Taxpayers will Subsidize Democrat Boots on the Ground This Election

People casting their votes

Progressives are using legal loopholes and the power of the federal government to maximize Democrat votes in the 2024 election at taxpayers’ expense, RealClearInvestigations has found.

The methods include voter registration and mobilization campaigns by ostensibly nonpartisan charities that target Democrats using demographic data as proxies, and the Biden administration’s unprecedented demand that every federal agency “consider ways to expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process.”

Read More

Commentary: Mail Ballot Security Is Under Nationwide Assault

The Left loves to tout universal mail-in voting. Liberal enclaves like California, Hawaii, and Oregon have implemented it, while activists push aggressively to impose mail-in voting on Americans. But even as they push it, despite repeated instances of fraud, the Left simultaneously attacks any efforts to make vulnerable mail voting more secure. Indeed, the Left holds outright disdain for even minimal safeguards for mail ballots.

Read More

Democratic Law Firm Argues Mail Boxes ‘Unsecure’ for Voting, in Wisconsin Suit Pushing for Ballot Drop Boxes

In a lawsuit to overturn a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that concluded ballot drop boxes are illegal, a Democratic election law firm is now arguing that U.S. Postal Service mailboxes are in fact “unsecured.”

The state’s high court ruled last year, in a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Elections Commission was not authorized to allow the use of the such boxes, as alternative balloting, during the 2020 presidential election.

Read More

Election Transparency Initiative Denounces Marc Elias’ Requested Change to Electoral Count Act Reform

A right-leaning election reform outfit on Wednesday denounced the current version of legislation to reform the Electoral Count Act, particularly a provision urged by Democratic election attorney Marc Elias. 

The original act was enacted in 1887 to prevent presidential election crises such as that of 1876, during which three states submitted competing groups of electors, forcing Congress to determine how to resolve the count. Ultimately Republican Rutherford B. Hayes emerged victorious over Democrat Samuel Tilden. 

Read More

Commentary: Moore v. Harper Terrifies Democrats for Good Reason

The U.S. Supreme Court finally heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper last week. The case involves a mundane constitutional issue concerning the definition of “legislature” as used in the elections clause. Yet it has produced panic among Democrats and a torrent of portentous predictions about the death of democracy from various leftist law professors. In the Washington Post, for example, Harvard University’s Noah Feldman expressed alarm that the court took up the “insane” case at all.

Is Moore v. Harper really insane? Of course not. The case arose early this year when the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a redistricting map produced by the state Legislature, then replaced it with a redistricting scheme of its own. The North Carolina General Assembly petitioned SCOTUS for relief on the grounds that this action violated Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

Read More

Democrats’ Top Election Lawyer Litigating Nearly 50 Cases Against Republicans

The Democratic Party’s top elections attorney and his firm are litigating nearly 50 different post-election cases in 19 states to affect their results, he announced on Sunday night.

Marc Elias, the founder of Elias Law Group, which bills itself as “committed to helping Democrats win, citizens vote, and progressives make change,” announced that it was representing clients in 19 states, for a total of 48 cases. The cases have involved either legal defenses to challenges brought by GOP candidates regarding election issues, or efforts to change election laws in favor of Democratic candidates.

Read More

Commentary: America’s Electoral System Is Suffering from a Credibility Crisis

Defying all predictions of a photo finish senate race, Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman won 50.3% of the vote to Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz’s 47.3%. The unexpectedly large margin helped avoid a midterm meltdown. But don’t be deceived; that margin masks major electoral system dysfunction that remains unaddressed.

If the margins had been narrower, things might have looked very different. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf last year vetoed a commonsense measure that would have modernized Pennsylvania’s Depression-era voting laws. As a result, the Commonwealth is saddled with a ponderous mail voting system bolted onto a rickety election code that forbids routine practices like voter ID and pre-processing mail ballots. Those policies secure elections and speed tabulations, but were vetoed by Wolf last year.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Counting Undated Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballots

The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a lower federal court’s decision Tuesday allowing Pennsylvania counties to count undated mail-in ballots. 

The case originated in 2021 after Republican David Ritter and Democrat Zachary Cohen vied for a judgeship on the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas and their race came to a near tie. Cohen eventually netted a five-vote lead when the Philadelphia-based Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved a dispute between the candidates about whether to count 257 absentee ballots. Those sheets were returned in envelopes on which the voter failed to write a date. 

Read More