Harley Rouda concedes to Michelle Steel in congressional race

In a major win for the GOP, U.S. Rep. Harley Rouda conceded to his Republican opponent, Michelle Steel, in the race for California’s 48th Congressional District, one of several hard-fought contests in areas that until recently were considered conservative strongholds.

The election win hands back to Republicans one of several seats lost in 2018 when Democrats made big gains in Orange County and other red-leaning areas.

Steel remained ahead of Rouda by 2%, or 7,000 votes, as of Tuesday.

Steel will now serve as one of the first Korean American women in U.S. Congress, alongside newly elected Democrat Marilyn Strickland of Washington, who is of Black and Korean American heritage. …

Click here to read the full article from the L.A. Times.

Newsom Moves 11 California Counties to More Restrictive COVID-19 Lockdown Tiers

On Tuesday, Health and Human Services (CHHS) Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly announced that 11 Californian counties would be moving into more restrictive tiers as the number of new cases and the positivity rates in those counties have gone significantly up since late October.

On Tuesday, the following county changes were made:

Yellow (Minimal) to Orange (Moderate):

  • Modoc County
  • Siskiyou County
  • Trinity County

Orange (Moderate) to Red (Substantial)

  • Amador County
  • Contra Costa County
  • El Dorado County
  • Placer County
  • Santa Cruz County

Red (Substantial) to Purple (Widespread)

  • Sacramento County
  • San Diego County
  • Stanislaus County

While all tier changes mean more restrictions and educed capacities at businesses, the red to purple tier change is due to hit the hardest due to the high population of both Sacramento and San Diego Counties, as wells as how far the new restrictions go, such as re-closing all indoor dining and forcing restaurants to only have outdoor dining and takeout options. …

Click here to read the full article from the California Globe.

Defunding the Police Experiment Begins in L.A.

Last week the Los Angeles Police Department laid out plans to deal with a smaller budget forced on the LAPD in part by a $150 million cut as a result of the police reform movement. The risks of changes in policing strategies will be measured against citizens’ safety. While it’s too early to judge the consequences, the concerns for safety are real. 

LAPD Chief Michael Moore announced cuts in air support, robbery homicide and gang and narcotics divisions. Additionally, desk hours at police stations would be reduced, manned only during weekday hours. The police will stop investigating automobile accidents with minor injuries involved and will require accident reports to be filed online. Perhaps, most significantly, the LAPD sworn officer core will be reduced from 10,110 to 9,752. Having 10,000 officers was a goal for the police and many past mayoral administrations.

The obvious question is will people feel safe? 

Already, in this period of pandemic that had raised tensions and thrown people out of work the homicide rate in Los Angeles has jumped up. With a 25% increase in homicides, the city is on track to record 300 homicide deaths for the first time in over ten years. 

Police officer representatives are painting a dire outcome for the cuts to public safety. Craig Lally, president of the Police Protective League, told the Los Angeles Times that the new proposals and cutbacks will be a “catastrophe for the safety” of citizens. 

The LAPD hopes to have certain services such as responding to traffic accidents or to minor incidents managed by other city departments. So far, however, that transfer of responsibility has been elusive. 

One positive section of the LAPD that was protected from budget cuts was the newly installed Community Safety Partnership program.  As I wrote about the program earlier this year, the Community Safety Partnership is designed to change the culture of policing, particularly in inner cities, so as to cultivate contact between police and residents so that the community members would be more inclined to talk to the police to help solve crimes. 

 A report from UCLA showed good progress with the program and undercutting it at this stage would be a big mistake.

As to the cuts made to the police, we will have to wait for results and consequences. Experts say that the indications will come within communities of color which would be disproportionately affected by an upsurge in crime. Ironically, polls have indicated that members of these communities do not want to see a reduction of police in their neighborhoods. 

How do citizens see all this change in policing policies coming down? The dramatic increase in gun sales for self-protection is one indicator that can’t be ignored.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily.

Democrats Are Trying to Steal Another Election — Here’s How

When something important to you is stolen from you, it is natural to call attention to it and try to recover what was rightly yours. How could anyone say it was wrong for you to do so?

Yet, despite abundant evidence of fraud in this election, the media and a handful of wimpy Republicans are throwing shade on President Trump for saying the Democrats are trying to steal the election. Fortunately, CNN and the chattering classes don’t get to decide who wins the election. In the coming weeks secretaries of state must certify the actual votes in their states, and courts will consider any evidence of cheating. The fat lady isn’t close to singing her final aria.

I speak with experience of having elections stolen from the GOP. Over the last 40 years the Dems have stolen multiple seats from the GOP. I witnessed one those thefts firsthand in 1980. I was a Republican Assemblyman in California. The GOP worked hard to increase our numbers so that we could prevent Willie Brown, Jerry Brown, Maxine Waters and their squad of Leftists from wreaking havoc on the Golden State.

In the ’80 election we added two new Republicans, bringing us to 32 out of the 80 members. We were on a roll. But a funny thing happened on our road to building a majority. The Democrats stole one of the seats we had rightly won.

In Stockton, the Republican candidate had won by 21 votes. That was close, but nevertheless it was a win. In fact, it was so clear that our candidate had won that he was sworn into the Assembly with all the other members just a month after the election.

But chicanery was afoot. The night of the election, after the votes were all counted, the Registrar placed the ballots in a storeroom. There was only one door to the storeroom, and a seal was affixed to that door.

The next morning when the staff arrived, they found the seal broken, and a new tray of absentee votes had been placed inside. There was no explanation of where the tray came from, nor who had broken the seal and placed them in the closet.

However, the Dems brought in an extremely aggressive lawyer from back east to engineer their theft of that Assembly seat that we had won outright. When the Registrar had completed counting the ballots on election night, the GOP candidate had received 2/3 of the absentee votes. However, in what can only be described as a modern-day miracle, 2/3 of the “immaculately conceived” absentee ballots were marked for the Democrat candidate – exactly the opposite of all the other absentee ballots. To no one’s surprise that was just enough to erase the GOP win of 21 votes and hand the seat to the Dem by 35 votes. We wuz robbed!

I was incensed by their trickery and I vowed that I wouldn’t let the Dems steal another seat. I had my staff track down the “junkyard dog” lawyer who stole what we had rightly won. I immediately put him on retainer so that Willie Brown would not have the lawyer’s help in stealing another seat from us in 1982.

When we contacted the lawyer he chuckled and said, “I wondered when you would get around to calling me. I have stolen seven seats from you across the country.” That’s right. He was that open about his skullduggery.

He met with us to teach us his modus operandi for stealing elections. Here are their tactics:

  • Assemble a team of hard-core attorneys (usually union-affiliated) who are willing to get in the face of the county clerk staff and our volunteer lawyers.
  • Identify the spot on the ballot where the office they are trying to steal is located. Then, they ignore the rest of the ballot, focusing entirely on the target race.
  • When we challenge a ballot that is marked for their candidate, they fight tooth and nail to get it counted. Over time, the clerks and our volunteers are worn down by these tactics and are reluctant to bring on the wrath of the junkyard dog labor lawyers.
  • If the ballot is marked for our candidate, the thug-lawyers unleash their frothing-at-the-mouth tactic to disqualify that ballot and raise a fuss until they overwhelm our objections. If the clerks agree that the vote should be counted, the Dem lawyers heap abuse on them. After a couple hours of these attacks the clerks realize it is easier to give in to them than to incur their hateful abuse, and the clerks relent.
  • They surreptitiously wedge pencil lead under their fingernails and make stray marks on ballots cast for our candidate. They then point out that the ballot has stray marks, which automatically invalidates them.
  • During breaks, the shameless Dem lawyers sidle up to clerks whose seem to be “pre-disposed” to the Dems. They flatter these clerks and pump them for information that will be helpful as the count goes on. From then on, the clerks the lawyers had cozied up to are more likely to side with the Dems in any disputes.
  • The most emphatic point the lawyer made was: once their candidate is in the lead, even if by one vote, stop counting right then, and fight like hell to end the count. He said that continuing the count only risks adding more votes for our candidate.

Which brings me to the current irregularities in counting the votes for President. Of course, we want every legally cast vote to be counted. On the other hand, we don’t want “votes” of dead people to be counted. Neither should we count votes of non-citizens, multiple ballots from the same voter, nor those that appeared out of nowhere with no provenance.

However, to be able to stop these illegally cast ballots from being counted, observers (guaranteed access by federal law) must be able to see the ballots being counted. It difficult to observe counting of ballots from a distance of 100 feet. Yet, that is exactly how Dem election officials have kept GOP observers far away from the counting tables. The Dem spokesmen are barely able to keep a straight face as they argue that GOP observers actually have access even though they cannot see the ballots that are being counted.

It is interesting to note that the Dems are no longer calling for “counting every vote.” Now that they “discovered” enough votes which were counted out of sight of our observers, they halted the counting. They now claim victory, just as they did in the Assembly race in Stockton in 1980.

It should be noted that the secretaries of state in every one of the contested states received huge contributions from George Soros, as did the Registrar in Maricopa County, AZ.

These far-left secretaries of state are presiding over the counting of ballots in Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. What a coincidence. These are precisely the states where the counting inexplicably stopped on Thursday night. The next morning a huge increase of Biden votes appeared, with almost none for Trump.

The media and RINO’s tell us “Nothing to see here, folks. Just move right along.” Do they think we are stupid? These tactics are outrageous. Remember the tray of “new” absentee votes in Stockton in 1980. They are at it again.

Every concerned American should be angry at this clear corruption of the election process. As the Communist dictator Joseph Stalin observed, “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” And George Soros hand-picked those who counted the votes in key states this year.

We must insist that “Thou Shalt Not Steal” be the byword in reviewing the irregularities in the contested states. It is not wrong to take back what was rightly yours. Saying “Stop, thief” is totally appropriate. And acting to regain what was stolen is virtuous, particularly when it is as sacred as our vote.

Pat Nolan is the Founder of the ACU Foundation’s Nolan Center for Justice, and was formerly the Republican Leader of the California State Assembly.

Prop. 13 Is Still Third Rail Of California Politics

2020 was supposed to be the year – the year when Proposition 13’s enemies finally inflicted a near fatal wound on the iconic property tax reduction initiative adopted by voters more than 40 years ago. As of this writing it appears that they have come up short.

Since 1978, tax-and-spend interests – mostly public sector labor organizations – have chafed under Prop. 13’s one percent limit on the property tax rate and the two percent limit on annual increases in assessed valuation. But even the most recent Public Policy Institute of California poll revealed that at least 60 percent  of Californians viewed Prop. 13 as “mostly a good thing.” That level of support for Prop. 13 is remarkable given California’s increasing embrace of other progressive policies.  This is now a deep blue state with Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the legislature and conservative statewide office holders are nowhere to be found. To say this is no longer the California of Ronald Reagan is an understatement.

Knowing that Prop. 13 retained high levels of support, especially among homeowners fearful of being taxed out of their homes, progressives thought they could repeal Prop. 13 incrementally. So it made sense that they would first target those evil corporations like Chevron and Disney. (Who knew Mickey Mouse was so dangerous?)

But targeting what they believed were unpopular businesses was just one of their perceived paths to victory. They also projected that the 2020 general election would have much higher turnout than other elections because of the divisive presidential contest. Add to that a virtually endless supply of campaign cash and a complicit Attorney General who gave them a highly favorable ballot label that didn’t mention “tax increase,” and they assumed that the first step in taking down Prop. 13 was in the bag.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the polls. First, homeowners were rightfully concerned that a $12 billion property tax increase on businesses would translate into a higher cost of living. Moreover, homeowners were on to progressives’ long-term agenda of coming after them next. They took to heart Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that “we either hang together or hang separately” and so stood shoulder to shoulder with the business community against this assault.

To read the entire column, please click here.

Coronavirus continues to spread in Los Angeles County at summer levels

Coronavirus infections continued to rise in Los Angeles County on Sunday at levels seen during the summer surge, and public health officials warned that the street celebrations that greeted the election news over the weekend could easily increase the spread.

Officials on Sunday announced more than 2,200 new COVID-19 cases, marking the fourth consecutive day with more than 2,000 confirmed infections. Officials also confirmed two more deaths from the disease, a number that was probably lowered by weekend reporting delays.

There were 23 deaths reported on Friday and 15 on Saturday; Sunday’s numbers bring the total to 7,172 COVID-19 deaths to date, according to a news release from the county Department of Public Health. Across L.A. County, 322,207 COVID-19 cases overall have been recorded. …

Click here to read the full article from the L.A. Times.

Californians Vote to Keep Uber

On Tuesday, 58 percent of Californian voters approved Proposition 22, which lets ride-hailing and food-delivery companies classify their drivers as independent contractors. The ballot initiative was a response to last year’s Assembly Bill 5, which turned most of California’s contract workers into employees and thus eligible for more benefits and protections.

For companies like Uber, the stakes were high. Uber had threatened to stop operating in California if AB5 was allowed to stand, and the tech companies spent $200 million on the campaign, making it the most expensive ballot question in California history. AB5 would have destroyed the business model of ridesharing companies, which depend on a cheap, flexible labor force.

Californians made the right decision. AB5 was an attempt to force a return to an outdated labor model, in which stability and benefits are offered in exchange for regular work hours and loyalty to a single employer. That model doesn’t fit reality anymore. With Covid-19 keeping many children out of school, workers need flexibility more than ever. Even before the pandemic, the economy was shifting toward more adaptable arrangements with multiple employers rather than traditional, long-term employment relationships. Many so-called gig workers do their jobs as a supplement to their regular employment and thus rely on companies in need of part-time contract work.

Turning ride-hailing and food-delivery drivers into employees was also unwise because it would have raised the cost of employment in California—a bad move for a state with an 11 percent unemployment rate. Contingent work keeps people in the labor force, preventing skill erosion and long-term unemployment.

AB5 was ill-considered, but there may still be a way to preserve flexibility while giving contract workers added benefits and protections. Prop. 22 is a good start, mandating health-care subsidies for drivers who meet certain thresholds for hours worked per week. Other options could include sick leave and unemployment protections.

Prop. 22, however, applies only to contractors for ridesharing companies; other workers who fall under AB5, including freelance writers and musicians, are not so lucky. They don’t have large, wealthy firms on their side fighting for an exemption.

Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.

This article was originally published by City Journal Online.

California and Its Contradictions

California remains deep blue, but the good news from this week’s elections is that it has not yet achieved complete ballot-box unanimity. California voters appear to have turned two or three house seats red, and statewide voters rejected some of the most extreme progressive proposals governing contract workers, affirmative action, expansion of rent control, and raising property taxes on commercial properties.

Overall, to be sure, California voters reaffirmed one-party rule, giving Joe Biden a two-to-one victory and maintaining the Democratic veto-proof majority in both legislative houses. The dominant urban centers, San Francisco and Los Angeles, went ever further into left field, approving radical measures such as increasing wealth taxes and using public funds to fight racism. They also overwhelmingly backed measures to raise commercial property taxes, expand rent control, and reimpose affirmative action, though these efforts failed miserably elsewhere in the state. San Francisco, where Biden won 85 percent of the vote, also voted for a new tax on companies where CEOs make too much compared with employees, and a measure to allow noncitizens to serve on public boards.

The good news for Californians is that the rest of the state is not quite ready for socialist rule by the public unions and their allies. “It’s not so much light pouring through the window, as a small crack opening,” suggests Joel Fox, editor of the widely read California political website Fox and Hounds Daily. The opportunity for centrists and conservatives lies in what a Marxist might describe as “heightening the contradictions” within the blue alliance. Consider the battle over Proposition 22, funded by Uber and Lyft, to overturn the state’s onerous AB5 law, which sought to force employers to treat contract drivers as full-time employees. This mandate, as the tech firms understood, would destroy their business model and their fortunes. Tech elites, who also worked tirelessly to defeat Donald Trump, spent an estimated $200 million to push the measure against labor opposition, and they seem to have won the day,

The conflict between the tech elites and labor, though, is not restricted to ride-sharing firms. Taxes remain a major battlefield. With the apparent defeat of Proposition 15, legislators seem likely to consider new statewide measures to raise income-tax rates to as high as 16 percent. This cannot be good news to the tech industry; not only its fabulously rich owners but also many of their well-paid top employees would be affected.

The state’s business regulations threaten even the most heralded, emblematic California companies. Disney executive chairman Robert Iger has fought with the state’s progressives, who generally favor extreme lockdowns, to keep his businesses open. Disneyland remains closed, resulting in 28,000 layoffs, even as the company’s parks in Florida and abroad are operating. The state’s inflexibility led Iger to resign from Governor Newsom’s coronavirus recovery taskforce.

Tesla’s Elon Musk has also dissented, having battled with Alameda County officials about the opening of his plant. More importantly, he seems to be shifting his investment focus, and perhaps even his headquarters, from California. He has already announced big expansion plans for both Tesla and Space X in Texas.

The contradictions between tech and entertainment oligarchs and the hard Left are likely to intensify in the years ahead. The state has neglected the basics of business competitiveness, particularly in creating the mid-skilled jobs crucial to a healthy economy. University of California at Irvine’s Ken Murphy estimates that, outside the Bay Area, 85 percent of all new jobs have paid below the area median income of $66,000; 40 percent pay under $40,000 a year. Once a beacon of opportunity, the Golden State suffers the nation’s highest cost-adjusted poverty rate.

Governor Newsom’s high-profile preening about lockdowns has made things worse, particularly for tourism and hospitality. In September, California’s unemployment rate stood at 11 percent, well above the national average of 7.9 percent and better than only four other states in the nation. Since the March lockdown, California, with 12 percent of the nation’s population, accounts for 16.4 percent of its unemployment.

Of the 55 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., some of the worst job losses from February to August have occurred in the Bay Area and Los Angeles-Long Beach. Things are particularly grim for the L.A. area, with its huge exposure to losses in hospitality and other low-end service fields. Overall, Los Angeles has lost 11 percent of its jobs, Murphy notes, significantly higher than the 8 percent drop nationally.

At the same time, one sees clear signs that tech growth will be limited, as more companies expand outside the state and some, like Palantir, the data-mining software company, relocate, in its case to Denver. Some 40 percent of Bay Area tech workers say that they would like to move to a less expensive region, which suggests locations outside of California. In a recent survey, three-quarters of high-tech venture funders and founders predicted the same for their workforces.

For many Democrats, the loss of jobs demands not a change in state policies that chase away jobs but further expansion of government, including the creation of a basic income for its vast numbers of underemployed and underemployed. This is particularly critical for the Latino working class that—in sharp contrast with Latinos in Texas—has remained attached to Democrats, giving Trump barely half the percentage he won in the Lone Star State. Rather than push for economic growth, young Latinos, such as millennials elected this week to the city council in predominantly Hispanic Santa Ana, follow a progressive script about racial justice, public spending, and rent control.

Given the lack of upward mobility in California, such positions are not surprising. A population with little hope of starting a business, owning a home, or making a decent income naturally looks to government as its provider. Add to this the state’s extreme climate policies, which disproportionately affect industries that employ blue-collar workers, and it’s a perfect storm for continued progressive agitation.

If California remains intellectually dominated by a leftist media and academic elite promoting class warfare, it will be hard to create a more diverse, less dependent political culture. Instead, we will see the continued flight of middle- and working-class families out of state. They leave behind both an expanding underclass—a recent UCLA report found that there were enough homeless students of grade-school age to fill five Dodger Stadiums—and older, wealthier residents who came to California when the going was good.

Some conservatives rightly hail the rejection of the affirmative action referendum and of AB5 as landmark victories that show a potential pushback to the state’s relentless progressivism. “Californians are conservatives who think they’re Democrats,” suggests the right-of-center California Policy Center. This hopeful sentiment has some basis, but for now, it’s not likely that the state will abandon the high-tax and heavy-regulation policies that impoverish its population. For example, radical new proposals for slavery reparations—though California was admitted to the Union as a free state—are likely to emerge soon. Worse yet, California’s political reach seems to be expanding, despite its manifest failures, creating its own system of ideological satellites. Arizona, for example, has raised its state income taxes to among the nation’s highest, and states like Colorado and Nevada have shifted steadily leftward.

Ultimately, the battle to change policy direction—for the West generally, and maybe in the country as a whole—has to be won in California. This can only be accomplished by convincing young people and minorities that their future aspirations make them allies to the shrinking white middle-class population. Until ethnic minorities, including Asians—the state’s most rapidly growing and economically vigorous minority, which widely opposed the affirmative action proposition—absorb the pro-business and pro-growth ethic that built Californian prosperity, the state will at best continue its sideways drift into malaise.

Similarly, the attempt to drive Uber and Lyft out of business seems likely to alienate at least some of tech honchos and their employees. In an era where tech jobs are more mobile, and other regions are making appeals both to younger workers and high-paid executives, the state faces a severe economic reckoning. But given the progressive proclivities of the tech sector, any shift to a pragmatic center might be gradual, at best.

More critical to change may be an incipient rebellion against progressive policies by working-class voters. Some pushback is evident even from the unions and union-friendly politicians, as well as leading civil rights groups, representing working-class districts. Early opposition to Newsom’s proclamation banning gas-powered cars has come from the likes of Democrat Jim Cooper, who represents a largely working-class district south of Sacramento. Copper recently noted that the greens, “from their leaders to their funders, are nearly all white,” and their policies tend to seek “environmental justice” in forms that create a “burden to lower-income, working-class Californians.”

Even some of the Democrat-aligned private-sector labor unions have become more hostile to Newsom’s “visionary” actions. The oil and gas industry employs 152,000 people in California, and these workers, two-thirds without college degrees, make $80,500 a year on average—far more than the average for “green” jobs. “Can we immediately start talking about jobs? We can hate on oil, but the truth is our refinery jobs are really good middle-class jobs,” tweeted labor heroine Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, author of AB 5. “Jobs can’t be an afterthought to any climate change legislation.”

These divisions and contradictions suggest the path exists for a true restoration of California as a beacon of entrepreneurship and opportunity. Election Day brought some promising results, but a state that retains a veto-proof legislature, a lockstep progressive governor preparing for a future trip to the White House, powerful public unions, and a debilitated political opposition still faces a long road back to sanity—and prosperity.

Joel Kotkin, a City Journal contributing editor, is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute. His latest book is The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle ClassFollow him on Twitter @joelkotkin.

This article was originally published by City Journal Online.

California’s Election ‘Anomalies’ Are Not New, Nor Have They Been Fixed

In 2016 the California Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown ostensibly “legalized” ballot harvesting, allowing a third party to collect ballots and deliver them to election officials, eliminating the ballot protection law that allowed only a family member to return another voter’s ballot.

As I write this, I am receiving many reports from California voters who say their votes have not been counted. Candidates report their districts are only reporting at 59% and worse.

While the Secretary of State says he has until December 11 to announce California’s election outcomes, how did we get here?

In January of 2017 right before Donald Trump was inaugurated, he announced an investigation into election and voter fraud. “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!” Trump tweeted.

This was music to the ears of many California voters—especially those whose party registrations were changed right before the June 2016 Primary election, ensuring a Hillary Clinton win over challenger Bernie Sanders, in what was called electronic vote rigging. California was a crucial state for both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, but the election was called for Clinton minutes after the polls closed, but before millions of provisional ballot votes were counted.

A 2017 study by Stanford University proved that Hillary Clinton‘s campaign pre-rigged the system to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. And it was never more apparent than in California where Bernie Sanders voters were likely robbed of a legitimate candidate.

Despite the left and some on the right insisting there is no election or voter fraud to speak of in the United States, there was plenty of evidence in 2016-17 in California, and there still is, as we are witnessing in numerous states. Electronic vote rigging indicates a massive fraud being perpetrated on voters.

In 2017, Election Integrity Project founder Linda Paine notified the California Secretary of State through her attorney, that they were teaching the wrong law to county registrars. That law, SB 450, would have allowed voters to vote in person at “vote centers” located at public spots throughout their county for the 10 days prior to an election, including two weekends, and voters would receive a vote by mail ballot that could be returned by mail, or dropped off at any vote center. This essentially legalized ballot harvesting and authorized counties to remove from voters the right to vote in person.

However, SB 450 was not supposed to go into effect until January 1, 2018. Of course Alex Padilla, the Secretary of State knew this, but was training county registrars on it anyway as if it was being implemented.

And when notified by EIP’s attorney, Padilla’s office blacklisted and shut out the Election Integrity Project entirely, as did every County Registrar EIP had been working with, according to Linda Paine.

In 2014, then-California State Senator Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, was elected Secretary of State. But his race caught the attention of the Election Integrity Project when not one of the 4,681 Los Angles County polling stations had the vote-by-mail indicators on the check-in rosters on Election Day.  Linda Paine said volunteers described chaos at the polls as Inspectors and Coordinators realized there was no way to crosscheck who had already voted.

Election inspectors reported they received a list of 700 names of vote-by-mail voters they were to manually enter onto the check-in roster on Election Day morning.  “It is difficult to understand just how this could have happened,” Linda Paine said. “All responsible businesses have procedures in place to ensure quality control so that materials printed on behalf of their company or organization are accurate.”

Election Integrity Project volunteers reported that some Inspectors gave up the effort to determine who voted by mail before Election Day and simply gave every voter a regular ballot. Reports also indicated that without time for the Inspectors to ensure the vote-by-mail indicator was in fact placed next to the correct voter, mistakes were made and voters who were regular voters were forced to vote provisionally.

“Provisional ballots are simply regular ballots that are placed in a special Provisional envelope that must be processed after Election Day,” Paine explained. “The processing of Provisional ballots often takes up to 30 days after Election Day. Voters who want their vote to count on Election Day will be disappointed if they vote provisionally. All Vote-by-Mail and Regular ballots are counted before their ballots are counted.”

Los Angeles County Anomalies

Paine said Alex Padilla’s challenger for Secretary of State, Pete Peterson, a Republican, lost by about 400,000 votes in 2014, of which approximately 350,000 came just from Los Angeles County.

The Election Integrity Project had documented more than 60,000 anomalies and irregularities on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County in 2013. Because the county did not respond to the report, it can be assumed that nothing was done about it, Paine said.

By 2014 the Election Integrity Project provided additional reports to the LA County Registrar. Countless citizens and citizen groups also contacted their representatives on the Board of Supervisors about voting irregularities. The Board authorized an internal audit, prior to the November 2014 election. The audit was ironically underway during the November election when the vote-by-mail data failed to make it to the polling locations.

Linda Paine was contacted by a whistle blower who told her someone in authority must have discovered that the vote-by-mail indicators were missing, but did nothing about it. There are too many checks and balances in place for it to be missed.

Following the 2014 election, armed with five years of data of voting irregularities and anomalies (2011–2015), the California Committee for the US Civil Rights Commission reviewed the Election Integrity Project’s research and determined that a public hearing was warranted. On August 28, 2015 California citizens from across the state testified of their eyewitness accounts of “how chaos and corruption was destroying the integrity of California’s election process,” Paine said. But that information went nowhere.

I see dead people

Hundreds of “dead voters” were uncovered in Southern California right before the June 2016 Primary, the majority of them in Los Angeles County. Some of these deceased voters have even been voting for years, the Los Angeles Times reported.

California Globe recently reported over 458,000 California registrants who have likely died or moved would be be mailed ballots this year.

Fraudulent dead voters are concerning, but election and voter fraud at the ballot box is an even bigger problem in close races.

Paine and EIP have been calling on Congress to investigate since no state officials in the California Democrat echo chamber would. “Now they are listening,” Paine said after Trump’s 2017 announcement opening an investigation into election fraud.

But where did that investigation go? In 2018, President Trump dismantled his voter fraud commission, Fox News reported. On social media, Trump accused “Democrat States” of refusing to turn over information requested by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity – tasked with investigating alleged voter fraud in the 2016 election – because “they know that many people are voting illegally.”

“System is rigged,” Trump said, calling for more stringent voter ID laws.

If the voter rolls throughout the country were purged of dead voters, and voter I.D. laws were passed, the Democrats would lose millions of their voters.

Secretary Padilla told POLITICO criticism from Republicans appears “an attempt to smear the pro-voter policies that we have” in California, including newer efforts that he said were designed to “empower voters to decide for themselves who they feel most comfortable with” in returning their ballot — especially if they are older or handicapped and need assistance in doing so.

“What they call strange and bizarre,” he said, “we call democracy.’’

This article was originally published by the California Globe.

Pennsylvania Democrats Accused of Violating Election Rules

Pennsylvania’s Democratic election leaders violated state code on Monday when they authorized county election officials to provide information about rejected mail ballots to political party operatives, according to a Republican lawsuit filed in state court and obtained by National Review.

The lawsuit cites an email sent to county election directors at 8:38 p.m. on Monday by Jonathan Marks, Pennsylvania’s deputy elections secretary.

In the email, Marks wrote that “county boards of elections should provide information to party and candidate representatives during the pre-canvass that identifies the voters whose ballots have been rejected” so they could be offered a provisional ballot.

Democrats have been winning mail-in voting handily in Pennsylvania and mail votes are key to Joe Biden’s chances of overtaking President Donald Trump’s dwindling lead in the state. …

Click here to read the full article from the National Review.