Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath was interviewed on July 15, 2010 by Jeff Passolt of Fox 9 News.  Passolt challenged Minnesota Majority's report about felons voting in the 2008 election, echoing some of the criticisms being voiced by county prosecutors.  Prosecutors claim that the felon problem is limited to just a handful of cases and that most cases only involve felons registering to vote, not actually voting.  McGrath responded by presenting an Election Day Sign-in Roster with the signature of a felon that Ramsey County prosecutors claim only registered to vote but clearly actually voted.  Minnesota Majority has offered to meet with both Ramsey and Hennepin county prosecutors on numerous occasions to share our evidence, but our offers have been rebuffed each time.  We stand by our claim that hundreds of felons both REGISTERED and VOTED in the 2008 election.

Minnesota Majority’s June 29^th Report on Felons Voting in Minnesota’s 2008 election has created quite a stir as media organizations speculate on whether fraudulent votes could have impacted the hotly contested US Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. In some instances the speculation has run wild and some published news stories on the subject aren’t providing news consumers a complete and accurate picture.

There's a danger in allowing reporters and commentators to tell us the meaning of data. Sometimes the summaries provided by these sources are incomplete, misleading or false. It's always more reliable to go straight to the source and study for one's self. See the original Minnesota Majority report on felon voters here.

Related Resources:

• Fox 9, KMSP-TV: Did Felons Influence 2008 MN Senate Race?
• Big Journalism: Franken's Felony Vote News Blackout

This Fox 9 News investigative report that aired BEFORE the 2008 election should have been a warning signal to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to conduct his OWN investigation into potential felons on Minnesota voter rolls.  But nearly 2 years later, Secretary Ritchie has failed to acknowledge that felons voted in the 2008 election.  Instead, his response has been that its not his job, referring all complaints to county attorneys.  But according to Minnesota's election laws, the Secretary of State is the state's chief election officer, responsible for the integrity of the voter registration system and our elections, including FLAGGING felons that appear on voter rolls.  Minnesota Majority's investigation has revealed that the vast majority of felon voters we have found were NOT flagged.

On July 13, 2010, Megyn Kelly of Fox News interviewed John Fund of the Wall Street Journal regarding Minnesota Majority's research into felon voters.  Fund says that it was Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's "dereliction of duties" that allowed these felons to vote in the 2008 election.  Fund also comments on the 2008 election in his most recent column in the Wall Street Journal.

TAKE ACTION: Help us continue our work in protecting the integrity of our elections by making a generous donation.

She evidently doesn't want to limit access to the ballot by ineligible felons, dead people and people who don't live in the state they are voting in, because the law in question requires such names to be purged from the voter registration rolls to prevent needless errors and abuse.

Take Action: Law enforcement and election officials have failed to uphold the integrity of our elections. Only Minnesota Majority is exposing the errors and abuse in Minnesota’s election system and we need your help. To continue our work to prevent the recurrence of 2008’s election problems in the 2010 election, we need to raise $17,000 by July 13^th. Click here for donation options.

Related Resources:

Today, Minnesota Majority released a report of its findings on ineligible felons voting in the 2008 Minnesota General Election. Our research on felons voting began over a year ago and we believe the new report is the most comprehensive documentation of voter fraud by ineligible felons yet compiled for Minnesota.

On October 14^th, 2009, Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner announced to the local press that her office had charged 23 felons for illegally voting or registering to vote, saying, “the numbers are very small.” But Minnesota Majority’s independent research revealed a much higher number of felon voters.

Using data obtained from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, Minnesota Majority found evidence that hundreds of ineligible felons may have voted the 2008 General Election. Evidence was submitted to the Hennepin and Ramsey County Attorneys on October 16^, 2009.

“I think people should be concerned that most of the instances of felon voter fraud would have never been detected had it not been for our independent research,” said Minnesota Majority’s president, Jeff Davis. “It begs the question of what other problems officials may be missing and how long these problems have gone undetected.

”The report points out that since there is a list of felons that can be compared to voter history files, checking for potential felon voters is a fairly straightforward process. Other forms of fraud are much more difficult to detect, however, such as individuals voting under an assumed identity. Minnesota Majority believes if officials are failing to detect, investigate and prosecute felon voters, they are probably missing other forms of voter fraud as well.

The report is critical of failures by election officials and law enforcement to prevent, detect and deter fraudulent voting by convicted felons. “The apparent unresponsiveness and stonewalling on the part of election and law enforcement officials creates the impression that they may be deliberately dragging their feet on the investigation and prosecution of election fraud in order to maintain the myth of Minnesota as a leader in clean, well-run elections. In reality, we have found Minnesota’s election integrity to be lacking in many aspects,” reads a portion of the report’s executive summary.  

The report concludes, “Failure to act now sends a signal to potential fraudulent voters that voter fraud is a safe way to influence elections because perpetrators in all likelihood will never be caught or prosecuted. Even those few who have been prosecuted received only a slap on the wrist: a small fine and part of a day in jail.”

Minnesota Majority is calling on election and law enforcement officials to make investigating and prosecuting voter fraud a priority to preserve public confidence in our elections.

We are running out of time to complete our research into other suspected problems arising from the 2008 election. In September (just two months away), the counties will begin destroying election records from 2008, as they are only retained for 22 months. Additionally, the statute of limitations on election crimes is two years and for the 2008 election, will expire in November. Instances of election crimes stemming from 2008 that aren't caught and prosecuted by then will slip into the shadows forever.

We're racing against the clock. To complete our work protecting election integrity in Minnesota, we need to raise $20,000 in just two weeks or our work on elections will come to a halt, unfinished. Just recently, we uncovered evidence that suggests ballot box stuffing in several precincts. More investigation into this apparent discrepancy is critically needed, in addition to our ongoing work to protect election integrity.

Take Action: Please make a secure online contribution toward election integrity today. Absentee voting for the 2010 election cycle already began on Friday and election records from 2008 will be destroyed in two months. No one else is doing this work. Please contribute to Minnesota Majority now to help ensure clean fair elections this year.

Read the Report on Fraudulent Votes Cast by Ineligible Felons in the 2008 General Election.

Channel 5 News coverage: Watchdog Group Says Felons Are Voting Illegally

UPDATE: See Fox News story "Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota"

From the Washington Examiner

In March, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision struck down campaign finance limits on political expression by individuals working through corporations and unions as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. A cry ensued among liberal Democrats predicting doom if they and their special interest allies were required to follow the Constitution. Big Labor's bosses promised to spend millions to protect the Democratic majority if it would speedily pass legislation to circumvent the decision (and thus the Constitution), but restore limits on their corporate foes.

The resulting DISCLOSE Act, according to its backers, will ensure transparency in campaign ad funding. Thursday, the House of Representatives approved the bill 219-206, with 36 Democrats and 170 Republicans in opposition to the measure, which was written by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year, and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who led the Senate Democrats’ campaign panel in 2008.

The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats' union masters. A provision pushed by Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Bob Brady, for example, allows unions to transfer unlimited funds among affiliated groups to pay for political ads with no disclosure whatever. That makes campaign funding more transparent?

Then there's the ban on advocacy for or against a candidate by any company that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. That silences General Motors' white-collar workers, but not the United Auto Workers union, which, oh by the way, got, among other things, $6.5 billion in preferred GM stock, paying a government-guaranteed 9 percent cash dividend. Could the fact the UAW gave more than $2 million to Democrats in 2008 explain why Democratic leaders pushed a proposal that so blatantly favors the union?

Similarly, DISCLOSE curbs political speech for employees of companies receiving more than $7 million in government contracts. Public sector unions that spend millions of recycled tax dollars electing Democrats have no such restrictions. By thus outlawing business funding for or against candidates, DISCLOSE will encourage more funding for corporate lobbyists and marketers targeting government contracts and earmarks.

As usual, DISCLOSE was rammed through the House after being introduced with only a few hours' notice and too little debate allowed. Because Democrats have abandoned doing a federal budget for the year, couldn't they find a little more time to allow Congress and the people it is supposed to represent to read and discuss this measure at greater length? Next we will see if Senate Democrats are as determined to throw out the First Amendment as were most of their House colleagues.

From the Washington Examiner

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president's agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer's call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona's junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that's getting uglier by the day.

First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department's intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. "It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us," Brewer told Fox News' Greta van Susteren last week, "they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens ... of another nation."

But they didn't.

"There certainly seems to be an underlying disrespect for the state of Arizona," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Kobach points out that during the Bush years, several states openly flouted federal immigration law on issues like sanctuary cities and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Respecting the doctrines of comity and federalism, the Bush administration didn't sue. Now, when Arizona passes a measure that is fully consistent with federal law, the Obama administration, says Kobach, "goes sprinting to the courthouse door."

Then there is the matter of the White House's assistance, or nonassistance, in Arizona's border-security efforts. On June 3, the president, under criticism for refusing to meet or even talk to Brewer, reluctantly granted her an audience in the Oval Office. After the meeting, Brewer told reporters Obama pledged that administration officials would come to Arizona within two weeks with details of plans to secure the border.

June 17 marked two weeks, and there were no administration officials and no plans. There still aren't. "What a disappointment," Brewer told van Susteren. "You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing."

And now, there's the Kyl controversy. On June 18, Kyl told a town meeting in North Phoenix that Obama personally told him the administration will not secure the U.S.-Mexico border because doing so would make it politically difficult to pass comprehensive immigration reform. "I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us," Kyl said. "Here's what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."

"In other words," Kyl continued, "they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."

After Kyl's statement went viral on the Internet, the White House issued a sharp denial. "The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."

Kyl is not backing down. "What I said occurred, did occur," he told an Arizona radio station. "Some spokesman down at the White House said no, that isn't what happened at all, and then proceeded to say we need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. That is their position, and all I was doing was explaining why, from a conversation with the president, why it appears that that's their position."

Even if it didn't have so many other fights on its hands, it would be unusual for an administration to align itself against an American state. But that's precisely what has happened. Soon it will be up to the courts and voters to decide whether Obama's campaign against Arizona will succeed or fail.

TAKE ACTION: Sign our Immigration Enforcement Petition demanding lawmakers get tough on illegal aliens.

From NumbersUSA

Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible. 

TAKE ACTION: Send a FREE FAX to President Obama expressing your Outrage at the Administration's plans to provide an amnesty for illegal aliens through Executive Order.

In this taxpayer-funded public service announcement, Obama's Labor Chief Hilda Solis claims that illegal aliens have a right to protection for fair wages under federal law. But the truth is that federal law only pertains to United States citizens.

TAKE ACTION: Sign our Immigration Enforcement Petition demanding lawmakers get tough on illegal aliens.