04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Review: Fund and Von Spakovsky's Who's Counting, Your User's Manual to Election 2012

Who’s Counting also does a phenomenal job of documenting non-citizen voting, the lack of response by law enforcement officials, and the outright facilitation of the behavior by the civil rights industry.  The authors note that in just one federal court, three percent of everyone called for jury duty escaped the task by saying they were non-citizens.  One only is called for jury duty after one registers to vote.

In 2010, True the Vote provided the DOJ Voting Section actual voter registration applications of voters who professed under penalty of perjury that they were not citizens but were still registered to vote.  The forms had the question “Are you a U.S. Citizen?” actually marked “NO.” I provided copies of the actual forms to the Justice Department and requested action.

You don’t need me to tell you what the response of Eric Holder’s Justice Department was to bow-tied evidence of non-citizens being registered to vote.

The authors also eviscerate a favorite emerging cause of the left – destruction of the Electoral College.  If you get Who’s Counting for no other reason, read the excellent constitutional discussion defending the Electoral College.  They describe how the constitutional status quo protects liberty and limits federal power.  The authors make the case that abolishing the Electoral College will promote urban voter fraud across the United States.

Even though Who’s Counting is written for a broad audience, it should be a textbook in every law school election law class.  Of course, that won’t happen because most American law school professors teaching election law have a pronounced leftward bias.  They also prefer to use their own academic-press-published books as texts, even if Fund and von Spakovsky sell forty-fold more to a much broader audience, which is certain.