If you want the roles clean, if you want elections honest, if you want the Supreme Court to rule that candidates have a right to make sure that elections aren’t stolen in federal court and should be able to pursue claims under law. If you want all sorts of other issues related to transparency and accountability over censorship, and covering the corruption of the Deep State FBI, and be willing to take on an administration or a justice department no matter who’s running it, then you’ll love Judicial Watch and support our work. And so what I love about Judicial Watch, we’ve got our lawyers on one coast here in Washington, D.C., and almost simultaneously we have our lawyers in Eugene, Oregon across the country.

So we had our lawyers here in Washington, D.C., arguing for transparency on the censorship operation against Americans over really election integrity issues in many ways. And in Oregon, we were in federal court arguing for our case over cleaning up the election rolls, which of course, again, is essential to election integrity. The case has been going on for a bit now, and we were in court trying to convince the court to reject the defendant’s efforts and others’ efforts to get our case dismissed in large measure due to the fact that supposedly no one has standing to ever question whether election rolls are clean as federal law requires.

And I explained the Oregon case in this previous update snippet that I’m going to have played for you now. It is number 21. It’s voting rolls, which are a mess. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls, and Oregon hasn’t been doing that. In fact, our new lawsuit just filed for and with the Constitution Party of Oregon and Oregon voters details how 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100 percent. Frankly, Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation.

You know, dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon, as I said, has some of the worst voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up as soon as possible. In the meantime, Judicial Watch has lawsuits to clean up voting rolls in California and Illinois. Simply put, millions of ineligible names need to be removed from the voter rolls under federal law, and Judicial Watch has been, is, and will be in federal court making it happen. And so for the first time in a long time, we also had support in this case, at least in part, from the Justice Department, Harmeet Dillon’s Civil Rights Division, which for years, even during Republican administrations, has been a hotbed for radical left-wing activism.

And they filed a brief statement of interest advocating at least for access to the information that we’re seeking related to voting rolls. And so I’m not quite sure how the case is going to go, but I am of the belief that our ability to clean up the rolls, in the end, has to be maintained by the courts. The idea that the states don’t take the steps that the federal law requires under the National Order Registration Act, reasonable steps to clean up the rolls, and no one will be able to do anything about it, that just can’t be the case, ultimately.

And this is all they have to do. It’s not like a difficult issue, and you may not know what the process is, but we do, because our work basically codified the process through Supreme Court and other judicial decisions and settlements. As I’ve mentioned, we’ve cleaned up five million names from the rolls, thanks to our litigation and legal action thus far. And so what happens is, and I talked about this with you just recently, if you go to vote, let’s say I go to vote, or I don’t vote in the next federal election. So let’s win this next federal election, next year, 2026.

The state or locality, and I live in the district, they would send me a card saying, hey, Fitten, why didn’t you vote? Are you still there? That’s not literally what they say, but that’s the effect of what they’re asking, because if you’re not there, we’re going to take your name off the rolls. And if I don’t respond to the card, or if I don’t vote over the next two federal election cycles, so that’s four-plus years, including the time associated with getting the card out. So it could be five-plus years before my name is ultimately removed, assuming I’ve moved away, or I don’t respond or vote.

Now, the left doesn’t want any of those names cleaned up, practically speaking, and they’re fighting us tooth and nail in all these jurisdictions when we go to court. Some of these liberal jurisdictions, when we come in, believe it or not, they say, hey, judicial watch, you’re right. Let’s clean up the rolls. That happened in New York City. We said you haven’t cleaned up the rolls in 10 years there. And they said, you’re right. In the last year or so, plus, they’ve cleaned a million names from the rolls, just in New York City alone. So just don’t think just because it’s, quote, a blue state or states run by liberals that there’s no justice to be had.

We sued in California to clean up the rolls there. They settled 1.2 million names cleaned up in L.A. County alone. Now, the rest of the state’s a mess. We have a new lawsuit trying to vindicate the rule of law there. But the point being, we can get it done everywhere. And that’s why we’re in Illinois right now, in California right now, and, as I said, just in Oregon. And I encourage you to go and take a look at all of Judicial Watch’s significant work on election integrity. And, of course, one of the most significant cases in recent American history on election integrity is going to be in front of the Supreme Court because of your Judicial Watch.

We’re challenging the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day, mail-in ballots. In Illinois, they count ballots that arrive after Election Day for 14 days. And rather than let our client, Congressman Mike Boss, challenge it, because federal law sets an election day, not an election week or month, the courts below found that he didn’t have standing, which, in my view, is absurd. The candidate can’t challenge the illicit counting of ballots contrary to federal law as alleged in our lawsuit. Who can? And the Supreme Court evidently wants to figure out whether we’re right, and they agreed to take up the case.

And I think the case is going to be heard in October or November, or as soon as October or November could be later. So the issue about whether a candidate essentially can go to court to challenge and try to stop an election from being stolen, that’s a pretty big deal, wouldn’t you agree? And that’s going to be before the Supreme Court next term. It’s a great work Judicial Watch is doing. As I said this week, on one day, on Tuesday, I think it was Tuesday, maybe it was Wednesday. No, it was Wednesday. We had our lawyers arguing to uncover the worst censorship in American history, documents related to it.

In federal court here in Washington, D.C. And on the other end of the country, we had another team of lawyers arguing to ensure that Judicial Watch and the local party out there, the Constitution Party and others, had the right to go in and ensure that Oregon, who has some of the dirtiest roles in the country, clean up their roles as federal law requires. And I dare you to find anyone else on the conservative side of the aisle that is doing that type of work and is capable of doing that type of work. It’s just great.

And we’re only able to do it with your support. And before I move on, I want to ask for your support again, because we can’t do it without you. Go to judicialwatch.org. If you want the roles clean, if you want elections honest, if you want the Supreme Court to rule that candidates have a right to make sure that elections aren’t stolen in federal court and should be able to pursue claims under law, if you want all sorts of other issues related to transparency and accountability over censorship, uncovering the corruption of the deep state FBI, and be willing to take on an administration or a justice department no matter who’s running it, then you’ll love Judicial Watch and support our work.

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