Tag: elections

Nick Shirley Tracks Down a ‘126-Year-Old California Voter’ With Record of 51 Elections — What He Found Raises Serious Questions About State Voter Rolls

This is the Democrat Party’s idea of “secure” elections in their one-party utopia.

Investigative reporter Nick Shirley — the same journalist whose explosive February 2026 video we reported on here at The Gateway Pundit — knocking on doors and exposing the rotting corpse of the state’s Democrat-controlled election system, and the latest clip is pure fire.

Meet Doris. She lives in California. According to the California Secretary of State’s own voter rolls, she is 126 years old and has cast ballots in 51 elections.

There’s just one small problem.

Doris is not 126 years old. She was born in 1940. That makes her roughly 86 years old. She’s never voted in 51 elections. And when Nick Shirley showed up at her door to ask about it, she was stunned.

Nick Shirley and his team went straight to the address listed on the official rolls to confirm what the Democrat-run bureaucracy is hiding.

Keep reading

AND THERE IT IS: NBC News Casually Admits Mail-in Ballots Always Put Democrats Ahead as Far Left Candidate Gains on Spencer Pratt in LA

Here we go again.

If you have been following the race for mayor of Los Angeles, you have probably noticed that Spencer Pratt’s lead is slowly being eroded and Nithya Raman, the far left Democratic Socialist (communist) candidate keeps gaining.

The explanation for this is very simple. It’s fraud. Raman is benefiting from the state’s system of mail-in ballots, which SOMEHOW always benefits the left. Isn’t it fascinating how ballots that are tabulated after the election always benefit just one side?

NBC News recently admitted this on the air, without a hint of irony.

REPORTER: Why would those votes, we don’t know what they’re gonna be, but why would the mail-in votes, the later votes, break for Raman, possibly?

STEVE KORNACKI: Because that is the pattern in California with this system. We’ve seen this now probably for about a decade out there. It’s those votes that get tabulated after election day, they tend to be almost always or heavily, heavily Democratic. We’ve seen this in congressional races in California now over the last decade or so where on election night, we’ve had cases where, a number of them where the Republican candidate is ahead on election night and then it’s a process over days, sometimes even weeks in these key congressional races where just with every one of the updates like the one you just saw right here in LA, the Democrats get closer and closer and closer.

Keep reading

Senate Votes 48-50 to Reject SAVE America Act – FOUR Republicans Join the Democrats

The Senate on Thursday evening rejected the SAVE America Act as part of the reconciliation package.

Four Republicans voted to reject the Graham Amendment: Murkowski, McConnell, Tillis, and Collins.

The amendment needed 60 votes to pass, but this voted showed that the Republicans likely wouldn’t pass the SAVE America Act if the filibuster was nuked.

Thursday’s vote on the SAVE America Act is part of the Senate’s vote-a-rama.

It’s official. The SAVE America Act is still stalled in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others have previously floated passing the SAVE America Act through reconciliation which only requires 51 votes.

This requires approval from the Senate Parliamentarian and she would immediately slash the SAVE America Act from the reconciliation package because it is not a budgetary item.

The only option is to nuke the filibuster and pass bills with 51 votes in the Senate.

However, Thursday’s vote showed that the Senate Republicans still don’t have the votes to pass with a simple majority.

President Trump has repeatedly called on the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act.

“Requirement for Voter I.D. to vote should be something that NO American should oppose. If you want to register to vote in the United States, you have to be a citizen in the United States,” the White House previously said in a statement.

Keep reading

Are Unions And Public Schools Violating Election Laws/Ethics?

The Easton Gazette received an email regarding the political activities of the Worcester County Public Schools. The email included this letter from a resident of the county.

The letter alleges that the school placed or allowed campaign material connected to a candidate for county commissioner to be placed into teachers’ school mailboxes within Worcester County Public Schools. The materials allegedly urge teachers to support certain candidates including this candidate and others and also have instructions for changing party affiliation.

As the letter states, this action could possibly pressure public school employees to feel that they must support a candidate who was once a system employee. Also, public schools, along with other public institutions, are supposed to remain politically neutral. Certainly, public materials and time should not be spent on political campaigns. One of the documents references a “building rep” which most likely refers to a “union” rep.

Again, these are allegations. However, they do bring up some important questions.

What is the law in Maryland regarding using school communications to promote candidates?

Maryland law prohibits teachers’ unions and any other group from using public school communication systems to promote or oppose political candidates, because doing so constitutes political activity using government resources, which is barred under both state ethics rules as well as federal tax rules for labor organizations such as teacher’s unions

Keep reading

Sen. Bernie Moreno: ‘We Can Learn’ from Colombia Election System with Voter ID, No Mail-In Vote

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) applauded the Colombian electoral integrity system following a trip to the country as an observer in Sunday’s presidential election, describing it as “world-class” and a model to learn from for the United States.

Sen. Moreno made the remarks during a call with the media on Tuesday in which he detailed his experiences in the country as an election observer and responded to claims by outgoing President Gustavo Petro, a Marxist who regularly boasts of his membership in a terrorist guerrilla, that the election was fraudulent. Sen. Moreno gave Colombian authorities an “A+” for their handling of the election and dismissed Petro’s refusal to accept the results of the election, noting that Petro’s hand-picked successor, Sen. Iván Cepeda, had publicly come out in defense of the election results.

The Colombian-American senator described an intricate security system in which Colombians are allowed to vote only with a federally issued identification card, ballots are filled out and tallied on paper, and no mail-in voting is allowed. Even abroad, Colombian citizens must visit a consulate in person to vote. Sen. Moreno suggested that America could significantly improve its own election integrity by taking even a small number of these measures, such as requiring identification to vote. Congress is currently debating a bill that would change voting requirements to align more with those of Colombia, the SAVE America Act, which Democrats are loudly decrying as discriminatory and equating to Jim Crow-era bigotry.

Colombia held its first round of presidential voting on Sunday when all 14 candidates were on the ballot. As no candidate obtained 50 percent or more of the vote, the race will go to a second “runoff” election featuring the top two candidates in the first round. Outsider conservative candidate Abelardo de la Espriella won the first round with 43.74 percent of the vote, while Sen. Iván Cepeda obtained 40.90 percent, enough to enter the runoff. The establishment conservative candidate, Sen. Paloma Valencia, came in third place and immediately pledged support to de la Espriella.

“The elections in Colombia were done, actually, extraordinarily well,” Sen. Moreno explained on Tuesday. “The process that they have for elections — I think there are some things that we can learn here in the U.S. They require 100-percent proof of citizenship in order to get a national ID that’s required to obtain before you can vote.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Use Congressional Map that Favors Republicans – Sotomayor Fumes

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday evening allowed Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map that favors Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections.

Last week, Alabama asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a lower court blocked its new congressional map.

Alabama’s request to toss out its racist, gerrymandered congressional map comes after the Supreme Court last month declared Louisiana’s newly-drawn Congressional map an unconstitutional gerrymander.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s woke lawmakers caving to left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district.

Last week, a three-judge panel ruled that Alabama’s new congressional map violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Alabama state officials asked the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s decision.

On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision upheld Alabama’s Congressional map that will likely result in 6-1 R-D.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor fumed in a dissent with whom Jackson and Kagan joined.

“Before the Court are two paths. Down one lies an orderly election, held under a tried-and-tested congressional map that protects Black Alabamians’ right to vote and with which all voters, elections officials, and candidates alike are familiar,” Sotomayor wrote.

“Down the other lies a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians, that Alabama adopted in unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this Court, and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months,” Sotomayor said.

“The majority chooses the second path and disregardsboth democratic values and the rule of law. I respectfully dissent,” she wrote.

Keep reading

Colombia to the Right? Anti-Crime Outsider Crushes Election Expectations.

Up until 2022, Colombia had never had a left-wing president, at least not in modern history. But, for some reason, it tried to experiment with one between 2022 and 2026. Not only did they vote in a leftist, but they voted in a corrupt socialist clown. Four years of Gustavo Petro was, apparently, enough. 

As I wrote on Friday, the Colombian presidential elections were held on Sunday, May 31, and it was down to three candidates:  

On the left, you have Petro’s hand-picked candidate, senator, and human rights activist Iván Cepeda. He’ll be more of the same: heavy spending on social programs and pointless peace talks with gangs and guerrillas that go nowhere, instead of actually cracking down on crime. He’s leading in the polls right now, anywhere from 35 to 42%, depending on which poll you believe. 

But don’t panic. One reason why he’s leading in the polls is that the right is split between Abelardo de la Espriella, aka “El Tigre,” and Paloma Valencia. El Tigre is the outsider, a bombastic lawyer who has a little Trump and a little Nayib Bukele in him. He’s promising mega-prisons to deal with the criminal groups that plague the country and a crackdown on drugs and crime. And he’s gaining a lot of enthusiasm right now. Most of the emails I receive from Colombians want him to win. 

Valencia, a center-right senator, is more of an establishment conservative. She’s a big Petro critic and campaigns on stabilizing the country’s economy and restoring security. 

Valencia actually won the nomination as the right-wing candidate in the country’s primaries earlier this year. Cepeda was the left-wing winner. El Tigre (“The Tiger”) had to kind of do things on his own. And boy, did he. Even as I wrote about the election on Friday, he was not projected to perform as well as he did on Sunday. 

I should have know better — I’ve receive so many emails from Colombians over the last few months telling me that he was their guy.  

Going into, it looked like Cepeda would receive the most votes, and that the rest would be split between de la Espriella and Valencia, but de la Espriella actually came out on top with about a 3%-ish lead. 

Keep reading

Mexico’s Congress Moves to Cancel Future Elections – If Ruling Party Loses

Mexico’s Congress is moving to amend the country’s constitution to ensure the ruling party remains in power. The move comes at a time when the U.S. government has been exposing the close ties between Mexico’s ruling party, MORENA, and drug cartels while moving to arrest some of its top operators.

This week, Mexico’s congress moved to change the law to allow the government to cancel the 2030 elections if it claims there was foreign interference. The measure is hidden in obscure language and lacks specifics as to what could qualify as foreign interference, giving the government a wide range of reasons.

The issue faced strong resistance from legislators in opposing parties, who claimed it was just a way for the ruling party to stay in power. The move passed due to MORENA having majority control and is moving along the system.

The issue comes at a time of great tension between Mexico and the U.S. over a series of criminal indictments accusing top members of the MORENA party, including the governor of Sinaloa, of working with cartels in exchange for political power and money. Rather than working with the U.S. to arrest those officials, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has publicly defended him, claiming that the U.S. has provided no evidence of wrongdoing and that the move was political. The MORENA party has a long history of accusing the U.S. government of trying to influence its rule over Mexico, using the claim of national sovereignty to avoid going after cartel politicians.

Keep reading

Why The SAVE Act Matters

American self-governance rests on one indispensable foundation: that elections reflect the will of eligible citizens, counted accurately, administered transparently. Republicans and election integrity advocates argue that this foundation has been progressively undermined – not necessarily by a single grand conspiracy, but by a systemic pattern of loosened safeguards, dirty voter rolls, exploitable mail-ballot systems, and aggressive Democrat opposition to the audits and reforms that would resolve public doubt once and for all.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act – which polls at roughly 80 percent public support – would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. To its advocates, it is the minimum logical response to documented vulnerabilities in the registration and voting system. To its opponents, it is voter suppression. The fight over that characterization is itself a revealing indicator of where the parties stand on the fundamental question: do you want to know, or don’t you? And why!

Let’s examine the subject in some detail.

Note: the below analysis was written from a Republican/election-integrity-advocate perspective. Where allegations are unconfirmed or contested, they are labeled as such.

Keep reading

BIG WIN IN N CAROLINA: Court Reaffirms “Never Residents” Cannot Vote – While Michigan SOS Benson Continues to Defy Constitution–Allows Individuals To Vote That Never Lived in State

Why are U.S. citizens born overseas to parents eligible to vote in a state where they’ve never lived?

That’s a question every American should be asking their state lawmakers.

Another question Americans should be asking is why would any lawmaker or secretary of state would be in favor of someone voting in their state who’s never lived there? Isn’t voting supposed to be about choosing the candidate who will best represent the US citizen living in their community, state or federal government?

In a significant ruling just days ago, Special Superior Court Judge Hoyt Tessener delivered a major win for election integrity in North Carolina. The court sided with Republican groups who argued that “never resident” voters — individuals born overseas who have never lived in North Carolina — should not be allowed to vote in any elections in the Tar Heel State.

This latest decision builds directly on previous rulings by the North Carolina Supreme Court. In 2025, during the hotly contested Supreme Court race between Democrat Allison Riggs and Republican Jefferson Griffin, the NC Supreme Court ruled 4-2 that “never residents” are not eligible to vote in state and local elections under the North Carolina Constitution. The court made it clear: only actual residents of North Carolina can vote in North Carolina elections.

The new Superior Court ruling goes even further by addressing federal elections, closing the loophole that Benson-style election officials have been exploiting nationwide.

Michigan’s Parallel Fight To Keep Inelligible Voters Allegedly Living in Foreign Countries from Voting In State and Federal Elections

Keep reading