It’s no secret that politicians are constantly looking to give themselves an electoral advantage, but never before has a political party moved so openly to change any and every rule they can for purely partisan gain.
Over the past few months, Democrats have moved from talking about gaming the electoral system to taking concrete steps to permanently alter the fabric of both elections and the structure of the federal government in an effort to make it easier for them to win.
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, which is nothing more than a Democrat power grab under the guise of protecting voting rights.In truth, it tramples on state rights to administer their own elections.
The measure dramatically expands early voting, which invariably benefits Democrats, and effectively prohibits states from deciding on their own just how many days of early voting they can hold.
It also forces states to let people register to vote online and even requires state officials to register people who don’t register themselves. Now why would a state elections official register someone who has chosen not to register? That wouldn’t have anything to do with using the identity of someone known to be a non-voter, would it?
Democrats, it seems, are trying to create new Democratic voters wherever they can. Freshman Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley introduced an amendment to H.R. 1 that would actually lower the voting age to 16.Why? As she admitted, so that young radicals could elect Democrats to enact a left-wing agenda.
“They are organizing and mobilizing and calling us to action, making plain the high stakes the next generation faces, from gun violence to climate change to the future of work to the solvency of social security,” she said.
The amendment failed to pass, but it shows the lengths to which Democrats like Pressley will go to give their party an electoral advantage—such as creating new states.
H.R. 1 endorses statehood for the District of Columbia, which would give one of the most Democratic cities in the country two Senators and a voting member of Congress (rather than the current non-voting delegate).
D.C. statehood has been a long term push for Democrats, who readily admit that having two extra Senators in a state that voted 90% Democrat in the 2016 presidential election would enormously benefit them.
And that isn’t the only way Democrats want to get more Democratic Senators. Although the Constitution provides that “the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,” there is a push to change this.
Supporters of a move to apportion Senators by a state’s population (as House seats are apportioned) argue that it’s unfair that California, the nation’s most populous state, has the same number of Senators as smaller states like Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming. It is of course not lost on them that the states that would get more Senators are some of the bluest in the nation (California, New York, and Illinois) while others can be made blue through illegal immigration (Texas and Floria).
And not only are Democrats actively encouraging illegal immigration through benefits for illegals like driver’s licenses (which can easily be used to vote if a poll worker either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care about the “not to be used for voting” language on it) and in-state college tuition, they are also pushing to allow illegal immigrants to vote.
Last summer, San Francisco became the first major city to allow illegal immigrants to vote in school board elections under the theory that even though they are in this country illegally, they too use public schools and should have a voice in how they’re run.
Following that belief to its logical conclusion, illegals should take part in all elections since the decisions all elected officials make affect them.
Federal law currently prohibits non-citizens from voting in Congressional and presidential elections, but is it really a stretch to think that Democrats don’t want to change that?
They’re already pushing to let non-citizens—both legal and illegal—vote in municipal and state elections.In a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times entitled “Let Non-Citizens Vote. What’s the Worst that Could Happen?” author Gustavo Arellano argues:
It’s a steep task that will require changing California’s Constitution. But the achievement would ensure that at a time when the state is more inequitable than ever, everyone has a voice.
Noncitizens, legal and not, are ready. Many have been residents for decades; the younger ones learned the principles of American democracy in our school systems, and some use that knowledge to volunteer for candidates and causes. Their economic power and concern for our collective future is qualification enough to earn a place in the voting booth.
How is it just that an adult who’s lived in El Monte for more than two decades has less of a say in California politics than a native New Yorker who’s lived in Highland Park for less than a year only because the latter is a citizen and the former isn’t?
California already grants driver’s licenses for undocumented folks and is a sanctuary state. Why not take the next logical step?
Given that more than 70% of non-citizens in the United States favor Democrats, it’s perfectly logical that Democrats would want them voting, but wouldn’t this push run afoul of the Constitution?Couldn’t the Supreme Court stop this?
Not when Democrats are done with it.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder has become the latest Democrat to support a plan to add seats to the Supreme Court so that the current one-seat conservative majority would disappear.
Liberal activists have taken up this cause, too, pushing 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to pledge court-packing to take over the Court for generations by simply changing the rules.
One of those candidates, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttgieg is already onboard and admitted last week that a major part of his support for court-packing is to get a Supreme Court that is “more in line with [his] values.”
“The Supreme Court, to me, it’s not so much a question of, you know, have we figured out today in 2019 the exact right model, but I think the debate must begin,” he said. “And it’s not a debate over how to make the Court more progressive. Obviously, I would like to see a court that is in line with my values, so would everybody else. The question to me is how do we arrest the decline in the perception of the Court toward being viewed as a nakedly political institution? And I think that we need to entertain structural reforms — by the way, many of which would not require constitutional change, only statute.”
This is true, but Democrats would, of course, have to win the presidency first.Not to fear, though: that will be a lot easier under a growing movement by Democrat-run states to circumvent the Electoral College.
Since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million but lost the 2016 election, Democrats have groused that the Electoral College needs to be abolished so that the more populous cities that they control will be able to swing elections.
This, too, would require a Constitutional amendment that would be unlikely to pass, so blue states are simply changing the way they hand out their electoral college votes.
Colorado is almost certain to join the National Popular Vote movement, in which 11 states (all run by Democrats) and the District of Columbia (also run by Democrats) have agreed to sidestep the Electoral College by giving their electoral votes to the winner of the national election, not the winner of the state itself.
Say, for example, that the Republican candidate wins more votes than the Democrat in Colorado but loses the national popular vote.Colorado would give its electoral votes to the Democrat.
None of the states will do this until enough states have joined to comprise 270 electoral votes (enough to decide the winner of the presidency), but assuming Colorado joins, they would be two-thirds of the way there with 181 electoral votes from Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and D.C.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez openly admits that this effort is entirely aimed at giving Democrats an advantage.
“When you lose elections, you lose control of the ability to help people,” he said in December. “We have won the popular vote in six out of the last seven elections and we have been awarded the White House in four of the last seven elections. Four out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court now were appointed by presidents who didn’t win the popular vote, or at least in the case of Bush, he won it the second time around, but he didn’t win it the first time around.
“And so, as we have this conversation, we need to make sure we’re also talking to our colleagues and friends in the progressive movement, we’re talking about things like the national popular vote. I’m proud of the fact that Maryland was the first state to enter the compact. 172 electoral votes are in place for the national popular vote compact. I wish I could say that we’re not going to have another election where a person loses the popular vote but wins the White House. I’m not sure I can say that.”
From the Electoral College to the Supreme Court to the apportionment of Senators to even the number of states in this country, Democrats are brazen in their efforts to fundamentally change society itself and equally brazen in their openness about the partisan motives behind it.
They don’t want change for the sake of the country. They don't want change simply for the sake of change. They want change for the sake of themselves; for the sake of consolidating their power.
It's about time they're called out for what amounts to nothing more than a brazen, shameless power grab.