Tag: voting

Elon Musk PAC Steps Up with Big Bucks to Fund Key Swing-State Races

With the midterm elections less than two months away, Elon Musk’s America PAC is funneling money into Maine congressional races to help maintain GOP control.

Musk’s PAC has dedicated $170,000 to ads, phone calls, mailers, and text messages supporting GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who is running against Democrat Troy Jackson, according to The Center Square.

Collins’ seat is crucial for Republicans and could determine which party controls the upper chamber for the final two years of Trump’s presidency. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 seat majority but have little room for error, given the Senate map.

Initially, Collins’ seat was thought to be safe after her original challenger Graham Platner was marred by scandal.

When he dropped out of the race in July, however, Jackson took his place and gave Democrats a fighting chance.

Platner was initially hailed as a populist hero and was able to survive revelations about a Nazi tattoo on his chest, offensive social media posts, infidelity, and allegations of abuse against former girlfriends.

The straw that broke the camel’s back came when he was accused of rape by Maine Democrat Jenny Racicot.

Keep reading

Woodbury Republican Registrar Alleges Democrat Counterpart Altered Election System Results, Leading To “Hostile Workplace” Dispute

Woodbury’s Republican registrar says she will not run another election with her Democrat counterpart after he allegedly altered official returns in the state’s election system right before the window to fix them closed.

Lisa Amatruda, Woodbury’s Republican Registrar of Voters, put the allegations in writing on September 11. Her letter to Republican Town Committee (RTC) Chairman Paul Luchetti and the Woodbury RTC details a chain-of-custody complaint regarding the Democrat Registrar of Voters, Daniel Lonegan.

On August 11, Woodbury ran two primaries. Amatruda wrote that when they left the Senior Community Center that night, candidate totals on both ballots had been counted, reviewed, and verified as correct. Democrat Registrar Daniel Lonegan and the head moderator then entered those results into the Secretary of the State’s Elections Management System (EMS). However, Amatruda spotted one problem: absentee totals were placed in the wrong column. Because the return had already been submitted, the Secretary of the State (SOTS) had to unlock the system before a correction could be made. That did not happen that night.

On August 12, Lonegan and the moderator filed an amendment for each primary and fixed the absentee columns. Amatruda checked the four candidate totals again and confirmed everything was correct. She assumed the rest of the process was just standard housekeeping.

It was not.

On August 27, a friend sent Amatruda a Facebook screenshot indicating that she and the moderator were being sued.

During meetings on August 28 and 29, Amatruda learned for the first time that Lonegan had logged back into the EMS by himself on August 13 and August 20. They discovered at least 13 amendments to the moderator’s returns, affecting both results pages and statistics pages. These statistics cover how ballots were cast—including poll tabulators, early voting, and absentee hand counts—which are kept in fields separate from candidate totals. Amatruda stated that Lonegan admitted to the changes, explaining that he had signed in using the head moderator’s credentials, called it a mistake, and could not explain why the results themselves were touched instead of only completing the statistics fields.

By then, Amatruda wrote, what the EMS showed—and therefore what appeared on the Secretary of the State’s website—was no longer correct. Lonegan asked the SOTS to unlock the return on August 29. On August 31, elections officials stated that they were past the open window, and follow-up communications confirmed the returns could no longer be changed.

Amatruda’s core point is one she believes Hartford will try to bury: she is not claiming the winners flipped. Instead, she is claiming that official, state-facing returns were altered after the fact by a single registrar working alone under another official’s login, and those records were left uncorrected.

Keep reading

Trump-Appointed D.C. Judge Blocks President Trump’s USPS Mail-In Ballot Safeguards After Democrat Lawsuit — Claims Postal Service “Lacked Authority”

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C. on Sunday blocked the U.S. Postal Service’s new mail-in ballot rule, the one designed to stop untracked, unverified absentee ballots from flooding the midterms, after Democrat committees, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, LULAC, and the NAACP sued to kill it.

As reported right here on The Gateway Pundit back in May, Judge Nichols originally smashed the Democrats’ desperate, multi-headed lawsuits, brought by Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and left-wing activist groups, ruling they had absolutely zero standing to challenge President Trump’s March 31 Executive Order.

We celebrated this as a massive win for basic ballot security. Now, with the election breathing down our necks, Nichols has completely reversed course and sided with the very same activists he previously dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols granted preliminary injunctions against the Postal Service’s Final Rule on “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections.”

He ruled that key parts of the rule were ultra vires: Congress never gave USPS the power to force states to enroll mail voters in a federal portal, build state-specific absentee lists, and refuse outbound ballots that don’t match the list.

According to the court’s memorandum opinion, the rule created a Federal Ballot Mail Portal, required state and local election officials to submit voter and ballot information to USPS, established state-specific participation lists, and allowed the Postal Service to reject outbound federal ballot mail that failed to meet the new requirements.

Judge Nichols wrote that the Postal Reorganization Act authorizes USPS to collect, handle, transport, and deliver mail.

Keep reading

They Said This Never Happens: Mexican Illegal Charged for Alleged Illegal Voting in Swing State

The Department of Justice announced charges against a 30-year-old Mexican national who allegedly voted illegally in the 2024 election.

Katya Rodriguez, 30, who lives in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has been charged with “false statement of citizenship in order to vote, fraudulent registration, and voting as an alien,” per a news release from the agency.

“The integrity of our elections, which are fundamental to democracy, should be of utmost importance to every American,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

“It is a cherished right for eligible American citizens, and only eligible American citizens, to vote for their representatives in government,” he added.

“Election fraud is a serious crime, and it is the duty of the Department of Justice to treat it as such.”

Rodriguez faces up to 11 years in prison, as well as a fine and a term of supervised release after her sentence.

Homeland Security Investigations led the investigation into the case.

Keep reading

Husted Campaign Fires Political Director Over Nazi, Rhodesia Posts

Sen. Jon Husted’s campaign fired its political director Friday after The Washington Post asked about the director’s social media accounts, which included a Facebook profile photo of Nazi SS troops and a Spotify playlist devoted to white-ruled Rhodesia.

Stephen Woytek, 25, had been hired by the Ohio Republican’s campaign in August.

“Steve serves our country honorably as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army and is a proud graduate of The Citadel. He studies military history and routinely reenacts historical battles. While he denies negative intent, his social media activity displays a complete lack of judgement and disregard for its impact on others,” a spokesperson said.

“Sen. Husted demands better of those who represent him.

“Upon learning about the social media posts today, Sen. Husted made the immediate decision to part ways.”

The Post reported that Woytek changed his Facebook profile photo in 2018 to an image of soldiers from the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler division holding captured Soviet banners. The photo was still publicly visible Friday.

His Spotify account included a public playlist titled “Tales From Rhodesia,” described as “homesick for a place that no longer exists,” with tracks including “Rhodesians Never Die.” Songs were added as recently as August. The playlist was made private Friday.

Woytek said his interest in the period was historical.

“I want to be unequivocal: I reject the racist and antisemitic ideology the SS and Nazi Germany represented,” he said in a statement to the newspaper.

Woytek said he takes part in historical reenactments because “I believe it is important to educate our younger generations,” and acknowledged he should have “exercised better judgment when posting about my activities online.”

He did not answer the newspaper’s questions about the Rhodesia playlist. The campaign did not say whether it had reviewed his accounts before hiring him.

Rhodesia, the white-minority government that ruled what is now Zimbabwe until 1980, has become a symbol among white supremacists, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which cautions that its imagery alone is not evidence of extremist beliefs.

The gunman who killed nine Black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015 called himself “the last Rhodesian.”

Woytek graduated from The Citadel in 2024 and serves in the National Guard. He previously worked as a legislative aide to state Rep. Haraz Ghanbari, a Perrysburg Republican.

It was the second departure from the campaign in two months.

Andrew Havas, Husted’s volunteer Franklin County chair, resigned in July after NBC News asked about a 2008 charge of sexual misconduct with a minor that was reduced to misdemeanor assault under a plea deal.

Husted, appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine in January 2025 to the seat Vice President JD Vance gave up, faces former Sen. Sherrod Brown in the Nov. 3 special election. The contest is widely considered a toss-up.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rules against new Missouri redistricting map again

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Missouri’s new congressional map again after two separate courts gave conflicting rulings.

Republicans had planned to use the new map in November’s elections. It was drawn last year to give Republicans an advantage in Congressional elections in the hopes of keeping a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Plaintiffs People not Politicians asked the high court Wednesday for an emergency ruling.

The pause in using the map will stay while a legal fight goes through the courts. The Supreme Court justices didn’t offer any reason for blocking the new map.

A snag in the elections, though, is that Missouri already held primaries using the new map.

The Missouri Supreme Court had ruled that the state couldn’t use the map for this fall’s elections. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected the appeal, kicking it back to the state. At the same time, Federal Judge Stephen R. Clark ruled that the state could use the map, which added more chaos to the elections. It was Clark’s ruling that the Supreme Court decided Thursday.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins told local elections officials that the federal judge’s ruling should be followed instead of the Missouri Supreme Court. That court has summoned Hoskins to explain why they shouldn’t find him in contempt.

It’s now unclear what next steps the state will take.

Some map opponents have said the state could continue because the districts are still numbered the same.

“The law is the law, the Missouri Constitution is clear as was the Missouri Supreme Court,” Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, said in a statement.

Those opposed to the new map collected more than 300,000 signatures to push a referendum on the map, but Hoskins said he didn’t believe that redistricting could be decided in a voter referendum. He refused to add it to the ballot, triggering the legal battles.

Keep reading

Indiana Supreme Court Overturns Trump-Backed Candidate’s 3-Vote Victory, Declares RINO Incumbent Winner of State Senate Primary Race

The Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a 3-vote victory by Trump-backed candidate Paula Copenhaver and declared RINO incumbent Spencer Deery the winner of the state senate primary race.

Earlier this year, President Trump targeted Spencer Deery as part of his ‘RINO Revenge Tour’ after the Indiana Republican blocked a redraw of the state’s congressional map amid the redistricting wars.

Spencer Deery initially won by three votes; however, Copenhaver challenged several absentee ballots.

Last month, the Indiana Recount Commission tossed out six absentee ballots cast for Deery because they were missing mandatory county clerk initials.

Paula Copenhaver was declared the winner by three votes in Indiana’s 23rd Senate District after the recount commission’s decision.

Deery appealed the recount commission’s decision, and the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately vacated its order.

WFYI reported:

The Indiana Supreme Court has declared incumbent Senator Spencer Deery the winner of his primary race against Trump-backed Paula Copenhaver.

When reached for comment, Deery said the court’s decision made him proud.

“This was a lot bigger than me,” he said. “It says that Indiana is a place where if you do everything right as a voter: you vote, you check all the boxes, you show your ID, you register, your vote should count.”

Paula Copenhaver did not respond to WFYI’s request for comment.

The decision ends a months-long legal battle over who is the rightful winner in Indiana’s 23rd Senate District. The initial count in the close race ended with Deery just three votes ahead of Copenhaver.

Copenhaver quickly called for a recount, challenging ballots and calling for voters to be subpoenaed; she claimed they had crossed over and voted for Deery despite being long-time Democrats.

Keep reading

Appeals court rules against Trump admin’s push for stricter mail-in ballot requirements

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston has upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of a United States Postal Service (USPS) rule that requires stricter measures for voting by mail.

The court sided with the lower court’s decision handed down Thursday, enjoining the USPS rule from being implemented prior to the upcoming November 3rd elections.

“Thus, we see no obvious error in the district court’s conclusion that allowing this Final Rule to be effective for the soon-arriving November 3 election will likely result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal — if any — gains in combating voter fraud,” the appeals court wrote.

In accordance with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” the USPS finalized a rule, effective August 21st, requiring ballot envelopes to carry unique barcodes and states to submit mail-voter information via a federal portal.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the injunction due to the quick timeline of implementation and questions of constitutionality.

All fifty states allow voting by mail, highlighting the significance of any ruling pertaining to mail-in ballots. According to Talwani:

  • 27 states allow mail-in ballots without voters having to provide an “excuse” — Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
  • Two states allow all eligible citizens to vote by mail and permit counties to opt into conducting elections by mail–Nebraska and North Dakota.
  • 13 states allow vote by mail with justifiable “excuses” — Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

The Trump administration has already requested that the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in the case.

Keep reading