California and the Laws that Divide Part 3: And the Beat Goes On
As this continuing article series will make painfully clear, many of the election laws passed by the California legislature over the past 25 years have created what EIPCa challenges as an unconstitutional election system.
And yet…our busy legislature is not satisfied. They continue to propose and pass laws that will make the election process go from incredibly bad to worse.
Consider the following three bills, currently before the legislature and all being strongly opposed by EIPCa.
AB 2050 - A second attempt to connect California to the ERIC system.
The Electronic Registration Information System (ERIC) purports to be the answer to ensuring that the state’s voter rolls are free from deceased individuals and people who have become recently registered in another state.
Although ERIC is officially a non-partisan organization, ERIC and its founder/directors operate from a political ideology that is highly biased in one direction. That bias permeates the ERIC contract and the way the organization operates.
In reality, the main focus of ERIC is to ensure every unregistered resident of the state of voting age becomes registered via an aggressive state outreach effort, with NO regard to citizenship or other eligibility requirements.
In fact, the ERIC contract forbids the transfer of citizenship information.
Instead of generating the accurately maintained voter rolls required by federal law, following the dictates of ERIC will make our rolls even more inaccurate and bloated.
ERIC claims to be secure and protective of all data.
In fact, ten states have withdrawn their ERIC membership over concerns of data privacy.
The ERIC contract requires the DMV and every other public service agency to upload their complete files (all sensitive and private information, minus citizenship status) to ERIC every 90 days.
ERIC then shares that information with a third organization (CEIR), which runs the data and produces the “reports”.
CEIR was founded by the same individual as ERIC and operates with the same political ideological bias.
To learn more about ERIC and why EIPCa opposes AB 2050, read our opposition letter.
[Click here to read the rest of the article] California and the Laws that Divide Part 1: Primary Election Chaos
Predictably, the 2024 Presidential Primary Election in California was mired in chaos.
The causes can all be traced back to the California Legislature (and Governor) whose efforts over the last 25 years have built an electoral process that voters can neither understand nor trust.
This series of articles will explore the chaos that was the California Presidential Primary and connect that chaos to the laws and circumstances that perpetrated it.
[Click here to read the rest of the article] |
California and the Laws that Divide Part 2: More Primary Election Chaos
Part 1 of this article series highlighted one major issue that led to an unacceptable level of chaos in the recent Presidential Primary election.
That issue was that the Motor Voter Law continues to generate “unintentional” changes of party affiliation for voters. The elements of the software that cause the difficulties for voters have been known and understood for years, and could have been resolved, but so far have not been.
But the Motor Voter Law is only the tip of the iceberg sinking California’s election integrity.
The complicated Primary rules
In California, the primary election for all offices is merged with the Presidential Primary, appearing to be one big election. But it is not.
For every office except President, all voters may vote for any candidate, irrespective of party. The top two vote getters move on to the General Election, again irrespective of party.
This is what California voters as the “rules” of a primary election.
As a result, the Presidential Primary comes as a confusing complication because it operates under entirely different rules, even though it appears to be an integral part of the rest of the ballot.
The state laws do not govern the Presidential Primary.
The “rules” are made by the participating political parties with regard to whether their Primary is “closed” (only registered party members may vote) or “open” - and if so to whom.
This may all sound reasonable, but what is on paper (laws, regulations, policies) has NO way of becoming general public knowledge.
It is all far too complicated, and laws, etc. so quickly and often, it is impossible to keep up.
[Click here to read the rest of the article]
When Roads Converge [Click here to read the article]
|
Santa Clarita, California (June 22, 2021)Click here to download copy of press release-- California’s November 3, 2020 election was marred by significant voting and registration irregularities, according to Election Integrity Project® California, Inc. (EIPCa). The non-partisan organization analyzed the state’s official voter list of February 9, 2021 and reported its findings to California’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber on June 17, 2021. This followed EIPCa reports of 2020 cross-state voting on April 30 and May 18, 2021 that the Secretary has ignored. EIPCa’s June report cites California’s election code that requires officials to provide timely answers to citizens’ questions.
EIPCa seeks answers to the following questions, on behalf of California voters:
VoteCal Database Date | # Counties with Registrations Exceeding # Eligible Citizens | Total Ineligible Registrations |
March 2020 | 11 | 1,063,957 |
February 2021 | 23 | 1,834,789 (+72% since 3/20) |
“Many in the nation are questioning the validity of the 2020 general election in their states”, said EIPCa President Linda Paine. “Mass irregularities in California’s registration and voting numbers continue to erode voter confidence here and we are hopeful Secretary Weber will immediately address our questions.”