Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than Voting-Age Citizens

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I know next to nothing about them honestly and their reputation shouldn't matter. They may very well have the methodology reported somewhere, as well an estimate of error. Brietbart just didn't show it. It may be out there and they may have checked all the proper boxes off when putting together their study. I just haven't seen it here. If you can point me to it that woudl be great.

 

Humour and sarcasm are usually pretty good ways to mask something that you are uneducated or uncomfortable with. You seem to have difficulty understanding the core concepts of statistics and why it would be important, so it makes sense you would resort to sarcasm about scientific rigor. 

Richard Mellon Scaife's Cash Pays For Judicial Watch's Ideologically Motivated Lawsuits

 

If you follow Phoenix politics, then you are familiar with the activities of a Washington, D.C.-based group called Judicial Watch, which seems to be suing half the city at any given moment — notably, the half that doesn't agree with it. But more on that in a sec.

 

It is more than conservative. In fact, Judicial Watch specializes in far-right-wing advocacy, and though the group is designated by the Internal Revenue Service as non-partisan and tax-exempt, it pursues a relentless wing-nut agenda, one that includes the insidious cause of nativism

 

For example, in Judicial Watch's alternate reality, the DREAM Act — the proposed federal legislation that would allow young, undocumented men and women brought to this country when they were tots to legalize their status — is "amnesty."

Senate Bill 1070? Manna from heaven. State Senator Russell Pearce, Arizona's biggest bigot? A hero, whom the organization represents in federal court and whom it recently hosted in D.C. as a speaker at a panel on immigration.

There, Pearce compared illegal immigrants to cattle with mad cow disease and joked that President Barack Obama would not be visiting Arizona because Sand Land requires "papers."

Oh, that Russ, such a card. During the same panel discussion, one of the questioners in the audience was none other than white nationalist Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com, identified as a "hate site" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Brimelow wondered about a "moratorium" on all legal immigration to the United States. And Pearce agreed that this was a bang-up idea, at least for the moment.

Of course, illegal immigration isn't Judicial Watch's only issue. If you check out its Web site, you'll find a veritable catalog of conserva-nut obsessions, everything from now-defunct left-wing group ACORN and the Ground Zero Mosque to lame-duck U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and (naturally) President Obama.

Judicial Watch has been around for about 16 years. It publishes an annual list of Washington's top 10 "most wanted corrupt politicians." Most of those listed just happen to be Democrats, though Judicial Watch throws in the occasional GOPer for the sake of form.

Back in the day, Judicial Watch was consumed with taking down then-President Bill Clinton and killed many a forest filing legal paperwork against his administration.

Such lawyerin' is expensive. But J.W.'s never wanted for cash, in large part because of the deep pockets of crackpot Pennsylvania billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

Most now remember Scaife's name in connection to "the Arkansas Project," wherein Scaife spent more than $2 million trying to slime Clinton by having compliant journalists and private detectives investigate wacko conspiracy theories related to Whitewater and the suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster.

The reclusive Scaife, 78, is heir to the Mellon banking fortune, and number 332 on Forbes' 2010 list of the 400 wealthiest folks in America.

 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/richard-mellon-scaifes-cash-pays-for-judicial-watchs-ideologically-motivated-lawsuits-6446911

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

The great thing about Judicial Watch is their track record of success:

Quote

 

Under Section 8 of the NVRA, states are required to make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from official lists due to “the death of the registrant” or “a change in the residence of the registrant,” and requires states to ensure noncitizens are not registered to vote.

There is “strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA,” Judicial Watch wrote in the notice letter sent to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Judicial Watch referred California officials to a settlement agreement it reached with the State of Ohio in which Ohio agreed to update and maintain its voter registration lists and to keep a current voter registration list online and available for public access.

“California’s voting rolls are an absolute mess that undermines the very idea of clean elections,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “It is urgent that California take reasonable steps to clean up its rolls. We will sue if state officials fail to act.”

In April, Judicial Watch sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens.  The states are: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee.

On July 18, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the NVRA. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)).

Election Integrity Project California, Inc. is a registered non-profit corporation that seeks to preserve a government of, by, and for the people. To that end, Election Integrity Project California empowers citizen volunteers through education and training to protect the integrity of the electoral process in California.

 

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-warns-california-clean-voter-registration-lists-face-federal-lawsuit/

 

Their methodology undoubtedly is revealed to the courts, especially as they present prima facie evidence sufficient for the federal government to come down on the states for NVRA violations and fine them. It's especially sufficient given other states have settled with them before over similar lawsuits. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Richard Mellon Scaife's Cash Pays For Judicial Watch's Ideologically Motivated Lawsuits

 

If you follow Phoenix politics, then you are familiar with the activities of a Washington, D.C.-based group called Judicial Watch, which seems to be suing half the city at any given moment — notably, the half that doesn't agree with it. But more on that in a sec.

 

It is more than conservative. In fact, Judicial Watch specializes in far-right-wing advocacy, and though the group is designated by the Internal Revenue Service as non-partisan and tax-exempt, it pursues a relentless wing-nut agenda, one that includes the insidious cause of nativism

 

For example, in Judicial Watch's alternate reality, the DREAM Act — the proposed federal legislation that would allow young, undocumented men and women brought to this country when they were tots to legalize their status — is "amnesty."

Senate Bill 1070? Manna from heaven. State Senator Russell Pearce, Arizona's biggest bigot? A hero, whom the organization represents in federal court and whom it recently hosted in D.C. as a speaker at a panel on immigration.

There, Pearce compared illegal immigrants to cattle with mad cow disease and joked that President Barack Obama would not be visiting Arizona because Sand Land requires "papers."

Oh, that Russ, such a card. During the same panel discussion, one of the questioners in the audience was none other than white nationalist Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com, identified as a "hate site" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Brimelow wondered about a "moratorium" on all legal immigration to the United States. And Pearce agreed that this was a bang-up idea, at least for the moment.

Of course, illegal immigration isn't Judicial Watch's only issue. If you check out its Web site, you'll find a veritable catalog of conserva-nut obsessions, everything from now-defunct left-wing group ACORN and the Ground Zero Mosque to lame-duck U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and (naturally) President Obama.

Judicial Watch has been around for about 16 years. It publishes an annual list of Washington's top 10 "most wanted corrupt politicians." Most of those listed just happen to be Democrats, though Judicial Watch throws in the occasional GOPer for the sake of form.

Back in the day, Judicial Watch was consumed with taking down then-President Bill Clinton and killed many a forest filing legal paperwork against his administration.

Such lawyerin' is expensive. But J.W.'s never wanted for cash, in large part because of the deep pockets of crackpot Pennsylvania billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

Most now remember Scaife's name in connection to "the Arkansas Project," wherein Scaife spent more than $2 million trying to slime Clinton by having compliant journalists and private detectives investigate wacko conspiracy theories related to Whitewater and the suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster.

The reclusive Scaife, 78, is heir to the Mellon banking fortune, and number 332 on Forbes' 2010 list of the 400 wealthiest folks in America.

 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/richard-mellon-scaifes-cash-pays-for-judicial-watchs-ideologically-motivated-lawsuits-6446911

 

 

say it ain't so..all the bias and cash money 

[jg121783 3,921]

It's funny the left spends over a year and millions of dollars investigating the Russian conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence and now all of a sudden their standards for evidence change.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, jg121783 said:

It's funny the left spends over a year and millions of dollars investigating the Russian conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence and now all of a sudden their standards for evidence change.

Who needs TV when we have such quality entertainment before us?

 

I hope Trump and Sessions also consider using their clout to go after these states for their violations.

 

#ElectionIntegrity

[CaliCat 3,957]

16 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It's funny the left spends over a year and millions of dollars investigating the Russian conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence and now all of a sudden their standards for evidence change.

 

Funny really that there is so much smoke and yet the MDRs/MORs keep insisting that there is no fire. LOL. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

something is fishy...

California locations by voter registration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_voter_registration

The following is a list of California locations by voter registration.

In February 2013, California had 18,055,783 registered voters, comprising about 47% of its total population of 38.43 million. Of those registered voters, 7,932,373 (43.9 percent) were registered Democrats, and 5,225,675 (28.9 percent) were Republicans. As a percentage of registered voters, Democrats comprised 15.0 percent more of the electorate than Republicans did.

The county with the highest percentage of registered Republicans was Modoc County, with registered Republicans comprising half of registered voters. The ten counties with the highest percentage of registered Republicans are relatively small, with an average population of 91,776, and all are landlocked.

Similarly, the counties with the ten lowest percentages of registered voters are all relatively small and landlocked, with the exception of Monterey County. Kings County had the lowest percentage of registered voters, with just 31.8 percent of its population registered to vote. The two smallest counties in California by population also had the highest percentage of registered voters; Sierra County had the highest percentage, with 67.8 percent of its population registered to vote.

Inglewood had the highest percentage of registered Democrats of any place in California. The ten places with the highest percentage of registered Democrats all had high percentages of minorities (see California locations by race) and relatively low levels of income. On the other hand, Marin County, the highest income county in California by per capita income, had many more registered Democrats than Republicans. Further, of the ten highest-income counties in California by per capita income, all but Placer County, Orange County and El Dorado County had more registered Democrats than Republicans. But in yet another reversal, the place with the highest percentage of registered Republicans was Villa Park, which also has very high levels of income. Of the ten places in California with the highest percentage of registered Republicans, most have incomes above the state average (see California locations by income).

Entire state[edit]

Total population[1]	36,969,200
Registered voters[2][note 1]	18,055,783	48.8%
Democratic[2]	7,932,373	43.9%
Republican[2]	5,225,675	28.9%
Democratic–Republican spread[2]	+2,706,698	+15.0%
Independent[2]	476,157	2.6%
Green[2]	112,973	0.6%
Libertarian[2]	109,636	0.6%
Peace and Freedom[2]	61,612	0.3%
Americans Elect[2]	3,417	0.0%
Other[2]	367,483	2.0%
No party preference[2]	3,766,457	20.9%

Counties[edit]

County	Population[1]	Registered voters[2] [note 1]	Democratic[2]	Republican[2]	D–R spread[2]	Other[2]	No party preference[2]
Alameda	1,494,876	54.6%	56.4%	14.1%	+42.3%	12.1%	19.5%
Alpine	1,167	66.1%	37.6%	30.5%	+7.1%	10.8%	25.0%
Amador	38,244	56.1%	31.7%	45.0%	-13.3%	10.3%	17.2%
Butte	219,309	55.4%	34.4%	37.1%	-2.7%	10.4%	21.5%
Calaveras	45,794	62.8%	30.7%	42.5%	-11.8%	12.3%	19.0%
Colusa	21,297	36.0%	34.4%	45.3%	-10.9%	5.3%	17.3%
Contra Costa	1,037,817	51.1%	49.6%	24.8%	+24.8%	6.7%	21.4%
Del Norte	28,561	42.9%	34.7%	37.5%	-2.8%	12.0%	20.1%
El Dorado	179,878	61.3%	29.2%	43.9%	-14.7%	10.4%	20.3%
Fresno	920,623	45.1%	40.2%	38.2%	+2.0%	7.5%	16.8%
Glenn	28,027	43.8%	30.7%	45.1%	-14.4%	9.1%	18.9%
Humboldt	133,585	59.7%	41.6%	25.4%	+16.2%	11.9%	24.3%
Imperial	171,343	35.4%	50.4%	23.7%	+26.7%	6.2%	21.9%
Inyo	18,457	53.8%	30.9%	43.0%	-12.1%	10.8%	19.4%
Kern	829,254	40.1%	35.6%	41.1%	-5.5%	7.8%	18.8%
Kings	152,335	31.8%	35.8%	45.2%	-9.4%	6.2%	15.4%
Lake	64,392	54.6%	40.7%	27.5%	+13.2%	10.8%	25.0%
Lassen	35,001	39.8%	24.4%	48.0%	-23.6%	12.2%	20.6%
Los Angeles	9,787,747	49.7%	51.1%	21.6%	+29.5%	11.4%	18.1%
Madera	149,611	35.9%	33.9%	44.4%	-10.5%	7.5%	17.3%
Marin	250,666	61.5%	54.4%	18.2%	+36.2%	6.7%	22.9%
Mariposa	18,290	58.0%	29.7%	44.8%	-15.1%	12.3%	17.5%
Mendocino	87,525	56.0%	46.4%	21.7%	+24.7%	12.5%	22.8%
Merced	253,606	39.0%	44.5%	33.1%	+11.4%	7.7%	17.8%
Modoc	9,587	55.0%	25.9%	50.0%	-24.1%	11.5%	17.7%
Mono	14,016	42.8%	32.8%	36.1%	-3.3%	10.4%	24.8%
Monterey	411,385	40.9%	51.7%	24.2%	+27.5%	6.2%	20.2%
Napa	135,377	52.8%	46.4%	26.8%	+19.6%	8.5%	21.3%
Nevada	98,392	62.6%	33.0%	37.9%	-4.9%	10.9%	21.8%
Orange	2,989,948	46.7%	31.7%	41.8%	-10.1%	7.0%	22.1%
Placer	343,554	60.6%	28.0%	47.0%	-19.0%	6.5%	20.7%
Plumas	20,192	64.4%	31.3%	42.5%	-11.2%	11.7%	19.5%
Riverside	2,154,844	43.3%	36.5%	40.4%	-3.9%	7.8%	18.2%
Sacramento	1,408,480	49.5%	43.9%	31.9%	+12.0%	7.5%	19.6%
San Benito	54,873	48.6%	47.4%	29.4%	+18.0%	6.6%	19.2%
San Bernardino	2,023,452	43.0%	39.1%	35.4%	+3.7%	8.7%	20.4%
San Diego	3,060,849	51.5%	35.3%	33.9%	+1.4%	8.5%	25.6%
San Francisco	797,983	62.4%	55.6%	8.6%	+47.0%	6.4%	31.1%
San Joaquin	680,277	43.2%	43.7%	36.4%	+7.3%	6.6%	15.8%
San Luis Obispo	267,871	58.4%	33.8%	39.4%	-5.6%	8.6%	20.9%
San Mateo	711,622	50.7%	51.3%	19.4%	+31.9%	5.9%	25.5%
Santa Barbara	419,793	47.1%	41.4%	30.8%	+10.6%	7.8%	22.6%
Santa Clara	1,762,754	46.4%	45.6%	21.7%	+23.9%	5.7%	29.0%
Santa Cruz	259,402	61.0%	54.2%	16.5%	+37.7%	8.8%	22.8%
Shasta	177,231	55.3%	26.5%	46.7%	-20.2%	9.3%	21.2%
Sierra	3,277	67.8%	28.4%	42.2%	-13.8%	15.8%	19.2%
Siskiyou	44,687	57.2%	32.3%	40.9%	-8.6%	11.2%	20.1%
Solano	411,620	51.1%	48.6%	25.0%	+23.6%	7.3%	22.0%
Sonoma	478,551	54.7%	51.5%	21.6%	+29.9%	8.2%	21.3%
Stanislaus	512,469	45.2%	40.0%	38.8%	+1.2%	7.7%	16.2%
Sutter	94,192	44.3%	32.5%	44.5%	-12.0%	8.8%	17.5%
Tehama	62,985	48.4%	30.1%	44.4%	-14.3%	11.7%	18.8%
Trinity	13,711	57.2%	33.5%	34.3%	-0.8%	14.1%	22.9%
Tulare	436,234	33.2%	34.0%	43.7%	-9.7%	8.0%	17.7%
Tuolumne	55,736	57.6%	32.1%	42.1%	-10.0%	10.2%	19.6%
Ventura	815,745	52.9%	38.6%	36.0%	+2.6%	7.8%	20.1%
Yolo	198,889	51.2%	47.2%	23.9%	+23.3%	8.0%	23.6%
Yuba	71,817	40.4%	31.5%	39.3%	-7.8%	11.0%	22.9%

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

1 hour ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Because no one is above the law!

[CaliCat 3,957]

18 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

something is fishy...

California locations by voter registration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_voter_registration

The following is a list of California locations by voter registration.

In February 2013, California had 18,055,783 registered voters, comprising about 47% of its total population of 38.43 million. Of those registered voters, 7,932,373 (43.9 percent) were registered Democrats, and 5,225,675 (28.9 percent) were Republicans. As a percentage of registered voters, Democrats comprised 15.0 percent more of the electorate than Republicans did.

The county with the highest percentage of registered Republicans was Modoc County, with registered Republicans comprising half of registered voters. The ten counties with the highest percentage of registered Republicans are relatively small, with an average population of 91,776, and all are landlocked.

Similarly, the counties with the ten lowest percentages of registered voters are all relatively small and landlocked, with the exception of Monterey County. Kings County had the lowest percentage of registered voters, with just 31.8 percent of its population registered to vote. The two smallest counties in California by population also had the highest percentage of registered voters; Sierra County had the highest percentage, with 67.8 percent of its population registered to vote.

Inglewood had the highest percentage of registered Democrats of any place in California. The ten places with the highest percentage of registered Democrats all had high percentages of minorities (see California locations by race) and relatively low levels of income. On the other hand, Marin County, the highest income county in California by per capita income, had many more registered Democrats than Republicans. Further, of the ten highest-income counties in California by per capita income, all but Placer County, Orange County and El Dorado County had more registered Democrats than Republicans. But in yet another reversal, the place with the highest percentage of registered Republicans was Villa Park, which also has very high levels of income. Of the ten places in California with the highest percentage of registered Republicans, most have incomes above the state average (see California locations by income).

Entire state[edit]

Total population[1]	36,969,200
Registered voters[2][note 1]	18,055,783	48.8%
Democratic[2]	7,932,373	43.9%
Republican[2]	5,225,675	28.9%
Democratic–Republican spread[2]	+2,706,698	+15.0%
Independent[2]	476,157	2.6%
Green[2]	112,973	0.6%
Libertarian[2]	109,636	0.6%
Peace and Freedom[2]	61,612	0.3%
Americans Elect[2]	3,417	0.0%
Other[2]	367,483	2.0%
No party preference[2]	3,766,457	20.9%

Counties[edit]

County	Population[1]	Registered voters[2] [note 1]	Democratic[2]	Republican[2]	D–R spread[2]	Other[2]	No party preference[2]
Alameda	1,494,876	54.6%	56.4%	14.1%	+42.3%	12.1%	19.5%
Alpine	1,167	66.1%	37.6%	30.5%	+7.1%	10.8%	25.0%
Amador	38,244	56.1%	31.7%	45.0%	-13.3%	10.3%	17.2%
Butte	219,309	55.4%	34.4%	37.1%	-2.7%	10.4%	21.5%
Calaveras	45,794	62.8%	30.7%	42.5%	-11.8%	12.3%	19.0%
Colusa	21,297	36.0%	34.4%	45.3%	-10.9%	5.3%	17.3%
Contra Costa	1,037,817	51.1%	49.6%	24.8%	+24.8%	6.7%	21.4%
Del Norte	28,561	42.9%	34.7%	37.5%	-2.8%	12.0%	20.1%
El Dorado	179,878	61.3%	29.2%	43.9%	-14.7%	10.4%	20.3%
Fresno	920,623	45.1%	40.2%	38.2%	+2.0%	7.5%	16.8%
Glenn	28,027	43.8%	30.7%	45.1%	-14.4%	9.1%	18.9%
Humboldt	133,585	59.7%	41.6%	25.4%	+16.2%	11.9%	24.3%
Imperial	171,343	35.4%	50.4%	23.7%	+26.7%	6.2%	21.9%
Inyo	18,457	53.8%	30.9%	43.0%	-12.1%	10.8%	19.4%
Kern	829,254	40.1%	35.6%	41.1%	-5.5%	7.8%	18.8%
Kings	152,335	31.8%	35.8%	45.2%	-9.4%	6.2%	15.4%
Lake	64,392	54.6%	40.7%	27.5%	+13.2%	10.8%	25.0%
Lassen	35,001	39.8%	24.4%	48.0%	-23.6%	12.2%	20.6%
Los Angeles	9,787,747	49.7%	51.1%	21.6%	+29.5%	11.4%	18.1%
Madera	149,611	35.9%	33.9%	44.4%	-10.5%	7.5%	17.3%
Marin	250,666	61.5%	54.4%	18.2%	+36.2%	6.7%	22.9%
Mariposa	18,290	58.0%	29.7%	44.8%	-15.1%	12.3%	17.5%
Mendocino	87,525	56.0%	46.4%	21.7%	+24.7%	12.5%	22.8%
Merced	253,606	39.0%	44.5%	33.1%	+11.4%	7.7%	17.8%
Modoc	9,587	55.0%	25.9%	50.0%	-24.1%	11.5%	17.7%
Mono	14,016	42.8%	32.8%	36.1%	-3.3%	10.4%	24.8%
Monterey	411,385	40.9%	51.7%	24.2%	+27.5%	6.2%	20.2%
Napa	135,377	52.8%	46.4%	26.8%	+19.6%	8.5%	21.3%
Nevada	98,392	62.6%	33.0%	37.9%	-4.9%	10.9%	21.8%
Orange	2,989,948	46.7%	31.7%	41.8%	-10.1%	7.0%	22.1%
Placer	343,554	60.6%	28.0%	47.0%	-19.0%	6.5%	20.7%
Plumas	20,192	64.4%	31.3%	42.5%	-11.2%	11.7%	19.5%
Riverside	2,154,844	43.3%	36.5%	40.4%	-3.9%	7.8%	18.2%
Sacramento	1,408,480	49.5%	43.9%	31.9%	+12.0%	7.5%	19.6%
San Benito	54,873	48.6%	47.4%	29.4%	+18.0%	6.6%	19.2%
San Bernardino	2,023,452	43.0%	39.1%	35.4%	+3.7%	8.7%	20.4%
San Diego	3,060,849	51.5%	35.3%	33.9%	+1.4%	8.5%	25.6%
San Francisco	797,983	62.4%	55.6%	8.6%	+47.0%	6.4%	31.1%
San Joaquin	680,277	43.2%	43.7%	36.4%	+7.3%	6.6%	15.8%
San Luis Obispo	267,871	58.4%	33.8%	39.4%	-5.6%	8.6%	20.9%
San Mateo	711,622	50.7%	51.3%	19.4%	+31.9%	5.9%	25.5%
Santa Barbara	419,793	47.1%	41.4%	30.8%	+10.6%	7.8%	22.6%
Santa Clara	1,762,754	46.4%	45.6%	21.7%	+23.9%	5.7%	29.0%
Santa Cruz	259,402	61.0%	54.2%	16.5%	+37.7%	8.8%	22.8%
Shasta	177,231	55.3%	26.5%	46.7%	-20.2%	9.3%	21.2%
Sierra	3,277	67.8%	28.4%	42.2%	-13.8%	15.8%	19.2%
Siskiyou	44,687	57.2%	32.3%	40.9%	-8.6%	11.2%	20.1%
Solano	411,620	51.1%	48.6%	25.0%	+23.6%	7.3%	22.0%
Sonoma	478,551	54.7%	51.5%	21.6%	+29.9%	8.2%	21.3%
Stanislaus	512,469	45.2%	40.0%	38.8%	+1.2%	7.7%	16.2%
Sutter	94,192	44.3%	32.5%	44.5%	-12.0%	8.8%	17.5%
Tehama	62,985	48.4%	30.1%	44.4%	-14.3%	11.7%	18.8%
Trinity	13,711	57.2%	33.5%	34.3%	-0.8%	14.1%	22.9%
Tulare	436,234	33.2%	34.0%	43.7%	-9.7%	8.0%	17.7%
Tuolumne	55,736	57.6%	32.1%	42.1%	-10.0%	10.2%	19.6%
Ventura	815,745	52.9%	38.6%	36.0%	+2.6%	7.8%	20.1%
Yolo	198,889	51.2%	47.2%	23.9%	+23.3%	8.0%	23.6%
Yuba	71,817	40.4%	31.5%	39.3%	-7.8%	11.0%	22.9%

 

It's the smell of red herrings and bs, and day-old cool-aid. LOL 

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So the County at the heart of the 'big story' is a Republican County? Oopsy!

[IAMX 3,055]

13 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

So the County at the heart of the 'big story' is a Republican County? Oopsy!

What was the point again?

[CaliCat 3,957]

48 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

So the County at the heart of the 'big story' is a Republican County? Oopsy!

ROFL.

 

You're gonna get the minions all like....

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

55 minutes ago, IAMX said:

What was the point again?

Millions of Illegals have voted for my opponent in California and the proof is a letter from Judicial Watch ( they would never make something up to spin up their base) and then someone hacked the Wikipedia page an posted fake information about the ratio of Voter Registrations to People for the state of California.  That's  the point.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

3 hours ago, IAMX said:

What was the point again?

Pretty sure the point was alleged too many voters on the rolls in Libafornia, therefore all the people not supposed to be on said voter registration rolls voted for Hillary Clinton because they love illegal aliens, Obamacare and free cell phones, thus robbing Dear Leader of his hard earned popular vote victory he is still getting weepy over?

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, ready4ONE said:

Pretty sure the point was alleged too many voters on the rolls in Libafornia, therefore all the people not supposed to be on said voter registration rolls voted for Hillary Clinton because they love illegal aliens, Obamacare and free cell phones, thus robbing Dear Leader of his hard earned popular vote victory he is still getting weepy over?

wat

 

I don't see this suit against a county. I see this suit against California for violating federal laws. The counties are merely examples.

 

I guess its more like you missed the point.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by IAMX