Posts

Nevada Supreme Court Handed down a Devastating Ruling on Mail-in Ballots and Election Integrity

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This presidential election will likely come down to key swing states, and could very well be a close and competitive race. If that’s indeed the case, though, we might not know the results until several days after Election Day. Monday’s ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court on accepting mail-in ballots without a postmark and after the election, not only doesn’t help the timeline, it also strikes a devastating blow to election integrity for years to come.

“By removing the necessity for any proof that a ballot has passed through the postal service and thereby negating a critical ballot security measure, the Nevada Supreme Court has opened wide the doors to rampant ballot fraud,” streiff aptly wrote at our sister site of RedState. He also included a copy of the court’s opinion.

As The Hill reported on Monday about the decision:

Nevada’s Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision Monday allowing mail ballots to be counted if they arrive without a postmark up to three days after the Nov. 5 election.

A majority of the high court ruled the state law requiring mail-in ballots to be counted even if the postmark “cannot be determined” applied to ballots without any postmark, as well as ballots whose postmarks are illegible.

…

“If a voter properly and timely casts their vote by mailing their ballot before or on the day of the election, and through a post office omission the ballot is not postmarked, it would go against public policy to discount that properly cast vote,” Nevada’s majority opinion read.

…

“Requiring ballots to be postmarked on or before election day is a critical election integrity safeguard that ensures ballots mailed after election day are not counted,” said RNC Spokesperson Claire Zunk. “It is also a requirement of Nevada law. By allowing Nevada officials to ignore the law’s postmark requirement, the state’s highest court has undermined the integrity of Nevada’s elections.”

(Read more from “Nevada Supreme Court Handed down a Devastating Ruling on Mail-in Ballots and Election Integrity” HERE)

Arizona Supreme Court Rules 98,000 People Whose Citizenship Is Unconfirmed Can Vote in Pivotal Election

/1 Comment/in , /by

Nearly 98,000 people whose U.S. citizenship has not been confirmed will be allowed to vote in the upcoming state and local elections, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling came after a “coding oversight” in state software prompted the swing state’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to insist that he would send out ballots to those affected anyway.

The database error called into question the citizenship status of 100,000 registered Arizona voters, affecting individuals who obtained their driver’s licenses before October 1996, and subsequently received duplicates before registering to vote after 2004.

Fontes and Stephen Richer, the Republican Maricopa County recorder, disagreed on what status the voters should hold following the “coding oversight.”

“This was discovered not because somebody was voting illegally and not because somebody was attempting to vote illegally, as far as we can tell,” Fontes said at a Tuesday afternoon news conference. “And this was basic voter roll maintenance, and it showed us that there is this issue.” (Read more from “Arizona Supreme Court Rules 98,000 People Whose Citizenship Is Unconfirmed Can Vote in Pivotal Election” HERE)

Key Swing State Supreme Court Rules Mail-in Ballots With Flawed Dates Can Be Tossed

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday that will allow mail-in ballots without accurate dates on their return envelopes to be thrown out.

In late August, a Pennsylvania state court halted the enforcement of requiring voters to include accurate, handwritten dates on submitted mail-in ballots, according to CBS News. However, the state’s Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, has now reinstated the requirement as two Democrats on the high court joined both Republicans to vacate the Commonwealth Court decision, according to the court documents.

Within the court filing, Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Brobson and Daniel McCaffery stated the decision was made after the Commonwealth Court failed to “name the county boards of elections of all 67 counties,” calling out Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt for not meeting the requirements “to invoke the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.”

With the reversal of the decision, over 10,000 ballots could potentially be tossed within the key swing state due to expected discrepancies on the envelopes regarding the date, according to The Associated Press. Justice David Wecht, within his dissent, stated, “A prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance inasmuch as it will affect the counting of ballots in the upcoming general election.”

In November 2022, the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that mail-in or absentee ballots lacking a date on their return envelopes are invalid, prior to the midterm elections at the time. (Read more from “Key Swing State Supreme Court Rules Mail-in Ballots With Flawed Dates Can Be Tossed” HERE)

Parents Ask Supreme Court To Take Up Case Challenging School Policy Pushing ‘Gender,’ ‘Sexuality’ Books On Kids

/0 Comments/in , /by

A group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents in Maryland petitioned the Supreme Court Thursday to ask it to take up a case regarding school board policies that keep parents in the dark on books with themes about “gender” and “sexuality” being taught to children.

The case originates from the Montgomery County Board of Education (BOE) instituting an “inclusive” storybook program in 2022 for students in grades pre-K through fifth, initially informing parents of when they would be read until changing that policy in March 2023, also restricting parents’ ability to opt their kids out, according to a press release from the Becket Fund, a non-profit law firm representing the parents. Shortly after the Montgomery BOE announced the change in policy, the group of parents filed a lawsuit against the BOE in May 2023 and lost, and were denied again in May 2024 when they appealed to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The storybooks include topics on gender transitioning, pride parades and preferred pronouns, according to the press release. One book includes terms like “intersex flag” and “drag queen.”

One book mentioned in the suit, called “Jacob’s Room to Choose,” includes two transgender children and a teacher who use a game to convince their class to be “supportive of gender-free bathrooms,” court document states. Another book titled “Pride Puppy,” directed at three and four-year-olds, describes a pride parade and has students identify images including “leather” and “underwear.”

“Most fundamentally, it violates the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” Will Haun, an attorney for the Becket Fund, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

(Read more from “Parents Ask Supreme Court to Take up Case Challenging School Policy Pushing ‘Gender,’ ‘Sexuality’ Books on Kids” HERE)

Americans Cast Judgment on Democrats’ Plan to Completely Change the Supreme Court

/3 Comments/in , /by

A new nationwide survey highlighted in a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial found that most Americans don’t support sweeping changes to the Supreme Court, despite President Biden’s last-minute push for such a measure.

The WSJ cited a Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy survey that found “support for the separation of powers just as many of the speakers at this week’s Democratic National Convention seek to undermine it.”

President Biden, after abruptly leaving the presidential race a month ago, endorsed legislation that would impose term limits for justices, among other things, that would drastically alter the makeup of the high court. His plan is also of questionable constitutionality.

According to the Journal, the Mason-Dixon poll found that after asking likely voters if they “support or oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to change the structure of the U.S. Supreme Court,” 52% of them oppose the idea, while 41% of likely voters support the idea of amending the constitution to change the court’s structure.

Noting that for “over 150 years, the United States Supreme Court has had nine justices” and that court-packing “is generally defined as increasing the number of Supreme Court seats, primarily to alter the ideological balance of the court,” the poll asked respondents if they agree with “court-packing.” (Read more from “Americans Cast Judgment on Democrats’ Plan to Completely Change the Supreme Court” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Supreme Court Keeps New Rules About Sex Discrimination in Education on Hold in Half the Country

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Friday kept on hold in roughly half the country new regulations about sex discrimination in education, rejecting a Biden administration request.

The court voted 5-4, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three liberal justices in dissent.

At issue were protections for pregnant students and students who are parents, and the procedures schools must use in responding to sexual misconduct complaints.

The most noteworthy of the new regulations, involving protections for transgender students, were not part of the administration’s plea to the high court.

They too remain blocked in 25 states and hundreds of individual colleges and schools across the country because of lower court orders. (Read more from “Supreme Court Keeps New Rules About Sex Discrimination in Education on Hold in Half the Country” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

SCOTUS Blocks Challenge to Trump’s Hush Money Sentencing, Gag Order Until After Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an effort to halt former and potentially future President Donald Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case, as well as lift the gag order imposed on him until after the November election. As CBS News reported, the effort, described as “a longshot bid” came from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

According to the CBS News report:

The high court denied Missouri’s request to bring its case against New York, and dismissed a separate motion to pause Trump’s sentencing in an unsigned order. There were no noted dissents. Justices Clarence and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the state’s request to file a bill of complaint, but would not have granted the other relief Missouri sought.

…

[Trump] has vowed to appeal the conviction, and his sentencing, while initially set for July 11, was delayed to Sept. 18. The New York judge overseeing the case, Justice Juan Merchan, lifted part of the gag order in June, but Trump is still restricted from talking about prosecutors, court staff and their families.

Merchan is also set to decide by Sept. 6 whether to set aside Trump’s guilty verdict based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that he is entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts taken while in the White House. Trump’s lawyers have argued that under the court’s decision, prosecutors shouldn’t have been allowed to offer evidence at trial of the former president’s official acts. Manhattan prosecutors disagree with their assertions.

(Read more from “SCOTUS Blocks Challenge to Trump’s Hush Money Sentencing, Gag Order Until After Election” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Federal Judge Orders Release of John Strand From Jan. 6 Prison Term

/3 Comments/in , /by

John Strand, a former model and actor who went to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to protect Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors, was ordered released from prison July 15 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision stymieing use of a 20-year felony obstruction charge.

United States District Judge Christopher Cooper granted Strand’s second motion for release since February — just weeks after a Supreme Court ruling strictly limited the obstruction of an official proceeding charge leveled against Strand and 354 other Jan. 6 defendants.

Gold, Strand’s friend who served a 60-day prison sentence on a misdemeanor count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, praised Strand’s integrity after learning of the release order.

“He was offered a single misdemeanor plea,” Gold said in an interview with Blaze News. “He said, ‘I’m going to walk into the fire.’ He walked into the fire. He never regretted it. I mean, he’s a full-on hero in an age when we need heroes.”

Strand, 41, of Naples, Fla., will have to finish his 12-month sentence on four Jan. 6 misdemeanor charges, which puts his release date on July 24. Strand was originally sentenced to 32 months in prison. (Read more from “Federal Judge Orders Release of John Strand From Jan. 6 Prison Term” HERE)

Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma’s $6 Billion Opioid Settlement

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Purdue Pharma’s proposed $6 billion bankruptcy settlement. A 5-4 majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the Biden administration‘s argument that Purdue’s settlement is an abuse of bankruptcy protections meant for debtors in financial distress, not for the owners of the multibillion-dollar opioid company, the Sackler family, who withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement.

The Sackler family’s plan to settle lawsuits and transform Purdue Pharma into a nonprofit organization dedicated to addiction treatment was initially approved by a bankruptcy judge in 2011. The U.S. Trustee Program, a Justice Department watchdog, intervened and claimed settlement terms required unanimous consent by the roughly 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims, despite the plan’s approval by over 95% of the voting claimants.

After years of litigation, the Supreme Court in August temporarily barred the pharmaceutical from moving forward with bankruptcy proceedings and agreed to hear Biden administration’s challenge to the plan on the merits.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Sackler family’s plan to settle lawsuits and transform Purdue Pharma into a nonprofit organization dedicated to addiction treatment was initially approved by a bankruptcy judge in 2011. (Read more from “Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma’s $6 Billion Opioid Settlement” HERE)

SCOTUS Hands Down Huge Decision Affecting J6 Defendants

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Supreme Court has taken a judicial katana to a statute that federal prosecutors weaponized to go after those who participated in the January 6 incident. The question before the court was whether the “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute could be used in how the Justice Department weaponized it to go after hundreds of January 6 defendants. As SCOTUS Blog covered in April, the plaintiff, Joseph Fischer, a former police officer, argued that the statute only pertained to evidence tampering in a congressional investigation. During oral arguments, justices weren’t convinced by the government’s interpretation, arguing that it could cast too much of a net.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court handed down a massive blow to federal prosecutors, concluding, per SCOTUS Blog’s Amy Howe, that for the statute to be used in this way, there must be evidence to the fact that “the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records.” In a blow to the narrative that the Supreme Court is rogue and right-wing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented (via SCOTUS Blog):

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

The court reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law to allow the charges against Fischer to go forward. The case now goes back to the D.C. Circuit — which, the court says, can assess whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.

Justice Jackson, who joined the majority opinion, also has a concurring opinion. She stresses that despite “the shocking circumstances involved in this case,” the “Court’s task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here.”

(Read more from “SCOTUS Hands Down Huge Decision Affecting J6 Defendants” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr