Tag: voting

Despite Headlines, There Is No Reduction in Voting Rights

Liberals and Democrats are claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make a ruling that will restrict voting rights because race will no longer be considered in districting.

This is false.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all adults aged 18 and over have the right to vote, and they will continue to have that right. No ruling or policy under consideration eliminates or limits that constitutional guarantee.

What critics are truly upset about is that race will no longer be used to determine electoral districting. The Trump administration argued that race had been overemphasized in the process, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The move aims to ensure that district boundaries are drawn based on population and geography, not racial calculations.

This debate, and the exaggerated claims that someone is losing their rights, reveal a deeper divide between the two parties. Republicans argue that equality means the same rules for everyone, regardless of race. Democrats, on the other hand, insist that equality requires different rules for different groups based on race

The Supreme Court appeared inclined to further restrict the use of race in redistricting. During recent arguments, conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether race-based remedies should continue indefinitely, suggesting that the Court may soon impose new limits on when race can factor into drawing congressional maps.

The Court’s three liberal justices, however, warned that weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would effectively dismantle the law and reduce minority representation in Congress.

Democrats argue that Section 2 is essential for protecting minority voting rights and warn that a conservative victory in the current Louisiana case could trigger widespread redistricting. They claim this would reduce the number of minority-held seats, particularly across the South.

However, the United States does not have a quota system, and no congressional seats are specifically designated as “minority seats.” Fair, race-neutral voting would simply result in all seats being awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of race.

The Court’s decision, expected by mid-2026, could mark another major rollback of federal race-based policies, following the 2013 elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Democrats claim that minority “voting power” or “electoral influence,” will be diluted. The Act prohibits voting practices that “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.” Over time, courts have interpreted “abridge” to include not only preventing people from voting but also drawing district lines that intentionally dilute minority voting strength. Democrats argue that the Act ensures the right for every vote to carry equal weight and influence.

Keep reading

Smartmatic Indicted For Money Laundering, Bribery Of Philippine Official

Smartmatic — the company involved in a defamation lawsuit against Fox News over the latter’s reporting on the 2020 election — was indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on Thursday for allegedly bribing a Philippine official in relation to the 2016 Philippine national elections.

The indictment added the parent company of Smartmatic, SGO Corporation Ltd., as a defendant in the case already underway against three Smartmatic executives. The indictment charges that between 2015 and 2018, Smartmatic executives Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, Jorge Miguel Vasquez, and others “caused at least $1 million in bribes to be paid” to the former chairman of COMELEC, according to the Department of Justice.

COMELEC stands for the Commission on Elections of the Republic of the Philippines. According to the indictment, COMELEC is an “independent agency mandated to enforce and administer election laws in the Philippines.”

According to the indictment, COMELEC opened the bidding process in 2014 for the lease of 23,000 election machines for the upcoming 2016 election. Smartmatic was awarded a contract in 2015. In 2015, COMELEC awarded a second contract to Smartmatic for the leasing of 70,977 voting machines and services for the 2016 election. Smartmatic was later awarded a third contract.

The indictment alleges that Smartmatic, along with its executives, offered to pay bribes to the COMELEC chairman in order to obtain the contracts, as well as to obtain the “release of favorable value added tax payments.”

In order to pay for the alleged bribes, the indicted co-conspirators allegedly over-invoiced the cost of each voting machine that was used in the 2016 Philippine elections. According to the Department of Justice, “they used coded language, created fraudulent contracts and sham loan agreements, and routed transactions through bank accounts in Asia, Europe, and the U.S., including within the Southern District of Florida.”

The indictment charges Smartmatic, along with Piñate and Vasquez, with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, as well as one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and three counts of international laundering of monetary instruments.

Smartmatic denied the allegations in a statement to The Federalist.

Keep reading

Wait, an NAACP Lawyer Did Not Just Say That About the Voting Rights Act

Jeff will have more on the oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, which concerns race-based legislative districts and could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. It’s a case that if liberals lose, could see massive implications for the 2026 midterms. 

And yes, some of the arguments made by lawyers fighting to keep this provision in place are downright embarrassing. An NAACP lawyer said that race-based congressional districts are essential, since white Democrats don’t support black candidates regardless of party affiliation. You cannot make this up.  

That’s not true. In fact, one could argue that liberal white women are the reason the Democrats haven’t fallen into total irrelevancy. Second, white liberals are the most hyper-aggressive about these issues and have voted in droves for black candidates. Party affiliation be damned, frankly. These white Democrats now vote based on race alone. The only thing that stops them is seeing an “R” next to the name. There is nothing more insufferable than the white, college-educated progressive who even repels nonwhite voters, which we’ve seen since 2020.  

Keep reading

Clarence Thomas Wrecks Another Race Argument at SCOTUS

Supreme Court Clarence Thomas isn’t buying arguments that the Voting Rights Act allows for congressional districts to be drawn along racial lines (more specifically to help Democrats retain power in Washington D.C.). 

During a back and fourth with Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga Wednesday, who is opposed to race based lines, Thomas argued an all black district in the state wouldn’t exist without the state being forced to consider race in districting. 

“Would the maps that Louisiana have currently be used if they were not forced to consider race?” Thomas asked. 

“We drew it because the courts told us to!” Aguinaga explained. “They said a majority black district was required. And our legislature saw the marching order.”

Keep reading

Gorsuch Gets NAACP Lawyer To All But Admit Support For Racial Discrimination In Redistricting

UPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch got a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to all but admit support for states intentionally discriminating on the basis of race in the redistricting process.

The moment came during the Supreme Court’s Wednesday oral arguments for a pair of cases known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, which center on the Louisiana Legislature’s use of race when creating its recent congressional map.

As The Federalist previously reported, the matter first arose “following ‘a previous lawsuit … where plaintiffs argued that the prior map’ put forward by the state ‘violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes,’ according to Oyez.” A district court order and subsequent legal battle prompted the Louisiana Legislature to “draft a new map last year ‘that included a second majority-black district,’ which plaintiffs in Louisiana v. Callais contend violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by ‘prioritizing race in its creation.’”

While the Supreme Court was initially supposed to issue a verdict on the matter during its 2024-2025 term, the court announced on the last day of the session that it would be rehearing arguments in the case this fall. The justices notably issued an order over the summer instructing parties in the case to address the question of “[w]hether [Louisiana’s] intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Keep reading

KBJ Suggests Black People Can’t Vote, Compares Them To The Disabled

During oral arguments for a major case that could put an end to race-based gerrymandering on Wednesday, Democrat-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that race should be a consideration when drawing congressional districts because black people are systemically “disabled” and don’t have proper access to voting systems.

Jackson drew a comparison between the redistricting cases in question, Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, and accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She implied that minorities like black people are systemically blocked from accessing voting polls (a demonstrably false claim) and compared this to disabled people not being able to access a building. She used this faulty comparison to bolster her underlying argument that past race-based discrimination should allow for a present race-based remedy.

“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings,” Jackson said. She argued that whether such discrimination is intentional is irrelevant.

“I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. … We are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled. … We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

The case considers possible 14th Amendment violations of a congressional district map in Louisiana. As The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood has reported, the origins of the case date back to 2022, “when the Louisiana Legislature drafted a congressional map with a single black-majority district.” This led to a lawsuit by a group of plaintiffs — “represented by left-wing groups like the ACLU” — who alleged that the map violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by “dilut[ing] black voting strength.” 

“Following an injunction barring the map’s implementation by a district court judge, continued litigation in the case ultimately resulted in the state redrawing the map to include a second black-majority district. This led to another lawsuit from a different group of plaintiffs, who claimed the state unlawfully prioritized race in the map’s creation and therefore violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause,” Fleetwood reported. “A three-judge panel on a separate district court agreed with these plaintiffs and blocked the new map’s implementation.”

The Supreme Court was initially slated to decide the case during its 2024-2025 term, but announced in June that it would rehear the case this fall.

Keep reading

Will the Supreme Court upend the Voting Rights Act?

The Supreme Court may very well upend one of the last remaining central pieces of the Voting Rights Act – that elections or voting practices cannot discriminate based on race.

And, in doing so, the high court may bolster efforts by Republican state legislatures to redraw congressional maps to expand the party’s majority.

The justices’ ruling could actually crush minority representation in Congress.

According to two voting rights groups, Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund, a ruling gutting the race provision would let the GOP nationwide redraw up to 19 House seats to favor the party.

It could also prevent Black voters from challenging political maps they believe don’t accurately represent them.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais.

Arguments lasted for more than two hours in an unusually lengthy, complicated debate.

It stems from a complex congressional redrawing dispute starting in 2022.

Louisiana’s GOP-led legislature drew a map that only had one Black majority district and five mostly white districts, despite Louisiana’s population being one-third Black. So, a group of Black voters sued.

A federal judge struck the map down and ordered a redraw. Instead of letting the judge redraw it, Louisiana Republicans passed the current map that added a second Black majority district (but protected districts of key Republicans in the state, like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise).

Keep reading

DeSantis Admits Marijuana Legalization Is Popular With Florida Voters Even Though He Opposes It

The Republican governor of Florida is conceding that “more people probably agreed” with a marijuana legalization ballot initiative he helped defeat last year than sided with his prohibitionist viewpoint—but he argued that it was the “morally right” choice for him to intervene to prevent the sale of “dangerous stuff” in his state.

At an event hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute on Saturday, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) talked about his administration’s uphill work to dissuade voters from approving both the cannabis measure as well as a separate reproductive rights initiative during the November 2024. While both initiatives received majority support from voters, they failed to meet the state’s high 60 percent threshold required to enact constitutional amendments.

In the speech, DeSantis claimed that the marijuana proposal, Amendment 3, wouldn’t just have legalized cannabis but also made it a “constitutional right to possess and smoke it, including in public,” while giving one company in particular “a lot of benefits,” seemingly referring to the Smart and Safe Florida campaign’s largest financier Trulieve.

“Somehow you got people that are going to spend a lot of money to basically make us California through the back door with these initiatives and these amendments,” DeSantis said. “The marijuana people spent $150 million on this. The abortion people spent $130 million. So we had to contend with $280 million of spending on very misleading language—and, let’s just be honest, they were pushing issues in which probably more people agreed with them than agreed with me or agreed with us.”

“Marijuana was somewhat popular,” the governor said in comments first reported by Florida Politics. “I didn’t do it to be popular. I did it because it was the right thing to do. So we were having to deal with navigating all this.”

Despite raising money to finance ads opposing the cannabis measure, DeSantis said governors don’t officially “have a role in these amendments.” He faulted “special interest” parties and the state Supreme Court approval of the initiative language that he described as a “mistake.”

“I mean, most people that get elected in my positions like mine, all their advisors say, ‘stay away from this. There’s nothing for you to gain by getting involved in this. All you’re going to do is alienate supporters,’” he said. “And that may be true, but that also wouldn’t be the right thing to do. It wouldn’t be the morally right thing to do. So I was in a position. I had this platform as governor. I had a megaphone. There were things being proposed that would be harmful for my state.”

“In terms of the marijuana, I mean, you can’t function as a state if you smell marijuana everywhere—if these kids are doing it,” DeSantis said. “And this isn’t the marijuana they had in Woodstock. This is really, really dangerous stuff, so it would have been terrible for Florida.”

Keep reading

HERE WE GO AGAIN – In California Election For Congressional Redistricting – “See Through” Ballot Envelopes Allow You to See How Voter Voted

Another California election and another corrupt result in the works.

California doesn’t have elections.  They have madness and those with oversite gaslight the entire sham. The state is codifying unconstitutional election activities and like communist takeovers throughout history, no one is stopping them. 

BALLOT HARVESTING and MAIL-IN BALLOTS

Since California went to ballot harvesting the results have been devastating for the GOP in Orange County, California and across the state. Heritage reported in 2019:

Vote harvesting is the collection of absentee ballots from voters by a third party who then delivers them to election officials. The term “vote harvesting” was essentially unknown to the general public until the North Carolina State Board of Elections overturned the results of the 2018 election for the Ninth Congressional District due to illegal vote harvesting, what the board called a “coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme.”

It was also raised as a concern in California after the unexpected losses of Republican-held congressional seats, including in Orange County, a traditional Republican stronghold, where the registrar of voters said that individuals were “dropping off maybe 100 or 200 ballots” at a time.

Ballot harvesting is still in place and all registered voters receive a ballot for the election in the mail.  The chain of custody surrounding ballots harvested in the state is not adequate or is non-existent.  Who knows where the completed ballots come from?

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Not only is it almost impossible to determine where a ballot came from, it is also impossible to determine who the ballot came from.  Local governments in the state can’t ask for ID’s from voters.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed legislation that prevents local governments from requiring voters to present identification at the polls, a law aimed at curbing conservative efforts in cities like Huntington Beach.

Californians literally have no idea who sent in the millions of ballots counted in the 2024 Election.

ELECTION OBSERVER VOTER SIGNATURE CHALLENGES DENIED

We can add to the above list this additional lack of transparency.  Election observers were prevented from the reasonable ability to observe the 2024 Election.  If they identified anything, they lacked the ability to do anything about it.

Keep reading