The left really just wants to eliminate elections, practically speaking. I mean, they want the elections to begin, you know, weeks before election day, and then weeks after election day. We’ve had a lot going on this week. I always picked the wrong week to travel, but what’s great about Judicial Watch is it’s a team effort, right? And I’m honored to be able to talk each week about the fine work our investigators and lawyers do to, as I know, to protect the Constitution, educate Americans about what their government’s up to. And we had a big lawsuit filed in Mississippi, one of two lawsuits on the issue over whether states can legally count ballots that arrive after election day.

I think there are 19 states, either nine or 19 now. Now, I hope I’m not misremembering. But there are several states that allow the counting ballots that arrive after election day, which is a clear-cut violation of federal law. And we’ve sued in two of those states. Illinois, they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days past election day, including ballots that don’t have a postmark. Now, in that case, we filed on behalf of a congressman, a congressman boss running for office, and the court strangely said a candidate doesn’t have standing to challenge this type of illegality in court, meaning that he’s not being harmed, which we don’t agree with.

It doesn’t make any sense. I’m not a lawyer. You’re probably not a lawyer if you’re listening to this. Does that make sense to you that a candidate doesn’t have standing to challenge an election law that’s in violation of federal law? Of course, they do. We also have another lawsuit in Mississippi we filed. They count votes up to five days after election day. And we represent the Libertarian Party in that case. And the court in that case, the lower district court, the federal court, had a hearing this week on our case. And this is what we describe in our lawsuit about what the issues are.

And then it’s a civil rights lawsuit, by the way. These are civil rights lawsuits that vindicate the rule of law. And this is the quote from our lawsuit. Under federal law, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, of every even number year is election day, election for federal elections. Congress recently reaffirmed a single national election day when it enacted the Electoral Count Reform Act. Under the recent congressional amendments, no extension of election day shall be allowed unless there are forced measure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic that justify extension. Despite Congress’s 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 received absentee ballots.

No forced measure of events that are extraordinary and catastrophic currently exist in Mississippi to justify extending the deadline for the November 5, 2024 federal election for presidential and vice presidential elections. Counting untimely the 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 plaintiffs members, members of our clients party, and others in support of the plaintiffs federal nominees. So these are illicit votes that essentially cancel out and dilute legal votes.

1.7% of the votes cast in Mississippi were received after election day. I don’t need to tell you that’s enough to swing an election one way or any other. 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 constitutional rights of voters, and obviously encourages fraud, and generally undermines confidence in the outcome of elections because it just necessarily invites fraud. Because on election day, you know who’s leading more or less, and it’s a number that can be, it’s going to be tempting to find in votes that come in after election day.

It’s an awful, it’s besides being illegal, it’s just an awful policy. And this is a sort of heavy lifting that Judicial Watch does. Now the court, because we’ve cleaned up the voter rolls, we defend voter ID, and we’re trying to stop this effort to decimate the rule of law on elections and turn them into something that is so compromised that people don’t have confidence. And that could be the end of our republic. If people completely blow off elections in terms of believing the outcome one way or the other, that’d be terrible.

And so we’re trying to restore confidence in our elections by ensuring they run fairly and cleanly, as reasonably as possible. So the court had the hearing. Obviously understood the issues involved. He’s probably going to rule initially, or rule one way or the other within a month or two. So pray for wisdom and discernment by the judge, and I’ll keep you updated as events warrant. I mean, and to me, irrespective of how this court rules, I mean, the left really just wants to eliminate elections, practically speaking. I mean, they want the elections to begin weeks before election day and then weeks after election day.

I mean, we don’t need an election season. There’s no way on earth that any sensible government or nation would allow elections to occur over the course of weeks. But that’s not an election. That’s like a rolling survey. We need to get back to election day. We really do. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.