➡ The text discusses issues related to voting and redistricting in Texas and California. It mentions a case where two Democrats won House seats due to counting of ballots that arrived after election day, suggesting these seats should be Republican. The text argues that counting ballots after election day can lead to fraud and undermine voter confidence. It also mentions two major court cases related to these issues, one of which is already being considered by the Supreme Court.

To count ballots that arrive after Election Day, invites voter fraud, is contrary to federal law, and undermines voter confidence. Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court case is accelerating. We filed a key brief the last few weeks. The opening brief in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit that’s before the Supreme Court where we’re presenting a member of Congress, Congressman Boss, and two presidential electors, and trying to vindicate their right to challenge a dubious, or that’s a terrible way of putting it, unlawful election rule that allows the counting of ballots that erupt for up to 14 days after election.

And we did a quick video explaining the issue here. We will go to clip 15 to help you understand it. Judicial Watch is taking its election integrity fight to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal for a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Boss in two presidential electors, challenging an Illinois law extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law. The lower courts had previously denied that Congressman Boss and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received for up to two weeks after Election Day.

In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch argues, despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote-by-mail ballots. Judicial Watch President Tom Fiddin had this to say about the upcoming Supreme Court action. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity. Illinois’s 14-day extension of Election Day for its federal law violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. Last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day.

Visit judicialwatch.org to learn more. Candidates or candidates have standing under the Constitution to challenge the lawlessness that’s going on in Illinois. And as we highlight in the brief, it’s really a straightforward issue. And, you know, I’m sure we can always lose, right? But I’d be hard-pressed to figure out how that would happen. And this is why it’s such a strong case. Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Federal Election Day. Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources.

They also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legal valid votes cast. Is again any more straightforward than that? Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. So obviously, if a campaign is going to last until Election Day plus two more weeks, two, yeah, I thought I put up three, two more weeks, of course candidates need to know what’s going on. And if those two weeks are unlawfully imposed on him, he has a right to object through a federal court action like we’re providing for him here.

So they have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and also have a distinct interest in, quote, ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. Now, Judicial Watch’s legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court. It’s obvious that candidates have standing to challenge unlawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources. It’s straightforward. And the government’s response or Illinois’s response is due, I think, relatively soon. And it has to be all done, I think, by September because we also received news that October 8th is the date of the oral argument before the Supreme Court.

That’s when the Court actually comes back into session for its new term that week, the first Monday of October. So our argument is going to be that Wednesday, October 8th. Judicial Watch’s legal team is second to none. I may have talked to you about it already, but we’ve brought in Paul Clement to argue the case for us. Paul has had 100 arguments before the Supreme Court. One of the country’s leading practitioners before the Supreme Court bar. It shows you that we were playing to win here. We’re not coming into this case lightly.

And on top of that, we’ve got a great election law team. Bob Popper, former senior official in the Justice Department, is running our election law operation here in Washington, D.C. We have Russ Nobiel, who’s been shepherding this case as well. Russ is a former attorney with the Justice Department, one of the nation’s preeminent experts on election law. And also my colleague, Eric Lee, who’s been with us, of course, I should know how long Eric’s been with us, but he’s been doing so much work on election law. I tell you, I wouldn’t want to go up against Eric when it came to the facts in any matter of election law.

So a tremendous team pushing this case forward. And we’re ready to go on October 8th, right? And as I said in our release, announcing the October 8th state, which was just set this week, what did I say? Simply put, this is an historic election law challenge. Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules, such as the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive after election day. American citizens concerned about election integrity will tune in closely to Judicial Watch’s October 8th Supreme Court oral argument. And I think it’s going to be available online.

Typically, these arguments are now available via audio, if not as the arguments are happening shortly thereafter. But secondly, this isn’t the only case related to election, post-election day counting of ballots that arrive after election day. We had a major victory in Mississippi, where they count ballots for up to five days after election day. And that case, we were representing the Libertarian Party in Mississippi down there. And it was our case, the Republicans came in as well. But we’ve been pushing this issue, and none of this would be the where it is today, but for Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting.

And the case was, I think we lost at the lower court, and we appealed it to the our theory of the case, and found the counting of ballots received after election day to be unlawful. Well, Mississippi, big victory, because that’s the only appellate court who I think have not only considered the issue, but then found in our favor. There are 19 states that do it. Now in the Fifth Circuit, you’re not supposed to do it, counting ballots that arrive after election day. So they’ve appealed it up to the Supreme Court. So not only are we fighting in this current case we have, but Mississippi is trying to get the Supreme Court to take another case, which goes to the merits of the argument.

So just to remember, the case that we have now before the court is about standing, meaning whether someone has the right to challenge the law at issue in court, and should they get their day in court. The underlying merits of the case as to whether it’s lawful or not to extend election day by counting ballots that arrive after election day for, what, five days, two weeks. Who knows, right? That is being asked to go up to the court by Mississippi. Mississippi is seeking cert. And so we urge the Supreme Court in response on behalf of our clients, I think it was just this week or last, to say Mississippi’s law is unlawful.

There’s no reason to even take up this case. And so the law stands. Congress statutorily, and this is the case we may, and this is the case what, excuse me, this is what the Fifth Circuit opinion upholding our theory of the law stated, Congress statutorily designated a singular day for the election of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirmed this day for the election, quote unquote, 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.

And then they reverse the court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings. So Mississippi has challenged this this decision. And so it could be that Judicial Watch has two Supreme Court cases this year, if they take it up, on election integrity. I mean, we’ve got this core issue about the rights of candidates and challenge a legal election procedures. And then we have this other case about the underlying principle involved, which is whether it’s lawful to basically take ballots for who knows how long after election day and keep on counting them.

I mean, under the logic of the supporters of this ability of states to count ballots that arrive after election day, what’s the limiting factor? Maybe you just keep the elections open until the next election, right? There’s got to be an endpoint and the endpoint is set in federal law. And I think it’s interesting because we’re having this fight about rigging elections, right? And this issue in Texas related to redistricting and all of that. I want to get too far into the weeds on that. But I find it more than a little bit interesting because we’ve litigated this in California, because we have a third case over California’s counting of ballots that arrive after election day.

Seven days after election day, they take ballots in and count them. And we’re representing Congressman Darrell Issa to try to stop that. And that case is on hold while our Supreme Court litigation proceeds. But we found in the course of investigating and setting up that lawsuit that two Democrats, one, seats in the House of Representatives only as a result of the counting of ballots that arrived after election day. So there are two seats, I would argue, that should be flipped back to the Republican incumbents by the House and enforce the rule of law on elections.

And it’s disappointing they haven’t even raised that issue or looked into it. You could be sure Democrats would have if the shoe were on the foot. So for all the redistricting battles, there are two Democrat seats that arguably should be Republican seats could be switched at any minute. There’s no time limit to dealing with this. So these are sensitive issues. They go to how votes are counted, what counts as a lawful ballot, whether the rules matter, whether voter confidence matters, because you know if they don’t know who won on election day, most people presume something’s up.

They’re just waiting for the number of votes that come in to ensure the candidate of their choice, the election officials, candidate that they are interested in winning actually wins. I would go a step further. I would suggest that the law requires the certification of the winner on election day, that they have to know who won on election day. In 2020, President Trump had the votes to win the presidency on election day. That result changed as a result of post-election day counting that is unprecedented in various swing states. And I tell you, if they had stuck to just counting the ballots that had gotten there on time and counting them in a timely way, he would have already been through his second term.

But in the least, ballots that arrive after election day, they can’t be counted. I mean, there could be some exceptions to that, but the exceptions prove the rule. Election day means election day, and to count ballots that arrive after election day invites fraud to fraud, is contrary to federal law, and undermines voter confidence. So we got two major cases, one that’s hot, meaning the court is already taking it up before the Supreme Court. We’re going to argue on October 8th. And then there’s another case that the court may take up deciding whether or not Judicial Watch’s victory will stand on behalf of the rule of law in terms of outlawing or finding unlawful accounting of ballots that arrive after election day.

And I tell you, if there’s anyone else doing more for this, tell me about them, because I want to work with them through Judicial Watch. But there no one is doing as much work as we are on these election integrity issues. I mean, I’ll tell you more about it later in the program, but this is historic work. A lot of this was one of the reasons 2020 turned out the way it did in terms of it being compromised and disputed, because the courts didn’t want to provide standing to people challenging these rule changes as unlawful.

And I’m hoping the Supreme Court clarifies it and allows this to go forward. [tr:trw].

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