And the courts ruled that a candidate, our client, Congressman Boss, didn’t have the right to sue over that lawlessness. Because federal law sets election day, not on election week. You’ve got to get the ballots in by election day. There’s no provision in federal law extending that, except potentially in very narrow circumstances, which don’t occur here. So we made that argument in the Supreme Court late last year, I guess in the fall of last year. And we could get a decision any time at that point, at this point. But separately, on the underlying issue, we are now before the Supreme Court, they’re going to set an argument date on the underlying merits, meaning whether states can count ballots that arrive after election day, which we argue is contrary to federal law.

So we’ve got that lawsuit in Illinois. We have a similar lawsuit in California where they counts ballots seven days after election day. And then in Mississippi, they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after election day. And long story short, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has Mississippi in its jurisdiction, found the counting of ballots that arrive after election day is unlawful. So I suspect, you know, of course, the Supreme Court could do all sorts of odd things in response to this lawsuit and decide not to rule on the underlying issue.

But based on the way the argument went, I suspect we’re going to win in terms of the candidate standing to challenge elections from being stolen contrary to law or being rigged contrary to law. And secondly, we’re going to get a decision one way or another about whether states can count ballots that arrive after election day, which we argue is not only contrary to federal law or Supreme Court, but the reasons for upholding that law are significant because it invites fraud. It undermines confidence in the elections. I mean, if someone is winning on election day and all of a sudden ballots come in afterwards and get counted and change the result, an election is ruined over that.

In California, for example, there are two members of Congress who are Democrats who are now in office who were only there because of ballots that arrived after election day. They are Republican incumbent opponents who are winning on election night and the results change because what we argue are unlawfully counted ballots. The ballots are invalid. You get, it’s too late. You show up a week after election day, you’re not going to be able to go into the voting booth. Why should your ballot get counted? So there are laws that allowed accounting of ballots received after election day in at least, I think it’s 19 states last I checked, could be fewer.

And whether those laws are valid are now before the Supreme Court of the United States, thanks to your judicial watch. And it was judicial watch that took the lead in generating the legal challenges on this important issue. The RNC came in after us and they’ve got the lawsuit as well against Mississippi, but they were following our lead. It’s clear. There’s no one, there’s no one better than judicial watch when it comes to enforcing the rule on elections. There really is a watch litigation and legal actions over the last few years has resulted in or have resulted in 5 million dirty names being cleaned from the rolls.

Five million names. These are names of people who have died, moved away, or otherwise became ineligible because they didn’t show up and vote more or less. And what happens is the states allow these people to remain on the rolls and it’s a vote illegally and fraudulently. That’s the danger of having dirty voting rolls. I mean, I’m sure most of you know or have experienced stories of your name either being on the voting list after you moved or you being aware of someone in your family having that issue or still getting ballot material and voting material in your home after your son, daughter, or someone has moved away for years and years later.

And judicial watch was the first private entity to go to court to enforce the federal law that requires reasonable steps to clean up the rolls. And we’ve been successful. 5 million names. Just think about that. 5 million fewer opportunities for voter fraud. And we have this election integrity map on our website at judicialwatch.org, which highlights where we’ve been doing some of this work in New York. Look at this. New York City. We cleaned up almost a million names. Let’s go down to North Carolina. North Carolina, 430,000 inactive names removed from voter rolls in North Carolina.

Kentucky, 735,000 inactive names removed from voting rolls nationwide. We’ve got a lawsuit in Illinois to clean up millions names. Well, I don’t know how many names, literally, but when you look at the lawsuits in Illinois, Oregon, California, we’ve got three new lawsuits under the NVRA, the National Voter Registration Act, to clean up millions of names in those jurisdictions, even though we’ve already cleaned up 1.2 million names in Los Angeles County thanks to a prior lawsuit. I mean, it just, you know, people say, well, how do you know? Well, we go back and check.

We clean up rolls in Los Angeles County, but the rest of the state was a mess. Oregon, they’ve got many of the places in Oregon. Essentially, you’ve got more people on the rolls than are eligible to vote. Colorado, 306,000 inactive names removed from the voting rolls in Colorado. So I could go on and on. Pennsylvania, 180,000 names removed. Indiana and Ohio, we filed lawsuits and got the law essentially settled about how it is you deal with cleaning up the voting rolls. So we’ve got Supreme Court cases trying to stop ballots from being illegally counted that arrive late in the mails.

We’ve got dozens of cases and legal actions that resulted in 5 million names being cleaned up from the rolls, and millions more potentially will be cleaned up, assuming our new federal lawsuits are successful. We have more lawsuits in the offing in the sense that there are other jurisdictions that haven’t cleaned up the rolls. So we’ll be pursuing those jurisdictions this year as well, because there are 24 million names that still need to be cleaned up on our voting rolls right now. 24 million. So that’s all to say that in 2026, it’s going to be a big deal for election integrity.

You know, Congress hasn’t done much when it comes to election integrity. They passed a save act to try to ensure illegal aliens aren’t voting. Justice Department has begun to do some important work on cleaning up the rolls. They’ve been asking states and having to sue states because the left doesn’t want to turn over voting roll information to them. But they haven’t sued states directly yet, like judicial watch has to clean up the rolls almost immediately. Maybe they’ll do that soon. Maybe they’ll join judicial watch lawsuits. We would welcome them. I guess maybe I should ask our lawyers whether we’d welcome them or not, but I think we would.

So it’s just great work that judicial watch does. So go to the judicial watch election integrity map to learn a little bit more about what we’re doing. But there’s no one doing more heavy lifting in the United States right now on election integrity than judicial watch. We’ve got a case that could overturn laws that induce fraud, in my view, in 20 states, including the District of Columbia. We’ve cleaned up millions of names. 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.