(WEST PALM BEACH, FL.) – January 18, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commended Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ decision to
suspend Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher.
“Governor DeSantis
is absolutely right to suspend Supervisor Bucher,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said.
“Unlike the recently suspended supervisors in South Florida, the governor takes
election integrity seriously.”
During the 2016 federal election cycle, Palm Beach County, by its own admission, did not remove a single registrant due to inactivity and unresponsiveness, according to federal law.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to
enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity
of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list
maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal
courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also
works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of
elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(ALEXANDRIA, VA.) – December 13, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) placed the Virginia Department of Elections on notice that litigation will commence unless it corrects voter roll maintenance procedures involving “non-citizen” removals under federal law.
The Foundation warns that Commonwealth election officials are wrongfully removing actual U.S.citizen registrants while detecting and clearing foreign nationals from the rolls. As part of this troubled process, the Commonwealth regularly publishes maintenance reports titled “Declared Non-Citizen” which display the names,residential addresses, and other pertinent information belonging to each former registrant. Not only are otherwise eligible citizen registrants harmed by the process, but any party, the Public Interest Legal Foundation included, who relies on such maintenance reports for public communication and policy reform discussions do so at great risk.
“Despite reasonable intentions,something is broken in Virginia’s system to identify and remove ineligible noncitizens from its voter roll,” PILF Communications and Research Director Logan Churchwell said. “Virginia election officials fought transparency efforts surrounding their list maintenance process in previous years — we are now beginning to see why.”
The notice outlines three areas of concern or action.
Virginia’s maintenance program results in the removal of some otherwise eligible U.S.citizens.
Virginia law requires that election officials collect driver and immigration data from state and federal sources to generate maintenance leads related to potential noncitizen registrants. Based on claims made in separate litigation, several current and former Virginia residents attest to being U.S. citizens, despite being named in reports or records furnished by the Commonwealth regarding noncitizen cancellations.
Virginia’s maintenance program violates the National Voter Registration Act
Virginia’s procedure violates a core mandate of the NVRA, which was designed to “enhance the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office.” (emphasis added) Based on records collected in some jurisdictions, it also appears that communications designed to be sent to potential noncitizen registrants were transmitted in English only—even in areas where bilingual communications are federally required.
Additional document disclosures are required to identify procedural failures
The Foundation seeks a variety of records which Commonwealth and local officials relied upon to process registrants for removal as “declared non-citizens.” These include referral documents from driver’s license offices and records matched against the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Records indicating that the removal process was communicated in any other language than English are also needed.
The notice also explains:
PILF relied upon the Department’s list maintenance records to publish reports discussing Virginia’s compliance with state and federal voting rights laws and identifying potential voter fraud occurring in the Commonwealth. Before publishing these reports, PILF had no way of verifying the accuracy of the government-created list maintenance records provided by the Department and registrars of cities and counties across Virginia without contacting each of the voters named—conduct that likely would have been characterized as threatening and intimidating. PILF, like all members of the public, is entitled to rely on the presumption that the Department is actually complying with its obligation under the NVRA to conduct lawful voter-removal programs and to maintain records that accurately reflect the circumstances of each voter’s removal from the registry.
The Foundation earned access to the original reportedly problematic maintenance reports after multiple federal lawsuits were filed against local jurisdictions in early 2017.
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows individuals to request inspection or seek copies of “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.” Ninety days must be given to the noticed jurisdiction to cure the matters before litigation can commence.
Read the notice letter here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation(PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(HOUSTON, TX.) – November 21, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) filed a motion for summary judgment, citing a variety of undisputed facts regarding Harris County’s possession and refusal to disclose noncitizen voter records as required by federal law.
“The facts in this case are clear-cut and lead us to seek summary judgment to hopefully end the matter,” PILF Communications Director Logan Churchwell said. “Harris County officials are wasting taxpayer resources by trying to flaunt federal law by keeping the public in the dark about how voter rolls are maintained.”
The brief outlines seven core facts underscoring the necessity for a summary judgment on the case.
- Harris County admitted (in this case and in years prior) that it has records related to noncitizen voter registration.
- The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“Motor Voter”) provides a freedom of information component that allows the public to physically inspect records held by officials regarding voter roll maintenance procedures and efforts. This mandatory public inspection right is designed to preserve the right to vote and ensure that election officials are complying with the law.
- In December 2017, the PILF cited Motor Voter inspection rights to review Harris County’s records detailing how noncitizen registrations were identified and removed from the voter roll.
- Harris County rejected PILF’s requests and even sought the help of the Texas Attorney General to block disclosures under state law.
- Congress clearly stated that “all” records regarding list maintenance efforts are meant to be publicly accessible within a prescribed period of time.
- Previous federal courts have ruled that “all records” means “all records.”
- Harris County has staked its position against the text of federal law, Congressional intent, and every prior federal court case on the issue, including the most recent U.S. Supreme Court case related to Motor Voter.
The brief further states:
The Foundation’s right to records is not a close call … To adopt [Harris County’s] interpretation of the Public Disclosure Provision would allow election officials to conceal records related to their decision to wipe the names of eligible voters from the rolls and declare them to be ineligible, unless the decision to cancel the registration related to death or residency. All of the other touchstones of eligibility would be hidden from disclosure under [Harris County’s] version of the NVRA.
The Foundation is currently engaged in federal and state lawsuits to seek the release of records belonging to former registrants who were officially discovered or self-reported their ineligible noncitizen statuses to the Harris County Voter Registrar. The PILF previously responded to claims suggesting that it had no right to data related to noncitizen voter registrants and that the federal case should be stayed pending a state court judgment in Austin, among other matters. The Foundation also further briefed the Court in support of its motion for preliminary injunction to gain access to records.
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows individuals to request inspection or seek copies of “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters,” the PILF noted in its original complaint.
A copy of the case fact sheet can be found, here.
The case is in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The case number is 4:18-cv-00981.
Attorneys for the Public Interest Legal Foundation are J. Christian Adams, Noel H. Johnson, and Joseph Vanderhulst. Brenham-based Andy Taylor of Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C. serves as local counsel.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
PILF Submits Lone Brief in Support of Government’s Position
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – November 19, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) filed the only amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Department of Commerce’s request that the Court hear its case. The high court agreed to review the case and set oral arguments for February 2019.
The United States is currently defending the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the general 2020 Census survey against multiple lawsuits brought by the State of New York and others. The question before the Court is whether the plaintiffs can go outside the administrative record to probe the intent behind the reinstatement of the citizenship question. The Foundation was previously granted entry before the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to share the value the citizenship data would have in federal voting rights law.
“The Supreme Court taking the Census citizenship question case is a good sign,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “It indicates that the plaintiffs have intruded too far into the Constitutional powers of the executive branch. Adding citizenship data will help Voting Rights Act enforcement.”
The Foundation’s initial brief notes:
Robust citizenship data from the Decennial Census has aided in the enforcement of federal law in the past and will do so again. The determination to gather such data during the 2020 Census is logical and appropriate.
The Foundation offers four arguments related to voting rights enforcement.
Disagreement between Executive Branch Officials and career bureaucrats cannot serve as evidence of discriminatory intent.
Plaintiffs are conjuring evidence of discriminatory intent due to administrative policy changes after an election. If such arguments are successful, core foundational concerns regarding the Executive Branch are endangered. The brief notes: “the Constitution of the United States makes plain that ‘executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America.’ As the Supreme Court stated, ‘The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known.’ The unitary Executive is essential for individual liberty.”
Previous Census citizenship data was critical in deciding a voting rights case in 2017
Citizenship data derived from the 1950 Census, the last Census where citizenship data was fully collected, helped a trial court in Guam determine in the 21st Century that a “Native Inhabitants” standard for voter registration was a race-based discriminatory measure against mainland American citizens. The DOJ currently promotes the use of the 1950 data as Guam appeals the summary judgment finding to the 9th Circuit.
Robust citizenship data is necessary to determine if redistricting maps properly protect minority voters
In the decades-long absence of general citizenship data provided by the Census, the DOJ had to selectively employ citizenship estimates – yet only in jurisdictions where such data were available. Without it, DOJ and others live in a statistical fog to determine whether a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to necessarily yield a single-member district. In one example, DOJ officials had difficulty discerning differences between eligible African-Americans and resident Caribbean noncitizens when assessing the fairness of city council boundaries. The Foundation notes seven additional cases where citizenship data was clearly used to make DOJ redistricting cases since 2001.
Citizenship data helps facilitate private efforts to enforcing voting laws
Census data are critical to determining which jurisdictions are falling behind federal mandates to maintain voter rolls free from bloat and corrupted entries. Courts have repeatedly relied on the ratio between registered voters and resident citizens in a locale as valuable insights—yet the citizenship data in its current form is not without flaws and can risk skewed interpretations. Improved data quality will also help empower private interests to ensure that federal law is being followed.
Certiorari was granted before the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-557. Related filings can be found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – November 13, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) requested leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Department of Commerce’s positions regarding the proposed citizenship question for the 2020 Census.
The United States is currently defending the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the general 2020 Census survey against multiple lawsuits brought by the State of New York and others. The Foundation was previously granted entry before the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to share the value the citizenship data would have in federal voting rights law.
“Collecting robust citizenship data in the 2020 Census is good government policy,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Citizenship data helps the Justice Department and private parties protect voting rights. The inclusion of the question will only further empower the Government to enforce voter protections in previously overlooked areas.”
The proposed brief notes:
Robust citizenship data from the Decennial Census has aided in the enforcement of federal law in the past and will do so again. The determination to gather such data during the 2020 Census is logical and appropriate.
The Foundation offers four arguments related to voting rights enforcement.
Disagreement between Executive Branch Officials and career bureaucrats cannot serve as evidence of discriminatory intent.
Plaintiffs are conjuring evidence of discriminatory intent due to administrative policy changes after an election. If such arguments are successful, core foundational concerns regarding the Executive Branch are endangered. The brief notes: “the Constitution of the United States makes plain that ‘executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America.’ As the Supreme Court stated, ‘The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known.’ The unitary Executive is essential for individual liberty.”
Previous Census citizenship data was critical in deciding a voting rights case in 2017
Citizenship data derived from the 1950 Census, the last Census where citizenship data was fully collected, helped a trial court in Guam determine in the 21st Century that a “Native Inhabitants” standard for voter registration was a race-based discriminatory measure against mainland American citizens. The DOJ currently promotes the use of the 1950 data as Guam appeals the summary judgment finding to the 9th Circuit.
Robust citizenship data is necessary to determine if redistricting maps properly protect minority voters
In the decades-long absence of general citizenship data provided by the Census, the DOJ had to selectively employ citizenship estimates – yet only in jurisdictions where such data were available. Without it, DOJ and others live in a statistical fog to determine whether a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to necessarily yield a single-member district. In one example, DOJ officials had difficulty discerning differences between eligible African-Americans and resident Caribbean noncitizens when assessing the fairness of city council boundaries. The Foundation notes seven additional cases where citizenship data was clearly used to make DOJ redistricting cases since 2001.
Citizenship data helps facilitate private efforts to enforcing voting laws
Census data are critical to determining which jurisdictions are falling behind federal mandates to maintain voter rolls free from bloat and corrupted entries. Courts have repeatedly relied on the ratio between registered voters and resident citizens in a locale as valuable insights—yet the citizenship data in its current form is not without flaws and can risk skewed interpretations. Improved data quality will also help empower private interests to ensure that federal law is being followed.
The brief was filed in support of the Government’s petition for a Writ of Mandamus before the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-557. Related filings can be found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – November 7, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commented on the departure of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“Attorney General Sessions will hopefully leave a lasting legacy on the Department and law enforcement in general,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “During his tenure, he reversed a dangerous trend of selectively and often politically enforcing federal voter protections. He returned enforcement to equal aspects of the Voting Rights and National Voter Registration Acts for the benefit of all. He led the DOJ to course-correct multiple litigation positions ranging from voter ID, redistricting, voter list maintenance, and more–all to eventual success before the Supreme Court and Appellate Circuits. General Sessions has done more in two years than most can accomplish in four or more. I wish him only the best moving forward.”
The Foundation praised former General Sessions’ leadership leading up to the 2018 Midterms.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – November 5, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commended the U.S. Department of Justice’s plan to monitor and enforce federal election laws with personnel across 19 key states.
“Jeff Sessions is doing a wonderful job directing the Department to enforce all federal election laws in sensitive jurisdictions and at large,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “What a refreshing restoration of the rule of law. This DOJ leadership, unlike the last administration, are clearly setting a course for how to deter, detect, and confront violations of election law. The work will not end when the polls close tomorrow. The Public Interest Legal Foundation is committed to sharing its data and investigative leads gathered in the weeks to come.”
The federal press release struck a new tone not seen in a decade:
“Citizens of America control this country through their selection of their governmental officials at the ballot box. Likewise, fraud in the voting process will not be tolerated. Fraud also corrupts the integrity of the ballot.”
Read more about the Justice Department’s 2018 monitoring program, here.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(ALEXANDRIA, VA.) – November 2, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commended a U.S. Department of Justice case against a New Jersey real estate developer’s alleged cash-for-votes scheme.
“Jeff Sessions is doing a tremendous job reversing the sorry record of the Obama-Holder era in prosecuting voter fraud,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Their record was they turned a blind eye to it while their allies in nonprofit groups like the Brennan Center deceived America and said it was a myth.”
Read more about the Frank “Pupie” Raia case in Hoboken, here.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(NEW YORK, NY.) – October 30, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) received leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Southern District of New York in support of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s positions at trial regarding the proposed citizenship question for the 2020 Census.
The United States is currently defending the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the general 2020 Census survey against multiple lawsuits brought by the State of New York and others. The Foundation was previously granted entry before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to share the value the citizenship data would have in federal voting rights law.
“Collecting robust citizenship data in the 2020 Census is good government policy,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Citizenship data helps the Justice Department and private parties protect voting rights. I know the Trump administration is correct about this because I’ve won voting rights cases in federal court because citizenship data has been available in the past.”
The proposed brief notes:
The DOJ, as statutorily designated enforcer of the Voting Rights Act, understands the importance of a “reliable calculation of the citizen voting age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected.”
The Foundation offers four arguments related to voting rights enforcement.
Disagreement between current and former executive political appointees cannot serve as evidence of discriminatory intent
Plaintiffs are conjuring evidence of discriminatory intent due to administrative policy changes after an election. The brief notes: “Plaintiffs repeatedly attempt to tarnish the legitimate need for reinstating the citizenship question with political rhetoric … Elections must mean something, and an executive may depart from the policies of the prior executive” without crossing discriminatory boundaries.
Robust citizenship data is necessary to determine if redistricting maps properly protect minority voters
In the decades-long absence of general citizenship data provided by the Census, the DOJ had to selectively employ citizenship estimates – yet only in jurisdictions where such data were available. Without it, DOJ and others live in a statistical fog to determine whether a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to necessarily yield a single-member district. In one example, DOJ officials had difficulty discerning differences between eligible African-Americans and resident Caribbean noncitizens when assessing the fairness of city council boundaries. The Foundation notes seven additional cases where citizenship data was clearly used to make DOJ redistricting cases since 2001.
Previous Census citizenship data was critical in deciding a voting rights case in 2017
Citizenship data derived from the 1950 Census helped a trial court in Guam determine in the 21st Century that a “Native Inhabitants” standard for voter registration was a race-based discriminatory measure against mainland American citizens. The DOJ currently promotes the use of the 1950 data as Guam appeals the summary judgment finding to the 9th Circuit.
Citizenship data helps facilitate private efforts to enforcing voting laws
Census data are critical to determining which jurisdictions are falling behind federal mandates to maintain voter rolls free from bloat and corrupted entries. Courts have repeatedly relied on the ratio between registered voters and resident citizens in a locale as valuable insights—yet the citizenship data in its current form is not without flaws and can risk skewed interpretations. Improved data quality will also help empower private interests to ensure that federal law is being followed.
The brief was filed in support of the Government’s position at trial before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in New York et. al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 1:18-cv-02921 (which was consolidated with New York Immigration Coalition, et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 1:18-cv-5025). Related filings can be found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN.) – October 23, 2018: the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commends the Texas Secretary of State’s decision to refer the Rio Grande Valley noncitizen voter registration mailer matter to Attorney General Ken Paxton.
The TxSOS circulated an announcement Monday evening. A copy of the official referral letter may be read, here.
“This is a critical step in protecting both resident citizens and immigrants alike from the consequences of ineligible voting activity,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “It was wholly unnecessary for the Texas Democrats to alter voter registration forms. They invited confusion and potentially unlawful activity where the consequences would only be paid by immigrant communities.”
Texas Democrat Party mailers circulated around the Rio Grande Valley region of south Texas landed in the hands of lawfully present noncitizens in late September and early October. The envelopes contained voter registration applications where the answers to questions “Are you a United States Citizen?” and “Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?” were pre-printed “Yes” for each.
Complaints from PILF went to district attorneys in the region, in addition to Texas and federal officers, explaining why pre-printing answers about eligibility are problematic:
[W]hen Congress passed the NVRA, it envisioned a registrant making two separate affirmations of citizenship – both the checkbox as well as the signature attestation. This enables prosecutors to easier establish intent and state of mind when noncitizens illegally register to vote.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott assured the public via Twitter Thursday, October 18, that an investigation was underway.
Digital versions of the referral letter and witness affidavit are linked here.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###
Menu