting them.

4 reasons this survey was used.

1. big number of respondents.

2. asked about citizenship

3. unlike most surveys, non citizens were asked if they voted.

4. in the 2008 version, participation and registration were verified in almost all states.

It shows that in 2008 they were able to verifiy 40 percent of the non citizens answer if they voted or not, but were forced to take the rest at their word.

It says that no one really said "I am an illegal" Instead they said things like they were waiting on a green card, or "waiting on citizenship". But all of these answers would mean they would not be eligible to vote.

Honestly I believe this study is far more credible than those attempting to debunk it.

I would do more here if I could copy and paste, but I suggest anyone interested in the topic read the paper.

My only criticism is is it fair to extrapolate the percentage of those non citizens surveyed to the general population of non citizens? But I guess that is the problem with every survey.

Is it fair? Well I don't think anywhere near half told the truth when asked in the survey...I would figure that would be obvious as most people don't tell on themselves for nothing. So a flat extrapolation doesn't seem too unfair to me.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

The voting rights act have to do with racial discrimination.
It was enacted as legislation because some southern states were trying to keep African Americans from voting.
This study isn't about disenfranchised Americans like the voting rights act.
It's a study to prove trump won the popular vote.
Which he didnt and it's killing him.

I know what the voting rights act was for. It was a federal law that was passed that directed states on election rules.
Congress can pass laws that direct states to change their election processes. Now for ID laws there would certainly be a challenge that would end up in the Supreme Court, but if the law passed and was upheld then States would have no choice... because federal law has supremacy over state law.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

The voting rights act have to do with racial discrimination.
It was enacted as legislation because some southern states were trying to keep African Americans from voting.
This study isn't about disenfranchised Americans like the voting rights act.
It's a study to prove trump won the popular vote.
Which he didnt and it's killing him.

I know what the voting rights act was for. It was a federal law that was passed that directed states on election rules.
Congress can pass laws that direct states to change their election processes. Now for ID laws there would certainly be a challenge that would end up in the Supreme Court, but if the law passed and was upheld then States would have no choice... because federal law has supremacy over state law.

Easy fix would be for Congress to federally fund voter ID cards to be issued to everyone with a social security number and just pass a law directing the States to ask for them on election day. Then the States would have no financial argument for the court battle, which is usually the angle they try to use to get out of federally mandated programs. If it's not costing them anything a judge is just gonna be like "So what's the problem? Why can't you do this?"

originally posted by: yeahright
The same people who go apoplectic about requiring people to document their eligibility to vote, suddenly demand documented proof of ineligible voting.

You can't make this stuff up.

The perennial cries about illegal voting would be more credible if any study had found significant illegal voting.

Frankly, that just hasn't been the case. This 'study' is... somewhere? I don't find any actual study anyway, just talk about it. Finally found it.

Further on in the Moonie Times article, there is this blurb:

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which fights voter fraud, released one of its most comprehensive reports last month.

Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who had cast more than 7,000 ballots. The people volunteered their status, most likely when acquiring driver’s licenses. The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more illegal voters on Virginia’s rolls who have never admitted to being noncitizens.

Why haven't you ever heard about that before?

Because it's bull#. Straight from an older Moonie Times article:

Editor’s note: After this article ran Todd Erickson, the husband of Maureen Erickson, contacted The Washington Times to dispute the state’s documents listing his wife as a “declared non-citizen” (publicinterestlegal.org...). Mr. Erickson said his wife is a missionary with residency in Guatemala, but is a U.S. citizen who is now registered to vote in Loudoun County. The Times has asked for responses from Prince William County and the State Board of Elections and will provide an update when officials explain how she was purged from the rolls as a non-citizen.

When Maureen Erickson registered to vote in Prince William County, she listed her home address as a street in Guatemala, in what should have been a very strong indication that she wasn’t a regular Virginia resident.

Yet she remained on the voting rolls for years, and even cast ballots in 14 different elections, up through the 2008 presidential contest. She was only purged in 2012, just ahead of the election, after she self-reported as a noncitizen, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Public Interest Legal Foundation.

Ms. Erickson was one of more than 5,500 noncitizens who were registered to vote in Virginia this decade, and were only bumped from the rolls after they admitted to being ineligible. Some 1,852 of them even managed to cast ballots that were likely illegal, though undetected, the PILF, a conservative voter integrity group, said in its report.

There was a followup article to that one, based on this particular person highlighted:

Prince William County was notified by the state in July 2012, and that triggered an automatic check. A letter was sent to the address Ms. Erickson had on file with election officials — in Guatemala.

“We did not receive a response and, after 14 days as proscribed by law, we removed her from the voting roles,” said Winston Forrest, the election communications coordinator for the county.

Virginia’s elections commissioner, Edgardo Cortes, said he couldn’t talk about Ms. Erickson’s case specifically but suggested her situation isn’t shocking.

“It happens all the time where people accidentally indicate ‘no’ to citizenship and either don’t receive the letter or don’t return it in time before the removal happens,” he said.

He said those are reasons that groups such as the Public Interest Legal Foundation should be careful about reading too much into voter data about noncitizens.

Yeah, uh, they probably ain't going to be getting a letter back from wherever in Guatemala in two weeks.

It is interesting that the cite those demonstrably shaky numbers at the bottom of an alleged study after those articles, no?

Now that I found the actual 'study' I see this therein:

* Uncertainties in the data above that could overstate or understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting include the following:

The YouGov data was collected via an internet poll, which are generally unreliable because they do not collect a random sample of respondents

THIS is what they are touting as 'just facts'? This is what they are using as the basis for their figures... internet polling data?

a reply to: Greven

So just to be clear, are you trying to say that one person disputed being removed is some kind of evidence that the rest of those 5,500 that were removed were actually citizens?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Sillyolme

I know to get a license you have to show a birth certificate.

You have to have two forms of ID to get a job or driver's license...

Unless you have a passport, that counts as two.

Depends on the State. California doesn't require a birth certificate or a Passport.

a reply to: face23785

The paper is here if you want to read it, not sure if you have or not?
Richman Paper
It was published in the Electoral Studies Journal.

I can't see whats wrong with looking at this issue in more detail, there's obviously some kind of problem.

a reply to: D8Tee

I agree, I think you meant to reply to another poster. I'm all aboard on investigating this.

a reply to: face23785

oh, yeah that as meant for Greven in case he hasn't seen the link to the paper. Hit reply on the wrong post somehow.

a reply to: D8Tee

It's all good, thank you for posting the link though. I don't see how anybody could argue this shouldn't be looked into, especially those freaking out about Russia, who has not been proven to have influenced even a single vote. If even one illegal vote has happened, it's worse than the Russia "interference" so by default anyone concerned with that should be calling for an investigation into illegal voting.

It's straight up hypocrisy.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Greven

So just to be clear, are you trying to say that one person disputed being removed is some kind of evidence that the rest of those 5,500 that were removed were actually citizens?

This happened to be a person featured in the news article, which happened to be seen by people who knew the lady, who happened to raise a fuss and say it was wrong.

What about the ones who weren't featured? What's to say they are all actually non-citizens? Clearly the 'investigators' who are only care about 'facts' are supportive of such corrections, right?

Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said the group was using Virginia’s own voting records, which did in fact cancel her registration because it deemed her a noncitizen.

“For Erickson to land on this list, she would have given contradictory claims of eligibility and, after a period of official review and outreach from the commonwealth, failed to clarify her status,” Mr. Churchwell said. “Whether she is legitimately registered ‘now’ does not discount the fact that the commonwealth deemed her otherwise previously.”

OH, I suppose not. They want a propaganda piece. She was admittedly a voter, so she's one of the alleged 1852 non-citizen voters, which is a bit smaller pool than the 5500, no?

Even better, why do you trust that propaganda outlet? Look here:

In one astonishing example, a non-citizen was invited to remain on the voter rolls even after he had informed election officials he was an alien. When William Leslie Gray registered to vote in 2007, he checked “yes” in response to the application’s citizenship question. In 2010, Mr. Gray renewed his driver’s license and on his application, he checked “no” to the citizenship question. The inconsistencies in Mr. Gray’s answers alerted election officials that he might not be eligible to vote. His registration, however, was not cancelled. Instead, Mr. Gray was mailed an “Affirmation of Citizenship,” which asked Mr. Gray to affirm, subject to penalty of law, that he was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Gray signed the form and returned it. In May 2015, Mr. Gray’s voter registration was cancelled after election officials determined that he was, in fact, not a U.S. citizen.

In fact, the most astonishing thing is the last statement of this claim, where their own evidence says his voter registration was canceled after he was deceased not because they determined he was a 'non-citizen.'

There are two, now. I suspect we could find even more if I had the time to look and the evidence to examine.

We just had our first general election with voterID here in Wisconsin.

Our state and my county flipped from blue to red after 30 years.


Just saying