Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Answers About
its Challenge to Georgia’s Voter Integrity Bill
For years we have reported
on Democrats blocking efforts to make elections honest. Not surprisingly,
the problem continues under Joe Biden.
The latest battlefield is Georgia. We filed a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of
communications between the DOJ and various left-wing groups and individuals
concerning the DOJ’s decision to challenge Georgia’s election integrity
law (Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:21-cv-02427)).
We filed the lawsuit on September 15, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, after the DOJ failed to respond to a July 26,
2021, FOIA request to the Justice Department’s Voting Section of the
Civil Rights Division for the following records:
- All documents and communications between (1) the U.S. Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division, or any of their officers, employees,
members, agents, or affiliates, and (2) any of the following people and
organizations, including any of their officers, members, agents, parent
organizations, affiliated entities, branches, subordinate organizations, or
chapters, concerning the U.S. Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Act
Section 2 lawsuit against the State of Georgia, et al., in the Northern
District of Georgia, Civ. No. 21-2575:
ACLU Foundation of Georgia, American Civil
Liberties Union, League of Women Voters, Brennan Center for Justice,
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Common Cause, NAACP, Georgia
State Conference of the NAACP, Campaign Legal Center, Fair Fight, Fair
Fight Action, Stacy Abrams, Perkins Coie LLP, Marc Elias.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit
challenging Georgia’s election law asks the court to strike down major
parts of the act, including strengthened voter ID requirements for voting
by mail.
The leftists who control the Justice Department have a long record of
working hand in glove with extremist and partisan interest groups who
oppose any efforts to make it harder to steal votes and elections.
A week after the DOJ filed its lawsuit against Georgia, on July 1 of this
year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld
two Arizona voting provisions that Democrats and civil rights groups
had challenged as disproportionately burdening minority voters. We and the
Allied Educational Foundation filed amici
curiae (friends of the court) briefs in support of Arizona’s law. The
court’s decision is what I called a knockout
blow to the Left’s tsunami of harassing lawsuits challenging
virtually any effort by any state to modestly increase the security of
elections and minimize the impact of voter fraud.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Left appears to have become
desperate to short circuit the efforts of states to implement security
measures such as voter ID.
We remain front and center in the fight for clean elections, from our historic
election integrity victory in L.A. County, to the current
election-related lawsuits in North
Carolina, Pennsylvania
and Colorado.
Attorney Robert Popper is the director of our clean elections
initiative.
In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a
voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from our settlement of a federal
lawsuit with Ohio. Kentucky began
cleaning up hundreds of thousands of old registrations in 2019 after it too
entered a consent decree in 2018 to end another of our lawsuits.
Based on this research, in 2020, a federal court ordered the
State of Maryland to produce complete voter registration records for
Montgomery County that include the registered voters’ dates of birth.
In September 2020, we filed a lawsuit on
behalf of the Illinois Conservative Union (ICU) and three of its officers,
after Illinois state officials refused to allow them to obtain a copy of
the state’s voter registration database. In June 2021, a federal
court ruled the
lawsuit could proceed.
After years of litigation, it is hard not to conclude that the Democrats
can’t win the game and so must change the rules.
HHS Documents Reveal Sexual and Physical Abuse of Unaccompanied
Minors
The Biden border crisis is as heartbreaking as it is horrible.
We received 41
pages of documents from the Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Refugee Resettlement that list 33 separate incidences of alleged
sexual abuse in just one month.
The records include a spreadsheet
of data that lists 33 “sexual abuse allegations” involving
“unaccompanied children” (UAC) for the time period of January 21, 2021,
to February 26, 2021. These incidents seemed to be tied to “voluntary
agencies” (VOLAGs), which are contractors for the federal government. Ten
of the allegations of sexual abuse were made against staff and
“non-staff” members. Twenty-one incidents of children sexually
assaulting other children while in government contracted care facilities
were reported. See the data for yourself:
No. | Event ID | SA Type of Incident | SA Type of Allegation |
Program Name
1 290249 Sexual
Abuse Staff and UAC Friends of Youth McEachern
2 290519 Sexual
Abuse Staff and UAC BCFS San Antonio Staff Secure
3 290969 Sexual
Abuse UAC and Other Bethany Christian Services TFC
Michigan
4 291649 Sexual
Abuse UAC and UAC Lincoln Hall Boys Haven
5 292060 Sexual
Abuse Staff and UAC Mercy First RTC
6 292284 Sexual
Abuse UAC and UAC Abbott House TFC
7 292365 Sexual
Abuse Non-Staff Adult and UAC Bethany LIRS
8 294303 Sexual
Abuse Non-Staff Adult and UAC Cayuga Centers
9 294669 Sexual
Abuse UAC and UAC Sunny Glen Childrens Home New Day Resiliency
Center
10 295225 Sexual Abuse
UAC and UAC Sunny Glen Childrens Home New Day Resiliency
Center
11 296007 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Southwest Key Casa Padre
12 296169 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Sunny Glen Childrens Home New Day Resiliency
Center
13 296641 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Southwest Key Casa Padre
14 296810 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Southwest Key El Presidente
15 297632 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Southwest Key Casa Padre
16 298189 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Heartland Inti Childrens RC
17 298428 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Leake and Watts
18 298597 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Sunny Glen Childrens Home New Day Resiliency
Center
19 298743 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC CHS Stanford House
20 298928 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC His House
21 299067 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Children First Residential Care TX Sunnyside
22 299640 Sexual Abuse
Non-Staff Adult and UC Southwest Key Rio Grande
23 299761 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Mercy First RTC
24 300102 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Friends of Youth Colin Ferguson
25 300290 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Sunny Glen Childrens Home New Day Resiliency
Center
26 300467 Sexual Abuse
Non-Staff Adult and UC Southwest Key El Presidente
27 300532 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC BCFS Raymondville
28 300650 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Southwest Key Cas a Houston
29 300706 Sexual Abuse
Non-Staff Adult and UC Southwest Key Casa Padre
30 300804 Sexual Abuse UC
and UC Children's Home of Poughkeepsie- Nuevas Alas
Program
31 300848 Sexual Abuse UC
and Other SWK Processing Center
32 301043 Sexual Abuse
Non-Staff Adult and UC Southwest Key Antigua
33 301253 Sexual Abuse
Staff and UC Cayuga Centers L TFC
No details were provided as to who the alleged attackers or victims were
other than that they were UACs. Additionally, no incident reports were
provided by HHS.
On February 22, 2021, at the BCFS (Baptist Children and Family Services)
shelter in Baytown, Texas, a UAC reported
that another UAC, a 17-year-old boy from Guatemala, had been punched with a
closed fist in his ribcage by his roommate while the victim was lying down.
The victim of the alleged attack did not want to discuss it with shelter
officials. The report notes “Minor was moved to another room to ensure
other minor’s safety.” The follow up questions in the report: “Was
the incident investigated?”; was it “Reported to CPS?”; and was it
“Reported to Local Law Enforcement?” were all answered “No.”
On April 7, 2021, Fox News reported:
“Gov. Greg Abbott demanded that the White House close a San Antonio
facility housing migrant children Wednesday following allegations that
children there were being sexually assaulted.” Additionally, “The
governor said that separate complaints were sent to the Department of
Health and Human Services and the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services Wednesday, alleging four different kinds of child abuse.”
And it was recently confirmed
that the Biden administration just this year alone “lost contact with
thousands” of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children who had been
released from federal custody.
We forced the release of the documents through a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) lawsuit
filed against Health and Human Services for:
All summaries from individual case files of reports of physical and/or
sexual abuse or assault of Unaccompanied Alien Children under the care of
HHS, its sub-agencies, and or VOLAGs [voluntary agency], contractors,
grantees, and sub-grantees, to include all segregable, non-exempt
information.
Records reflecting aggregated data of physical and/or sexual abuse and
assault of UACs under the care of HHS, its sub-agencies, and or VOLAGs,
contractors, grantees, and sub-grantees.
These documents show that not only are there shocking reports of sexual
abuse occurring in shelters for unaccompanied children, but that there is
violence amongst the UACs themselves. It is no surprise that the Biden
administration’s enabling of human trafficking has resulted in violence
and the abuse of children.
Judicial Watch Sues HHS for Details of Biden’s COVID-19 Community
Corps
This spring, the Biden Administration announced that HHS was going to
launch “a nationwide, grassroots network of local voices and trusted
community leaders to encourage vaccinations, with more than 275 founding
member organizations that have the ability to reach millions of
Americans.” We want to know the details.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department
of Health and Human Services seeking all records related to the so-called
COVID-19 Community Corps (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No.
1:21-cv-02315)).
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after HHS
failed to reply to an April 19, 2021, FOIA request for:
- All records regarding the Department of Health and Human Services’
“COVID-19 Community Corps” program, which was announced
by the department on April 1, 2021. This request includes the
following:
- All records depicting the application process and selection criteria
for organizations participating in the program.
- All records related to the consideration of any organization
considered for participation in the program that were not selected.
- All records concerning any awarded or proposed related grants or
contracts with any organization participating in the program.
- All related records of communication between any representative of the
Department of Health and Human Services and any representative of any
organization participating in the program.
The HHS
website describes the COVID-19 Community Corps as “an initiative to
increase confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and reinforce basic prevention
measures.” The government program also seeks to enlist minors (16 and
older). The site reports
“over 4,000 organizations and almost 10,000 individuals across the United
States have joined the COVID-19 Community Corps. They’ve committed to
take action to encourage their families, friends, and members of their
communities to get vaccinated for COVID-19.”
The federal government organizing a ‘corps’ of private individuals,
minors, corporations, and unions to push controversial COVID policies is
concerning. Also concerning is the Biden administration’s unlawful
refusal to turn over records about this program to the American people.
Judicial Watch Sues HHS for Biodistribution Studies of the COVID
Vaccines
The Biden Administration isn’t eager to reveal some of the details of how
the vaccines were tested before they were distributed. One type of testing,
biodistribution,
studies how a vaccine moves through the body.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) for biodistribution studies and related
data for the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No.
1:21-cv-02418)).
We sued after the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Allergy and
Infectious Disease failed to respond to a June 8, 2021, FOIA request for:
[A]ccess to biodistribution studies and related data for the Pfizer,
Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines used to treat and/or prevent
SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19.
Similarly, HHS’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority
(BARDA) failed to respond to the same request sent on July 15, 2021, after
the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease advised us that
BARDA “would be the appropriate federal agency to submit a request,” to
obtain the records if they existed.
The Biden administration should follow the law and release any
biodistribution studies concerning the vaccines. Americans have a right to
know as much as possible about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19
vaccines.
California Judge Heard Arguments on Gender Quotas for Corporate
Boards
This week, Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis of the California Superior Court heard
arguments in our case challenging California’s gender quotas for
corporate boards.
We filed suit in
Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 6, 2019, on behalf of three
California taxpayers, Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The
2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826 (SB 826), requires every publicly held
corporation headquartered in California to have at least one director
“who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its board of directors
by December 31, 2019. The law also requires corporations to have up to
three such persons on their boards by December 31, 2021, depending on the
size of the board (Robin
Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla (No.19STCV27561)).
The lawsuit alleges that the quota violates the Equal Protection Clause of
the California Constitution, among other provisions, and asks the court to
order that no taxpayer funds be spent on the illegal provision. Both
sides have asked the court to enter judgment in their favor. The hearing
was to address those requests.
In July 2020, the court cleared the way for the lawsuit to proceed, holding
that our clients had standing under state law to sue.
We argue
in our court filings:
SB 826 requires that subject corporations set aside a certain number of
board seats for women or create new seats for which only women may
apply…. SB 826 imposes the additional requirement that one or more seats
be set aside or created for women. The only criterion for occupying these
seats is being female. Men are excluded from the seats no matter how
well-qualified they might be …
We included expert
analysis from Jonathan Klick, Ph.D., J.D., an expert in econometrics,
statistics, and corporate law, who concludes:
In my opinion, the evidence offered in [the] declarations supporting
Secretary Padilla’s motion for each of these points (underrepresentation
of women on boards, discrimination as the cause of this
underrepresentation, and that research shows a differential benefit of
appointing women, as opposed to men, in terms of firm performance) is
deficient and unreliable.
California politicians want to use SB826 to upend decades of settled
constitutional law that prohibits discrimination based on sex. We hope this
lawsuit vindicates the rule of law and the commonsense principle that the
way to end any discrimination based on sex is to stop discriminating on the
basis of the sex.
Until next week …
|
