The collision of two Federal Laws, 1993 Motor Voter and 18USC611 Must be a U.S. Citizen to Vote
The collision of two Federal Laws, 1993 Motor Voter and 18USC611 Must be a U.S. Citizen to Vote
The Virginia Election Case is in front of Supreme Court right now
The Federal Government has failed to resolve the obvious conflict between two key Federal Election Laws. 1993 Motor Voter requires the option for Citizens to register to vote when they apply for a Driver’s License. It gives a 90 day window in advance of an election where names can’t be remove from the Election Rolls.
There’s also the one Federal Election Law (there aren’t that many) that is rarely mentioned, even by the self-appointed Election Integrity experts. It’s 18USC611 Voting by Aliens, which unequivocally says one must be a lawful U.S. Citizen to vote.
Governor Youngkin of Virginia has stepped in where the Federal Government has failed to act - and he gets sued by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The DOJ has never really enforced 18USC611. Why - because of the hazy and unclear vetting that goes on with 1993 Motor Voter registrants to vote. The rigor of the vetting process to ascertain whether the registrant is a lawful U.S. Citizen is mostly vaporware. A huge opportunity to get illegals on the voting rolls.
Now the showdown has been set. My view is that 18USC611 “Trumps” 1993 Motor Voter.
Attached is the Amicus filing of the National Election Integrity Association to support Governor Youngkin and all Americans to help ensure only lawful U.S. Citizens vote (yes, I am the Director of the NEIA and Patriot Ivan Raiklin is the key enabler in the team as well as a number of others fighting for Constitutional America - thank you).
© 2024 UAEC LLC All viewpoints are personal and do not reflect the viewpoints of any organization.
That's the logic stream they've been successful in evading - hopefully this comes to a head with SCOTUS and things are resolved in the correct direction.
This is amazing.
Of course if something is illegal, it should have no place at the first place.
So if the other law says “you cannot change it even if it is illegal”, that seems to be an indefensible position.