Tag: voting

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Responds to “Blatantly False and Slanderous” Congressional and Media Accusations Regarding Integrity of Elections

After Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was photographed in Fulton County during the execution of a search warrant for 2020 election evidence, several members of Congress began to call into question DNI Gabbard’s authority to be involved.

Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “sharply criticized” the presence of the DNI in Fulton County.  According to NBC News:

Warner said there were only two explanations for national intelligence director’s trip: either Gabbard believed the case had a link to foreign intelligence, and she failed to abide by her legal obligation to inform congressional committees about it, or she was tarnishing the nonpartisan reputation of the intelligence agencies with a “domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy.”

“Either scenario,” Warner added, “represents a serious breach of trust and a dereliction of duty to the solemn office which she holds.”

According to The Democracy Docket, David Becker, the founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), told reporters last week:

“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has no domestic responsibilities.  There is no reason for the director of national intelligence to be in any kind of voting site. She has neither the authority nor the competence to assess anything in that voting site. And so it’s incredibly troubling to see something like that.”

CEIR received over $65 million in “Zuckerbucks” during the 2020 election.  Becker is also the co-founder of the Electronic Registration and Information Center, a non-profit that has been tasked with maintaining voter rolls for more than a dozen states.

Keep reading

Fulton County’s Voter Rolls Might Have a Massive Problem

Georgia State Senator Greg Dolezal has brought forward new information that exposes massive seemingly-fraudulent voter registrations in the state’s deep-blue Fulton County.

Georgia state-law requires that voters register using their primary residence rather than a P.O. box or any other type of address. In Dolezal’s newly released video, he revealed numerous allegedly fraudulent registration locations across Fulton County according to the January voter rolls.

He discovered that 70 people were registered at a single UPS store, 19 people registered at an abandoned home, 138 people registered at a location run by virtual mailbox business Physical Address, 1900 people registered at a homeless shelter outside of the Georgia State Capitol, 70 people registered at a homeless shelter that closed nearly a decade ago, and 96 people registered at a second UPS store.

Dolezal also revealed that thousands of people were registered to vote with a birth year of 1800 or 1900. Jason Fraizer, who did much of the background research for Dolezal, claims that these birth years are used when an individual does not know their date of birth, and therefore cannot be verified as a legal resident. Frazier also stated that the voter rolls contain hundreds of duplicate registrations or multiple variations of the same name of a registered voter at a single address.

Keep reading

Lawless Clinton Judge Permanently Blocks Trump’s Executive Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote or Register to Vote

A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked key parts of President Trump’s executive order requiring proof of citizenship to vote or register to vote.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly permanently enjoined President Trump’s executive order.

Last March President Trump signed an executive order Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections:

It is the policy of my Administration to enforce Federal law and to protect the integrity of our election process.

Sec. 2. Enforcing the Citizenship Requirement for Federal Elections. To enforce the Federal prohibition on foreign nationals voting in Federal elections:

(a)(i) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form issued under 52 U.S.C. 20508:

(A) documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3); and

(B) a State or local official to record on the form the type of document that the applicant presented as documentary proof of United States citizenship, including the date of the document’s issuance, the date of the document’s expiration (if any), the office that issued the document, and any unique identification number associated with the document as required by the criteria in 52 U.S.C. 21083(a)(5)(A), while taking appropriate measures to ensure information security.

(ii) For purposes of subsection (a) of this section, “documentary proof of United States citizenship” shall include a copy of:

(A) a United States passport;

(B) an identification document compliant with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-13, Div. B) that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States;

(C) an official military identification card that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States; or

(D) a valid Federal or State government-issued photo identification if such identification indicates that the applicant is a United States citizen or if such identification is otherwise accompanied by proof of United States citizenship.

(b) To identify unqualified voters registered in the States:

(i) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent with applicable law, ensure that State and local officials have, without the requirement of the payment of a fee, access to appropriate systems for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of individuals registering to vote or who are already registered;

Kollar-Kotelly sided with far-left Democratic groups that sued the Trump administration for having the audacity to demand that voters in US elections are actually US citizens.

The judge said Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Keep reading

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