Attorney General Warns: Not Enough Federal Oversight of Election

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and top Justice Department political appointeesare warning that the upcoming federal election will not have enough federal oversight of state election officials. In recent remarks to the League of United Latin American Citizens, Lynch derided the threat to voting rights because the federal government no longer has the power to send hundreds of federal election observers into state polling sites to monitor state and local officials.

In 2013, the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down the 1965 coverage formula that put sixteen states under federal oversight. These oversight powers included the federal power to send swarms of federal observers into state polling locations to monitor state elections. Alaska, New York, and South Dakota were among the states with counties covered by the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby that the conditions in 1965 were no longer relevant to the extraordinary exercise of federal power over state elections in 2013.

But that hasn’t stopped Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other advocates from stoking paranoia by claiming the right to vote is endangered in the upcoming election without those observers. Reuters even adopted the sky-is-falling approach, presenting three-year-old news as news under the headline U.S. Curtails Federal Election Observers [!!].

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights -- a reliable source for chicken-little quotes about voting -- says the federal observers “play a critical role in protecting voting rights, especially for voters of color and others who have historically been vulnerable to rampant voting discrimination.” Because of the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby in 2013, he says, the right to vote is at risk in November without federal observers.

read more:

Views: 739

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is sad, but when people don't know the Lord they can't see or feel any thing but anger and hatred for those that have the very things they don't.

The way I see it... the voting would have to be out of anyone's hands who are living human beings. All can be corrupted by some means. The only way to have a full proof vote is to be able at any time to go look at your voting record before and after the election to verify that it is still counted correctly and has not been changed! A separate system that counts the votes also so that it must be in agreement and a third system would make it even safer. Use the same system that bookeeping would use. If it doesn't add up there is a problem.

We need to return to paper ballots... with a simple system that audits the number of ballots cast,  against the number of signatures on the voter registration logs.  Additionally, a voters questionnaire should be mailed to a representative random sample of voters, to see if they actually cast a ballot or not.  Absentee ballots should be reconciled against absentee ballot requests... too ensure they are being counted.

Voter and election fraud should be treated as a very serious felony and upwards of 10yrs in prison with huge fines should be the penalty... not a slap on the wrist.  Our system of government hinges upon fair and lawful elections... our present system has serious questions reguarding its lawful and fair application.  The people's franchise on the ballot boxes in America has been hijacked. It is past time that the people take charge of their elections... the courts are corrupt and the judges can not be trusted at all.

It is past time that the people take charge of their elections

yes, not only the voting process and results but more. as example- vetting eligibility before getting on a ballot. Both the parties have proven without doubt they'll not do either well, and more too.   

9th A

Actually, the State's all have laws which require the Secretary of State to vet candidates for basic eligibility requirements... such as citizenship, age, residence, actual ID etc.  The problem is that the State's have abdicated that duty to the Political party's in most cases.  They take the Party's certification as to eligibility rather than directly verifying it directly... they must not allow third parties to vet candidates, and to grant access to our ballots.

It is time to tell our State legislatures that the Political Party's can not be trusted to certify eligibility and the State MUST DO IT.


good point, ageed. A reasonable demand for important reasons, and the amount of time and effort to do it is minimal. There's no good reason for that responsibility to be abdicated to the parties.  ...other than state legislatures (politicians) liking the parties having the control/powers. 

Are you f*cking kidding me?? These asswipes will try ANYTHING to queer the vote, what is REALLY needed is POLL WATCHERS to keep the illegal votes out!

Poll watchers don't work... they have been intimidated, locked out and there challenges refused by Election judges and precinct captains... wherever major voter and election fraud is occurring the Democraps... have excluded outside scrutiny... often, boldly violating election laws themselves... as there is normally no or limited repercussions for doing so.  The game is rigged... the courts and prosecutors included.


You are absolutely correct.  and this time they will not be the Black Panthers like Holder put out there.

I agree Frank, poll watchers are the threat to fed control of fed elections, simply because they are more connected to local vs central, thus more likely to work for the people. But the fed and even local gov't must be totally taken out of the election picture for poll watchers to work effectively.
the feds are also afraid of true the vote.

Trash talking.  Liars and thieves in waiting.




Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Florida Sheriff — “I Will Not Enforce Assault Weapons Ban, Neither Will Most Sheriffs”

Dennis Lemma, who is the Sheriff in Central Florida’s Seminole County, told a group of 2nd Amendment activists recently that he would not enforce an assault weapons ban that could soon become Florida law if the “Ban Assault Weapons Now” amendment passes in the Sunshine State.

According to News965, the ban has the following specifications.

The amendment proposed in the state legislature would ban possession of assault weapons, which are defined as “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.”

Lemma, an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a first term sheriff who is running for re-election, said this about whether or not he would enforce such a law.

“It’s not only that I wouldn’t, the majority of sheriffs across the state would not do it,” Lemma said in the video. It’s up to the sheriffs what they are willing to enforce.”

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service