A leftover from earlier in the week that I wanted to make sure didn't get buried amid fast-moving news cycles: The state of California is being forced to purge up to one-and-a-half million voters from its statewide rolls, following a legal settlement that arose from a Judicial Watch lawsuit.  This development follows similar outcomes in Kentucky and Ohio, also spurred by the conservative watchdog group's legal actions.  The Washington Free Beacon has details: 

Judicial Watch sued the county and state voter-registration agencies, arguing that the California government was not complying with a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations that remain after two general elections, or two to four years. Inactive voter registrations, for the most part, occur when voters move to another country or state or pass away but remain on the rolls. The lawsuit alleged that Los Angeles County, with its more than 10 million residents, has more voter registrations than it has citizens old enough to register with a registration rate of 112 percent of its adult citizen population. The entire state of California had a registration rate of 101 percent of age-eligible citizens, the lawsuit said, citing data published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

I'm amplifying this story for two reasons. First, when voter rolls are purged around the country, activists on the Left often allege "voter suppression," fueling dark, racially-tinged theories about disenfranchisement.  See, for instance, the hyperbole and hysteria in Georgia this past cycle, which disregarded several relevant facts.  While excessive or overly aggressive purges should be guarded against, removing inactive, ineligible or dead voters from the rolls is wholly appropriate and required by law.  It is not nefarious "suppression."  Just as leftists are in a small minority on the issue of voter ID laws, I expect they'll also struggle to convince Americans that it's no big deal that the country's largest state (a) takes days or weeks to count ballots, and (b) is home to more registered voters than voting-eligible citizens.  It's also disturbing that a supposedly confusing government questionnaire -- no doubt worded to protect illegal immigrants, in alignment with the deeply problematic 'sanctuary state' ethos -- resulted in non-citizens being signed up as voters, and that said government still isn't sure how many of them exercised that improper 'right.'  It's happened before.  How is any of this acceptable?
Source: TownHall


Your contribution makes a crucial difference

Your gift today makes it possible to provide a strong defense for freedom!

Select Donation Amount

Current News


How School Districts Weaponize Child Protection Services Against Uncooperative Parents

Parents are increasingly required to obey, to conform to a school’s demands even if they believe such orders may not be appropriate for their child. ...

“We Build the Wall” Completes First Half Mile of US Border Wall in 4 Days from Private Donations

A privately funded boarder wall has begun construction on the southern border. ...

Donald Trump Declares He Will Increase Tariffs on Mexico Until Illegal Immigration Remedied

President Donald Trump made good on a promised immigration announcement Thursday night, proclaiming he will increase tariffs on Mexico. ...
Eagle Action Report
Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes and will be used in connection with federal elections. Contributions from foreign nationals or entities are prohibited. Use of the name and likeness of any candidate or officeholder is for the purpose of this PACs political communication only and IN NO WAY indicates any authorization by, affiliation with, direction from, or endorsement by that person of any kind. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year.
Paid for by Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle PAC