➡ Judicial Watch, a legal advocacy group, won a case in the lower court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals against counting ballots that arrive after Election Day in Mississippi. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which is now deciding whether to take up the case. This issue is significant as it affects election integrity and voter confidence, with Judicial Watch arguing that counting late ballots invites fraud and is illegal under federal law. The outcome could impact similar cases in other states and the overall election system.
➡ The article discusses the complexities of election laws, focusing on the issue of ballot receipt deadlines and access to voter records. It highlights a case where Mississippi’s law allowing ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day was overturned by federal law. The article also mentions the ongoing fight for access to voter records to ensure election integrity and the role of organizations like Judicial Watch in this process. Lastly, it emphasizes the importance of clean voter rolls and the potential for corruption if these are not maintained.
➡ Judicial Watch, a national organization, is leading efforts to clean up voting rolls by removing ineligible names, such as those of deceased individuals or those who have moved. So far, they have successfully removed 5 million names from various states. However, they estimate that there are still around 24 million names that need to be removed. Judicial Watch is also involved in other legal actions related to election integrity, such as fighting against gerrymandering and advocating for voter ID laws.
➡ Judicial Watch, an organization that requests government records, is investigating the actions of a government official, BIS, who they believe obstructed ICE operations and endangered federal law enforcement. They are also looking into the actions of Texas Democrats who fled the state to prevent a vote on redistricting, and were hosted by Illinois Governor Pritzker. Judicial Watch has filed lawsuits to access information about these incidents, as they believe these actions undermine the rule of law and threaten the constitutional republic. They aim to expose any unlawful behavior of government officials involved in these incidents.
➡ The text discusses the importance of the rule of law and how some politicians, particularly leftists, are perceived to undermine it. It highlights the role of Judicial Watch in exposing such actions, especially when they involve government officials. The author encourages support for Judicial Watch, emphasizing that they question both political parties and work within the law to hold politicians accountable. The text ends with a call to action for readers to support Judicial Watch and stay updated with their work.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Thank you as always for joining us. We are waiting for the Supreme Court to let us know whether our lawyers will be before them again on another key or related election law issue that our team was before the Supreme Court on just a few weeks ago. As of today. They should have met. Maybe they didn’t, because you never know. And discussed in what is a basically regular conference whether to take up a challenge to a Judicial Watch victory at the lower court that found unlawful the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day in Mississippi.

Judicial Watch sued the state on behalf of the Libertarian Party there. The Republicans also were suing, but they were essentially following Judicial Watch’s lead on the issue because we had been filing lawsuits in Illinois on the issue and then subsequently, then in California. And in those states, they count ballots that arrive after the federally set Election Day. Mississippi, they do it for up to five days after election day. Illinois, 14 days after election day. California, seven days after election day. All told, I think it’s 19 states at least, including or and the district of Columbia that count ballots in presidential and federal elections that arrive after Election Day.

And it’s too late. It’s too late under federal law. It’s too late practically. And it’s a way to really ruin people’s confidence in the accurate outcome of the election. And so in Mississippi, we had a lower court ruling in our case, fined against us on the merits of the issue, meaning they said it’s okay for Mississippi to count ballots that arrive for up to five days after election Day. So we appealed to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the three judge panel. So what happens is you sue. If you sue in federal court, you’re before a U.S.

district Court judge, a single judge typically. And then if you don’t like the decision, depending if you win or lose, you can appeal to the circuit Court, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and there you typically get a three judge panel. And they ruled in our favor and found unlawful the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. It’s the first Circuit Court to address the issue on the merits and they ruled in Judicial Watch’s favor. Massive victory for the rule of law on election integrity. Mississippi appealed to the full court of Appeals, fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the whole circuit sitting en banc, meaning altogether.

I don’t know if it literally means altogether, but sitting completely together found in our favor as well. They declined to overturn the ruling and essentially affirmed it. So what happens is if you lose at the appellate level, that three judge panel, you can either do one of two things. You can jump directly to supreme court and ask for the supreme court to take a look at what happened, or you can take an intermediate step or a final step, depending on what you want to do, and ask for the full circuit to take a look at it.

So Mississippi then appealed, as I said, to the full circuit. They lost again, and they’ve filed a cert petition. They’ve asked the supreme Court to overturn the fifth circuit court of appeals ruling, finding in Judicial Watch’s clients favors in favor that counting ballots that arrive after election day is unlawful. Now, as I said two weeks ago, we were before the supreme Court on a separate but related issue because in Illinois, rather than address the merits of the issue about whether it’s right or wrong to count ballots that arrive after election day, under federal law, the court there or courts, both the appellate court and the lower court, found that a candidate, our candidate client, Congressman Bost, b o s t and two electors, presidential electors, candidates for federal office, didn’t have standing, didn’t have the right to challenge this law.

So this is kind of an interesting issue. So the supreme Court has already heard argument as to whether someone has the right to challenge this law, specifically a candidate, and frankly, the broader issue of candidate standing, which is about as important an issue as you can get because it’s about whether a candidate can sue to stop an election from being stolen. Right. And now they’re considering whether to take up and fully consider the underlying issue, which is whether the federal law that sets an election day prohibits states from counting ballots that are received after election day other than any in the accepted circumstances.

And I don’t think there’s really any reasonable circumstances that are accepted under federal law at this point. So it’s pretty darn interesting, don’t you think? So what happens at the Supreme Court? Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m kind of giving you my imperfect layman’s understanding of what goes on in the court. So you file the cert petition and Mississippi’s asking the supreme Court to affirm their right to count ballots forever. And a day after election day, I say that sarcastically, Judicial Watch said, oh, no, the supreme court should uphold it and reject the challenge. And so we’ll see what happens.

And when they consider cehrt petitions, where people are asking the court to take an issue up fully, they have conferences on a regular basis, usually on Fridays, and they all meet and they kind of go through the sometimes hundreds of cases or dozens of cases or thousands of cases. I’m not quite sure how the numbers work out and decide whether to take up these cases. So a few weeks ago, we thought they were going to take it up, but they, what they call, relisted it for this week. I think it’s been relisted twice, maybe once. But anyway, it augurs well for the possibility that they take up the case and resolve it one way or the other.

So we’re kind of in the position of, you know, we got this win we want to protect. So if they decline to take up the case, we’ve won in the fifth Circuit. But there’s issues in other circuits that have to be resolved on the merits. Like in California, our case for Darrell Issa is essentially on hold until the merits issue is resolved. And frankly, the standing issue is resolved, and there could be other challenges as well that could proceed. So I, I personally don’t think the Supreme Court is not going to want to step up on this issue because it would be a strange situation for in 2026 to have a Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana and Texas, say you can’t count ballots that arrive after election day, and other courts or other jurisdictions doing that.

It kind of really undermines the whole election system where you’ve got that kind of that question outstanding. So I think there’s a good chance the court’s going to take it up, but we’ll see. I don’t know. I could be wrong. They may want to. They could decide otherwise. They could say, look, we don’t have a circuit conflict necessarily. Of course, we might argue otherwise, but we’re going to wait a little bit before we handle the case. And this is an essential issue because, as you recall, in 2020, you had outcomes of the election that hinged in no small part of the on the counting of ballots after election day, some of which arrived after election day.

In California, there are two Democrat House members who are in the House right now based on ballots that were counted after election day, that were counted, that arrived after election day. And what does that mean they wouldn’t have won but for those, in our view, illicitly counted ballots. So if you want honest elections, you want to be sure that as far as I’m concerned, all the ballots should be counted on election day, even if they get there at the last second, they should be counted. I mean, we should not be waiting days and days for results in this day and age.

It just invites election rigging. And to kind of enshrine that in Law where you’re allowing ballots to arrive after election day, you might as well write a memo to all of all of the candidates and everyone who has an interest, by the way. We’ve got this sham operation up there and you should work it to try to get some ballots in because you’re going to know how many you need on election day to change the outcome one way or the other. It invites fraud. It’s also downright illegal under federal law, which sets election day and it undermines voter confidence because Americans rightly suspect something’s up when they don’t know who won on election day because there’s no reason not to know who won if you’re following the law and frankly, being honest and confident.

So I think I summarized it well, but here’s what the fifth Circuit opinion found. So it’s not just me talking about this. Congress statutorily designated a singular day for the election. Members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent and historical practice confirm this day for the election is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi statute allows ballot receipt for up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law, we reverse the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

That’s a, that’s a historic ruling. I don’t want to read too much of briefs to you, but you kind of. You got the picture here. I don’t see anything that you can’t see directly. It’s pretty straightforward. What’s federal law Say Election day is a particular day in November. Just, just think of what the opposite outcome might lead to. Currently in Illinois, for instance, they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election day. And they don’t even have to have the postmarks necessarily. And it came up in the fifth Circuit court of I think the en banc opinion or comment.

I don’t know if it’s an opinion or they really don’t vote. They all voted whether to take up the case again, but someone issued a discussion about it and that court made the point and it’s a simple point to make. Well, if there’s no deadline, then what is the deadline? I mean, if election day isn’t a deadline, then what is the deadline? What is it, three days, five days? California says seven days. New York’s counting ballots. You just said that. Communist terrorist supporter elected up in New York. They’re counting ballots until November 12th. Why does it have to be even two weeks? Why can’t it be until the next Election Day? What would be the deadline? At the federal level, what would be the deadline? I mean, at the presidential level, what would be the deadline? There’s really no basis to say there’s a deadline if Election Day has no meaning.

So I don’t see how any court can rule other than the way we suggest it rule. Now. I guess Congress could set a different deadline or provide some exceptions under the constitutional system, our federal system, but they would have to make a change because they’ve set Election Day already preempting. Preempting, meaning the federal government’s role or the federal law basically prevents the states from creating a law that’s opposite to it. So I could say pray for the Supreme Court to make the decision, the correct decision, but it’s too late. They already made the decision. We just have to wait to find out.

So we will find out. We’re going to find out. Possibly three outcomes next week we could find out. They’re going to take up the case and it’s going to be another major election law case this term that Judicial Watch had put before the Supreme Court. We already put forward the most important election law case in a generation already based on the ability of arguing for the ability of candidates to step up and challenge and vindicate the rule of law on elections in federal court. Or they could decline to take up the case and kind of kick the can down the road potentially, maybe just forever, I don’t know.

And it would just continue to fight. We have to fight these issues in the various courts across the country and see what results. Or they could say, well, we haven’t figured out whether we want to take it up yet. We’re going to relist it and talk about it later. So we’ll see. But I hope I’ve demonstrated to you once again that Judicial Watch is the national leader on election integrity law. There’s really no one who’s comparable in pushing for the rule of law in the federal courts on these core election issues. Now, the Republican parties and candidates sometimes go to courts on these issues as well.

But in terms of every year, no matter what Judicial Watch is advocating in the courts for the rule of law on election integrity, there’s someone, there’s certainly no non party organization that’s doing it the way Judicial Watch does, which is why the left hates us, which is why when we’re in court, we’re not often suing just states. We are actually having to fight the ACLU or George Soros fronts or Marco Lias, who is the notorious Democrat election lawyer. The left really is bothered by Judicial Watch’s activities, but we’re not going to stop. So Supreme Court, here we come again.

Potentially. We’ll see. We filed another brief, an election before the Supreme Court on the issue of gaining access to voter records. You know, the states are playing a game and frankly the courts are playing along in some jurisdictions where that they don’t want to let anyone gain access to the voter records because they don’t want them to be cleaned up or have their corrupt oversight of the record, the management of federal voter records exposed. And we filed an amicus brief with the Allied Educational Foundation, a a great supporter that pushes for the rule of law as well on all sorts of issues.

And an amicus brief is a friend of court brief. What we’re doing is we’re filing a brief and we’re not a party, meaning, you know, we’re the ones suing or defending a decision or appealing a decision. We’re just trying to educate the court on matters of fact and law that they may want to consider. And in this case, there was a decision up in the Third Circuit, which oversees Pennsylvania, that prevented a great group that does great election law work as well, the Public Interest Legal Foundation. I encourage you to look them up and look at their great activity.

The their nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. And they had sued for access to Pennsylvania voter rolls following a failure to disclose an estimated 100,000 non citizen registered voters. Pennsylvania officials reportedly admitted that for decades the Department of Motor Vehicles had allowed non US Citizens to register to vote through the state’s motor voter bill or system. So you go in, you get a driver’s license, which they were giving, I guess to non citizens. Remember, it’s not just illegal aliens who can’t vote in federal elections. It’s also aliens people. If you’re not a citizen, you can’t vote even if you’re here otherwise legally.

So I guess they were letting these non citizens apply and get voter registration. So I guess my guess is they want to figure out if any of those folks were voting. And essentially the court found the federal law that requires access to the records, the National Voter Registration act, you’re not harmed if you’re denied it, if you’re denied access to the records, which is a really ridiculous reading of federal law. As Judicial Watch highlights, I’ll highlight this section here. That’s not it. That’s not it. That’s not it. Again, this is another standing issue. So. And we kind of saw this in 2020 where the courts were trying to restrict the ability of President Trump mostly and others to challenge election shenanigans and enforce election law.

And they decided in 2020, and it is an inflection point to stop allowing challenges to election laws for various and unpersuasive and my view, illicit reasons. And we’re kind of seeing an echo of this still where they’re all of a sudden deciding that no one has standing to enforce federal law in terms of the cleanup of rolls, which Judicial Watch has been doing successfully for years or gaining, you know, and one of the ways you clean up the voter rolls is by looking at them and figuring out if they’re clean or not and whether they’re valid.

They don’t want people to gain access to them. Despite federal law that requires access to the denial of access to public records, as we say requested under the National Voter Registration Act’s public disclosure provision, inflicts a concrete informational injury deeply rooted in centuries of common law tradition. The third Circuit’s decision departs from this precedent by imposing a novel nexus requirement demanding plaintiffs prove downstream harms beyond the denial itself. The ruling exacerbates a sharp and growing circuit split. Circuits like the 4th, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals adhere to this court’s framework finding standing upon denial alone.

The third Circuit’s decision contains serious legal errors and directly conflicts with long standing Supreme Court precedent. This court has held that a person who has denied requested public records suffers a concrete injury. The 3rd Circuit adopted a new requirement that conflicts with previous rulings by this court on the issue. So not only does this case show the need for urgent citizenship verification, they had 100,000 noncitizens on the rolls up in Pennsylvania. But it shows the need to affirm the right of citizens and groups like the Public Interest Legal Foundation Judicial Watch to examine the voter rolls.

We are expert groups, by the way. We’re not just folks coming in and, you know, looking for people’s Social Security number. We know what to look for under the law in order to enforce voter cleanup requirements that include, among other things, making sure that noncitizens aren’t on the rolls. Now the Justice Department is has begun asking questions about the rolls. And there, of course, the left win are fighting them because they know what’s going on. There’s finally a Justice Department who’s interested in enforcing a rule of law when it comes to cleaning up the voting rolls.

As I’ve often observed, dirty election rolls can mean dirty elections. That’s why federal law requires not only access to the voting rolls to make sure that they’re being cleaned up, but the requirement that states take reasonable steps to clean them up. And it’s worth repeating that Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the rule of law in that regard, having filed lawsuits and conducting legal actions that have led and caused the cleanup of 5 million ineligible names, meaning names of people who moved away, died or otherwise shouldn’t be on the rolls. All of those names have been cleaned up from the rolls in places like New York, a million plus names.

Los Angeles County, a million plus names. Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and I’m sure I’m forgetting some states as well. And we’ve got ongoing lawsuits right now in Oregon, California and Illinois to clean up millions more names. I was on Steve Bannon’s program the other day and he was completely shocked with this figure. But as. And I was talking with folks in the office about it because I gave it to him over kind of a back of the. I was basically just talking. And so I wasn’t. I was guessing the number based on my prior memory of it.

But I told Steve, I said there are 20 million names that need to be cleaned up from the voting rolls. There are 20 million names who are on the rolls who should immediately be cleaned up or eventually be cleaned up. And I’m talking about it with my colleagues here. And we came to the conclusion based on an analysis of the data that it’s actually 24 million names. You heard that, right? There are 24 million names, more or less. It’s a guess, but it’s a well educated guess based on priority analyses. And it fits with our analysis as well.

There are 24 million names, nearly 25 million names that should be. And that’s frankly a lower. It’s arguably a very conservative figure. It could be as much as 30 million, but I’m willing to stand behind. 24 million names need to be cleaned up from the rolls. And right now, as best as I understand it, Judicial Watch is the only. Maybe the Republicans are suing in a state or two at this point, following our lead, but we’ve already cleaned up 5 million names. And there are millions more to be cleaned up in just the three lawsuits we filed.

And more lawsuits could be coming because we are analyzing the voting rolls in the states based on the most recent election registration data and voting records. So I encourage you to support Judicial Watch’s work in this regard because I know I’m president of Judicial Watch, right? So I’m a little bit biased, but I Am being carefully accurate in saying we are the leader in cleaning the election rolls. We are the leader in making sure that our elections aren’t ruined by post election day counting of ballots that arrive late. We are the leader in enforcing the rule of law and gerrymandering.

All this craziness about gerrymandering. Judicial Watch has been fighting the gerrymandering fight for years. We won in Maryland. Democrats tried to rig contrary to Maryland law with partisan districts that were contrary to law, and a court struck them down, told them to start over again. Thanks to Judicial Watch. Voter id. We’ve been in court after court educating the courts on voter id. We filed a lawsuit or filed an amicus brief on why Supreme Court precedent that allowed the use of race in gerrymandering decisions where they can create a congressional district essentially based on race is contrary to the Constitution.

I know that seems like a rather obvious point, but the Supreme Court, believe it or not, allows that racial segregation to go on. So I can go on and on. I’ve testified to Congress, my colleagues have testified to Congress on election integrity. No one doing the work the Judicial Watch is doing in this regard. And we’re going to keep on doing it. And in fact, we’re going to increase the work. So another big issue, speaking of aliens, is the issue of the illegal alien invasion under Biden and the ability of the federal government under President Trump to try to reverse the invasion.

And what has happened is the left has joined an insurrection or is engendering an insurrection, a rebellion against federal law, placing ICE agents and federal agents and other law enforcement at risk, placing American citizens at risk, actually placing deportees at risk by making the apprehension of the deportees pursuant to law much more dangerous because of obstruction and interference and generally undermining the rule of law. So it’s not enough that they’ve allowed under the Biden administration, an invasion of the United States, the largest human trafficking operation, the largest child trafficking operation in the history of humanity to take place now that the rule of law has been restored and the President is trying to reverse it.

They’re obstructing justice in that regard, aiding and abetting this lawlessness through sanctuary policies and through essentially incitement against the enforcement of the law. And we filed two lawsuits to ferret out some of the more notorious examples of that. And that one lawsuit was filed against Katie Hobbs, who is. I think it’s her name is Katie Hobbs. Is it. Is that her first name? Katie? Yeah, it is Katie Hobbs. She’s the governor of Arizona. And she made a series of statements attacking federal law enforcement and, contrary to Arizona state law, being explicit in saying that she would not cooperate.

What did she say? In November of 2024, Hobbs responded to a question on whether Arizona’s state police and National Guard would assist with federal immigration enforcement efforts by stating, what I will unequivocally say is that as governor, I will not tolerate efforts that are part of misguided policies that harm our communities, that threaten our communities, that terrorize our communities. And Arizona will not take part in those. We will not be participating in misguided efforts that harm our communities. Federal Arizona law. No official or agency of this state, et cetera, may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

So what we asked for under the Arizona public records law, any communications, memos or orders issued to state agencies reflecting a policy of non participation. That’s a nice way of putting it in federal immigration enforcement. And documentation of any legal analyses or contemplated litigation related to the governor’s stance on state level involvement in immigration enforcement. Now, we asked for these records back in December of 2024, and we filed the lawsuit. I guess we filed it just this last month. Let me look at the date here. October 27th. There’s the date stamp. 2025. Judicial Watch versus the office of Arizona governor.

And she didn’t respond. Her office didn’t respond at all. So then the press started asking them questions, well, what about this Judicial Watch lawsuit? They asked for records back in December. He didn’t respond. And then they start telling the press, well, we didn’t get any requests for help from the Fed, so we don’t have any documents. Well, there were no documents about the statement. You didn’t tell your people about what you wanted to do with the Feds. So we’re suspicious. I mean, we’ve gotten answers like that before. Remember Fani Willis, who said she had no documents about collusion with the Justice Department or Congress, when in fact she did and she was caught lying about it.

So this is a great little lawsuit. And frankly, her statement itself deserved not only investigation, but. But she should be excoriated for publicly undermining the rule of law and placing law enforcement and other innocents at risk. Similarly, you’ve got this crazed insurrection in Chicago and in Illinois being pushed by the Governor Pritzker and local officials against the efforts of the Trump administration to find and deport people who have no legal right to be here. Illegal aliens. Am I allowed to call them illegal aliens? Unlawfully president, unlawfully present individuals, undocumented people, migrants, whatever phrase you want to use.

You know what they’re trying to do, which is to disguise the fact they’re here contrary to federal law and have no right to be here. Evanston, Illinois, who Judicial Watch is suing separately in a class action lawsuit for giving reparations to people based on race. So blacks can get the money, whites can’t get the money. You can look at more details in that lawsuit below. That’s a class action civil rights lawsuit. The mayor there was involved in some of these outrageous protests in Chicago we’ve been reading about and seeing on the news all over the place.

I think we can go, probably go find some video and show you what’s going on outside the ICE detention facility, or what had been going on outside the ICE detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, which is in Chicago. And the mayor of Evanston was in at least one of those dangerous protests. So deal with it. I have a right. Do something about it. We want liberation. SA so we had asked the Evanston mayor, Daniel Biss B I S S under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Let’s go see what we asked for. That’s what I love about Jesus.

I think this is all interesting. I presume you think it’s interesting, too. So investigators are so smart. So what happens is we file Freedom of Information requests, and we’ve been doing this for 31 years, so we know how to ask for government records, and we know that when we make the initial request, we may be suing over them. So if you’re a government official, you don’t want to get a FOIA from Judicial Watch, because we know what we’re asking for and we know we have the right to the records. And if you’re going to play games, you’re not only going to be subject to lawsuits, but you’re going to be subject to lawsuits that are going to get the records out.

Let’s go to the press release or the document that shows you records of BIS’s activities related to ICE. U.S. immigration Customs Enforcement operations, including Operation Midway Blitz, which is the law enforcement operations set up by the Trump ICE operation to target illegal aliens in Chicago who are there by the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. And the protests at the ICE facility in Broadview, where tear gas was deployed in September 2025. And Bis was there. Think of the way the left has talked about January 6th. If you were anywhere near the Capitol on January 6th, they essentially thought you should be thrown in jail.

Here he’s in a position, an elected official is in a position outside of a federal facility where either. I’m not quite sure if there was state law enforcement or federal law enforcement had to deploy tear gas to disperse a dangerous crowd. Yeah, we want records about what this guy was up to and we want communications about the involving BIS and the attacks on ice. And he’s a real extremist on these issues. In order to subvert and obstruct ICE enforcement operations in Evanston, I guess they have police, you know, they have license plate readers which we were told protect all of us.

Right. Well, he turned them off because they might help the feds protect us from illegal aliens by finding where they are and removing them. Use of taxpayer resources, city resources and taxpayer time on ICE related protests and any sanctuary cities city policies out there. On September 11, 2025, Bist said that upon learning of planned federal immigration enforcement activity in Evanston, he notified residents so they could protect themselves. As I said, it was September 19th that he was part of a crowd of leftist insurrectionists harassing and endangering federal law enforcement and citizens generally outside that ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois.

In October of 2025, Evanston issued a press release discussing ICE free zones and strategies for state and local agencies, including the Secretary of State, et cetera, to hinder federal immigration enforcement policies. So like Governor Hobbs in Arkansas, like the other sanctuary politicians aiding and abetting illegal criminal activity, they’re placing federal law enforcement at risk. And it’s not just a hypothetical situation. We know the left has been radicalized even more to assault and endanger the lives of federal law enforcement who are just trying to enforce the law. I mean, from the left perspective, not only can’t you get in the way of their open borders agenda, that if you seek to enforce the law, they’re going to put your life at risk and they’re going to encourage others to target you with violence and worse.

And I don’t say that lightly. I don’t know how many examples we need to hear or see. They killed, nearly killed President Trump twice. They being the left, Biden administration and Democrats in Congress tried to put his life at risk. Charlie Kirk was murdered by a leftist. These are dangerous times, my fellow citizens. And the dangers are increasing because the left has embraced, without apology, violence to advance their political agenda. Increase power, obtain power. And so what we aim to do is enforce the rule of law how best we can and expose where we can what’s truly at issue here.

And the unlawful behavior of government officials who are behind this incitement and efforts to destroy our constitutional republic. And that’s why we filed two FOIA lawsuits in two separate states. To get access to the information means Judicial Watch decisions. Excuse me, Judicial Watch just doesn’t sue the federal government here in Washington D.C. and I’ve talked about how in this, just in this report to you alone, we’ve got five different lawsuits in five different states on major public policy issues. Immigration and elections. There’s nothing like it in America. Judicial Watch, there’s nothing like us. It’s just great work.

I know I’m president of Judicial Watch and I’m saying that, but objectively speaking, it’s great work. I was talking about gerrymandering earlier and you know, the left is all apoplectic that Republicans are taking advantage of the laws and their rights under the Constitution to redraw congressional district maps in a way that are favorable to their party. It’s been happening for decades. In some cases I don’t think it’s lawful. In other cases it’s perfectly lawful. Depends frankly at this point just on state law. In many jurisdictions, in many states, you have a Democrat controlled legislators, legislatures and state governments that have created congressional districts that essentially have stripped Republican representation completely from voters.

Meaning there’s no real way to elect a Republican in various states due to redistricting choices by Democrat leadership in those states. And Republicans are trying to change a few state maps in order to increase Republican representation in Congress. Because the more districts that have Republican friendly voting demographics, meaning Republican leaning voters, the more likely they are to retain to either get Republican elected or, or protect an incumbent Republican. So Texas famously, and to the outrage of the left, hypocritical as it is, changed their rules or moved to change their maps to essentially create five more leaning Republican districts in Texas.

And in response before that, a final vote could take place in the legislature. You had Democrats literally flee the state from the legislature, who are members of the legislature flee the state so the legislature couldn’t meet. Is that insurrectionist activity? I’ll leave you to judge. But given the way insurrection’s been defined, I think it probably falls under it. And where did they go? They went to Illinois. Governor Pritzker hosted them and explicitly suggested that any law enforcement moves against them by Texas or even the FBI would be thwarted by him. Really kind of the. Again, I understand Governor Pritzker is probably running for president, but I would hope the rule of law and thwarting it and attacking our constitutional system, I guess it’s a temptation that you want to kind of be seen to be doing that in order to be a candidate for president.

It’s really disturbing. But you know, those are political decisions people can make. Our question is what state resources were used and what was the scheme to help this political operation in Texas that resulted in all these state Dem legislators fleeing to Illinois. So we asked Pritzker for records about it. This is what he did because I’ve got the record. In our press release we highlighted exactly what he was saying and doing. When asked why the Texas legislators went to Illinois, the governor responded, the great heroes of the House Democratic caucus decided the only thing they could do in order to stop was leave Texas.

And where did they decide to come? To the safe haven of the state of Illinois where we are going to protect them and take care of them. Who’s we? Taxpayers. That’s not appropriate, frankly in the state of Illinois. We are not going to let them get taken away. When he was asked if the FBI can arrest them, we’re going to protect the Texas House Democrats. So they began their walkout. When did they do it? On August 3, 50 state Democrat legislators fled the state didn’t stop the final vote from being conducted. They had to come back home eventually.

And by the way, they could have been arrested by Texas for doing that. So he was essentially telling Texas the rule of law in Texas doesn’t count here in Illinois. I mean, I thought we had a constitution that required states to uphold the rule of law and not obstruct good faith application of law in other states and actually aid and abet it the violation of such laws. So we ask for the following records, audio visual recordings, et cetera, all these documents, if meetings held between Pritzker and congressional Democrats at which Texas congressional redistricting or Illinois possibly housing Texas Democrats were discussed.

All audio, visual recordings, handwritten notes, agents, agendas, minutes and reports related to a meeting held between Pritzker and Democratic party officials in late June in Oklahoma regarding congressional redistricting. We quoted the story. Here’s the story. In case Governor Pritzker and his people didn’t know. What are you talking about? Judicial Watch, the Washington Post. Inside Texas Democrats plans to seek refuge with Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker. They were welcome in Illinois, Pritzker told them. Soon his staff was talking daily with Texas Democrats. And earlier this week he stood next to state lawmakers as they explained their escape into Chicago.

Assembled in front of a JB backdrop advertising Pritzker’s election campaign. He called it a righteous act of courage. So he’s obviously aware that Some of this activity could be campaign election related activity or partisan activity that’s inappropriate for taxpayers to pay for. And that’s why, of course, we asked for records. That’s why we asked for his staff’s communications with him about this. So what does the rule of law mean? Does the rule of law mean that a governor of another state can conspire with the legislators of another state to break that state’s law and flee the state? The opposite of the rule of law.

I’ll say it once, I’ll say it again, and this is not a partisan point because, you know, it’s not all Democrats are leftists, okay? So I’m not saying Democrats believe this, but there are too many leftist politicians, all of whom happen to be Democrats, who don’t care one whit about the rule of law and actively seek to undermine it. And I don’t mean liberals, I mean leftists. This is not liberal behavior. Now I know some of you are going to say, oh yeah, it is. Well, my point is leftist radicalism is a threat to our constitutional republic, a threat to the rule of law, endangers the public safety, undermines our elections, etc.

And Judicial Watch is going to expose it where we can, especially as is expressed through government officials who adhere to an approach that would destroy constitutional government and the rule of law. I mean, it’s one thing to have, for example, a citizen activist coming out there and saying, oh, this should be done. It’s another thing to have someone in a public trust position, a position of public trust, an elected official, essentially go in and try to destroy a legislature of another state through misconduct. So I’m glad we sued over this, I really am. And our friend Christine Zenson of Chalmers, Adams, Becker and Kaufman is assisting Judicial Watch in this case.

Christine works with Judicial Watch in a number of cases in Illinois. So elections, immigration, the rule of law, the Supreme Court. Your Judicial Watch is front and center on all of these issues and we’re only able to do it with your support. I encourage you to support our work. Go to Judicial Watch.org, judicialwatch, one word.org and not only, like, read all of the material I’m talking about here and share it with your. I call them your markets, right? Your friends, your colleagues, your family members, church members, you name it. But support us because if we don’t do it, who’s going to do it? Think the Republicans are going to do all this? No, the left does all sorts this type of work from their perspective.

Politicians are afraid of Judicial Watch. They get nervous when we start asking questions of both political parties. So if you want to rely on the politicians to police politicians, good luck with that. But you can rely on Judicial Watch to police the politicians at least as best as we’re able to within the confines of law. So with that, I wish you the best and I’ll see you here next time on the Judicial Watch weekly update. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. Sa.
[tr:tra].

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