Guilty Verdict in Alabama Voter Fraud Case. What Happened?

Get the facts on the voter fraud case in Alabama surrounding absentee ballots and District 2 City Commissioner Amos Newsome.

The above video comes from DothanFirst.com the local news organization.

District 2 City Commissioner Amos Newsome won an election bid in 2013 due to getting more absentee ballots. Newsome received 119 of the 124 absentee votes that were cast, winning by only 14 votes. He beat out of opponent Lamesa Danzey who later brought charges of voter fraud against him.

Four women from Alabama have been charged with voter fraud in Alabama for collecting these absentee ballots, three were convicted.

Olivia Reynolds 66 of Dothan (Newsome’s girlfriend), was just convicted on 26 counts of absentee ballot voter fraud by Judge Henry D. “Butch” Binford and a Houston County jury after less than an hour of deliberation. Another woman Lesa Coleman had been convicted of seven of the 11 felony absentee ballot charges against her. 64-year-old Janice Hart was also convicted.

When brought to court many of those who cast ballots admitted that they didn’t understand the ballot they were casting, rather the women above would show up at people’s houses, ask if they had received an envelope, and have them sign the enclosed document without properly explaining what was happening.

This case is important because it encapsulates pretty much every issue with voter fraud in America in one case. Let us bullet-point this out in a simple way.

  • Alabama is the home of Selma. This was ground zero for Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous march on Selma that led to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  • The Voting Rights Act protected against the voter discrimination and voter suppression that was rampant in the south at the the time.
  • A wide array of voter suppression tactics were used to prevent black American citizens from voting prior to 1965. These included a poll tax and other barriers designed specifically to keep low-income black people from voting.
  • Today important parts of the Voting Rights Act have been stripped away and in their place we now have voter ID laws.
  • Voter ID laws are said to disenfranchise non-white, low-income, student, and senior voters. Some say these are essentially a modern day poll tax.
  • Most of the absentee ballots came from a district that included a lot of low-income black voters.
  • Voter ID laws would not have necessarily prevented absentee ballot fraud, although one does have to be a registered voter to be issued an absentee ballot in Alabama.

So to be clear, not one voter fraud conviction in this election was due to in-person voter fraud (the kind of voter fraud voter ID would protect). Instead what we have is convictions of the incumbents girlfriend and two other supporters of absentee ballot voter fraud.

This shows an going trend that we have noticed since starting this site, it is much more common for voter fraud to happen on a group level than an individual level.

Types of voter fraud like voter suppression, redistricting, and other voter fraud that occurs at a group level involving politicians (especially incumbent politicians who already have some amount of political power) seems to be the real problem in the US. Yet, the new voting laws that are replacing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are all focused on the individual.

President Obama Speaks on Voting Rights Act of 1965

President Obama wrote a response to a NewYork Times article on how Republicans have tried to dismantle the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The op-ed takes a look at how American Conservatives used tactics like literacy tests to suppress the vote of African Americans after the Civil War (especially in the South). It then talks about how over the past 50 years Republicans have pushed to dismantle key parts of the Voting Rights Act that protects the vote of African Americans. Things like the Voter ID laws are only allowed because key provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been dismantled.

You can read the whole op-ed here.

British Expats Not Receiving Ballots

Britain holds it’s General elections May 7th, but British expats have been complaining that they haven’t received their ballots.

Most British citizens will go to the polls between 7am and 10pm on Thursday May 7th with their poll card (which they received no less than a week before). But many expats spoke out saying they didn’t get their ballot papers in time to make their vote by the 10pm May 7 deadline.

113,742 expats applied to vote in the general election before the cut off date for registration on April 20. They have two options other than voting in person – voting by post or voting by proxy. All postal votes must arrive before 10pm on polling day in order to count.

There are an estimated 5.5 million Britons living overseas of which around one million are ineligible to vote because they’ve been living out of the country for more than 15 years.

Thursday 7 May 2015 – Polling day

Polling booths open between 7am and 10pm. Counting of votes will begin when the polls close.

Learn more from the Telegraph.

Privacy & Legal

VoterFraudFacts.com is a free informational website, nothing on our site should be taken as professional legal advice, medical advice, or tax advice..

Privacy. This website (VoterFraudFacts.com) uses web tools that collect basic web data to help us improve user experience. See advertisers ad policy when interacting with ads.

Important. VoterFraudFacts.com is privately owned and is not owned or operated by the US federal or state government. We are not affiliated with the official Health Insurance Marketplace HealthCare.Gov.

Please Read the Following Legal Info

The following legal info of use (the “Legal Info”) govern your use of the VoterFraudFacts.com site (the “Site”). The Site is made available by Dog Media Solutions LLC (the “Site Proprietor” or “we”). BY USING THE SITE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO THIS LEGAL INFO AS APPLIED TO YOUR USE OF THE SITE. If you do not agree to this Legal Info, you may not access or otherwise use the Site. We may change the Legal Info from time to time, and at any time without notice to you, by posting such changes on the Site. By using the Site following any modifications to the Legal Info, you agree to be bound by any such modifications to the Legal Info.

You may only use the Site if you are domiciled in the United States and you are 18 years old or older.

. Services Available on the Site. Via the Site, we provide a service by which consumers can apply to receive insurance or discount program quotations from our network of insurance agents, brokers, discount program representatives and other service providers. We seek to provide valuable information that individuals can use to make their own decisions about insurance and discount programs. Once you provide us with the information needed to complete an on-line application, we will attempt to match you with appropriate insurance agents, brokers, discount programs or other companies.

We do not issue insurance contracts or bind coverage. We do not endorse or recommend any companies or insurance policies, and we do not provide insurance, tax or financial advice. We do not guarantee that any of the insurance agents, brokers and/or companies to whom we forward your application will contact you or agree to provide you coverage. We are not responsible in any way for the conduct of the insurance agents, brokers, discount program representatives and companies that are matched with your on-line application. If you would like personal advice or specific policy recommendations, you should consult with an insurance agent, broker, or other qualified professional.

We reserve the right, for any reason, in our sole discretion, to terminate, change, suspend or discontinue any aspect of the Site, including, but not limited to, content, features or hours of availability. We may also impose limits on certain features of the Site or restrict your access to part or the entire Site without notice or penalty.

There is no charge to you for use of the Site.

. Proprietary Rights. As between you and the Site Proprietor, the Site Proprietor owns, solely and exclusively, all rights, title and interest in and to the Site, all the content, code, data and materials thereon, the look and feel, design and organization of the Site, and the compilation of the content, code, data and materials on the Site, including but not limited to all intellectual property and proprietary rights therein. Your use of the Site does not grant to you ownership of any content, code, data or materials you may access on the Site. Any commercial use or exploitation of the Site is strictly prohibited. You may view the content on the Site on your personal computer or other internet-compatible device, and make single copies or prints of the content on the Site for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, distribute or otherwise exploit any content, code, data or materials on the Site. If you make other use of the Site, except as otherwise provided above, you may violate copyright and other laws of the United States, other countries, as well as applicable state laws and may be subject to liability for such unauthorized use. We do not grant any license or other authorization to any user of our trade names, trademarks, service marks or other marks or logos without our separate express written agreement. Third party marks are the property of their respective owners.

. User Submissions. In the course of your use of the Site, you may be asked to provide, or you may provide on your own inclination, information or materials to us (such information and/or materials referred to hereinafter as “User Submissions”). User Submissions include, for example, information you submit to us via your application to receive quotations (“Application Data”). User Submissions also include information and materials you submit to us via other on-line forms on the Site, by e-mail, or in any other manner via the Site. Our information collection and use policies with respect to the privacy of personal information (with the exception of testimonials, which may be used as set forth in Section 4, below) are set forth in the Site’s Privacy Policy which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. Please read our Privacy Policy before submitting any User Submissions. You acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for the accuracy and content of the User Submissions. We cannot be responsible for maintaining any User Submissions that you provide to us, and we may delete or destroy any such User Submissions at any time. We reserve the right to refuse to post or to remove any User Submissions, in whole or in part, that, in our sole discretion, are unlawful, unacceptable, undesirable, inappropriate or in violation of this Legal Info.

. User Conduct. You warrant and agree that, while using the Site, you shall not upload, post or transmit to or distribute or otherwise publish through the Site any materials that: (a) are protected by copyright, or other proprietary or intellectual property right, without first obtaining permission from the proprietary or intellectual property rights holder; (b) are unlawful, threatening, harassing, profane, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, contain explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts (including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals), invasive of another’s privacy or hateful, (c) restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Site, (d) constitute or encourage conduct that would constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liability, or (e) contain a virus or other harmful component, advertising of any kind, or false or misleading indications of origin or statements of fact.

You also warrant and agree that you shall not: (a) impersonate any person or entity or misrepresent your affiliation with any other person or entity; (b) upload, post, publish, transmit, reproduce, distribute or in any way exploit any information or other material obtained through the Site for commercial purposes; (c) engage in spamming, flooding, harvesting of e-mail addresses or other personal information, spidering, “screen scraping,” “database scraping,” or any other activity with the purpose of obtaining lists of users or other information, or send chain letters or pyramid schemes via the Site; or (d) attempt to gain unauthorized access to other computer systems through the Site. You agree that you will not use the Site in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair the Site or interfere with any other party’s use and enjoyment of the Site. You may not obtain or attempt to obtain any materials or information through any means not intentionally made available or provided for through the Site.

You agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Site Proprietor and its directors, officers, employees, agents and affiliates harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising in any way from your misuse of the Site, your placement or transmission of any message, content, information, software or other materials through the Site, or your breach or violation of the law or of this Legal Info.

. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. THE SITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL SERVICES, CONTENT, FUNCTIONS AND MATERIALS, IS PROVIDED “AS IS,” “AS AVAILABLE”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY FOR INFORMATION, DATA, DATA PROCESSING SERVICES, OR UNINTERRUPTED ACCESS, ANY WARRANTIES CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, USEFULNESS, OR CONTENT OF INFORMATION, AND ANY WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND WE HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL SUCH WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED. WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE SITE OR THE SERVICES, CONTENT, FUNCTIONS OR MATERIALS CONTAINED THEREIN WILL BE TIMELY, SECURE, UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED. WE MAKE NO WARRANTY THAT THE SITE WILL MEET USERS’ REQUIREMENTS. NO ADVICE, RESULTS OR INFORMATION, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OBTAINED BY YOU FROM US OR THROUGH THE SITE SHALL CREATE ANY WARRANTY NOT EXPRESSLY MADE HEREIN. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE SITE, YOUR SOLE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THE SITE.

YOU SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE SITE TO MAINTAIN ANY USER SUBMISSION; YOU SHOULD RETAIN ALL SUCH DATA AND INFORMATION IN YOUR OWN RECORDS FOR USE IN THE EVENT THAT THE SITE FAILS OR IS UNAVAILABLE, OR THE DATA OR INFORMATION IS LOST.

. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE SITE PROPRIETOR OR ANY OF ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AFFILIATES, OR CONTENT OR SERVICE PROVIDERS (COLLECTIVELY, THE “PROTECTED ENTITIES”) BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING FROM, OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RELATED TO, THE USE OF, OR THE INABILITY TO USE, THE SITE OR THE CONTENT, MATERIALS AND FUNCTIONS RELATED THERETO, OR ANY APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOSS OF REVENUE, OR ANTICIPATED PROFITS OR LOST BUSINESS OR LOST SALES, EVEN IF SUCH PROTECTED ENTITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN DAMAGES SO SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN USERS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE PROTECTED ENTITIES BE LIABLE FOR OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CONTENT POSTED, TRANSMITTED, EXCHANGED OR RECEIVED BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY USER OR OTHER PERSON ON OR THROUGH THE SITE.

. Links from and to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that we have no responsibility for the accuracy or availability of information provided by Web sites to which you may link from the Site (“Linked Sites”). Links to Linked Sites do not constitute an endorsement by or association with us of such sites or the content, products, advertising or other materials presented on such sites. We do not author, edit, or monitor these Linked Sites. You acknowledge and agree that we are not responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with use of or reliance on any such content, goods or services available on such Linked Sites.

. Applicable Laws. We control and operate this Site from our offices in the United States. We do not represent that materials on the Site are appropriate or available for use in other locations. Persons who choose to access this Site from other locations do so on their own initiative, and are responsible for compliance with local laws, if and to the extent local laws are applicable.

. Miscellaneous. The Legal Info and the relationship between you and us shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington without regard to its conflict of law provisions. You agree that any use of action that may arise under the Legal Info shall be commenced and be heard in the appropriate court in the State of Washington. You agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the State of Washington. Our failure to exercise or enforce any right or provision of the Legal Info shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. If any provision of the Legal Info is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties’ intentions as reflected in the provision, and the other provisions of the Legal Info remain in full force and effect. You agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action by you arising out of or related to use of the Site or the Legal Info must be filed by you within one (1) year after such claim or cause of action arose or be forever barred.

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Alabama Redistricting

A lower court upheld GOP drawn redistricting in Alabama, but the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Voting Rights Act can’t be used to justify maps that predominately group voters together based on their race.

Voter fraud isn’t limited to an individual voting twice because they wren’t ID’d at the polls, that type of voter fraud is actually less common than a UFO sighting.

A more common type of voter fraud is gerrymandering, or more commonly known as redistricting. This is when boundaries of voter maps are redrawn to favor a political party.

Alabama GOP tried to redistrict parts of Alabama using the Voting Rights Act in such a way that would have grouped together voters by race leading to favorable outcomes for the GOP.

This was the court’s second high-stakes decision in two years dealing with the Voting Rights Act and will likely have an affect on redistricting legal battles in states like Virginia and North Carolina.

Learn more about the decision here.

Mandatory Voting Opinions

What is Mandatory Voting Anyway?

Mandatory voting, or compulsory voting, is a universal voting system where legal citizens are obligated to vote.

Mandatory voting is a concept that stretches back as far as voting itself, however today on 13 regions have a true, enforced, compulsory voting system (the oldest of which is about 100 years old). Other regions have compulsory voting but it is not enforced. This gives us lots of data to look at to see how compulsory voting might work in America.

Below we discuss the idea of compulsory voting in America in light of recent comments by President Obama. Feel free to chime-in with your thoughts below. Please keep in mind this is an opinion piece meant to discuss mandatory voting from the view of a facts site on voter fraud.

Comparing Views on Mandatory Voting

This should help you to wrap your head around the different sides of the argument.

This video is the Conservative side of the argument against Mandatory voting.

And now the Liberal side of the argument.

How Would Mandatory Voting Work?

It sounds more scary than it is, mandatory would most likely work like this: you have to “mark” the ballot, but you don’t have to actually vote for anything.

If you decide not to vote, and don’t have an exemption, you pay a small fee. You can’t go to jail or be punished in any other way aside the fee.

Most likely options would include a mail in ballot and an opportunity to go in person.

Ideally mandatory voting would make the process of voting more streamlined, rather than add create more bureaucracy. Also, ideally the fee would not be necessary as it would most certainly create bureaucracy. Unlike with healthcare there is no direct cost associated with someone not voting.

(Side-note: I throw my hat in the ring for single .gov account for all social programs, taxes, and voting. One person, one login. Allow an option for automatic payments for things like health insurance premiums (including Medicare). Automatic payments of taxes. Auto child support, auto medicaid eligibility, auto assistance programs. Simplify things for small businesses, individuals, and agencies. Just seems natural does it not?)

Obama’s Comments on Mandatory Voting

In March of 2015 the President casually floated the idea of mandatory voting  like they have in Australia. This comment was a reaction to low voter turnout in the 2014 midterm elections.

He noted that “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” referring to the fact that Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income, and more likely to be immigrants or minorities. The President said that it would “counteract money more than anything.”

While the President makes a lot of good points, but one look at the social media comments shortly after show mandatory voting (as a concept) doesn’t sit well with the majority on the left, right, or center.

On one hand Republicans don’t like the idea for two important reasons:

  1. They would lose most federal elections if everyone voted as those who tend not to vote also tend to be the most liberal. This is especially important in swing states.
  2. The idea of being forced to do something, just doesn’t feel very American.

On the other hand Democrats are more torn:

  1. They would win elections like it was FDR versus Alf Landon all over again (yep Alf was actually a Presidential candidate) .
  2. The idea of being forced to do something, just doesn’t feel very American.

And on this we have a common consensus. As attractive as it is to give the disenfranchised easy access to voting, to ensure participation in one of the most important aspects of American life, and to prove all people are equal it just doesn’t work conceptually.

Mandatory Registration

That being said there is a much more palatable and fair solution and that is Mandatory Registration.

No that is not a Kayne West album, that is simply the idea that everyone is automatically registered to vote. Something as simple as allowing people to vote based on their social security number would ensure all legal citizens one vote (although we would probably have to kick the organization of social security up a notch first). This isn’t to say that it would prevent voter fraud, but it would help to reduce voter fraud and increase voter participation.

This would eliminate the need for voter IDs and help eliminate individual voter fraud. It seems like a win-win, but it doesn’t address a major issue… there are lots of Americans who think “uneducated people shouldn’t vote”.

Other Option: Voting as A Federal Holiday would also be a non-mandatory voting solution. This is one of those that is a little harder to dismiss.

The Idea that X Person Shouldn’t Vote

The idea that a person shouldn’t vote because they are uneducated (on policy, the candidates, or in general) is arguably more un-American than mandatory voting. Who is it exactly that should decide who gets to vote and who doesn’t? How does the ability to get an ID equate to someone being qualified to have a say in who leads their country?

Ideally America is a free society and a democracy. “Every person gets one vote, and no one should be forced to vote.” If that doesn’t always happen in practice, that is one thing, but conceptually I think we can agree that this truly is the intention of the country.

Why Do Those Who Don’t Vote Lean to the Left?

The above question is kind of rhetorical is it not? Generally, the left believes in “the Great Society” where every person has access to food, housing, healthcare, education, and opportunity. They were responsible for things like ending slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, immigration reforms, etc.

While the right, generally, believes that hard-work equals success and their isn’t enough to go around, so they make it their primary goal to block federal spending on public programs. They were responsible for tax cuts and the rapid economic growth under Reagan that both helped to build up the economy and to almost collapse it again back in the 2008 housing crisis.

So why, if you are low-income in need of Medicaid and food stamps, a senior in need of Medicare, or a student in need of financial aid, an African-American who knows the history of the country, or a new immigrant from Mexico are you going to vote Republican? Generally, with the modern Conservative policies, you just simply aren’t.

So Then, The Perks and Dangers of Mandatory Voting in America

So the above, rather difficult to throw out there on the internet truisms, leads us to two obvious conclusions.

  1. If more people vote it will force Conservatives to start representing “minorities” (although when you combine all non-whites, women, young people, and seniors we hardly have a minority here.)
  2. If both parities focus too much on representing “minorities” we risk having no party to represent the high-earners, business owners, industry leaders, and people who help to build this country and keep it strong.

Regardless of how incompetent the 2015 Congress seems to you, or how awful Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin must appear to some when screaming about “illegals” and repealing the social safety net, we also have thousands of years of history that prove that at a point “BIG Government” can really be a danger to Democracy. I mean, we essentially came over to America (be you a recent immigrant or an OG immigrant) to be free. To escape political and religious oppression and find opportunity.

Luckily

In America the arch of change happens slow and steady over time. In reality you shouldn’t expect to see an immediate call for mandatory anything.

If and when the subject does come up, we should be weary of extremes, but be confident in the idea that despite potential pitfalls, everyone is equal and every citizen deserves an equal say in our Democracy. After all, we talking about the popular vote and not the electoral college. Even our democracy has a safety net if things get too wonky.

Democracy Restoration Act

The Democracy Restoration Act (DRA) is a bill that if passed would restore voting rights to 5.85 million released from prison or on probation.

The first attempt at passing the Democracy Restoration Act was in 2008, since then annual attempts have been made at passing the legislation.

The 2015 Act was introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) as S.772 on 03/18/15. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced the House, H.R.1459, the following day.

Democracy Restoration Act Facts

Below are a number of facts on the Democracy Restoration Act and the Americans affected by it. All facts come directly from the bill itself, learn more at the Brennan Center for Justice.

  • The Democracy Restoration Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), would allow former inmates  the right to vote in elections for federal office.
  • Currently about 5.85 million Americans are unable to vote due to being incarcerated in the past.
  • About 75% or 4.4 million are finished serving their sentences reside in the communities while on probation or parole or after having completed their sentences.
  • About 2.6 million who have completed their sentences remain unable to vote due to state laws.
  • 15 states and the District of Columbia already restore voting rights upon release from prison.
  • 35 states continue to restrict the voting rights of people who are no longer incarcerated.

If the bill becomes law, the Democracy Restoration Act Would:

  • Restore the rights of voters who are done serving their sentence.
  • Ensure that American citizens on probation will never lose their right to vote in federal elections.
  • Notify people about their right to vote in federal elections when they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor.
  • Eliminate the opportunity for erroneous purges of eligible citizens from the voting rolls and relieves confusion among election officials and the public about who is eligible to vote.
  • Allow people to vote after incarceration encourages participation in civic life and helps rebuild ties to the community that motivate law-abiding behavior.
  • Help to put an end to restrictive voting laws that disproportionally affect African-Americans.
  • Nationwide 2 million African-Americans are unable to vote due to past incarceration. Given current rates of incarceration, approximately 1 in 3 of the next generation of African-American men will be disenfranchised at some point during their lifetime
  • If current incarceration trends hold, 17 percent of Latino men will be incarcerated during their lifetimes, in contrast to less than 6 percent of non-Latino White men.

Read the bill: The Democracy Restoration Act (DRA)

Learn more about DRA at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Mandatory Voting

WASHINGTON (AP) — They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the related topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier — not harder— for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

“If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said, calling it potentially transformative. Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would “counteract money more than anything.”

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. “There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls,” he said in a veiled reference to efforts in a number of Republican-led states to make it harder for people to vote.

Statistically speaking, Obama is correct. Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.

At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.

At issue, Obama said, is the outsize influence that those with money can have on U.S. elections, where low overall turnout often gives an advantage to the party best able to turn out its base. Obama has opposed Citizens United and other court rulings that cleared the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign spending, but embraced such groups in his 2012 re-election campaign out of fear he’d be outspent.

Obama said he thought it would be “fun” for the U.S. to consider amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the electoral system. But don’t hold your breath.

“Realistically, given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition,” he said.

___

Associated Press writer Darlene Superville in Cleveland and Emily Swanson in Washington contributed to this report.

What is VoterFraudFacts.com?

Back in before the 2012 elections two things caught the attention of my partner and I, voter fraud and ObamaCare. We were hearing a lot of disinformation about the new healthcare law and the prevalence of individual voter fraud. We decided to create “facts sites” to combat the misinformation of these two topics.

ObamaCare, as it turns out, was very popular. We focused most of our attention towards that site. Over the years “the ObamaCare site” grew in popularity and we had less time to devote to the voter fraud site.

Today have grown our team and have the resources to ensure that voterfraudfacts.com gets treated with the respect it deserves. Expect a bevy of facts, stats, and important information related to voter fraud in the upcoming weeks and months.

We promise you, the reader, that we will stick to the truth to help facilitate an accurate discussion on voter fraud in America. If you think anything we wrote was misleading or wrong just leave a comment and we will fact-check it.