Here are quotes:
c. Discrepancy Between the Number of Ballots Cast and the ``Voted
Tape''
Without alleging how, if at all, it might affect this
election, Contestant contended that there were 1,985 more
ballots cast throughout Orange County than the number of votes
recorded on a ``voted tape''.52
++++++++++++++++++
\47\ Contreras Affidavit at 30; Opposition at 7. Contestant cited
press accounts to allege that the Group processed 13,000 clients in
1996 and that of this number 10,000 attended classes at the
organization's Orange County offices. Opposition at 5. Contestant
contended that there was an ``overwhelming body of evidence'' to
suggest that the Group registered 10,000 to 13,000 individuals. Id.
This number had no relevance to the issue before the Committee and
enjoyed no credible support or documentation in the record.
Registrations are not votes counted on election day. In addition, there
was no evidence that the 13,000 registrations impacted upon the
election (13,000 possible illegal registrations the left conveniently passes over without even looking at for possible fraud) in question because there was no evidence to suggest that all
of these people registered for the 46th Congressional District
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One feature that the Majority has yet to explain, and
which contributed to the misperception late in 1997
that as many as 2,474 illegal citizens voted (leftists claim this allegation should not even be investigated since republicans did not prove every detail of their allegation. That is so typical of Democrat ploys to avoid investigating evidence of fraud.)
November 1996, is why the Majority asked INS and OC to
provide signature samples for voters whose first names
and/or genders in the respective database were
unmistakably different.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. The Burden of Proof Lies with the Contestant
The burden of proof in all stages of an election contest
lies with the contestant. This placing of the burden is, of
course, consistent with, and a product of, the very fundamental
deference paid to election results and the authority of states
to administer elections. That the burden lies at all times with
the contestant has, therefore, been made clear in the
precedents of the House: ``Under [the FCEA], the burden of
proof is on the contestant to present sufficient evidence, even
prior to the formal submission of testimony, to overcome the
motion to dismiss.'' 22
++++++++++++++++++++++++
To the dismay of the Majority, which promised that
comparing the two databases would resolve the contested
election swiftly, elegantly, and accurately, ``matches'' like
the one just cited were more the rule than the exception. The
bottom-line is that there is no way to tell if the OC person is
likely the person in the INS databases unless further steps are
taken, which the Minority has been carrying out since last June
and revising as the Majority has requested new information from
the INS, Orange County, and the California Secretary of State.
This has included signature samples and the list of 4,761
``suspect registrants'' the Majority sent to Bill Jones last
November and which the Minority treated as the total universe
of suspect voters when it received a copy on November 4, 1996.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Democrats stonewalled the investigation, the INS and leftist election officials refused to cooperate with the Republican investigators, and the public media spread lies and disinformation designed to bring the investigation to an unfinished, Democrat-favorable conclusion. One more quote from the radical leftist Democrat voting crooks:
ADDITIONAL VIEW
The legacy of the protection of voting rights for
minorities in the United States was a hard-fought battle that
saw its culmination in the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of
1965. Despite entreaties to the contrary, there has been no
demonstration from the Majority that any changes to our current
registration laws--proof or documentation of citizenship to
register to vote, or to allow states to require Social Security
numbers on voting registration applications--are needed or
necessary to ensure the accuracy and validity of our nation's
elections.
We all want open, honest and fair elections and
registration processes. What should not happen, as a result of
this decision, is the further disenfranchisement of voters by
even more restrictive registration requirements. This would
only be the beginning of the recurrence of poll watchers,
literacy tests, and poll taxes--other relics of a bygone era
that died with the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
These, and other further and unwarranted restrictions upon the
voting rights of all hinder the progress and freedom of not
just minorities, but of all Americans.
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
Notice that the leftist equates requirements for legal residency to vote as akin to literacy tests, poll taxes, poll watchers (what is wrong with poll watchers if the election officials have nothing to hide?), and other "relics" Democrats see as evil restrictions to open, unrestricted, registration of illegal aliens to vote.
