In a Monday morning tweet, billionaire activist George Soros sent out some public praise for his own Open Society’s work to make U.S. elections – in his mind – fairer, but which is really, in the views of constitutional, rule-of-law type Americans, aimed at giving illegal immigrants the ability to vote this November.
Soros is already on record supporting Hillary Clinton.
In July, Politico reported this:
“Soros has donated or committed more than $25 million to boost Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes, according to Federal Election Commission records and interviews with his associates and Democratic fundraising operatives. And some of his associated say they expect Soros, who amassed a fortune estimated at $24.9 billion through risky currency trades, to give even more as Election Day nears.”
Moreover, his personal political adviser, Michael Vachon, had this to say in the same story:
“[T]his year, the political stakes are exceptionally high. They were high even before Trump became the nominee because of the hostility on the other side toward many of the issues George cares most about and has worked to support for many years, including immigration reform, criminal justice reform and religious tolerance.”
And now this, from Soros’ own Twitter account, @georgesoros, just Monday morning.
He first posted a photograph and beginning of a story entitled “Why the U.S. Elections Just Got a Little Fairer,” that read: “A series of court rulings ensures hundreds of thousands of eligible voters will be able to exercise their rights at the polls this November.”
And he praised the “advocates’ work,” mirroring what the story said about their ensuring “eligible U.S. voters” can actually cast ballots this November.
Only problem is: Click on the story, which was written in August for Soros’ own Open Society Foundations, and you’ll see the “eligible voters” he’s talking about are mostly those who are anything but eligible.
The story, written by Erica Teasley Linnick, reads in part:
“Three years ago this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder left voters in 15 states without protections previously afforded them under the landmark civil rights legislation. State legislators whose election policies had previously been deemed discriminatory by the Justice Department were emboldened to enact voter ID and other suppressive measures that negatively impact voters of color, using false arguments about the prevalence of fraud to fuel their efforts.
“In response to these challenges, the Open Society Foundations created the Shelby Response Fund, bringing together litigators, researchers, state and local advocates, communications strategists, and organizers. The fund’s members worked on a number of fronts to try to restore voting rights protections stripped away by the high court ruling.
“Lately, one aspect of their efforts in particular has been bearing fruit. In recent weeks, our voting rights grantees have celebrated court victories ensuring that hundreds of thousands of eligible voters will be able to exercise their rights at the polls this November.
“On August 11, a federal district court in North Carolina held that the state legislature had unconstitutionally used race in redrawing district boundaries in 2011, unnecessarily increasing the percentage of black voters in districts where they had been successfully electing their candidates of choice for years. This case, filed by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, was five years in the making—an example of how long justice can take, as well as the importance of the courts as a corrective.
“Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that North Carolina’s 2013 voter ID legislation was enacted with discriminatory intent in violation of both the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. This voter ID measure was infamously referred to as the “monster bill” because of its far-reaching impact on voting rights—it also eliminated early voting, same-day registration, preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, and out-of-precinct voting.
“Also in July, a federal court decided to provide a safety net for Wisconsin voters who, under a 2011 law, are required to present voter ID at the polls. With this ruling, the court gives voters who have a difficult time getting qualifying ID the option to vote by affidavit and receive a regular ballot instead of a provisional one. The court found that the state’s interests could not justify disenfranchising voters who cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort.In Texas, after three years of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the state’s 2013 voter ID law does indeed violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by denying black and Latino voters an equal opportunity to cast a ballot.
“And in North Dakota, a federal court ruled that North Dakota’s voter ID law placed a disproportionate burden on Native American voters who didn’t have driver’s licenses or a tribal ID that included an address. “[N]o eligible voter, regardless of their station in life, should be denied the opportunity to vote,” the court held.
The story ends with one final note of caution for citizens – legal ones – concerned about the possibility for shenanigans at the polls this fall.
“This work is by no means done,” it read. “These recent victories will help bolster the advocates’ efforts in the coming months and years, and ensure that so many voters disenfranchised by suppressive laws have an opportunity to participate fully in the elections this November.”
Article reposted with permission from PamelaGeller.com