Thread: 6% of voters felonies? Could non-citizens decide the November election?

Could non-citizens decide the November election?

By Jesse Richman and David Earnest October 24 at 3:06 PM

(AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)



Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.



In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.


Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.


How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
	2008	2010
Self reported and/or verified	38 (11.3%)	13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified	5 (1.5%)	N.A.
Adjusted estimate	21 (6.4%)	8 (2.2%)

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.


An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.


There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.


Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.
Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.


Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.


Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...mber-election/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/rand-paul-w...fenses-307897/

Add in the anchor baby population, who are now of voting age and legally able to vote, and it's not hard to envision election results being affected by this population.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/dmv-search-r...voters-313230/

It appears that 2014 is the year that the illegal alien voters are out of the bag!

This is really going to anger people and bring our last 5 years of work on this matter to a head!

W

Perhaps some of the protests should be directed at the elections boards that are responsible for the integrity of the electorate.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Surprised the Washington Post even printed this.

by Joel B. Pollak 26 Oct 2014, 6:48 AM PDT
1033 comments

"Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens?" That is the question posed by political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest, who answer in a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies: "Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races." And, the researchers note, 80% of non-citizen votes go to Democrats.

The estimated percentage of non-citizens voting is small, especially in midterms: "Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010," Richman and Earnest wrote in the Washington Post. Yet that small percentage "was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections."

They single out the close election for U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008, in which a victory for incumbent Republican Norm Coleman was reversed in a controversial recount that gave the win to comedian Al Franken. Non-citizen votes, they say, could quite easily have been the reason for Franken's win--and therefore were the reason Democrats could count on a "60th vote" for Obamacare, which passed the Senate in late 2009:

Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes.

Richman and Earnest add that voter ID is "strikingly ineffective" in deterring non-citizens from voting: many non-citizens vote anyway. They recommend instead improving public education about the simple fact that non-citizens are barred from voting. Alternatively, they suggest, non-citizens could be allowed to vote in U.S. elections, as long-term residents are in some other nations (and as they once were in the U.S., as well).

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-C...-for-Democrats

by Tony Lee 28 Oct 2014, 10:07 AM PDT

A new study that asks whether non-citizens can tip elections for Democrats gives more credence to an Eagle Forum report that concluded that massive amnesty legislation would be "suicide" for the conservative movement and the GOP.

In a provocative article, Old Dominion political science professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest asked in the Washington Post, "Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens?"

In their forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, Richman and Earnest concluded that enough non-citizens vote to "change the outcome of close races." The professors analyzed data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) and determined that "more than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote." Their "best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010."

Their analysis gives more credence to an Eagle Forum report that concluded that massive amnesty legislation would be "suicide" for the conservative movement and the Republican Party. As Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly noted, although "a Harris poll found that 81% of native-born Americans believe schools should teach patriotism," 50% of recent immigrants do not want their children to be "taught to be proud of America." Schlafly said that means new immigrants will be offended when conservatives emphasize patriotism and assimilation.

The Eagle Forum report concluded that, though "Republican outreach to Asian and Latino voters" is "critical," Republicans "can never turn liberal-leaning immigrants and their adult children into supporters of limited government faster than the current high level of legal immigration (one million a year) is bringing in new liberal voters." The report found that new immigrants "and their adult children are significantly more liberal than the average American voter on a host of policy issues, including the size of government, Obamacare, affirmative action, gun control, greater environmental regulation, and other issues championed by the Left."

"Thus, if future immigration is not reduced, it will be virtually impossible for Republicans to remain nationally competitive as a conservative party," the report concluded.

The Old Dominion professors concluded that non-citizen "votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass" Obamacare, because just .65 of Minnesota's non-citizens could have voted to give Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) a 312-vote margin of victory in 2008. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) is in a dogfight with Republican Thom Tillis in North Carolina, and the professors concluded that it was "also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin." In North Carolina this year, non-citizen DREAMers were found on voter rolls, as Breitbart News reported.
Democrats are advantaged when non-citizens vote. The professors found that "non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample)," and "this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections."

Yet, Republican establishment politicians and strategists continually and reflexively say amnesty legislation is needed for the GOP to survive, even though studies have found that Republicans can win elections well beyond 2016 without passing massive amnesty legislation.

The Obama administration is also quietly preparing millions of potential new immigrant ID cards and work authorization ahead of Obama's planned executive amnesty "before the end of the year," and non-citizens could use those ID cards to vote as well. The nonpartisan academic study on non-citizen voters found that voter ID laws favored by conservatives "to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective," since "nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...uicide-for-GOP

by Phyllis Schlafly 28 Oct 2014, 12:23 PM PDT

Control of the U.S. Senate is up for grabs on November 4, and illegal voters may tip the balance. Estimates are that more than 14 percent of non-citizens were registered to vote in the elections of 2008 and 2010, and that could now easily exceed the margin of victory in many tight Senate races.

Democrats typically win more than 80 percent of the votes cast by non-citizens, so votes cast by non-citizens produce a net bonanza of additional votes for Democrats. Democrat Al Franken won a Republican U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota by a margin of only 312 votes in 2008, and with the immense power of incumbency he is expected to cruise to reelection this time.

New non-partisan research by professors at Old Dominion University uncovered the shocking amount of voting by non-citizens, as published by the Washington Post last Friday. Their work did not choose sides in the debate over whether non-citizens should be allowed to vote, which Congress has already answered in the negative by sensibly limiting voting in federal elections to only American citizens.

This study concluded that voter ID alone will not eliminate voting by non-citizens, because voter ID does not require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. But that loophole is easily closed by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, just as one must show proof of citizenship in order to obtain a passport.

Several states enacted common-sense provisions in order to strengthen voter integrity in this year's election. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an attempt to block voter ID from going into effect in Texas, so at least the Lone Star State will be able to limit mischief at their polls in this election.

Other states are not so fortunate. Wisconsin passed a voter ID law that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit, but the U.S. Supreme Court then blocked that good law from going into effect this November.

In July, three non-citizens were indicted for illegal voting in Ohio in the 2012 presidential election. But most illegal voting cases end in a plea bargain that results in erasure of the convictions after a year if the defendant stays out of additional trouble for that long.

In Colorado, which could decide which party controls the U.S. Senate, votes are now cast entirely by mail with little protection against voter fraud. A total of 3.6 million ballots were sent to Coloradans based on addresses as old as 2008, which is six years ago.

One Colorado state senator said he has been to households that have received as many as seven separate ballots, and the person now living there could vote all seven ballots without anyone noticing. Paid political activists, known as "harvesters," can gather up to ten ballots of others and then dump them all in an unguarded drop box, and there is nothing that stops harvesters from gathering and voting even more.

What happens to unused ballots that people throw out after receiving them in the mail? Most people do not shred their trash, so many unused ballots inevitably end up in apartment complex garbage bins where they are available to be filled in and sent in by unscrupulous party workers.

The lack of voting integrity makes it far from clear whether the election outcome will reflect the will of the voters. The essential role played by poll watchers is impossible in Colorado's system of mail-only balloting.

The corrupt practice of counting votes that were cast in the names of dead people reemerged in North Carolina in 2012. The executive director of that state's election board reported that the votes of 81 dead people were counted, most of whom had died before it was possible for them to cast absentee ballots.

A shocking total of 35,570 voters in North Carolina had the same last and first names and birth dates of voters who also cast ballots in other states. Many hundreds of those voters even had the same last four digits of their Social Security numbers as people having identical names and birthdays who also voted in other states.

Reforms passed in North Carolina are not effective in time to ensure voter integrity in this election, where there is a close race for the U.S. Senate seat. No voter ID is yet in effect there.

The top priority of Obama's Department of Justice has been to oppose voter ID laws passed by various states. But Attorney General Eric Holder has announced his resignation, and the Senate should not confirm any successor who opposes state efforts to improve voter integrity.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Fate-of-Senate