Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Government watchdog Judicial Watch announces it's settled with the state of California and Los Angeles County to clear as many as 1.5 million inactive names from its voter rolls. One America's Jack Posobiec sat down with Tom Fitton to learn more."
"Government watchdog Judicial Watch announces it's settled with the state of California and Los Angeles County to clear as many as 1.5 million inactive names from its voter rolls. One America's Jack Posobiec sat down with Tom Fitton to learn more."
A great step against voter fraud. Good for them.
More likely just conservatives who want to kick Democrats off who don't vote in 2 straight elections
No, more likely it's mostly much ado about nothing. People move and their registration never gets removed. OK, there should be a better way of dealing with this but in the big picture it matters little to none.
No, more likely it's mostly much ado about nothing. People move and their registration never gets removed. OK, there should be a better way of dealing with this but in the big picture it matters little to none.
And die. My father died in 2009 and he stayed on the rolls for several years.
"Government watchdog Judicial Watch announces it's settled with the state of California and Los Angeles County to clear as many as 1.5 million inactive names from its voter rolls. One America's Jack Posobiec sat down with Tom Fitton to learn more."
"Government watchdog Judicial Watch announces it's settled with the state of California and Los Angeles County to clear as many as 1.5 million inactive names from its voter rolls. One America's Jack Posobiec sat down with Tom Fitton to learn more."
A great step against voter fraud. Good for them.
If they're inactive voters - that means no one has cast a vote in their name for some time.
While I always like to see lists tidied up, I don't think that removing these names will do anything significant about voter fraud.
Despite being a recurring theme on the RWNJ blogosphere, is no correlation between inactive votes on the registration rolls and voter fraud.
It’s written about about as much as the existence of Nessie or Sasquatch, and is just as credible.
Whether there is correlation, I don't know, but there is certainly the potential for fraud from this. They should not have had to sue to get CA to follow federal law in this case.
Why support loopholes that create a potential for fraud, when they can be easily closed? The only reason I see for support is if someone is really pro-fraud, but won't admit it. This should be a non-partisan issue.
LAWL. So Hillary won the popular vote by 1.5M now. I suspect even that would disappear if they really did a thorough job of it.
As I recall, we found somewhat over 4 million votes for Hillary that were probably fraud, not long after the election. That isn't what this is about, though, since those are active (though dead) voters, by this definition. This is about removing the names of (dead) voters who were supposed to vote for the NEXT Demoncrat.
Remember, a voter is active (even if they are dead) if they voted in one of the last two general federal elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
