Tag: voting

GOP Congressman Backs Effort To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization In Arizona—But Says Trump Holds ‘Power’ With Rescheduling Push

A GOP congressional lawmaker says he’d like to see his state of Arizona roll back its voter-approved marijuana legalization law with an initiative that could be on the November ballot—but he acknowledged that President Donald Trump’s recent federal rescheduling order could complicate that prohibitionist push.

Two Republican members of Arizona’s U.S. House delegation spoke with Marijuana Moment about the proposed ballot measure to eliminate commercial cannabis sales in the state, voicing opposition to legalization while recognizing that pending federal reform represents an obstacle for the anti-marijuana campaign.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)—who was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who urged the Trump administration to reject rescheduling last year—said he would like to see voters approve an initiative to repeal the adult-use marijuana market in Arizona. That measure was filed with the secretary of state’s office last month, but it hasn’t been certified for ballot placement at this point.

“We need to really take a comprehensive look at cannabis all the way across the board. Science tries to commit one way or another to us, and we’re not getting the full background on it,” he said, adding that he still regards marijuana as a “gateway drug” to other illicit substances and arguing that the cannabis industry has “resisted every which way with the regulations.”

Asked about Trump’s recent executive order directing the attorney general to expeditiously finalize a rule moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the congressman conceded that could hamper the state-level repeal effort.

“He’s got power,” Gosar said. “But a lot of us want to know who was it that actually turned his ear” to support rescheduling.

The lawmaker said the president has historically been receptive to his input, and he’d like to have a discussion about the rescheduling move—but that’s yet to materialize.

Another congressional Republican representing Arizona, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), also weighed in on the rescheduling push in an interview with Marijuana Moment last week.

While there’s a libertarian perspective on the issue he appreciates when it comes to letting adults make their own choices about personal marijuana use, he said the fiscal conservative in him says prohibition can help prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to deal with what he characterized as the consequences of cannabis use.

“I’ve always taken the position that you need to keep marijuana where it was because the social safety network is in place, causing taxpayers to have to fund rehabilitation for those things,” he said.

Keep reading

Private Jet That Crashed in Maine Was Registered to Anti-ICE Lawyers Spending Millions to Elect Democrats in Texas

The private jet that crashed during takeoff from Bangor International Airport in Maine on Sunday evening is registered to prominent anti-ICE lawyers who were spending tens of millions of dollars to elect Democrats in the upcoming Texas primaries.

The crash resulted in seven fatalities and one serious injury.

The jet was registered to Arnold & Itkin Trial Lawyers, known for its aggressive litigation and leftist political activism, including substantial financial support for Democrat causes, particularly those opposing strict immigration enforcement and Republican policies in Texas.

The victims’ names have not been released at this time, but early reports indicate that people associated with the firm were on board.

Keep reading

Federal judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking Oregon’s voter rolls

A federal judge in Oregon dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit seeking Oregon’s unredacted voter rolls on Monday in another setback to wide-ranging efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to get detailed voter data from states.

In a hearing, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai said he would dismiss the suit and issue a final written opinion in the coming days. The updated docket for the case showed that Oregon’s move to dismiss the case was granted.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield welcomed the move.

“The court dismissed this case because the federal government never met the legal standard to get these records in the first place,” he said in an emailed statement. “Oregonians deserve to know that voting laws can’t be used as a backdoor to grab their personal information.”

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Decision On Mail-In Voting Rules Could Shape Future Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 last week that Rep. Michael Bost, an Illinois Republican, has legal standing to challenge an Illinois election law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted for up to two weeks afterward, a decision that could shape how voting rules are litigated in future elections.

The case does not decide whether Illinois’ receipt deadline is lawful. Instead, the court revived Bost’s lawsuit and sent it back to lower courts to consider the merits.

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than Election Day and received within two weeks of Election Day. Bost and two other candidates sued in 2022, arguing that counting ballots after Election Day conflicts with federal statutes that set a uniform day for federal elections.

Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds, concluding the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficiently direct injury. The Seventh Circuit, for example, pointed to Bost’s past electoral performance and treated alleged campaign costs tied to monitoring late-arriving ballots as voluntary steps taken to avoid a hypothetical harm.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected that approach and held that candidates have a personal stake in vote-counting rules in their own elections. The opinion said an unlawful election rule can harm a candidate in multiple ways, but went further by recognizing an additional interest in “a fair process,” even apart from whether a rule changes the outcome.

In the court’s view, candidates are uniquely affected when the rules for counting votes depart from what the law requires, because the integrity of the process is tied to the legitimacy of whoever wins. The opinion also pointed to the practical consequences of forcing disputes to the last minute, warning that waiting until just before Election Day, or after ballots are counted, risks voter confusion and instability if courts step in too late.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the judgment, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, but argued the case should be resolved using a more traditional standing theory. Barrett said Bost had standing because he alleged “pocketbook” harm from added campaign expenses tied to monitoring late-arriving ballots, rather than standing based simply on his status as a candidate.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing the majority’s approach weakens the court’s usual requirement that plaintiffs show a concrete, particularized injury. In her view, an interest in election fairness is broadly shared, and the court’s ruling could invite more candidate-filed lawsuits over election administration rules.

The immediate impact may be procedural but significant: by lowering the barrier to getting into federal court, the ruling could increase pre-election challenges to rules governing vote counting and ballot deadlines, including disputes over how long ballots can arrive after Election Day and still be counted. The decision could also steer litigation earlier in the calendar, rather than after close races, because candidates can sue without proving a substantial risk of losing.

Keep reading

‘Dark Money’ Anti-Marijuana Group Is Bankrolling Ballot Measures To Roll Back Legalization In Multiple States, Records Show

When it comes to putting a proposed new law before voters, it helps to have lots of money ready to burn.

More than $11 million has already changed hands to advance or oppose a potentially record-breaking field of ballot questions that Massachusetts voters could decide in November, according to newly filed campaign finance reports, including a significant injection by a national dark-money group that opposes legal drug use.

All $1.55 million raised so far in support of a proposal to recriminalize recreational marijuana in Massachusetts came from SAM Action Inc., an organization that is not required to disclose the source of its own funding.

It’s the same organization that bankrolled opposition to a 2024 Massachusetts ballot question that sought to open up access to some psychedelic substances, which voters rejected.

Massachusetts is not alone as a battleground, either. SAM Action is also the only donor behind a ballot question in Maine this cycle that would similarly prohibit recreational pot use there, as the Portland Press Herald reported.

Both campaigns have generated scrutiny over their efforts to gather signatures from voters.

In Massachusetts, opponents filed an objection alleging the campaign “obtained signatures fraudulently” by telling voters the measure would provide affordable housing or fund public parks, not that it would ban recreational marijuana.

The State Ballot Law Commission heard arguments last week and is expected to rule by Friday. State law empowers the panel to determine whether signatures were placed on a ballot question petition “by fraud,” and its interpretation could set off a lengthier court battle over whether the question can go before voters.

Similarly, Mainers have been alleging in recent weeks that they were misled about what the anti-marijuana petition would do when they signed it. Maine’s secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, said she’s received complaints about the topic, adding that she has no enforcement power because, as she put it to lawmakers, “You have a right to lie under the First Amendment.”

Wendy Wakeman, a veteran Republican operative who is working as spokesperson for the repeal campaign, said the Massachusetts and Maine questions are “not a coordinated effort” despite funding coming from the same national group.

SAM Action is a 501(c)(4) organization, so it’s not required to disclose its donors, leaving unclear exactly who is putting major dollars toward shutting down an industry both Massachusetts and Maine voted nearly a decade ago to legalize.

On its website, SAM Action claims affiliation with the nonprofit Smart Approaches to Marijuana group co-founded by former US Rep. Patrick Kennedy—a Democrat who represented Rhode Island, and the son of longtime US Sen. Ted Kennedy—along with former White House Office of National Drug Control Policy advisor Kevin Sabet and David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush who is now a senior editor at The Atlantic.

Wakeman declined to comment on SAM Action’s primary donors.

Keep reading

Trump Keeps “Joking” About Canceling Midterms Amid Threat of Insurrection Act Invocation

President Donald Trump has yet again mused aloud about canceling midterm elections. The White House immediately dismissed the remarks as a “joke.”

The comment came as tensions sharply rise between federal immigration agents and protesters in multiple cities, most visibly in Minneapolis. Large demonstrations have erupted after aggressive ICE enforcement actions and multiple shootings involving federal agents sparked nationwide outrage. Protesters have clashed with officers. Tear gas, forceful arrests, and heated confrontations now appear regularly in widely shared videos.

Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act, the rarely used emergency law that would allow him to deploy military forces and federalize the National Guard to quell what the administration describes not only as obstruction, but as “insurrection” and “domestic terrorism.”

At the same time, the president’s approval rating remains low, with recent polls showing vanishing support on the issues of immigration and foreign policy and rapidly slipping numbers among younger voters, signaling trouble for the Republicans.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s casual talk about canceling elections lands less like harmless humor and more like a public conditioning.

Keep reading

Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon Exposes States Concealing Voter SSN Data,Vows to Sue for Election Integrity

In a move to safeguard American elections, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has revealed that multiple states are withholding critical Social Security number data tied to voter registrations.

On Saturday, Dhillon announced plans to sue non-compliant states to force transparency and purge potential fraud from voter rolls.

“The government provides SSNs for voter registration verification. Any SOS hiding behind ‘protect your privacy’ claims is faking and doesn’t care about election integrity,” Dhillon wrote in a post on X, along with a video with further explanation.

Dhillon added that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will “obtain those voter rolls—voluntarily or through lawsuit!”

“Some of the arguments we’ve heard include, ‘why are you asking for the Social Security number? That’s top secret information,’” Dhillon stated in the video. “The federal government ISSUES the Social Security numbers. It is not top secret information from us! And we are going to either get these voluntarily or SUE!”

The announcement comes amid the DOJ’s ongoing nationwide effort to obtain full voter registration lists from states, which include partial Social Security numbers (SSNs), driver’s license numbers, birth dates, names, and addresses.

This data is essential for verifying voter eligibility and ensuring only citizens participate in elections, according to DOJ officials.

So far, the Justice Department has filed lawsuits against 24 states and the District of Columbia for failing to provide the requested voter data.

Keep reading

ACTIVIST JUDGE STRIKES AGAIN: Clinton-Appointed Judge Who Claimed Trump “Likely Committed Crimes” in Challenging 2020 Elections Now Blocks DOJ’s Voter Data Request — Calls It “Unprecedented and Illegal”

Another day, another radical ruling from the federal bench.

Federal District Judge David O. Carter, the same Clinton-appointed judge who previously made headlines by claiming President Trump “likely committed crimes” during the 2020 election challenges, has now moved to block the Department of Justice from securing election integrity in California.

On Thursday, Judge Carter issued a scathing order dismissing the DOJ’s lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and the State of California, effectively shielding the state’s voter rolls from federal scrutiny.

Judge Carter granted all of their motions to dismiss, ruling that the DOJ’s request violated the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). He went so far as to accuse the Executive Branch of trying to “usurp the authority over elections.”

The DOJ had sued the Golden State to obtain unredacted voting records to ensure compliance with federal election laws, but Carter has slammed the door shut, calling the government’s request “unprecedented and illegal.”

The 14 states that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has sued for refusing to provide their full, statewide voter registration files are: 

  • California
  • Delaware
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • New Hampshire
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Washington

The Department of Justice, under Trump administration, launched this legal battle to enforce “voter roll maintenance enforcement and compliance”.

The goal was clear: to investigate potential non-citizen voting and ensure that California’s voter lists are accurate and up to date. The DOJ requested standard data found in voter files, including names, voting history, and Social Security information, to verify eligibility.

Keep reading

Another Victory for Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch – Oregon Agrees to Clean 800,000 Names of Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls

Last June, Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, announced that his organization was suing Oregon to remove the names of inactive voters from the state’s voter rolls.

Here is what Tom said, “Hey, everyone. Huge news. Judicial Watch lawsuits led to the cleanup of 4 million dirty names from the voting rolls in just the last two years or so. But there’s more heavy lifting to be done for cleaner elections. That’s why Judicial Watch just sued the state of Oregon to force it to finally clean up its voting rolls, which are a mess. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls, and Oregon hasn’t been doing that.

In fact, our new lawsuit, Just Filed For and With the Constitution Party of Oregon and Oregon Voters, details how 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law.

Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%. Frankly, Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.

Oregon, as I said, has some of the worst voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up as soon as possible. In the meantime, Judicial Watch has lawsuits to clean up voting rolls in California and in Illinois. Simply put, millions of ineligible names need to be removed from the voting rolls under federal law, and Judicial Watch has been, is, and will be in federal court making it happen.
On Monday Tom Fitton announced that the Oregon Secretary of State announced removal of 800,000 dirty names from the state’s voter rolls.

Keep reading

Multiple States Facing Marijuana Legalization Repeal Threats in 2026

Prohibitionist-led efforts are underway in multiple states to repeal voter-initiated adult-use marijuana markets.

In Maine and Arizona, campaigners are collecting signatures to place ballot questions before voters undermining those states’ cannabis legalization laws. If passed the Arizona initiative would repeal the state’s licensed retail marijuana market. The initiative in Maine would similarly wipe out the state’s regulated adult-use market, while also eliminating consumers’ ability to legally grow personal use quantities of cannabis at home.

In Massachusetts, campaigners have already collected the necessary number of signatures to place a similar repeal measure, titled An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy, before voters. In Massachusetts and Maine, allegations persist that voters’ signatures in support of the proposals were fraudulently obtained.

“2026 is going to be a pivotal year for the marijuana reform movement,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “If successful, these measures will wipe out regulated cannabis markets — eliminating tens of thousands of jobs, ballooning state budget deficits, and disrupting safe access to millions of consumers. How successfully we respond to these challenges today will determine the degree to which our movement continues to move forward tomorrow.”

Also, in Idaho, a constitutional amendment will appear on the November ballot that, if approved, will forbid voters from ever again having the opportunity to decide on statewide marijuana policies. State lawmakers voted last year to place the amendment on the 2026 ballot.

Keep reading