➡ Judicial Watch, a legal advocacy group, has two cases before the Supreme Court related to election laws. The first case argues that federal candidates should be able to challenge election laws in court. The second case challenges the legality of states counting ballots received after Election Day. Judicial Watch believes that counting ballots after Election Day is not only against federal law, but also encourages voter fraud and undermines confidence in election results.
➡ The speaker argues that all votes should be received and counted by Election Day to prevent potential fraud and maintain the integrity of the election process. They express concern over states that count ballots arriving after Election Day, suggesting this could lead to manipulated results. The speaker hopes the Supreme Court will agree with this viewpoint, which could lead to fairer elections in 19 states. They also highlight the work of Judicial Watch in pushing for election integrity and encourage continued support for their efforts.

I don’t know what the Supreme Court is going to do. I would hope they agree with us that federal election law is pretty clear. It sets an election day. And ballots received after election day are a day late and a dollar short. Judicial Watch is again before the Supreme Court of the United States. They announced this week, the court did, that it will take up a Judicial Watch case, an historic victory that Judicial Watch obtained against the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. So this is the second Supreme Court case that will be presenting this term.

And it’s extraordinary to get one case, but now we have two election law cases before the Supreme Court. Now last month we were there arguing on behalf of our President Trump that federal candidates should be able to vindicate the rule of law for elections in federal court, that they have the standing or the right to do so. And that case was about a challenge to Illinois’ counting of ballots that arrive for up to two weeks after election day, even without a postmark. In Mississippi, they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after election day.

In that case, we were representing the Libertarian Party of Mississippi and we won, at least at the appellate level, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the counting of ballots that arrive after election day to be unlawful and not compliant with federal law. And Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took up our historic victory and hopefully will affirm it. So this is a massive issue, or frankly two massive issues, one on the standing of candidates to try to stop an election from being stolen or otherwise hampered or illegally conducted, and being able to do that by going to court.

Secondly, the underlying issue of whether states can count ballots that arrive for days, if not weeks, after election day. Now 19 states do it, including, or I think plus, the District of Columbia. Mississippi, as I said, is five days. Illinois is 14 days up over in California, where we have a third lawsuit for Congressman Darrell Issa that’s on hold, as the Supreme Court considers these issues. The lawsuit is a challenge to California counting ballots that arrive for up to a full week after election day. And as I highlighted, and previously not only in these videos, but everywhere I can speak about it, is that counting ballots after election day not only is unlawful, it invites voter fraud for obvious reasons and undermines confidence in the elections.

Because if you don’t know who won on election day, or you don’t have the final numbers in a way that’s credible, people are right to and justified in questioning the election outcomes generally. And so it undermines voter confidence. And as I said in our statement about the Supreme Court taking up this historic issue, the Supreme Court now has an opportunity to reaffirm that election day means what it says under federal law. Counting ballots received after election day not only violates federal law, but encourages voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. The Supreme Court should uphold the historic decision by the Fifth Circuit that sensibly concluded that counting ballots received after election day is unlawful.

Now what happened is after Mississippi, they actually won at the lower court, found the court said that they can count ballots even those received after election day. So the appeals court agreed with Judicial Watch and in doing so, the appeals court for the Fifth Circuit found the following in part, Congress statutorily designated a singular quote, day for the election unquote, of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text precedent and historical practice confirms this quote, 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 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. And what happened after that is they asked the full Fifth Circuit, Mississippi did, to take a look at the case and they declined to take it. That’s why they went to the Supreme Court, but there were some opinions issued by the full court or members of the full court in response to Mississippi’s request that they fully or take up the case again or take it up further.

And it’s worth going over that opinion because there’s some interesting material in it. The first part, I kind of like because it kind of tells you what it is we have to fight when we go into court on behalf of election integrity. Judicial Watch doesn’t just fight states or political parties and such. The whole leftist orbit comes in and tries to intervene in our lawsuits. Those of you who are lawyers, I’m not a lawyer, but those of you who are lawyers know intervention just mucks up the case further. Or they file friends of court briefs, you know, opposing our stance.

But either way, we’re not only battling government, but we’re also battling their allies on the left, unions, sorrow supporter groups, you name it. Mark Elias, that type of crowd that’s always trying to undermine election integrity in my view. And Judge Ho, who is a pretty conservative judge on the Fifth Circuit, he had something to say about how all these high-powered lawyers come in and go after Judicial Watch and the more conservative views on the rule of law on elections. And he highlights how one of his colleagues, I guess, in the dissent said that this case may be unusual and thus remarkable because, quote, top flight lawyers unaffiliated with the parties, quote, have seen fit to offer their views on this case pro bono.

The implication is that the panel decision may be so off the mark that leading members of the profession have felt compelled to speak out. And he writes, but there’s another explanation. The pro bono activity in this case may just reflect the institutional bias at many of the nation’s largest law firms, their lives. Legal scholars have documented how major law firms consistently favor one side in highly charged disputes like this one. The evidence has led to the belief that major firms are falling short of the great tradition of this profession, which is the concern that they have abandoned neutral principles of representation and instead engage in ideological or political discrimination in the cases that they’re willing to take on.

And I want to highlight something for you in light of what Judge Ho says about the left’s getting these big-name lawyers to come in and go after us. Judicial Watch has been litigating Freedom of Information Act, election integrity cases, civil rights cases, anti-government corruption cases, all sorts of cases for 30 plus years, hundreds if not thousands of pieces of litigation. We not once have received pro bono support from any of the big law firms. Not an offer, not even a question. No big law firm has ever supported Judicial Watch. And this is why now some of you might say, well, why would you take their help? Well, some of them have good lawyers, conservative lawyers, at least who would be willing to do the work.

But it’s clear even the conservative lawyers can’t get the pro bono committees or operations to provide free legal support, charitable support to our public interest litigation. But as Judge Hope highlights, you can always count on these big firms to be on the side of the left in every major legal battle of note that’s controversial in the courts. Now, President Trump has encouraged the lawyers to be more honest in that regard. But that’s not, I don’t think, going to hold. I’m sure right now they’re going to do it. But as soon as he leaves office, the big law firms will revert to the norm, which is to be part of the arm of the left to, frankly, destroy our republic, because that’s what the goal of the left is.

So I thought that was interesting, that part of the Ambac decision upholding or refusing to take on and leaving in place our historic victory. And to explain further, Judge Andrew Oldman highlighted the following in terms of the details. According to the dissenting opinion, he writes, states should be free to accept ballots for as long as they’d like after Election Day. That, of course, is a question for Congress. But even if it were a question for federal judges, do our dissenting colleagues really think that federal law imposes no time limits at all on ballot acceptance? True.

Statutory deadlines prescribe dates by which the certification of presidential electors must occur. At best, those provide a last-ditch box stop several weeks after Election Day. At worst, they permit states to engage in gainsmanship, experiment with deadlines, and renew the very ills Congress sought to eliminate, fraud, uncertainty, and delay. So when they set an Election Day back in the 1800s, I think it was in the 1800s, it was because the states had various election days. And it was that lack of uniformity which is undermining our election system. And that’s why federal law and Congress set it as under federal law, as the Constitution allows, set the time of Election Day.

And nothing whatsoever prevents the states from innovating, and he doesn’t use that word in a good way, with ever later ballot receipt deadlines, two months or even two years after Election Day in congressional elections. The dissenting opinion’s only response is to say states are unlikely to do that. But such pragmatic assurances only underscore the dissenting opinion lacks any legal limit. So the big question is, what are the court, what the court’s going to do? I don’t know what the Supreme Court’s going to do. I would hope they agree with us that federal election law is pretty clear.

It sets an Election Day, and ballots received after Election Day are a day late and dollar short. It’s too late. You have to get your ballot in by Election Day, even if you use the mail, unless there’s a specific exemption or exception allowed under federal law. And there are minor exceptions, and people always say, well, what about this, what about that? Well, you know, sometimes there are exceptions, but those are only exceptions pursuant to federal law, not exceptions because the states have decided that Election Day set by federal law doesn’t matter.

So this is an historic matter because, as I said, 19 states count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Arguably, and this is not something we’re making, we’re taking a position in court to push, I personally believe, and I’ve highlighted it, and the left goes crazy when I highlight it, that they should count ballots by Election Day, too. If you don’t know who won on Election Day, there’s something seriously amiss, and I would read federal law even more strictly than we’re presenting here before the Supreme Court. But you’ve got to get your ballots in on Election Day, and they need to be counted on Election Day.

The determination of who won needs to be made on Election Day. And if it’s made after Election Day, it’s 2020. And I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again, in 2020, for example, President Trump had the votes to win the presidency on Election Day. And that result changed as a result of unprecedented counting in swing states that took place after Election Day. To me, that’s enough to, as far as I’m concerned, the election should have been over on Election Day. But that’s not the battle now. The battle now is not even getting them counted on Election Day, just making sure that ballots that are there on Election Day are the only ones that are counted.

Because, for instance, you know what the outcome is, more or less on Election Day. And if you have this extra time afterwards, it invites fraudsters to try to change the outcome one way or the other. It’s obviously an invitation for fraud. And in California, there are two seats in the House that Democrats now occupy, and they won those seats as a result of ballots that were counted that had arrived late under at least federal law, we would allege. And I’ve encouraged publicly House leadership to raise questions about their ability to sit, because the House doesn’t have to abide by a lawless election, as is alleged in California.

So this is what’s going to happen before the Supreme Court. So there’ll be time for the briefs to be made, to be filed. Everyone gets to write the briefs, Mississippi, Judicial Watch, the Republican National Committee, which frankly has been following our lead on this. I mean, these issues about suing to stop states for county ballots after Election Day, the only reason is before the Supreme Court is because the Judicial Watch, to be clear, the RNC is in it too. That’s good. They have the right to sue. And I’m glad they’re following our lead.

But it was Judicial Watch who in Illinois, Mississippi, California pushed this issue forward into the courts. And we would not be before the Supreme Court on this court issue, but for our excellent litigation team, Rob Popper, Russ Nobiel, Eric Lee, others. It’s years in the making to be before the Supreme Court. So they’ll have to file the briefs. The lawyers will be working to file the briefs. And I expect the argument will be, or I’m told the argument will be probably in February, more or less. So that’s going to be a big day.

And it’s a credit to Judicial Watch supporters that were able to have that day in court, because I know you’re all concerned about free and fair elections. You don’t like the elections, election rules and laws that make it easy to rig elections, undermine the integrity of the process. And this is one that pretty much any sensible person sees as something that ought not to happen, which is counting ballots forever in a day after Election Day. We have Election Day, not an election week, not an election month. Yes, I know there are other reforms that need to be made to uphold the value and the certainty of Election Day.

I think early voting is a mess. I don’t like mail-in ballot generally. The best way to vote is to show up in person and vote on Election Day. I mean, that should be the standard. And whether those other variations on the way elections or the counting or casting a ballot prior to Election Day has changed and how that happens, okay, that’s another debate. But I don’t think there can be any debate fairly that’s persuasive that the Election Day deadline doesn’t matter. You’ve got to get your votes in by Election Day. So, in fact, if the Supreme Court rules the way I hope it does, we could have cleaner and fairer elections in 19 states in November of 2026, just like that, just like that.

No California, you can’t count ballots that get there seven days late. No Illinois, you can’t count ballots that get there 14 days late. No Mississippi, you can’t count ballots that get there five days. So, this is pretty historic. And on top of that, as I said earlier, we have the separate case that’s already before the court. Our team made the argument to the court, so it’s fully briefed, fully argued. And typically what happens is the court goes into conference after the argument and they decide what to do. And so right now, presumably, they’re writing the argument, they’re writing the opinions.

And I think we’re going to get a good opinion that reaffirms the right of candidates to challenge dirty elections. Or the lawyers might say uphold the rule of law on elections. This is great. And then, of course, we’re right in the middle of these gerrymandering fights. And as you know, if you follow our work closely, we’ve cleaned up five million dirty names from the rolls, the voter rolls, thanks to our work challenging states to follow federal law that require them to take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls. And there are probably 24 million names more that need to be cleaned up.

And that’s one of the reasons we’ve sued in three states Oregon, California, Illinois to clean up millions of names more. So if there’s anyone doing more on election integrity, I’d like to meet them. Two Supreme Court cases. And we’re not here because, as I said, of the help of big law firms, we’re not here because we know someone in the Justice Department. We’re not here because we’ve been blessed by the left or the establishment, the deep state, et cetera. We’re here because of you. That’s the only reason we’re before the Supreme Court, because of judicial law supporters that year after year, in some cases month after month or more, support our fine work.

We don’t have to worry if no big law firm will take our case, because we’ve got our own lawyers that we’re able to hire. We’ve got staff lawyers we’re able to hire because of our supporters’ generous support. So I encourage you to continue to support Judicial Watch. It’s going to heat up. We’ve got more work to do to secure our elections. I’m convinced the left not only opposes free and fair elections, they just oppose elections generally. That’s what it’s really about. So if you want to have elections in any sane fashion in these United States of America, supporting Judicial Watch should be high on your agenda.

And obviously, in the meantime, pray for wisdom and discernment for the justices of the Supreme Court as they consider these historic election cases brought to them by Judicial Watch. 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.