Well, well, well, lookee what we have here. You just knew Hillary Clinton hadn’t come up with the campaign talking points on getting Americans to vote early on her own.
George Soros, the now notorious Hungarian-born immigrant billionaire who is an American citizen, but seems to hate all things American, is trying to influence us Yanks and get us to change the way we do elections. Normally, the shadowy financier bankrolls non-profits to do this work for him (and get a tax deduction). This time, it looks like he’s supporting legal suits outright. The New York Times on how this is going down.
The billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whose first major involvement in politics was with a large-scale voter mobilization effort in the 2004 presidential race, is funding a Democratic legal fight against restrictive voting laws.
Mr. Soros became involved last year when Marc Elias, one of the top Democratic lawyers specializing in voter protection issues, began exploring a series of federal suits in advance of the 2016 election, according to Mr. Soros’s political adviser, Michael Vachon.
Their goal is to try to influence voting rules in states where Republican governors and Republican-led legislatures have enacted new election laws since 2010, and to be ready to intervene when additional measures may be passed over the next 17 months.
Mr. Soros is prepared to spend $5 million or more on the effort, Mr. Vachon said. Two suits that he is supporting were filed in Ohio and in Wisconsin last month, and he is also funding a case Mr. Elias is involved with in North Carolina.
More or less the accusation from these “advocates” is that Republican lawmakers in the various states are passing all these restrictive laws in order to steal elections. Particularly presidential elections, by making it a matter of law that any person who shows up to vote at any location must have a form of identification, mostly a state issued photo ID, and must be registered to vote in that district.
A Government Accountability Office study last October found that states with more stringent voter identification laws had a larger decline in voter turnout than states that did not have such new restrictions.
Reasonable people can argue whether or not this is disenfranchising to the elderly, late teens, the disabled, the poor, etc., ad nauseam. However, it is worth remembering that in order to receive entitlements, one must have a photo ID, or the documentation necessary to procure one. Since these are the people who receive those entitlements, one would think that they would have access to such documentation. Why voting would be effected by such laws is pretty much a matter of conjecture without wide-scale proof of cheating that few states are pursuing.
What this effort really is is a guilt fest public relations campaign using the courts to try to kill two birds with one stone: get the federal courts to rule the new state laws unconstitutional claiming they erect unreasonable barriers to voting (thus leaving any cheating mechanism in place), and change the minds of Americans who overwhelmingly poll in favor of strong Voter ID laws time after time for a number of years running. That the states where such laws were passed and are currently being challenged in the courts just happen to be the so-called battleground states where presidential elections are won and lost, usually with vote count irregularities, is naturally just a coincidence.
Right. Just like the software “glitch” in the Soros touch screen voting machines just happened to produce 100-110% of votes for the Democratic candidate in the last presidential election. Sure. Even if it was in select districts.
For the 2016 election, it appears this is how George Soros is going to try to put his stamp on changing the United States. Interesting, though, that it is the New York Times that broke the story, not some right wing or conservative website often accused of promoting conspiracy theories.
Mr. Vachon described the Democratic legal effort as an attempt to push back at Republicans who he said were “using the legislative process” for partisan purposes.
“It is disingenuous to suggest that these laws are meant to protect against voter fraud, which is nearly nonexistent,” he said. “Clearly they are meant to give Republicans a political advantage on Election Day.”