➡ Judicial Watch is taking a case to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. They argue this law goes against federal law, which sets Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and could lead to voter fraud. The case also questions whether candidates for office have the right to challenge such laws. The outcome of this case could significantly impact future elections nationwide.
➡ The article discusses a legal case about whether ballots received after Election Day should be counted. Mississippi is challenging a law that allows ballots to be received up to five days after Election Day, arguing it goes against federal law. The article also mentions a case in California where two Democrats won seats due to counting of late ballots. The author argues that counting ballots after Election Day invites voter fraud and undermines voter confidence.
➡ The text discusses concerns about judges overstepping their constitutional powers and interfering with President Trump’s policy initiatives. It also criticizes the Biden administration’s handling of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, arguing that it was forced on people without sufficient concern for potential risks. The text calls for accountability and transparency in these matters, and suggests that these issues are undermining the foundation of the nation.

The Supreme Court of the United States is about to hear a landmark case that could reshape how elections are run nationwide. Judicial Watch is challenging an Illinois law that allows the counting of mail in ballots that arrive up to 14 days after election day. That’s two weeks beyond the date set by federal law. Even ballots that arrive without a postmark can be counted. Federal law says the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even numbered year is Election Day. For federal elections. Extending the counting of ballots doesn’t just run counter to federal law.

It invites voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. Judicial Watch argues that Illinois’s law violates federal law and threatens election integrity. In addition, we argue candidates running for office should be able to challenge these sorts of laws in court. Until recently, it was self evident that candidates could sue to challenge election regulations. However, two lower courts ruled that our clients candidates for federal office lacked the basis to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received after Election Day. Standing is the legal term for this legal right to pursue a lawsuit in court. Judicial Watch lawyers responded that candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources.

They also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. If a candidate can’t challenge the illicit counting of ballots contrary to federal law, who can? This is the exact issue now before the Supreme Court. No other legal organization has matched Judicial Watch’s record in ensuring free and fair elections. The outcome of this Supreme Court case could impact how elections are run for years to come. And you can be sure Judicial Watch will continue to fight for election integrity because no one is above the law. Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court case is accelerating.

We filed a key brief the last few weeks, the opening brief and Judicial Watch’s lawsuit that’s before the Supreme Court where we’re representing a member of Congress, Congressman Boss, and two presidential electors and trying to vindicate their right to challenge a dubious, or that’s a charitable way of putting it, unlawful election rule that allows the counting of ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election. And we did a quick video explaining the issue here. We will go to clip 15 to help you understand it. Judicial Watch is taking its election integrity fight to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal for a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors challenging an Illinois law extending election day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law. The lower Courts had previously denied that Congressman Bost and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received for up to two weeks after Election Day. In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch argues, despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote by mail ballots.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton had this to say about the upcoming Supreme Court action. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights and ensure election integrity. Illinois’s 14 day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. Last year, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after election day. Visit judicialwatch.org to learn more. So this is the brief. This is what it looks like. What is it about? It’s longer than I thought it is.

How many pages long? Looks like it’s almost 50 pages or 45 pages long. Yeah, 48 pages long. Explaining why the Supreme Court should rule in our clients favor that federal law gives candidates or candidates have standing under the Constitution to challenge the lawlessness that’s going on in Illinois. And as we highlight in the brief, it’s really a straightforward issue and you know, I’m sure we can always lose. Right. But I’d be hard pressed to figure out how that would happen. And this is why it’s such a strong case. Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as federal Election Day.

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legal valid votes cast. Does it get any more straightforward than that? Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. So obviously if a campaign is going to last until election day plus two more weeks. Two? Yeah, I thought I put up three.

Two more weeks. Of course, candidates need to know what’s going on and if those two weeks are unlawfully imposed on him, he has a right to object through a federal court action like we’re providing for him here. So they have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest, interest in quote, ensuring that the Final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. Now, Judicial Watch’s legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court. It’s obvious that candidates have standing to challenge unlawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources.

It’s straightforward. And the government’s response, or Illinois’s response is due, I think, relatively soon. And it has to be all done, I think, by September, because we also received news that October 8th is the date of the oral argument before the Supreme Court. That’s when the court actually comes back into session for its new term that week, the first Monday of October. So our argument is going to be that Wednesday, October 8, Judicial Watch’s legal team is second to none. I may have talked to you about it already, but we’ve brought in Paul Clement to argue the case for us.

Paul has had 100 arguments before the Supreme Court, one of the country’s leading practitioners before the Supreme Court bar. It shows you that we’re playing to win here. We’re not coming into this case lightly. And on top of that, we’ve got a great election law team. Bob Popper, senior official, former senior official in the Justice Department, is running our election law operation here in Washington, D.C. we have Russ Nobeal, who’s been shepherding this case as well. Russ is a former attorney with the Justice Department, one of the nation’s preeminent experts on election law, and also my colleague Eric Lee, who’s been with us.

Of course, I should know how long Eric’s been with us, but he’s been doing so much work on election law, I tell you, I wouldn’t want to go up against Eric when it came to the facts in any matter of election law. So a tremendous team pushing this case forward, and we’re ready to go on October 8th. Right. And as I said in our release announcing the October 8th state, which was just which was just set this week. What did I say? Simply put, this is an historic election law challenge. Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules, such as the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive after election Day.

American citizens concerned about election integrity will tune in closely to Judicial Watch’s October 8th Supreme Court oral argument. And I think it’s going to be available online. Typically, these arguments are now available via audio, if not as the arguments are happening shortly thereafter. But secondly, this isn’t the only case related to election post election day counting of ballots that arrive after election day. We had a major victory in Mississippi where they count ballots for up to five days after election day. And that case, we were representing the libertarian party in Mississippi down there, and it was our case.

The Republicans came in as well. But, you know, we’ve been pushing this issue, and none of this would be where it is today but for Judicial Watches, heavy lifting. And the case was appealed. I think we lost at the lower court, and we appealed it to the fifth circuit court of appeals, which upheld our theory of the case and found the counting of ballots received after election day to be unlawful. Well, Mississippi, big hearing, a big victory, because that’s the only appellate court who I think have not only considered the issue, but then found in our favor.

There are 19 states that do it. Now, in the Fifth Circuit, you’re not supposed to do it counting ballots that arrive after election day. So they’ve appealed it up to the supreme Court. So not only are we fighting in this current case we have, but Mississippi is trying to get the supreme court to take another case which goes to the merits of the argument. So just to remember, the case that we have now before the court is about standing, meaning whether someone has the right to challenge the law at issue in court and should they get their day in court, the underlying merits of the case as to whether it’s lawful or not to extend election day by counting ballots that arrive after election day for what, five days, two weeks, who knows? Right.

That is being asked to go up to the court by Mississippi. Mississippi is seeking certificate. And so we urged the supreme court in response on behalf of our clients. I think it was just this week or last to say Mississippi’s law is unlawful. There’s no reason to even take up this case. And so the law stands. Congress, statutorily. This is the case we make. This is the case. What? Excuse me. This is what the fifth circuit opinion, upholding our theory of the law stated. Congress statutorily designated a singular day for the election of members of congress and the appointment of presidential electors.

Text, precedent and historical practice confirmed. This day for the election, quote, unquote, is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. And then they reverse the court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings. So Mississippi has challenged this decision. And so it could be that Judicial Watch has two supreme court cases this year if they take it up on election integrity. I mean, we’ve got this core issue about the rights of candidates to challenge illegal Election procedures.

And then we have this other case about the underlying principle involved, which is whether it’s lawful to basically take ballots for who knows how long after election Day and keep on counting them. I mean, under the logic of the supporters of this ability of states to count ballots that arrive after Election Day, what’s the limiting factor? Maybe you just keep the elections open until the next election. Right. There’s got to be an endpoint. And the endpoint is set in federal law. And I think it’s interesting because we’re having this fight about rigging elections. Right. And this issue in Texas related to redistricting and all of that, I don’t want to get too far into the weeds on that, but I find it more than a little bit interesting because we’ve litigated this in California, because we have a third case over California’s counting of ballots that arrive after election Day, seven days after Election Day, they take ballots in and count them.

And we’re representing Congressman Darrell Issa to try to stop that. And that case is on hold while our Supreme Court litigation proceeds. But we found in the course of investigating and setting up that lawsuit that two Democrats won seats in the House of Representatives only as a result of the counting of ballots that arrived after election Day. So there are two seats, I would argue, that should be flipped back to the Republican incumbents by the House enforce the rule of law on elections. And it’s disappointing they haven’t even raised that issue or looked into it. You could be sure Democrats would have if the shoe were on the other foot.

So, you know, for all the redistricting battles, there are two Democrat seats that arguably should be Republican seats could be switched at any minute or, you know, there’s no time limit to dealing with this. So these are sensitive issues. They go to how votes are counted, what counts as a lawful ballot, whether the rules matter, whether voter confidence matters. Because, you know, if they don’t know who won on election Day, most people presume something’s up. They’re just waiting for the number of votes to come in to ensure the candidate of their choice, the election officials candidate that they are interested in winning, actually wins.

I would go a step further. I would suggest that the law requires the certification of the winner on election day, that they have to know who won on election day. In 2020, President Trump had the votes to win the presidency on Election Day. That result changed as a result of post Election day counting. That is unprecedented in various swing states. And I tell you, if they had stuck to just counting the ballots that had gotten there on time and counting them in a timely way, he would have already been through his second term. But in the least, ballots that arrive after election Day, they can’t be counted.

I mean, there could be some exceptions to that, but the exceptions prove the rule. Election day means election Day. And to count ballots that arrive after Election Day invites voter fraud, is contrary to federal law and undermines voter confidence. So we got two major cases, one that’s hot, meaning the court is already taking it up before the Supreme Court. We’re going to argue on October 8th. And then there’s another case that the court may take up deciding whether or not Judicial Watch’s victory will stand on behalf of the rule of law in terms of outlawing or finding unlawful the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day.

And I tell you, if there’s anyone else doing more for this, tell me about them, because I want to work with them through Judicial Watch. But there no one is doing as much work as we are on these election integrity issues. I mean, I’ll tell you more about it later in the program, but this is historic work. You know, a lot of this is was one of the reasons 2020 turned out the way it did in terms of it being compromised and disputed because the courts didn’t want to provide standing to people challenging these rule changes as unlawful.

And I’m hoping the Supreme Court clarifies it and allows this to go forward. I want to give you an update on the judicial coup. The lawfare out of the judiciary against President Trump, which is just putting lives at risk and undermining our Republican form of government. And I had a tweet the other day, or actually it was just earlier today, just tracking. And this is only part of there’s so much going on. I can only put so much in a tweet. Judicial coup update. Court orders real Donald Trump administration to keep. So this is what happened in the last I think it’s literally two days.

A court ordered Trump the administration to keep funding grants to the corrupt AmeriCorps program. A judge says the Trump team can’t even detain for deportation, can’t even arrest the person foreign national who promoted terrorism. And an appeals court here in D.C. ordered Trump to personally rehire an official he had fired. Now, that’s really outrageous, that last one. They don’t no court has the ability to force the president to do something personally as president of the United States. They have authority over his agencies and such, but they can’t tell a president and join a President to do or not do something completely outside their power as a court.

But that’s the lawlessness we’re facing here. And to me, it’s a dangerous form of lawlessness. It’s impacting our lives. It’s placing our people at risk abroad and here at home as we’re dealing with these being forced to keep and secure these dangerous people that should be deported. It’s undermining our national security and our foreign policy, even messing with our economic policy. On Charles Payne the other day I talked about some out of control court in New York, the International, was it International Court of Trade, I think the name is, who basically said the president has no authority to issue any emergency or pursue any tariffs under the emergency powers specifically and broadly granted to him by Congress.

I talked about it a little bit with Charles Payne the other day. Let’s go to that. I want to bring in Judicial Watch there. President Tom Stolen. And Tom, you know, trade uncertainty now is back on the rise, but not from things happening inside the White House. It’s from all of this legal intervention, what’s going on here. Yeah, you had a three judge panel intervene and try to stop President Trump from pushing through his tariffs. And the markets reacted negatively to that because the court was acting in a way that brought uncertainty to the process. Now, if you’re a judge and you don’t like Trump’s policies, that’s your right as an American.

But you’re supposed to strictly apply the law and not play legislature, not play president and give the president and the Congress the respect due under the Constitution. And the problem that the courts are having now in terms of their public perception is they’re acting like politicians. And when you act like a politician, the public’s going to treat you like a politician. And that’s why the courts, in my view, their reputation is plummeting among the public. And the Supreme Court really needs to take control of the reins here and rein in these lower courts that are acting like Democratic committeemen in Congress as opposed to neutral jurists.

There are certain judges, I know what their decision is going to be made. When they say in certain cases, anything involving Trump, I know there are certain judges. Once that judge sees it, I already know what the outcome is going to be. And I suppose the White House must know as well. But the public knows. And this is after all of that lawfare, I’m concerned about the idea that, you know, this is the foundation of our nation. Yeah, it’s judicial lawfare in some respects. Right. You have these left wing activist Groups, by and large, using friendly courts to hamstring the Trump administration’s policy initiatives, which have generally been endorsed by voters through an election.

Right. No one voted for these judges to be president, but they voted for Trump to be president. And there are powers he’s exercising in accordance with his constitutional authorities. And judges don’t like it. And rather than sticking to their lane, they’re usurping power that the Constitution doesn’t give them. So how do you see things settling out? Because this is now one of these instances. Everyone’s a lawyer all of a sudden. Everyone’s a lawyer, and everyone’s an expert on terrorists all of a sudden. Well, section 122. Well, section this. I want to know how Tom Fitton sees it may be playing out.

Well, you know, as not a lawyer, but someone who’s been watching the courts for some time, Trump’s going to win some and lose some. I think he’s going to win more before the Supreme Court in terms of vindicating his core constitutional powers to run the government. It means hiring and firing people, not being second guessed by independent agencies that are answerable to no one and saving taxpayers money. And, yes, exercising tariff policy and protecting the border, all core powers to the presidency in terms of national security, protecting our country from invasion and matters like that. And it’s going to be a bumpy road, and I hope the court doesn’t undermine its legitimacy in the meantime.

Yeah, I mean, that’s the challenge, because the court’s had some good rulings for Trump, but in the meantime, it’s chaos below until the Supreme Court acts, and they’ve been too lackadaisical, to put it mildly, in allowing these lower courts to mess with President Trump’s constitutional powers and the Congress’s attendant legislative powers, because the president often is enforcing law passed appropriately by Congress, and they just can’t let the lower courts mess with him in that regard. Improperly creating emergencies and giving special treatment to litigants simply because they’re challenging Trump, it’s not appropriate, and they need to step it up.

So we’ve been getting some transparency. The good news is out of the Trump administration about this corruption issue of Rachel Levine, the transgender extremist who was a senior official in hhs, and while there, she was promoting transgender extremist treatments of children and basically trying to rig the science. Right. Which is, according to the left, an original sin for anyone. And so we have a lawsuit pending on that issue. But in response to the lawsuit, we got related documents that show that really What I call the malicious effort by the Biden gang to force vaccination on healthcare workers and other American citizens.

And the documents, as the press release reads, detail the mandate of the vaccination, the COVID vaccinations for 17 million health care workers. And the document was drafted in a way that was written beforehand as close hold. So they didn’t want everyone to know about their plans to essentially force an irreversible medical treatment on healthcare workers because of their alleged powers. And I never was convinced, I was never convinced they had these authorities even under the law related to Medicare and Medicaid. On November 4th, this is what the document reads. CMS will release an emergency regulation requiring staff vaccinations for 15 specific health care provider and supplier types participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs to address the urgent need to protect patients against COVID 19.

So this was in 2021. These requirements will apply to approximately 50,000 providers and cover more than 17 million healthcare workers. And of course, they mandated the COVID vaccine for all those facilities following this, this eternal analysis that they admitted would cover 17 million workers. But what’s outrageous, in the same document, the HHS officials acknowledge a series of or significant numbers of adverse events, injuries related to vaccines. As of November 1, claims alleging injuries, deaths from COVID 19, countermeasures they call it, have been filed with the Countermeasures Injury compensation program, including 2,229 claims alleging injuries from COVID 19 vaccines, an increase of 133 in total claims over the prior week.

About 90% of the claims are awaiting medical records for review. To date, 91 claims are in medical review. Three claims have been denied compensation. One claim has been determined medically eligible for compensation. However, the program is still working with the claimant to obtain the necessary information to determine the compensation amount. So on the one hand, they’re happily announcing and planning secretly to force 17 million Americans or workers in the health care industry to vaccinate in order to be able to work and feed their children and families. While acknowledging there were thousands of injuries related to the vaccines, they were forcing American citizens to give up their bodily autonomy, their liberty, their freedom in order to comply with the mandate.

There’s got to be accountability for that, in my view. There’s got to be accountability. Of course, we’re exposing this in a significant way thanks to this little old Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit. And there’s other. There’s other material in the memo showing as it relates to Covid, they spent $35 million on family planning what does that have to do with COVID Yes, I’m sure the healthcare health care experts will lecture us ad nauseam on how it’s related. But no normal taxpayer thinks that we should be spending $35 million on one area of health care to address, to pretend to address Covid.

The left use Covid as a way, as a vehicle, a portal to spend money and expand health care. Government controlled health care increase expenses to you, the taxpayer, essentially cement and expand socialized medicine. That’s pretty clear. And there’s, and this is another part of the memo that gets me mad. Vaccines and testing in Indian country, Indian Health Service, tribal and urban Indian program sites receiving the vaccine through IHS have reported administering 1.7 million doses of the COVID 19 vaccine as of October 31st. So frankly, if I were an Indian rights activist, I would be angry at numbers like that.

But you know, I guess to the degree we’re allowed to ask questions about COVID now under Trump and Elon Musk, Twitter and the fact that the other social media has stopped or mitigate or or at least seemingly stopped, in some ways censoring questions about is frustrating. That we had this vaccine that was so controversial and so experimental and so revolutionary by their own admission forced on people and promoted by the government with in my view, insufficient concern about the risks versus the benefits. And that’s the nicest way of putting it. And I know people feel strongly about it, but what we found out about the vaccine here at Judicial Watch and the lies they told us about the vaccine is shocking.

And it makes me think, what else have they been lying about about vaccines generally. That’s the conclusion I have given the corruption around the rollout and the suppression of dissent over the COVID vaccine. And you can read a lot of or, and I encourage you to go to my new book, Rights and Freedoms in Peril, where we describe so much of what we uncovered about COVID 19, the Fouchy Gang and the vaccines is a great way for you to get yourself up to date not only in that important scandal, but other scandals that have imperiled and in my view, continue to imperil our freedom.

And of course, much of this material is also available on our website@judic watch.org these new documents are an astonishing example of Biden regime maliciousness on COVID vaccine mandates. The same close hold plan to mandate Covid vaccines also details thousands of vaccine injury claims. So that’s the big takeaway here. And I encourage you to review this document and ask and demand and I think HHS Secretary Kennedy, despite the media smears on him, is going to be insistent that this never happens again, and we should be insistent that he is insistent that something like this never happens again in terms of mandates, etc.

Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

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