A few days before the November election, Mike Miner, a New York voter, went to cast his vote, only to be told that someone had already voted in his name. Shocked and confused, Miner was informed that he could cast a provisional ballot that would count — along with the fraudulent vote cast in his name.
“This election is so important to me, and for somebody to vote in my name — I feel so violated,” Miner told The Federalist.
But why does Democrat-led New York — along with 14 other states — continue to let this kind of chaos unfold by refusing to require voter ID?
Because chaos in elections serves the left’s ultimate goal: to undermine the integrity of the vote and leave the system open to manipulation.
Voter ID
Miner’s experience is far from unique.
Yet Democrats have taken a firm stance opposing measures to secure elections from potential fraudulent activity. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland vowed to fight election security measures like those that would require voter ID, falsely claiming such laws would be “burdensome” and “discriminatory.”
But Democrats don’t actually believe voter ID laws are “discriminatory.” If they did, then the Democratic National Convention would have never required proof of ID in order to enter for “security purposes.” Voter ID laws serve the same purposes as ID requirements at the DNC: both prevent ineligible persons from participating.
Voter ID laws are not only reasonable, they’re essential in securing elections (or Democrat-events).
Why wouldn’t Democrats want to ensure elections are safeguarded from potential fraud by simply requiring voter ID?
Noncitizens Voting
American elections should be decided by Americans, yet New York’s highest court is hearing challenges to a 2022 law that would allow certain noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. The law has previously been struck down as unconstitutional.
New York isn’t alone. Washington, D.C., allows noncitizens to vote in local elections. As reported by M.D. Kittle last February, “The Republican-controlled U.S. House passed a resolution overturning the D.C. law, but the Democrat-controlled Senate killed the action.”
In Burlington, Vermont, noncitizens in the country legally can vote in local elections, according to The Associated Press. In Maryland’s Hyattsville, Mount Rainier and Takoma Park, noncitizens may also vote in local elections. Even cities in California have considered permitting noncitizens to vote.
Allowing noncitizens to vote creates logistical nightmares. Separate ballots for noncitizens combined with potentially under-trained poll workers runs the risk of noncitizens accidentally voting in federal elections, which is already illegal.
But even noncitizens slip onto the voter rolls (and even illegally vote in federal elections).
Six noncitizens were indicted in Ohio after they allegedly voted in past elections, a Chinese college student who is not a U.S. citizen cast an illegal vote in October (that was still counted), in Iowa Jorge Sanchez-Vasquez was charged for “registering to vote and illegally voting on the same day” in July of 2024, 41 noncitizens cast a ballot in North Carolina in 2016, and more than 11,000 noncitizens were on Pennsylvania’s voter rolls in 2019 — the examples can go on and on.
In fact, when Virginia discovered more than 1,500 self-identified noncitizens on its voter rolls, the Biden-Harris administration sued the state, with the Supreme Court eventually stepping in and ruling Virginia has the right to remove noncitizens from its voter rolls.
Despite a plethora of evidence that our voter registration system is extremely vulnerable, Democrats fought tooth and nail against the SAVE Act. The act would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act to require prospective voters provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. It would prevent noncitizens from getting onto voter rolls — and possibly casting a ballot.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued the “odds of a shutdown” would increase if the SAVE Act was tied to a budget. Former President Joe Biden opposed the measure.
It’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, but current laws are largely toothless. The SAVE Act would simply add some teeth to current federal statute. But Democrats fought such efforts.
Mail-In Ballots
Perhaps nothing creates more chaos in elections than mail-in ballots.
Take Pennsylvania, for example. After much legal challenge, the United States Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballot envelopes lacking a date or having the wrong date should not be counted. The issue has been litigated several times since the 2020 election. Mail-in ballots are also highly susceptible to fraud, with at least four Pennsylvania county election offices having to investigate potential fraudulent voter registration and mail-in ballot requests.
Meanwhile in 2020, Bruce Bartman “voted in place of his dead mother” and allegedly attempted to register his deceased mother-in-law to vote but did not receive an absentee ballot for her, according to Fox 8.
Utah allegedly certified its primary election results despite allegations that hundreds of mail-in ballots that came from voters in Utah’s southern counties were not counted due to a supposed postmarking issue. As my colleague Shawn Fleetwood reported, it appeared the issue “stemmed from how the U.S. Postal Service processes mail for approximately nine southern Utah counties.”
[READ NEXT: 5 Ways California’s Month-Long Vote Counting Process Invites Fraud]
In Arizona a court found that ballot signature verification guidance issued by the secretary of state’s office did “not have the force of law.” State law requires county recorders to compare the signature on the ballot envelope with the “signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.” But guidance was issued instructing county recorders to “consult and review not only registration forms but also ‘additional known signatures…’”
Such a practice is surely confusing and chaotic for election administrators. Lack of express guidance and proper training leaves the mail-in voting system primed for opportunities for ineligible ballots to be counted.
The entire election system is susceptible to fraud, but Democrats benefit from a vulnerable system — and they know it. Why else would they oppose measures to safeguard elections like voter ID, the SAVE Act, and the return to in-person elections?
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.