Nancy Pelosi's Democrats seek to impose California-style electoral rigging on the rest of America

Having their priorities, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats are focused on what matters most to them: their own permanent rule.

Right out the gate, they've put out this House bill, vowing to Californify the nation's election laws.  Former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams, writing in the Washington Examiner, has a disturbing report:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made a gargantuan overhaul of election law, campaign finance, and ethics rules the top priority of House Democrats. Contrast this move with the Republicans in 2017 – the Democratic Party and its allies understand there is a difference between winning elections versus big idea debates.

H.R. 1, her proposal, is not likely to clear the Senate, but that's not the point.  It is a marketing document intended to broach the idea of federalizing some progressive state policies while trying to squeeze more conservative locales into adopting them as well.  Taken as a whole, the only saving grace to the bill is that it does not contain a prosecution shield for noncitizens who are automatically registered to vote – something California has done.

This bill also comes with the benefit of already exhibiting critical failures in the laboratories of bad ideas, like California and others.  But automatic voter registration and relaxed voter roll maintenance standards are not a threat to the proponents, if they know how to massage the chaos before a big election.

He warns that many of the provisions that have made California a one-party state are now being taken national.  There would be automatic voter registration any time someone applies for a driver's license, with few safeguards against non-citizens registering, and lots of potential for multiple registrations from single voters.  There also would be big roadblock thrown at any state that seeks to clean up its voter rolls from such double  and triple registration, which could occur if someone gives his full name on one form and maybe uses a middle initial on another.

Can ballot-harvesting, which California borrowed from Mexico's "perfect dictatorship" PRI rule, be far behind?

Adams argues that Democrats know that the measure is unlikely to pass, but they expect to use it as a public relations vehicle to whip up a "narrative" about expanding voter rights, and then pass each element piecemeal when they hope no one is noticing.

California, which is loaded with conservatives, today, is a one-party state with nearly zero representation on the right.  Motor voter registration, illegals voting and electioneering, uncleaned up voter rolls, and many of the "reforms" cited in H.R. 1 are the result of it.  Can nationally mandated ballot-harvesting be far behind?

Forty House seats were lost in the last midterm, with about 15 of them the result of ballot-harvesting in California, particularly in deep red Orange County.  Illegal aliens knocked on the doors of indifferent voters who weren't planning to vote and "helped" them fill out their ballots, and then took those ballots to the polls until the voting totals flipped to Democrats, which is why we have the House we have.  Ballot-harvesting is illegal in most of the country, based on just the sort of abuses that seem to have occurred in California.  But since Democrats benefit from it in California, they've encouraged and defended the practice.  They know what wins them their elections, so they're sticking to it.  The result is a one-party state despite sizable conservative banks of voters.  Just yesterday, Republican assemblyman Brian Maienschein changed parties, apparently not because he decided to go left-wing, but because he knows that the reality today is that anyone who wants to accomplish anything as a politician in the one-party state of California can do so only as a Democrat.  That's what's going on in California right now, and Democrats, as a first priority, would like to export that to other states.

If this isn't a threat to democracy, what is?  H.R. 1 and all its dirty political rigging should be punched back at and exposed for the fraud machinery it is, as hard as Republicans in the free election states can still do.

Update: Via Instapundit, Ellen Swensen of California's Electoral Integrity Project has a superb, detailed rundown warning about just how bad it is.

Image credit: Kurykh via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Having their priorities, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats are focused on what matters most to them: their own permanent rule.

Right out the gate, they've put out this House bill, vowing to Californify the nation's election laws.  Former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams, writing in the Washington Examiner, has a disturbing report:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made a gargantuan overhaul of election law, campaign finance, and ethics rules the top priority of House Democrats. Contrast this move with the Republicans in 2017 – the Democratic Party and its allies understand there is a difference between winning elections versus big idea debates.

H.R. 1, her proposal, is not likely to clear the Senate, but that's not the point.  It is a marketing document intended to broach the idea of federalizing some progressive state policies while trying to squeeze more conservative locales into adopting them as well.  Taken as a whole, the only saving grace to the bill is that it does not contain a prosecution shield for noncitizens who are automatically registered to vote – something California has done.

This bill also comes with the benefit of already exhibiting critical failures in the laboratories of bad ideas, like California and others.  But automatic voter registration and relaxed voter roll maintenance standards are not a threat to the proponents, if they know how to massage the chaos before a big election.

He warns that many of the provisions that have made California a one-party state are now being taken national.  There would be automatic voter registration any time someone applies for a driver's license, with few safeguards against non-citizens registering, and lots of potential for multiple registrations from single voters.  There also would be big roadblock thrown at any state that seeks to clean up its voter rolls from such double  and triple registration, which could occur if someone gives his full name on one form and maybe uses a middle initial on another.

Can ballot-harvesting, which California borrowed from Mexico's "perfect dictatorship" PRI rule, be far behind?

Adams argues that Democrats know that the measure is unlikely to pass, but they expect to use it as a public relations vehicle to whip up a "narrative" about expanding voter rights, and then pass each element piecemeal when they hope no one is noticing.

California, which is loaded with conservatives, today, is a one-party state with nearly zero representation on the right.  Motor voter registration, illegals voting and electioneering, uncleaned up voter rolls, and many of the "reforms" cited in H.R. 1 are the result of it.  Can nationally mandated ballot-harvesting be far behind?

Forty House seats were lost in the last midterm, with about 15 of them the result of ballot-harvesting in California, particularly in deep red Orange County.  Illegal aliens knocked on the doors of indifferent voters who weren't planning to vote and "helped" them fill out their ballots, and then took those ballots to the polls until the voting totals flipped to Democrats, which is why we have the House we have.  Ballot-harvesting is illegal in most of the country, based on just the sort of abuses that seem to have occurred in California.  But since Democrats benefit from it in California, they've encouraged and defended the practice.  They know what wins them their elections, so they're sticking to it.  The result is a one-party state despite sizable conservative banks of voters.  Just yesterday, Republican assemblyman Brian Maienschein changed parties, apparently not because he decided to go left-wing, but because he knows that the reality today is that anyone who wants to accomplish anything as a politician in the one-party state of California can do so only as a Democrat.  That's what's going on in California right now, and Democrats, as a first priority, would like to export that to other states.

If this isn't a threat to democracy, what is?  H.R. 1 and all its dirty political rigging should be punched back at and exposed for the fraud machinery it is, as hard as Republicans in the free election states can still do.

Update: Via Instapundit, Ellen Swensen of California's Electoral Integrity Project has a superb, detailed rundown warning about just how bad it is.

Image credit: Kurykh via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.