Category: election law

Categories
election law Voting

Noncitizen Pawns in the Voting Wars

voting, democracy, citizenship, elections, non citizen, immigration

“The next time [Michigan Secretary of State] Jocelyn Benson tells you there are no non-citizens on our voter rolls,” Allegan County Clerk Bob Genetski posted last Tuesday on Facebook, “please tell her I spent the bulk of my morning trying to help a man who was within days of his ceremony to become a U.S. citizen, when he got a letter from Homeland Security suspending his application because they found he was registered to vote — a shock [to] him!”

How could this happen?

“State records show he was registered by the Secretary of State’s Office (most likely while getting a driver’s license),” explains Genetski. 

The State of Michigan automatically registers everyone at the DMV — U.S. citizen or not — without bothering to inform them. 

Especially of the consequences. 

“My heart breaks for this guy,” the county clerk confided, “trying to do the right thing while some yahoo registered him to vote against his will.”

“Secretary of State’s office does this automatically,” said one commenter. “My sister-in-law, a Canadian Citizen with a Green Card came to live with us for a short time while looking for a new place to live. She had been living in Florida and had a Florida Driver’s License. She went to SOS to get a Michigan License. Without her knowledge or consent, they registered her to vote. We found out when her voter ID card arrived in the mail.”

If Secretary Benson and other politicians truly cared about and respected immigrants, they wouldn’t slap them onto voting rolls without their express permission.

Potentially scuttling their chance to become citizens. And be able to vote.

Legally. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling election law

Tellingly Two-Faced

Washington, ballot, initiative

The Attorney General’s office in Washington wants it both ways.

That’s Washington the state, and I’m referring to an important case about the language state officials must use on the ballot to explain initiative measures to voters. The case (Arthur West, a citizen, v. Steve Hobbs, the Secretary of State) is now before the state’s highest court.

Democrats legislated that any initiative decreasing taxes must contain this wording on the ballot: “This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”

In fact, that assertion, by law, must be placed right before voters are asked to vote: Yes or No? 

Even though it isn’t, well, true.

Consider Proposition 645, the initiative to repeal an income tax hike on “evil” millionaires: it doesn’t specifically cut any of these government service categories that voters are being told it does. That’s not even in dispute. 

What spending legislators cut to compensate for decreased tax revenues is at the discretion of, obviously, those legislators.

Last week, the AG’s office argued in a different case heard in the same courthouse on the same day: “Indicating how funds in the general fund will be allocated in the future would be both inaccurate and misleading to the voters.”

Wait . . . that concedes Mr. West’s whole point in seeking an injunction against the now admittedly “inaccurate and misleading” anti-tax cut language.

On Monday, Citizens in Charge Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Washington Supreme Court explaining that the Evergreen State’s constitution permits only legislative acts “facilitating” the process.

“Misleading the public about the consequence of a ballot measure does not ‘facilitate’ its consideration,” we argue, “it undermines it.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* As president of Citizens in Charge Foundation, I made a legal declaration in this case, previously, surveying ballot language policies across the ballot initiative states and pointing out that this law makes Washington state an outlier.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law political challengers

Who Rigged Alaska’s Senate Race?

Alaska, Sullivan, open primary

On today’s Alaska primary ballot, U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, faces an inconvenient challenger in the person of . . . Dan Sullivan.

The president of the United States is not pleased.

“Because of the trickery in the Voting, the Crooked, Radical Left Dumocrats have put up another man named ‘Dan Sullivan,’ and they did this to take Votes away from our Great Senator of the same name,” Donald Trump wrote on Truth.social. “Democrats are trying to ‘trick’ Alaskans, and treat Alaskan Voters with contempt.”

Is it contemptuous of Alaska voters?  

“His primary purpose is not to win an election,” contends the Senator, “it’s to confuse Alaskans and rig the vote for my opponent, the Democrat.”

Challenger Dan J. Sullivan’s run against the incumbent with the near-identical name, one Dan S. Sullivan, doesn’t quite pass the smell test. He sure appears to be gaming the election. Still, the rigging occurred when the state went to an open primary where anyone — regardless of party membership — can vote for anyone on the ballot.

Regardless of party.

Many people think this sort of thing is a great advance, and voters did approve it (by a whisker) in 2020 and voted to keep it (by an even slimmer margin) in 2024. But this “Nonpartisan Top Four Primary” (sending four candidates to the General Election) is open to malign voting and, yes, candidacies. When former Independent Party member and current Republican Party member Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg, Alaska, threw his hat into the ring, confusion was a natural (and likely intended) result. 

Election officials cooked up a halfway reasonable response: they list on the ballot “Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent” and his possible vote-splitting challenger as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” unadorned.

To prevent sneaky campaigning and voting, however, Alaskans should go the opposite direction, allowing — no, requiring — political parties to privately select their candidates. And at their party’s expense, not the taxpayers’. 

Hold the General Election after political parties have freely chosen their nominees . . . confining all game-playing and election-rigging to the smoke-filled rooms. Which voters can then judge accordingly. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law First Amendment rights incumbents insider corruption

El-Sayed vs. The Money

campaign finance reform, Congress, voting, elections, free speech, first Amendment

“Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for All” — so runs the campaign slogan of Abdul El-Sayed, who last week won Michigan’s Democratic Party nomination for the open U.S. Senate seat now held by Democrat Gary Peters.

Dr. El-Sayed, an epidemiologist, ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018, later heading Wayne County’s Department of Health, Human, and Veterans Services for a few years. He calls himself a progressive, but a “capitalist” one, not a socialist. Yet, seeking a national office, his national fellow travelers are Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan’s own Rashida Talib and, last-but-not-least, the Democratic Socialists of America.

Today, let’s take the first phrase of his slogan: Money out of politics. 

Creating small legislative districts would go a long way toward making outsized campaign spending less effective. Of course, term limits would diminish the value to a special interest of “capturing” an elected official. And limit the threat of politicians forever shaking down interests, special or not. 

But that’s not the game plan of Abdul and progressives and, for many years now, congressional Democrats. 

Instead, they want to re-write the First Amendment, reversing it from “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech” to Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money insofar as it relates to campaigning. 

So far, Congress has legislated a Byzantine regulatory regime that serves only to make politics more expensive. The public benefit? Corruption diminished at all? Anyone? 

Allowing career politicians to dictate who can raise or spend money (even in the incumbents’ very own election campaigns) and without regard to whether it silences voices — how is that progress?

If you want to tear down the whole idea of America, this version of getting “money out of politics” is one big rip.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law national politics & policies Voting

A Plan to Fix Our Elections

Jimmy Carter, voter ID, fraud, elections, democracy

I wasn’t the biggest fan of the late former President Jimmy Carter. But his plan for voter ID has my vote.

I refer to the idea he defended in 2005, viewable in a video clip that’s been making the rounds lately.

The clip is from a C-SPAN broadcast of a hearing about federal election reform focusing on the Carter-Baker Commission Final Report. This report was the product of years of investigating how to fix problems in the U.S. election system highlighted by the nerve-racking Bush-Gore presidential contest in 2000.

In addition to voter ID, the report advocates other efforts to combat fraud, including auditable paper backups of electronic votes.

In the clip, Carter says that we should “have some form of photo ID required, photo ID. . . . [It would include] some very careful constraints to prevent abuse. For instance, these photo ID cards will be free.

“There’ll be a wide distribution of them. The states will be required to go around the state to issue these photo ID cards to as many people as possible, which would be a good system just for recruiting new voters. This will be very important. And so this will be, I think, a move forward in getting more people to vote. It will not restrict people from voting. It’ll be uniformly applied throughout the country. And it will be nondiscriminatory.”

Too bad Carter didn’t live to see universal implementation of the ID requirement that he proposed. It’s something we desperately need.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law

Your Fraudulent Vote Counts

voter ID, voting, elections, democracy, Virginia, fraud

Give it to ABC News host Jonathan Karl!

On This Week Without George Stephanopoulos, Karl asked U.S. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia not about the entirety of the SAVE Act but “very narrowly” about photo ID to vote, which Americans of both parties strongly favor. 

“You know what?” the senator responded. “In Virginia, we have voter I.D. and photo I.D.” 

“That’s actually not the case,” Karl corrected. “I mean, I’m a Virginia voter. You don’t need to show a photo I.D. in Virginia. There are a wide range of things you can show for I.D., and if you don’t show one of those, you can sign an affidavit, saying —”

“You can sign an affidavit,” Warner repeated. “Those become ballots that, if you want to contest later, can be contested. But . . . we have voter I.D. of one form or another.”*

My senator is mistaken. Those ballots cannot later be contested; they count. Even if you prosecute folks for fraudulently signing the form, their ballots would still not be identifiable . . . and therefore, not contestable.

While it is a felony to falsely sign the ID Confirmation Statement, there is no one checking.

The same process exists in Michigan, where I’m involved in a ballot initiative to require voter ID. The question “Do I need an ID?” is posed for voters at the Michigan Secretary of State’s website. 

“You will be asked to show ID when you check in to vote,” explains the SOS, adding in bold type: “If you don’t have one, you can still vote.

“If this happens, expect a poll worker to ask you to sign a form before you vote that explains you didn’t have an ID. Your ballot will be included with all others and counted.”

How “political”: a Voter ID requirement that doesn’t require ID. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Fox News reports that per ID in Virginia “acceptable forms include voter confirmation documents, utility bills, bank statements, government checks and paychecks, which do not need to include a photograph. A voter without acceptable identification can sign an ID Confirmation Statement under felony penalties and cast a regular ballot.” The story helpfully provides a link to the Virginia statute in question.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law fraud national politics & policies Voting

Truth Be Told

Donald Trump, non-citizen voting, democracy, voting, elections, corruption, voter ID

President Donald Trump told a prime-time national audience, last week, that the Department of Homeland Security found 278,000 noncitizens on state voter rolls after checking roughly half the states. 

“It’s a number,” as my old boss says.

The Washington Post called it “an exaggerated claim that noncitizens are registering to vote en masse.” No, noncitizens are not really registering to vote so much as being registered — without their knowledge or understanding through deliberate government policy that pretends it’s pro-democracy to throw folks on the voter list who are not legally entitled to vote.

Not that there aren’t cases of fraud. There are. But I trust the good intentions of the average non-citizen more than the intentions of the politicians in states regularly facilitating their voter registrations.

Which, incidentally, can undermine an immigrant’s ability to gain U.S. citizenship. 

Fully 250,000 of that aforementioned total were found in just four states: California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The other roughly 28,000 noncitizens were discovered on the rolls in “two dozen or so states” by running those voter files against the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database.

Of course, some of these 278,000 identified will likely turn out to be citizens. Some will turn out to be pets. Data is sometimes incorrect. Mistakes happen. But let’s find out. 

In a sensible country, every state would (1) check its voter file against the federal SAVE database (and other data at DHS and the State Department), (2) institute a sensible, respectful and lawful process to check with voters so identified to clarify the facts, and then, (3) follow the law to remove each illegal registrant.

Instead of merely arguing about the extent and severity of the problem, why not just solve it? 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law Voting

Who & What in LA?

Los Angeles, City Council, voting, elections, non citizen, immigration, democracy

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to place a charter amendment on the November 3 ballot to facilitate giving noncitizens a vote in city elections.

“The measure, introduced by Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, will give immigrants who live, work, pay taxes and raise families in Los Angeles a voice in decisions that directly affect their lives,” The New York Post reported.

Of course, “immigrants” who have become United States citizens already have the vote; this effort is about giving voting rights to immigrants who have not become citizens.

“I believe it’s a simple principle that should guide us: If you live in the city, contribute to the city, raise your family in the city and are impacted by the decisions made in the city, you deserve to have a voice in the city,” Soto-Martínez said.

First, citizen or not, the First Amendment gives everyone a voice. 

Just not necessarily a vote.

Second, these suggested criteria by which non-citizens will gain the vote are simply made-up talking points, not part of the law at all. You don’t have to “work” to be eligible to vote. Nor must one bear children and rear them in LA to qualify. Lastly, no, you don’t have to be a net taxpayer, either.*

“The amendment would modify the city charter so that the council can later adopt an ordinance authorizing eligible noncitizens to vote in municipal contests,” explained Daily49er.com. Who would be “eligible”? Those in the country illegally, as in San Francisco and Oakland?

Worst of all, voters could know the answers to those questions only after they decide to give the city council the power to expand the electorate — to whatever part of LA’s over 680,000 noncitizens it settles upon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Plus, as standards go, “impacted by the decisions made in the city” is true for anyone who ever drives through Los Angeles. Will license plate readers be used to track down those motorists traveling through to send them mail-in ballots instead of photo enforced speeding tickets?

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law initiative, referendum, and recall

Democracy, Democrats & the Constitution 

Virginia, democracy, constitution, gerrymandering

Do senior Democrats not understand how our government is designed?

“Today the Supreme Court of Virginia has chosen to put politics over the rule of law by issuing a ruling that overturns the April 21st special election on redistricting,” Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said last week.

“What Jones didn’t say in his statement,” explained a Washington Post editorial, “is that he is the one who insisted the court wait until after the election to judge the merits of the challenge, over the objections of those who sued.”

“If the Virginia Supreme Court had legitimate concerns about this referendum, the time to stop it would have been before three million Virginians cast their ballots,” U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) declared. “But the Court let the process move forward, and Virginians sent a message loud and clear. . . .”

Come now, Senator, courts act only when a case comes before them that is ripe for adjudication. In my experience, courts rarely rule on the constitutionality of a ballot measure until after voters pass it. 

Moreover, under our system, when something violates the constitution it matters not at all whether it passed with 99.9 percent support or the slightest majority. For the record, the redistricting referendum passed “loud and clear” with 51.7 percent of the vote. That was after national Democratic groups splurged $64 million to drown out opponents. And with an “intentionally misleading” ballot title officially informing voters it would “restore fairness.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also entered the fray, arguing that the “decision to overturn an entire election is an unprecedented and undemocratic action that cannot stand.”

Hard to be wrong that many times in such a short sentence. The ruling will stand and is not “unprecedented”: it did what courts have always done. 

Moreover, the democratic vote on the referendum was set aside by the constraints of Virginia’s democratically enacted constitution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Previously:

Un-Redistricting Virginia / April 23, 2026
(On a constitutional monkey wrench thrown into the Democratic Party’s latest scheme to out-trump Trump.)

Against Fairness? / April 2, 2026
(On a dishonest ballot title being foisted on Virginia voters.)

Immoderate Bullets / Oct. 6, 2025
(On the man who should most definitely not be attorney general.)

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law U.S. Constitution Voting

Expanding the Electorate

citizen voting, democracy, voting, elections, Washington DC

Who should vote? Ought we expand the electorate? 

To everyone . . . on the planet?

Do folks from other countries, who have come to America, legally or not, and reside in a community for 30 days, have a right to vote?

Well, they do under a crazy law in our nation’s capital. Even the ambassadors and embassy workers (and spies) that China and Russia send to represent their regimes, could, if they so desired, register and vote for the next mayor, city council-member and ballot measure in the federal capital . . . if those foreign nationals have been here (working for another country) for 30 days. 

The far-left-of-sanity Democrats on the D.C. City Council passed it — without a popular vote. 

At least in Los Angeles there will be a public vote — should the push by Democratic Socialists of America-backed Democrats on that City Council advance a measure to allow noncitizens in L.A., legally or not, to vote in local elections. 

Citizenship seems a wiser qualifier at all levels of government.*

“Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections,” The Los Angeles Times reports. “However, states are allowed to set their own local and statewide election rules.”

Note that The Times does not inform readers that states, such as California, determine who is qualified to vote in federal elections in those states. Were California to allow noncitizens to vote in its state legislative elections — not too giant a leap from noncitizen voting in L.A. and San Francisco — those noncitizens would be legally qualified to vote for California’s representatives in Congress and the U.S. Senate. 

The U.S. Constitution’s “Qualifications Clause” is clear.

This state “loophole” is something worth closing through Florida Rep. Laurel Lee’s constitutional amendment. 

Locally, statewide, nationally: let the people decide.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* I serve as chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting. We have worked to pass Citizen Only Voting constitutional amendments in 15 states and to place these measures on six more state ballots this November. We now ask Congress to consider and propose a federal constitutional amendment, HJR 152, the U.S. Citizens Vote Amendment.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts