Noncitizen Voting Cartoons

Unclear if noncitizens voted in primary, California's top election official says

Alex Padilla, California's top elections official, said Tuesday he doesn't yet know if any of the roughly 1,500 people mistakenly registered to vote by the Department of Motor Vehciles cast ballots in the June primary.

 California's top elections official said Tuesday he doesn't yet know if any of the roughly 1,500 people mistakenly registered to vote by the Department of Motor Vehicles cast ballots in the June primary, according to reports.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla said his office is investigating and working with counties to ensure ineligible people don't vote in the November election.
"I remain deeply frustrated and disappointed that persistent errors by the DMV and CDT [California Department of Technology] have undermined public confidence," Padilla wrote in a letter calling for an audit, according to San Diego’s KNSD-TV.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said his office is investigating the roughly 1,500 people mistakenly registered to vote by the Department of Motor Vehicles. (California Secretary of State website)

The DMV said the mistakes occurred because of a processing error affecting people who are not legal U.S. citizens, Fresno’s FOX 26 reported.
The incorrect registrations occurred between April 23 and Sept. 25, according to the DMV. California held its primary election June 6.
“These mistakes from the DMV are absolutely unacceptable,” Padilla said. "My concern is it risks jeopardizing confidence in the electoral process."

“These mistakes from the DMV are absolutely unacceptable. My concern is it risks jeopardizing confidence in the electoral process."
— Alex Padilla, California secretary of state

The roughly 1,500 people either told the DMV they were ineligible or didn't confirm their eligibility but were registered anyway, Padilla said.
The group included at least one noncitizen living legally in the state and perhaps many more. It could also include people under 18 or those ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction, Padilla said.
The DMV said none of the people mistakenly registered are people living in the country illegally. The secretary of state will cancel incorrect registrations, Jessica Gonzalez, DMV spokeswoman, told KNSD-TV.
People were mistakenly registered through no fault of their own, Padilla said, and his office is removing them from the voter rolls. The department is working quickly to fix the problem, DMV Director Jean Shiomoto said.
Early voting for the Nov. 6 election began this week. California's motor voter law letting residents automatically register to vote through the DMV took effect in April. Since then, people have newly registered or updated their voter registration more than 3 million times, Gonzalez said.
The new law is aimed at making it easier for people to register and boosting voter turnout.
Suspending the Motor Voter program is "certainly on the table" given a spate of problems, Padilla said.
“We’re doing the homework as we speak of what does that mean and what it would take,” Padilla said at a Tuesday news conference, the San Luis Obispo Tribune reported.
Last month, the department announced it may have botched about 23,000 voter registrations because of a separate error. As a result, the DMV sent the secretary of state's office incorrect information for some voters, mostly affecting people's vote-by-mail, language and political party selections, according to the department.
The DMV discovered the roughly 1,500 mistaken registrations after the Los Angeles Times inquired about a Canadian who was incorrectly registered, the paper reported.
The green card holder contacted the Times because he was mailed a voter registration notice after he tried to replace his driver's license at the DMV, the paper reported Monday.
Neither the DMV nor Padilla's office said how many noncitizens were registered.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Rand Paul warns of 'assassination' peril after Kavanaugh confirmation: 'I really worry someone is going to be killed'

Following the bitterly partisan, acrimonious confirmation battle over Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., warned in an interview on Tuesday that heated political rhetoric has the potential to turn deadly.
"I fear that there's going to be an assassination," Paul told a Kentucky radio show. "I really worry that somebody is going to be killed, and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation ... they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence."
Paul's comments came the same day former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared that Democrats "cannot be civil" with Republicans any longer.
Paul's wife, Kelley, revealed in a Breitbart News interview on Friday that she sleeps with a "loaded gun by my bed," has updated her home's security system and has "deadbolts all around my house." Kelley also wrote an op-ed published by CNN in which she called on Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., to tone down his rhetoric; in June, Booker suggested his supporters “get up in the face of congresspeople.”
The Kentucky senator reiterated his wife's criticism on Tuesday. "When people like Cory Booker say get up in their face ... What he doesn't realize is that for every 1,000 persons who want to get up in your face, one of them is going to be unstable enough to commit violence," Paul said.

"I fear that there's going to be an assassination."
— Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Last week, Paul was chased and verbally harassed by anti-Kavanaugh activists at Washington's Reagan National Airport. And last fall, Paul was attacked and beaten in his yard in Kentucky by his neighbor -- an episode that a Kentucky Democrat joked about earlier this year.
Paul was attending the congressional baseball practice last summer when a gunman opened fire, hitting House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., in the hip and injuring two Capitol police officers and an aide. The episode was very nearly a "massacre," lawmakers said.
"When I was at the ballfield and Steve Scalise was nearly killed, the guy shooting up the ballfield, and shooting I think five or six people, he was yelling, 'This is for health care,'" Paul told host Leland Conway on Tuesday. "When I was attacked in my yard and had six of my ribs broken, and pneumonia, lung contusion, all that -- these are people that are unstable, we don't want to encourage them."
REPUBLICAN SENATOR RECEIVES GRAPHIC TEXT MESSAGE OF BEHEADING, SEES PERSONAL INFORMATION LEAKED AFTER 'YES' VOTE ON KAVANAUGH
The uncorroborated sexual assault accusations against Kavanaguh, Paul said, didn't justify keeping him off the Supreme Court, much less the partisan rancor surrounding his confirmation. (Paul, who was initially skeptical about Kavanaugh's constitutional views on privacy, ultimately became one of the 51 senators who supported his confirmation.)
"We don't want this to be the standard, that anyone can accuse anybody of anything," he continued. "That would sort of be the standard they had in Venice in the 15th century, when people would put their complaints into the mouth of the lion .... And you'd put your complaint in, and people would lose their head over that."
Paul then echoed President Trump's comments at a ceremonial swearing-in for Kavanaugh in the East Room on Monday evening, as well as dramatic remarks by Maine moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins last week. The president apologized to Kavanaugh "on behalf of our nation" and, before thanking Collins, emphasized that "in our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."
"You are presumed to be innocent," Paul agreed. "I just feel really sorry for Kavanaugh and his wife and his children for having to go through that."
Hundreds of protesters have been arrested by Capitol Police in the past three weeks, with some briefly staying in jail. Kavanaugh, his family, his accusers and lawmakers all received death threats.
WATCH: MOB CHANTING 'WE BELIEVE SURVIVORS' ACCOSTS TED CRUZ, WIFE INSIDE D.C. RESTAURANT
STAFFERS AT RESTAURANT GET DEATH THREATS AFTER TED CRUZ, WIFE HARASSED INSIDE
Protests outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the first day Kavanaugh publicly sat on the bench for oral arguments, were relatively sparse. On Saturday, when Kavanaugh was formally sworn in, demonstrators outside banged on the Supreme Court's doors and attempted to claw their way inside.
And a teacher in Minnesota announced she had resigned this week after asking on Twitter, "So whose gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?" Supreme Court justices receive protection from the Supreme Court Police and the U.S. Marshals Service while in Washington, D.C., although they must ordinarily request protection on domestic or international trips outside that metropolitan area.
On Tuesday, President Trump suggested some of the demonstraters in the nation's capital were paid to protest, and were angry primarily because "they haven't gotten their checks." Some of the anti-Kavanaugh protesters who accosted senators on Capitol Hill have ties to liberal billionaire George Soros.
A 27-year-old Democratic congressional intern was arrested last week and accused of posting the personal information of at least one Republican senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Kavanaugh. The intern, who has since been fired, was denied bail on Tuesday.
Also speaking in a radio interview on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he was proud of his Republican colleagues for standing up to what he called "mob tactics" during the Kavanaugh confirmation battle.
McConnell also said that he would have no problem appointing a conservative justice in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election if Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to retire from the bench. He distinguished that hypothetical from the situation with failed Obama nominee Merrick Garland in 2016 because at that time, different parties controlled the White House and the Senate.
WATCH: NANCY PELOSI COMPARES KAVANAUGH TO NORTH KOREAN DICTATOR KIM JONG UN
"It will depend largely if the Senate is in Republican hands or Democratic hands," McConnell said, saying it is exceedingly rare for a lame-duck president whose party does not control the Senate to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

"I think they overplayed their hand."
— Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

The GOP is currently favored to retain control of the Senate after November's midterm elections, buoyed in part by a newly energized base after the Kavanaugh fight.
FOX NEWS POLLS SHOW MAJOR GOP BOOST IN KEY SENATE BATTLEGROUNDS WITH LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE MIDTERMS
"This has been like a shot of adrenaline to Republican voters who probably were not as interested or energized in an off-year election with the president not on the ballot," McConnell said. "I think they overplayed their hand. I think the tactics turned off people and turned on our base."

This time, 'Lock her up!' chant directed at Feinstein first, then Clinton

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, speaks to reporters about an FBI report on sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, on Capitol Hill, Oct. 4, 2018.

The "Lock her up!" chant reserved for Hillary Clinton at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies during the 2016 presidential campaign was aimed at a new target Tuesday: U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.
Before a crowd in Council Bluffs, Iowa, President Trump accused Feinstein of leaking a letter in which Christine Blasey Ford wrote that now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had engaged in sexual misconduct three decades ago.
“How about Senator Feinstein. That’s another beauty,” said Trump, who was in Iowa campaigning for Republican candidates ahead of next month's midterm elections.
Seconds later, the president's supporters started the familiar “Lock her up!” chant.
“And I think they’re talking about Feinstein, can you believe that?” Trump said. “Now was that the worst body language. In other words, did she leak it? A hundred percent. No, I don’t want to get sued, 99 percent. See now, I can’t get ... Now I can’t get sued.”
Trump also took shots at other prominent Democrats, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has denied leaking the letter that led to a delay in Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings and said that she respected Ford’s request to remain anonymous.
In a statement to the Hill, Feinstein called Trump’s remarks “ridiculous and an embarrassment."
“Dr. Blasey Ford knows I kept her confidence, she and her lawyers said so repeatedly. Republican senators admit it. Even the reporter who broke the story said it wasn’t me or my staff," Feinstein continued.
At Tuesday’s rally, Trump quickly moved on from Feinstein to Clinton, who also drew a “Lock her up!” chant when Trump brought up a previous trade deal with South Korea, which he called a "Hillary Clinton deal."

Marsha Blackburn responds to Taylor Swift slam

Swift, 28, slammed Blackburn on Instagram Sunday, saying that even though she would “like to continue voting for women in office,” she wouldn’t be casting a vote in favor of Blackburn. (AP, File)

Marsha Blackburn, a Republican Senate candidate in Tennessee, responded Tuesday to Taylor Swift’s social media dig against her, and the pop star's announcement that she would be voting for Democrats in the midterm elections.
Swift, 28, slammed Blackburn on Instagram Sunday, saying that even though she would “like to continue voting for women in office,” she wouldn’t be casting a vote in favor of Blackburn.
“Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me,” she continued, before citing several examples of how she said Blackburn voted.
However, in an interview with Fox Business’ Connell McShane, Blackburn, currently a Tennessee congresswoman, insisted that she is an advocate for women’s causes.
TAYLOR SWIFT BASHES BLACKBURN IN FAVOR OF TENNESSEE DEMS, BREAKING POLITICAL SILENCE
“Of course I support women and I want violence to end against women,” Blackburn said. “I've been very active in abuse shelters and child advocacy centers. I've been advocating for women in equal pay since I was 19 years old and making certain that woman have the opportunity for maximum pay and have a good record on that.”
The congresswoman continued: "We're getting ready the Music Modernization Act that I helped steer through Congress. It's going to be signed on Thursday by the president. I've been very active in that and Taylor Swift will benefit by that." The wide-ranging bill would affect payments to songwriters, copyright performance rights and royalties, among other things.
When asked whether she thought Swift’s decision could sway voters, Blackburn said she believed her constituents cared more about who supported her.
“Tennesseans are more interested in the fact that Marsha Blackburn is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the Fraternal Order of Police, by the Police Benevolent Association and by the National Rifle Association, where I have an ‘A’ rating and their endorsement,” Blackburn said.
TAYLOR SWIFT’S POLITICAL INSTAGRAM POST CAUSES SPIKE IN VOTER REGISTRATION, ORGANIZATION SAYS
Swift notably had strayed from commenting publically on politics in the past. However, she wrote Sunday that she now feels “very differently” and announced she would be voting for Tennessee Democrats.
“I cannot vote for someone who will not be willing to fight for dignity for ALL Americans, no matter their skin color, gender or who they love,” Swift wrote. “She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry.”
Swift continued, “These are not MY Tennessee values."

Taylor Swift Cartoons

Opioid crisis is major midterm issue in areas hard hit by drug deaths

From the bustling streets of Philadelphia to the rural farmlands of Mercer County, nearly every community in Pennsylvania has been rocked by the opioid crisis – and the problem keeps worsening.
In 2016, more than 4,600 Pennsylvanians died as a result of drug abuse. It has affected the lives of thousands more.
Jose Benitez, the executive director of a needle exchange clinic in Philadelphia, struggles to make sure he has enough manpower and resources to treat his growing number of patients. He said three years ago, he treated 4,000 patients. Now, he serves about 15,000, most of whom are battling opioid-related addictions.
“We have mothers, fathers, sister, brothers dying daily,” he said. “It has to stop.”
For Benitez, additional funding and attention to the opioid crisis is a tipping point in the Pennsylvania midterm election. He hopes to see lawmakers who are educated on addiction and can provide innovative solutions.

Additional funding and attention to the opioid crisis is seen as a tipping point for some voters in the Pennsylvania midterm election. They have said they hope to see lawmakers who are educated on addiction and can provide innovative solutions.  (This content is subject to copyright.)

“What we’ve done so far isn’t working,” Benitez said. “In Kensington [Philadelphia], we have more than 600 homeless people, most of them addicted to opioids.  It’s a real public health issue and it’s devastating our communities.”
The opioid problem is emerging as a major issue during the midterm elections, particularly in areas hard hit by the growing crisis.
“This is an issue that voters on the ground care about,” said Jeanne Zaino, a political science professor at Iona College in New Rochelle, N.Y. “Look at the Wisconsin Senate race, for example, where healthcare has been a major issue leading up to the midterm.”
A recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal shows that ads mentioning the opioid crisis have aired more than 50,000 times in congressional and gubernatorial races across 25 states. Just four years ago, at around this time, it had only been mentioned 70 times, the Journal reported.
The Wisconsin Senate race is one of several where candidates have feuded over how to address the opioid epidemic. Democrats in the state have hammered away at Republican candidate Leah Vukmir's legislative health care record, claiming she sides with insurance companies and businesses over ordinary Wisconsinites. Republicans say a government-run system will not only divert treatment but decrease the quality of care for everyone.
It is also a major problem in Pennsylvania’s largest county, Philadelphia, where more than 1,217 drug-related deaths were reported last year.
The Democratic candidate for Congress in Lehigh Valley, Susan Wild, wants to focus on medical care – not criminal prosecutions. Her Republican opponent, Marty Nothstein, thinks the focus should be on public safety. Nothstein believes beefed up border security will help cut off the influx of what he calls replacement drugs – like fentanyl and heroin – that have contributed to fatalities both regionally and nationally.
In northeast Pennsylvania, the opioid crisis has become a political focal point. Incumbent Rep. Tom Marino, R-Cogan Station, was nearly named America's drug czar, under the Trump administration, but withdrew his name after he was accused of weakening laws that favored the pharmaceutical industry.
Marino, a former federal prosecutor, has called the allegations a “hatchet job.” Nonetheless, has been criticized by his Democratic opponent, Marc Friedenberg, who claims Marino is too cozy with drug companies to make a real dent on the opioid crisis.
“Throughout my campaign, this crisis has been one of the most common issues that voters want to talk about,” Friedenberg said in a recent statement. “We need real solutions; we don’t need politicians like Tom Marino who are more interested in cashing checks from Big Pharma than they are in helping Pennsylvanians.”
Friedenberg held an “opioid town hall” last month. This past summer, Marino also held a town hall focusing on the opioid crisis that was co-hosted by celebrity Dr. Phil.
Marino has defended his record, saying as a prosecutor he has dedicated his life to “aggressive and faithful enforcement” of the nation’s laws.
“Given my lifelong devotion to law enforcement, I insist on correcting the record regarding the false accusations and unfair reporting to which I have been subjected," Marino said when the allegations first arose.

The opioid problem is emerging as a major issue during the midterm elections, particularly in areas hard hit by the growing crisis.

Zaino believes the current drug crisis can become the deciding factor in many toss-up races in the northeast. Combating the opioid epidemic is a shared viewpoint, Zaino said, essentially no one opposes it – but candidates do differ on how to address the issue.
“When you remove healthcare coverage from the conversation, the likelihood of someone accessing treatment significantly decreases,” said Democratic Strategist Roger Fisk. “So, Republicans are really at odds with themselves on this issue. You can’t fight the epidemic and cancel coverage at the time.”
Republicans, on the other hand, would like to see a shared effort between the private and public sector as well as emphasizing law enforcement’s role in cutting off the flow of illicit drugs.
“This issue is about making America strong again, the community along with lawmakers have to forge an alliance and work together to repair our communities,” said Republican strategist Chris Prudhome.
Despite the differences, the topic has remained a priority for lawmakers. Last week, Congress approved a rare bipartisan bill to combat the growing health crisis – creating, expanding and reauthorizing drug programs and policies across almost every federal agency.
The bill was sent to the White House just in time for lawmakers to campaign on the issue before the November midterm elections.
“It will be interesting to see how voters in the Northeast, where there are Republicans and Democrats running on this issue with two different viewpoints, vote,” said Zaino, “I think only the exit polls will tell us what Americans want to see happen next.” ​​​​​​

Anger management: Outraged liberal pundits declaring war after Kavanaugh

The left is really, really angry after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation.
Or perhaps I should say that some liberal pundits are mad as hell. And that's leading them to make some stunning declarations as they try to harness that anger—or maybe just engage in very public group therapy.
Now anger has always been a tool in American politics. It's a way of whipping up your base and energizing your voters. President Trump regularly tries to rouse his most loyal supporters by playing to their grievances and hitting hot-button cultural issues. (Just yesterday, he accused Democrats of "torturing" Kavanaugh and his family through a "hoax" with "fabricated" charges.)
But there was a dramatically different reaction in the left-leaning media establishment when anger on the right began fueling the Tea Party movement after Barack Obama's election. I never particularly liked the "take back our country" rhetoric — take it back from what? — but many mainstream pundits were too quick to dismiss the movement as a bunch of racist yahoos.
Now, in the Trump era, anger is in. It's trending. There's a resistance movement.
There was, to be sure, plenty of ugliness on both sides of the Supreme Court battle. Ariel Dumas, a writer for Stephen Colbert’s "Late Show," tweeted that "no matter what happens, I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life." (She later expressed regret for her "tone-deaf attempt at sarcasm," but I don't see a hint of humor.)
Anyone flipping through the major papers yesterday would have seen these op-ed headlines:
"Liberals, This Is War" — Charles Blow, New York Times.
"Get Angry, and Get Involved" — David Leonhardt, New York Times.
"We Need to Stay Angry on Kavanaugh" — E.J. Dionne, Washington Post.
I'm sensing a pattern here.
Let's start with Blow, who's already written that he wants to hate Donald Trump. The Kavanaugh confirmation, he says, is part "of a much larger plan by conservatives to fundamentally change the American political structure so that it enshrines and protects white male power even after America's changing demographics and mores move away from that power."
Blow writes that "liberals can get so high-minded that they lose sight of the ground war," and in case folks aren't grabbing their bayonets, says that "Kavanaugh is only one soldier, albeit an important one, in a larger battle. Stop thinking you're in a skirmish, when you're at war."
Leonhardt begins his piece with this declaration: "If you're not angry yet, you should be."
Leaving aside that people don't like to be told how they should feel, he says that after a "brutal, partisan process ... the two new justices have cemented an extremist Republican majority on the Supreme Court. It has already begun acting as a kind of super-legislature, throwing out laws on voting rights, worker rights, consumer rights and political influence buying. Now, the court is poised to do much more to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of most Americans — and the planet. This is not how democracy is supposed to work."
Actually, it's exactly how democracy is supposed to work.
Trump won the election (by fewer popular votes, Leonhardt complains, but that's the system set up by the Constitution). The Senate confirmed his choice (yes, on a razor-thin partisan vote, but that’s also how ObamaCare passed).
"Again, if you’re not angry, you should be, and I realize that many of you already are. The past two weeks, on top of everything that came before, have created a sense of frustration and injustice that I have never seen before from people on the left and in the center. The question now is, What are you going to do with that anger?"
Then he makes the perfectly rational suggestion that they get involved: Turn out in the midterms, prod family and friends, knock on doors. That, too, is how democracy is supposed to work. If you want your side to wield power, you have to win elections.
Dionne is a smart and sophisticated observer, and an old colleague, so I'm surprised by the language he uses: "Conservative forces in the country, led by the Republican Party, have completed a judicial coup, decades in the making."
A coup? I get that conservatives have been targeting the court for decades, and I get that the GOP was ruthless in denying Merrick Garland a vote. But that doesn't rise to even metaphorical coup status.
"After all these outrages, there will be calls for a renewal of civility, as if the problem is that people said nasty things about one other. But the answer to this power grab cannot be passive acceptance in the name of being polite."
Then comes the zinger: E.J. wants to pack the court.
"And there should now be no squeamishness about the urgency of enlarging the Supreme Court if Democrats have the power to do so after the 2020 elections. The current majority on the court was created through illegitimate means. Changing that majority would not constitute politicizing the court because conservatives have already done this without apology."
Sure, he acknowledges that FDR’s court-packing scheme was a disaster, but says the opposition can be overcome with a two-year debate.
Doesn't this sound like changing the rules after losing the game?
The country has just been through a raw and incendiary battle that opened wounds about the treatment of alleged sexual assault. Emotions are still running high. But all this talk of anger and wars and coups seems jarringly out of place for those who usually preach the virtues of rational debate and discourse.