Democrat On Trump Voter Fraud Probe Slams Voting Restriction Efforts

A Democratic member of President Donald Trump’s commission to investigate voter fraud issued some of the strongest criticism yet from within the panel on efforts to make it more difficult to vote.

In a lengthy statement to the commission, Alan King, a Democratic probate judge in Alabama, criticized overzealous efforts to purge people from the voter rolls. In his statement, King wrote that while there may be some people who voted twice, there were thousands more who were removed from the rolls for no reason or had their vote suppressed. King won’t be attending the panel’s Tuesday meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, because of a scheduling conflict, he told commission organizers.

“The reality is that the less affluent in our society are more prone to move and more prone to have a diminished economic position in life, just to survive. But that does not mean that officials in government should ‘game the system’ to deprive the less affluent from voting, simply because they may have moved from one election to another only to be stricken from the active voter list,” he wrote.

This is about protecting the affluent. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that those that are affluent have a more stable type of residential situation and home life. Alan King, Alabama probate judge

King’s comments are significant because they are some of the toughest comments from a sitting commission member pushing back on the suggestion that widespread voter fraud is a problem. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), the commission’s vice chair, supports a Kansas law that puts people on a suspense list if they fail to show proof of citizenship when they register. J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky, two other Republican commission members, also support more aggressive voter purging.

King expanded on his statement in an interview with HuffPost, saying he saw aggressive voter purging as a way of disenfranchising the poor and less affluent.

“This is about protecting the affluent. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that those that are affluent have a more stable type of residential situation and home life. And this is about disenfranchising, in my opinion, those perhaps who live in apartment complexes, who are maybe less educated, who maybe for whatever reason in life, they’re not at a level that some people are. That’s what this is about,” he said. “This is just me. But I do have almost 17 years of nuts and bolts experience…

Read the full article from the Source…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *