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. In 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 find against us on the merits of the issue, meaning they said it’s OK 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. Well, so what happens is you sue if you sue in federal court 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 Watches 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 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 head 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 Watches clients in favor that counting ballots that arrive after election day is unlawful. Now, as I said two weeks ago, we were in 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 Boss, 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 soon 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 a 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. A 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 cert 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 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 what they call re-listed it for this week.

I think it’s been re-listed 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 Darryl 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 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. But it kind of really undermines the whole election system where you’ve got that kind of 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, or 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 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 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 of 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 historic ruling. I don’t want to read too much of briefs to you, but you’ve 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 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 EMBAC 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 the 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 meaning that 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’ve 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’ve 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, and maybe just forever, I don’t know. And it would just continue to fight. We’d 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 re-list 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 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 Mark Elias, 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. 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.