More registered voters than possible in 11 California counties

[Firestarter]

On 1 August, Robert D. Popper wrote a letter on behalf of Judicial Watch “Violations of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20507”: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-05/california-has-11-counties-more-registered-voters-voting-age-citizens

The most interesting appears to be that “Eleven California Counties Have More Total Registered Voters Than Citizen Voting Age Population”:

Based on our review of 2016 EAC EAVS report, the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California total active and total inactive voter registration records, California is failing to comply with the voter registration list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA. For example, a comparison of the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California active and inactive voter registration records shows there were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%). Our own research shows that the situation in these counties is, if anything, worse than the foregoing data suggest. For example, we contacted Los Angeles County directly this past June. At that time, county officials informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.

In our experience, these kinds of registration rates indicate a failure to comply with the voter list maintenance requirements of the NVRA. The failure to maintain accurate, up-to-date voter registration lists creates the risk that the 2018 federal elections will lack the integrity required by federal law and by the expectations of California citizens, and will therefore undermine public confidence in the electoral process.


County officials of Los Angeles County informed Judicial Watch that the total number of registered voters is 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age…

[Danke]

http://memeshappen.com/media/created/I-see-Dead-voters-meme-34504.jpg

[UWDude]

remember, only about 1 vote out of a billion has been proven fraudulent.

(beating the Zippy machine to it)

[Working Poor]

County officials of Los Angeles County informed Judicial Watch that the total number of registered voters is 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age…

I am sure you know that Snoopes has thoroughly discredited Judicial Watch as right wing nut job conspiracy theorist. Not that that means anything. I have found that I can't use JW as a source for Clinton supporters because of what Snoopes says about them.

[Firestarter]

There are many stories on the internet that Judicial Watch is some right wing group targeting Obama and Clinton. This isn't the first time that I found interesting information from Judicial Watch...

California is not the only state which has been inflating the number of eligible voters.
On 11 April 2017, Judicial Watch sent a similar letter (as to California) to 11 other states with more total registered voters than citizens the voting age: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-warns-11-states-clean-voter-registration-lists-face-federal-lawsuit/

On July 7, Maryland denied Judicial Watch access to the voter registration list, because according to Maryland, the law restricts the release of voter registration information to Maryland registered voters.
On 18 July, Judicial Watch filed a law suit against Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA): http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-voter-registration-data-national-voter-registration-act/

Judicial Watch on 10 January 2014 reached an out-of court settlement agreement with the State of Ohio. Ohio agreed to update and maintain its voter registration lists and keep a current voter registration list available for public access online.
Judicial Watch aims for a similar result in the other states: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/01-14-Ohio-Voter-Rolls-Settlement.pdf

[Firestarter]

The letter by Judicial Watch about the more voters than possible in California, was published by several media outlets, for example FOX, Breitbart and Infowars:
http://www.fox4now.com/newsy/11-california-counties-might-have-more-registered-voters-than-eligible
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/08/05/judicial-watch-warns-california-11-counties-voters-voting-age-citizens/
https://www.infowars.com/california-vote-scandal-blows-up/

According to the following story, it’s almost completely fake, because Judicial Watch included “inactive voters” into the equation.
According to the official numbers, for example Los Angeles County has 5,258,137 registered voters (that is without “inactive voters”), Census eligible 6,046,750, and Secy of State eligible 6,237,395: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/mcclatchys-america/article166213202.html


Judicial Watch should have mentioned “inactive voters” more clearly in their publications. The word “inactive” doesn’t appear in the publication of Judicial Watch or its letter of 1 August at all.
Also FOX, Breitbart and Infowars forgot to explain the effect of “inactive voters”.
Here’s a definition of “inactive voters”: https://www.ocvote.com/inactive/


Formally speaking it’s not incorrect of Judicial Watch to include “inactive voters” into the equation.
From Section 8 of the NVRA: http://www.sos.ms.gov/links/elections/home/tab5/NVRAPurging.pdf

(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of-- (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);


It appears that the objective of Judicial Watch is to help Donald Trump purge the voter lists of “unwanted” voters, in time for his re-election in 2020: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/how_trump_s_doj_will_try_to_purge_voter_rolls.html
It’s not very difficult to identify voter with a high risk of voting against Donald Trump. For example the majority of Latinos, Blacks and Muslims vote Democrat...

[Firestarter]

I continued my investigation with the suspicion of finding evidence that the population is inflated to hide the success of depopulation Agenda 21…
Another explanation for what I’ve found is that a huge amount of people (more than one third) is purged from the voter rolls.
It’s also possible that the amount of “registered voters” is too low, in order to overestimate the percentage of voters.

I have only focused on the biggest 6 of the 11 California counties from the 1 August letter of Judicial Watch.
Stanislaus had a total of 698 registered voters in 2013…

Here are the numbers for the amount of registered voters in 2013 (for Los Angeles - 4,865,403): https://web.archive.org/web/20130727173649/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/ror-odd-year-2013/political-sub.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20130727173649/http:/www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/ror-odd-year-2013/political-sub.pdf)

For some reason it’s hard to find recent numbers for the amount of people (other than estimates)…
On the “independent” Wikipedia, I found official numbers for 2010, with estimates for 2016 (for all counties the estimates for 2016 are higher than for 2010) - Los Angeles population in 2010 - 9,818,605, estimate for 2016 - 10,137,915: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_California

Here is the percentage of the population under 18 in 2016 (22.2% for Los Angeles):
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/map/losangelescountycalifornia/AGE295216#viewtop


I have added the 2 numbers for the population (2010 and estimate for 2016) for the 6 California counties, divided them by 2, and then subtracted the percentage under 18 in 2016. This is the first number after the county name (for example Los Angeles: 9,978,260 * 0,778 = 7,763,086).
The second number is the amount of registered voters in 2013.
In between brackets the percentage of the registered voters, compared to the amount of people (based on the official numbers)…

County Population over 18 Registered voters
Los Angeles: 7,763,086 - 4,865,403 (62.7%)
Monterey: 313,332 – 168,245 (53.7%)
San Diego: 2,501,094 - 1,575,770 (63.0%)
San Francisco: 724,085 – 497,663 (68.7%)
San Mateo: 585,141 - 360,786 (61.7%)
Solano: 330,324 – 210,453 (63.7%)


Is there a good explanation for the bizarre low amount of voters compared to the official amount of people?