Tag: voting

Ohio Lawmakers Advance Bill To Scale Back Voter-Approved Marijuana Law And Impose Hemp Regulations

Ohio House lawmakers on Tuesday approved an amended Senate-passed bill that would make significant changes to the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law while incorporating a series of regulations for hemp that are meant to align the two sectors of the cannabis industry.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee agreed to changes to the measure from Sen. Stephen Huffman (R) before advancing it to other panels and an expected floor vote on Wednesday. But while certain controversial provisions of the bill as passed by the Senate were scaled back, it would still make major changes to the marijuana law voters approved in 2023.

The measure will now go to the Rules Committee before being re-referred to the Finance Committee, after which point it’s expected to receive floor action.

“We’ve had years of testimony. We’ve heard from marijuana advocates, hemp advocates, public health advocates and everyone in between,” Rep. Brian Stewart (R) said. “We are generally going to take the feedback from the hemp industry, which said, ‘Treat us like marijuana,” he said. “They will have the same potency limitations, the same advertising restrictions, the same restrictions on quantities, serving size and how they operate.”

Rep. Jamie Callender (R), who has led the charge on marijuana policy in the House, said ahead of the vote that the revised bill would be “very thoughtful and targeted.” But at the hearing, he added that the legislation is “not perfect” or what he would have drafted.

“It’s a bill that can get passed that will help us implement some of the elements of Issue 2 that have been held up and give clarity to the rulemakers on some of the points that are outstanding,” he said, referring to the voter-approved legalization measure. “It also clarifies and cements a few of the gains that were gained over the years: Sharing, home grow, no new prosecutions [and] the taxes going to the local governments.”

Keep reading

Foreign Interference? Leftist Groups Try To Nuke Voter Citizenship Rule Supported By 83% Of Americans

More than eight in 10 Americans support policies that would require documented proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in U.S. elections, according to a Gallup poll conducted just two weeks before the 2024 presidential election. But a well-funded campaign by leftist “voter rights” groups is lobbying hard to mute the voices of the 83 percent. 

The Election Assistance Commission’s comment period on a petition asking the agency to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote is in its final hours. Comments are due by the end of Monday. Visit the federal rulemaking portal here to comment. 

Stacking the Deck 

In July, America First Legal Foundation submitted a petition asking the EAC to amend the federal voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. The National Voter Registration Act requires states to “accept and use the mail voter registration form prescribed . . . for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.” The commission is empowered to “require . . . information . . . necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.”

But leftist organizations like the League of Women Voters are rallying their troops to oppose the requested changes. Sources tracking comments in recent weeks tell The Federalist that liberal groups have ginned up a flood of comments opposed to the petition, some coming from dozens of foreign countries. 

“Urge the EAC not to require documentary proof of citizenship,” the League’s website begs. Like its election integrity denier compatriots, the League hyperbolically insists that requiring proof of citizenship to vote “creates unnecessary barriers for many eligible voters.” It doesn’t. 

‘Loopholes and an Honor System’

And the “nonpartisan” League leans on the left’s usual faulty talking point, asserting that “it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote.” The current form is nothing more than an honor system, asking registrants to attest that they are a “citizen of the United States of America.” Few get caught because enforcement isn’t a priority. Even when they do, it’s impossible to track the illegal vote — as was the case when a foreign national from China allegedly voted illegally at the University of Michigan in last year’s presidential election.

As America First Legal noted in the petition, noncitizens voting in U.S. elections is not a hypothetical issue. 

“America First Legal will not stand by while our elections are undermined by loopholes and an ‘honor system’ that invites fraud. The right to vote is the sacred privilege of American citizens — period,” the petition asserts. “We are demanding that the EAC fulfill its duty to the American people by requiring real, documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections. Anything less is an open invitation for illegal voting and a betrayal of our democracy.”

Keep reading

Texas declares war on plan to seize one of America’s richest counties and turn it into a ‘melanated’ community

Texas is suing a man state officials claim is trying to ‘overthrow the local government’ of an oil-rich county by offering black people free houses to move there and vote how he wants. 

Carpetbagger Malcolm Tanner bought two five-acre plots of land in Loving County, on the Texas/New Mexico border, according to the state’s lawsuit.

The Indiana man, who claims to be running for president in 2028, has offered the land to up to 1,000 ‘melanated people’ for free. 

‘It’s a movement going on called the “melanated people of power,” Tanner says in one Instagram reel. 

‘It don’t matter where you are on the world. It could be Africa, Asia, as long as you melanated. That’s the only thing that matters. It’s for us. It’s for us.’

‘Do not miss out on your opportunity to be a homeowner, to have a deed.’ 

Through social media posts, Tanner explains that he will take over Loving County, which he calls ‘Tanner County.’

In the state’s lawsuit, Attorney General Ken Paxton claims he will get his melanated residents to vote as he wants, easily outvoting the 64 citizens recorded by the last US census – but with a total taxable value of over $18 billion in 2024 thanks to petroleum.

Already dozens of people have taken him up on his offer to move and collect $5,000 a month, the state claimed in a lawsuit.

‘Despite there being no homes or utilities on the land, Tanner has induced dozens of people, including many women and children, to move onto and inhabit the land without any provision for the proper disposal and treatment of sewage,’ Paxton said in a press release announcing the lawsuit.

‘These individuals are forced to live in RVs or other makeshift shelters.’

Keep reading

Criminal Illegal Alien Who Ran Des Moines Schools Registered As Maryland Voter

Ian Andre Roberts, the illegal alien ineligible for employment in the U.S. but hired in Iowa as superintendent at the Des Moines School District, is a registered Maryland voter.

By law, only U.S. citizens are allowed to register to vote in U.S. elections, but an election watchdog group, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF), looked into voter registration in states where Roberts previously lived and found he registered to vote as a Democrat twice, once in 2011 and again in 2016.

It raises questions about how many other illegal aliens or otherwise ineligible people have successfully registered to vote. As AAF president Tom Jones told Fox 45, “We can’t rely on the honor system to hope that illegal aliens won’t lie to us.”

The only citizenship verification on the Maryland voter registration form is a tiny box next to the question “Are you a U.S. citizen?” where the applicant checks yes or no.

Oddly, the documents AAF received from Prince George’s County Maryland concealed his answer. The Federalist asked the Prince George’s County  election office why it redacted that information. It did not respond.

The instructions tell applicants who answer “No” on the citizenship question to not complete the form, so we may assume Roberts lied and claimed to be a citizen since he completed the form, but as an illegal alien, Robert’s has a history of not following instructions. Because of the county’s redaction, we can’t be certain how he answered, so we can’t know if he lied or if he told the truth and the county overlooked it.

The form advises that lying on a voter registration is perjury punishable with up to five years in prison, if he is ever charged for it. Roberts is already incarcerated for his illegal immigration status; he is currently being held at the Council Bluffs, Iowa main jail in Polk County, the U.S. Marshals Service told The Federalist. As previously reported, Roberts has a criminal background, but was promoted through woke school systems.

Keep reading

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