SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voter fraud
The Architects of Project 2025 Are Pushing the Lie of Noncitizen Voting
The Heritage Foundation’s efforts to undermine trust in elections have taken a dangerous new turn—a boots-on-the-ground approach to fish for voter fraud where there is none.
Sep 14, 2024
The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has long spread disinformation about elections, claiming there is widespread voter fraud despite ample evidence to the contrary. More recently, it has gained attention for its authoritarian and antidemocratic Project 2025 plan for a second Trump administration.
Ahead of this fall’s election, Heritage has been at the forefront of pushing the lie that noncitizens are registering and voting in significant numbers, laying the groundwork for election deniers to use in case the results don’t go their way.
Now its efforts to undermine trust in elections have taken a dangerous new turn—a boots-on-the-ground approach to fish for voter fraud where there is none. In July, men working with Heritage knocked on the doors of suspected noncitizens in an apartment complex outside Atlanta, asking about the residents’ citizenship status and whether they are registered to vote. The pair misrepresented themselves as being with a company that assists Latinos with navigating the election system and secretly videotaped their interactions.
In its quest to convince people that fraud is rampant, the organization has now resorted to unconscionable behavior that puts people at risk of harassment.
Several of the people said they were noncitizens and had registered, which the Heritage Foundation touted as supporting its false claims on the topic—but according to state investigators, The New York Timesreported, there is no record of any of these people being registered. At least one of the people recorded told investigators that she was just giving answers she hoped would make the two men go away.
But Heritage posted the videos to its website and claimed that based on a mere seven people, 14% of noncitizens in Georgia were registered to vote—an estimated 47,000 people. It’s a ludicrous assertion. The office of Georgia’s Republican secretary of state dismissed the video as a “stunt.”
Earlier this year, the Heritage Foundation used its social media presence to amplify similar deceptive behavior, which led to online harassment and death threats for the leader of a nonprofit assisting asylum seekers. In April, Anthony Rubin—the founder of Muckraker, an online media website with “very, very powerful” ties to Heritage—and his brother misrepresented themselves as staff members of an immigrants rights organization seeking to volunteer at a nonprofit providing services to asylum seekers in Matamoros, Mexico. Rubin kept trying to get staff at the nonprofit to state they would help migrants vote for U.S. President Joe Biden. In a multi-part thread on social media, Heritage posted a snippet of a conversation between Rubin and the head of the nonprofit, in which she is misconstrued as encouraging noncitizens to vote.
In its quest to convince people that fraud is rampant, the organization has now resorted to unconscionable behavior that puts people at risk of harassment. Secretly videotaping people in conversations under false pretenses is not a way to expose voter fraud,—which itself is vanishingly rare—but it is a way to get false information, risk intimidating eligible voters in violation of federal and state laws, and sow doubt in the integrity of our elections.
The Heritage Foundation is using old scare tactics
While these methods may be new to the organization, we’ve seen them before from others. And it hasn’t ended well for the perpetrators.
Project Veritas, a right-wing activist group, long used unverified, undercover, and deceptively edited recordings to misconstrue the truth, including about supposed voter fraud. In 2020, the group published an unverified video that the campaign of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) had collected ballots illegally, as well as videos falsely alleging voter fraud in one Pennsylvania city. In the Pennsylvania incident, the group ended up settling a lawsuit brought by the local postmaster and publicly apologized, noting that it was not aware of any evidence of fraud in the that city during the 2020 election.
In 2016, a Project Veritas member infiltrated a democratic consulting firm and secretly recorded conversations. The firm claimed the footage was then “heavily edited” to suggest that the firm conspired to incite violence at Trump rallies and promote voter fraud. In a civil lawsuit, Project Veritas was found liable for misrepresentation and violating wiretapping laws, and was required to pay $120,000 in damages. And in 2009, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe secretly recorded conversations with staff at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN was a network of community-based organizations advocating for low and moderate-income families. The deceptively edited videos construed ACORN employees as advising O’Keefe on tax evasion. But the videos set off a political firestorm that led to public funding for ACORN to be cut off, effectively shuttering the organization. Later, O’Keefe faced a civil lawsuit from a former-ACORN staff member and settled for $100,000.
In 2016 and 2017, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a conservative legal organization, published two reports purporting to show that thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote in Virginia. The reports included the home addresses and phone numbers of many innocent people, including U.S. citizens. Four of those citizens sued PILF for defamation and voter intimidation. The case settled in 2019, and the leader of PILF was required to issue a written apology.
The disgraceful tactics employed by these groups have failed to hold up in court time and again, and now Heritage looks like it wants to join their ranks.
As for the issue of noncitizen voting—it’s a myth. Noncitizen voting does not occur in any significant manner, and it’s already illegal under federal and state law. The Heritage Foundation’s actions are hurting our democracy, not helping it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Electoral Count Act Reform Is Welcome—But Much More Is Needed to Save US Democracy
Trump did not start the myth of voter fraud—that has been a partisan staple for two decades now.
Dec 26, 2022
Congress has approved a budget that includes essential reforms to the Electoral Count Act. The updates, which have broad bipartisan support, eliminate ambiguities in the electoral count process that former President Trump and his allies seized on as they tried to overturn the 2020 election. Anyone looking to undermine future election results will have fewer options, and that is a victory for our democracy.
The passage comes on the heels of the January 6 committee’s release of its full report. The panel made news by making four criminal referrals for the former president. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of all people, put it well in response: “The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day.”
In the wake of the committee’s extraordinary work, an important remaining question is not who caused the insurrection but rather what caused the insurrection.
First, let’s take a moment to appreciate the panel’s achievement. It made clear through riveting hearings and careful leaks that this was not just a rally that got out of control but a vigorously pursued plot to overthrow American democracy. The committee documented extraordinary crimes. We thought we knew it all, but it was gripping.
Such congressional investigations once regularly commanded headlines. The most famously effective was the Senate Watergate committee in 1973. That — together with the Church Committee, which exposed wrongdoing by the FBI and CIA — dominated the news but also led to reforms, from the federal campaign finance laws to the establishment of the joint congressional intelligence committee.
Reform sometimes follows scandal. And there has been no greater scandal than Donald Trump’s effort to block the peaceful transfer of power.
But putting the blame squarely and exclusively on Donald Trump is not enough to protect our democracy. Trump did not start the myth of voter fraud — that has been a partisan staple for two decades now. His attempt to subvert the 2020 election exposed vulnerabilities in our legal and electoral systems. Most of them remain, waiting for a second Donald Trump to come along and exploit them again. Those weaknesses are what caused the January 6 insurrection. The committee’s work could have even longer-lasting benefits if its revelations help spur reform.
It starts with fixing the Electoral Count Act. Trump’s loony reading of the creaky and outdated 19th-century law provided the foundation for his pressure campaign against Vice President Mike Pence. The newly passed reform makes clear that vice presidents have a merely ministerial role and makes it harder for members of Congress to object to duly cast electoral votes. These changes cement that the reading of the electoral votes is a ceremony, nothing more. They and other important fixes to the Electoral Count Act are included in the budget bill.
That bill also includes federal funding to upgrade election infrastructure and keep election officials safe, though not nearly enough. We should never forget that Trump’s pressure campaign did not stop with Pence. Trump personally called state election officials, urging them — without any cogent rationale — to overturn his defeat. Trump’s counsel, Rudy Giuliani, falsely accused local election workers of fraud. As a result of Trump’s campaign against these public servants, election workers in several states were harassed, threatened, and chased from their homes. Going forward, Congress must act decisively to protect election officials in their homes and in their offices, providing a reliable source of funding for much-needed security.
Other changes will require sustained pressure from the American people. National baseline standards for federal elections should be high on that list. For example, Trump’s team argued for the invalidation of Pennsylvania’s slate of electors, on the theory that state officials should not have complied with a state supreme court ruling requiring them to count mail votes received several days after the election but postmarked by Election Day. A spurious argument, but the silence of federal law on when and how mail ballots should be counted gave it unnecessary fuel. With 50 states conducting the election with almost 50 different procedures, close elections will lead to similar claims in the future.
The Constitution unquestionably gives Congress the power to fix this problem. With every state playing by the same rules, there would be less room for allegations of impropriety.
These are just the beginning of the necessary reforms. There should be guaranteed funding for states to conduct reliable post-election audits. Congress should fund state efforts to combat election-related disinformation and restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act to prevent racial discrimination in voting — Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election primarily targeted voters of color. The list goes on.
The January 6 committee performed a vital service. It left us with indelible images. But now that its work is over, focusing solely on Trump himself would be a major mistake. Mending weak points in our election system should be a bipartisan priority. It starts with the Electoral Count Act, but I hope it will not end there.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Make the Candidates Talk About Voting Rights in Tonight's Debate
Where do the Republican presidential contenders stand on the issue of voter suppression?
Feb 25, 2016
Dear Wolf Blitzer,
On February 17 and 18, your CNN colleague Anderson Cooper moderated town halls in South Carolina at which the Republican candidates for president were questioned by the audience and the moderator.
Cooper chose to stick to the standard issues -- national security, the economy, immigration, terrorism and the like. The audience followed suit. This allowed the candidates to regurgitate talking points they have used repeatedly since the debate season began last August 6.
He also spent time on what he apparently thought was crucial personal information about the candidates. "What's your favorite cocktail?" Mr. Cooper asked Senator Ted Cruz. Answer: scotch. Donald Trump is "a big fast food guy" and Marco Rubio's wardrobe was a mess until his "godly and wonderful wife" began selecting his clothes.
But tonight, Wolf Blitzer, you will moderate the last Republican debate before the all-important Super Tuesday primary elections. You have the chance to be the FIRST journalist to seek the candidates' views on one subject that has never been discussed in a televised Republican debate or town hall: voter suppression, the passage in at least 16 states by Republican legislatures of new laws that make it more difficult for African Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, students, the poor and disabled to cast a ballot. You can break new ground, forcing the candidates to reveal their views on one issue that may well affect the outcome of the presidential election.
First, a bit of history. For decades, Republicans were proud to be known as "the party of Lincoln" and many of its leaders played a key role creating and then defending the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act. The original act was written in the office of Senate Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen. He joined with President Lyndon Johnson's lawyers to craft a bill that would win bipartisan support. They were successful: 92 percent of Senate Republicans supported the passage of the act, a number greater than Senate Democrats (73 percent, the disparity explained by Southern segregationists who were still Democrats.)
When the act's temporary provisions were reviewed in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and George W. Bush signed renewals into law. In 2006, every member of the US Senate voted in favor.
The Voting Rights Act helped elect our first African-American president in 2008, and the coalition President Obama built persuaded Republicans that the only way they could take back the presidency was through voter suppression. Following the Republican congressional victory in 2010 (when the GOP controlled both legislative bodies in 26 states, and 26 governorships), legislatures passed and governors enacted a series of laws designed to make voting more difficult for Obama's constituency -- minorities, especially the growing Hispanic community; the poor; students; and the elderly or handicapped. These restrictions included the creation of voter photo ID laws, measures affecting registration and early voting, and, in Iowa and Florida, laws to prevent ex-felons from exercising their franchise.
Democrats were stunned. "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens in voting the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today," former President Bill Clinton said in July 2011. Then, in 2013, the Supreme Court's conservative majority struck down a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act, weakening it severely. Once again, the voting rights of American minorities were in peril.
A bipartisan group in the US House of Representatives has drafted a new Voting Rights Act but Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, believes the bill is unnecessary, and Speaker Paul Ryan, although a supporter of the legislation, refuses to force Goodlatte to hold hearings.
So much for history. Where do today's current Republican presidential contenders stand on the issue of voter suppression?
Donald Trump has said nothing about it during the nine previous debates, although in fairness, not a single moderator has sought his views. His website describes his position on guns, US-China trade reform, Veterans Administration reform, tax and immigration reform, but is silent on voting rights. Wolf, please ask him what he thinks.
Despite John Kasich's pleasant demeanor, he is no friend of voting rights. As governor of Ohio, he enacted a law that significantly limits opportunities for early voting (known in Ohio as "Golden Week") and abolished same day voter registration. In 2012, it's estimated that 90,000 voters, mostly minorities, voted during Golden Week. They will not have that opportunity in 2016. Do such policies contradict Kasich's oft-repeated pledge "to renew the American spirit"?
"I'm going to be a president for all Americans," Senator Marco Rubio told Anderson Cooper, "because an American president has to love the American people, even those that don't love you back." Yet Rubio believes that his Florida constituents should not be allowed to vote in federal elections without first showing a government-issued voter ID, although evidence of voter fraud has been shown to be almost non-existent. Rubio has also opposed early voting and is against allowing nonviolent ex-felons to again have the right to vote.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz's website offers a litany of his achievements -- protecting the 10 Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Second Amendment. It also offers "Get Cruz Gear" -- cups, glasses, cell phone covers, caps and sweatshirts bearing the campaign logo. But it is silent on voting rights. Nevertheless, his public statements make it clear that he is rabidly opposed to making it easier for Texans to vote. The ACLU's Voting Rights Project found that approximately 600,000 Texans, predominately minorities and the poor, lack the documents needed, documents which are too expensive or time consuming to acquire. For many Texans, going to the polls is no longer a practical option and they have chosen not to vote at all.
Finally, there is retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. A visit to his website reveals his views on cyber security, education, energy, healthcare and more, but nothing on voting rights. That's a bit strange because he has publicly mentioned the Voting Rights Act -- and it was to you, Wolf, in an interview last October: "Of course I want the Voting Rights Act to be protected. Whether we still need it or not, or whether we've outgrown the need for it is questionable. Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. But I wouldn't jeopardize it." Ask him to be more precise.
So three of the candidates -- Kasich, Rubio and Cruz -- clearly favor policies that make it harder for African-Americans, Hispanics, students and the poor to vote. Trump is uncharacteristically silent while Carson is equivocal. Are Republicans still the party of Lincoln, or even Everett McKinley Dirksen? Forcing them to discuss their views on voting rights will be a first, Wolf. Call them out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular