Feds: Illegals Can Vote If They Are Willing To Lie

The Election Assistance Commission has voted against state requirements for proof of citizenship as a part of the voter registration process on Tuesday.

The result of this will be that illegal aliens will be able to vote wherever they choose.

The Election Assistance Commission was created in 2002 to create a uniform registration form. Known as the “Federal Form”, it was supposedly created as a means to standardize the registration process across state lines. Now, the agency is being used to make it easy for illegal aliens to vote.

Yet another method of dismantling this country: kill the borders.

States rights were dealt another serious blow on Tuesday when a bureaucratic agency, The Election Assistance Commission, voted against state requirements for proof of citizenship as a component of their voter registration process.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as “Motor Voter” created a standardized national system for voter registration. Under that Act there are three methods for registration in federal elections which must be the same nationwide. They are either in person, in conjunction with obtaining a driver’s license, or by mail.

In 2002, The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was created for the purpose of producing regulations and specifying a uniform registration form. That form, known as the “Federal Form” was supposedly created as a means to standardize the registration process across state lines.

The NVRA required that the EAC design the Federal Form “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.” Those chief state election officers are each state’s secretary of state. In consultation does not necessarily mandate that the wishes of the states be honored, only that they be consulted.

The resulting form must be used; there is no other means by which to become registered.

Two states which required verification by the registrant of their United States citizenship as part of that process, Arizona and Kansas, were just denied the ability to do so by the EAC. While the registrants must swear that they are legally permitted to vote, the rules oddly don’t permit a state to require proof.

The ruling applies to Federal Elections only. State election requirements are still supposedly up to the individual state’s discretion.

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution provided the foundation which was used to enact the NVRA. It reads:


In June of 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona vs. Inter Tribal Council that federal law does not grant states the option of requiring voters to prove they are American citizens when registering to vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the 7-2 majority opined, “To be eligible to vote under Arizona law, a person must be a citizen of the United States. This case concerns Arizona’s efforts to enforce that qualification.” Scalia then referenced Arizona’s passage of Proposition 200, which requires voters to “present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on Election Day.”

Prop 200 mandates that election officials “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Acceptable forms of proof are a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or other documents accepted under federal law. Scalia noted that the Federal Form requires you to certify under penalty of perjury that you are a citizen, but need not prove it.


The majority acknowledged that the NVRA could be interpreted in two different ways. The results of that ambiguity have considerably different outcomes.

It could be interpreted to mean that States must accept the Federal Form as a complete and sufficient registration application; it could also merely be the document upon which verified information is recorded within the process determined by the individual states.

In a nation under attack by a power-grabbing centralized government, there was little doubt regarding the outcome of the decision and which interpretation the SCOTUS would deem to be valid.  In a manner reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s philosophical dilemma over what the definition of “is” is, Scalia wrote, “reading ‘accept’ merely to denote willing receipt seems out of place in the context of an official mandate to accept and use something for a given purpose. The implication of such a mandate is that its object is to be accepted as sufficient for the requirement it is meant to satisfy.”

Scalia further justified this interpretation saying, “It is improbable that the statute envisions a completed copy of the form it takes such pains to create as being anything less than ‘valid.’” He also noted that this form is for federal elections only. States can impose additional requirements to participate in state elections, including proof of citizenship.


Where in the Constitution is the Congress granted power to supersede the will of the people of any state through the manifestation of a clear purpose?

Speaking and voting on behalf of the American citizens, were Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.  Justice Alito wrote, “The Court reads an ambiguous federal statute in a way that brushes aside the constitutional authority of the States and produces truly strange results.”


The decision by the EAC has made official what many Americans who were paying attention suspected to be behind the contorted Democrat wrangling over “civil rights” issues all along. Motor Voter had nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with stacking voter rolls with Democrats, be they citizens or not.

The system and the laws which prop it up are now geared towards permitting the massive wave of illegals flooding into America to have equal rights with American citizens. How will states establish separate voting mechanisms for local or state elections to exclude illegal voting? It is improbable they will spend the money to do so and will merely acquiesce to federal mandates.

The likely impact of this will be that aliens, both illegal and legal will be able to vote wherever they choose. The threat of perjury to someone who is in the country illegal is not apt to be much of a disincentive to voter fraud.

Source: freepatriot.org
Photo: freepatriot.org



Leave a Reply