There’s no place like home.  Abandoned houses, vacant lots and business addresses really aren’t home.  But according to voter registration rolls in Georgia, they are listed as residences.

Articles about false voter registration addresses appeared in the Augusta Chronicle.  According to that newspaper serving Richmond County, Georgia, a sampling of registered voters found that more than two dozen individuals listed false residences on voter registration.  The Chronicle diligently compared voter registration records to county property records.  Half of the non-residence addresses are in Commission District 1, which is now undergoing a runoff election.

Examples included Deborah Pierce at 112 Telfair Street, Regina Walker at 1005 Bennett Lane and Alfred Lofton at 1411 Clay Street.  Then there’s Greg Diggers who lived in District 8 but votes in District 4.  Albert and Florence Rabin vote in Augusta where Albert has a dental practice, but they really live in Atlanta.  Amy and Craig Bailey have voted in Richmond County for almost thirty years, but they have a homestead exemption for their McDuffie County home, where they have lived since 1996.  Also there’s Shane and Sarah Thompson who vote at Shane’s father’s address. But there are individuals who made false registrations could not be contacted in some instances, such as someone registered at a car lot at Greene Street and another at a convenience store at Reynolds Street.

Then there’s Dallas Simon Jr. who lives in South Carolina, but votes using his car dealership address in Georgia.  According to South Carolina law, voters must swear that their listed address is their “only place of residence” with a penalty of perjury for false statements. Chris Whitmire, a spokesman for the South Carolina State Election Commission said, “It is really simple. You need to register where you live.”

Today, a court in D.C. will hold a hearing on a “specious” lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster in the United States Senate.  Common Cause and other progressive groups are also descending on Washington to align against a long-held fixture of the United States Senate protecting against tyranny.

Common Cause, Democrat Congressmen John Lewis and Hank Johnson along with three children of illegal immigrants who support the DREAM Act filed a lawsuit in the summer and now the case has made it to the courtroom.  Bob Edgar, CEO and President of Common Cause, wrote an op-ed complaining about gridlock in the Senate, declaring, “Surely, this is not how the framers intended our government to function.”

Really, Bob?  He ought to read the Federalist Papers or the debates at the constitutional convention.  Efficiency of government was actually not an objective of the Framers.  Protection of minority rights at odds with the passions of the majority was their concern.  A Washington Post columnist explains why the very basis of the lawsuit is in opposition to American Founding principles:

The plaintiffs begin by asserting that “Nothing is more fundamental to a democratically elected legislative body than the principle of majority rule.” That, too, is not true. We use majority decision for all sorts of good reasons, but what’s really fundamental are ideas of representation and democracy, and neither of them is strictly dependent on majority rule; to the contrary, virtually everything about Madisonian democracy leads us to be suspicious of simple-majority rule — beginning with the existence of the Senate in the first place. Bicameralism is all about undermining simple-majority rule.

The brief for the United States Senate defending the filibuster notes the revolutionary nature of this lawsuit.  The plaintiffs are trying to use the courts to subvert the role of the Senate.  The brief says, "This suit asks the court do what no court has ever done -- inject the judicial branch into the Senate's internal deliberations and usurp the Senate's power to determine its own rules and procedures.”    Furthermore, the Constitution's speech or debate clause ("for any speech or debate in either house, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place") bars the lawsuit.  Furthermore, the future of the filibuster is a political question outside the court’s jurisdiction.

This lawsuit and Senator Reid’s threats to challenge the filibuster are part of a coordinated effort by leftist groups called ‘Fix the Senate Now.’  Common Cause, Alliance for Justice, the United Auto Workers, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Communications Workers of America, the NAACP and about 75 progressive organizations are meeting today in Washington to try to change the rules in order to ram through their agenda.

This lawsuit and other challenges should be dismissed… as three previous court challenges to the filibuster have been thrown out.

I do not think anyone can seriously argue that Eric Holder has been a success as Attorney General. He has been a total failure in virtually all aspects of his job, except for maybe passing the buck. As Powerline wrote:

Gary Grindler, Attorney General Eric Holder's chief of staff, has resigned from the Justice Department effective tomorrow. Grindler leaves after less than two years in that position.

Grindler oversaw the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which led "Fast and Furious," the failed and criminally stupid "gun-walking" operation that allowed Mexican cartels to obtain hundreds of illegally purchased weapons. The DOJ's Inspector General faulted Grindler for hiding the connection between Fast and Furious and the murder of a Border Patrol Agent from Holder and from the Department of Homeland Security. Whether Grindler actually did hide the connection from Holder is questionable. In any case, the IG recommended that Grindler be disciplined.

. . . The resignation most urgently required is that of Holder. He has been a terrible Attorney General in multiple respects.

More heads are rolling on fast and furious but it is important to note as the American Thinker did.

The White House and DOJ have withheld evidence, stonewalled and covered up Fast and Furious from the very beginning.  Then they appointed an inspector general who works for Eric Holder to investigate Holder.  Is it any wonder that IG Michael Horowitz produced a highly biased sham report that protects those at the top of the food chain?'

Fortunately for the American public Rep. Darrell Issa and Senator Grassley will not let the Justice Department off without making every effort to get the truth out. Their investigation of the failures of the Holder led Justice Department on "fast and furious" need to continue, for as part 2 says:

The report discloses widespread management failures within the hierarchy of the Justice Department. The Justice Department has yet to evaluate these management issues and implement structural changes to prevent another disaster like Operation Fast and Furious from occurring. Furthermore, the Justice Department has taken limited action against these negligent managers.

The election is over, President Obama should do the right thing and fire Holder and let the truth come out.

Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Co bottler, is asking St. Nicholas for a very special gift: a win at court.  He is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Obama administration for unconstitutionally appointing members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a board which ruled against Canning in an administrative case this year. Also asking Santa for the same thing this Christmas are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Senator Mitchell McConnell and 41 other Senate Republicans.  A hearing on this matter in a D.C. court was just held yesterday.

So why did these plaintiffs file this lawsuit?  By law, the National Labor Relations Board needs at least three of its five members to issue rulings. But as of January 4, 2011, the NLRB only had two members.  President Obama then ‘appointed’ Sharon Block (D), Richard Griffin (D), and Terence Flynn (R), at a time when the Senate was still in pro forma session.  Flynn left, leaving one legally appointed Democrat, one legally appointed Republican, and two illegally appointed Democrats on the NLRB.  The NLRB proceeded to act as if its members were legitimate, issuing rulings against businesses like Noel Canning’s.

Miguel Estrada, counsel for the Senate Republicans, declared that upholding the appointments would take a “break-glass-in- case-of-emergency” power and turn into “a background rule that allows our president to evade the role of the Senate.”  Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a former Senate counsel and one of the judges hearing the case, said, “Once you remove yourself from the principles set forth in the Constitution — intersession versus intrasession — you are adrift.”

Upholding the president’s appointments in this case would start a decline down a slippery slope. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell says if Mr. Obama’s stance prevails, presidents could make appointments when the Senate takes its recess for weekly party caucus lunches.  Estrada said that if the court accepted Mr. Obama’s interpretation here, it would open the door for the president to also declare filibusters to be violations of his ability to get an up-or-down vote on a nominee.

Obama’s lawyer tried to argue that during the pro forma session from January 3 to January 23, the Senate passed no legislation, took no votes, accepted no official messages from the president and held no debates.   One of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Noel Francisco, rejoined that “they were capable of doing something. If you flip on C-SPAN on any given day, you will see a Senate that is not particularly busy.” Francisco added that it was not the president's job to determine when the Senate, an independent body, is in recess.  In a Chicago appeals court hearing on a similar case challenging the legitimacy of the NLRB appointments, Glenn Taubman, an attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, argued that “Congress has the power under the rule-making clause to do its business as it sees fit.”

According to Estrada, when the Senate passed a resolution in December agreeing to remain in session, that action was sufficient.  Estrada said, “The Senate was gaveled into session as the Senate, not as a few guys in a bar.”  Maybe a few guys in a bar didn’t consent to nominees, but a few guys who are members of the bar will decide whether those nominations are valid.  They didn’t say when they may rule.  But some are hoping for a joyous Noel.

RNLA member Marc Elcock published a piece in the Des Moines Register setting the record straight on Obama’s judicial nominations.  Elcock declares that because “Obama’s nominees do not meet the requisite standards of competence and impartiality, they should be opposed.”

Elcock was responding to an op-ed by University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias who called on United States Senator Grassley from Iowa ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee to rubberstamp Obama’s nominees.

Elcock identifies a few of the most egregious nominees that the Senate did not consent to:  Goodwin Liu, Robert Chatigny and Louis B. Butler, Jr.  Why should a nominee who is nicknamed for his role in finding “loopholes” in the law be seated on the bench?  Why should we accept judges who hold Obama’s empathy standard when it has been roundly criticized? Why should the Senate consent to judges who advocate for radically progressive policies to be inserted into the law instead of fairly interpreting the law? 

Obama’s approach to judicial nominations has also been hyperpartisan.  Elcock explains how Obama has not been working with home state Senators on judicial nominations:

Senators James Inhofe and Tom Coburn were not even consulted over the nomination of Arvo Mikkanen to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma… Arizona senators John McCain and Jon Kyl did not return blue slips on Rosemary Marquez’s nomination for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada refused to turn in a blue slip for the appointment of Elissa Cadish to the U.S. District Court there. Georgia’s Natasha Perdew Silas was opposed by both Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss.

Senator Grassley should listen to reasonable voices in the Iowa legal community, rather than out-of-state radical law professors and act appropriately on the nominees before the Judiciary Committee.

How many more stories must appear in the news for the progressive purveyors of prevarication to stop?  The left continues to claim that noncitizens would never risk the penalties with voting.  Despite the news reports about the Manzanos in Texas. 

William and Braulio Manzano weren’t deterred by a felony crime that could be punished by up to five years in jail and a fine of $10,000.  The two brothers checked the box that said they are not citizens on voter registration applications.  Yet they proceeded to vote at Ellis Middle School in Austin, Texas on election day.  William and Braulio Manzano were charged on Friday with vote fraud in Mower County Court.

Braulio Manzano has admitted he voted, but claimed he didn’t know you had to be a citizen to vote.  Unfortunately for Braulio, ignorance of the law is no defense.

But Braulio and William are not the only ones.  There is another suspect who has yet to be charged in Texas.  And the RNLA Blog already reported on the recent arrests for noncitizen voting in Iowa.

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Co-Chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association, Linda Kerns, has gone to election court many times.  She has been fighting to achieve a bipartisan poll watcher presence in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  Thanks to her diligent work, she has been successful, but not without facing spurious challenges.

Linda Kerns has published an insightful article in The Philadelphia Inquirer about her quest for balance, which is also an objective of the Philadelphia GOP.  Simply, they want the Democrat presence at the polls be balanced by a real Republican presence. 

So what does balance mean?  Don’t let the Democrat machine that dominates Philadelphia engage in physical assaults and removal of Republican poll watchers from polling places.  Don’t let aggressive attorneys make repeated spurious challenges in court of every single fully certified Republican poll watcher.  Don’t let Philadelphia Obama-supporters paint murals of a Democrat president in a polling station where every single person has a view of who comes in to a cast a ballot.  Don’t let a court order stating that the mural be covered up be haphazardly and insufficiently followed. 

These are all challenges Republicans faced in Philadelphia just this election cycle.  Thankfully we have Republicans like Linda Kerns and others who defend the rule of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Obama and Democrats in the United States Senate are playing games… but with no rules.    Instead of upholding the traditions of the Senate, they want to remove the filibuster to exercise unchecked power over the Senate and break the rules to change the rules.

President Obama wants the Senate to make this power play.  White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer said, “the President supports Majority Leader Reid's efforts to reform the filibuster process.”

So what is Reid’s “reform” proposal? Reid’s plan is threefold: (1) a new rule that no filibusters can block debates from starting or to block conference committees from convening; (2) a new rule that would force senators to carry out a talk-a-thon session on the floor, rather than simply threaten one; and (3) make cloture a 51 vote measure instead of using the normal 67-vote threshold. 

Not only are the first two changes radical, but just the procedures by which Reid wants to do it are radical as well.  What role does the rest of the Senate have when there is a tyranny of the majority party?  The Founders worried about this very problem.

Speaker John Boehner has pledged to kill any bill approved under the altered rules that reached the House.  He said:

Senate Democrats’ attempt to break Senate rules in order to change Senate rules is clearly designed to marginalize Senate Republicans and their constituents while greasing the skids for controversial partisan measures. I question the wisdom of this maneuver, especially at a time when cooperation on Capitol Hill is critical, and fully support Leader McConnell’s efforts to protect minority rights, which are an essential part of our constitutional tradition. Any bill that reaches a Republican-led House based on Senate Democrats’ heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival.

Back in 2010, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) indicated at a Senate hearing that he intended to consider changes to the Senate chamber’s rules on the filibuster.  Thankfully, Senator McConnell identified the sinister motive behind these efforts, saying, “I submit that the effort to change the rules is not about democracy. It is not about doing what a majority of the American people want. It is about power. It is about a political party — or a faction of a political party — that is frustrated that it cannot do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, precisely the way it wants to do it.  Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said, "We should remain open to changes in the Senate rules, but not to the detriment of the institution's character or purpose."

President Obama and Senator Harry Reid are engaged in efforts nothing short of rampant hypocrisy.  In Reid’s 2008 book, The Good Fight, he criticized Republicans for considering changing filibuster rules in 2005.  When asked about his publication, Reid said, “It’s a history book.”   When he was a United States Senator, Obama said in 2005 that “Everyone in this chamber knows if the majority chooses to end the filibuster... the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”

The voter ID opponents who claimed vast voter suppression take note. Statistics on voter turnout on election day in states with voter identification laws show that the states with voter ID laws in place did not have lower turnout.  State election officials in Tennessee and Kansas remarked that the voter ID laws ran smoothly. 

In Kansas, 717 provisional ballots were cast because of photo ID issues;  that number translates to 0.06 of a percent of the more than 1.15 million votes cast in the state.  Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach noted that “that’s an even smaller percentage than in the primary.”  The reason?  Kobach believes that voters are becoming more familiar with the voter ID law.  “I think the photo ID requirements are going very smoothly, in fact smoother than I expected,” Kobach said.

But you don’t have to take Kobach’s word for it.  McPherson County Clerk Cathy Schmidt said the new voter ID law did not significantly affect balloting as well.  In that county in Kansas, only 16 of 12,407 ballots cast in McPherson County Nov. 6 were provisional ballots due to the voters not having IDs. 221 of the 497 provisional ballots were ultimately accepted by the canvas board and counted as votes.  The majority of those ballots that were not accepted — 241 ballots — included ballots cast by voters who were not registered to vote.  Two people voted in advance and at a polling place.  Clerk Schmidt said she thought the election went smoothly and the county had good voter turnout.

Then, there’s Tennessee, where  674 provisional ballots related to voter ID were cast out of 2.45 million total votes over the election period.  178 voters returned with proper photo identification and had their ballots counted. Secretary of State spokesman Blake Fontenay said the provisional voters amounted to “not even 1 percent of the vote.”    Fontenay added, “Even one person impersonating a voter is one too many in our eyes. Their argument is that they have no way of knowing how many people might not have had an ID and might have stayed home. Our argument is that we have no way of knowing how many people might have, in the past, cast fraudulent ballots.”  Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey said, “From the moment this law was introduced opponents have been screaming that the sky was falling in ways that would shame Chicken Little. The numbers have shown otherwise. Photo ID provides voter protection, and now we have proof…What these numbers reveal is that the only thing Tennessee’s voter ID law suppresses is voter fraud.”

Yes, Virginia there is vote fraud… but as for suppression, the facts don’t show it.  The Washington Post reported that “Preliminary figures indicate that most Virginians came to the polls on Election Day prepared to comply with the state’s new voter identification law.”  The Virginia State Board of Elections estimated that 543 provisional ballots were cast related to lack of voter IDs – which is less than 5 percent of the total number of provisional ballots cast statewide.

Maybe that’s why even Democrat Secretaries of States, in states like Nevada and Minnesota, support voter ID laws.  Vote fraud is a problem and voter ID a common sense and fair solution.

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat, will propose a photo voter ID bill for the state legislature to consider in 2013. Recognizing that vote fraud is real, Miller has set aside the radical Democrat party line of opposition to such measures and is receiving support from Republicans in the Silver State.

The Nevada Secretary of State received a great deal of national attention this election cycle after a woman was arrested in Nevada for double voting.   Concerns about vote fraud like this prompted Miller’s bill, which would place the photos on residents' driver's licenses electronically with their voter registration records and poll books.   Affidavits would be signed and photos taken when a person without a photo who is registered and votes in person for the first time. 

Miller has responded to the claim that voter ID is expensive by saying it worth it: "There is a cost.  It will cause some delays (in voting), and that will be part of the debate. But it is the way to do it. This will eliminate any opportunity for someone to impersonate some other person when you come to vote. This will eliminate any concerns about voter fraud."

Nevada Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey, a Republican, said, "The fact that the current system does not require any voter identifications rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I think the concept is very worthy of looking into. We need to see the details. The integrity of elections is at the center of believable democracy."

Multiple cases of vote fraud have surfaced in Lorain County, Ohio.  The County Board of Elections is investigating a man from Henrietta Township who submitted an absentee ballot on November 3 but voted in person on November 6.  One of the members of the board of elections also wants to investigate an elderly woman who cast a provisional ballot in person but had already cast an absentee ballot.

By law, voters who have submitted absentee ballots should not be permitted to vote on the voting machine and instead only permitted to vote provisionally.    The poll workers allowed the Henrietta Township man to sign his name in the pollbook over the notation which said “absentee sent” and then permitted him to vote on election day.  The presiding judge at the polling place is under investigation, but she denies knowledge of this incident.

Lorain County also has a vote fraud case against former Lorain Safety Service Director Robert Gilchrist, who was charged for voting in the wrong precinct in multiple elections.   He was charged with voting in the city’s second ward in two primaries and two general elections where he no longer leased property but when he actually resided in a home he built in the eighth ward.

It’s illegal to vote in the United States if you are not a citizen.  Two Canadians and a Mexican were arrested and charged with a felony for illegally voting in Iowa.  This is in addition to two felons who were also recently charged with vote fraud.

Those charged with election misconduct include Albert Harte-Maxwell, 52, Linda Harte-Maxwell, 49, and Maria Ayon-Fernandez, 40.  Election misconduct is a first-degree felony, with a punishment of up to 5 years in prison and up to $7,500 in fines.

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz identified 1,200 people suspected of committing vote fraud from the 2012 election.  The list was submitted to and is being checked out by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation.

Schultz said, “Iowans deserve fair and honest elections” and that “every person who cheats in our election process deprives a hard-working, eligible citizen of their voice in our government.  That is why I have been fighting for election integrity and will continue to do so.”

Chief election officials like Matt Schultz deserve support and thanks for their efforts to update the voter rolls and prosecute vote fraud crimes.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

A lot of questions should follow this election cycle about the administration of elections.  The election results are final but the discussion about election integrity continues.  There is great work to be done to ensure that elections are open, fair and honest in Florida.

Supervisor of Elections Gertrude Walker was the person responsible for ensuring that the 2012 election was administered properly in St. Lucie County, Florida.  In his National Review article, John Fund wrote about how Walker opposed efforts intended to update voter rolls in Florida:

Walker dragged her feet at implementing any efforts to remove dead voters, felons, or non-citizens from the voter rolls…Walker delayed sending out letters to non-citizens telling them they should clarify their status or risk being removed from the voter rolls. Even though the list had been developed by the Florida Department of State using federal data, Walker said she didn’t trust the validity of the information.

John Fund also noted how Walker supported another county supervisor of elections in spite of that person’s apparent incompetence.  The West campaign also complained that all candidates were not informed promptly of an error in ballot tabulation, different counts of the votes were announced by the election supervisor and poll watchers were locked out of polling places making it impossible for them to observe the counting of votes.  Concerns about ballots being counted twice, cards cast by precinct and by times counted not matching up and more ballots being cast than numbers of registered voters were raised. When Walker conducted a secret partial recount of ballots, in 35 minutes, there was a vote differential of 4,000 ballots.  But Walker was nowhere to be found once national scrutiny came upon her work, leaving the administration of the full recount (which the canvassing board eventually ordered) up to her assistant.

Similar questions should be raised about the administration of elections in nearby Palm Beach County, the home of shenanigans over 2000’s butterfly ballot.  Florida just wanted to come back into the national spotlight, as votes were manually counted after there were errors in the ballots… twice.

Election administrators have a difficult but important job.  America relies on them  to uphold election laws and ensure that ballots are counted once each.  In we are to have open, fair and honest elections, we need to have good election administrators.

Today, Rep. Allen West conceded his election stating:

For two weeks since Election Day, we have been working to ensure every vote is counted accurately and fairly. We have made progress towards that goal, thanks to the dedication of our supporters and their unrelenting efforts to protect the integrity of the democratic process. While many questions remain unanswered, today I am announcing that I will take no further action to contest the outcome of this election.

Rep. West did the right thing pursuing an accurate count of the votes.  While his opponent did not want the votes even counted after "mistakes were made" on Election Day, Rep. West fought for such a count. The fight was not in vain, as many problems and inaccuracies in the process were exposed by Rep. West and the efforts of others that should be noted for effort to reform the elections:

While there are certainly still inaccuracies in the results and the actions of the St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County Supervisors of Elections rightly raise questions in my mind and for many voters. . .

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) thanks Rep. West for his service and for his efforts in the last few weeks.  However, the fight for the issues Rep. West brought up is not over.  The RNLA will work with the information and many problems uncovered not just during the last two weeks but that begin when Palm Beach County printed absentee ballots that were not able to be counted. 

Rep. West;s efforts proved that elections in highly contested states and Congressional Districts in Florida are still ripe with problems and opportunities for fraud.   Voters deserve a system they can have confidence in and the RNLA will continue to work toward that end.