Acceptable Documents For A Wisconsin Driver License Or Id Card Application, Document: Fill & Download for Free

Military families have a long checklist of things to do when going through a PCS move. One of those tasks is vehicle registration.Rules and fees for vehicle registration vary by state. Some states don’t require vehicle registration if you’re on military orders, in some states military members are exempt from registration fees, and some states offer special consideration to veterans, such as discounts on registration or license plates.A quick note before you register your vehicle in your new state. Most states require insurance and many will require proof of insurance before you even register your vehicle. If you've moved, your insurance rates will change and your carrier may not offer coverage in your new state.What is the Law for Military Vehicles?The law and regulations that apply to your military vehicle may not be all that clear to the state Department of Motor Vehicles employees. Your situation may be unique in their experience. Don't get into an arguement, but if they are trying to put some unreasonable requirement on you ask them to show you the applicable statute or regulation. Don't accept just a statute number, actually look at the text. It may not say what they think it says. Have with you a copy of the relevant law; you can get these from your state Internet web site or at your library or bookstore. For example, in California you can buy the Motor Vehicle Code in an inexpensive paperback book. Be polite but firm; ask them to explain to you how the law applies to your vehicle. Don't accept some half-ass explanation. Keep saying, "I don't see how that applies to this vehicle". Ask to talk to the Supervisor, Office Manager and up the line. Expect to wait them out.AlabamaMilitary members stationed in Alabama but who aren't residents of Alabama don't have to register their vehicles with the Alabama Motor Vehicles Division as long as they have a current registration in their home state and valid insurance. Military members who are Alabama residents have the same registration process as civilians.AlaskaAs a non-resident you are not required to transfer your title or registration to Alaska. You may retain the registration in the state you are a resident of, according to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).If you are an Alaskan resident military member stationed outside Alaska, you can renew your vehicle registration in Alaska by mail. Your LES must show Alaska as your home of record.ArizonaActive-duty military personnel stationed in Arizona who are not Arizona residents are exempt from paying the vehicle license tax portion of the annual vehicle registration.When the nonresident service member is assigned overseas and the spouse or dependent must remain in Arizona, the exemption still applies if the nonresident service person was on military assignment in Arizona at the time the overseas orders were issued.Arizona residents who are stationed out-of-state can renew their license online or by mail.Residents can get a one year Special Military Exemption from the payment of vehicle license tax and registration fees. It is available one time per deployment and may be applied for during the time period between the date of deployment until one year after the deployment ends or the member is released from duty. This exemption applies to no more than two vehicles, and each vehicle requires a separate form.ArkansasIf Arkansas is not your home of record you are exempt from assessment and personal property taxes. You must provide a copy of your leave and earnings statement for verification of your home of record and, therefore, cannot renew by phone or internet.For military personnel whose home of record is Arkansas, the requirements are the same as for an Arkansas resident, regardless of where you are stationed.CaliforniaIf you are a nonresident member of the military stationed in California, you can drive a vehicle as long as your out-of-state license remains valid and you're insured.As a California resident, you're eligible for a waiver of the late fee if you're deployed and your registration expires. (Training doesn't count.)ColoradoIf you are stationed in Colorado but a resident of another state, you can register your vehicle without paying ownership tax by completing this Nonresidence and Military Service Exemption From Specific Ownership Tax Affidavit (Form DR 2667) and taking it to your county title and registration office.If you are a Colorado resident stationed out-of-state you may apply for an extension for up to three years by mail. If you have a CDL your license is automatically extended for up to 3 years per Colorado Revised Statute 42-2-118(2) as long as a military ID or military orders are presented with the license.DelawareTo renew a vehicle registration when stationed outside of Delaware, you need to contact the state’s Registration Correspondence Section for an Out-of-State Inspection Packet to be mailed to you provided you are outside a 250 mile radius of a DMV location in Delaware. The packet consists of a safety inspection checklist and an emission test requirements.You can renew your license through the mail if stationed out-of-state.FloridaMilitary members who are both Florida residents and non-residents and are stationed in Florida on military orders are exempt from the $225 initial registration fee on a motor vehicle.HawaiiYou can either keep your home state’s registration or switch to Hawaii’s registration. If you choose to stay with your home state, you will be exempt from the annual weight tax and any excise taxes in Hawaii, but you’ll need to have a vehicle safety inspection.IdahoThere are no provisions in Idaho statute allowing the extension of vehicle registrations for military personnel, so check the expiration date of your vehicles before you deploy or move out of state. You can renew Idaho vehicle registrations from overseas or out of state online.IllinoisMilitary members on active duty outside Illinois, as well as their spouses and children, may drive with an expired license for up to 120 days after their return to the state. A Military Deferral Certificate(s) must be carried with your expired Illinois driver's license. Certificates are available at no charge and may be mailed to your out-of-state address.Vehicle registrations can be renewed online.IndianaIndiana law provides that the driver’s license of any Indiana resident in the military or their dependents remains valid for ninety days after discharge or post-deployment regardless of the expiration date of the license. You may renew your driver's license online if your name and residential address have remained the same since the last time you received a license and your last renewal was in a BMV license branch and you do not have a J restriction or any 2-9 restrictions.If you are a member of the military from another state who is stationed in Indiana, you may renew your vehicle registrations in Indiana.IowaIowa residents in the military must pay the same registration fees that apply to other residents when registering a vehicle in this state. A nonresident member of the military is not required to register a vehicle in Iowa, providing the vehicle is properly registered in the state of residency. A nonresident can register a vehicle in Iowa, if desired, in the same manner as any nonresident..KansasService members stationed outside of Kansas can renew vehicle registration online.KentuckyYou can renew your vehicle registration through the mail with your resident County Clerk's office or online.LouisianaService members registering vehicles in Louisiana, follow the same registration process as permanent residents.MaineYou can renew your registration and license online. You may be eligible for a waiver of the state excise tax if you are a non-resident stationed in Maine.MarylandIf you’re a service member not establishing residency because you are only temporarily stationed in Maryland, you do not need to register your vehicle if it is currently registered in your state of residence If you are establishing residency in Maryland you must title and register your vehicle within one year of moving to Maryland.Maryland residents who buy a used vehicle while stationed outside of Maryland can complete a form to temporarily register their vehicle in Maryland without the safety Inspection. The vehicle must be immediately inspected upon return to Maryland. The military personnel inspection waiver is valid for two years and may be renewed if necessary (if still stationed out-of-state).MassachusettsIf your vehicle was purchased, titled, and registered in your home state, you may retain your home state registration indefinitely, regardless of where you are stationed in the country. The only requirement is that you carry insurance at least equal to Massachusetts minimum levels.MichiganTo apply for a vehicle title and registration in Michigan, an Application for Certificate of Title and Registration must be completed and submitted to the state with payment via mail.MinnesotaIf you’re a non-resident student or member of the military located in Minnesota but claim residency in another state, you do not have to register your car as long as your registration remains current with your home state.Minnesota residents who are active duty military members stationed out-of-state or overseas are exempt from registration tax during your duration of military service, and for 1 year after you complete your military obligation. You must be the vehicle’s owner or co-owner, and your car must remain registered in Minnesota during your active service.MississippiMilitary personnel who are stationed in Mississippi, but claim another state as their home, are not required to obtain a Mississippi registration or tag. Military personnel who are residents of Mississippi are required to register their vehicle in Mississippi.MissouriFor military personnel stationed out of state, you must submit certain documents to register your vehicle, including the Certificate of Title, signed Application for Missouri Title and License (Form 108), your LES and more.MontanaA Montana resident who entered active military duty from Montana, including a National Guard or Reserve member, and who is stationed outside Montana, may register a motor vehicle that he or she owns and operates without paying certain light vehicle registration fees.NebraskaMilitary personnel stationed at a military base or any one of the various recruiting services in Nebraska and who have not established legal residence in Nebraska, may continue to operate their vehicles with current out-of-state license plates or may obtain current Nebraska license plates.NevadaOut-of-state residents on active duty are not required to register their vehicles in Nevada. Spouses are also exempt if the spouse lives in Nevada solely to be with the service member. Service members and spouses who choose to obtain a Nevada registration are eligible for an exemption from the Nevada Governmental Services Taxes on vehicles.The DMV will waive registration late fees for active duty military members assigned to combat or combat support positions.New HampshireRegardless of where you’re stationed, residents of New Hampshire need to register vehicles every year.New JerseyIf you are on active military duty and have been deployed, including New Jersey National Guard and Reserve, you and your immediate family are entitled to automatic extensions for your driver license, registration and inspection requirements. If you enter or are an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces and have a valid New Jersey registration, you can get a refund for the remainder of the registration period.New MexicoNonresident service members stationed in New Mexico can drive vehicles with the plates of your home state or switch registration to New Mexico.New YorkIf you are not able to visit the DMV to register a vehicle, another person can come for you with certain forms. The state of New York also offers a sales tax exemption for vehicles purchased out-of-state by service members.If your New York registration expires while on active duty, registrations can be extended for up to 60 days from return to New York State. Liability insurance coverage must be maintained at all times, including the period of extension.North CarolinaWhen registering your vehicle in the state of North Carolina, you must have certain documents and completed forms.North DakotaIf you’re in the military assigned to North Dakota, you must complete certain forms and out-of-state title must be submitted with completed application.OhioOhio military residents who are currently in state should follow the normal in-state vehicle registration. Non-resident military service members stationed in Ohio are not required to register their vehicles in the state.OklahomaActive duty military personnel who are either residents of, or stationed in, Oklahoma are entitled to a discounted annual registration fee.OregonIf you’re a resident of Oregon, register your vehicle in the state of Oregon. If you are in the military, you may provide a copy of your Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) showing Oregon as your home of record. You must still provide your actual residence address, even if it is in another state..PennsylvaniaA service member can maintain Pennsylvania vehicle registration or can title and register the vehicle in the jurisdiction in which he/she is stationed. If your vehicle is registered in Pennsylvania, you must renew the registration annually.Rhode IslandIf you are in the military in Rhode Island, you are required to renew your registration before it expires, even if you are out-of-state at the time.South CarolinaIf you’re a service member stationed in South Carolina, register your vehicle or renew your registration as normal.South DakotaService member stationed out of state can renew vehicle registration online or by mail.TennesseeYou can title, register, and transfer and renew registrations of their vehicles in the county where they are based. All transactions are done through the local county clerk. If Tennessee is listed as your home of record but you have no physical presence in the state, you can submit your application to any county clerk office.TexasIf you are in the military on active duty outside of the state, your Texas driver's license will remain valid unless your license has been suspended, canceled, or revoked. Once you are honorably discharged you will be given an extension of 90 days from the date of your discharge or your return to the state. Your driver's license will be expired after the extension.If you wish to avoid having to renew your driver's license when you return, you may renew by mail.UtahActive-duty military personnel whose legal residence is in another state are permitted to register their motor vehicles in their state of legal residence. Non-resident military personnel who purchase a vehicle in Utah must pay the sales/use tax on the vehicle if they plan to operate the vehicle in Utah; sales tax is due even if they choose to register the vehicle in their home state.Utah residents who are members of the U.S. Armed Services and are stationed out of state may obtain property tax exemption, emissions inspection exemption and safety inspection exemption.VirginiaWhile stationed in Virginia, if you purchase a vehicle, you can register that vehicle in your home state or in Virginia. Vehicles titled and registered in your name may be driven with valid out-of-state license plates.Members of the military may request an extension of their Virginia driver’s license. Note: Commercial driver’s licenses are not eligible for extensions.WashingtonNonresident military personnel on duty in Washington may keep their current state registration or get Washington plates.Washington residents stationed out-of-state can renew their registration online.Washington DCDistrict law requires that all vehicles housed and operated in the District of Columbia must be registered in the District unless the owner displays a reciprocity sticker issued by DC DMV.West VirginiaTo renew your registration while you're stationed out of state, you can renew online with all required information on your insurance, personal property taxes, and a valid credit card for payment.WisconsinVehicle registration renewals may be completed by the military member, a relative or a friend. Options for renewing include on-line, mail and in-person.Upon entering the military, a member may request a refund of the unused portion of a registration fee. A military member on active duty may receive credit for periods of non-operation of less than twelve months.

You want some evidence?(edit; In addition the original below there are the totally unrealistic numbers of votes posted in the recent election. Plus the huge number of votes received after hours of counting that almost exclusively went for Biden (in spite of the fact that the Congress did not move in the same direction). Reports that GOP poll watchers were actively prohibited from being able to actually observe the documents being handled in to the poll. reports that ballots required to be segregated were not segregated at all.At best this is the most questionable election yet!)Well, here;“In their Congressional Election Study, researchers Jesse Richman and David Earnest concluded in the journal Electoral Studies that votes cast by non-American citizens likely elected Senator Al Franken and swung North Carolina to Barack Obama in 2008.More than 14% of non-citizens were registered to vote in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, and Richman and Earnest surmise that 6.4% of them voted in 2008 and 2.2% voted in 2010, a midterm election year in which overall turnout is much lower.Naturally, in 2008 Obama won 80% of the non-citizen vote. His small margin of victory in North Carolina—just 14,177 votes—means that just a 5.1% turnout from non-citizens in North Carolina would have ma de up this margin.This would not have changed the outcome of the 2008 presidential election, but the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota was a wholly different story. Democratic challenger Al Franken defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman by a total margin of just 312 votes. Just 0.65% of non-citizens voting in Minnesota would have made up this difference.Moreover, the watchdog group Minnesota Majority found that:At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest....[O]nly conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.Under Minnesota law, convicted felons are only permitted to vote once they have completed probation following their prison sentences, yet hundreds illegally did.And 90% of the estimated 1,099 who did voted for Franken.Either non-citizen votes or illegal felon votes could have easily accounted for Franken’s margin of victory, and his win gave the newly elected President Obama the crucial 60th Senate vote he needed to implement his legislative agenda without the fear of a filibuster.Non-citizen votes delivering Democratic victories is hardly a new phenomenon.In 1984, a federal grand jury found that as many as 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago in an effort to obtain “documents identifying them as U.S. citizens” and use “their voters’ cards to obtain a myriad of benefits, from social security to jobs with the Defense Department.”This led to a half-hearted cleanup of Chicago’s voter rolls, but just a year later, the Immigration Naturalization Service found that 25,000 illegal immigrants were still registered to vote, and so were an additional 40,000 non-citizen legal immigrants.In 1996, Loretta Sanchez, a Democratic Congressional candidate in California, won her race by just 984 votes, and the House Oversight Committee found that 624 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens and 124 improper absentee ballots. In addition, the committee found circumstantial evidence that an additional 196 ballots were cast by non-citizens and that there was no real way to determine how many illegal immigrants had voted. One credible estimate put it at 4,023.Four years later, in the closest presidential election in American history, the Miami Herald found at least 1,241 votes illegally cast by Florida’s felons, 75% of whom were registered Democrats. In the very heavily Democratic Broward County, 400 people were allowed even though they weren’t registered, and in Democratic Velusia County, an additional 277 voters weren’t registered.Florida, and thus the 2000 presidential election, was decided by a total of 537 votes.More than 200 felons voted illegally in the overwhelmingly Democratic city of Milwaukee in the 2004 presidential election, and another 100 either voted twice or voted using a false name or address.More troublingly, a Milwaukee Police report on the election “found that between 4,600 and 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once.”According to the report, out-of-state members of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s campaign used Wisconsin’s same-day voter registration law to get people to the polls, register them, and then have them vote. Since photo identification was not required to cast a ballot—only corroboration of a voter’s identity by another voter—Milwaukee Police determined that Kerry campaign members who were also registered Wisconsin voters simply vouched for people who otherwise would have had no business voting in the state’s election.A total of 1,305 of the voters that Kerry campaign workers vouched for gave information such as names, addresses, or birth dates that election officials declared invalid.The Milwaukee Police Department’s report, considered one of the most comprehensive voter fraud investigations in recent American history, concluded that the Kerry campaign and two of its affiliated get-out-the-vote groups were engaged in an “illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the state of Wisconsin.”This blockbuster report was released in early 2008 and provided compelling evidence that at least 16 Kerry campaign workers committed felonies in connection with this widespread fraud, but the Milwaukee County District Attorney, a Democrat, declined to prosecute any of them.Later that year, the Milwaukee Police Department—under the direction of a Democratic Police Chief—told the special election unit that drafted the report not to monitor polling places in the upcoming 2008 presidential election and, in fact, to not investigate the 2008 presidential election at all.In effect, the investigative unit that had uncovered massive, widespread voter fraud that may have impacted the results of a key swing state decided by just 11,000 votes in 2004 was being disbanded.The head of that unit, Michael Sandvick, retired in disgust.“We know what to look for,” he told the Wall Street Journal shortly before he resigned, "and that scares some people.”As widespread as organized voter fraud appeared to be in Milwaukee, non-citizen voting appears to be an even bigger problem.In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that 3% of the 30,000 people called for federal jury duty in a two-year period were non-citizens.Jury duty lists are made up of voter rolls.Extrapolating that data to the 146.3 million registered voters in the United States, if 3% of those voters are in fact non-citizens, then it may be reasonably estimated that about 4.39 million non-citizens are currently registered to vote in the United States. Extrapolating the 6.4% voting rate of non-citizens from Richman and Earnest’s study of the 2008 presidential election, it may be reasonably estimated that 280,917 non-citizens could cast their ballots this November.Given that President Obama won 80% of the non-citizen vote in 2008, it can be reasonably estimated that Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will receive 224,733 votes from non-citizens.This, however, doesn’t take into account how many non-citizens have legally or illegally entered the country since the 2008 election.From 2009 until 2015, approximately 2.5 million illegal immigrants entered the United States. While President Obama has been quick to point out that he has deported more people than any other President, this is rather misleading since his administration has dramatically cut down on deportations during his second term in office; so much so that a whopping 800,000 illegals entered the country from 2013 to 2015.This includes a massive influx of Central American children who began migrating north after the Obama Administration all but told families that illegal immigrant children would not be deported.On August 12th, 2013, the Administration announced its plans for a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).Although it was limited to children who had been living in the United States illegally since 2007 or earlier, the message clearly got out that America was preparing for another round of amnesty.2012 saw a 124% increase in unaccompanied children crossing into the U.S. In 2013, such crossings increased 305%. In 2014, they increased 1,381%. In 2015, they increased a staggering 2,232% to an estimated 142,000 unaccompanied children.The rise in entire families illegally entering the U.S. likewise rose at a staggering rate—first by 27% from 2012 to 2013 and then by a whopping 142% from 2013 to 2014.Why did so many make such a perilous journey? As House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said during a hearing in June of 2014:A May 28, 2014, Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector Intelligence Report tells a story that is strikingly different than the claimed humanitarian crisis the administration paints as responsible for the surge. The report summarized interviews conducted with hundreds of apprehended Central Americans minors and quite frankly paints a very different picture of the situation.According to the report, when these individuals were asked why they made the journey to the United States, approximately 95% indicated that the main reason was to take advantage of the “new” U.S. “law” that grants a “free pass” or permit (referred to as “permisos”) being issued by the U.S. government to women traveling with minors and unaccompanied alien minors. While no new law has been enacted, the truth is that this administration has dramatically altered immigration enforcement policies. The timing of the change in policies correlates closely with the steep uptick of individuals showing up at the border. Apparently, word has gotten out that once encountered by Border Patrol agents and processed, thanks to this Administration’s lax enforcement policies, one will likely never be removed.In addition to simply not pursuing removable aliens, DHS has been granting hundreds of thousands of these individuals administrative legalization and work authorization. DHS does this under many guises, invoking doctrines with esoteric names such as “deferred action” and “parole-in-place”. The net effect of these policies has been described by former ICE Acting Director John Sandweg — “If you are a run-of-the mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero . . . .”Apparently, those arriving at our borders now know this.Indeed, Father Heyman Vazquez, the director of a migrant shelter in Mexico, told news outlets that children and families are encouraged to cross into the U.S. illegally because they think they will be given amnesty. Vazquez said, “I remember a little boy of 9 years old and I asked if he was going to go meet someone and he told me ‘No, I’m just going to hand myself over because I hear they help kids.” In addition, like so many others across Central America, Robin Tulio, a 13-year-old, said his mother believed that the Obama Administration had quietly changed its policy regarding unaccompanied minors, and that if he made it across, he would have a better shot at staying. In the meantime, Central American media touts an open door to the U.S. for minors and families.The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, though, was just one part of the Obama Administration’s effort to keep millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.A companion program announced in November of 2014, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), was implemented to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants whose children were born in the United States and therefore American citizens.This, combined with an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, aimed to keep an estimated 5-6 million illegal immigrants in the country permanently.They would not be granted a pathway to citizenship, the Obama Administration contended, but they would be allowed to stay in the United States without the fear of deportation.The Migration Policy Institute determined that approximately 3.7 million illegal immigrants would be eligible for DAPA and thus over the legal voting age of 18.Extrapolating the data from the Richman/Earnest study, which determined that 14% of non-citizens registered to vote, it may be presumed that approximately 518,000 of these illegal immigrants protected by DAPA would register.Extrapolating the data from that same study that determined that 6.4% of non-citizens actually voted, it may be presumed that about 33,152 illegal immigrants protected by DAPA would actually vote.Since Richman and Earnest found that 80% of non-citizens voted for President Obama in 2008, it may be presumed that 26,521 illegal immigrants protected by DAPA would vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.In June of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked on whether DAPA was constitutional, leaving in place an injunction halting the program while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality makes its way through the federal court system.This, however, has no bearing on how many illegal immigrants will in fact vote in November’s presidential election.Moreover, the mere announcement that the Obama Administration was planning to allow millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation naturally attracted millions more illegal immigrants.The Center for Immigration Studies measured a massive surge in immigration (both legal and illegal) to the U.S. from 2014 on:Our preliminary estimate is that, of the 3.1 million immigrants who arrived in that last two years, about one-third, 1.1 million (or 550,000 annually) were new illegal immigrants, a significant increase from the 700,000 illegal immigrants (350,000 annually) who entered in 2012 and 2013.In 2016, Border Patrol statistics show that the pace of illegal immigration dramatically increased even from the already-high numbers in 2014 and 2015.From January through April, more than 32,000 families have been caught trying to sneak in past the southern border, meaning that tens of thousands of other families (at least) have likely made it through.Undoubtedly, this 42% increase in illegal border crossings by entire families was prompted by the Obama Administration’s highly publicized promise of protection for illegal immigrant children and their families.And it’s equally clear the Obama Administration and its Democratic Party allies see this spike as a major electoral advantage and have seen the benefits of illegal immigration and non-citizen voting for many years.Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated in 2009, Eliseo Medina, an executive vice president with the SEIU International labor union, told the America’s Future Now! Conference in Washington, DC that illegal immigration was the way to create what he called a permanent progressive coalition.“When [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates,” he said. “Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.“So I think there are two things that matter for the progressive community. Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we'll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future.“When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.“Number two: We reform the immigration laws; it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters who care about [issues] and will be voting, we will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”In other words, Medina believed very strongly that if millions of illegal immigrants voted, they would vote for the liberal politicians who legalized them; namely, Democrats.Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, one of the strongest supporters of naturalization for illegal immigrants, echoed this sentiment in urging his fellow Democrats to support President Obama’s executive actions, telling them that such actions could bring the Democratic Party upwards of five million new voters.“Let me just say in about an hour, I’m going over to the White House. I’ll be meeting with Jeh Johnson and the Chief Legal Counsel to the President of the United States,” he said on MSNBC. “We’re going to sit down and we’re going to negotiate additional terms and avenues the President can use and prosecutorial discretion, and I think we can get three or four or maybe even five million people.”President Obama’s margin of victory in the 2012 presidential election was five million votes.In 2016, Congressman Gutierrez has partnered with the SEIU—whose executive vice president also recognized the electoral value of so many illegal votes—to get as many immigrants as possible naturalized and able to vote by November’s presidential election.Gutierrez is calling it a “stand up to hate” campaign in opposition to Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, so it may be surmised that nearly every one of the more than one million new voters that the group plans to register will vote for Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates.And the Obama Administration is apparently doing everything it can to help in this effort. In 2015, it launched what it called the White House Task Force on New Americans, doing so by diverting $10 million in federal funds away from its Electronic Immigration System—the computer system that the federal government uses for national security and background checks.According to the New York Times:With about 8.8 million legal residents in the country who are eligible to become citizens, White House officials said they were trying to make it easier to complete the final steps to citizenship. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency in charge of naturalizations, will offer practice tests on cellphones for the civics exam that immigrants must pass, but which many find daunting, and will hold preparatory workshops in rural areas. Applicants will also be able to pay the fee — still a hefty $680 — with a credit card.A key component of this effort has been to contact each and every one of those 8.8 million non-citizens and urge them to naturalize before the 2016 election, then expediting the naturalization process as much as possible, knowing full well that a whopping 80% of those new American citizens are likely to vote Democrat.And if the Obama Administration can’t get them all naturalized and turn them into legal Democratic voters by November, it is apparently trying its best to ensure that states can’t crack down on non-citizens voting illegally.On February 12th, the League of Women Voters, NAACP, and several other liberal-leaning groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ability of states such as Kansas, Arizona, and Georgia to enact voter registration measures that ensure that only United States citizens vote in elections.In a response to this suit, the State of Kansas contends that the highly partisan Voting Section of the U.S. Justice Department, not the bipartisan, independent Election Assistance Commission (EAC), actually drafted a letter supposedly from the EAC denying Kansas’ request for voter registration measures designed to ensure non-citizens don’t vote.In other words, the Justice Department is essentially trying to strip from states their ability to take safeguards that they deem necessary to protect the integrity of their ballots.Under the Constitution, it is the states, not the federal government, that have the authority to impose the “qualification requisite for electors”—that is, who can legally vote.Yet the Obama Administration’s Justice Department appears to have sided with liberal groups in trying to ensure that as many of the illegal immigrants and non-citizens vote after they flocked to America after the White House announced its plans to protect as many of them as possible.Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King recognized this for what it was in 2015, telling radio host John Fredericks that, “to put it simply, the President is importing millions of illegal aliens who when they arrive here he thinks, and he’s right, they are undocumented Democrats, and so the next phase of this is to document these Democrats so they can vote.”“This is the President of the United States trying to stack the electorate with millions of people, lawlessly bringing them into the United States of America and giving them a presence here, and thinking and realizing that the longer you can keep them here the less likely it is that they will go home,” King added.“And they will see Barack Obama and his party are the beneficiaries, that they are the beneficiaries of his lawlessness. They don’t understand the law, they come from lawless countries. So they’re not at all likely to defend our Constitution or the rule of law. They take an oath to it when they are, when they are naturalized, and I speak at those services as often as I can.”All across the country, elected Democratic leaders and liberal federal judges have been helping with this get-out-the-illegal vote effort.In California, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown first signed a law providing drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants, then signed legislation that will automatically register voters when they obtain or renew drivers’ licenses.Roughly 605,000 illegal immigrants obtained licenses in the first year after the law took effect on January 1, 2015 and, under the new Motor Voter law, those who do so in 2016 can be automatically registered to vote.Instead of requiring potential voters to affirmatively prove that they are eligible, this new law presumes that all those who have drivers’ licenses are eligible to vote and registers them regardless of whether they actually legally can cast a ballot.Under the law, California’s Secretary of State is tasked with determining if a license-holder is not actually eligible to vote, and Democrats claim that illegals won’t be able to vote using their new licenses.However, the only difference between a driver’s license for a legal U.S. citizen and an illegal immigrant is the phrase “Federal Limits Apply” on the front of an illegal’s license. On the back it says “Not acceptable for official federal purposes.”There is nothing on the license indicating that it does not authorize its bearer to vote; it merely says “Federal Limits Apply.” For this to keep an illegal immigrant from casting a ballot, a poll worker must a. notice this phrase and b. recognize what it means.Obviously, these two new laws make it much easier for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to register and to vote.In the key swing state of Virginia, Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe—a longtime ally to both Bill and Hillary Clinton who chaired Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign—violated his state’s Constitution by restoring the right to vote to all 206,000 of Virginia’s felons...just in time to help his old boss’ 2016 campaign.On April 22nd, he issued an executive order granting mass amnesty for every one of the state’s felons who had completed their prison sentences, thereby allowing them to vote in the upcoming election.The Virginia Supreme Court ruled, however, that this was in direct violation of the State Constitution, which grants the governor the power only to restore an individual’s rights on a case-by-case basis, not on a massive scale.So why would McAuliffe willfully violate the Constitution he swore to uphold to get hundreds of thousands of felons back on Virginia’s voter rolls? Perhaps because a 2014 study found that Democratic prison inmates outnumber Republican inmates by a roughly 6-to-1 margin.In New York, 61.5% are registered Democrats, while just 9% are Republican. In New Mexico, 51.9% are registered Democrats and just 10.2% are Republicans. And in the key swing state of North Carolina, 54.6% of inmates are Democrats, and 10.2% are Republicans.North Carolina, remember, was likely decided by illegal votes in the 2008 presidential election, and the vote fraud problem appears to have only gotten worse since then.In the 2012 presidential election, North Carolina’s Board of Elections determined that 35,570 people who voted in the state shared the same first and last name and birth date of people who also cast ballots in other states.While much of this can be attributed to people with the same name sharing a birth date (which is actually more common than one might think), an additional 765 voters in North Carolina shared the same first name, last name, birth date, and last four digits of a Social Security number with people who also voted in other states.Even more troublingly, 81 people cast their ballots in North Carolina after they died. Many died between the time they filled out an absentee ballot and the time that ballot was counted, but the executive director of the Board of Elections said “there are between 40 and 50 who had died at a time that that’s not possible.”In response to these massive irregularities, North Carolina passed a law requiring voters to show photo identification, but less than four months before the 2016 presidential election, a federal judge struck down this law as unconstitutional.That judge, naturally, was appointed by Hillary Clinton’s husband Bill.That same week, a federal judge appointed by President Obama blocked the implementation of a Voter ID law in the key swing state of Wisconsin—the state whose largest city’s police department found evidence of massive, widespread fraud orchestrated by a Democratic Presidential candidate’s campaign.This was far from a coincidence.Democrats have howled in opposition to Voter ID laws, claiming with scant evidence that they disenfranchise minority voters through the racist presupposition that minority voters aren’t capable of obtaining photo identification.In reality, it appears that requiring photo identification has put a severe damper on Democratic vote fraud efforts.While Republican voter turnout was up significantly over 2008—the last time that both major parties had contested primaries—Democratic turnout was down by roughly 29%.In states that have enacted Voter ID laws since the 2008 primary, Republican turnout was up, but Democratic turnout dropped by 37%. In states without Voter ID laws, turnout was down just 13%. Put another way, The Huffington Post reported, “Democratic voter turnout was 285% worse in states with new voter ID laws.”Naturally, Democrats have claimed that this stunning decline in voter participation limited to only Democratic voters is the result of disenfranchisement, but there have been no claims of widespread disenfranchisement (or any disenfranchisement whatsoever) during this year’s presidential primaries.In other words, either far fewer Democrats showed up in those primaries or fewer Democratic votes showed up in those primaries.There is a big difference, as conservative activist James O’Keefe has repeatedly shown. In undercover videos at polling places in Michigan, a state that allows voters to get around a Voter ID law by filling out an affadavit, O’Keefe was able to obtain the absentee ballots of two prominent local newspaper columnists, the mayor of Detroit, and Eminem.Yes, that Eminem; the famous rapper.Despite Democratic insistence that such impersonation fraud doesn’t exist, it has been going on for decades.As many as 10% of all ballots cast in Chicago in the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election were fraudulent, and the resulting federal investigation led to charges against 65 people, 63 of whom were convicted.Many of them simply impersonated elderly and disabled people who would not be in a position to challenge the fact that their votes had been stolen, while other fraudsters voted in the name of dead people who remained on Chicago’s voter rolls.Of course, those fraudulent votes all seemed to be for Democrats.In Miami, the results of the 1997 mayoral election were actually voided after widespread fraud perpetrated on behalf of Democratic Mayor Xavier Suarez. A total of 36 people, most of them members of the Suarez campaign, were criminally charged in a scheme to falsify thousands of absentee ballots.In 2006, the Poughkeepsie Journal found that more than 77,000 dead people remained on the State of New York’s voter rolls and an estimated 2,600 actually cast ballots from beyond the grave.This sort of voter fraud could be easily prevented through Voter ID laws, but Democrats have repeatedly opposed them and, when they don’t have the legislative muscle to do so, the liberal judges that they appoint simply strike those laws down on the flimsiest of constitutional grounds.The sad truth is that through impersonation fraud, felon voting, and illegal non-citizen voting, Democrats have created for themselves a huge electoral advantage, and they will do whatever they can to protect it.For years, the Democratic Party has privately worried whether the so-called Obama Coalition of millennials and African-Americans would turn up without President Obama on the ballot. After all, Democrats have suffered stinging defeats in the last two midterm elections and have seen record losses in gubernatorial and state senate races all across the country.It seems, though, that Democrats have simply been working to augment this coalition with a new generation of Democratic voters by simply importing them from other countries.Seen through that prism, President Obama’s executive actions on immigration were really America’s largest ever get-out-the-vote effort. Heck, a Democratic governor even gave illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses.At the same time, another Democratic governor tried to unconstitutionally allow hundreds of thousands of felons to vote, while Democrats across the country have waged a war against Voter ID to ensure that stopping the impersonation fraud that they have been engaging in for decades is impossible.”Read more: http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/how-democrats-plan-to-steal-the-14995362/#ixzz4YVkwjnJs

William Peniston, a candidate for the Missouri state legislature, made disparaging statements about the Mormons[31]and warned them not to vote in the election.[32]Reminding Daviess County residents of the growing electoral power of the Mormon community, Peniston made a speech in Gallatin claiming that if the Missourians "suffer such men as these [Mormons] to vote, you will soon lose your suffrage." Around 200 non-Mormons gathered in Gallatin on election day to prevent Mormons from voting.[33]When about 30 Latter Day Saints approached the polling place, a Missourian named Dick Weldon declared that Mormons were not allowed to vote in Clay County. One of the Mormons present, Samuel Brown, claimed that Peniston's statements were false and then declared his intention to vote. This triggered a brawl between the bystanders.[31]The Mormons called upon the Danites, a Mormon vigilante group,[33]and the Missourians left the scene to obtain guns and ammunition and swore to kill the Mormons.[32]Rumors among both parties spread that there were casualties in the conflict. When Joseph Smith and volunteers rode to Adam-ondi-Ahman to assess the situation, they discovered there were no truths to the rumors.[32][34]Jim Crow lawsEditMain article: Jim Crow lawsJim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[35]All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period.[36]The laws were enforced until 1965.[37]The origin of the phrase "Jim Crow" has often been attributed to "Jump Jim Crow", a song-and-dance caricature of blacks performed by white actor Thomas D. Rice in blackface, which first surfaced in 1832 and was used to satirize Andrew Jackson's populist policies. As a result of Rice's fame, "Jim Crow" by 1838 had become a pejorative expression meaning "Negro". When southern legislatures passed laws of racial segregation directed against blacks at the end of the 19th century, these statutes became known as Jim Crow laws.[38]During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal laws provided civil rights protections in the U.S. South for freedmen, the African Americans who had formerly been slaves, and the minority of blacks who had been free before the war. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures,[39]having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting.[40]In 1877, a national Democratic Party compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election (a corrupt bargain) resulted in the government's withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[41]Blacks were still elected to local offices throughout the 1880s, but their voting was suppressed for state and national elections. Democrats passed laws to make voter registration and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that political participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease.[42][43]Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disenfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements.[42][43]Voter turnout dropped drastically through the South as a result of such measures. In Louisiana, by 1900, black voters were reduced to 5,320 on the rolls, although they comprised the majority of the state's population. By 1910, only 730 blacks were registered, less than 0.5% of eligible black men. "In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was."[44]The cumulative effect in North Carolina meant that black voters were completely eliminated from voter rolls during the period from 1896–1904. The growth of their thriving middle class was slowed. In North Carolina and other Southern states, blacks suffered from being made invisible in the political system: "[W]ithin a decade of disfranchisement, the white supremacy campaign had erased the image of the black middle class from the minds of white North Carolinians."[44]In Alabama tens of thousands of poor whites were also disenfranchised, although initially legislators had promised them they would not be affected adversely by the new restrictions.[45]In some cases, progressive measures intended to reduce election fraud, such as the Eight Box Law in South Carolina, acted against black and white voters who were illiterate, as they could not follow the directions.[46]While the separation of African Americans from the white general population was becoming legalized and formalized during the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), it was also becoming customary. For instance, even in cases in which Jim Crow laws did not expressly forbid black people to participate in sports or recreation, a segregated culture had become common.[38]The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed by huge bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson, aimed to end these practices.[47]A key provision of the act required that states with a history of disenfranchising black voters, namely those in the Jim Crow South, submit to the Department of Justice for "pre-clearance" any proposed changes to state voting laws. This provision was overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (2013).[48]In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."[49]2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandalEditIn the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal, Republican officials attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by paying professional telemarketers in Idaho to make repeated hang-up calls to the telephone numbers used by the Democratic Party's ride-to-the-polls phone lines on election day. By tying up the lines, voters seeking rides from the Democratic Party would have more difficulty reaching the party to ask for transportation to and from their polling places.[50][51]2004 presidential electionEditAllegations surfaced in several states that a private group, Voters Outreach of America, which had been empowered by the individual states, had collected and submitted Republican voter registration forms while inappropriately discarding voter registration forms where the new voter had chosen to register with the Democratic Party. Such people would believe they had registered to vote, and would only discover on election day that they were not registered and could not cast a ballot.[52][53][54][55][needs update]Michigan Republican state legislator John Pappageorge was quoted as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election."[56]In 2006, four employees of candidate John Kerry's campaign were convicted of slashing the tires of 25 vans rented by the Wisconsin state Republican Party which were to be used for driving Republican voters and monitors to the polls. They received jail terms of four to six months. At the campaign workers' sentencing, Judge Michael B. Brennan told the defendants, "Voter suppression has no place in our country. Your crime took away that right to vote for some citizens."[57][58]2006 Virginia Senate electionEditDuring the Virginia U.S. Senate election, Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that incidents of voter suppression appeared widespread and deliberate. Documented incidents of voter suppression include:[59]Democratic voters receiving calls incorrectly informing them voting will lead to arrest.Widespread calls fraudulently claiming to be "[Democratic Senate candidate Jim] Webb Volunteers," falsely telling voters their voting location had changed.Fliers paid for by the Republican Party, stating "SKIP THIS ELECTION" that allegedly attempted to suppress African-American turnout.The FBI has since launched an investigation into the suppression attempts.[60][clarification needed]Despite the allegations, Democrat Jim Webb narrowly defeated incumbent George Allen.[61]2008 presidential electionEditMichiganEditOn September 16, 2008, attorneys for then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama announced their intention to seek an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan. It was alleged that the Michigan Republican Party used home foreclosure lists to challenge voters who used their foreclosed homes as their primary addresses at the polls.[62][63]Michigan GOP officials called the suit "desperate".[64]A federal appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls by the state.[65][failed verification]MinnesotaEditThe conservative nonprofit Minnesota Majority reportedly made phone calls claiming that the Minnesota Secretary of State had concerns about the validity of voters' registration. Their actions were referred to the Ramsey County attorney's office.[66][needs update]PennsylvaniaEditMain article: New Black Panther Party voter intimidation caseOn Election Day 2008, at a polling station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, two members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP)—Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson—stood in front of the entrance to a polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary.[67][68][69]Shabazz carried a billy club, and was reported to have pointed it at voters and shouted racial slurs,[70]including phrases such as "white devil" and "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker".[71]The incident drew the attention of police, who around 10:00 am, sent Shabazz away, in part because of his billy club. Jackson was allowed to stay because he was a certified poll watcher and was not accused of intimidation.[72][73]Stephen Robert Morse, upon arriving at the scene, filmed Shabazz.[74]The incident gained national attention after the video was uploaded to YouTube and went viral with over a million views.[75][76]The Philadelphia incident became known as the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.[77][78][79]No complaints were filed by voters about the incident, though poll watchers witnessed some voters approach the polls and then turn away, apparently in response to the NBPP members.[80]Nevertheless, the Bush administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) became aware of the incident and started an inquiry. In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush Administration left office, Christopher Coates of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division filed a civil suit under the Voting Rights Act against four defendants, including Shabazz.[81][72]Although none of the defendants challenged the lawsuit, the Obama administration dropped its claims against all but Shabazz in May 2009.[82]A spokesperson for the Obama DOJ stated that claims were "dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."[83]Questions about the validity of this explanation served as the basis for subsequent controversy over the case, which was investigated by the United States Commission on Civil Rights,[68]Republican members of Congress,[67]and the DOJ.[74]The federal government eventually obtained an injunction forbidding Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location.[82][84]There was no evidence that Shabazz's actions were directed or incited by the party or its national leader.[85]In response to the controversy, the NBPP suspended its Philadelphia chapter and repudiated Minister King Shabazz in a posting at its website.[86]In July 2010, seven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy, calling for a hearing on potential "widespread politicization and possible corruption" in the DOJ in regard to its decision to narrow the case.[67]In December 2010, the Civil Rights Commission released a report concluding that their investigations had uncovered "numerous specific examples of open hostility and opposition" within the Obama DOJ to pursue cases in which whites were victims. The report accused the DOJ of failing to cooperate with investigations into its reason for dropping the case.[72]Critics[weasel words]charged the Obama Justice Department had refused to apply civil rights law in a colorblind fashion; the DOJ, they argued, would never have watered down the case had the alleged wrongdoers been white. The matter had made headlines again in 2010 because of renewed allegations by Coates, the DOJ lawyer who originally brought the case, that the Voting Rights section has long been "hostile" to cases in which minorities were perpetrators, not victims. Coates failed to offer specific evidence that the DOJ acted improperly.[85]Republican Abigail Thernstrom, a former vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who was appointed by George W. Bush, became a vocal critic of the investigations over the New Black Panthers case. In an interview with CBS News, Thernstrom said that she believed "the evidence is extremely weak" that the DOJ during the Obama administration had discriminated against white voters.[87]Thernstrom explained her opinion on the case in a National Review article in which she referred to the case as "very small potatoes".[88]She contended that her "fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Attorney General Eric Holder down and really damage the president."[87]Controversy fueled by partisan hyperbole, conspiracy theories and misinformation had surrounded the case for over a year.[72]The Washington Post asserted that the DOJ did what all law enforcement entities are ethically obligated to do: pressed only such charges as were supported by evidence.[72]PolitiFact noted that Fox News hosts, led by Bill O'Reilly, regularly criticized the Obama DOJ for maintaining a purported double standard on race issues. O'Reilly interviewed numerous Fox News legal analysts who said criminal charges should have been pursued, per PolitiFact.[89]On July 15, 2010, O'Reilly wrote, "If it were just about the Panthers, the story would be meaningless. But because Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges, the situation takes on some importance."[89]PolitiFact asserted that O'Reilly and Fox had misled the public by muddying the distinction between criminal and civil charges.[89]While the Obama DOJ, under Holder, chose to drop its civil claims against all defendants except Shabazz, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Bush DOJ.[89]WisconsinEditThe Republican Party attempted to have all 60,000 voters in the heavily Democratic city of Milwaukee who had registered since January 1, 2006 deleted from the voter rolls. The requests were rejected by the Milwaukee Election Commission, although Republican commissioner Bob Spindell voted in favor of deletion.[90]2010 Maryland gubernatorial electionEditIn the Maryland gubernatorial election in 2010, the campaign of Republican candidate Bob Ehrlich hired a consultant who advised that "the first and most desired outcome is voter suppression", in the form of having "African-American voters stay home."[91]To that end, the Republicans placed thousands of Election Day robocalls to Democratic voters, telling them that the Democratic candidate, Martin O'Malley, had won, although in fact the polls were still open for some two more hours.[92]The Republicans' call, worded to seem as if it came from Democrats, told the voters, "Relax. Everything's fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight."[91]The calls reached 112,000 voters in majority-African American areas.[92]In 2011, Ehrlich's campaign manager, Paul Schurick, was convicted of fraud and other charges because of the calls.[91][92]In 2012, he was sentenced to 30 days of home detention, a one-year suspended jail sentence, and 500 hours of community service over the four years of his probation, with no fine or jail time.[93][94]The Democratic candidate won by a margin of more than 10 percent.[95]2015 early voting controversy in MarylandEditIn Maryland's Montgomery County, Republicans planned to move two early-voting sites from densely populated Bethesda and Burtonsville to more sparsely populated areas in Brookeville and Potomac. They claimed to be aiming for more "geographic diversity"; Democrats accused them of trying to suppress the vote. The Burtonsville site had the most minority voters of all the early-voting sites in the county, while the proposed new locations were in more Republican-friendly areas with fewer minority residents.[96]The Republican election board chairman admitted at a County Council committee that he and two GOP colleagues held a conference call with the chairman of Montgomery's Republican Party Central Committee. They said the call, from which Democrats were excluded, was legal. Democrats called it a violation of Maryland's Open Meetings Act. Todd Eberly, a political science professor from Saint Mary's College, called the claim by the Republicans, "a stupid defense."[96]2016 presidential electionEditFurther information: United States presidential election, 2016The 2016 presidential election was the first in 50 years without all the protections of the original Voting Rights Act. Fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place, including swing states such as Virginia and Wisconsin.[97][98][99][100]KansasEditIn early 2016, a state judge struck down a law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship in cases where the voter had used a national voter registration form. In May, a federal judge ordered the state of Kansas to begin registering approximately 18,000 voters whose registrations had been delayed because they had not shown proof of citizenship. Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach ordered that the voters be registered, but not for state and local elections. In July, a county judge struck down Kobach's order. Kobach has been repeatedly sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for allegedly trying to restrict voting rights in Kansas.[101][102]North CarolinaEditIn 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.[103]In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.[104][105]On May 15, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court ruling.[106]North DakotaEditNorth Dakota abolished voter registration in 1951 for state and federal elections, the only state to do so.[107]It has since 2004 required voters to produce an approved form of ID before being able to vote, one of which was a tribe ID commonly used by Native Americans. However, it was common and lawful for a post office box to be used on this ID instead of a residential address. This has led to North Dakota being accused of voter suppression because many Native American were being denied a vote because they did not have an approved form of ID with a residential address.[108]North Dakota’s ID law especially adversely effected large numbers of Native Americans, with almost a quarter of Native Americans in the state, otherwise eligible to vote, being denied a vote on the basis that they do not have proper ID; compared to 12% of non-Indians. A judge overturned the ID law in July 2016, also saying: "The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent."[102]However, the denial of a vote on this basis was also an issue in the 2018 mid-term election.[108]In the run-up to North Dakota's election for U.S. Senate in 2018, state lawmakers implemented changes to voter identification rules, citing nine "suspected" double voting cases. Under the new rules, voter IDs had to include a residential address, rather than a post office box. The change led to rebuke and lawsuits from Native American voters on a Turtle Mountain Chippewa reservation, as well as claims of partisanship from then-Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, as the law was championed by Republican state representatives. The voters claimed discrimination, and in legal filings cited a survey that indicated 18% of Native Americans lacked a valid ID due to the new street address requirement, while the requirement only affected 10.9% of non-Natives. The survey pinned the discrepancy on higher poverty rates and lower transportation access in areas with higher proportions of Native Americans. The legal battle quickly rose to national attention.[109]While former Attorney General Eric Holder called the rule "nothing more than voter suppression", North Dakota House Majority Leader Republican Al Carlson, who sponsored the law, said "Our attempt was never to disenfranchise anybody. From a legislative standpoint, we wanted the integrity ... in the ballots, but we also want to have anybody that wants to vote that is a legal citizen be able to identify where they live and be able to vote."[110]Ultimately, the legal battle ended when the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in November 2018, which effectively left the rule in place.[111]In July 2019, the ID law was judged to be constitutional.[112]A settlement of the dispute was reached in February 2020.[108]OhioEditThis section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.Since 1994, Ohio has had a policy of purging infrequent voters from the rolls. In April 2016, a lawsuit was filed, challenging this policy on the grounds that it violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)[113]and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.[114]In June, the federal district court ruled for the plaintiffs, and entered a preliminary injunction applicable only to the November 2016 election. The preliminary injunction was upheld in September by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Had it not been upheld, thousands of voters would have been purged from the rolls just a few weeks before the election.[113]WisconsinEditWisconsin has enforced a photo ID law for all elections since April 7, 2015.[115]A federal judge found that Wisconsin's restrictive voter ID law led to "real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities"; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was "a cure worse than the disease." In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.[102]A study by Priorities USA, a progressive advocacy group, estimates that strict ID laws in Wisconsin led to a significant decrease in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate effect on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters.[116][117]2017–2018EditElection Integrity Commission and CrosscheckEditMain article: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election IntegrityIn May 2017, President Donald Trump established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, purportedly for the purpose of preventing voter fraud. Critics have suggested its true purpose is voter suppression. The commission was led by Kansas attorney general and Republican gubernatorial nominee Kris Kobach, a staunch advocate of strict voter ID laws and a proponent of the Crosscheck system. Crosscheck is a national database designed to check for voters who are registered in more than one state by comparing names and dates of birth. Researchers at Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and Microsoft found that for every legitimate instance of double registration it finds, Crosscheck's algorithm returns approximately 200 false positives.[118]Kobach has been repeatedly sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights organizations for trying to restrict voting rights in Kansas.[101]On February 20, 2016, while speaking to a committee of Kansas 2nd Congressional District delegates, regarding their challenges of the proof-of-citizenship voting law he championed in 2011, Kobach said, "The ACLU and their fellow communist friends, the League of Women Voters—you can quote me on that, the communist League of Women Voters — the ACLU and the communist League of Women Voters sued".[119]Often, voter fraud is cited as a justification for such measures, even when the incidence of voter fraud is low. In Iowa, lawmakers passed a strict voter ID law with the potential to disenfranchise 260,000 voters. Out of 1.6 million votes cast in Iowa in 2016, there were only 10 allegations of voter fraud; none were cases of impersonation that a voter ID law could have prevented. Only one person, a Republican voter, was convicted. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, the architect of the bill, admitted, "We've not experienced widespread voter fraud in Iowa."[120]AlabamaEditAlabama HB 56, an anti-illegal-immigration bill co-authored by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and passed in 2011, required proof of citizenship to be presented by voters on Election Day.[121]Much of the law was invalidated on appeal at various levels of appeals courts or voluntarily withdrawn or reworded.[122][123][124]In its 2014 Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed jurisdictions with a history of suppression of minority voters to avoid continuing to abide by federal preclearance requirements for changes in voter registration and casting of ballots. Within 24 hours of that ruling, Alabama implemented a previously-passed 2011 law requiring specific types of photo identification to be presented by voters. The state closed DMV offices in eight of ten counties which had the highest percentage black population, but only three in the ten counties with the lowest black population. In 2016, Alabama's Secretary of State (SOS) John Merrill began the process to require proof of citizenship from voters, despite Merrill saying he did not know of any cases where non-citizens had voted. Four-term Republican Representative Mo Brooks found that he himself had been purged from the rolls. Merrill also declined to publicize the passage of legislation that enabled some 60,000 Alabamian former felons to vote.[125][126]Alabama's requirement regarding proof of citizenship had been approved by federal Election Assistance Commission Director Brian Newby.[127]Kobach had supported Newby in the federal suit, and had appointed him to an elections position in Kansas prior to his EAC appointment.[128]In 2018, critics accused the state of intentionally disenfranchising non-white voters.[129]The suburban and rural outreach efforts by the Doug Jones campaign were successful and he captured the U.S. Senate seat, the first Democrat in 25 years to do so, and in a state that President Trump had won by 30 points.[129]GeorgiaEditIn Louisville, Georgia, in October 2018, Black senior citizens were told to get off a bus that was to have taken them to a polling place for early voting. The bus trip was supposed to have been part of the "South Rising" bus tour sponsored by the advocacy group Black Voters Matter. A clerk of the local Jefferson County Commission allegedly called the intended voters' senior center to claim that the bus tour constituted "political activity," which is barred at events sponsored by the county. Latosha Brown, one of the founders of Black Voters Matter, described the trip's prevention as a clear-cut case of "...voter intimidation. This is voter suppression, Southern style." The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund sent a letter to the county calling for an "immediate investigation" into the incident, which it condemned as, "an unacceptable act of voter intimidation," that "potentially violates several laws."[130][needs update]Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, was the official in charge of determining whether or not voters were allowed to vote in the November 2018 election and has been accused of voter suppression. Minority voters are statistically more likely to have names that contain hyphens, suffixes or other punctuation that can make it more difficult to match their name in databases, experts noted, and are more likely to have their voter applications suspended by Kemp's office. Barry C. Burden, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of its Elections Research Center said, "An unrealistic rule of this sort will falsely flag many legitimate registration forms. Moreover, the evidence indicates that minority residents are more likely to be flagged than are whites." Kemp has suspended the applications of 53,000 voters, a majority of whom are minorities. Strict voter registration deadlines in Georgia prevented 87,000 Georgians from voting because they had registered after the deadline.[131]"Even if everyone who is on a pending list is eventually allowed to vote, it places more hurdles in the way of those voters on the list, who are disproportionately black and Hispanic," said Charles Stewart III, Professor of Political Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[132][needs update]IndianaEditIn 2017, Indiana passed a law allowing the state to purge voters from the rolls without notifying them, based on information from the controversial Crosscheck system. The Indiana NAACP and League of Women Voters have filed a federal lawsuit against Connie Lawson, Indiana's Secretary of State, to stop the purges.[133]In June 2018, a federal judge ruled that the law violated the National Voter Registration Act.[134]2019–2020EditGeorgiaEditSee also: 2020 Georgia (U.S. state) electionsGeorgia made efforts to correct voting problems that had occurred in the 2018 election. In the 2020 statewide primary, however, many irregularities were reported, including missing machines at polling places and mail-in ballots that never arrived at voters' houses.[135]When early voting started for the 2020 United States presidential election voters reported standing as long as 12 hours in line to vote.MississippiEditSee also: 2019 Mississippi elections and 2020 Mississippi electionsIn late June 2020, Gail Welch, a Jones County election commissioner, posted a social media comment saying: "I'm concerned about voter registration in Mississippi. The blacks are having lots [of] events for voter registration. People in Mississippi have to get involved, too." Welch later explained that she'd meant to send the message privately, not publicly, but also claimed that she was "trying to strike a match under people and get them to vote," and told reporters that whites have had high voter registration numbers "in the past."[136]TexasEditSee also: 2020 Texas electionsIn March 2020, it was reported that Texas leads the South in closing down voting places, making it more difficult for Democratic-leaning African-Americans and Latinos to vote. The 50 counties that have experienced the greatest increases in African-American and Latino populations had 542 polling sites closed between 2012 and 2018, while those with the lowest increases in minority populations had only 34 closures. Brazoria County, south of Houston, closed 60% of its polling places, below the statutory minimum; the county clerk promised this would not happen again. Texas law allows the centralization of vote centers, which sometimes make it easier for people to vote. However, the 334 poll closures outside of vote centers still put Texas ahead of Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.[137]Texas limits who can request absentee postal ballots only to voters over 65, those sick or disabled, those who will be out of the county on election day and those who are in jail.[138]Attempts in court to expand mail in voting before the 2020 elections because of health concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic have been unsuccessful.[139][140]In addition, some eligible postal voters want to lodge postal ballots in advance in drop-off points rather than rely on the postal service, which had warned that ballot papers may not arrive in time to be counted on election day.[141][142]However, on October 1, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, ordered a limit of one drop-off location per county.[143]Harris County, for example, received national media attention because it is larger than the size of Rhode Island and has 2.4 million registered voters but is being served by only one voting drop-box location.[144]On October 10, a judge blocked the order to allow only one absentee vote drop-off point per county, on the basis that it would affect older and disabled voters.[141]A Texas appeals court on October 23 confirmed the ruling that the Republican governor cannot limit drop-off sites for mail ballots to one per county.[145]WisconsinEditThis section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.See also: 2019 Wisconsin elections and 2020 Wisconsin electionsIn 2019, district court Judge Paul V. Malloy of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin removed 234,000 voters from state rolls.[146]Wisconsin's Attorney General Josh Kaul appealed to halt the purge, on behalf of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.[147]The issue was brought before the court by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL),[148]a right-wing organization mostly supported by the Bradley Foundation, which funds such political causes.[148]The lawsuit demanded that the Wisconsin Election Commission respond to a "Movers Report," generated from voter data analysis produced by the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a national, non-partisan partnership funded in 2012 by the Pew Charitable Trusts. ERIC shares voter registration information to improve the accuracy of voter rolls.[149][150]The report tagged 234,039 voters who may have moved to an address that had not yet been updated on their voter registration forms. Despite thin evidence for removal of that extraordinary number of qualified voters, Wisconsin may be forced to comply with Malloy's order.[151]On January 2, 2020, WILL said it asked the circuit court to hold the Elections Commission in contempt, fining it up to $12,000 daily, until it advances Malloy's December 17, 2019 order to purge from the voting rolls hundreds of thousands of registered voters who possibly have moved to a different address.The case being litigated in a state appeals court, but it was thought that the conservative-dominated Wisconsin Supreme Court would be likely to hear it.[152]The purge was claimed to be targeting voters in the cities of Madison and Milwaukee, and college towns, which all tend to favor Democrats.[148]Disenfranchisement expert Greg Palast ties the Wisconsin effort at voter purging as part of a national Republican strategy.[153]