➡ There’s a big disagreement in Washington over a spending bill related to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Democrats want to change how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) handles deportations, making it harder to deport illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, Republicans are pushing for a bill that requires voter ID and citizenship verification for federal elections, which is supported by most Americans. The author encourages readers to contact their representatives and senators to express their views on these issues.
➡ The article discusses a legal case challenging the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. The argument is that this practice contradicts federal law, which sets a specific Election Day, and could potentially invite fraud. The case, which is now before the Supreme Court, could impact how elections are conducted in the future. The article encourages readers to understand the deep history and implications of this issue.
➡ This text discusses the history and issues surrounding mail-in voting and late ballot counting in the United States. It argues that the practice of counting ballots received after Election Day is a recent development and goes against long-standing federal law. The text also highlights the work of a legal team challenging this practice in court, emphasizing the importance of this case for election integrity. It ends by expressing concern over the decline in public confidence in elections, attributing this to lax enforcement of election integrity safeguards and the expansion of universal mail voting.
➡ The Supreme Court found that many voter registrations in the U.S. are invalid or inaccurate, with some people registered in multiple states. Judicial Watch, an organization that ensures compliance with federal law, has sued several states for not maintaining their voter lists properly and for allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day. Despite their efforts, many states still fail to comply with federal obligations. The organization continues to fight for election integrity and transparency, and encourages others to do the same.
➡ Republican Senator Lindsey Graham claimed that the Biden administration failed to release important reports about Iran’s nuclear threat, including their uranium enrichment capabilities. This has raised questions about whether this decision was influenced by political motives, especially during an election year. The lawsuit aims to uncover why these reports were not released as Iran was expanding its dangerous weapons program, posing a threat to the U.S. This situation has led to military action against Iran, raising questions about the decisions made by the Obama and Biden administrations regarding Iran’s weapons program.

First up is this big battle in Washington over spending related to the Department of Homeland Security. The Democratic Party that left has decided they want to essentially use a spending bill that would provide support for DHS through the end, I think, of the fiscal year to mandate or extract changes to how ICE enforces the law with respect to deportations. And they have a laundry list of demands. And I’m not going to go through each of the demands, other than to say the core demand requires what they say is a judicial warrant, essentially a level of specificity if there’s going to be any targeting of any individual for deportation.

Now, to get a judicial warrant to deal with in order to deal with deportations for tens of millions of foreign invaders essentially tells the Trump administration and America that there’ll be no more deportations because they put in, essentially a poison pill into our deportation law, which currently allows for immigration judges who are employees of the executive branch to consider any challenges or concerns related to deportations and then take actions and sign off on warrants authorizing detention and deportation of an individual. That’s what the law allows for. So when they say you need a judicial warrant, the left is just making up requirements that have nothing to do with the law.

So to make things impossible in terms of enforcement of the law with respect to detaining and deporting illegal aliens in the interior of the United States, they want to add a judicial warrant requirement, which in effect would mean that no one gets deported. So the left currently is demanding a bill out of Congress aligned with their support for DHS funding that would turn the entire nation into a sanctuary for illegal alien invaders. Once you’re over the border or if you’re here currently illegally, you will have zero chance of being deported. Under the left Democrat scheme to hamstrung everyone who is trying to enforce the rule of law in very dangerous circumstances in places like Minneapolis or Minneapolis or anywhere else.

And tied to all of this is the Republican pushback they’re thinking of pushing again. Whether it’s tied to DHS spending or not is another matter. I don’t know where we stand on that, but there are going to be key votes on this issue coming up related to election integrity. The Republicans have been kicking around a bill. The Senate hasn’t acted on it in months. Evidently, they wanted. The new reason is they wanted the House to strengthen it again. So there’s going to be a vote on the bill soon in the House and then presumably in the Senate.

And what would the bill do? The key elements of the bill are a National voter ID so states wouldn’t be able anymore to conduct federal elections without requiring voter ID in order to vote and citizenship verification in order to register to vote. These two elements, poll after poll, have shown, are supported by upwards of 85% of American citizens. So this isn’t an issue that divides Republicans and Democrats. This isn’t an issue that divides people by race in terms of policy preferences or any of the other sort of demographic change. You know, the demographic differences on policy issues, everyone agrees, except the radical left and I guess Democratic Party machine operatives, to be blunt, that this is necessary for secure elections.

Voter ID and citizenship verification, those are the two core issues of the SAVE Act. That is the Senate may not vote on at all or may not pass in the Senate at all. In the House, it’s still going to be closed. So this is what you need to do. At least this is what I would do if I were a voter and I were concerned about these issues. I would call, I’d call the House, I call my representative in the House, find out who he is or she is and don’t worry if they’re Democrats, you should call them too.

And you call your senators. So find out who your senators are and you and all you need to do is call the Capitol Hill switchboard. There are a few numbers. The one I kind of have memorized is 202-225-3121 and someone’s going to answer and you know, how may I help you? There may be now AI trees or something that help you get to where you need to go, but just ask for your congressman, ask for your senators. So three phone calls. You can also call the local offices of each senator and congressman as well in your, in your congressional district or in your state.

So you pick but communicate your views as to whether they should pass DHS funding with a poison pill. But I guess poison pill isn’t the right word. Poison pill usually makes it so that a vote will obviously never succeed, but with something that is so objectionable as to destroy our ability to enforce immigration law. And then secondly, whether or not Congress should finally pass something that’s sorely needed, a national voter ID and citizenship verification. Voter ID is necessary, but it’s not sufficient because non citizens have the ID in many cases if they’re already registered to vote illegally or improperly or however to vote.

So they could live in a voter ID state, but because they’ve registered, because the only way the registration right now, all it does is it requires a personal attestation, you know, and if you falsely sign, you’re potentially subject to prosecution. But. But no one checks your. No one checks your documents to make sure you’re a citizen. So call your members of Congress about whether to support voter ID and citizenship verification and whether or not to protect the minimum work we need to do to enforce our immigration law. The left wants to turn the entire United States, not just Minneapolis, not just New York City, not just LA or California.

They want to turn the whole country into a sanctuary for illegal aliens, making them, making it nearly impossible to enforce the law, detain and deport them as is required, and because millions need to be detained and reported deported. So call your members of Congress and Your Senators at 2022-2531-2120-2225-3121 to share your views on these important issues. And I say that I’m not telling you what to say. Be polite, be firm. But, you know, remember, they’re just typically junior staffers, but they do track who calls. And you may say, well, if the person, let’s say you’re a Republican and you live in a blue state, you’ve got two Democrat senators, Democrat representatives still call and share your views.

They do take note of the opposition in a state, and they kind of calculate their views and modify their views and their rhetoric based on what they’re hearing from home. Even if the phone doesn’t get answered, still call because the phones ring. They do know if there’s a lot of people calling simply by the volume of calls and the ringing of the phones in the offices. Now, I know a lot of people might tell you, don’t you know it’s a waste of time to call your members of Congress. That is not true. I’ve been in this town longer than I care to admit to.

It is a useful barometer for the members as to what the public is concerned about. So get on the horn if you’re concerned about election integrity. Call your senators, call your congressmen. Get on the horn if you’re concerned about basic immigration enforcement. Because on the immigration enforcement side, let me be clear here. There are many, many Republicans, and I’m sure there are a few people in the Trump administration who want to dial it back. Right. They don’t like the way the liberal media is spinning this. They think they’re kind of losing on some of the messaging.

And so there’s a lot of pressure to dial back the deportation efforts, the reversal of the Biden invasion. And so if you don’t want that to happen, you got to do what you got to do in our system, which is communicate your concerns as a voter and a citizen to your elected representatives. Oh, and by the way, reaffirm or oppose or do whatever you want at the state and local level if your local community or your state representatives or government is also engaged in the sanctuary lawlessness that’s endangering lives all over the country. So these are kind of crucial issues.

And it’s likely to be some of the more important votes the House and the Senate take prior to the election, because not much is going to get done with an upcoming congressional election. So these are one of these few moments, at least this year, where your voice may make a difference. The Supreme Court of the United States. There is an argument set in a key Judicial Watch case, indeed an historic Judicial Watch case, concerning elections and whether late ballots can be counted. The hearing has been set for March 23rd. Judicial Watch is taking the lead in challenging states that count ballots that arrive after election Day.

Federal Watch sets Election Day. It’s pretty simple. And if your ballot gets late, it’s too late to be counted. But some states count late ballots or ballots that arrive late as long as two weeks after election Day. In Illinois, where we’ve challenged that law, in California, it’s seven days. And in Mississippi, it’s five days after election Day. And there in Mississippi, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court dismissal of our challenge and the RNC is also challenging it. We’re representing, our lawyers are the Libertarian Party. That the court throwing out the case was wrong, that it is unlawful to count ballots.

It contradicts federal law that sets an election day. So it’s unlawful to count ballots that arrive after election day. It’s pretty straightforward application of the law. Otherwise it’s meaningless. You know, if it’s not. If you can count for two weeks after election Day, why not four weeks after election day? Why not a year after election day? Why not up until the next election, for all we know? So certainly elections have to be meaningful, need to have deadlines, and that’s the case before the Supreme Court. Now, upwards of 30 states allow the late counting of ballots. The ballots that come in late are counted.

So this is a substantial issue before the court. And so substantial issue is about whether we’re going to have elections that A, comply with federal law, but B, have rules that don’t invite fraud. Because obviously, if you kind of allow the ballots to come in after the fact, that’s one way and an easy way to try to game the outcome. And we want Rules that inspire confidence in the election administration. Because if people think the system’s rigged and yeah, when you count ballots, late or late ballots, as if the election day doesn’t matter, it makes it seem like the whole thing is a joke.

So this is a tremendous case we’re prepping. And part of the prepping obviously, is a lawsuit. And you know, that was filed a few years ago and now it’s before the Supreme Court of the United States. And just last month we had a lawsuit first in Illinois, but they found the lower court said that our client, Congressman Boss, and two electors didn’t have standing the challenge counting illegally of ballots. And the Supreme Court affirmed in a 7 to 2 decision, thanks to your heavy lifting Judicial Watch just in January, that essentially candidates have almost an inherent right to be able to challenge unlawful counting of ballots or as allegedly.

So that was a major victory and frankly vindication for President Trump, who was barred at the court door by ridiculous variations of standing, where all of a sudden a candidate somehow didn’t have an interest in making sure an election was run legally and they didn’t have the right to be in court. So that was a tremendous victory. So now this case now is the underlying issue about whether federal law, which sets election Day, bars the counting of ballots that arrive too late after election Day, obviously mail in ballots. So we filed this big brief. It’s a big brief.

I encourage you to read it. It’s available below. How many pages is it? I jokingly complained to the lawyers it was too long to read, but it really wasn’t too long to read. It’s 48 pages. And I encourage you to read it all. And I’m not going to read you all 48 pages. I’m going to read you a few paragraphs here and certainly from the beginning that give you a feel for what the issue is, because I think it’s an interesting issue. You know, you may not agree with me on the issue, but certainly the debate is well worth having.

It is about the election administration under law for since the beginning of our country. It’s about who has the right to run elections and under what rubric, they do, they do. So, meaning what are the states powers to run elections and how do they intersect with the federal Constitution in terms of federal elections and whether the feds can come in and make sure that the rules are followed in a uniform way. So it’s an interesting historic case that gets to the heart of how we elect our politicians into the presidency and into Congress. So if you go and look at our.

There are a few things I wanted to draw your attention to. Let me get to the. Well, let me give. Let me give you some of the key parts that I think is interesting from the beginning, that gives you a feel for what the case is about and helps you understand just how deep the history is as it relates to the law that we’re trying to uphold. This case, and this comes from the introduction of our brief. This case is about whether federal elections end on the statutorily designated election day or whether the receipt of ballots can continue for days or weeks later.

When Congress enacted the election day statutes, and there are three of them, there was the election day statute with respect to the President, Congress, the House specifically, and then once they had direct popular elections for senators, they added the senators to the election day statutes. It did so to. So when Congress set those statutes, it did so to set a uniform day of national elections and to prevent real or perceived fraud occasioned by states setting election day at disparate times. The Fifth Circuit, which of course, that’s the circuit that made that key ruling that we’re trying to uphold, drawing on ordinary meaning, historical practice and this court’s decision in Foster versus Love correctly held that the day for the election of Federal officeholders in two USC sections 1 and 7 and 3 USC section 1, you can go look them up encompasses both the submission and receipt of ballots such that both must conclude on Election Day.

Because Mississippi and as I say, many other states, extends ballot receipt beyond the federally fixed election day, its law conflicts with and is thus preempted by the federal election day statutes, the Fifth Circuit’s common sense judgment should be affirmed. The conclusion that an election includes both ballot submission and receipt and not just the forma meaning dropping your ballot in the mail, that’s the election. Obviously it’s not find support from all the usual sources of ordinary meaning. Dictionaries and treatises from around the time of enactment defined an election to include ballot receipt. State courts did too. Contemporaneous state election codes viewed an election as encompassing both the elector’s offer to vote through presentment of a marked ballot and the official’s acceptance of that vote through receiving the marked ballot into official custody.

The nation’s first foray into absentee voting during the Civil War confirms as much as virtually every state required ballots to be received by the election officials on or before election day. There is thus overwhelming evidence that the ordinary public meaning of election at the time the election day statutes were enacted encompassed ballot receipt. That view likewise corresponds with the dominant theme and purpose of the statutes, namely that there be a single uniform day by which all the ballots are in and the counting can begin. Arguing to the contrary petitioner, which is the State of Mississippi, and respondents Vet Voice foundation and Mississippi alliance for Retired Persons, two left wing groups advance an entirely implausible understanding of an election.

They define an election to include marking and submitting a ballot, but to exclude official receipt of that ballot. That counterintuitive distinction would have struck the 19th century public as bizarre. At the same time, virtually all ballots were marked, submitted, received and deposited at polling stations in a matter of moments. Nobody from the relevant era would have thought that an election was over before the ballots were received by electioned officials. After all, receipt into official custody was the very act that transformed an elector’s ballot from an ordinary piece of paper into a legally operative vote. To them, the election would have not been over until the ballot box was closed and no further ballots could be received.

We go on to say the whole point of the federal election Day statutes is to set a single uniform day for the election. Allowing ballots to trickle in for days or weeks after election day is antithetical to that basic goal. Indeed, a patchwork of state ballot receipt deadlines replicates the problems Congress was trying to remedy with a single national election day back in the 19th century. It is entirely implausible to conclude that Congress, when they thrice exercising its preemptive power under the elections and electors clauses, left the door open for states to vitiate those statutes by postponing electoral outcomes with post election ballot receipt deadlines.

Congress certainly did not leave the states to power to undo the important federal time regulation by simply declaring all mailboxes to be ballot boxes. Isn’t that a great insight by our legal team? Mail in balloting? They at least argued here. The petitioners are arguing those defending late counting of ballots. They’re pretending that putting your ballot in the mailbox is the equivalent of putting it in a ballot box. Well, that’s not only absurd thinking, it’s wrong to tell voters that. In my view, wrong to tell voters that because your ballot, as we note, isn’t really anything of note until it’s captured and counted.

Allowing ballots to be received by election officials well after the polls closed on election day would have struck the Congresses that passed those statutes, and the public at first read them as unthinkable. In short text, history and common sense all converge on a single result. The election ends on election Day, not days or weeks later when the last ballots are received. So it’s a pretty powerful case, don’t you agree? And I encourage you to read Judicial Watch’s brief in this case because it explains and goes back through the history of election laws, not only here in the United States, but in the various states and in the various states.

And there’s a particular section I wanted you to take a look at, great material on how mail in balloting began and quickly ended, because it began during the Civil War in large measure, and then almost quickly, as soon as the war ended, largely ended. And mail in balloting in any meaningful measure didn’t really start until relatively recently in American history. And certainly the counting of late ballots didn’t start in any meaningful way until just 15 years ago, not even that long ago. So this is a significant issue of history that we’re trying to put before the court to affirm the longstanding federal law that Election Day is the first Tuesday.

What is it? The first Tuesday after the first Monday of the month of November. And if you go to page, let me get the brief up for you to show you, because I, you know, if you’re a lawyer, you might appreciate this. I’m not a lawyer, but I do appreciate it because I know what the lawyers have to do for a brief like this. This is the section. Let’s take a look at the section. The text of the election Day statutes confirms the ballot receipt is part of the election. And we go on to describe it.

That much is clear. Later on we write that much is clear from the historical backdrop against which Congress enacted the election day statutes. State election codes at the time uniformly treated an election as an event to be held or conducted. And so we have the footnote there. You see the little footnote, too. There you go. And then look at the site. If you want to know what your state did, you can look at footnote two. Look at that. Illinois, Virginia’s code. Alaska. Is that Alabama? I’m assuming that’s Alabama’s code. Alabama’s code. California, Minnesota, Michigan. There, you know, goes on and on.

Nebraska, Tennessee. So what’s great about these footnotes? And I encourage you to read the brief for the full here’s another footnote with citation after citation of code. And we just don’t, you know, at least I hope we don’t. I’m sure we don’t use ChatGPT to put these codes in there. This is the result of legal expertise and research bar that has no parallel, frankly, in how careful one has to be in terms of making sure every site is correct. But you can go back and look at all you can go through and look at all of these statutes and you can find out what your state used to do back in the day before federal law required states to have one day only or in terms of a deadline for ballot receipt.

So it’s just great work by our legal team, which is legion in this regard. So it’s just great work. And I encourage you to go and read the full brief. And as I note in our press release, this is the most important Supreme Court election integrity case in a generation. The pandemic spread of states counting late ballots received after Election Day is a flagrant violation of long standing federal law that not only encourages voter fraud, but also severely undermines public confidence in our elections. The Supreme Court now has a critical opportunity to restore a fundamental guardrail to the election process.

And as I said, a lot of hard work goes into this type of litigation, which is now before the highest court in the land, the most important court in the world, it can be argued. And I encourage you to support our good work in that regard and give credit where credit is due to the legal team that helped put this together. So our election law team is led by Bob Popper, a senior attorney here. He previously was a senior official in the Justice Department tasked with running voting rights investigations across the country. Also one of the lead lawyers in this case who’s been shepherding this in other cases, not only in Illinois, but Mississippi, but in California, is Russ Nobiel, who also served in the public over at the Justice Department trying to enforce the rule of law on voting issues.

And one of our other lead lawyers on these cases is Eric Lee, who is focusing and key to so many of our election law cases, not only this case, but our cases, the cleanup, voting rolls and such. And he’s an essential central member of the team. And on the outside, we have Paul Clement, who’s been helping us in this case and might argue the case before the Supreme Court in March, and James Z. Xi and Philip Hammersley of his firm, Clement and Murphy. So thank you guys for your fine work on this brief. So we’ve got a lot of great legal talent behind this.

And as you know, litigation ain’t free. We’re representing the Libertarian Party here, and we’re really appreciative that they chose Judicial Watch to push this case for them. And, you know, on these very issues, we’re also representing Darrell Issa, congressman from California, and Congressman Bost in the famous Bost case that we just won on standing in Illinois. But this doesn’t come cheap. The work is significant. It is historic in nature. And in addition to thanking our legal team, I want to thank you, dear Judicial Watch supporter, if you’re supporting this work, you’ve helped us get to the Supreme Court not once but twice on a key election law issue.

We’ve won one of the cases already. Next one comes up next month and then the court will decide presumably by the end of the term and probably by the end of June or so. And we are only able to do this great work with the support of Judicial Watch members such as those. And you know who you are if you’re supporting us, and I encourage you if you’re not. This is the sort of work we’re doing and we can’t do it without the generous financial support. Voluntary. We don’t get tax dollars to do the work, Lord knows of patriotic Americans.

And so go to judicialwatch.org and also read this brief. Get the brief out there. Have other people read it. It’s just great history. And go back and look at the VAS decision that we won. You’re going to be thrilled about that as well. I talked about Russ Nobile. Congress called him the other day to talk about the election integrity measures that they are considering in the House. They passed the Saved act out of the House of Representatives this past week. There’s another bill they’re calling, I think the Mega Bill, which even further strengthens election integrity measures.

And I think Russ was asked specifically to talk about that in terms of making sure the rolls are clean and things that Judicial Watch is really quite expert and adept at. So Russ was testifying on behalf of Judicial Watch. And you, if you’re a Judicial Watch supporter or other patriotic American who wants the rule of law upheld and strengthened when it comes to election integrity. He just testified this week and his presentation was excellent. I encourage you to go and watch it in its entirety. Watch the entire hearing, the good and the bad as far as I’m concerned from the left especially.

But here is Russ’s opening statement to the House Administration Committee earlier this week. The core point of my testimony is simple Public confidence and integrity of elections is declining. The decline is not driven by lack of ballot access, but rather inadequate and lax enforcement of basic election integrity safeguards. The data tells a clear story. Voter registration and turnout continue to go higher and minority ballot access is at or near record levels. Historical racial disparities supporting the need to promote ballot access have largely been eliminated. At the same time, the public strongly supports common sense election integrity measures.

Large majorities support Voter ID and uniform election deadlines. They support proof of citizenship requirements and clean registration lists. Yet despite this consensus, many states have moved to undermine election integrity. One of the most troubling shifts has been the expansion of universal mail voting, which sends unsolicited ballots automatically to all voters, regardless of eligibility. My written testimony describes how progressive politicians proposed this very system 100 years ago. It was a bad idea then. It remains a bad idea. No mature democracy would adopt such an insecure voting system. Among other ills, it weakens chain of custody protections. It increases the risk of coercion and brings that risk of coercion to people’s houses, a real risk for vulnerable voters.

It risks third party interference and administrative error. It erodes public trust in elections. Universal mail voting is bad policy in any context, but it’s particularly bad when combined with inaccurate voter registration lists. Not long ago, the Supreme Court found that 24 million registrations, about 1 in 8 in the United States, are invalid or inaccurate, and 2.75 million people were registered in multiple states. Dirty lists have long been the gateway for other election mischief. Take California, who Judicial Watch is suing right now on behalf of the Libertarian Party. It has both universal mail voting and dirty registration list.

Our own internal analysis found that 21 counties with approximately 6 million voters removed a combined 11 voters over two years for change of address. That’s 11 voters removed from a group of 6 million 11 over two years. The NVRA imposes modest list maintenance duties on states, and it guarantees organizations like Judicial Watch access the list maintenance records so we can verify compliance with federal law. Many states fail under both federal obligations. Many do not conduct meaningful list maintenance. And when we simply ask them for the records to verify, as we’re allowed to under federal law, they refuse, delay, or claim the records do not exist.

Now they’re not even giving the records to the Department of Justice, where I formally worked and would ordinarily ask for these records from 2004 to 2010. Those refusals are not just technical oversights. They defeat transparency. They prevent public oversight and undermine public confidence in the election administration. Last year, Judicial Watch reported that our enforcement efforts over the years have resulted in more than 5 million ineligible registrations being removed nationwide. 5 million. Despite our success, we’ve barely moved the needle. Just last month, Oregon’s new Secretary of State announced that they needed to remove 800,000 inactive voters in response to our lawsuit.

The evidence shows that Oregon hasn’t removed voters since 2017. While Oregon’s announcement is progress, it illustrates just how pervasive state non compliance has become. We have other suits pending. Finally, I address the recent trends where states are allowing ballots to arrive days and weeks after Election Day. For the last five years, my colleagues and I have sued several states challenging this practice. And last month the Supreme Court ruled in our favor in the first case in which we represent Congressman Michael Boss in his suit against Illinois. It took four years to get a federal court to say that we could sue.

And finally the Supreme Court agreed. The regressive practice of allowing ballots to roll in for days and weeks after Election Day is chiefly responsible for creating the banana Republic style confusion that follow American elections today. Judicial Watch’s client, Libertarian Party of Mississippi, along with the RNC successfully sued Mississippi in 2024 over this same practice. We won. And then yesterday we filed our brief with the Supreme Court to defend our win. The Supreme Court will hear that case on March 23rd. Our brief is attached in the record 76% of the public support it. History explains why election integrity safeguards exist.

They’re not adopted by accident and they’re not racist. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. That was a great presentation by Russ, wasn’t it? I encourage you to share it with your markets, as I like to say, your friends, your family, coworkers, members of your church, et cetera. And then there’s a series of questions that take place after the presentation by Russ and the other witnesses. And here’s a sample of, I think, Congressman Mary Miller questioning Russ and highlighting Judicial Watch’s important work. Mr. Noble, first I want to acknowledge and thank you and my Illinois colleague Congressman Mike Bost for fighting to secure the right of candidates to challenge state election laws in federal court.

As you know, Illinois insists on the controversial practice of counting ballots received after election Day. And I’m glad that Congressman Boss challenge to that policy is moving forward on its merits. In regards to a related case, how does Watson vs. RNC currently before the Supreme Court affect congressional efforts to ensure that ballots are received no later than Election Day? If you know there’s been some, I guess the Supreme Court will settle the issue under current law. If we prevail, Congress can obviously make new law and be more explicit in what it requires if it acts now.

But this question, which arose in Boston first and now is in Watson, is what is the original public meaning of the 1840 statutes? What is Election Day? Well, we’re going to look forward to that. When it comes to voter roll maintenance, how do we ensure that states comply with the requirements set by MEGA act when many are already non compliant with the current NVRA statute. Well, I think forced disclosures, which we try to do at Judicial Watch and then frankly just follow up with suits. I mean, we are there’s fertile ground and opportunity for us to sue over.

Frankly, we shouldn’t have to come to that. But obviously lawsuits help and you know, when we find their laws, when we find a jurisdiction in violation, it’s usually not a close case. I mean, they’re not sending out confirmation notices, they’re not removing people. It’s pretty slam dunk. But you know, the partisanship nature of the question makes it very difficult to get anyone to just settle and resolve the questions. Well, you can see that Judicial Watch has some excellent legal representation as evidenced by Russ remarks there. If you want to watch all of the hearing, I think we probably can link it below.

I know it’s on Judicial Watch’s various channels, so feel free to follow up. But we’re not backing down on elections. I mean, what happens is we get a lot of noise about election security around the time of elections. Judicial Watch doesn’t wait for an election to start talking about election security. We’re working on it all year, every year between elections, whether or not they’re happening or not. And that’s why we’re effective, because we just don’t stop. There’s no intermission when it comes to enforcing the rule of law. We’ve had this big fight about the SAVE Act.

The question is whether it’s going to pass the Senate. I don’t know. It probably won’t. But you know, we just can’t wait for election years to start talking about election integrity. I want the SAVE act to pass personally. I want national voter id, I want citizenship verification, but it should be front and center much earlier than now. And it’s never too late. But on the other hand, you know, politically, sometimes it can be too late in terms of getting things done. So this is the challenge. And the Judicial Watch rises to the challenge by doing the heavy lifting of election integrity enforcement all the time, as you can see from Russ comprehensive report and testimony.

Great work. To Russ Nobile and all the team at Judicial Watch. I don’t know if you’ve been watching the news. It’s kind of an interesting issue. It looks like we’re about to go to war against Iran and we have, I think, two aircraft carriers there, a massive increase in lethal air power in the region. And it’s all about Iran’s nuclear program and its other misconduct and terrorism. And it looks like President Trump is going to use significant military power to try again to change Iran’s behavior, if not remove the regime outright. So, and Iran has bedeviled administration after administration and clearly Trump’s had enough of it and he’s going to take some significant action.

So pray for our troops because war is coming, it looks like, under within the next few weeks, as soon. And so this lawsuit that we recently filed is quite timely. We sued for records tied to the Biden administration’s cover up on Iran’s nuclear program. So let me go to the press release there, show what we’re talking about. We filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of Director of National Intelligence, which is Tulsi Gabbard’s organization, for records regarding the Biden administration’s failure to produce statutorily required reports on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. So enrichment activities is kind of essentially they’re just building material or creating material for use in nuclear weapons.

So that’s what uranium enrichment activities is. That’s why Congress wanted reports on it. The lawsuit also seeks all communications between the Office of Director of national intelligence and the 2024 presidential campaigns of Biden and Kamala Harris in regarding the required reports on the Islamic Republic’s enrichment. The law requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit semiannual reports to Congress on Iran’s nuclear activities. Now, we asked for the records. In June, we got the proverbial hand to the face from the administration. Again, disconcerting. You know, this is simple information we’re asking for. We wanted records about the reports.

We wanted records about communications with the Biden and Harris gangs, etc. Especially the Biden campaign. The Biden administration pledged to engage in diplomacy with Iran and revive the 2015 Obama nuclear deal. The Biden team also pushed back against the international attempts to censure Iran for its non proliferation violations. And on May 27, 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States was blocking European states from pursuing a former censure of Iran at the June board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, despite a push by the United Kingdom, Germany and France. According to the Journal, the US has pressed a number of other countries to abstain in a censure vote, saying that it is that that is what Washington will do.

And then a press release issued by Democrate, excuse me, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who’s a senator from South Carolina or a senator from South Carolina, stated that then the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, that was Biden’s Director of National Intelligence, had failed to produce multiple reports on Iran’s nuclear threat, including uranium enrichment that were required under the law. So the Trump team finally comes in and reports, by the way, Iran possesses the highest uranium enrichment levels of any non nuclear state and remains capable of enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. So this is the longest story, this is the long story short of this issue.

The Biden administration was following up on Obama’s kowtowing to the Iranian mullahs. They didn’t want other folks who were concerned about the nuclear weapons Iran obviously was creating or trying to develop to do anything about it. And they didn’t want these reports coming out because it would disclose Iran was up to no good. And the real question is, was that decision or the decision to withhold reports, including during an election year, based on communications with the campaign? I mean, that’s the sort of. Those are the sorts of questions we’re getting at in this FOIA lawsuit. Our lawsuit, as I say in the release, is aimed at finding out why, as Iran was expanding its dangerous weapons program, the Biden Harris administration failed to produce those vital reports documenting a clear and present danger to the United States.

So forgive me for thinking this could be an important lawsuit. We only bombed Iran just last year thanks to President Trump in partnership with Israel. Looks like we’re going to attack Iran again over these nuclear weapons deals or programs. And how did we get here? How is it we had to put US Lives on the line because first the Obama regime and then the Biden regime tore apart any sanctions programs that would force Iran to comply and maybe back away from its weapons program? And it’s left people like President Trump with no choice but to use military force to secure our safety from the threat of the mullahs having nuclear weapons.

How did we get here? I want to know how we got here. Who was behind it? What were they thinking, what were they hiding? And why? You know, it’s strange. The left pretends to be concerned about war, but we’re having a war because of what they did during the Biden administration and we’re suing to get the truth behind it. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

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