 |
|
legal ballot harvesting - this issue isn't about non-citizen
Posted on: July 10, 2024 at 21:04:10 CT
90Tiger STL
Posts:
152581
Member For:
22.63 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
s being legally allowed to vote.
Harvesting is a much more impactful problem.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://republicans-cha.house.gov/_cache/files/9/3/933b5275-f713-4036-98ca-73fd32c06b28/64FAF8F1C46ED4FE696C6E1EDBE6F0A1.ca-ballot-harvesting-report-final.pdf
2018 California Midterm Elections The California state legislature made two drastic changes to state voting laws during the 2016 state legislative session, which ultimately had a profound effect on how California administered the 2018 midterm elections. First, Assembly Bill No. 1921 legalized the practice of unlimited ballot harvesting in the state.1 This law permits any individual to return the mail ballot of another without any limitation as to the number of ballots collected, the relationship to the voter, or even relationship to candidates on the ticket. Further, the individual could be paid by 12016 Cal. Stat. AB-1921. - 1 - any source to collect these ballots, so long as the compensation is not “based on” the number of ballots returned.2 Second, the California Voter’s Choice Act (“VCA”) established new policies intended to encourage counties to move to vote-by-mail.3 The VCA requires that: (1) every voter be mailed a ballot; (2) in-person early voting be expanded; (3) voters be permitted to cast a ballot at any vote center within their county; and (4) ballot drop boxes be provided across the state. This led to traditional polling places closing in favor of only a handful of larger in-person voting centers.4 These two seismic shifts in state election law were intended to encourage voters to voteby-mail and, as a result, dramatically expand the use of unlimited ballot harvesting in the state. This strategy was implemented on a partisan basis to significantly affect the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections. The unlimited ballot harvesting process in use throughout California should be differentiated from what is known as absentee or mail-in voting in other states. Absentee and mail-in voting began as a means for a resident of a state, who would be absent on Election Day or who could not physically cast a ballot at a polling location, to cast their vote ahead of time – with some states requiring an “excuse” to qualify.5 This is a reasonable means to increase voter participation, unfortunately California has removed any means by which to reasonably supervise this process - leading to what we now know as ballot harvesting. This also gave rise to paid political operatives, known as “ballot brokers,” recruiting and pressuring voters to vote by mail. These ballot brokers identify specific locations, such as large apartment complexes or nursing homes, where voters have traditionally voted for their party and build relationships with the residents. Operatives encourage, and even assist, these unsuspecting voters in requesting a mailin ballot; weeks later when the ballot arrives in the mail the same ballot brokers are there to assist the voter in filling out and delivering their ballot. This behavior can result in undue influence in the voting process and destroys the secret ballot, a long-held essential principle of American elections intended to protect voters. These very scenarios are what anti-electioneering laws at polling locations are meant to protect against.6 A voter cannot wear a campaign button to a polling location, but a political operative can collect your ballot in your living room? Furthermore, it has been reported that these ballot brokers intercept and destroy mail-in ballots of voters who traditionally vote against the brokers’ preferred party.7 These ballot brokers are the new Tammany Hall ward bosses, controlling the votes of their harvested area. Brokers are often added to campaign payrolls based purely on the number of ballots they promise to harvest.
This unlimited ballot harvesting led to the defeat of seven Republican candidates in the California 2018 midterm election.8 In California’s 39th Congressional District, located largely in Orange County, the Republican candidate, Young Kim, was leading in the vote count on election night and in the week that followed. She even traveled to Washington D.C. and participated in New Member Orientation. Two weeks later, the Democrat challenger was declared the winner after 11,000 mail ballots were counted, many of which were harvested. These ballots heavily favored the Democrat candidate at a much higher rate than previously counted ballots. Similarly, in California’s 21st Congressional District, a historically conservative district in the Central Valley, former Republican Congressman David Valadao led by nearly 5,000 votes on election night. Major news outlets even declared him the winner based on statistical probability.9 In the weeks that followed, harvested ballots were counted and broke overwhelmingly for the Democrat challenger T.J. Cox, ousting former Congressman Valadao by 862 votes.10
Harvesting is a much more impactful problem.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://republicans-cha.house.gov/_cache/files/9/3/933b5275-f713-4036-98ca-73fd32c06b28/64FAF8F1C46ED4FE696C6E1EDBE6F0A1.ca-ballot-harvesting-report-final.pdf
2018 California Midterm Elections The California state legislature made two drastic changes to state voting laws during the 2016 state legislative session, which ultimately had a profound effect on how California administered the 2018 midterm elections. First, Assembly Bill No. 1921 legalized the practice of unlimited ballot harvesting in the state.1 This law permits any individual to return the mail ballot of another without any limitation as to the number of ballots collected, the relationship to the voter, or even relationship to candidates on the ticket. Further, the individual could be paid by 12016 Cal. Stat. AB-1921. - 1 - any source to collect these ballots, so long as the compensation is not “based on” the number of ballots returned.2 Second, the California Voter’s Choice Act (“VCA”) established new policies intended to encourage counties to move to vote-by-mail.3 The VCA requires that: (1) every voter be mailed a ballot; (2) in-person early voting be expanded; (3) voters be permitted to cast a ballot at any vote center within their county; and (4) ballot drop boxes be provided across the state. This led to traditional polling places closing in favor of only a handful of larger in-person voting centers.4 These two seismic shifts in state election law were intended to encourage voters to voteby-mail and, as a result, dramatically expand the use of unlimited ballot harvesting in the state. This strategy was implemented on a partisan basis to significantly affect the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections. The unlimited ballot harvesting process in use throughout California should be differentiated from what is known as absentee or mail-in voting in other states. Absentee and mail-in voting began as a means for a resident of a state, who would be absent on Election Day or who could not physically cast a ballot at a polling location, to cast their vote ahead of time – with some states requiring an “excuse” to qualify.5 This is a reasonable means to increase voter participation, unfortunately California has removed any means by which to reasonably supervise this process - leading to what we now know as ballot harvesting. This also gave rise to paid political operatives, known as “ballot brokers,” recruiting and pressuring voters to vote by mail. These ballot brokers identify specific locations, such as large apartment complexes or nursing homes, where voters have traditionally voted for their party and build relationships with the residents. Operatives encourage, and even assist, these unsuspecting voters in requesting a mailin ballot; weeks later when the ballot arrives in the mail the same ballot brokers are there to assist the voter in filling out and delivering their ballot. This behavior can result in undue influence in the voting process and destroys the secret ballot, a long-held essential principle of American elections intended to protect voters. These very scenarios are what anti-electioneering laws at polling locations are meant to protect against.6 A voter cannot wear a campaign button to a polling location, but a political operative can collect your ballot in your living room? Furthermore, it has been reported that these ballot brokers intercept and destroy mail-in ballots of voters who traditionally vote against the brokers’ preferred party.7 These ballot brokers are the new Tammany Hall ward bosses, controlling the votes of their harvested area. Brokers are often added to campaign payrolls based purely on the number of ballots they promise to harvest.
This unlimited ballot harvesting led to the defeat of seven Republican candidates in the California 2018 midterm election.8 In California’s 39th Congressional District, located largely in Orange County, the Republican candidate, Young Kim, was leading in the vote count on election night and in the week that followed. She even traveled to Washington D.C. and participated in New Member Orientation. Two weeks later, the Democrat challenger was declared the winner after 11,000 mail ballots were counted, many of which were harvested. These ballots heavily favored the Democrat candidate at a much higher rate than previously counted ballots. Similarly, in California’s 21st Congressional District, a historically conservative district in the Central Valley, former Republican Congressman David Valadao led by nearly 5,000 votes on election night. Major news outlets even declared him the winner based on statistical probability.9 In the weeks that followed, harvested ballots were counted and broke overwhelmingly for the Democrat challenger T.J. Cox, ousting former Congressman Valadao by 862 votes.10
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
legal ballot harvesting - this issue isn't about non-citizen - 90Tiger STL - 7/10 21:04:10