Tuesday, April 18, 2017

MoCo's number of registered voters exceeds its voting-age population, foundation threatens to sue

Judicial Watch, a non-partisan foundation promoting integrity and transparency in government, is threatening to sue Maryland in federal court over what it calls Montgomery County's "dirty election rolls." The foundation's analysis revealed that there are more people registered to vote in Montgomery County than there are citizens of legal voting age, based upon the latest U.S. Census data. Judicial Watch says the excess voter names are of those who have died or moved, or of non-citizens who have illegally-registered to vote.

Voter fraud can often involve people impersonating voters known to be deceased, or to have moved away, at polling places. In Montgomery County, only the most basic personal information (name, address, date of birth) about a deceased or absent voter would need to be known to vote using their name at the polls. Maryland U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D) warned last year that "We've seen fraud committed in our state in prior elections." Cardin and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) implored voters to "let us know" if they "encounter fraud or misconduct" at polling places.

Maintaining up-to-date voter rolls is required of states under federal law. Judicial Watch is demanding Maryland force Montgomery County to remove all ineligible voters from its rolls in 90 days, or they will sue the state - and ten others - for violating Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act.

“Dirty election rolls can mean dirty elections,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “These 11 states face possible Judicial Watch lawsuits, unless they follow the law and take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls of dead, moved, and non-citizen voters.”

76 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from three foundations: the Sarah Scaife Foundation, a funder of politically conservative causes; The Carthage Foundation, which merged into the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2014; and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., another conservative foundation which folded in 2005. As of 2010, the Sarah Scaife Foundation was the group's largest contributor."

Anonymous said...

"The foundation's analysis revealed that there are more people registered to vote in Montgomery County than there are citizens of legal voting age, based upon the latest U.S. Census data. Judicial Watch says the excess voter names are of those who have died or moved, or of non-citizens who have illegally-registered to vote."

So what are the numbers for each of those five categories? I'm especially interested to know how JW determined the last one.

Robert Dyer said...

6:18: I don't think a breakdown can be compiled until they go through the names. They're saying those are the categories into which the ineligible names would fall.

Anonymous said...

Guess we now we know why Dyer lost to Riemer in the last two elections! Mystery solved!

Anonymous said...

One only needs to step foot in the Silver Spring MVA to know the extent of the illegal aliens (including criminals) flooding into Montgomery County, Maryland. The pressures being placed on our schools, hospitals, prisons, road systems, etc is enormous. The sky rocketing costs on the middle class for the failing Obamacare to provide free healthcare (Medicaid) to these same illegal aliens is enormous. Lets clean up these fraudulent voter rolls and have a true election by We the (legal) People! The results could be quite surprising...


Anonymous said...

Calling Judicial Watch 'nonpartisan' is a bad joke. Just look up the facts about it and see for yourself.

Anonymous said...

7:16 should write a primer on how to shove as many talking points into one paragraph as possible. Luckily, they have the illegals to blame all the problems on. Because, without them, this area would be issue-free.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it will be a good use of county funds to defend this preposterous claim.

Robert Dyer said...

8:18: There are plenty of problems in the county that aren't caused by illegal immigrants. I don't agree that we would be issue-free without illegal immigrants, by any means.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:16 - How were you magically able to determine that those people you saw waiting in line at the the MVA were "illegal" or even "criminal"?

Anonymous said...

Dyer @ 6:20 - So in other words, it's a fishing expedition.

Anonymous said...

"In Montgomery County, only the most basic personal information (name, address, date of birth) about a deceased or absent voter would need to be known to vote using their name at the polls. Maryland U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D) warned last year that 'We've seen fraud committed in our state in prior elections.'"

Gotta love Dyer's sneaky little innuendo there - implying that Cardin was referring to in-person voter fraud, which happens once in every billion votes.

Cardin was in fact referring to the incident in the 2006 gubernatorial election, in which operatives in Bob Ehrlich's (R) campaign directed robocalls, at Democratic voters in Baltimore City, pretending to be from O'Malley, telling them that victory was assured and that they didn't need to vote.

Robert Dyer said...

10:29: Cardin did not refer to anything specific, just voter fraud in general. Stay vigilant.

Anonymous said...

Robert, how come there's no link to this. I did a cursory search and didn't find anything.

Anonymous said...

@ 11:19: Here is the link that the journalist couldn't be bothered to post:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NVRA-Violation-letter-MD-2017.pdf

Anonymous said...

Who is obsessed with Hans Riemer? Someone from the soda industry? artificial turf industry? empty bicycle companies?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I don't think it will be a good use of county funds to defend this preposterous claim.

Smart! Don't defend it. Just lose in court. Case closed.

Anonymous said...

Everyone who was in the room when Cardin said that, knew exacty to what he was referring.

Anonymous said...

What is the point of your raising an organization's political affiliation in this case ?
Are you saying liberals are against clean and verified voter rolls which conservatives are pushing for ?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link 11:23!

Brigitta Mullican said...

Having dealt with the Rockville registered voters and campaigning door-to-door, I know for a fact many of the names on the registered voter list are individuals who have moved out of state and have not notified the Montgomery County Board of Elections to remove their names. Many are college students who haven't registered in other states. It was frustrating to deal with the list where so many voters are no longer living at the addresses listed in the database. Sometimes voter are irresponsible and don't contact the BOE when they move. There are probably individuals who registered who aren't citizens but thought they could register. Because some local jurisdictions have different voting requirements, it confuses voters thinking the requirement are the same in all jurisdictions. That is why I am against 16 year-old and non-citizens be allowed to vote. In the presidential election those individuals are not allowed to vote. Much of the voter data is messed up because of the voter-motor registration. Hope these all get straightened out. Working as chief election judge, I found that data in the system is not always what the voter knows. Many don't pay attention to the BOE registration card they receive in the mail. I don't know the answer but there are too many registered voters in the MC registered voter list. It was my conclusion that we don't have that many people over the age of 18 in our county.

KatieSilverSpring said...

to quote you from above, but applicable here, Anonymous, "How were you magically able to determine that" ?

KatieSilverSpring said...

Anonymous: to paraphrase POTUS44, gerrymandering has consequences ....

Anonymous said...

Judicial Watch is not non-partisan which makes this post biased and not to be relied upon.

Jackson Reynolds said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

In 2015, there were about 797,000 people 18 or older in MoCo, according to the US Census. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/24031

In the 2016 election, there were 657,000 people registered to vote in MoCo. I got to this page straight from maryland.gov: http://www.elections.state.md.us/press_room/2016_stats/PG16_Eligible_Active_Voters_by_County.pdf

So yeah, this is wrong.

Robert Dyer said...

3:55: Do you really think they would bother filing a lawsuit if their numbers didn't add up? There's a reason they're only threatening a few jurisdictions, which is that they have convincing evidence and a strong enough case.

Let's remember that there have been strong political efforts to include non-citizens in the U.S. Census - the number you cite, based on current demographics, clearly is including many people ineligible to vote. The number of eligible voters is going to be far lower than the number of adults, in a county with a large illegal immigrant population.

Anonymous said...

"Let's remember that there have been strong political efforts to include non-citizens in the U.S. Census - the number you cite, based on current demographics, clearly is including many people ineligible to vote. The number of eligible voters is going to be far lower than the number of adults, in a county with a large illegal immigrant population."

"Illegals" would have to comprise nearly 20% of the County's population for your statement to be true.

Unknown said...

Having eyes. Lol. I know precisely who is what for I have special powers I was told so at the last mental institution I stayed at a duh.

robsaari74 said...

Really I can attest if I were to want a Maryland drivers license all I got to do is pay the fee give them any address I USED to live at 7 almost 8 years ago and Bam 3-5 minutes later I got me a brand new dl with a new voter registration on file. Too easy to get a license. Michigan on the other hand makes it nearly impossible to get a license as they want proof of residency 2 forms electric bill water bill bank statement, SS card, birth certificate , permanent resident card and passport military I'd is not sufficient. It's a joke. Maybe they figure if your willing to spend 2/3 of your day at MVA you deserve a license no questions asked.

robsaari74 said...

Heaven forbid you Google it lazy spoon-fed fucktards. If he did post link you would accuse him of sourcing fake news there's always something to be selectively outraged right.

Rugby said...

This raises many questions. Definitely needs investigating!

Anonymous said...

Here is a far more thorough, objective and accurate report on this story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/conservative-group-threatens-to-sue-maryland-alleging-poor-voter-registration-process/2017/04/18/7b592ac6-2446-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.77bad417663b

Robert Dyer gets his clock cleaned by the Old Legacy Print Media, once again.

Robert Dyer said...

10:02: How did I get my clock cleaned? There's not a single point in the article that disputes anything I reported in mine. In fact, it verified the numbers I reported.

Richard (Dick) Jurgena said...

You only need to look at the rules the MOCO Board of Elections applies to removing a voter from the roles to understand this post is not biased. I won't quote the rules because you won't believe them unless you look them up for yourself. I was in the mailing business for 35 years and I can tell you during that time every time I put a mailing list from the BOE through the US Post Office National Change of Address processing it came up with 20% moved out of county or deceased. Turning the results over to the BOE was rejected as not being a legitimate source.

Anonymous said...

Waiting in line at the DMV in MoCo is amazing. So many people are brought in, say they have no papers and somehow always end up walking out with a license.

Robert Dyer said...

I agree with the DMV comments. I have been put through the wringer at least 3 times at the DMV, and I'm a citizen, for Pete's sake. They would not accept the results of an eye exam, because the doctor left an irrelevant box blank. Yet they'll give an illegal immigrant, or an illegal posing as legal - without all the same IDs and papers they'd demand from you and me - a driver's license. It's ridiculous, and dangerous, in the post 9/11 era.

I can't wait to find out if the TSA-style bunkerization of the County Council Building will include a Photo ID requirement - the ultimate hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

Who needs hard news when you've got anecdotes?

Anonymous said...

In Maryland we call it the MVA. The DMV is in Virginia.

If you actually liked anyone on the council you'd be all for the increased security.

This nefarious talk is just plain silly. Other states have gone through this nonsense, spent unnecessary dollars, only to find 1)people that no longer love here did not vote in MD, 2) deceased people who also did not vote, 3) maybe a handful of people who did vote and shouldn't have.

Years ago when I moved back here I notified Howard County of my move. After they picked their jaw off the floor, they told me "no one does that."

Robert Dyer said...

8:07: You mean like the anecdotes of an unnamed County Council staffer claiming a hate group put flyers inside the County Council Building? And then in another paragraph, they're outside. And then in a tweet, they are "near" the building. Who was that staffer, by the way? Who needs hard news, when you've got anecdotes?

8:08: The study a few years ago revealed that 14% of those registered voters polled were illegal immigrants. 14% of 600,000-700,000 voters is more than a "handful."

What is the threat against the Council that would make me glad they had $1.6 million worth of security? Roger Berliner was never able to answer the question, and neither has anyone else.

Are they scared of the Illuminati? Little green men from outer space? Or is this just all about their plans to continue enriching themselves while thumbing their nose at their constituents?

What is the threat, so that I can evaluate whether such measures are necessary? That's usually how it works when dealing with public funds.

Anonymous said...

14% of those registered voters polled were illegal immigrants.

Didn't say they voted. Just were registered. Thanks for adding to my point.

With all the attacks you make against them, no wonder they need security.

So you think of "Security" as a personal enrichment? SMH. It's a daily PITA, that "enriches" no one except the jobs it provides.


Anonymous said...

"The study a few years ago revealed that 14% of those registered voters polled were illegal immigrants."

Which "study"? By whom? What year was it done? Could you link to it?

Anonymous said...

From the 2010 Census:

"Those of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 17.0% of the population."

So Dyer seems to believe that 84% of Montgomery County's Hispanic residents are "illegals".

Robert Dyer said...

8:38: Uh, it's illegal to register to vote if you aren't a citizen. Then they have the ability to actually vote, and may well have.

You're equating criticism of government with violence? You sound like a dictator!

They are raking in plenty in personal enrichment illegally, but I never claimed turning their building into a bunker was personal enrichment. It is an abuse of power, and evidence of mental illness, delusions of grandeur and self importance.

Robert Dyer said...

9:48: I'll try to find it, but I know for sure it was published on a Washington Post platform. You should try using Google sometime.

Anonymous said...

Dyer @ 8:17 AM:

Here is what was actually said:

"The fliers were found inside the County Council building’s parking garage and posted on a sign outside the building along Fleet Street."

Anonymous said...

Presumably there's video of who posted the fliers then? Looking forward to seeing who posted them!
Every square inch of that MoCo govt/Courthouse area is under video surveillance.

Rans Heamer said...

Oh, gee, I found a flyer!
Build a moat around the Council building, quickly!

Anonymous said...

Dyer @ 10:57 - You should make sure your sources actually exist before you make claims based upon them.

And using the Argument from Ignorance just makes you look like a fool.

Robert Dyer said...

2:34: I know my number is correct, the study was just discussed after Trump's remarks in January. You're trying a Saul Alinsky tactic of "show me this, show me that," in lieu of being able to refute me on the facts. It was hosted by the Post for Pete's sake!

Anonymous said...

Dyer @ 5:49:

So link to it.

#DodgingDyer

Robert Dyer said...

1:20: That's only one of the many conflicting references in the article, tweet and headline as to where the flyers were supposedly found. Which of the 3 was it? In, on, near, or all of the above? Who was the staffer? Why isn't he or she being revealed, and investigated for conflicts of interest by local journalists? What does a flyer with free speech you disagree with have even remotely to do with having to convert the County Council Building into a literal fortress? With forcing your constituents to relinquish their 4th Amendment rights to exercise their right to participate in public meetings of the County Council?

2:12: Excellent point. Let's see that video!

Robert Dyer said...

6:54: I'm not dodging at all, I just didn't have time to do what you could have yourself in a few minutes.

Here's the article, which much like the 9/11 tailgating story, the Washington Post had to recently post all kinds of disclaimers on after both were used very effectively by Donald Trump to bolster his arguments.

The Post let the original article stand for years saying that 14% of registered voters are illegal immigrants, and that those illegal voters had indeed swung multiple close elections in favor of Democrats. They were quite happy to collect the mouse clicks on it at the time.

Then when it was used as a political weapon, they suddenly backtracked and cast doubt on the credibility of it. So, which is it? Were the Post editors clueless, and failed to fact check at the time (if so, what does that say about the paper's credibility on any other article?), or were they under political pressure to post the disclaimer and buckled, which also would put their credibility into question?

Here's the original article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.02de762354ab

And it's also important to read the authors' rebuttal to their critics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/11/02/do-non-citizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-a-reply-to-our-critics/?utm_term=.1d2d6ac1cf82

It does seem that the authors' conclusions reflect the over-registration numbers found by Judicial Watch in Montgomery County.

G. Money said...

The Post article does not say that 14% of registered voters are illegal immigrants. It says "14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote."

Please learn how to read.

"14 percent of non-citizens" is not the same as "14 percent of registered voters."

"Non-citizens" is not the same as "illegal immigrants." News flash, we allow non-citizens to reside in the U.S.

Robert Dyer said...

6:41: If a non-citizen votes, that is indeed illegal. Use whatever terminology you want, but the study showed 14% of those registered to vote are people who aren't allowed to register to vote.

G. Money said...

Nope, that is not at all what it showed. It showed that 14 percent of non-citizens self-reported being registered to vote. If there are 100 non-citizens and 14 percent are registered to vote, then there are 14 non-citizen registered voters. If there are 986 citizens registered to vote in the same area, then 1.4 percent of registered voters would be non-citizens. Since neither you nor the study has provided such numbers, you have made an erroneous conclusion (or simply misread the study).

Robert Dyer said...

7:30: Yes, 14% of non-citizens are registered to vote. Great. Stop badgering me while I'm working, Saul Alinsky, and look up this garbage yourself.

The number of non-citzens voting illegally was sufficient to determine the outcome of several elections in favor of Democrats, according to the report.

You kept droning on about this article not existing, and then I produced it. Now STFU.

G. Money said...

7:50: I didn't comment until you posted a link to your supposed source that directly refuted the claims you made in that same post. I'm sorry if correcting your blatantly incorrect statements is a "Saul Alinsky tactic." I guess disagreeing with you in any way is also a "Saul Alinsky tactic."

I guess we can just say you're using Goebbels tactics, then?

Anonymous said...

Here is what the study actually reported:

2010
32,800 total responses
Of these, 339 said that they were "non-citizens" (1.03% of total respondents)
Of these, 14% claim to have registered to vote (0.1442% of total respondents),
and 6.4% of these claim to have voted (0.660% of total respondents).

2012
55,400 total responses
Of these, 489 said that they were "non-citizens" (0.883% of total respondents)
Of these, 14% claim to have registered to vote (0.124% of total respondents),
and 2.2% of these claim to have voted (0.0194% of total respondents)

Two more points:

1) The study was national, not specific to Montgomery County, Maryland, and there is no documentation of whether any of the respondents were from there.

2) The study refers to "non-citizens". It says nothing about "illegal immigrants".

After reading the actual data in this study, I am utterly baffled as to how you inferred from it that "14% of voters polled were illegal immigrants".

Anonymous said...

Correction to 8:35 AM:

The very last number for 2010 should be "0.0660%", not "0.660%".

Anonymous said...

"I'm sorry if correcting your blatantly incorrect statements is a "Saul Alinsky tactic." I guess disagreeing with you in any way is also a "Saul Alinsky tactic."

"Saul Alinsky" is Robert Dyer's way of saying "(((G. Money)))".

Robert Dyer said...

8:33: It doesn't refute the claims, it backs them up. Just because I misspoke about what the 14% referred to doesn't change that it found a clear impact on election outcomes to have non-citizens voting.

Now you have to join Sean Spicer on his apology tour for making a Nazi comparison. #Oops

Anonymous said...

Well, the fact that your percentage changed from 14% to 0.124% does change the impact.

Per million people it's a difference between:
14% = 140,000 people
0.124% = 1,240 people

Robert Dyer said...

5:26: The problem is, the study said the percentage was enough to change the outcome of several elections in favor of Democrats. So a typo by me doesn't change that.

Remember, we're only talking about the non-citizens who formally registered, not the ones who go in and impersonate another registered American citizen to illegally vote. So the number of illegals voting is much bigger than even the study talked about.

Anonymous said...

How do you think the registration rolls can stay current?
We can spend the money to research the names and eliminate those who should not be registered.

Then what? How to track in the future and how to keep current?

It reminds me of an immigration problem. We don't tract visa holders once they're in the country. The majority of illegals in this country are people who have overstayed their visa.

G. Money said...

5:50: What evidence do you have that non-citizens are illegally voting by impersonating others?

The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law issued a report this year that "found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent."

Obviously, if an election is decided by only a few votes, then a few people committing voter fraud can swing the election. Nobody wants that. But the question is, how much are you willing to spend to combat a problem that is extremely rare?

Of course, in most cases, this issue is raised simply as a means to suppress the voting rights of disadvantaged people. But I'm sure you're willing to brush that under the rug.

Robert Dyer said...

8:00: It sounds like databases have to be crossreferenced.

G. Money said...

9:26: What databases?

Anonymous said...

Which databases? The different state voter registration rolls? You'd need more information to register than name and address.

Anonymous said...

Dyer @ 5:50 - It wasn't a "typo". You wrote the exact same thing in several comments.

Robert Dyer said...

5:27: Wake up, it doesn't matter. Maryland will be sued if they don't get the illegal voters off the rolls in 90 days. One or 1000 typos won't change that.

Anonymous said...

KatielverSpring - how does one "gerrymander" an at-large Council seat?

Anonymous said...

Actually, if you read your own article,
"Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “These 11 states face possible Judicial Watch lawsuits, unless they follow the law and take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls of dead, moved, and non-citizen voters.”

The sky isn't falling. Sheesh.

North Carolina just did a state analysis of their votes.
There were 508 votes that should not have been cast out of 4.8 million.
Of those, 441 were cases of active felons voting.
67 were for other reasons.
No election results were effected.

Anonymous said...

6:01 So your point is that Conservative leaning groups are law abiding and support the rule of law ? Yes, I can agree with that.

Tiny said...

You call it a fishing expedition, the law and federal government call it illegal...

William T Newton said...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155176890545135&id=719190134