Election Integrity ACTION!



[INSIDE JW]

Judicial Watch Warns Oregon to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face
Federal Lawsuit

[[link removed]]
Election law is simple. But many don’t want to follow it for
reasons we can all guess. The National Voter Registration Act
[[link removed]]
(NVRA) of 1993 requires states to “conduct a general program that
makes a reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls
“the names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed
residence. Among other things, the NVRA requires registrations to be
canceled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices
and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In
2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory
(_Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst_
[[link removed]].,
[[link removed]]
138 S.
Ct. 1833, 1841-42 (2018)).

We sent a notice letter
[[link removed]]
to
the Oregon secretary of state on behalf of ourselves, the Constitution
Party of Oregon and an Oregon registered voter, notifying them of
evident violations of the NVRA, based on their failure to remove
inactive voters from their registration rolls. Our notice letter to
Oregon serves as a “pre-suit” notice.

The letter states:

> According to your state’s responses to the EAC’s [federal
> government’s Election Assistance Commission] survey, 19 Oregon
> counties reported removing zero voter registrations from November
> 2020 to November 2022 pursuant to Section 8(d)(1)(B) of the NVRA for
> failing to respond to a Confirmation Notice and failing to vote in
> two consecutive general federal elections. Another 10 counties
> reported just a handful of such removals during the same two-year
> period.
>
> Furthermore, not a single one of Oregon’s 36 counties reported
> any data whatsoever to the EAC regarding inactive registrations.
> Instead, in the relevant column where the data should have been, the
> survey response for each of Oregon’s counties merely stated,
> “Data not available.”

***

> Oregon’s non-compliance with the NVRA is further illustrated by
> the unusually high registration rates observed in several of its
> counties. Comparing the data your state reported to the EAC
> regarding the total registrations for each county to the U.S. Census
> Bureau’s most recent five-year estimates of the numbers of
> resident citizens over the age of eighteen suggests that eight
> Oregon counties have more voter registrations than citizens of
> voting age. Several federal courts have determined that such high
> registration rates are sufficient grounds for alleging a failure to
> comply with the NVRA’s requirement to make reasonable efforts to
> remove voters by reason of death or change of address.
States are required by federal law to report data concerning their
removal programs to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Every few years the EAC publishes this data as part of a report it
provides to Congress. The most recent report and accompanying datasets
were released in June
[[link removed]]
of
this year.

Dirty election rolls can mean dirty elections. With a presidential
election less than four months away, it is vital that Oregon get about
the business of cleaning its voter registration rolls of ineligible
voters to eliminate any cloud of doubt over the legitimacy of its
balloting.

We are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As
part of our work, we assembled a team of highly experienced voting
rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and
cleaned up voter rolls across the country, among other achievements
[[link removed]].

Robert Popper, our 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.

A hearing
[[link removed]]
was
recently held in another case we filed that challenges a Mississippi
election law permitting absentee ballots to be received as late as
five business days after Election Day.

In May 2024, we sued
[[link removed]]
California
to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of us and
the Libertarian Party of California, asks the court to compel
California to make “a reasonable effort to remove the registrations
of ineligible registrants from the voter rolls” as required by
federal law (_Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian Party of CA v.
Shirley Weber et al._
[[link removed]]
(No.
2:24-cv-3750)).

In December 2023, we sent three other notice letters
[[link removed]]
to
election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and
Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the NVRA, based on
their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls.
In response to our inquiries, Washington, D.C., 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]]
we
conducted in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration rate was 101% of
eligible voters.

In July 2023, we also 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 now 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, we filed a federal lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the
Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director,
Bernadette Matthews, over their failure to clean Illinois’ voter
rolls and to produce election-related records as required by federal
law.

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 of our lawsuits.

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.

This leadership for election integrity only happens because of the
generous support of our members. If you aren’t a part of Judicial
Watch’s cause and movement, I encourage you to support us right here
[[link removed]
And if
you have already supported our work, thank you – and I encourage you
to make another donation because you know the fight never stops!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUIT SEEKS EDITED TRANSCRIPTS OF BIDEN SPECIAL COUNSEL
INTERVIEWS

The Biden Justice Department is engaged in a major league cover-up for
Joe Biden. Hiding audio recordings, altering transcripts, and ignoring
FOIA law shows that the Biden team is desperate to avoid disclosure
about Joe Biden’s cognitive condition.

We just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Department of Justice for records of communication between
the agency and the White House regarding the altered transcripts of
Special Counsel Robert Hur’s October 2023 interviews of President
Biden in the criminal investigation into Biden’s theft and
disclosure of classified records (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department
of Justice_
[[link removed]
_(No. 1:24-cv-02176)). The lawsuit is one of three federal FOIA
lawsuits we filed this week concerning the Hur investigation.

(In a separate lawsuit, we forced the Biden administration to admit
[[link removed]]
that
the transcripts of the audio recordings have been altered and are not
accurate.)

We filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department inadequately
responded to a FOIA request on June 1, 2024, for:

> All records of communication between any official or employee of the
> Department of Justice and any official or employee of the Executive
> Office of the President regarding the creation, editing, or release
> of the transcript of the interviews of President Biden by Special
> Counsel Robert Hur on October 8, 2023 and October 9, 2023. This
> request includes, but is not limited to, all such communications
> including Mr. Hur and/or any other official or employee assigned to
> or employed by Mr. Hur’s office.
>
> All records of communication between any official or employee of the
> Department of Justice and the court reporter(s) responsible for the
> creation or editing of the transcripts of the interviews described
> in part one of this request and/or any other officer, employee, or
> representative of Free State Reporting, Inc. This request includes,
> but is not limited to, all such communications including Mr. Hur
> and/or any other official or employee assigned to or employed by Mr.
> Hur’s office.
>
> All directions, instructions, or other guidance documents provided
> to the court reporter(s) responsible for the creation or editing of
> the transcripts of the interviews described in part one of this
> request and/or any other officer, employee, or representative of
> Free State Reporting, Inc. regarding the creation or editing of
> those transcripts.
Also this week, we filed two other FOIA lawsuits, one for the
background materials referenced in Hur’s February 2020 report
[[link removed]]
(_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-02177) and one for all communications about the Hur
report with the Office of the White House Counsel and Biden’s
personal lawyers (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-02179)).

On February 5, 2024, Special Counsel Robert Hur issued
[[link removed]]
the “Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into
Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified
Documents Discovered at Locations Including the Penn Biden Center and
the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.”

In the report, Hur called Biden a “well-meaning, elderly man with a
poor memory” and declined to charge Biden with a “serious
felony:”

> We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely
> present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as
> a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based
> on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is
> someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.
> It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict
> him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious
> felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
Prior to the finalization of the report, the White House issued a
letter
[[link removed]]
to the Special Counsel’s office attacking the report’s
“treatment of President Biden’s memory,” and added “there is
ample evidence from your interview that the President did well in
answering your questions …”

And with all the well-placed concern about Joe Biden’s cognitive
status, the public interest in the release of the tapes is as
important than ever. The court could rule at any time so check back
for updates!

STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECISION TO STEP DOWN FROM THE
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

President Joe Biden’s resignation from the presidential race is the
result of a corrupt, arrogant, and anti-democratic process. Biden was
forced to pull out of the presidential race as the result of a
dangerously corrupt pressure campaign led by Obama, Pelosi, Schumer
and like-minded Democrats, which has effectively disenfranchised 14
million Americans who voted in the Democratic presidential primaries.

Few Americans will buy the DC establishment’s scheme to remove Biden
from the presidential campaign over cognitive issues while ignoring
his inability to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Vice President Kamala Harris and the majority of the cabinet need to
step up and invoke the 25th Amendment. And, Congress should do an
emergency investigation into Biden’s fitness for office. The
assassination attempt on former President Trump adds increased urgency
to ensure we have a fully capable president. This is truly a national
security crisis.

And to make matters worse, we have this “coup against democracy,”
as the Left likes to say. We are not going to know who the nominee of
the Democratic Party for the office of president of the United States
will be until August. It’s election interference, pure and simple.
There is nothing about this process that’s normal, appropriate or
honest.

A snap national primary (or primaries) to pick a new nominee would
seem to be the most “democratic” approach to Biden’s decision
not to seek reelection. At a minimum, a careful state-by-state and
federal legal analysis is a necessary first step to help determine
whether Biden can be replaced on the presidential ballot at this late
stage in the presidential campaign. Judicial Watch is already
investigating this election integrity issue. That the votes of 14
million Americans would be casually tossed aside by Democratic Party
elites is a major corruption and election interference scandal.

PENTAGON DEI BUDGET SURGES FOR WOKE TRAINING TO ROOT OUT ‘WHITE
PRIVILEGE’

Our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog has carefully documented the
dangerous woke ideology ruining our military. As you can see from our
latest report
[[link removed]],
the Leftist abuse and waste seem to be getting worse:

> The Pentagon dedicates tens of millions of dollars annually to
> Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
> (DEI) programs throughout the armed forces and cadets at the
> nation’s military academies receive extensive training about
> racism, sexism, unconscious bias, and intersectionality.
>
> A year-long research project conducted by a special commission at a
> public university think tank has uncovered the unbelievable details
> behind a costly Department of Defense (DOD) initiative to root out
> so-called white privilege white supremacy in the military. The
> study, conducted by the Center for American Institutions at Arizona
> State University (ASU), began as a review of civic education in the
> military and uncovered a fervent woke movement throughout the
> nation’s armed forces. “Our research team did not expect to find
> Critical Race Theory so embedded and pervasive,” the center’s
> director, Donald T. Critchlow, an ASU American political history
> professor, writes in the introduction of a recently
> published REPORT
[[link removed]].
He confirms
> that there is CRT and DEI training across the military from the
> Pentagon through the ranks.
>
> It is important to note that the sole purpose of the U.S. armed
> forces is to defend the nation against external enemies, therefore
> the DOD’s MISSION
[[link removed]]
is to provide
> the military forces needed to deter war and ensure the country’s
> security. The agency is the government’s largest with 3.4 million
> service members and civilians—in the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air
> Force, Space Force and Coast Guard—stationed at 4,800 sites in
> over 160 countries. Under the Biden administration the DOD budget
> for DEI training has increased significantly from $68 million in
> fiscal year 2022 to $86.5 million in fiscal year 2023, the report
> states. The agency is requesting a whopping $114.7 million for
> fiscal year 2024, according to DOD figures obtained by ASU
> researchers. “Training is implemented by a vast DEI bureaucracy
> that extends from senior leaders at the Pentagon to the lowest
> ranks,” the report says, adding that the “U.S. military now has
> a well-developed, taxpayer-funded DEI bureaucracy dedicated to
> rooting out ‘white privilege’ and white supremacy, and that
> allows for (and sometimes teaches) the overt criticism of the United
> States, its founding, its founders, and its founding documents,
> alleging that they are all rooted in systemic racism.”
>
> Few training modules are available to the public, but the report
> includes enough to get the full picture. The Air Force teaches
> airmen to use proper pronouns as an element of inclusion and its Air
> Combat Command toolkit features examinations of white privilege. An
> Army course on race and gender in American military history defines
> racism as a possibility for a dominant group, while people of color
> merely express prejudice and gender as a social construct. The Navy
> promotes a “sailor’s drag show aboard a warship” and its
> anti-extremist training considers the violent and radical Black
> Lives Matter (BLM) movement to be a positive, apolitical public
> policy issue. A Marine Corps CRT course emphasizes diversity and
> inclusion while claiming that colorblindness is unsound because it
> protects white supremacy. The Marine Corps has also launched a
> special initiative “to eradicate racism, sexism, and negative
> biases that diminish our warfighting effectiveness.”
>
> The military academies all have federally mandated offices of
> diversity and inclusion that coordinate training and support based
> on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and promote celebrations based
> on those identities. West Point offers a minor in diversity and
> inclusion studies and courses such as “social inequality” as
> well as classes that focus on feminist and queer theory. The Air
> Force Academy has a Transgender Working Group and U.S. history is an
> optional elective while required classes cover BLM, the New York
> Times’ 1619 project that aims to “reframe the country’s
> history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions
> of Black Americans at the very center of the United States” and
> white fragility. The Naval Academy requires faculty to attend a
> diversity and inclusion conference and future Humanities and Social
> Sciences instructors to submit diversity statements describing how
> they will contribute to the academy’s diversity and inclusion
> mission.
>
> In the last few years we have sued the DOD to obtain more
> information about the military’s outrageous DEI initiatives,
> including anti-American CRT propaganda at three academies. In 2022
> we received hundreds of pages of RECORDS
>
[[link removed]]
outlining
> CRT instruction at West Point that includes material on
> “whiteness,” a social science class on race, gender, and
> sexuality that focuses on queer theory, and a graphic titled
> “MODERN-DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA.” Months later, we obtained the
> Air Force Academy’s CRT TRAINING
>
[[link removed]
> cadets that shows the academy has made race and gender instruction a
> top priority. This includes a race, gender and sexuality course as a
> core class and mandatory training for cadets and staff on DEI
> concepts and skills to decrease incidents of microaggressions and
> unconscious bias. A cultural immersion movie nights initiative was
> also launched to teach cadets about racism, racial discrimination
> and the several historical events and policies that have impacted
> minorities through cinema.

WHO IS KAMALA HARRIS?

Our chief investigative reporter Micah Morrison covers the rise of
Kamal Harris (and certain fact the Big Media don’t want you to know)
in Judicial Watch’s _Investigative Bulletin_:

> The world will quickly be getting to know presumptive Democratic
> Party presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Her long
> relationship—personal and political—with the scandal-scarred
> California power broker Willie Brown is instructive. Brown was
> instrumental in Harris’s rise in California politics. In return,
> she may have protected him and his allies from damaging
> investigations.
>
> Brown rose through the ranks of the California State Assembly and
> became Speaker in 1980. He served in that post for fourteen years,
> ruling with an iron fist in a velvet glove, rewarding allies with
> lucrative patronage posts and punishing opponents. He called himself
> the “Ayatollah of the Assembly.” In 1996, he was elected mayor
> of San Francisco, serving two terms. Along the way, he attracted the
> attention of the FBI, which repeatedly investigated him but failed
> to bring charges
>
[[link removed]].
>
> The FBI may have failed, but Brown had plenty of critics. “The
> legacy of Willie Brown has been one of corruption and incompetence
> in government, and the [FBI] probes were a reflection of that,”
> the head of San Francisco Common Cause told the San Francisco
> Chronicle in 2004.
>
> By 2004, Brown was on his term-limited way out of office, but one of
> his key allies, Kamala Harris, was on her way up. Harris was elected
> San Francisco District Attorney in 2003. Brown had put
> his formidable political machine behind Harris
>
[[link removed]],
> swinging a come-from-behind election her way.
>
> It was not the first time Willie Brown had given Kamala Harris a
> helping hand. The two dated in 1994 and 1995. In 1994, Brown
> appointed the then-obscure county prosecutor to two influential
> state commissions—the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the
> California Medical Assistance Commission. Harris’s political rise
> was launched—elected DA in 2003 and 2007, California Attorney
> General in 2010 and 2014, United States Senator in 2016, and Vice
> President in 2020.
>
> Questions persist about what Harris may have done for Brown and his
> allies. The investigative journalist Peter Schweizer noted in a
> recent interview with Breitbart
>
[[link removed]]
that
> in her first DA race, Harris ran against the incumbent prosecutor,
> who was investigating corruption allegations against Brown. “And
> when she won,” Schweizer said, “she dropped a whole series of
> cases” connected to Brown.
>
> The biggest case, Schweizer said, involves an 800-page document from
> the diocese of the Catholic Church in San Francisco detailing
> accusations of sexual abuse linked to “individuals and entities”
> with connections to the Democratic Party. But when “Kamala Harris
> came in, not only did she not prosecute anybody involved in the
> scandals, she actually refused to release the 800-page document. And
> it has been reported in San Francisco, that document disappeared and
> never was to be found.”
>
> Those are serious charges that raise serious questions. What cases
> were dropped when Kamala Harris became San Francisco DA? Does she
> appear in records of FBI investigations of Willie Brown? What became
> of the San Francisco diocese investigation? Where is the 800-page
> report? Judicial Watch is investigating these issues and other
> matters linked to Democratic Party power brokers in California.
>
> As for Willie Brown, now 90, he remains a strong Harris supporter.
> In a hastily called sidewalk press conference
>
[[link removed]]
after
> President Biden announced he would not run for re-election, Brown
> suggested that the president should resign immediately, stepping
> aside for Harris.
>
> A Biden resignation would “silence all of this nonsense about how
> to select some new nominee,” Brown said. “Her chances go up if
> he would at this moment say not only am I no longer the candidate,
> I’m no longer the president—she is.”

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[advertisement]
[[link removed]]


[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]]