Would you support Trump if he signed a nationwide voter ID law?

President Trump threw his support behind laws requiring valid identification to vote, arguing that such a move would ensure the “safety and sanctity of our voting system.”

Mr. Trump also called for using paper ballots as a backup, tweeting Tuesday afternoon that the method is “old fashioned but true!” He sent the tweet after giving a speech in Virginia.

The president has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that large numbers of people have voted illegally in U.S. elections. There is no indication that voter fraud has occurred on a broad scale. Opponents of voter-ID measures say efforts to enact identification requirements represent a veiled effort to suppress votes by creating hurdles for people who lack IDs, many of whom advocates say are disproportionately lower-income and people of color.

Congress is still grappling with how to improve election security three years after a widespread Russian campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. In testimony on Capitol Hill last week, former special counsel Robert Mueller warned Moscow’s efforts to interfere in U.S. elections were continuing. “They are doing it while we sit here,” he said. “And they expect to do it during the next campaign.”

The House passed legislation in June that would provide more funding for election security and require the use of paper ballots—widely viewed by cybersecurity experts as among the best ways to guard against potential vote tampering. Senate Republicans have blocked votes on the legislation, saying that the money already awarded hasn’t been spent and that paper ballots could pose problems of their own.

Dozens of states have enacted some form of voter-identification requirement, with advocates saying such measures help minimize the risk of voting fraud. The issue remains highly controversial and has led to several court fights.

Mr. Trump has called for the adoption of voting machines with auditable paper trails before, but Tuesday was the first time the president did so on his preferred medium, according to a review of his Twitter postings. His tweet Tuesday appeared to link paper ballots with GOP pushes for more stringent voter-ID requirements.

“These are really two separate issues,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department official and founder of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research. “The voter-ID issue won’t do anything to prevent foreign interference in our elections, but providing funding to replace the few remaining paperless voting systems and audit those systems could be very helpful, if the president wants to support providing resources to the states to do that.”

Nationwide, nearly every state has taken steps toward instituting more paper-supported machinery since 2016, but Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina still rely on paperless digital voting equipment. Another 10 states include some precincts that don’t offer paper trails, according to a new report on threats to the 2020 election from the Stanford Cyber Policy Center. Many cash-strapped states also rely on old voting equipment that can suffer routine Election Day malfunctions.

This week, Georgia said it had awarded a $107 million contract for 30,000 new voting machines to an election vendor that will replace the state’s old paperless equipment with new touch-screen systems that print out paper ballots.

Source: WSJ

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- On 10 September 2019, Colorado Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO) offered an amendment to the proposed bill to create federal grants for  “Red Flag” bills in the House of Representative. The amendment was offered in the Judiciary Committee.  Representative Ken Buck's introduction of the amendment occurs in the first minute and ten seconds of the video on C-Span. “Red Flag” bills allow police to confiscate guns from people with a mere accusation they may pose a threat. In Red Flag bills, there is little due process.

An accusation is sufficient. No court appearance by the accused, or confrontation of witnesses, is required.  There is no presumption of innocence. To regain their rights, the person accused has to prove they are “not* a danger. They may incur thousands of dollars of court costs to regain the property that was taken from them without due process.

Representative Buck's amendment would allow law enforcement agencies, on probable cause of a person belonging to a criminal gang, to use “Red Flag” laws to take guns from gang members.

Representative Buck offered testimony that most murders and violent crimes involving guns are committed by gang members. The standard of probable cause is much higher than a mere accusation from a family member or other person who may have the motivation to make false charges, about potential future conduct.

The amendment pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left. The Committee Chairman, Representative Nadler, said a taking gun from a person, for simply being on a database, would violate due process. Red flag laws require less evidence than probable cause for law enforcement officials. They only require an accusation of the potential of a threat.

Rep. Buck told Tucker Carlson he was opposed to the “Red Flag” bill being passed at all. His amendment was to point out the hypocrisy, to show the Democrats want to take guns from people without criminal convictions, but who demand full due process for the people most likely to be involved in violent crimes.

Rep. Buck says 80% of murders committed with guns are committed by gang members. He says over 90% of the crime committed in America are committed by gang members.

Representative Veronica Escobar (D-TX),  brought up the problems of identity confusion in databases of gang members. John Lott has been pointing out the problems with identity confusion in the National Instant background Check System (NICS) database, especially for minorities, for years. Democrats have not had a problem with that.

Ms. Zoe Lofgren, (D) 19th District, California talked of due process problems.

Rep Doug Collins (R-GA) brought up the hypocrisy of the Democrats in voting to ban all members of the “no-fly” list, which has far more problems with due process than gang members lists, from buying guns.  On 23 June 2016, the Democrats staged a “sit-in” on the House floor, to demand people on the “no-fly” list be banned from purchasing guns. From pbs.org:

Democrats staged an all-night sit-in, demanding a vote on a plan to ban anyone on the government's terrorist no-fly list from buying a gun.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Nadler (D) New York, has this as part of a press release:

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) joined with Democratic colleagues to stage a sit-in on the House floor calling on Speaker Ryan and the Republican Leadership to bring forward common sense gun legislation that prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone on the terrorist watch list and closes the gun show loophole.

There is no “probable cause” to be put on a no fly list. There is no way to appeal being on a no-fly list. The standard to be on a gang member list is considerably higher. Yet Democrats were all for banning everyone who is on a “no-fly” list from purchasing a gun. When it comes to street gangs, however, any possibility of a lack of due process is an excellent reason to not have gang members red-flagged.

Why would Democrats, who show an overwhelming desire to disarm Americans, be so concerned about disarming people who are likely gang members?

Representative Buck says the Democrats want to disarm rural Americans, not gang members. It is a serious charge. Unfortunately, it fits the facts. Guns are concentrated in rural America. Most rifles, particularly semi-automatic rifles, are in rural America. Rural America has far less crime than urban America. Most deaths associated with guns in rural America are suicides committed by older white men. Most homicides in America are committed by urban gang members.

Rep. Buck says the Democrats wish to split law enforcement from rural America with these laws.  He says that many law enforcement agencies in rural America do not want these laws, and do not want to enforce them.

Separating law enforcement from gun owners has long been a goal of those wishing to disarm the American population.

Source: Ammoland.