Andy Schlafly continued his crusade on the invented issue of “election integrity” in his Nov. 6 WorldNetDaily column:
On March 25, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14,248 to strengthen election integrity by requiring proof of American citizenship to register to vote. His U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has been contemplating the insertion of this requirement into the federal voter registration form.
But last Friday a Clinton-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C., upheld Democrats’ challenge to this sensible citizenship requirement. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly unilaterally blocked Trump’s executive order from being enforced through the EAC or in any other way by the president.
Roughly 30 leftist-controlled jurisdictions have expressly authorized voting by non-citizens in local elections. In addition, some Democrat-controlled states that pretend to prohibit this have practices failing to prevent it.
But allowing non-citizens to vote in state and local elections in New York was too much for even Democrat judges there. In nearly unanimous decisions by the intermediate and highest appellate courts of New York State, they correctly ruled that New York’s state constitution limits voting to citizens of the United States.
But Schlafly does not prove that non-citizen voting is a problem of any significance, let alone one that requires the imposition of restrictive laws that inconvenience an entire population. Instead, he ranted about the mayor of New York City:
Much of Zohran Mamdani’s support for mayor of New York is from people born outside of the United States, according to polls. New York City’s enormous population includes over a million adults who are not U.S. citizens, and 800,000 of those would have been eligible to vote for mayor under the Democrat-sponsored law that was blocked by higher courts – a number that exceeds the population of several states.
Again, Schlafly does not prove his claim. He went on to gush over “Harmeet Dhillon, the splendid assistant attorney general appointed by Trump to run the Civil Rights Division of DOJ.”
In another election-related issue, Schlafly spent his Nov. 13 column defending would-be electors who conspired to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump:
Fake news was working overtime on Monday by declaring, without authority, that the “full, complete” presidential pardons related to the 2020 presidential election cannot protect against bogus state charges arising from that election. The liberal media wrongly insisted that the Pardon Clause in the U.S. Constitution applies only to charges brought by federal prosecutors.
Not so. The Pardon Clause states that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Every attempt in court to narrow the scope of the Pardon Clause has failed.
Our system of dual sovereigns, federal and state, is subject to the Supremacy Clause, which means that state sovereignty cannot limit the scope of the Pardon Clause. It was modeled on the vast, nearly unlimited pardon power of the king of England.
The newly pardoned 77 alternate electors, federal officials, attorneys and activists who objected to voter fraud in 2020 were acting in defense of the integrity of a presidential election, and thus in defense of the United States. Their conduct is fully pardonable by the president, which Trump has appropriately done.
Schlafly offered no evidence that “voter fraud” actually occurred in 2020, let alone that the electors were acting on anything other than Trump’s delusions in trying to counter it.