Judicial Watch Asks for Preliminary Relief
Enjoining Gov. Newsom’s Order to Mail Ballots to Every Registered Voter
in California
Mail-in ballots are a huge source of potential voter fraud. For
instance, ballots mailed to wrong addresses or large residential buildings
might get intercepted.
We recently filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the enforcement of
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order mandating that unrequested
and unneeded mail-in ballots be sent to all of the state’s registered
voters for the November 3, 2020, election.
We argue that it is imperative that the court grant preliminary relief now
to resolve the legal questions surrounding Newsom’s vote-by-mail mandate.
We note that Newsom’s order, if left intact, will lead to “serious
disputes later, possibly having a nationwide impact.”
We filed the motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on behalf of former Congressman Darrell Issa (a
candidate for California’s 50th Congressional District in the November
election) and four voters from across the political spectrum ( Darrell
Issa, et al, v. Gavin Newsom et al. (No. 2:20-cv-01044-MCE-CKD)).
On May 8, Newsom issued Executive
Order N-64-20, which changed the time, place, and manner for voting
during the November 3, 2020 federal election. The order mandated that
“[a]ll voters who are […] registered to vote” in the November
election must be sent mail-in ballots, regardless of whether voters
requested them.
The 117th Congress will meet on January 6, 2021 to certify each state’s
electoral votes. During that process, Congress will have the right to voice
its objection to the counting of any state’s electoral votes. If on
that date the electoral margin between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden
is less than 55 electoral votes, the dispute over the legality of
Newsom’s executive order “may take on even greater significance,” we
argue. “Granting preliminary relief now resolves the legal question
before it deteriorates into an intractable political question later. It is
in the public interest to have the courts resolve this legal question to
ensure that California’s electors are counted.”
California’s Voter’s
Choice Act (VCA), passed in 2016, allows counties to conduct all-mail
ballot elections if they meet certain specified conditions. In the March
primaries, only 15 California counties conducted their elections as
all-mail ballot elections under the VCA. The other 43 counties did not.
Newsom’s ‘vote-by-mail’ mandate must be halted now – as mailing
millions of ballots to dirty voting lists in violation of the law could
cause a constitutional conflagration over the results of the 2020
elections.
The particular risks associated with mailed ballots were acknowledged 15
years ago by the bi-partisan Carter-Baker
Commission. It observed that “[a]bsentee [mail-in] ballots remain the
largest source of potential voter fraud.”
In April, similar concerns were expressed by a Stanford University study,
which began before the COVID-19 pandemic. The study noted that there are
“concerns around vote-by-mail relat[ing] to preserving election integrity
and voter confidence in the process. When a voter votes from home, they are
doing so outside the supervision of election officials.” Opportunities
for “foul play” occur “throughout the chain of custody of the ballot,
beginning with how a voter requests a ballot and then receives, completes,
and returns it.”
Our attorneys also raised concerns about mailing millions of ballots to
dirty voting lists in California:
[G]iven that California failed to comply with the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA) list maintenance provisions for twenty years, this
harm will be significant because the State’s voter registration lists are
not ready for a broad-based, all-mailed ballot election and will not be
ready by November 3, 2020. California will flood the state with ballots
mailed to countless voters at locations they no longer reside, including
some that moved almost twenty years ago. … Further, since it takes at
least two federal election cycles before most voters can be removed under
the NVRA, there is no quick fix to the problems identified with
California’s voter registration lists. Just the damage this will do to
the confidence in California’s elections is significant and irreparable.
Without preliminary relief, it will be impossible to reverse or enjoin EO
N-64-20 once ballots are mailed out.
California Government Code Section 8571 provides that during a state
of emergency Gov. Newsom “may suspend any regulatory statute, or statute
prescribing the procedure for conduct of state business, or the orders,
rules, or regulations of any state agency” provided he “determines and
declares that strict compliance … would in any way prevent, hinder, or
delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.” But, we argued,
“the governor is not seeking to suspend anything in Executive Order
N-64-20. Instead, he is attempting to impose an entirely new election
system on the State and transform permissive provisions under California
law into mandatory provisions. Such transformation is not ‘suspending’
even under the most deferential interpretation of his emergency
authority.”
In another development, we are opposing
a motion by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and
California Democratic Party to defend Gov. Gavin Newsom’s order.
In their motion, the Democratic Party groups sought to join the lawsuit as
“intervenors” who would assist Gov. Newsom in defending his executive
orders. We point out in response that they made a number of assertions
about a prospective shortage of mail-in ballots “that are simply not
factual.”
The Democrats contend that, if we prevail in our lawsuit against Newsom’s
order, voters would be forced to choose between their right to vote and
their health, that resources would need to be diverted to “address the
lack of mail ballots,” and that the result “will be far less voter
turnout among Democratic Party supporters.”
We respond that “these fine-sounding words and phrases . . . are, in
fact, empty, as may be simply demonstrated. Prior to COVID-19 and Governor
Newsom’s order, California was a ‘no-excuse absentee ballot’ state.
Even prior to the governor’s order, California voters could request an
absentee, mail-in ballot, without having to provide any particular reason
for doing so. Following any such request a ballot had to be mailed within
five days. These procedures applied to every voter” in California.”
We continue: “No voters will have to ‘to choose between risking their
health to vote in person and participating in the Election’ because
voters concerned about COVID-19 could request an absentee ballot – as
they always could. For the same reason, no voters will ‘lose the ability
to cast ballots,’ nor will Movants have to ‘divert resources’ because
of a ‘lack of mail ballots.’ Absentee ballots will remain available to
every California voter who wants one with or without the governor’s
order.”
We sued
to stop the Newsom mandate last month. According to the U.S. Constitution,
only state legislatures may determine the “Times, Places and Manner of
holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” and only state
legislatures may establish the manner in which electors to the Electoral
College are appointed.
We have long been investigating violations of federal voting law committed
by California, including violations of the NVRA.
In 2018, California settled
a federal lawsuit with us and began removing up to 1.6 million inactive
names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Judicial Watch late last
year sent notices
to 11 additional California counties warning them of voting list
maintenance issues.
Voter confidence depends on the clean elections.
Judicial Watch Asks DC Mayor for Permission to Paint 'No One Is
Above the Law' on Capitol Hill Street
We have formally
asked District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser and DC Attorney General
Karl Racine for permission to paint “Because No One Is Above the Law!”
on a Capitol Hill street (Independence Ave, SW between 2nd and 4th Streets
SW). Our motto would be the identical size and coloring of the DC
Government’s “Black Lives Matter” political message on 16th Street
NW.
On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots in Washington, DC, Mayor
Bowser authorized
the painting of “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street NW and later allowed
“Defund the Police” to be painted alongside it.
Mayor Bowser made a decision to turn DC streets into a forum for public
expression. We are seeking equal access to use this new forum to educate
Americans by painting our organization’s motto and motivation --
‘Because No One Is Above the Law!’ -- on a Capitol Hill street. This
message is timely, as it is a reminder that the rule of law applies to –
and protects – all Americans. If we are unlawfully denied access and face
viewpoint discrimination, we are prepared to go to court to vindicate our
First Amendment rights.
Here is our June 10 letter:
Re: Request to Paint Message on Independence Avenue SW
Dear Mayor Bowser and Attorney General Racine:
We note with interest Mayor Bowser’s recent decision approving the
painting of “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street NW and the approval of
and/or acquiescence in the painting of “Defund the Police” alongside
the first message. Both messages are expressive activity.
Judicial Watch, Inc. is a Washington, DC-based, non-profit
organization headquartered in Southwest DC. For more that twenty-five
years, Judicial Watch, Inc. has promoted transparency, accountability and
integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. Our motto is
“Because No One Is Above the Law!” – a message that is particularly
relevant today because it applies equally to law enforcement and public
officials as well as to protesters, looters, and rioters.
Because DC streets surfaces are now being used as public fora for
expressive activity, we would like to have our motto painted on a street,
preferably Independence Avenue SW, between 2nd and 4th Streets SW, which is
near our offices. The lettering would be identical in size and color to the
lettering used to paint “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street NW.
Judicial Watch, Inc. would pay the cost of the painting, but we would
likely need the assistance of the DC Government to aid in traffic diversion
and parking restrictions while the painting is completed. Of course, the
painting could be completed when traffic is typically light, as was done
with the “Black Lives Matter” message.
As the timeliness of our message is important, please respond within 3
working days. If the Independence Avenue location is not possible, we are
open to considering alternative locations. Thank you for your prompt
attention to this matter
Sincerely,
Tom Fitton
President, Judicial Watch
Can’t wait for the response.
Leftist Groups to Monitor Police Under Bill Modeled after Obama
Plan
Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports
on the latest in leftist ideas for police reform.
The police reform bill introduced by Democrats in Congress empowers
leftist groups such as the open borders National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
to monitor cops nationwide and creates development and training programs
based on an Obama initiative to hire minority police officers by
disregarding the criminal records of candidates from “underrepresented
communities” and lowering standards on written exams. Known as the Task
Force on 21st Century Policing, the Obama plan is repeatedly cited in
the new bill’s 134-page text and promotional material and clearly serves
as a key model.
The recently crafted Justice
in Policing Act of 2020 gives “community-based” and
“grassroots” organizations the authority to supervise police
misconduct. Besides the NCLR, the bill lists the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) and the National Urban League among groups that will receive
compensation from the government via “public safety innovation grants”
to keep police in check. All are renowned leftist groups with a documented
history of advancing a liberal agenda. The legislation will transform
policing, according to California Congresswoman Karen Bass, chair of the
Congressional Black Caucus. “For over 100 years, Black communities in
America have sadly been marching against police abuse and calling for the
police to protect and serve them as they do others,” Bass said in a press
release announcing the legislation this week. “Never again should the
world be subjected to witnessing what we saw on the streets in Minnesota
with George Floyd.” California Senator Kamala Harris, the state’s
former attorney general, claims that “America’s sidewalks are stained
with Black blood” and calls the measure “historic legislation that will
get our country on a path forward.”
The transformation in policing will include recruitment, hiring,
retention and promotion of diverse law enforcement officers so that police
departments are representative of the communities they serve, language that
mirrors the Obama policy. To accomplish this, authorities will likely use
an Obama administration directive issued to help carry out the
recommendations of his
Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The mandate, “ Advancing
Diversity in Law Enforcement,” was issued jointly by the former
president’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) following a string of officer-involved shootings
involving African Americans. It outlines a push to hire minority police
officers by asking the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies to
forgive drug use, disregard the criminal records of candidates from
“underrepresented communities” and lower standards on written and
physical exams. Key to the mission is the racial diversification of local
law enforcement agencies so that they “better reflect the diversity of
the communities they serve,” according to the directive.
The freshly inked bill creates law enforcement development, training
and hiring programs “based on President Obama’s Task force on 21st
Century policing,” according to highlights included in the press release
promoting it. A special grant program will help hire officers who live in
the communities they serve by developing strategies and timelines to
recruit, hire, promote, retain and train a “diverse and inclusive law
enforcement workforce.” Besides discounting criminal records and drug
abuse, if the plan is carried out according to Obama’s, law enforcement
agencies will lower standards on written tests for police recruits because
they have “been shown to have an adverse impact on racial minority
candidates.” The former president’s task force determined that certain
written tests used as part of entry-level hiring in state and local law
enforcement agencies are likely to create an unlawful disparate impact and
are not necessary for selecting the most qualified candidates. “Reliance
on these tests can create an unnecessary barrier to the hiring of qualified
racial minority applicants,” say the Advancing Diversity in Law
Enforcement recommendations issued to fulfill the 21st Century Policing
initiative. The Justice in Policing Act also adopts the Obama term
“guardians of the community” to better describe what police work should
be.
Under the new law monitoring of the nation’s police will be
conducted by a National Task Force on Law Enforcement Oversight made up of
labor groups and the previously named leftist community-based
organizations. They will coordinate the process of the detection and
referral of complaints regarding incidents of alleged law enforcement
misconduct. A National Police Misconduct Registry will also include
complaints for which the law enforcement officer was exonerated or that
were determined to be unfounded or not sustained. The federal database will
also feature a breakdown of officer incidents by race, ethnicity, age and
gender of the officer.
Governor Newsom Ordered to Respond to Judicial Watch’s Petition
to Suspend $79.8 Million Cash Benefits to Illegal Immigrants
As I previously reported,
we petitioned a California court for an order pausing the spending of
millions in taxpayer dollars on illegal immigrants as part of Governor
Gavin Newsom’s initiative called the “Disaster Relief Assistance for
Immigrants Project.”
This week California’s Second District Court of Appeal ordered Newsom to
file his opposition to our petition.
Though a lower court found that we were likely to succeed on the merits
(that Governor Newsom had no authority under law to spend the money), the
court found that there was a public interest in sending taxpayer money to
illegal aliens during the coronavirus crisis and rejected a request for a
temporary restraining order.
We filed the initial
case on behalf of California residents Cynthia Cerletti and Howard A.
Myers against Governor Newsom and Director of the California Department of
Social Services Kim Johnson to get a court to declare the initiative
unlawful as well as obtain an injunction stopping the spending of this
taxpayer money on illegal immigrants ( Cerletti
et al. v. Newsom et al. (No 20STCV16321)).
Our lawsuit alleges that Governor Newsom violated federal law when, without
affirmative state legislative approval, he took executive action to create
the initiative. It gives $75 million in cash benefits to illegal
immigrants and $4.8 million to private nonprofit organizations handling the
distribution of the $75 million.
In our petition for stay, we argue:
[T]he distribution of cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens
during the pendency of this appeal also will bring irreparable harm to
Petitioners and the public at large – an estimated 40 million
Californians, especially during this time of unprecedented need.
Indisputably, the $79.8 million expenditure is an enormous, unprecedented
grant of taxpayers’ funds – the lawfulness of which is the very
question of the underlying action.
Here’s the background.
We initially
filed this lawsuit on behalf of the California residents on April 29,
2020. On May 4, it filed an application for a temporary
restraining order (TRO) halting the initiative’s spending money until
the final determination of the case. On May 5, the court denied
the TRO, and we sought a Writ of Mandamus from the Court of Appeal, seeking
to reverse the trial court.
On May 21, the Court of Appeal denied our Mandamus petition, ending that
appeal. In response, we filed a notice of appeal to start a new appeal from
the trial court’s denial of its TRO application.
On May 29, in connection with its May 21 notice of appeal, we filed a
petition for a Writ
of Supersedeas (a request for stay) as well as an immediate stay of the
initiative. The Court of Appeal denied the request for immediate stay but
ordered the California DOJ to file any opposition to our petition for a
stay by June 10.
On May 19, Fox News reported
that California started the Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants
Project allowing undocumented immigrants to, “apply for the state’s
coronavirus relief program that will pay $500 per person and up to $1,000
per household…”. They added that California currently has about “2
million undocumented immigrants” and that, “the fund could hit $125
million, which would include $50 million from donations.”
In a separate Judicial Watch taxpayer
lawsuit, a federal court just ruled
that a Montgomery County, MD, program that provides $10 million in cash
payments to illegal aliens likely violates federal law and irreparably
harms county taxpayers. The court ordered
the county to hold back 25% of any unspent funds until the court can fully
consider the merits of our taxpayer lawsuit.
We hope the courts won’t continue to allow Governor Newsom to ignore the
law and spend tax money with no legal authority. Simply put, as one court
already seemed to acknowledge, the governor has no independent legal
authority to spend state taxpayer money for cash payments to illegal
aliens. Newsom is engaged in an unprecedented scheme to spend nearly $80
million in taxpayer funds. It is urgent the Court of Appeal look favorably
upon our appeal and halt this abuse pending full consideration by the
courts.
Obama-Protected Dreamers Contribute to Crime and Damage in
Protests
It’s apparent that the riots in recent days have attracted the worst sort
of thugs into the streets to destroy whatever they find. Our Corruption
Chronicles blog has an eye-opening report
on the involvement of “Dreamers,” President Obama’s protected illegal
immigrants.
Illegal immigrants protected by an Obama-era amnesty for adults who
came to the U.S. as children are among the rioters arrested and charged
with crimes in Arizona. One of them, 30-year-old Mexican illegal alien
Maxima Guerrero, is a community organizer with a Phoenix-based grassroots
migrant justice organization called Puente
Movement. She has been shielded from deportation under Obama’s
controversial program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) since 2013. The former president issued the DACA executive order
after Congress repeatedly rejected legislation offering illegal immigrants
similar protections. The failed measure was called Development Relief and
Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act) and DACA recipients are often called
“Dreamers.”
More than 100,000 DACA applicants have criminal histories, according
to figures
released late last year by the U.S. government. Many have been arrested for
serious crimes such as murder, rape and driving under the influence. The
government can deport those charged with crimes, immediately stripping them
of the Obama protections but that rarely occurs. The recent Phoenix
arrestees were apprehended in the course of criminal behavior, according to
a local news
report and information obtained by Judicial Watch from police sources
on the ground. Guerrero and two other Dreamers were out rioting and looting
in a “Justice for George Floyd” protest in downtown Phoenix, city
police sources tell Judicial Watch. Phoenix Police Chief Jeri Williams said
this in the media about the vehicles occupied by the arrested Dreamers:
“Those cars were used to fortify and give rocks and water bottles, food
to those individuals who were there to commit crime and damage, to do
dangerous things to our community.”
The information is especially relevant considering the source is an
open borders advocate. A few years ago Williams, who joined
protestors in downtown Phoenix, tried to make her law enforcement
agency an illegal immigrant sanctuary at the request of a leftist group.
Judicial Watch obtained records
of a secret meeting in 2017 in which the police chief of Arizona’s
largest city took orders from Will Goana, policy director for the state
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The private session
occurred just weeks before the Phoenix Police Department quietly
implemented a policy banning officers from contacting the feds after
arresting an illegal immigrant and forbidding them from asking about
suspects’ immigration status. The order violated key provision of a state
law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and left the city vulnerable to costly
lawsuits. Chief Williams posted on social
media that she attended protests because demonstrators invited her as
part of ongoing meetings to find viable solutions to their genuine
concerns. “I’m confident our community can come together and be
stronger,” she writes in the post.
The illegal immigrant Dreamers recently arrested by her officers are
Mexican citizens who came to the U.S. illegally as youngsters and enjoy
perks and protections that many other undocumented aliens do not. Part of
the deal is that they respect law and order to avoid being deported.
Instead, they were out at 3 a.m., well past a statewide
curfew, and up to no good. A vehicle occupied by the illegal alien
Dreamers, was “loaded with incendiary devices,” according to a
high-level Phoenix Police source, who confirmed to Judicial Watch that
Guerrero was among them. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) obtained
a list
from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of those arrested that
night. Besides Guerrero they include 26-year-old Jesus Manuel Orona,
21-year-old Roberto Carlos Cortes Mondragon and 22-year-old Johan Montes
Cuevas. CIS reported last week that all of the illegal aliens were briefly
detained, released on supervision and face deportation in addition to
serious criminal charges.
DACA has shielded nearly 800,000 illegal aliens under the age of 31
from deportation and allowed them to obtain work permits and drivers
licenses. The Trump administration tried to end DACA in 2017 but open
borders groups sued to keep it going and now the Supreme Court is set to
decide the matter. Regardless of how the high court rules, the fact remains
that a big chunk of DACA applicants have arrest records, according to the
figures released by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the
Homeland Security agency that administers the nation’s lawful immigration
system. The stats show that nearly 110,000 DACA requestors out of nearly
889,000 had arrest records, accounting for 12% of applicants. “Offenses
in these arrest records include assault, battery, rape, murder and driving
under the influence,” USCIS wrote in a statement announcing the report in
November.
Here is another disturbing fact; of approved DACA requestors with an
arrest, a whopping 85% (67,861) were arrested right before the U.S. granted
them amnesty. Nearly 25,000 DACA recipients with arrests had multiple
arrests and 218 had more than 10 arrests. Incredibly, around one-fourth of
the illegal immigrants with more than 10 arrests were approved by the
government. In all, the government reveals that it has approved 79,398 DACA
requestors with arrest records. Not all the delinquents are approved, the
figures show. More than 100,000 with criminal arrests were denied or
terminated.
Until next week …
 |
