The Sum of All Our Fears

July 31, 2019 (Raleigh) In response to some reported legislative skepticism over our sense of urgency behind our warnings to fix the Floyd Amendment, we’ve been asked to elaborate on why it’s important to require non-ID voters to provide some form of government-issued personally-identifying information (called P-I-I), such as either a DMV-issued ID card/driver license number or the last four digits of their social security number (or SSN-4).

So . . . here is the risk, starting with the known facts and moving to the terrifying unknown ones:

First Known: Four indictments of a North Texas vote ring shows how just four people were charged with 30 felony counts of being in an absentee ballot fraud ring that targeted elderly voters. The only reason they were caught was that a wealthy candidate, who had a substantial polling lead but suddenly lost a Dallas-area election, contacted one of our election integrity counterparts. The candidate commissioned Aaron Harris to “go find out why I lost.” The best approach was for Harris to train a team of citizen canvassers and they knocked on the doors of several hundred absentee voters. Eventually, a pattern emerged and they contacted the District Attorney. Since Texas DA’s are not afraid to prosecute such crimes, the rest is history. That was a lot of work to get four prosecutions, but it proves why prevention is a far more effective course of action.

Second Known: North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein’s stunning admission, before a live audience, that “the bulk of voter fraud occurs absentee.” Setting aside the obvious question to our state’s top law enforcement officer (“what are you going to do about it?”), we see this as something other than paranoia. We call it a “fact” with which, other informed attorneys agree. In short, we all know it’s happening, but the elite generally pretends otherwise and too many District Attorneys in NC don’t bother prosecuting this crime.

Third Known: No voter ID law in America is allowed to be passed without some sort of “backdoor” designed into it (see definition below). The stated excuse the courts have used in demanding these hacks is to enable voting by people who suddenly do not have an ID and cannot get one in time for their vote to be counted. They call these “Reasonable Impediment Determinations” (or R-I-Ds) and they are a statutory hack that allows the theft of as few as one vote or as many as it takes. This was how persistent leftist federal judges have “progressively” chipped away at the best voter fraud-prevention measure ever approved by the US Supreme Court, Crawford v. Marion.

VIP Founder, Jay DeLancy, with James O’Keefe

Fourth Known: Over the years, we’ve interviewed numerous credible eyewitnesses who happened to see people voting more than once by using different names (but were powerless to intervene). We also taught undercover journalist, James O’Keefe, how to expose North Carolina’s fraud-friendly election laws and in 2014, he proved it “some 20 times” by almost voting with different names registered in the RDU area. Between James’ demonstration and the eyewitness accounts, voter impersonation fraud is something more than just a random act by one petty criminal.

Fifth Known: This seems random, but work with me. In 2009, the Iranian people mounted a superb “democratic” election to topple their radical incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The challenger, Mehdi Karroubi, had a significant lead and looked like he was going to win. But something happened. Their totalitarian government announced that Ahmadinejad was reelected by a “landslide.” The challenger even lost by 71 percent in his home district. As in all despotic regimes, people who questioned the legitimacy of the election only did so at great risk. In addition to the Washington Post (below) description of the fraud, a University of Michigan Statistics Professor concluded, “I think the results give moderately strong support for a diagnosis that the 2009 election was affected by significant fraud.” As currently rigged, our electoral process faces a similar peril.


Against expectations from pollsters and pundits alike, Ahmadinejad did surprisingly well in urban areas, including Tehran — where he is thought to be highly unpopular — and even Tabriz, the capital city of opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi’s native East Azarbaijan province.

Others have pointed to the surprisingly poor performance of Mehdi Karroubi, another reform candidate, and particularly in his home province of Lorestan, where conservative candidates fared poorly in 2005, but where Ahmadinejad allegedly captured 71 percent of the vote. Eyebrows have been raised further by the relative consistency in Ahmadinejad’s vote share across Iran’s provinces, in spite of wide provincial variation in past elections. (Washington Post, June 20, 2009)

The Great Unknown

The risk to all election fraud can never be mitigated to 100 percent, but the most obvious hacks to the system can and should be prevented. Fixing the Floyd Amendment can deter any well-organized criminal enterprises from “seeding, harvesting, and impersonating” enough absentee ballots to flip the outcome of any and every statewide election in North Carolina. With enough “walk-around” money, they can run the margin up to high that anybody crying “fraud” will be treated as a village idiot.

This article now serves as a public notice of intent that, before it’s too late, we will continue to make the case by any means necessary for the advancement of common-sense security measures in our states electoral process.

~ J. DeLancy, Founder, Voter Integrity Project – NC