Federal judge rules against Maryland as Judicial W
Post# of 65629
(Total Views: 219)
Posted On: 08/16/2019 7:39:08 PM
Federal judge rules against Maryland as Judicial Watch wins big to uncover obvious vote fraud potential
By Thomas Lifson
Those Democrats who keep telling us that vote fraud is rare and insignificant fight like hell to make sure the evidence remains buried — even when there are obvious danger signs such as exists in Montgomery County, Maryland, where there are more registered voters than resident citizens.
You might think officials would be anxious to find out why that is and would be eager to clean up their voter rolls. Certainly, any officials that cared about the integrity of the vote would want to ensure that malefactors would not be able to pick up ballots and vote them (as the practice of "vote harvesting" permits). But for reasons only they can explain, Maryland officials fought in federal court to prevent Judicial Watch from obtaining voter data lists.
And they got skunked.
Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court has ordered the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County, the state's biggest county. The court ruling comes in the Judicial Watch lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). The decision follows NVRA-related Judicial Watch successes in California and Kentucky that could lead to removal of up to 1.85 million inactive voters from voter registration lists. The NVRA requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up its voting rolls and to make documents about its voter list maintenance practices available to anyone who asks.
Judicial Watch had sought the Maryland voter list data after discovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could register. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander rejected Maryland's objections to providing the voter list information under Section 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act:
If Judicial Watch had submitted requests for voter registration data, corresponding to the thousands of Montgomery County voters, the State would have been required to produce each record, pursuant to Section 8(i). Instead, Judicial Watch merely submitted a single request for a voter list containing and compiling the same information about the thousands of voters in Montgomery County. Although both scenarios seek the same information, defendants believe that the NVRA would require compliance with only one of them. Rejecting Judicial Watch's request based on semantics would be tantamount to requiring Judicial Watch to make thousands of separate requests. Neither the NVRA, the Court, nor common sense can abide such a purposeless obstruction.
****
Organizations such as Judicial Watch have the resources and expertise that few individuals can marshal. By excluding these organizations from access to voter registration lists, the State law undermines Section 8(i)'s efficacy. Accordingly, [Maryland election law] is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the NVRA's purposes. It follows that the State law is preempted in so far as it allows only Maryland registered voters to access voter registration lists.
The dispute over the voter registration list arose from an April 11, 2017, notice letter sent to Maryland election officials, in which Judicial Watch explained Montgomery County had an impossibly high registration rate. The letter threatened a lawsuit if the problems with Montgomery County's voter rolls were not fixed. The letter also requested access to Montgomery County voter registration lists in order to evaluate the efficacy of any "programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of Maryland's official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years."
Democrat Maryland officials, in response, attacked and smeared Judicial Watch by suggesting it was an agent of Russia.
No, Judicial Watch is not an agent of Russia. That is a despicable charge. I donate to J.W. as often as I can, and I urge those readers with the resources to do so to give them money.
By Thomas Lifson
Those Democrats who keep telling us that vote fraud is rare and insignificant fight like hell to make sure the evidence remains buried — even when there are obvious danger signs such as exists in Montgomery County, Maryland, where there are more registered voters than resident citizens.
You might think officials would be anxious to find out why that is and would be eager to clean up their voter rolls. Certainly, any officials that cared about the integrity of the vote would want to ensure that malefactors would not be able to pick up ballots and vote them (as the practice of "vote harvesting" permits). But for reasons only they can explain, Maryland officials fought in federal court to prevent Judicial Watch from obtaining voter data lists.
And they got skunked.
Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court has ordered the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County, the state's biggest county. The court ruling comes in the Judicial Watch lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). The decision follows NVRA-related Judicial Watch successes in California and Kentucky that could lead to removal of up to 1.85 million inactive voters from voter registration lists. The NVRA requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up its voting rolls and to make documents about its voter list maintenance practices available to anyone who asks.
Judicial Watch had sought the Maryland voter list data after discovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could register. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander rejected Maryland's objections to providing the voter list information under Section 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act:
If Judicial Watch had submitted requests for voter registration data, corresponding to the thousands of Montgomery County voters, the State would have been required to produce each record, pursuant to Section 8(i). Instead, Judicial Watch merely submitted a single request for a voter list containing and compiling the same information about the thousands of voters in Montgomery County. Although both scenarios seek the same information, defendants believe that the NVRA would require compliance with only one of them. Rejecting Judicial Watch's request based on semantics would be tantamount to requiring Judicial Watch to make thousands of separate requests. Neither the NVRA, the Court, nor common sense can abide such a purposeless obstruction.
****
Organizations such as Judicial Watch have the resources and expertise that few individuals can marshal. By excluding these organizations from access to voter registration lists, the State law undermines Section 8(i)'s efficacy. Accordingly, [Maryland election law] is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the NVRA's purposes. It follows that the State law is preempted in so far as it allows only Maryland registered voters to access voter registration lists.
The dispute over the voter registration list arose from an April 11, 2017, notice letter sent to Maryland election officials, in which Judicial Watch explained Montgomery County had an impossibly high registration rate. The letter threatened a lawsuit if the problems with Montgomery County's voter rolls were not fixed. The letter also requested access to Montgomery County voter registration lists in order to evaluate the efficacy of any "programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of Maryland's official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years."
Democrat Maryland officials, in response, attacked and smeared Judicial Watch by suggesting it was an agent of Russia.
No, Judicial Watch is not an agent of Russia. That is a despicable charge. I donate to J.W. as often as I can, and I urge those readers with the resources to do so to give them money.
(0)
(0)