If Voter Fraud Is A Myth, Why Does It Keep Occurring?

U.S. News & World Report, on April 24, 2012, published an article entitled “The ‘Myth’ of Voter Fraud.” The article references Tova Wang, who says instances of polling place fraud are extremely rare. The article says that Wang is a fellow at progressive think tanks ‘Demos’ and the ‘Century Foundation’.

In response to the question, “What about widely publicized stories of registration fraud?”, Ms Wang responded:

… there’s absolutely zero evidence that anyone who has put any false information on a voter registration form has actually voted using that information.   [emphasis mine]

Really? Ms Wang said that almost two years ago, so an update is in order. Perhaps she will find this article by Brian Preston to be interesting. In it, Preston says:

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state, thanks to a 28-state crosscheck of voter rolls.

765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.

35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.

155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

And the voter fraud facts just keeps coming. The crosscheck found that more than 13,000 deceased voters remain on North Carolina’s rolls, and that 81 of them showed voter activity in their records after death.

Preston didn’t just make these numbers up. They come from a report published by “Interstate Crosscheck”, a Kansas company that checks 101 million voter records in 28 states. CA, FL, NY, and TX do not have their voting records checked. NC State Board of Elections Executive Director Kim Westbrook Strach delivered the report findings.

A NC congressman (Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland) said, “This is proof positive that voter fraud has in fact occurred. For years, all of us have known anecdotally of different types of voter fraud.”

Voting rights advocate Bob Phillips with Common Cause NC, tried to minimize the study findings by saying: “I think a lot of [lawmakers] are saying, ‘Aha, this proves what we did.’ [voting multiple times] But if I have an ID, how is that going to stop me from voting in North Carolina if I’ve already voted in Florida?” Phillips said it still doesn’t justify House Bill 589, the 2013 law that included voter ID.

When words are carefully parsed, like Bill Clinton did, Wang is correct. She said “… put any false information on a voter registration form …” Numerous time voters did not put false information on registration forms. But they committed voter fraud none the less. They were too stupid to cover their tracks, to offer false information. So the question becomes, “How many voters DID offer false information?” The voter fraud issue doesn’t simply go away if Wang is correct. The voter fraud problem may be larger than evidence suggests. Just because none have been successfully prosecuted doesn’t mean voter fraud doesn’t exist.

The remainder of the U.S. News & World Report article illustrates just how “out of touch” Wang is with reality. It’s not long, so read it if you want a good laugh.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer, my very conservative web site.

I can be reached at “wbracing43@aol.com”. I would like to read what you think. And, yes, I’m a big Richard Petty fan!

Conservative Daily News

If Voter Fraud Is A Myth, Why Does It Keep Occurring?

Paul takes voter rights fight home

Paul tweeted Wednesday morning about his push for voting rights restoration. | AP Photo

Sen. Rand Paul took his push for restoring felon’s voting rights to the state level on Wednesday, testifying before a Kentucky Legislature committee urging his home state to lead the way.

The Kentucky Republican was testifying before the state’s Senate State and Local Government Committee midday on Wednesday to urge passage of a bill that would give felons back the right to vote at the end of their sentence, parole or probation through a constitutional amendment.

Continue Reading

Paul tweeted Wednesday morning about his push for voting rights restoration, both at the federal and state level.

The Kentucky bill, H.B. 70, had a good shot of passage after years of no movement, according to The Lexington-Herald Leader. It has already cleared the House, and if it passes the Senate, voters will be able to ratify the amendment to the state constitution in November.

The bill exempts felons convicted of treason, sex crimes, murder and bribery.

Criminal justice reform has been a key issue for Paul, an area in which he has found himself in agreement with Democrats including Attorney General Eric Holder, who also pushed for felon voting rights last week.

POLITICO – Congress

Paul takes voter rights fight home

Holder thinks Republicans want to use voter ID for their own gain

Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t hold back on his contempt for voter identification measures in an MSNBC interview Thursday, referring to them as a Republican attempt to depress the votes of people who don’t support them politically.

While Republicans see voter ID as a way to prevent voter fraud, Holder dismissed that notion during the interview, saying that voter fraud does not exist to any extent that should require identification.

“I think we’ve come up with a remedy in search of a problem,” Holder told MSNBC. “And I think it’s being used in too many instances to depress the vote of particular groups of people who are not supportive of the party that is advancing these photo ID measures.”

Holder made it clear that he is not opposed to all identification entirely, but he is opposed to any sort of identification used to disenfranchise particular groups of people.

“People have to understand that we are not opposed to photo identification in a vacuum,” Holder said. “But when it is used in certain ways to disenfranchise particular groups of people whether by racial designation, ethic origin or partisan reasons, that from my perspective is problematic.”

Just last year, Holder took the state of Texas to federal court insisting that the state acquire “pre-approval” from either the Department of Justice or a federal court before implementing any future changes in voting laws. The Attorney General cited “evidence of intentional racial discrimination” along with a ”history of pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities.”

Not long after taking Texas to court, Holder filed suit against the state of North Carolina for the same reason.

Even though Holder doesn’t see voter fraud as an issue, the numbers prove otherwise.

According to True the Vote, there are more than 24 million invalid voter registrations on the books along with 1.8 million dead voters who are still eligible on the rolls. On top of that, federal records showed 160 counties in 19 states have more than 100 percent voter registration.

Red Alert Politics

Holder thinks Republicans want to use voter ID for their own gain

Feds Deny State Bids to Tighten Voter Registration

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission found Friday that heightened proof-of-citizenship requirements likely would hinder eligible citizens from voting in federal elections, handing down a ruling that denied requests from Kansas, Arizona and Georgia to modify the registration form for their residents.

The decision came just hours before a court-imposed deadline in a lawsuit filed in federal court by Kansas and Arizona that seeks to force the commission to modify state-specific requirements for registering to vote in those states. Georgia, which has a similar voter registration law, is not part of the litigation but was included in the commission’s decision.

Those states have enacted laws requiring new voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or other proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. People who register using the federal form only need to sign a statement, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is a U.S. citizen.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has championed his state’s proof-of-citizenship law to keep non-citizens from voting, particularly those in the U.S. illegally. But critics say voter fraud is extremely rare and contend such laws suppress the vote and threaten to keep thousands of citizens from casting ballots.

Kobach said in an email that he had anticipated the adverse ruling from the commission and the states will now press their constitutional claims before the U.S. District Court in Kansas. He argues the decision is unconstitutional because it prevents Kansas and Arizona from securing their voter rolls.

“The EAC’s reasoning reflects the partisan view of the Obama Justice Department that requiring voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship at the time of registration is undesirable as a policy matter,” Kobach said. “However, the EAC has no authority to second-guess the policy decisions of the sovereign states of Kansas and Arizona.”

In its decision, the EAC found that added documentation burdens do not enhance voter participation and result in an overall decrease in registration of eligible citizens — undermining the core purpose of the National Voter Registration Act.

It cited as evidence the problems Kansas already has experienced with its own enhanced voter registration requirements. The voter registrations of 20,127 Kansans remained on hold Friday because they’ve not yet provided proof of their citizenship to election officials.

States already have other means available to enforce citizenship requirements without requiring additional information from applicants, including access to national databases of birth certificates and naturalization information, the agency noted.

Given the “paucity of evidence” provided by the states regarding noncitizens registering to vote, the new voter registration requirements enacted by the states reflect “legislative policy preferences” and are not based on any demonstrated necessity, the agency said. It also said that the heightened documentation requirements imposed by Kansas and Arizona have led to significant reductions in organized voter registration programs.

“This is a significant decision for all eligible voters underscoring the purpose of the National Voter Registration Act to remove barriers such as documentary proof of citizenship that prevent eligible citizens from registering to vote and voting,” Michelle Kanter Cohen, a lawyer representing Project Vote in the states’ lawsuit in Kansas, said in an email Saturday.

“What we have seen where these laws have been implemented in Arizona and Kansas is that tens of thousands of eligible Americans have been rejected or suspended from the voter rolls, and community voter registration drives have been significantly hampered,” Cohen said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Arizona could not refuse to accept the national voter registration form, even though people who use it aren’t required to provide citizenship documents.

Kobach has said that if he cannot get a federal court to order EAC to modify the federal registration form with state-specific requirements, he would institute — on his own authority as Kansas secretary of state — a dual registration that limits Kansans who register with the federal form to voting only in presidential, U.S. Senate and congressional races.

“We applaud the EAC’s decision to uphold this law and protect the right to vote,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program at NYU School of Law, which represents the League of Women Voters in the Kansas litigation. “We hope Arizona and Kansas abandon their quest to undermine federal law by making voter registration more complicated.”

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Newsmax – America

Feds Deny State Bids to Tighten Voter Registration

Pennsylvania judge strikes down state"s voter ID law

People fill the waiting area of a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation office in Philadelphia as they wait to get a voter ID card, September 27, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Tom Mihalek

Reuters: Politics

Pennsylvania judge strikes down state"s voter ID law

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs

NEW YORK — For billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, throwing away $ 350,000 is equivalent to most Americans dropping loose change between the sofa cushions.

But the concern for Bloomberg is not the amount of money he personally invested in the effort to save the seats of two Colorado state senators — an effort that failed when both were ousted from office Tuesday by voters apparently displeased with their roles in passing gun control legislation.

Instead, the overriding worry for the 71-year-old mayor is that the defeats seem to underscore his increasing inability to nationally impact the public policy issues he’s most involved with.

On the heels of his failed $ 12 million effort to implement stronger gun laws on the national level — a crusade that some observers have said harmed efforts to pass background-check legislation — Bloomberg has become a favorite punching bag for the NRA and other small-government advocates, who have singled him out as an enemy of personal freedom.

And back home in New York City, there was further evidence this week of his apparently waning influence.

Though Bloomberg’s job approval rating remains at respectable levels citywide, Democratic primary voters on Tuesday awarded a sweeping victory to Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, whose rapid rise in the race was predicated largely on presenting himself as the most anti-Bloomberg candidate in the field.

With less than four months remaining in his tenure at City Hall, and no indication that he has plans to ride off into the sunset anytime soon, the three-term mayor is facing a difficult prospect: He is a wealthy man with grand ambitions for shaping the nation’s priorities on issues ranging from guns to immigration, but has a questionable ability to do so.

While New Yorkers have a long history of rewarding strong leaders with outsized personalities, the rest of the country may be less enamored of such an aggressive style, one that seems rooted in an attitude of “I know what’s best for you.”

“Part of the problem with Bloomberg is that politically he’s had a difficult time speaking to the public on their level,” said Jeanne Zaino, a professor of campaign management and political communication at NYU. “There’s a way in which his money can be very helpful, but it has to be done artfully and in a way that understands the local culture and views of outsiders, and he doesn’t seem to have mastered that. There’s a ‘real person’ sense that seems to be missing.”

A legendary workaholic in a city full of them, Bloomberg has left an indelible mark during his 12 years in office. A Republican, he did not get elected three times in this heavily Democratic city by accident.

But despite a reputation for competent leadership on issues ranging from crime-fighting to economic development, Bloomberg’s sweeping public health initiatives have made him the personification of the “nanny state” both in and out of New York.

In some instances, that perception is generally regarded positively. Mounting an effort to reverse his groundbreaking 2003 initiative to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, for example, has become unthinkable.

But Bloomberg’s more recent attempt to ban the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces is the highest-profile example of this perceived overreach; in fact, the issue was fodder for late-night comedians and Tea Party rallies.

Eager to avoid being seen as a “professional politician,” Bloomberg has always exuded a bluntness this is both a cornerstone of his appeal and a glaring example of his weaknesses as a communicator.

In an interview with New York Magazine, which was published just before Tuesday’s primary, it was the latter.

In the interview, Bloomberg characterized de Blasio as running a “racist” campaign — an ill-advised reference to the candidate featuring his biracial son in campaign ads; Bloomberg’s remark served only to solidify the Democratic frontrunner’s partisan support and boost perceptions that the current mayor had become politically tone deaf.

Though large swaths of the country may still yearn for his brand of centrism, negative perceptions of Bloomberg’s heavy-handedness have apparently limited his appeal, especially among the very people who should compose his political base: non-partisans fed up with the Washington establishment.

“He had the potential to be much more influential as a voice of independents, pre-2008 financial meltdown,” said New York-based Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein, a self-described fan of the mayor. “And I think he missed his moment because now, anyone who comes from the financial elite and has such strong ties to Wall Street is going to be compromised in the eyes of many.”

Politically vulnerable Democrats in red states who earned Bloomberg’s ire on the gun issue are wearing the New Yorker’s antipathy as a badge of honor as they embark on difficult re-election campaigns in 2014.

“A New York mayor telling an Alaska senator what to do? Alaskans will reject that big time,” Alaska Sen. Mark Begich told The Huffington Post after Bloomberg had urged donors to withhold contributions to the Democrat, whose seat is up next year.

And in Arkansas, Sen. Mark Pryor — another of the most vulnerable Democrats in next year’s midterms — took a direct shot at Bloomberg in his re-election effort’s first TV ad. He was returning fire after the New Yorker launched ads of his own attacking Pryor’s opposition to gun control legislation.

“I’m Mark Pryor, and I approve this message because no one from New York or Washington tells me what to do,” the two-term lawmaker said in the TV spot.

Despite his recent struggles, Bloomberg has shown an ability over the years to defy anyone who underestimates him and to set a course on policy that others eventually come around to, rather than being guided by the fickle political winds of the moment.

And in addition, money always talks in politics, and the business magnate has no shortage of that.

GOP strategist Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of the centrist group No Labels, warned against reading too much into this week’s results in Colorado, noting that Colorado Springs and Pueblo — where the two state senators were recalled — are deeply conservative enclaves.

“Team Bloomberg just got out-gunned on this one,” he said. “It’s only a surprise that Democratic senators represented those locales in the first place. And after three terms of Jesus Christ, New York would have elected Pontius Pilate just for something new and different. “

It may indeed be understandable that New Yorkers are eager to try something new after a dozen years under one mayor.

But for much of the rest of the country, even a glimpse of Bloomberg may be enough to turn the other way. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs

NEW YORK — For billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, throwing away $ 350,000 is equivalent to most Americans dropping loose change between the sofa cushions.

But the concern for Bloomberg is not the amount of money he personally invested in the effort to save the seats of two Colorado state senators — an effort that failed when both were ousted from office Tuesday by voters apparently displeased with their roles in passing gun control legislation.

Instead, the overriding worry for the 71-year-old mayor is that the defeats seem to underscore his increasing inability to nationally impact the public policy issues he’s most involved with.

On the heels of his failed $ 12 million effort to implement stronger gun laws on the national level — a crusade that some observers have said harmed efforts to pass background-check legislation — Bloomberg has become a favorite punching bag for the NRA and other small-government advocates, who have singled him out as an enemy of personal freedom.

And back home in New York City, there was further evidence this week of his apparently waning influence.

Though Bloomberg’s job approval rating remains at respectable levels citywide, Democratic primary voters on Tuesday awarded a sweeping victory to Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, whose rapid rise in the race was predicated largely on presenting himself as the most anti-Bloomberg candidate in the field.

With less than four months remaining in his tenure at City Hall, and no indication that he has plans to ride off into the sunset anytime soon, the three-term mayor is facing a difficult prospect: He is a wealthy man with grand ambitions for shaping the nation’s priorities on issues ranging from guns to immigration, but has a questionable ability to do so.

While New Yorkers have a long history of rewarding strong leaders with outsized personalities, the rest of the country may be less enamored of such an aggressive style, one that seems rooted in an attitude of “I know what’s best for you.”

“Part of the problem with Bloomberg is that politically he’s had a difficult time speaking to the public on their level,” said Jeanne Zaino, a professor of campaign management and political communication at NYU. “There’s a way in which his money can be very helpful, but it has to be done artfully and in a way that understands the local culture and views of outsiders, and he doesn’t seem to have mastered that. There’s a ‘real person’ sense that seems to be missing.”

A legendary workaholic in a city full of them, Bloomberg has left an indelible mark during his 12 years in office. A Republican, he did not get elected three times in this heavily Democratic city by accident.

But despite a reputation for competent leadership on issues ranging from crime-fighting to economic development, Bloomberg’s sweeping public health initiatives have made him the personification of the “nanny state” both in and out of New York.

In some instances, that perception is generally regarded positively. Mounting an effort to reverse his groundbreaking 2003 initiative to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, for example, has become unthinkable.

But Bloomberg’s more recent attempt to ban the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces is the highest-profile example of this perceived overreach; in fact, the issue was fodder for late-night comedians and Tea Party rallies.

Eager to avoid being seen as a “professional politician,” Bloomberg has always exuded a bluntness this is both a cornerstone of his appeal and a glaring example of his weaknesses as a communicator.

In an interview with New York Magazine, which was published just before Tuesday’s primary, it was the latter.

In the interview, Bloomberg characterized de Blasio as running a “racist” campaign — an ill-advised reference to the candidate featuring his biracial son in campaign ads; Bloomberg’s remark served only to solidify the Democratic frontrunner’s partisan support and boost perceptions that the current mayor had become politically tone deaf.

Though large swaths of the country may still yearn for his brand of centrism, negative perceptions of Bloomberg’s heavy-handedness have apparently limited his appeal, especially among the very people who should compose his political base: non-partisans fed up with the Washington establishment.

“He had the potential to be much more influential as a voice of independents, pre-2008 financial meltdown,” said New York-based Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein, a self-described fan of the mayor. “And I think he missed his moment because now, anyone who comes from the financial elite and has such strong ties to Wall Street is going to be compromised in the eyes of many.”

Politically vulnerable Democrats in red states who earned Bloomberg’s ire on the gun issue are wearing the New Yorker’s antipathy as a badge of honor as they embark on difficult re-election campaigns in 2014.

“A New York mayor telling an Alaska senator what to do? Alaskans will reject that big time,” Alaska Sen. Mark Begich told The Huffington Post after Bloomberg had urged donors to withhold contributions to the Democrat, whose seat is up next year.

And in Arkansas, Sen. Mark Pryor — another of the most vulnerable Democrats in next year’s midterms — took a direct shot at Bloomberg in his re-election effort’s first TV ad. He was returning fire after the New Yorker launched ads of his own attacking Pryor’s opposition to gun control legislation.

“I’m Mark Pryor, and I approve this message because no one from New York or Washington tells me what to do,” the two-term lawmaker said in the TV spot.

Despite his recent struggles, Bloomberg has shown an ability over the years to defy anyone who underestimates him and to set a course on policy that others eventually come around to, rather than being guided by the fickle political winds of the moment.

And in addition, money always talks in politics, and the business magnate has no shortage of that.

GOP strategist Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of the centrist group No Labels, warned against reading too much into this week’s results in Colorado, noting that Colorado Springs and Pueblo — where the two state senators were recalled — are deeply conservative enclaves.

“Team Bloomberg just got out-gunned on this one,” he said. “It’s only a surprise that Democratic senators represented those locales in the first place. And after three terms of Jesus Christ, New York would have elected Pontius Pilate just for something new and different. “

It may indeed be understandable that New Yorkers are eager to try something new after a dozen years under one mayor.

But for much of the rest of the country, even a glimpse of Bloomberg may be enough to turn the other way. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs

Ginsburg says push for voter ID laws predictable

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she’s not surprised that Southern states have pushed ahead with tough voter identification laws and other measures since the Supreme Court freed them from strict federal oversight of their elections.

Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas’ decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.

The Justice Department said Thursday it would try to bring Texas and other places back under the advance approval requirement through a part of the law that was not challenged.

“The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn’t make any sense to me,” Ginsburg said in a wide-ranging interview late Wednesday in her office at the court. “And one really could have predicted what was going to happen.”

The 80-year-old justice dissented from the 5-4 decision on the voting law. Ginsburg said in her dissent that discarding the law was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Just a month removed from the decision, she said, “I didn’t want to be right, but sadly I am.”

She spoke a day before Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration will open a new front in the battle for voter protections in response to the court’s decision.

Holder said the first move would be to ask a federal court in San Antonio to require Texas to obtain advance approval before putting in place future political redistricting or other voting changes.

“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected,” Holder said in a speech to the National Urban League in Philadelphia.

Ginsburg and the administration were on the losing side of the June 25 ruling in which the court effectively gutted what civil rights advocates have called the law’s crown jewel, the advance approval requirement. It applied to 15 mainly Southern states.

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said it was no longer fair to subject those jurisdictions to strict federal monitoring based on data that is at least 40 years old. The extraordinary intrusion on state power to conduct elections could only be justified by current conditions, Roberts said.

“There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions,” he said.

Roberts relied heavily on another decision from 2009 in which the justices essentially left the law alone while warning Congress about serious problems with the data and urging lawmakers to do something about it. They didn’t.

In that case, Ginsburg joined Roberts and every justice but Clarence Thomas to leave prior approval in place.

Ginsburg said she probably shouldn’t have done that. “I think in the first voting rights case, there was a strong impetus to come down with a unanimous decision with the thought that maybe Congress would do something about it before we had to deal with it again,” she said. “But I suppose with the benefit of hindsight, I might have taken a different view.”

Notably, when the court in late June ruled narrowly in a challenge to the University of Texas’ race-conscious admissions program, Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. Two other liberal justices joined with the conservatives in a decision that left in place affirmative action in college admissions but also called on federal judges to examine those plans more closely.

“Time will tell,” she said, whether affirmative action will meet a fate similar to that of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in the Bakke case in 1978 has been the blueprint for affirmative action plans ever since, she said. “And now it remains to be seen. We’ll have to wait for the next case.”

She also spoke about the court’s 5-4 ruling, in which she was in the majority, to strike down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that Congress passed in 1996. Ginsburg couldn’t resist taking a dig at her good friend and ideological opposite Antonin Scalia, who voted to uphold that law and strike down the voting rights law.

“Scalia, who really takes after the court for taking over legislative turf in same-sex marriage, doesn’t make a whimper in voting rights, which passed 98 to nothing in the Senate and 330 to something in the House. I didn’t put that to him, but surely he’s going to be asked the question, ‘How do you distinguish the two?’” she said.

As the court’s oldest justice and with an early surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2009, Ginsburg is accustomed to questions about her health. She has broken a pair of ribs in consecutive springs but has not missed any time on the job. She exercises regularly and is traveling extensively this summer, including to Cooperstown, N.Y., in pursuit of her favorite pastime, opera.

She also did not shy from discussing, in her words, “when is she going to retire?”

“My answer is, as long as I can do the job full steam, I will,” Ginsburg said. “At my age, you can’t say, you have to go year by year.”

___

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/shermancourt

Associated Press

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Headlines

Ginsburg says push for voter ID laws predictable

Video: Ohio Voter Fraud Conviction!

A poll worker admits to voting multiple times…

Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.

Western Journalism

Video: Ohio Voter Fraud Conviction!