Thread: US Citizenship and Your Ballot

I got this in an email this morning from Patriot Heart and Defend the Vote I brought the link over because there are many active links on the web page and they wouldn't come over from my email letter...

PART 1



US Citizenship and Your Ballot
PDF | Print | E-mail
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Executive Summary? Our response is posted here



By Sharon Meroni
Let's face it... To many of us, citizenship of candidates running for office is pretty much a given. And well it should be. The vast majority of candidates running for office are obviously citizens. On this level, the issue of checking US citizenship as part of the requirement for ballot access can be seen as superfluous, but how does it play out in terms of the ballot application process?

The US and Illinois Constitutions state clearly that to be legally qualified for office you must be a US citizen. No one disputes this requirement. Yet, Illinois law fails to provide a process to prove or not that those on the ballot meet this core requirement. This is the issue. As voters, we often assume candidates are US Citizens and thus legally qualified. Surely... someone is watching and/or checking! In many cases this is true. In Illinois, candidates routinely challenge each other over petition signatures. These petitions and the Statement of Economic Interest are part of the candidate application process. The information is posted and available in the public record. As to citizenship, candidates simply affirm that they are legally qualified in the Statement of Candidacy which is essentially an application form.

To be legally qualified you have to be a registered voter. Voter registration is part of the public record. To become a registered voter, applicants affirm to being a citizen. There is no checking in the process, and all affirmations of citizenship are accepted as true, carte blanche. Thus, voter registration cannot be considered proof of citizenship.

In 2010 when I challenged 32 candidates who wanted to be on my ballot, I knew nothing about these candidates. I could find little about them on the Internet. One reason is that generally the public aspect of a campaign does not begin until AFTER the qualification period. Most campaign websites were not up yet. As it turned out half of these 32 candidates did not have sufficient signatures and/or did not sign the Statement of Candidacy affirming they are legally qualified and they were removed based on the challenges by other candidates to these aspects of their candidacy.

Of these 32 candidates one was an immigrant from South Africa, others had exotic names suggesting they might potentially come from a different country. Who knew during the 5 day period registered voters can challenge ballot applications? I could not find out in the public record! If I had decided to assess citizenship challenges based on these kinds of external factors, cries of discrimination are sure to have followed. In fact a few crazy leftists continue to slander me by calling me a racist when I objected to ALL of the candidates, not just those that on appearance may seem objectionable.

To assume that all candidates on the ballot have at LEAST affirmed to being US citizens, is factually incorrect. In 2008 in the Republican Primary, Alan Keyes was placed on the ballot and received votes from Illinois voters, but he never applied to be on the ballot. Someone applied for him. Keyes never signed or presented a Statement of Candidacy self-affirming he was legally qualified for the Presidency.

As to election authorities checking citizenship...? Simply, because Illinois law does not require proof of being legally qualified (ie a US Citizen or a Natural Born Citizen) they cannot check for proof of citizenship. Further complicating the verification process, contrary to Illinois law regarding apparent conformity, the Illinois State Board of Elections accepts ALL applications for ballot position, regardless to whether or not the application is complete. Candidates are removed by challenges.
When I challenged and asked for proof of citizenship, the Illinois State Board of Election's response was that proof is not required. Therefor you must prove to us they are not citizens.

So the burden of proof is on me. How can I get proof? Because of privacy laws, it is impossible to view birth certificates. Proof is not available in the public record. All in all, no one is checking. No one is empowered to check. When I try to check, they say… I have no right because the law doesn’t require it…

But the constitution does. This will end up in the courts.

Currently we have 5 objections in play in Illinois. Today, we go to a hearing on this issue. 4 of the candidates responded with “Strike and Dismiss” motions, one did not respond. Our response is posted here. Our attorney, Steve Boulton has done an excellent job! As I have maintained all along, this action is not particular to any candidate. I will challenge all federal and state candidates that seek to be on my ballot until this is resolved.

Believe me, I don’t want to be the gateway to screen candidates for citizenship. However, because no one else is, I am stuck with, ‘if not me, who?’
Next >

http://www.defendthevote.com/ballot-...nd-your-ballot


the rest follows on my next post.

The rest of my previous post This is PART 2


In case you missed this!
PDF | Print | E-mail
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Our effort in Meroni V ISBE is transitioning in a couple of ways. Last week, Steve Boulton and I discussed these next steps on Defend the Vote's new Monday Internet radio show: This will link you to the full show. This links to Steve only.



Steve and I discussed at length the most efficient strategy to proceed forward in our effort to have a system in place assuring everyone on the ballot is constitutionally eligible. In late September, the Fourth District Appellate Court ruled our case was moot. The decision is posted on Scribd. Last week, we discussed the option of taking this case to the Illinois Supreme Court. Our decision is not to take this case to the Supreme Court. We will start a new challenge in the upcoming ballot qualification periods ( December and January) for Illinois elections. This challenge will be targeted and therefore more able to address the Constitutional issues we feel are here.

In summary, this case began in June 2010. I challenged all third Party candidates during the qualification process for ballot placement in Illinois. The Illinois State Board of Elections dismissed the objection petitions, and the Illinois 7th Judicial Circuit Court affirmed the ISBE decision.



Defend the Vote will continue efforts to assist registered voters in Illinois to challenge candidates who have applied for ballot placement to prove they are constitutionally eligible. More updates to follow. You can read more about the case here.



Bev Harris, of Black Box Voting, and Defend the Vote have partnered to bring you a weekly show on Ballot Integrity. Each week we discuss Election News, and we we will bring important information about ballot integrity across the globe. We broadcast live tomorrow night and invite you to join us!



Blessings!



Sharon (Chalice)


UPDATE: Steve Boulton Discusses Meroni V ISBE
PDF | Print | E-mail
AddThis Social Bookmark Button



Steve Boulton discusses Meroni V ISBE


On Monday, November 2nd, 2011, Steve Boulton and Sharon Meroni discuss the next steps in Meroni V ISBE.


Summary: Meroni V ISBE : This case asks the questions - If someone is placed on your ballot, does that mean they are constitutionally eligible? Who assures candidates placed on the ballot are constitutionally eligible?



This case began in June 2010. Sharon Meroni challenged all third Party candidates during the qualification process for ballot placement in Illinois. The Illinois State Board of Elections dismissed the objection petitions, and the Illinois 7th Judicial Circuit Court affirmed the ISBE decision. In late September, the Fourth District Appellate Court ruled that the case was moot. The decision is posted on Scribd.



Defend the Vote intends to assist registered voters in Illinois seeking to challenge candidates who have applied for ballot placement to prove they are constitutionally eligible. More updates to follow. You can read more about the case here.
< Prev Next >

Meroni V ISBE - In the Appellate Court
PDF | Print | E-mail
AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Illinois State Board of Elections Seal - Sharon Meroni V ISBE and 32 CandidatesDuring the election cycle leading up to the 2010 General elections, Sharon Meroni, Executive Director of Defend the Vote, began researching how Illinois screens for the citizenship of candidates running for office. What she learned is that while both the US and Illinois Constitutions require candidates for office to be US Citizens, Illinois does not enforce the Constitutional mandates in their election laws.



Essentially, a candidate self declares and affirms that they are "legally qualified" to hold office. As part of the candidate application process they are required to fill out a "statement of candidacy" where they self affirm under oath that they are legally qualified for the office they seek. The laws do not define what legally qualified means.



The Illinois State Board of Elections, in refusing to follow apparent conformity laws, routinely accepts candidates for ballot placement that have not signed this "statement of candidacy" affirming they are legally qualified. While the US Federal and Illinois Constitutions mandate US Citizenship status, Illinois laws conveniently do not require candidates to prove qualifications. Proving eligibility for ballot placement is left up to the challenge process.



Illinois law provides a 5 day challenge process after candidates apply for ballot position. During this time, the candidates can be challenged for eligibility. However, unless someone knows for sure about the citizenship status of a candidate, no one has access to the information proving citizenship (or not) during this 5 day period; this makes it impossible to challenge the candidate based on these constitutional requirements.



During the 5 day challenge period, Ms. Meroni challenged all 32 candidates who wanted to be on her ballot to prove they are US Citizen. During this contest cycle, some candidates provided birth certificates (the objection petitions were withdrawn), some candidates filed 'Motions to Dismiss," and some candidates did not respond.



The Illinois State Board of Elections ruled in favor of the motions to dismiss filed by the candidates and they granted motions to dismiss to candidates that did not respond based on a brand new rule titled Rule 4. Rule 4 allowed the ISBE to act on behalf of the candidate.



In an action called a Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision, in the 7th Judicial Court of Sangamon County, Meroni challenged the ISBE decision on procedural and constitutional grounds. Judge Peter Cavanagh presided, affirming the ISBE decision on procedural grounds. Up until this point, Sharon Meroni was pro se.



Meroni retained Illinois attorney and Chairman of Defend The Vote, Steve Boulton, from McCarthy Duffy LLD. Meroni V ISBE is currently in the 4th District Appellate Court. On Tuesday, oral arguments scheduled for September 8th, 2011 were vacated by Judicial order. Mr. Boulton is responding by filing a Motion for Oral arguments.



The primary issue at stake here is a constitutional issue. If the Constitution mandates citizenship requirements, then the enforcing bodies need to assure these requirements are met. The secondary issue is that Illinois law does not define legally qualified. This allows for the affirmation of being legally qualified and thus eligible for ballot position to be difficult to challenge when there are questions regarding what legally qualified means and/or how it is proven.



The procedural issues at stake concern the wording of Ms. Meroni's original objection and also the application of Rule 4. This rule is new and has never been challenged. Meroni contends it is an overreach of the ISBE authority.



Regardless of the outcome of Meroni V ISBE (32 candidates) in the appellate process, Defend the Vote is preparing objection petitions for interested registered voters across the state to file, demanding to know the citizenship status of candidates applying to be on their ballot. These non-partisan objection petitions can be filed against any candidates filing for ballot position and are satisfied when the candidates prove the citizenship mandate.



Defend the Vote encourages registered voters in Illinois with a passion for the issues of Constitutional eligibility to participate in filing objections against candidates.



Stay tuned - This filing cycle for objecting to candidates applying for ballot placement is the end of November and early December.

For more information: Meroni V ISBE: Non Citizens have Unfettered access to Ballot Placement in Illinois





Two related articles on Meroni V ISBE and the Appeal see McHenry County Blog, Written by Cal Skinner.

Illinois Candidate Birth Certificate Case Goes to 4th Appellate Court – Part 1

Illinois Candidate Birth Certificate Case Goes to 4th Appellate Court – Part 2


http://www.defendthevote.com/ballot-...-v-isbe-update

“We Don’t Need No Stinking Voter IDs!”


The Justice Department on December 23 blocked a South Carolina law that requires voters to present a photo ID that prove they are who they say there are. The Justice Department says that voter fraud is rare.

Go that? Voter fraud is rare. Has anyone at the Justice Department ever heard of Cook County, Illinois? Back in 1960, Black comedian Dick Gregory said this. “I love Cook County. That’s where my vote really counts . . . and counts . . . and counts.” It has not changed.

Republicans say requiring photo identification at the polls is just a matter of common sense. But Democrats warn the move could disenfranchise voters.

“I think this is an effort to diminish minority and poor people’s involvement in the electoral policies and politics,” said Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

But David Norcross, president of the Republican National Lawyers Association, noted that a photo ID is required to enter any federal building and most office buildings, among other things. “You need it to get welfare, you need it to get on an airplane, take the SAT, buy liquor, buy cigarettes. It’s sort of ubiquitous,” he said. “And it’s crazy to exclude voting from the list of things you need it for.”

Why block the law now? Why bother.

An even stricter law in Indiana, however, was upheld years ago by the Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote. So now, 15 states require or plan to require photo IDs.

Here is the argument of South Carolina Democrats: it hurts minorities and the poor.

“They can’t get a photo ID because typically you have to have a birth certificate to get an official state ID. Many people don’t have the ability to pay the $35 here.”

This is a red herring.

If a voter claims to have had a “reasonable impediment” to getting an ID, they can vote anyway.

“When you show up to vote, you fill out an affidavit in which you swear you are who you say you are,” said Spakovsky. “And you describe what that reasonable impediment was, and your vote’s going to count — unless local election officials have some evidence that your affidavit is false and that’s a very high burden.”

Nevertheless, a website of the Democratic National Committee refers to the photo ID push as “GOP tactics” and says: “Photo ID mandates are the most pervasive new restriction on the right to vote. … They are costly and unnecessary and they disenfranchise voters.”

The site goes on to say, “voter fraud is rare.”

Voter fraud is as American as apple pie. It’s time to go on a diet. This is not a national ID. It’s a state ID. States are in charge of voting, except where federal government has passed a law that says otherwise. There is no such law prohibiting voter IDs.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2011/12...king-voter-id/

Continue Reading on www.foxnews.com (link below this article)


Battle Over Voter ID Laws Heats Up in the States

By Jim Angle

Published December 28, 2011

| FoxNews.com



A simple question divides the two parties on the process of this election -- should voters have to show a picture ID to cast a ballot?

Republicans say requiring photo identification at the polls is just a matter of common sense. But Democrats warn the move could disenfranchise voters.

"I think this is an effort to diminish minority and poor people's involvement in the electoral policies and politics," said Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

But David Norcross, president of the Republican National Lawyers Association, noted that a photo ID is required to enter any federal building and most office buildings, among other things. "You need it to get welfare, you need it to get on an airplane, take the SAT, buy liquor, buy cigarettes. It's sort of ubiquitous," he said. "And it's crazy to exclude voting from the list of things you need it for."

The latest voter ID controversy centers on South Carolina's photo ID law, which the Justice Department blocked on Dec. 23, claiming it will hurt minorities and the poor.

Attorney General Eric Holder exhorted people to oppose such efforts just days before the move.

"Call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success," he told a group at the LBJ Center in Austin, Texas.

An even stricter law in Indiana, however, was upheld years ago by the Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote. So now, 15 states require or plan to require photo IDs.

"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law and the opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who as you know is one of the most liberal stalwarts of the Supreme Court," explained Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation.

Several Democratic congressmen, as well as former President Jimmy Carter, have also argued in favor of photo IDs.

Nevertheless, South Carolina Democrats argue their state's law is just too onerous on minorities and the poor.

"They can't get a photo ID because typically you have to have a birth certificate to get an official state ID. Many people don't have the ability to pay the $35 here," Harpootlian said.

A similar law in Georgia, also upheld by the courts, took great pains to avoid such problems.

Rep. Phil Gingrey said the state told people, "Look, we will literally send a van and a photographer to the home of anybody that can say they can't get a picture made and a photo ID and we will do it ... at the state's cost and the taxpayer cost and not at the individual cost."

South Carolina made the same offer to its citizens and went even further to make sure all could vote. If a voter claims to have had a "reasonable impediment" to getting an ID, they can vote anyway.

"When you show up to vote, you fill out an affidavit in which you swear you are who you say you are," said Spakovsky. "And you describe what that reasonable impediment was, and your vote's going to count -- unless local election officials have some evidence that your affidavit is false and that's a very high burden."

Nevertheless, a website of the Democratic National Committee refers to the photo ID push as "GOP tactics" and says: "Photo ID mandates are the most pervasive new restriction on the right to vote. ... They are costly and unnecessary and they disenfranchise voters."

The site goes on to say, "voter fraud is rare."

That is an assertion Republicans ridicule.

"We did a quick study," Norcross said. "In last 10 years, there have been voter fraud convictions in 46 states."

Spakovsky notes that just in April, "a local executive committee member of the NAACP was sentenced to five years in jail for voter fraud in Toneka County, Mississippi."

In any event, states are moving in the direction of voter ID laws, confident the courts will back them up.

In Rhode Island, photo IDs were proposed and approved by Democrats and a Democratic legislature.

Mississippi, with a large African American population, just held a referendum in which 62 percent voted in favor of photo IDs.

And states that have been using them for some time boast an increase in turnout among all groups including minorities.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1i1jTsjk1