MORE Biden Abuses!



[INSIDE JW]

Secret Service Ordered Staff to Not Respond to Head of RFK Jr.’s
Private Security

[[link removed]]
In September 2023, we received Secret Service records
[[link removed]]
detailing
the denial of protection to presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy
Jr., despite having received numerous threats from “known
subjects.”

This week we released 63 pages
[[link removed]]
of new records from the Secret Service that show Assistant Director
Michael Plati ordering his staff not to respond to a request for
information from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s head of security.

These documents confirm the bureaucratic and political runaround the
Biden administration went through to ultimately deny Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. the requested Secret Service protection.

They also confirm that Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Alexander Mayorkas and President Biden both have the discretion to
provide Secret Service protection to Kennedy at any time.

We received the records through a September 26, 2023, FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
filed against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after it
failed to respond to a July 31 request for records regarding the
decision to decline Secret Service protection for Kennedy (_Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:23-cv-02846)).

The records include a completely redacted June 2, 2023, report
[[link removed]]
titled “Protective Intelligence Assessment – 2024 Presidential
Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”

On May 17, 2023, an individual, whose name is redacted, from the
protection company Gavin de Becker Associates
[[link removed]],
which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. disclosed
[[link removed]]
is providing him with protection, sends an email
[[link removed]]
to officials in the Office of Protective Services with the subject
“From [redacted] quick question and heads up …” The body of the
message is redacted except for the greeting and closing.

The message is forwarded to Deputy Assistant Director William Glady
[[link removed]]
and other Secret
Service officials whose names are redacted. Glady forwards the de
Becker message to Assistant Director Michael Plati
[[link removed]]
as a “FYSA [For
Your Situational Awareness].” Plati replies, “No response is
required to be given to this individual IMO [in my opinion].” Glady
replies, “Agree.” Plati then follows up with, “Nor should it.”
Glady responds, “All parties are aware.” Plati replies, “Thank
you.”

The records also include a document
[[link removed]]
titled “Campaign 2024 – Candidate Protection: Who receives
protection?” that describes how the Secretary of Homeland Security
has “broad discretion” when authorizing Secret Service protection
to presidential or vice-presidential candidates:

> Who receives protection?
>
> The Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection,
> nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate
> candidate protection.
>
> Under 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7), “[m]ajor Presidential and Vice
> Presidential candidates,” as identified by the Secretary of
> Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.
>
> Title 18 U.S.C' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to
> provide protection for major presidential and vice presidential
> candidates:

> • Protection is authorized by the OHS Secretary after consultation
> with the Congressional Advisory Committee

> • The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the
> House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate
> Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others

> • Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within
> one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one
> year prior to the general election should only be granted in
> extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the
> committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.

> Criteria have been established to assist the OHS Secretary and the
> advisory committee in their decision making (as of 2017). Candidates
> must:

> When determining whether a candidate for the Office of President or
> Vice President of the United States qualifies as a major candidate,
> the Secretary has broad discretion and may consider a variety of
> factors. These factors include, but are not limited to:

> 1. Whether the candidate has publicly announced his or her candidacy
> and has filed the appropriate documentation with the Federal
> Election Commission (FEC) and is in compliance with the Federal
> Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and related laws;

> 2. Whether the candidate is actively campaigning on a national basis
> for the office for which his or her candidacy has been announced, as
> demonstrated by operating a national campaign apparatus, regularly
> appearing at public events in multiple states, producing and
> publishing campaign advertisements, and other similar indicia of a
> campaign;

> 3. A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or
> specific threats directed towards the candidate. (for these
> purposes, "threats" should be defined as explicit threats of bodily
> harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate behavior
> towards the candidate suggesting potential bodily harm);

> 4. Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party
> primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as
> reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar
> mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30
> consecutive days;

> 5. Whether the candidate is the formal or de facto nominee of a
> major party for President or Vice President;

> 6. Whether the candidate is an independent or third party candidate
> for President polling at 20% or more of the Real Clear Politics
> National Average for 30 consecutive days;

> 7. Whether the candidate is the Vice Presidential running mate of
> the above independent or third party candidate

> What is the history of candidate/nominee protection?

> Candidate and nominee protection was expanded to include major
> candidates for president and vice president in 1968:

> • Major candidates and their spouses began receiving protection
> after the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968. PL-90-331 was
> passed June 6, 1968. (Language since adopted into 3056).

> • Prior to this event, candidates and their families did not
> receive Secret Service protection

> • Protection of a candidate/nominee is designed to maintain the
> integrity of the democratic process and continuity of government
A June 13, 2023, email
[[link removed]]
includes a “KENNEDY CPAC [Candidate Protection Advisory Committee]
Criteria Analysis.” The document lists the various criteria for
providing Secret Service Protection to a candidate but redacts the
analysis of each point. For example, the agency redacts the analysis
related to:

> A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general of
> [sic] specific threats directed towards the candidate (for these
> purposes, “threats” should be defined as explicit threats of
> bodily harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate
> behavior towards the candidate suggesting potentials [sic] bodily
> harm);
In a June 5, 2023, email thread
[[link removed]]
under the subject line “Request for Protection received at DHS” a
program manager from the Executive Secretariat of Secret Service,
whose name is redacted, writes:

> [Redacted] DHS has received the attached letter from the RFK Jr.
> campaign requesting protection. The letter references an assessment
> the campaign has conducted on its own… DHS is seeking input on the
> appropriate process for response so that they can task/track in
> their systems appropriately. Once you’ve had a chance to review,
> please let me know what the preference is so we can stay synced.
Glady forwards the message to Plati, noting, “We received the hard
copy today. The word document is what goes over to the Hill indicating
our recording Secretary recommendation.”

On June 15, 2023, the chief operating officer of the Secret Service
emails
[[link removed]]
officials in the offices of Senators Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell
with the subject “Candidate Protection Advisory Committee
Material:”

> As the Recording Secretary for the Candidate Protection Advisory
> Committee, I write to provide you with the materials compiled by the
> United States Secret Service (Secret Service) to assist in your
> review of the request submitted on behalf of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
> As set out in the Department of Homeland Security ‘Guidelines for
> Authorizing Secret Service Protection to U.S. Presidential
> Candidates’, the Secret Service has prepared an analysis of the
> factors listed in Section II. The analysis and relevant supporting
> documents as well as the request for protection are attached.
The records indicate that the Candidate Protection Advisory
Committee, which consists of congressional leaders and the Senate
sergeant at arms, received briefing information on the Kennedy
protection issue.

The Biden administration’s refusal to provide Secret Service
protection to Mr. Kennedy is dangerous and vindictive. Congress would
do well to follow up on these disturbing documents uncovered by our
investigation and lawsuit.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES MISSISSIPPI FOR COUNTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS AFTER
ELECTION DAY

We’re not letting states get away with slippery election practices.

We filed a civil rights lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenging a
Mississippi election law permitting absentee ballots to be received as
long as five business days after Election Day (_Libertarian Party of
Mississippi v Wetzel et al_
[[link removed]].
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-00037)).

Our lawsuit details:

> Under federal law, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
> November of every even-numbered year is election day (“Election
> Day”) for federal elections. _See_ 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 and 3 U.S.C.
> § 1.

> Congress recently reaffirmed a single national Election Day when it
> enacted the Electoral Count Reform Act (“ECRA”). 136 Stat. 5233,
> 525 (enacted as Div. P., Title I, § 102(b) of the Consolidated
> Appropriations Act, 2023, 117 Pub. L. No. 328, Dec. 29, 2022).
> _See_ 3 U.S.C. § 21.

> Under the recent Congressional amendments, no extension of Election
> Day shall be allowed unless there are “_force majeure_ events that
> are extraordinary and catastrophic” that justify extension. 3
> U.S.C. § 21.

> Despite Congress’ unambiguous and longstanding statement regarding
> a single and uniform national Election Day, Mississippi extended
> Election Day by allowing five additional business days after
> Election Day for receipt of absentee ballots. _See_ Miss. Code Ann.
> § 23-15-637(1)(a).

> No “_force majeure_ events that are extraordinary and
> catastrophic” currently exist in Mississippi to justify extending
> the ballot receipt deadline for the November 5, 2024 federal
> election for Presidential and Vice-Presential Electors. _See_ 3
> U.S.C. § 21.
We argue that holding voting open for five days past Election Day
violates the constitutional rights of voters and candidates:

> Counting untimely, illegal, and invalid votes, such as those
> received in violation of federal law, substantially increases the
> pool of total votes cast and dilutes the weight of votes cast by
> Plaintiff’s members and others in support of Plaintiff’s federal
> nominees.
The complaint points out that, based on the reported numbers
[[link removed]],
as many as 1.7% of votes cast in Mississippi in 2020 were received
after Election Day.

In 2022,, on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two other registered
voters, we sued
[[link removed]]
Illinois for allowing vote-by-mail ballots (even those without
postmarks) to be counted if received up to 14 calendar days after
Election Day if the ballots are dated on or before Election Day. The
case is now on appeal
[[link removed]].

The law requires an ‘Election Day,’ not an ‘Election Week.’
Mississippi’s five-day extension of Election Day beyond the date set
by Congress is illegal, violates the civil rights of voters, and
encourages fraud.

We are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. We
assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who
stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls
in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements
[[link removed]].

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads our election
law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil
Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting
rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements
in dozens of states.

In December 2023, we sent notice letters
[[link removed]]
to election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and
Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the National Voter
Registration Act
[[link removed]]
(NVRA) of 1993, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from
their registration rolls. The letters point out that these
jurisdictions publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter
registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letters threaten
federal lawsuits unless the violations are corrected in a timely
fashion. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, DC,
officials admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, promptly
removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to
remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as
“inactive.”

In July 2023 we filed
[[link removed]]
an
_amicus curiae_ (friend of the court) brief
[[link removed]],
supporting the decision
[[link removed]]
of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down
Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s
voter registration list (_Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Shenna
Bellows_
[[link removed]]
(No.
23-1361). According to a national study
[[link removed]]
conducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration
rate was 101% of eligible voters.

In July 2023 we settled
[[link removed]]
a
federal election integrity lawsuit on behalf of the Illinois
Conservative Union against the state of Illinois, the Illinois State
Board of Elections, and its director, which grants access to the
current centralized statewide list of registered voters for the state
for the past 15 elections.

In April 2023, Pennsylvania settled
[[link removed]]
with us and admitted in court filings that it removed 178,258
ineligible registrations in response to communications from us. The
settlement commits Pennsylvania and five of its counties to extensive
public reporting of statistics regarding their ongoing voter roll
clean-up efforts for the next five years.

In March 2023, Colorado agreed
[[link removed]]
to settle our NVRA lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove
ineligible voters from its rolls. The settlement agreement requires
Colorado to provide us with the most recent voter roll data for each
Colorado county each year for six years.

In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed
[[link removed]]
the removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last
year, under the terms of a settlement agreement
[[link removed]]
in a federal lawsuit
[[link removed]]
we filed in 2017.

We settled
[[link removed]]
a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the
city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and
promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter
registration lists.

Kentucky
[[link removed]]
also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it
entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In February 2022, we settled
[[link removed]]
a
voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its
counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive
registrations from its voter rolls.

In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor
[[link removed]]
of our challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme”
congressional-districts gerrymander.

More election integrity lawsuits are coming, so check back with
Judicial Watch in the weeks and months ahead!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR DETAILS OF BOSTON MAYOR’S ‘ELECTEDS OF
COLOR HOLIDAY PARTY’

Judicial Watch continues to expose and try to stop the radical
Left’s abuse of government to promote racial discrimination!

We just filed a public records
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
in the Superior Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, against the
City of Boston after the city failed to produce records related to the
“Electeds of Color Holiday Party” hosted by Boston Mayor Michelle
Wu in December 2023 (_Judicial Watch v. City of Boston_
[[link removed]
_(No. 2484-cv-00332)).

On December 13, 2023, Judicial Watch submitted a public records
request for:

* All internal email communications of Mayor Wu, Chief of Equity and
Inclusion Cervera, Chief of Staff Chu, Chief People Officer Lawrence,
Chief of Human Services Masso, Senior Advisor Osgood, Spokesman
Patron, and Chief of Communications Pierre related to the “Electeds
of Color Holiday Party,” including but not limited to its planning
and invitation list.
* All internal email communications of all members of the Boston
City Council related to the “Electeds of Color Holiday Party.”
* All budget records related to “Electeds of Color Holiday
Party,” including but not limited to invoices, purchase orders,
financial statements, agreements and contracts.

Here are the details. On December 12, 2023, a city employee
[[link removed]
an email
[[link removed]]
on behalf of Mayor Wu, inviting all city councilors to an “Electeds
of Color Holiday Party” being held the following Wednesday night.
Shortly after the initial invitation was sent, the same employee sent
another email to apologize for sending out the invitation to all city
councilors.

Mayor Wu
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
the party saying:

> It seems like some of the folks who are concerned might also just
> not have all the information, right?
>
> I can understand someone might be confused or worried if certain
> people weren’t being invited at all or were being left out of any
> type of celebration. But I assure you, everyone on the Boston City
> Council has got an invitation to multiple types of events and
> holiday parties.
Here’s what this means. Left-wing extremists in Boston’s city
government have fully embraced anti-white segregation and
discrimination. And now these same politicians are hiding records
about this racial discrimination and abuse.

We’re battling the Left in court on this issue across the nation.

We are
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
on
behalf of San Francisco taxpayers over a city program which
discriminates in favor of biological black and Latino men who identify
as women in the distribution of tax money. The taxpayer lawsuit was
filed today against San Francisco Mayor London Breed, City Treasurer
Jose Cisneros, the director of the city’s Office of Transgender
Initiatives, and City Administrator Carmen Chu for violating the Equal
Protection clause of the California Constitution.

In October 2023, our open records request forced the release of
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
from the
City of San Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black
and Latino transgenders (biological men) in the (GIFT
[[link removed]])
program, which also allowed illegal aliens to apply; allowed people
who “engage in survival sex trades” to apply; and the use of the
funds by participants was virtually unrestricted.

In December 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court’s ruling and
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
our
historic lawsuit filed on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a
teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to
certain racial minorities to proceed.

In May 2022, we
[[link removed]
a court battle
[[link removed]]
against California’s gender quota law for corporate boards. The
verdict came after a 28-day trial. The verdict followed a
[[link removed]
ruling
[[link removed]]
in Judicial Watch’s favor in April finding California’s race,
ethnicity and LGBT quotas or corporate boards unconstitutional.

The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
our federal
civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially
discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program.
Additionally, the city agreed to remove racially discriminatory
eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to
educators.

U.S. ALLOTS $15 MILLION TO HELP NATION THAT HATES AMERICA FIGHT
CLIMATE CHANGE

Biden’s bureaucrats come up with amazing ways to spend your tax
dollars. Our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]]
the
latest outrage.

> A South-Asian Islamic country well known as a recruiting ground for
> terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) and the
> Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is getting $15 million from
> the Biden administration to combat climate change. The money will
> flow through a program called Enabling Environment for Climate
> Resilience Activity
[[link removed])
> launched by the United States government specifically to create long
> term systemic shifts in Bangladesh’s climate resilience. The
> generous allocation is necessary, according to the government,
> because fully addressing the climate crisis requires long term,
> transformative changes that affect every aspect of society. And
> achieving it apparently requires millions of American taxpayer
> dollars.
>
> Before delving into the new overseas U.S.-funded climate initiative,
> it is important to provide relevant background about Bangladesh, a
> hotbed of terrorism. The Muslim nation is a notorious terrorist
> recruiting ground that hates the U.S. Its history with violent
> extremism goes back to the 1990s when veterans of the anti-Soviet
> fight in Afghanistan returned to the country, according to the State
> Department’s Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC). In its
> 2019 report
>
[[link removed]],
> OSAC writes that ISIS formally announced its foothold in Bangladesh
> back in 2015 and that anti-Western terrorist groups, some on the
> U.S. Government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, are
> active in Bangladesh, including Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh
> (HUJI-B), Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, AI, and ABT. “Terrorist
> groups continue to communicate their desire to target Westerners in
> Bangladesh,” according to the OSAC report. “ISIS threatened to
> continue discovering security gaps and holes to target expats,
> tourists, diplomats, garment buyers, missionaries, [and] sports
> teams in Bangladesh.” The State Department has also determined
> that Bangladesh faces potential threats from returning foreign
> fighters, citing the return of at least 50 Bangladeshi citizens who
> traveled to Iraq and Syria to fight for ISIS.
>
> Bangladesh is also notorious for violating human rights, which the
> U.S. often cites as a deal breaker involving aid to foreign
> governments. A few years ago, the Treasury Department sanctioned
>
[[link removed]]
a Bangladesh
> paramilitary force for committing serious human rights abuses. Known
> as the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) the group is part of the
> Bangladeshi government’s war on drugs and threatens U.S. national
> security interests by undermining the rule of law and respect for
> human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as the economic
> prosperity of the people of Bangladesh, according to the U.S. “RAB
> is a joint task force founded in 2004 and composed of members of the
> police, army, navy, air force, and border guards,” the Treasury
> sanction explains, adding that the unit and other Bangladeshi law
> enforcement are responsible for more than 600 disappearances since
> 2009, nearly 600 extrajudicial killings since 2018, and torture.
> “Some reports suggest these incidents target opposition party
> members, journalists, and human rights activists,” the Treasury
> document states.
>
> Another alarming tidbit is the surge in Bangladeshi migrants trying
> to enter the U.S. via Mexico, presumably to conduct attacks. A
> congressional probe
>
[[link removed]
> public a few years ago reveals that migrants from terrorist nations
> are trying to enter the United States through the southern border at
> record rates, including an astounding 300% increase in Bangladeshi
> nationals attempting to sneak into the country through Texas alone.
> Shortly after the congressional report was released, federal
> authorities arrested
>
[[link removed]]
> a Mexican-based Bangladeshi smuggler in Houston and charged him with
> bringing in 15 fellow countrymen through the Texas-Mexico border.
> His name is Milon Miah and he lives in Tapachula, in the southeast
> Mexican state of Chiapas bordering Guatemala.
>
> Does this sound like a country that deserves millions of our
> taxpayer dollars to fight climate change? In the recently issued
> grant announcement the Biden administration claims there is a
> “growing climate crisis” in the South-Asian nation and the
> allocation will support strengthening a policy environment and
> governance structure favorable for transformational changes in key
> systems aiming at net-zero emissions and a climate-resilient
> Bangladesh. The U.S. assures that the climate action it is funding
> in Bangladesh will distribute resources equally among marginalized
> social groups and include underrepresented communities that
> typically are most impacted by climate change. “Climate change
> planning in Bangladesh is top-down and not inclusive,” according
> to the grant announcement
>
[[link removed]].
“This
> activity will facilitate prioritizing and elevating the voices of
> historically excluded communities, including marginalized and
> underrepresented groups disproportionately affected by climate
> change.”

JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS TO KEEP ELECTIONS HONEST

Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, provides
[[link removed]]
a comprehensive
look at our election integrity efforts in _Investigative Bulletin_.

> For more than a decade, Judicial Watch has been fighting to keep
> elections free and fair. One of the key weapons in this battle is
> the National Voter Registration Act. The NVRA directs the states to
> make “a reasonable effort” to remove from voting rolls “the
> names of ineligible voters” who have been disqualified from voting
> due to death or change of residence. States—red and blue,
> Republican and Democrat—often dodge this responsibility, creating
> opportunities for election fraud and opening the door to illegal
> votes swinging close contests.
>
> Judicial Watch holds the states accountable. Legal pressure from
> Judicial Watch has resulted in the removal of more than four million
> ineligible voters
>
[[link removed]]
> from voter rolls in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado,
> Kentucky, Ohio, and elsewhere. As Judicial Watch President Tom
> Fitton puts it, “cleaner voter rolls mean cleaner elections.”
>
> But the work is far from complete.
>
> Last year, we made inquiries to over a dozen states about their
> voter rolls. In recent months, we put the District of Columbia,
> Illinois, and California on notice that federal records investigated
> by Judicial Watch indicate they are out of compliance with the NVRA.
> That is, their voter rolls are dirty.
>
> In September, we advised
>
[[link removed]]
> the District of Columbia Board of Elections that according to
> federal records, the district had removed no—none, zero,
> nada—voter registrations during the last two-year reporting period
> due to change of residence. Voters can be removed from the voting
> rolls for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and
> not voting in two consecutive federal elections. “In our
> experience, and as a matter of common sense,” we noted, “there
> is no possible way that the DC [Board of Elections] is complying
> with the NVRA if it removed no registrations.”
>
> The Board of Elections responded quickly
>
[[link removed]].
> Citing data conversion and staffing issues, DC officials admitted
> they had not complied with the NVRA. They removed 65,000 ineligible
> registrations from the voter rolls, promised to remove an additional
> 38,000, designated another 73,000 as “inactive,” and pledged to
> do more.
>
> Judicial Watch has considerable experience with dirty voter rolls in
> California. In 2019, we uncovered 1.6 million inactive voters in Los
> Angeles County and forced LA to clean up its ac
>
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]].
>
> In October, mining new federal data, we advised
>
[[link removed]]
> California Secretary of State Shirley Weber that the state again was
> in violation of the NVRA. Data analyzed by Judicial Watch showed
> that twenty-seven California counties removed five or fewer voter
> registrations in two-year federal reporting period; that another
> nineteen counties reported no data at all; and that twenty-one
> counties “have more voter registrations than citizens of voting
> age.”
>
> We wrote the California secretary of state that both “common sense
> and Judicial Watch’s enforcement experience confirm that there is
> no possible way California has complied with…the key NVRA
> provision dealing with voters who have changed residence, when
> forty-six of its fifty-seven counties either removed no or just a
> few registrations under that provision, or failed to report removals
> at all, for the past two reporting years.”
>
> In November, we notified
>
[[link removed]]
> the Illinois State Board of Elections that, based on a Judicial
> Watch analysis of federal reporting data, “your office is
> currently in violation” of the NVRA.
>
> The numbers reported by Illinois were ludicrously low. Twenty-three
> Illinois counties each reported removing fewer than fifteen
> registrations. And thirty-four jurisdictions simply did not bother
> to report any data at all. The fifty-seven counties contain more
> than five million registered voters.
>
> With those numbers, there is “no possible way Illinois and the
> [State Board of Elections] have complied” with key NVRA
> provisions, we advised state officials.
>
> We also noted that Illinois registration rates were unusually high.
> We compared federal data on registration rates reported by Illinois
> to the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate of Illinois citizens over the
> age of eighteen. Our analysis concluded that “fifteen Illinois
> jurisdictions have more voter registrations than citizens of voting
> age.”
>
> More voter registrations than citizens of voting age: that’s an
> invitation to election fraud.
>
> Illinois is a persistent thorn in the side of free and fair
> elections. In July, we successfully settled another election
> integrity lawsuit against the state. State officials had erected
> significant roadblocks to access voter registration lists sought by
> state residents—imposing strict limits on citizens’ ability to
> view and study voter records. This was a clear violation of the
> NVRA, we said. Illinois’ restrictions—which required reviewing
> millions of registrations at one time, on a single computer screen,
> in a single office, during business hours—” make a mockery” of
> federal law, we argued.
>
> A federal judge agreed
>
[[link removed]].
> Judicial Watch had made the case that Illinois law “conflicts with
> … and frustrates the NVRA’s purpose of providing voter
> information to the public to help ensure the accuracy and currency
> of voter registration rolls,” wrote U.S. District Judge Sara
> Ellis.
>
> In another Illinois election integrity case, we went to federal
> court in 2022
>
[[link removed]]
> on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and other voters to stop state
> officials from extending Election Day for two weeks beyond the date
> established by federal law. “Despite Congress’ clear statement
> regarding a single national Election Day,” we noted in our brief,
> “Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the
> date for receipt and counting of vote-by-mail ballots.”
>
> “We’re supposed to have an Election Day, not Election Weeks—or
> months,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. The
> fourteen-day extension “is illegal, violates the civil rights of
> voters, and encourages fraud.”
>
> The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
> dismissed our case. It accepted the argument of state officials that
> the fourteen-day extension caused no harm to Bost and others. We
> appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
> saying that the new fourteen-day deadline “inflicted concrete,
> particular, tangible and intangible injuries,” including
> considerable expenditures of time and money in increased
> post-election costs. Read the Judicial Watch legal briefs on the
> appeal here
>
[[link removed]]
> and here
[[link removed]].
>
> Oral arguments at the Seventh Circuit are expected soon, with a
> ruling by fall.
>
> In Mississippi, as well, Judicial Watch is taking on election laws
> that seek to extend voting beyond the single day set by Congress. We
> filed a civil rights lawsuit
>
[[link removed]]
> challenging Mississippi’s law permitting absentee ballots to be
> received up to five days after Election Day.
>
> Our lawsuit notes that up to 1.7% of ballots cast in Mississippi in
> 2020 were received after Election Day. “Counting untimely,
> illegal, and invalid votes, such as those received [in Mississippi]
> in violation of federal law, substantially increases the pool of
> total votes cast and dilutes the weight of votes cast” on Election
> Day.
>
> Judicial Watch is committed to fighting for voting integrity and
> voting rights anywhere we see a threat to free and fair elections.
> Stay tuned in the coming months for updates on our cases in
> Mississippi, Illinois, California, and the District of Columbia.

Until Next Week,







[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%;height:auto;" alt="advertisement"></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]