LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Examples, results and proposed solutions.
Post Reply
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Post by editor » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:06 pm

No comment necessary.
Original article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... e-citizens
LA County Admits Number Of Registered Voters At 144% Of Resident Citizens Of Voting Age
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The Election Integrity Project California provides a list of 11 California counties that have more registered voters than voting-age citizens.

In addition, Los Angeles County officials informed the project that “the number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. has joined Judicial Watch, Inc., a non-partisan organization in Washington, D.C., in sending a National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) Section 8 notice of violation letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.

NVRA Complaint Excerpts
Dear Secretary Padilla:

From public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey (“EAVS”), and through verbal accounts from various county agencies, eleven (11) counties in California have more total registered voters than citizen voting age population (CVAP) calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey. This is strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA.

This letter serves as statutory notice that Election Integrity Project California, Inc., a registered non-profit corporation in California, and Judicial Watch, Inc., will bring a lawsuit against you and, if appropriate, against the counties named in this letter, if you do not take specific actions to correct these violations of Section 8 within 90 days.

The following information explains how we determined that your state and the counties named are in violation of NVRA Section 8 and the remedial steps that must be taken to comply with the law.
  1. Eleven California Counties Have More Total Registered Voters Than Citizen Voting Age Population
    Based on our review of 2016 EAC EAVS report, the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California total active and total inactive voter registration records, California is failing to comply with the voter registration list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA. For example, a comparison of the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California active and inactive voter registration records shows there were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%). Our own research shows that the situation in these counties is, if anything, worse than the foregoing data suggest. For example, we contacted Los Angeles County directly this past June. At that time, county officials informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.
  2. The NVRA Requires You to Undertake Reasonable Efforts to Maintain Accurate Lists of Eligible Registered Voters
  3. Failure to Comply with NVRA Subjects You to Lawsuits and Financial Costs
    In passing the NVRA, Congress authorized a private right of action to enforce the provisions of the NVRA, including Section 8. Accordingly, private persons may bring a lawsuit under the NVRA if the violations identified herein are not corrected within 90 days of receipt of this letter.
  4. Avoiding Litigation
    We hope you will promptly initiate efforts to comply with Section 8 so that no lawsuit will be necessary. We ask you and, to the extent that they wish to respond separately, each county identified in this letter, to please respond to this letter in writing no later than 30 days from today informing us of the compliance steps you are taking. Specifically, we ask you to:
    1. conduct or implement a systematic, uniform, nondiscriminatory program to remove from the list of eligible voters the names of persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of a change in residence; and
    2. conduct or implement additional routine measures to remove from the list of eligible voters the names of persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.
  5. Production of Records
    Finally, pursuant to your obligations under the NVRA,15 your office and, to the extent that they keep records separately from your office, each county named in this letter, should make available to us all pertinent records concerning “the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency” of California’s official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years. Please include these records with your response to this letter.


I hope that the concerns identified in this letter can be resolved amicably. However, if we believe you do not intend to correct the above-identified problems, a federal lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against you may be necessary. We look forward to receiving your prompt response.

Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
s/ Robert D. Popper
Robert D. Popper
Attorney, Judicial Watch, Inc.
Here is the full six-page NVRA Letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.

Key Questions
  1. How bad is actual fraud vs. possible fraud?
  2. How much is purposeful fraud (letting noncitizens) on the voter rolls?
  3. How often do the dead and nonresidents vote?
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Post by Firestarter » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:10 pm

California is not the only state which has been inflating the number of eligible voters.
On 11 April 2017, Judicial Watch sent a similar letter (as to California) to 11 other states with more total registered voters than citizens the voting age: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... l-lawsuit/

On July 7, Maryland denied Judicial Watch access to the voter registration list, because according to Maryland, the law restricts the release of voter registration information to Maryland registered voters.
On 18 July, Judicial Watch filed a law suit against Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA): http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... ation-act/

Judicial Watch on 10 January 2014 reached an out-of court settlement agreement with the State of Ohio. Ohio agreed to update and maintain its voter registration lists and keep a current voter registration list available for public access online.
Judicial Watch aims for a similar result in the other states: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content ... lement.pdf
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Post by Firestarter » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:40 pm

The letter by Judicial Watch about the more voters than possible in California, was published by several media outlets, for example FOX, Breitbart and Infowars:
http://www.fox4now.com/newsy/11-califor ... n-eligible
http://www.breitbart.com/california/201 ... -citizens/
https://www.infowars.com/california-vot ... -blows-up/

According to the following story, it’s almost completely fake, because Judicial Watch included “inactive voters” into the equation.
According to the official numbers, for example Los Angeles County has 5,258,137 registered voters (that is without “inactive voters”), Census eligible 6,046,750, and Secy of State eligible 6,237,395: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation- ... 13202.html


Judicial Watch should have mentioned “inactive voters” more clearly in their publications. The word “inactive” doesn’t appear in the publication of Judicial Watch or its letter of 1 August at all.
Also FOX, Breitbart and Infowars forgot to explain the effect of “inactive voters”.
Here’s a definition of “inactive voters”: https://www.ocvote.com/inactive/


Formally speaking it’s not incorrect of Judicial Watch to include “inactive voters” into the equation.
From Section 8 of the NVRA: http://www.sos.ms.gov/links/elections/h ... urging.pdf
(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of-- (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);

Maybe the whole objective of the “right wing” Judicial Watch is to help Donald Trump purge the voter lists of “unwanted” voters, in time for his re-election in 2020: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... rolls.html
It’s not very difficult to identify voter with a high risk of voting against Donald Trump. For example the majority of Latinos, Blacks and Muslims vote Democrat...
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Inactive Voters

Post by editor » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:37 pm

Firestarter wrote:
Judicial Watch should have mentioned “inactive voters” more clearly in their publications. The word “inactive” doesn’t appear in the publication of Judicial Watch or its letter of 1 August at all.
Also FOX, Breitbart and Infowars forgot to explain the effect of “inactive voters”.
Here’s a definition of “inactive voters”: https://www.ocvote.com/inactive/
I visited the link Firestarter provided above, which goes to the website for the Orange County (California) Registrar of Voters. This particular page tells us that voters are moved to an inactive list (thereby categorizing them as inactive) for one of the following reasons:
  • Our office receives mail returned from the voter's address that is not deliverable.
  • The voter does not participate in any election in the previous four years, and has not updated or confirmed their voter record.
Note the first reason is simply that the Registrar sent the alleged voter mail, and it was returned. I can think of a few common reasons such mail might get returned, including:
  • The alleged voter is dead
  • The alleged voter is not a local resident, thereby rendering him ineligible
  • The alleged voter is a fictitious person
The most interesting part to me is that an inactive voter has the same right to vote as an active voter. All he must do is simply show up at the polls on election day.
Inactive voters are registered voters and are eligible to vote; however, they do not receive election related mail such as sample ballots and vote-by-mail ballots...
No mention is made of any further proof of residency, which begs the question, "Why keep two separate lists?" What is the point? Further, all that is required of an inactive voter to be put back on the eligible list, is to vote.
An inactive voter may restore their active voter status by simply voting in an election, contacting our office directly to confirm their address, or by going to ocvote.com/confirm and completing the process online.
In summary, there is virtually no difference between an active and inactive voter. Thus, in my view, it is entirely appropriate for Judicial Watch to include inactive voters in their publications.

Is it possible Firestarter's well-known dislike for Trump may have blinded him a bit on this issue? It seems so to me. Firestarter would be far from the first I've seen to adopt positions contrary to their own otherwise deeply held beliefs, simply because they don't like Trump. In fact I've seen so much of this kind of behavior, especially in the media, I've begun to think of it as a kind of mental illness, or mass hypnosis. No offense intended, Firestarter.

Personally I'm in favor of any jural society removing ineligible voters from its voter lists, irregardless of how those alleged voters might vote. In fact I've come out publicly in favor of full disclosure in elections.
Firestarter also wrote:

It’s not very difficult to identify voter with a high risk of voting against Donald Trump. For example the majority of Latinos, Blacks and Muslims vote Democrat...
Yes this is known, or at least presumed, to be true.

Readers on this site also know the u.S.A. was formed as a representative republic, not a democracy, as most people today believe. The difference as I understand it is in a republic the people are recognized to possess certain inviable rights which cannot be overridden by the whim of the legislature, or the vote of the masses. Whereas in a democracy, any two wolves may vote to force a sheep to become their dinner.

Chief among those rights recognized in the u.S.A. republic is supposed to be private property, and chiefly among the duties of the lawful government is the protection of same.

True to their democratic name, the Democrats, much more often than Republicans, vote to eat the sheep. In other words, they vote to allow government, at the point of a gun, to take private property from others, and give to themselves. It would be more honest if Democrats simply called themselves Parasites.

Here I see a conflict-- Democrats dislike Trump, but Trump is really, in my opinion, more of a Democrat than a Republican. True to form, he seems to be in favor of enhanced eminent domain, and civil forfeiture, both of which are antithetical to the idea of private property.

But now I digress into points of discussion which belong in another topic area.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Post by notmartha » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:07 pm

Firestarter wrote:
Formally speaking it’s not incorrect of Judicial Watch to include “inactive voters” into the equation.
From Section 8 of the NVRA: http://www.sos.ms.gov/links/elections/h ... urging.pdf
(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of-- (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);
Emphasis mine.

There is (sometimes) a difference between inactive voters (who can show up and vote) and ineligible voters (who can't vote). It is completely reasonable, in my mind, to include inactive voters in the numbers of eligible voters.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Inactive Voters

Post by Firestarter » Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:10 pm

editor wrote:In summary, there is virtually no difference between an active and inactive voter. Thus, in my view, it is entirely appropriate for Judicial Watch to include inactive voters in their publications.

Is it possible Firestarter's well-known dislike for Trump may have blinded him a bit on this issue? It seems so to me.
I first understood the information in the Original Post, that there were more voters than people...
Then I read the other article that the "inactive voters" in fact almost never show up to vote.
I was surely not the only one that misunderstood that there are other ways to intrepret this and I still have some difficulty to understand what's the use of the "inactive voters" definition, while I believe that in a "democracy" there is n such thing as "ineligible voters"...

I've been looking into the official numbers, and it looks to me that there is a huge amount of "ineligible voters". Maybe I will add something on that.
I've read 2 books and some articles by Greg Palast. While I enjoy his perspectives on macro economy, I don't fully subscribe to his political views where his main point is that blacks and latinos are illegally purged from the voter lists by Republicans.
When I follow the line of reasoning of Palast (or Michael Moore) voting makes a difference. In my view in our political system we can only vote for the puppets of the elite, so what's the point (not even counting that the Netherlands and Britain have the constitution of a dictatorship)?
It's easy to predict that in a "real" democracy the difference in wealth between the "rich" and the "poor" decreases. While the official numbers show that this gap is increasing.

I'm surely against Trump, but I'm also against the Democrats, Theresa May, Corbijn, or puppet Mark Rutte who studied history together with King Willem-Alexander when he was still called Prins Pils...

I have seen some interesting information coming from Judicial Watch. Now I see Judicial Watch as a "Republican" organisation.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Post by editor » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:01 pm

Firestarter wrote:

Then I read the other article that the "inactive voters" in fact almost never show up to vote.
I would be very interested in seeing verified statistics on how many people on the inactive voters lists do vote, or at least are recorded as having voted, which I'm sure everyone can agree is not necessarily the same thing.
Firestarter wrote:

It's easy to predict that in a "real" democracy the difference in wealth between the "rich" and the "poor" decreases. While the official numbers show that this gap is increasing.
My rant regarding this off-topic subject continues here:
http://lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 1142#p4057
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Post by Firestarter » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:05 pm

Firestarter wrote:According to the following story, it’s almost completely fake, because Judicial Watch included “inactive voters” into the equation.
According to the official numbers, for example Los Angeles County has 5,258,137 registered voters (that is without “inactive voters”), Census eligible 6,046,750, and Secy of State eligible 6,237,395: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation- ... 13202.html
This is from that link:
Dean Logan, the registrar-recorder/county clerk for Los Angeles County, which has about 1.3 million inactive voters, said the lists serve as a voting “fail-safe” for people who have moved and are otherwise eligible to vote. A relative handful of inactive voters showed up last fall, he said.
This is probably not verified enough, maybe some day I find something better...

I continued my investigation with the suspicion of finding evidence that the population is inflated to hide the success of depopulation Agenda 21…
Another explanation for what I’ve found is that a huge amount of people (more than one third) is purged from the voter rolls.
It’s also possible that the amount of “registered voters” is too low, in order to overestimate the percentage of voters.

I have only focused on the biggest 6 of the 11 California counties from the 1 August letter of Judicial Watch.
Stanislaus had a total of 698 registered voters in 2013…

Here are the numbers for the amount of registered voters in 2013 (for Los Angeles - 4,865,403): https://web.archive.org/web/20130727173 ... al-sub.pdf

For some reason it’s hard to find recent numbers for the amount of people (other than estimates)…
On the “independent” Wikipedia, I found official numbers for 2010, with estimates for 2016 (for all counties the estimates for 2016 are higher than for 2010) - Los Angeles population in 2010 - 9,818,605, estimate for 2016 - 10,137,915: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angel ... California

Here is the percentage of the population under 18 in 2016 (22.2% for Los Angeles):
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ ... 16#viewtop


I have added the 2 numbers for the population (2010 and estimate for 2016) for the 6 California counties, divided them by 2, and then subtracted the percentage under 18 in 2016. This is the first number after the county name (for example Los Angeles: 9,978,260 * 0,778 = 7,763,086).
The second number is the amount of registered voters in 2013.
In between brackets the percentage of the registered voters, compared to the amount of people (based on the official numbers)…

County Population over 18 Registered voters
Los Angeles: 7,763,086 - 4,865,403 (62.7%)
Monterey: 313,332 – 168,245 (53.7%)
San Diego: 2,501,094 - 1,575,770 (63.0%)
San Francisco: 724,085 – 497,663 (68.7%)
San Mateo: 585,141 - 360,786 (61.7%)
Solano: 330,324 – 210,453 (63.7%)


These numbers illustrate the complete opposite of the 1 August letter of Judicial Watch...
Is there a good explanation for the bizarre low amount of voters compared to the official amount of people?
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: LA County Admits Registered Voters At 144% Of Population

Post by editor » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:10 pm

Wouldn't it be interesting if the whole thing were some kind of psy-op, and it turned out the biggest reason the Democrats bussed people to election polls is because otherwise no one would show up?
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Post Reply