Follow POL on Twitter Coincidentally, just as Jane Mayer publishes a hit piece on Hans von Spakovsky, repeating the canard that voter fraud never happens and that demands for integrity at the ballot box are simply racist attempts to divest minorities of the vote, I come across an interesting, and seemingly unrelated immigration decision from the Seventh Circuit. Keathley v. Holder (along with its companion case, Kimani v. Holder) involve aliens facing deportation for committing voting fraud, illegally voting. The opinions don't reach this issue, but it doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines in Keathley to see a substantial chance that Chicago machine bureaucrats were systematically (or at least recklessly) artificially inflating the voting rolls with ineligible voters. Not that I expect any investigation because, after all, the position of the administration is that voting fraud is something invented by conservatives to rationalize such horrific things already approved by the Supreme Court such as voter-ID requirements.
The myth of the myth of voting fraud, continued
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.
Related Entries:
- Chicago vs. The Second Amendment
- But, but there's no such thing as vote fraud!
- The myth of the myth of voting fraud
- Around the web, July 27
- Obama immigration policy rewards illegal immigrants over legal ones
- Arizona v. U.S. Podcast: Post-decision analysis with Adam Freedman
- Important Seventh Circuit ruling against shareholder derivative strike suits
- Around the web, May 11
- Speaking of upside-down premption: Arizona v. United States
- Podcast with Ilya Shapiro: Arizona v. U.S. analysis and predictions
- CCAF Seventh Circuit briefing on derivative shareholder suit standards
- Romney and self-deporting
- Felon voting, Santorum, and Romney
- January 9 Jakadrien Turner update
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |
A voter ID requirement would have had no effect in these cases, because the foreigners were registered to vote in their own names. They were not pretending to be an eligible voter. They had both been allowed to register to vote (in error). They both had driver's licenses, and would have been able to vote in their own names even if there were ID requirements.