They informed us that 372,000 inactive voters have been removed from Colorado’s voter rolls after Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and settlement. It is a remarkable number. It is, in my view, just in some ways, the tip of the iceberg in terms of names nationally that need to be released. I’ll get into that a little bit later. But now we are over six million names removed from the rolls, or about to be removed from the rolls, thanks to Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and other legal actions. We were at five million for a bit, then we bumped up to nearly six because Oregon, in response to our lawsuit, announced they were removing, I think, over 800,000 names from the voting rolls.

So the 800,000 plus the 372 brings it to 1.2, right? And now we are well over six million names having been removed thanks to Judicial Watch’s legal work. And how is it this happens? So the National Voter Registration Act is a federal law that requires states to take reasonable steps to maintain the voting lists. It means that they got to remove them. The names of people who move away die or otherwise are known to be ineligible. And it’s a really simple process. It just requires, at least under the litigation that we’ve initiated and essentially has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that if you don’t show up to vote, you get a card saying, hey, where are you? You didn’t show up to vote this year.

And if you don’t vote in that, it’s a for a federal election. And if you don’t vote in the next two federal elections or otherwise communicate that you still want to be in the registration list, they remove your name or they’re supposed to. So in theory, it could take as long as five years plus to have your name removed if you move away without informing someone. And incredibly, the states still fight doing that. The left hates removing names from the voting rolls. At least the activist groups do. But in places like Colorado, a blue state, California, we settled a case.

New York, we settled a case. D.C., they removed hundreds of that, I think 138,000 names. When the lawsuits are brought or the legal actions commence, Judicial Watch is able to get even the bluest of the blue states to begin to comply with the law. And so that’s why we are getting, in the case of Colorado, 372,000 names removed. That’s why we’ve gotten, in the case of Oregon, the Secretary of State recently announced after our lawsuit was filed, I think he removed 160,000 names immediately, 600,000 are set to be removed subsequently. In California, L.A. County removed 1.2 million names thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit and settlement.

So there is nothing comparable being done by the federal government or the state governments to kind of push this removal process to clean up the rolls as necessary under the NVRA. Now to the credit of the Trump Justice Department, Hermite Dillon has started asking for and demanding and been willing to go to court to get the full list of voter registration names so they can look at the names and see if there are illegal aliens on there or names that should be removed. And of course, the left-wing states are fighting her in court. But what’s great about what Judicial Watch is doing, and we’ve been doing it, by the way, since 2000, well at least 15 years, I think, is that we’ve been initiating private actions to clean up the voter rolls.

In fact, we’ve initiated, we are responsible for the first private actions in federal court to clean up the election rolls. We sued first in Indiana. We sued first in Ohio. We’ve sued in North Carolina. We’ve sued in Kentucky. We’ve sued in, as I said, California, Colorado, Oregon, California, Illinois. Now, as I said, 6 million names have been removed thanks to Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting to clean up the voter list. The challenge is there are probably 23, 24 million names that still need to be removed, meaning there are inactive names on the rolls, names that are susceptible to being removed under the law, and likely are ineligible to vote.

So, there’s a big, big backup of dirty names on the voting rolls in various states across the country. And the fact that Judicial Watch has been able to force and require or persuade through a settlement, right? Where, you know, you agree to disagree, right? And they don’t admit wrongdoing, and, you know, we will take credit as much as we’re able under the terms of the settlement. But we’re happy to come to settlements. That doesn’t matter who you are, if you’re going to clean the names. We’re not there to score political points. We are there just to get the law enforced.

Because dirty names can mean dirty elections. How is it that that is the case? Because it is a pool of names from which fraudsters can draw to illegally vote. It’s that simple. And, by the way, federal law requires the dirty names be cleaned up in a reasonable way. So, to me, this is another extraordinary feather in the cap of the Judicial Watch legal team led by former Justice Department civil rights attorneys. This is a civil rights litigation. This is civil rights litigation. When we’re cleaning up voting rolls, when we’re upholding election integrity laws, when we’re trying to apply the rule of law to the voting process, that’s designed to ensure that your votes are count and the system is run with integrity.

Voting is a core civil right. And the left wants to destroy it in large measure by making it meaningless as a result of fraud, or by keeping people home in many ways as a result of a system that people can’t rely on. And by Judicial Watch’s moving forward to ensure the system is cleaner, fair, and follows the rule of law, it frankly encourages more people to vote because they, in many ways, will think their vote is more likely to count. And, of course, this is only a portion of Judicial Watch’s election integrity work. Earlier this year, Judicial Watch obtained one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions on election law in recent memory, which is the affirmation, or reaffirmation in our view, that candidates, of course, can sue to stop an election from being stolen.

That’s my non-lawyer way of putting it. But, essentially, the Court said that candidates have standing to challenge illicit ballot counting and other rules that can impinge on their ability to run in a significant way, or in any way at all, in large measure. That’s called the boss decision. And we are seemingly about to win another important election law case that we also brought before the Supreme Court, which is the challenge to the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. These mail-in ballots get in late upwards of seven days, two weeks. In Washington State, I think it’s 21 days.

Under the theory of our opponents, there’s really no limit as to when you can get your ballot in late. And the Supreme Court seems sympathetic to the notion that federal election law, which sets federal elections on, what is it, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? That means something. It means if your ballot gets in late, that’s too late. And it looks like we’re going to win that one, you know, knock on wood. And that decision is expected from the Supreme Court, one way or the other, by the end of June, so just in a few months.

But is there anyone doing more to protect our elections than Judicial Watch? If so, I’d like to meet them. But in the meantime, if you want elections safe, if you want them secured, if you want them more honest, then you’re going to want to support Judicial Watch. Now, does it take the onus off the government to do what we’re doing and to try to enforce the rule of law? Of course not. Now, the Trump administration has been with us on a few of these cases. They, for instance, argued with us against this post-election day counting of late ballots just last month.

But there’s been no comparable work in the history of America by the federal government in terms of cleaning up the rolls. There simply is nothing comparable. Now, the Justice Department under Harmony Dillon and Trump’s leadership is finally getting into that area. But it’s Judicial Watch that’s removed six million names from the voting rolls. It’s our work that’s done it. And we welcome additional activity by anyone else who wants to get involved, including the feds. But we’ve got other work to do, and I think the feds need to always need to do more. And secondly, of course, we’ve got these other gaping holes in election security where you have too many states refusing to implement voter ID.

And this is why you have the SAVE Act that’s currently before the Senate, which would mandate a national rule requiring voter ID for federal elections. And would also, I think, would not, I think, I know, it would also require citizenship verification when you’re registering to vote. Because right now it’s the honor system. You sign a form saying I’m a legal resident, I mean, I’m a citizen, and I’m eligible to vote. Now, if you aren’t and you sign that form, you technically can go to jail, you can be prosecuted, but that’s not enforced. And it’s why are we checking citizenship status? It doesn’t make any sense.

Why aren’t we checking voter ID? It doesn’t make any sense. Of course, it does make sense if you want to be able to steal elections. If you want aliens to vote, foreign nationals to vote in elections, it does make perfect sense. And of course, that is the goal of the left, to allow non-citizens to vote in our elections, turn America over to foreigners, and voter ID, who knows who’s voting and how often, with no voter ID. So I see the left opposed to everything that Judicial Watch is doing, and so much of the litigation I’ve talked about has been opposed by the radical left.

They don’t come into court, source fronts, fronts for the Democratic Party, which for reasons that I’ll let them explain, oppose virtually every election integrity measure. And we’ve done more than the Republican Party in key measures on most of these issues as well. Now, the Republicans have been more aggressive recently, but again, it’s Judicial Watch that’s kind of setting the standard. So this is just great news. It’s just great news. Now, of course, are we going to stop on this? Are we going to stop suing, stop initiating legal actions, stop pushing? No, we are not. In fact, I can guarantee with reasonable certainty, as president of Judicial Watch, there will be more legal action.

There will be more lawsuits to clean up voter rolls in the various states or big counties in states that aren’t cleaning up the rolls. So more is coming. We’ve cleaned 6 million, the latest number being 372,000 inactive names in Colorado. Again, that’s a lawsuit that began, when did the lawsuit begin in Colorado? Yeah, so we sued in 2020, we settled in 2023, and it takes a while to get the names cleaned off. I know you want it to go faster, I do too, but the law is the law and the process is the process. But I can guarantee you none of it would have taken place without Judicial Watch’s litigation.

So this kind of shows you that you need a group with the institutional fortitude, expertise, and support from the American people to kind of stick to it with this litigation, because it takes a long time in order to get the fullest and best results in election law litigation. I mean, what happens often is that a lot of groups start talking about, and parties especially, they start talking about election integrity during an election year. Well, you know, it’s really hard to kind of get litigation going to protect and ensure better election integrity during an election year. I mean, the time frames that federal lawsuits at least take, or state lawsuits take, it’s hard to do.

And this is why you need to be doing election law work, election integrity work, 24-7, every year, even a non-election year. So I encourage you to go to Judicial Watch’s website, our internet site, and support our work. Because there’s no one doing this type of work the way Judicial Watch is. It is an efficient way for you to ensure election integrity rules are being followed. You know, as I said, we’ve got potentially a Supreme Court decision that could change the laws in 30 states in which they count late ballots, ballots that arrive late. And, of course, there are always ongoing challenges to election integrity that need to be pursued.

And you can be sure we’re looking at and considering additional legal actions in new areas of election integrity enforcement that need to be pursued. So there’s nothing comparable to Judicial Watch’s expertise, demonstrated record of success, and so I respectfully ask for your support. Because I tell you, the other thing that we have that many others don’t is that we’ve got you, and hundreds of thousands of other patriots who support our work. Because without that support, we wouldn’t be able to do this great election work. It’s not free. We’ve got staff. We’ve got to hire our lawyers we’ve got to work with.

We’ve got a big team of lawyers here in Judicial Watch. We often have to hire lawyers on the outside to help us. I mean, I don’t probably need to convince you that litigation and investigations and just monitoring even these issues requires resources. And it’s because of those resources that you, well, I hope you, but because of patriots and Judicial Watch supporters give to us that we’re able just to do this great work. So credit goes to our team, but credit goes to you, dear Judicial Watch supporter, who allows this great work to continue. So go to our website, support our work, and celebrate this great news.

And yeah, ask your local election officials what they’re doing to clean up the rolls, because they’re supposed to tell you that under law. You can look it up. So I encourage, and thanks to Judicial Watch’s leading work on this, a lot of citizens have figured out what to do and have been empowered to pursue cleanups of the voter rolls. And get an understanding from their local and state election officials what they’re doing under law to ensure the election rolls are clean. So our work not only is direct, right, in terms of impact, but I’m also so proud of, and I think you’re a supporter should be proud of, that our work is indirect in the sense that it empowers and has educated so many Americans to get involved in election integrity efforts on their own.

They don’t need Judicial Watch to tell them what to do. It’s your citizens, you know what to do. It’s government. It’s not rocket science. So figure out what the rules are, understand how elections are run in your local community and your state, and get active to the degree the law allows. I can’t encourage that enough. But if you can’t do that, or in addition to, I encourage you to support Judicial Watch because there’s simply nothing comparable. I mean, for example, just, I almost forgot, we were, we had a team, I think it was an eight-member team, I didn’t bring the, I didn’t, I don’t think, maybe I do have the release.

Monitoring the elections in Hungary. I mean, Judicial Watch’s work is so worldwide respected that we partnered with a group in Hungary to monitor the elections there. Now, typically what goes on in a country like Hungary is the left swarms the area, and if Orban had won, for instance, in Hungary, you could be sure the left would have been screaming from the rafters about the election not being correct. And that’s why it’s important for Judicial Watch’s, for a group like Judicial Watch to participate in that type of process, because the world was watching the Hungarian elections. That, you know, we know what an election monitoring operation is supposed to do.

The team was led by Bob Popper, again, a former senior official in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, who used to monitor elections at the Justice Department. One of his other colleagues, who was a former IG and a former DOJ official, Sean O’Donnell, was there as well, and other Judicial Watch legal teams, members who, and employees who had been involved in these issues before. So we’ve got a worldwide reach at Judicial Watch in terms of election integrity. 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.