Rounds, Hagerty, Colleagues Call Out DOJ for Refusing to Provide Answers on Prosecutions of Illegal Aliens Registering to Vote

Garland’s DOJ did not respond to initial letter on prosecutions, as evidence of thousands of cases of illegal aliens registering to vote have emerged

 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) joined his colleague Senator Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) in calling out U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) failure to prevent illegal aliens from registering to vote in American elections or prosecute those who evidently have done so.

“We are deeply concerned by reports of non-citizens registering to vote and voting in federal elections,” the members wrote. “As of today, there has been no response from you or your Department regarding the inquiry on July 12, 2024, seeking information on efforts undertaken by your Department to enforce laws prohibiting non-citizen voting.  Given that the 2024 Presidential Election is in less than 34 days, your Department’s inaction and refusal to provide any information regarding its efforts to promote public trust and confidence in our elections is especially alarming.”

“Clearly, there is a non-negligible amount of voter participation by non-citizens in federal elections, which is not only a serious threat to the integrity of our elections and the democratic process they represent, but also has the potential to reduce Americans’ trust and confidence in election results,” the members continued.

Rounds and Hagerty were joined on this letter by Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), John Kennedy (R-La.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), along with 40 members of the House of Representatives.

Read the full letter HERE or below.

+++

Dear Attorney General Garland:

We are deeply concerned by reports of non-citizens registering to vote and voting in federal elections. As of today, there has been no response from you or your Department regarding the inquiry on July 12, 2024, seeking information on efforts undertaken by your Department to enforce laws prohibiting non-citizen voting. Given that the 2024 Presidential Election is in less than 34 days, your Department’s inaction and refusal to provide any information regarding its efforts to promote public trust and confidence in our elections is especially alarming.

Since the initial letter, several more concerning reports have been released by state officials indicating that a large number of non-citizens appear on their voter rolls. For example, the Virginia Attorney General recently announced that 6,303 non-citizens were identified on and removed from Virginia’s voter rolls in 2022 and 2023. In another troubling report released in August, over 6,500 non-citizens registered to vote in Texas were identified and removed from voter rolls. Of the 6,500 non-citizens identified, 1,930 had a voter history.

Clearly, there is a non-negligible amount of voter participation by non-citizens in federal elections, which is not only a serious threat to the integrity of our elections and the democratic process they represent, but also has the potential to reduce Americans’ trust and confidence in election results.

Accordingly, we respectfully reiterate the July 12 request for information on your Department’s enforcement efforts. The initial deadline for providing this information was July 26, 2024, so the response is now 9 weeks overdue.

Please provide responses to the following no later than October 16, 2024:

1. Please provide the number of aliens who have been charged, tried, or convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 611 since January 20, 2021, including the status of each case.
2. Please provide the number of aliens who been charged, tried, or convicted under 52 U.S.C. § 20511 since January 20, 2021, including the status of each case.
3. Please provide the number of aliens who have been prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 911 since 2021, including the status of each case.
4. Please provide the number of referrals received from other government officials or the public in reference to the statutes cited in questions 1 through 3.
5. How does the Department of Justice investigate allegations received of non-citizen voting or voter registration?
6. What affirmative steps have the Department of Justice taken to detect, prevent, and deter illegal aliens and other non-citizens from registering and voting in federal elections?
7. What affirmative steps have the Department taken to obtain relevant information from the Department of Homeland Security on aliens who have registered or voted in elections?
8. What steps have been taken by U.S. Attorneys and the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, which is responsible for prosecuting election crimes and assisting U.S. Attorneys in prosecuting election crimes, to obtain jury-related information that indicates aliens have unlawfully registered to vote?
9. As the 2024 election nears, what steps will the Department take to detect, investigate, and prosecute non-citizens who violate 18 U.S.C.§ 911, 52 U.S.C. § 20511, or 18 U.S.C. § 611 by voting or registering to vote in the 2024 election?
10. What steps have the Department taken to contact Virginia and Texas election officials to obtain information and the voter registration and voter history files on each of the aliens removed from the voter rolls who were unlawfully registered and voting in those states?

Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to your prompt reply.

###

From my mailbox, a e-mail newsletter circulated from a group of Yankton County Republicans & (former) GOP donors are reporting that the group that calls themselves the Yankton GOP (despite being de-listed by the party) are handing out campaign funds after reading the cherry-picked scorecards from the Citizens for Liberty group:

Yankton County GOP Distribution of Campaign Funds Based on Ranking in the “Citizens for Liberty” Scorecard

It was revealed on Monday night (October 6) at the Yankton County GOP Meeting that distribution of funds to District 18 candidates was based on their ranking in the “Citizens for Liberty” legislative scorecard.  That scorecard is tabulated by an independent political committee not affiliated with the Republican Party.  As a result of distributing funds in that manner, Senate Candidate Lauren Nelson who did not have a ranking received $2,000; House Candidate Julie Auch was awarded $1,820 and House Candidate Mike Stevens was given $660. 

This is a new twist as in the past campaign funds were awarded equally with all legislative candidates receiving the same amount and all county level candidates receiving the same amount.  Of course, candidates without opposition did not receive funds and in some cases if a candidate needed a bit more help, it was awarded. 

Contrary to what was done in this primary, funds were never awarded to any candidate in a primary.

Wow. First they hand out donor money in the primary. And now they’re helping candidates based on what a non-Republican group comes up with in a cherry-picked scorecard in their pursuit of ideological purity?

This is not a group worthy of calling themselves the Republican Party.

I had an e-mail exchange shared with me tonight. An e-mail where I’m not sure if the former legislator sending it checked the calendar before she hit the send button.

Former State Representative Rhonda Milstead served in the South Dakota State Legislature representing District 9 from the date of her appointment (1/5/19) until the end of her term, which would have expired at the end of 2022. Or more technically, until the next legislator was sworn in the following January.

One of the pesky things that goes along with the office is a law – South Dakota Codified law 2-12-8.2:

2-12-8.2. Officials and personnel prohibited from lobbying within two years after termination of service–Violation as misdemeanor.

No elected officer, department or agency head, or division director, or the highest paid employee reporting to such person may be compensated, act, or register as a lobbyist, other than a public employee lobbyist, during a period of two years after that person’s termination of service in the state government. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Read that here.

That law makes this following e-mail exchange kind of interesting.  Former Representative Milstead – noting that she’s representing Protecting SD Kids sent a note to State Senator Michael Rohl, Chairman of the Tribal Relations Committee:

Well.. wait a minute? Is she acting on behalf of an organization and advocating that a legislative committee chairman direct an action be taken by a legislative committee? And in an e-mail dated October 7th, 2024?  The last I knew, if we are marking time by the Gregorian calendar which has been in use since 1582, October 7 might be close to the finish line, but technically if we’re counting her term of office until the end of the year at earliest, it seems that it would be 85 days out until Rhonda Milstead would be allowed to lobby. Unless there’s an interpretation on that 2-year ban on lobbying that says the clock alarm goes off earlier or otherwise.

SDCL 2-12-1 describes a lobbyist as someone who seeks “the introduction of legislation or to promote, oppose, or influence in any manner the passage by the Legislature of any legislation affecting the special interests of any agency, individual, association, or business, as distinct from those of the whole people of the state, or to act in any manner as a lobbyist in connection with any such legislation..“

If former Representative Milstead is directly identifying herself as a member of Protecting SD Kids to a legislative committee chairman, and advocating that an action be taken, at least to this layperson that might fall under what people call lobbying.

It’s not my call. But someone might need to ask for the referees to conference on the sidelines, and check time on that game clock.

Remembering what Toby Doeden was posting to facebook in January..

This guy wants to represent South Dakota in Congress yet disrespects victims of anti-Semitism. No thank you, @TobyforCongress. Here’s a tweet from Toby Doeden’s recently deleted Twitter account: https://t.co/GFIduGbn5a pic.twitter.com/z4hvap3Pdc

— Dan Lederman (@danlederman) January 10, 2024

And who he sought out as his speaker for his recent rally.

Mark Robinson, the controversial and socially conservative Republican nominee for governor of North Carolina, made a series of inflammatory comments on a pornography website’s message board more than a decade ago, in which he referred to himself as a “black NAZI!” and expressed support for reinstating slavery, a CNN KFile investigation found.

Despite a recent history of anti-transgender rhetoric, Robinson said he enjoyed watching transgender pornography, a review of archived messages found in which he also referred to himself as a “perv.”

and..

In the pornographic forums, Robinson revealed his unvarnished thoughts on issues such as race, gender and abortion.

Writing in a forum discussing Black Republicans in October 2010, Robinson stated unprovoked: “I’m a Black Nazi!”

Read that here.

Now from this morning, we have the latest:

So, is this for Toby? Or the legislators who went to his rally featuring the self-declared nazi?

If you have to rent out a theater to watch a movie asking yourself if you’re racist after claiming violence against jews is fake, and hosting a rally with a self-declared nazi.. there is probably some self-reflection that needs to take place.

That, and sometimes the jokes decide to write themselves.

The Yes on 29 group held a press conference today demanding that the “Protecting SD Kids” group opposing Initiated Measure 29 remove their advertising from the air because they note it constitutes false advertising:

SDBML Executive Director Matthew Schweich called upon opponents of Measure 29 to take down what he described as a “demonstrably false and deceptive” advertisement currently running on Facebook and Hulu. Schweich emphasized that the ad falsely claims, “Measure 29 doesn’t just legalize marijuana,” a statement he asserts is unequivocally incorrect based on the text of the initiative.

and..

“I’m here to warn South Dakota television stations that if they run this ad, then they will be receiving a letter from me demanding it be taken down. That letter will make clear that running a deceptive ad of this nature is a violation of FCC standards,” Schweich said.

Read the entire story here.

Interestingly, while the campaign for legalization seems to be largely promoted by South Dakota investors such as former Republican State Senator Deb Peters, and former Senator/former State GOP Chair Dan Lederman, opponents to legalization are relying on an out-of-state media company in Pittsburg who is likely responsible for the ad in question, according to the buy sheet filed with the Federal Communications Commission:

protecting-sd-kids from Pit… by Pat Powers

That would be the same “Protecting South Dakota Kids” that for a time switched from a ballot committee to a PAC, so they could dump the money they had raised against lawmakers who had supported them such as Byron Callies, before they changed back to a ballot question committee for the fall campaign.

Never a dull moment in politics.

Over lunch I ran down to Sioux Falls to pick up a political collection of largely South Dakota political items that was being gifted to me, as it’s owner was cleaning out, and wanted to see it go to someone who would appreciate it.

There were a number of inaugural buttons, and some pins I had not come across. I especially enjoyed this pin, clearly from the 1960’s.

If only some of our social warriors in the legislature followed this advice. Although, if any of them wore this, it would generate an HR complaint in the 2020’s.

Among the pieces was one I had not ever come across before. A Bill Janklow/Lowell Hansen Campaign Yo-Yo.

Great items from our political past!

From Senator John Thune:

“Kimberley and I join all South Dakotans in mourning the loss of former Senator Tim Johnson. Known for his tenacity and work ethic, Tim was a steadfast leader who dedicated his life to serving the people of South Dakota with integrity and compassion. He fought tirelessly for rural America and leaves a legacy that will have a lasting impact for years to come. We are praying for Barbara and their entire family and know that Tim’s remarkable life will continue to inspire future generations.”

SD Republicans Revealing What The Media Won’t On Amendment G
by Kelsey Pritchard

South Dakota is one of ten states that will have abortion on the ballot this November. Serial ballot backer Rick Weiland, Nancy Turbak and their abortion lobby pals would like South Dakotans to believe that Amendment G is about limiting government interference and protecting women’s health care. Their liberal spin couldn’t be further from the truth. Aided by their allies in the left-leaning media, too many voters are unaware of how this measure would enshrine all-trimester abortion, eviscerate parental rights, allow for zero regulations on the abortion industry, and force taxpayers to fund abortion.

At any point in pregnancy – even in the final months – women can have elective abortions under Amendment G. It allows unrestricted abortion in the first trimester, says abortion cannot be restricted in the second trimester unless it’s for a health reason for the mother (note there’s no mention of the baby who feels pain at 15 weeks and is viable around 21 weeks), and allows for abortion under an undefined “health” exception in the third trimester.

The Supreme Court has said the definition of health includes physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age. Abortion can be okayed not just because of depression and anxiety, but if the woman is young, old, or doesn’t have the ideal family situation – whether it’s that the father is out of the picture or the woman already has a child to take care of. Who gets to decide if the woman meets this broad health exception? The abortionist. The person profiting off the abortion is the sole decision maker under Amendment G.

If that weren’t bad enough, girls who aren’t old enough to get their ears pierced on their own could get an abortion without mom or dad ever knowing. We fill out all sorts of paperwork so our daughters can have Tylenol at school. Imagine our state becoming a place where an abuser could take our daughters into a Planned Parenthood for a late-term abortion with no questions asked and without notifying parents. This is now the reality in Montana where the abortion lobby sued to wipe the state’s parental consent laws off the books. It happened there and the ACLU will make it happen here too.

Amendment G would also put women’s health in danger and increase government intrusion by forcing taxpayers to pay for other people’s abortions. This is what is happening in Ohio and Michigan where similar amendments have passed and they’re suing to allow non-doctors to perform abortions and require Medicaid to cover elective abortion.

Thankfully our GOP leaders are revealing that Amendment G is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

1. Dusty Johnson

Dusty has long opposed Amendment G and been aware of its radical implications. He was the featured speaker at an event in Minnehaha County just last night for NoGforSD.

Dusty is not only voicing his opposition to G but investing to oppose it. Dusty’s PAC is running a radio ad where Dusty says: “You’ve heard Amendment G is too extreme for South Dakota and I agree with that. It fails to protect mothers and it fails to protect children. It allows the termination of pregnancy all the way until birth. South Dakota, we can do better. Please join me in voting no on Amendment G.”

Dusty is also sending thousands of mailers to let South Dakotans know the abortion measure is way too radical.

 

2. Mike Rounds

In September, Rounds made his stance clear on X saying: “First and foremost, I believe that life begins at conception and our obligation is to save lives. That includes both the mother and child. Amendment G goes too far by including legal abortions through the third trimester.” Like Dusty, he’s clearly stating this is about abortion at any point and not letting the media get away with running cover for the Democrats on the deceptive trimester language.

Also yesterday he told Keloland, “Personally, I will vote no and I would simply with all due respect to the citizens of this state ask them to also vote no and not put this in the constitution.”

 

3. Kristi Noem

Noem released a public video for the SD Right To Life Convention saying she opposes Amendment G: “Of course I’m going to be voting ‘no’ on the extreme Amendment G and I will be encouraging others to do the same.”

 

4. John Thune

Last month, the Dakota Scout reported that Thune opposes the amendment as well.

There are a number of South Dakotans who would like our life at conception law to be altered to include rape and incest exceptions. This amendment, however, is not an exceptions amendment. Weiland could have created an amendment to specifically address rape and incest but instead they wrote something that is so sweeping that it will allow for abortion of babies who are viable. When the Democrats bring up rape and incest in light of this amendment, don’t be fooled. That is a debate South Dakotans can encourage their legislators to have. If we put this in our constitution, there will be no debate and we’ll become like Colorado where Kermit Gosnell-style abortionists are setting up shop.  This amendment will cost lives, the health and safety of women and girls, and our fundamental freedoms.

—

Kelsey Pritchard is a Spearfish mother of three who worked for 7 years in the Daugaard Administration. She is now the state public affairs director for SBA Pro-Life America.

 

Toby Doeden is at it again.

First Toby features Mark “the self-described nazi” Robinson at his Dakota First PAC ‘gala’ after everyone including the Republican Governors Association, President Trump’s, campaign, and practically everyone are running from this guy. 

Now in his latest, he’s commanded his Political Action Committee to endorse an independent against a life-long conservative Republican.

This is coming from Toby Doeden, who after voting in one Republican primary, and despite his track record in taking millions of government handouts, declares himself a conservative leader in the state?  And in an even more embarrassing example of his stupidity, tries to claim that Senator Duhamel has been “unable to deliver solutions.”

Especially considering the extensive laundry list of accomplishments by Senator Duhamel, which she just reminded people of in a postcard that hit in the last week:

Senator Duhamel delivering for jobs, business support, healthcare, education, and public safety, and a lifetime Rapid City resident who’s family helped build that community. I’m not sure what more they’re looking for, unless Toby is looking for an easily controllable stooge, which would not be Senator Duhamel.

Helene has also delivered for conservative Republicans, and has the voting record to prove it:

Protecting SD Kids – 100%

Real Conservative Scorecard – A Rated.

Elevate Rapid City – 100%

South Dakota Right to Life – 100%

And there’s also the other one.

In the NRA Scorecard, Senator Duhamel comes in at an A-, and is the NRA Endorsed candidate when Indy Karen apparently wouldn’t even return their survey.  Pro-gun Helene Duhamel, against a Karen who would not give the NRA the time of day.

So what do they see in Karen McNeal? As I understand it, she only recently moved to South Dakota. She’s most definitely is NOT the republican in the race.  Why is Doeden PAC so interested in “declaring Republicans and Democrats can agree” and pushing a carpetbagging Independent against the solid Republican in this race?

Because it’s about control. Doeden PAC has no loyalty to the GOP, and they’re looking to buy politicians who are easily controlled. 

You can only hope that real Republicans see right through it.

Thune Statement on Passing of Former Senator Tim Johnson

“Known for his tenacity and work ethic, Tim was a steadfast leader who dedicated his life to serving the people of South Dakota with integrity and compassion.”

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today released the following statement on the passing of former Sen. Tim Johnson.

“Kimberley and I join all South Dakotans in mourning the loss of former Senator Tim Johnson,” said Thune. “Known for his tenacity and work ethic, Tim was a steadfast leader who dedicated his life to serving the people of South Dakota with integrity and compassion. He fought tirelessly for rural America and leaves a legacy that will have a lasting impact for years to come. We are praying for Barbara and their entire family and know that Tim’s remarkable life will continue to inspire future generations.”

###