Tag: elections

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Got Smacked Down During Arguments Over Mail-in Ballots

The Supreme Court heard arguments about laws that allow mail-in ballots to be counted five days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Fourteen states permit these ballots to be counted within that period, but a legal challenge in Watson v. RNC, which had its oral argument on Monday, could shorten this window. The court appeared ready to restrict it, potentially undermining a favored Democratic election strategy for certain elections.

The case, Watson v. RNC, challenges a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be received up to five days after Election Day, as long as the ballot is postmarked by Election Day. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia also allow mail-in ballots to be received after Election Day. 

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said the case would give an opportunity for mail-in ballot laws to be uniform across the country. 

“Federal law clearly states that ballots must be received by Election Day,” Snead told The Center Square. “Despite this, states continue to allow absentee ballots to pour in days or even weeks late.” 

In Illinois, mail-in ballots can be received up to 14 days after Election Day. Lawyers for the RNC argued that the federal government sets a date for federal elections and that all ballots need to be available for counting by that date. 

Lisa Dixon, executive director at the Center for Election Confidence, said delayed mail-in ballot receipt deadlines became more prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said a ruling in favor of the RNC would still allow states to accept late mail-in ballots for nonfederal elections. 

Lawyers for Mississippi have argued that upholding a strict receipt deadline would jeopardize ballots for military and overseas voters. However, Congress’ passage of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Voting Act established requirements for states to send absentee ballots 45 days before a federal election. 

Keep reading

QUIET PART OUT LOUD: Senator Chris Murphy Says for Democrats, Illegal Aliens Are ‘The People We Care About Most’

It is AMAZING that Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said this out loud.

During an appearance on MSNOW, he actually said that illegals are the people Democrats care about the most. They have shown this as a party over and over again in the last two years, but it’s still incredible to hear one of them slip like this and say it out loud.

The clip is from 2024 and is going viral now because it was shared on Twitter/X today but he could have said this just yesterday. It’s as true now as it was in 2024.

FOX News even reported on it today:

A resurfaced post by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy discussing the people Democrats “care about most” is sparking social media outrage from conservatives, making the case it points to their priorities in the current fight on Department of Homeland Security funding.

In the clip, posted on Monday night by the conservative influencer account End Wokeness, MSNBC host Chris Hayes asked Murphy in 2024 about negotiations between Democrats and Republicans happening at the time about a border security bill. Hayes pressed Murphy on why Democrats were pushing to get funding for Ukraine instead of pushing for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as the party had done in the past.

“Well, I mean, Chris, that’s been a failed play for 20 years,” Murphy replied. “So you are right that that has been the Democratic strategy for 30 years, maybe, and it has failed to deliver for the people we care about most, the undocumented Americans that are in this country.”

Keep reading

Democrats’ Fraud-Friendly Election Rules Destroy Public Trust

When Donald Trump was elected for his first term in 2016, a large majority of Democrats believed the election was rigged. When Joe Biden was elected in 2020, a large majority of Republicans believed the election was rigged. America is the world’s showcase democracy. Why can’t we have elections people can trust? I’m usually critical of both parties, but when it comes to election integrity, the Democrats are 100 percent of the problem.

Why are the Democrats to blame? The answer becomes obvious by asking a few simple questions. Why do Democrats oppose updated voter registration lists? Why do Democrats fight for laws that enable vote harvesting — sending activists out with stacks of ballots to be filled out with their assistance by people in housing projects, nursing homes, and targeted neighborhoods? Why do Democrats oppose in-person voting requirements and insist that unrequested ballots be mailed to all registered voters? Why do Democrats want ballots to be accepted after Election Day? Why do Democrats oppose voter ID and citizenship requirements?

The answers to these questions are revealing. On the voter registration lists of many states, as many as 10 percent to 20 percent of names listed represent people who have died or moved. It’s easy to put a few people in a room in key voting precincts and have them identify registered voters who are not going to vote — at least for themselves. It’s easy to imagine how ballots could be completed in their names, then bundled and dropped in an unsupervised drop box.

Another easy way to cheat is vote harvesting, in which the harvester completes a quantity of ballots and takes them to unlikely voters for their signatures — or forges their signatures. No wonder Democrats oppose signature verification.

In-person voting with ID requirements makes it very hard to cheat. Such guardrails prevent local party bosses from determining how many votes are needed and then delivering ballots to a drop box hours or even days after an election. Democrats oppose both.

Call me partisan, but you have to be blind not to see what’s going on here. Democrats need to cheat to win, and since most of the swing states are controlled by Democrats, often with the help of Democrat judges, it has been virtually impossible to create elections people can trust. Democrats respond to efforts to create honest elections with cries of racism and voter suppression. Proposals such as the SAVE Act in Congress would solve many of these problems, but almost all Democrats oppose it, and Republicans in the Senate have yet to show the courage to pass it.

The lack of election integrity in America is compounded by the lack of integrity in political service. This begins at the federal level with confusion about who our congressmen, senators, and presidents are supposed to serve. Every member of congress and president takes an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is a directive from “We the People of the United States.” Federal officials, including our military, are in office to serve the people of the United States — not the people of their congressional district, states, noncitizens, special interests, or other countries. An oath to defend the Constitution is an oath to serve all the citizens of the United States.

Most congressmen and senators act like their job is to take money from the federal treasury back home to their states and congressional districts; get money and contracts for businesses in their states; or get money for special interests and designated constituent groups. They put thousands of earmarks in legislation that sends billions of dollars back to local projects in their states, claiming the Constitution gives Congress the authorization to spend federal tax dollars on anything they want. They recently even changed the name of “earmarks” to “Community Project Funding,” as if Congress is authorized to fund community projects. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to fund local community projects such as museums and buildings named after congressmen and senators.

For decades, congressmen and senators have been serving themselves and special interests instead of the “general welfare” of the nation. That’s why America is hopelessly in debt with no plans to reduce spending.

Keep reading

Georgia House Committee Quietly Removes Key Section of IT Expert’s Public Comment on Critical Voting Machine Vulnerabilities

During a hearing in the Georgia legislature on March 17th, 2026, a 40-year IT professional testified during public comment and offered to show the committee evidence of vulnerabilities in the election software they use.

Mark Cook, who testified as an expert witness in Tina Peters’ trial in 2024, used his time during public comment to offer evidence to the Georgia House Governmental Affairs Committee as they considered a Georgia election bill.

The online recording of the hearing that includes public comment contains the following from Cook:

“I have evidence right here, that I was hoping to show you, that can show that there are absolutely, and I know you guys have heard this, but I’ve got the proof right here, backdoors built-in to electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes.  The testing labs all missed this.  Then they’re blindly certified.  Then we’re told that everything is safe and secure.  It’s absolutely not.”

Mysteriously, according to the timestamp shown in the top right corner, Cook’s public comment at one point goes from 1:02:18 to 1:02:29 instantly.  A cut in the testimony appears to have been made to his public comment.

Fortunately, Cook’s public comment was also recorded.  The following statement in bold was removed from Cook’s public comment:

“I have evidence right here, that I was hoping to show you, that can show that there are absolutely, and I know you guys have heard this, but I’ve got the proof right here, backdoors built-in to electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes, infiltrating the system, all built in, set up in a way that makes it easy, and untraceable.  I can demonstrate this to you even while I’m still here in this building and I’m happy to do so.  The testing labs all missed this.  Then they’re blindly certified.  Then we’re told that everything is safe and secure.  It’s absolutely not.”

Keep reading

Maxine Waters Demands to Retake House Leadership Position if Democrats Win Midterms – Despite Being 87 Years Old

If the Democrats retake the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms, Maxine Waters is demanding that she resume her position as chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Considering the fact that she is 87 years old, Maxine Waters should retire. What does she bring to the table that congress can’t do without?

Both parties have this problem. They both have members who are ancient and absolutely refuse to let go of power. It’s definitely a bigger problem for Democrats, however.

NOTUS reports:

87-Year-Old Maxine Waters Vows to Seek Leadership Post If Democrats Retake the House

Rep. Maxine Waters suggested on Monday that she would seek to reclaim her role as chair of the Financial Services Committee should Democrats retake the House in November, at which point she would be 88 years old.

“If you take a look at my energy and what I do — I am Auntie Maxine,” Waters told Politico. “I’m the one who popularized ‘reclaiming my time.’”

Waters, who is currently 87 and has a birthday in August, has represented south Los Angeles in Congress for nearly 35 years. In 2019, she became the first Black woman to lead the Financial Services committee, which oversees everything from legislation on financial regulation and cryptocurrency to housing and lending policy.

Members of the committee, speaking anonymously to Politico, raised concerns about Waters’ fundraising efforts and lack of direct contributions to other members, a common practice for lawmakers. Others complained of Waters reveling in the spotlight rather than allowing space for younger members to lead.

But few appear willing to publicly challenge her for the role. And colleagues on the committee did commend Waters for maintaining her ability to whip bipartisan support for various housing and insurance packages. Some members also lauded her persistence in refocusing financial conversations on the needs of constituents over billionaires.

Is she planning to retire when she is in her 90s?

Keep reading

Democrats Rattled After California Sheriff Seizes 650,000 Ballots in Election Integrity Crackdown

Riverside County Sheriff and California gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election as part of an investigation into potential discrepancies in the county’s vote count.

The probe follows allegations from the Riverside Election Integrity Team that the county’s tally may have been inflated by more than 45,000 votes.

“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a Friday press conference.

He said the review will determine whether the results are accurate.

“There is no acceptable error, small or large, in our elections,” he said.

The investigation covers ballots tied to Proposition 50, which passed in Riverside County with 56 percent of the vote, a margin of more than 82,000 ballots.

Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco said the alleged discrepancy stems from a misunderstanding of incomplete data.

He said the actual variance was 103 votes, or 0.016 percent.

Keep reading

Citizens In Eastern Ukraine Will Not Be Allowed To Vote, Zelensky Says

President Volodymyr Zelensky has confirmed that Ukraine and Washington are in talks about holding elections, after earlier this month he much belatedly said while under pressure from Trump that he’s ready to allow national elections, so long as they can be done fairly and freely.

Zelensky indicated current discussions also hinge on the US and other partners helping set the conditions so Ukrainians can vote in safety. He previously stated the country could hold a vote within 60 days – but only if there are security guarantees.

Already over the weekend he erected more barriers to holding a vote, stipulating that citizens in Eastern Ukraine would not be able to participate. 

“Any election in Ukraine can not be held in Russia-occupied parts of the country,” Zelensky has been quoted in international press as saying, and he once again added that a proper voting process can take place only if security is ensured.

Keep reading

Review of 50–60 MILLION Records Uncovers Thousands of Ineligible Registrations Including Non-Citizens Who VOTED — 300,000 DEAD People Still Listed

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon has revealed that a massive DOJ review of between 50 and 60 million voter records has uncovered hundreds of thousands of ineligible registrations, including over 300,000 DEAD people still listed as active voters and tens of thousands of non-citizens who have already cast ballots in federal elections.

As The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively, Dhillon’s team has been waging war on dirty voter rolls since President Trump took office.

Back in December 2025, we told you how an initial review of just 47.5 million records found 260,000+ dead voters and thousands of illegals registered to vote.

Now the numbers are even worse, and we’re only looking at a fraction of the states that actually cooperated.

Harmeet Dhillon:
We have run some records for some states. So, I think we’ve run something between 50 and 60 million voter records so far. And, you know, during this president’s tenure, we have found hundreds of thousands of people who shouldn’t be on the voter rolls—people who are dead, people who have moved, and duplicate registrations.

We have also found, separately, noncitizens on the voter rolls. And so now we’re doing our due diligence to identify the extent to which they may or may not have voted.

And sometimes people are enrolled on the voter rolls. We’ve just seen some crazy videos from California that show homeless people being used to sign petitions and register to vote or sign affidavits. You could sign ballots for somebody else and fill them in.

And that’s easy when you have a system where there’s no voter ID, right? Where ballots are being mailed to outdated voting lists.

This is not a fiction or a fantasy. Los Angeles County, in 2017, agreed in a lawsuit with Judicial Watch that there were over 1.1 million people in that county alone who should not have been on the voter rolls.

Keep reading

Sen. Richard Blumenthal BLATANTLY Lies: Claims Non-Citizen Voting Is “As Rare As Being Struck by Lightning” — Data Shows MILLIONS May Be Registered

In yet another example of Democrats downplaying serious election integrity concerns, Sen. Richard Blumenthal made a stunning claim on MSNOW Friday, insisting that non-citizen voting is “rare to the point of nonexistence”—even going so far as to compare it to being “struck by lightning.”

That statement is not just misleading—it directly contradicts available data.

Blumenthal’s comments came during a broader defense of Democrat opposition to election integrity measures, including provisions in the SAVE America Act that would require proof of citizenship to vote.

Rather than address the substance of those concerns, Blumenthal dismissed the issue entirely, telling viewers that non-citizen voting is essentially nonexistent and not a serious concern.

But the facts tell a very different story.

According to an analysis by Just Facts, cited by the Cato Institute, which builds on established academic methodologies, between 10% and 27% of non-citizen adults in the United States are illegally registered to vote.

With more than 19 million adult non-citizens recorded in the U.S. Census, that translates to roughly 2 million to 5 million illegal registrations nationwide. These numbers are large enough to influence major elections, including congressional races and even presidential outcomes.

This is not a new concern. A 2014 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Electoral Studies found similarly troubling trends. Researchers estimated that roughly one-quarter of non-citizens were registered to vote and that 6.4% reported actually voting.

Among those who voted, 81.8% said they supported Barack Obama. The authors concluded that illegal non-citizen votes likely affected key election outcomes, including Electoral College results and a pivotal Senate race that enabled Democrats to pass Obamacare.

The methodology behind those findings combined self-reported survey data with verified voter registration records, producing a best estimate that 25.1% of non-citizens were illegally registered to vote.

That estimate aligns closely with more recent analyses, reinforcing the conclusion that the issue is neither rare nor nonexistent.

Blumenthal’s “lightning strike” comparison collapses under even basic scrutiny.

Keep reading

Ohio, Indiana Stop The ‘Horrors’ Of Ranked-Choice Voting From Corrupting Their Elections

Ohio and Indiana have officially joined a growing number of states prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in their elections.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation (SB 63) on Tuesday that prevents elections from being conducted with ranked-choice voting (or “instant runoff voting”). Should the secretary of state determine that an Ohio city or locality “approved the use” of such a system in its elections via resolution or ordinance, “then the county or municipal corporation is ineligible to receive any local government fund distributions from the state during the period beginning with the month following the adoption of the resolution or ordinance and ending with the month following the last day it is in effect.”

SB 63 was introduced by Republican Sen. Theresa Gavarone and Democrat Sen. William DeMora and received overwhelming support in the state House (65-27) and Senate (24-7).

Under RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

As The Federalist previously reported, Democrats have often pushed ranked-choice voting as a way of winning races in which Republican candidates receive a majority of the vote. The system has also been shown to produce confusion among voters, delayed election results, and thrown-out (“exhausted”) ballots.

“From decreasing voter turnout, to even having the losing candidate declared the winner, we have seen the horrors of ranked choice voting play out in several states throughout the country, but that will not happen in Ohio!” Gavarone wrote in a tweet responding to DeWine’s signing of SB 63.

The law is expected to take effect 90 days after its approval, according to Dayton Daily News.

DeWine’s signature comes nearly a month after GOP Gov. Mike Braun approved legislation barring RCV in Indiana.

Much like its Ohio counterpart, Indiana’s SB 12 stipulates that elections “may not be determined by ranked choice voting” and that candidates “may not be nominated for or elected to an office by means of ranked choice voting.”

The measure passed the Indiana House (58-30) last month after clearing the state Senate (38-9) in January.

There are now 19 states that have adopted laws prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting in their elections, according to Ballotpedia.

Keep reading