A polling place under the bipartisan supervision of election officials and the observation of poll watchers has numerous advantages. It helps ensure not only that the ballots are completed by the registered voters and deposited in a locked, sealed ballot box, but also that the voters’ eligibility and identity are verified; that no voters are pressured or coerced to vote a particular way by candidates, party activists, and political guns-for-hire, who are all prohibited from being inside the polling place; and that no ballots get “lost” in the mail or not delivered on time.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Moore v. Harper, a case that turns on the meaning of a key provision in the Constitution outlining the Framers’ structure for congressional elections.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by Texas and Louisiana over Biden administration guidelines that severely restricted the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement of federal immigration law against illegal aliens.
There is a reason the U.S. State Department and organizations like the Carter Center routinely send teams of American observers to fledgling democracies all over the world: they recognize that transparency is essential to ensuring honest elections. That requires observers to be able to watch every aspect of the voting and ballot-counting process without being intimidated or interfered with.
After enduring years of targeted censorship, the Republican National Committee is suing Google for its bulk-labeling of millions of RNC campaign email communications to its supporters and donors as “spam” during “pivotal points in election cycles.”
For years, liberal activists—with the assistance of their corporate media allies—have been pushing the myth that there is a wave of “voter suppression” going on across the country. As the record registration and turnout numbers in recent elections prove, as well as their numerous losses in litigation show, this is a false claim created by opponents of commonsense election reforms like voter ID.
Election integrity and voter fraud have become so controversial that even if you try to discuss them rationally and reasonably, and cite incontrovertible evidence, you will likely be banned by social media platforms and labelled a conspiratorial vote suppressor by the major media organizations that dominate our airwaves.
On Sept. 20, we reported on an outrageous subpoena served by the U.S. Justice Department on the Eagle Forum of Alabama. Fortunately, in the face of vigorous opposition expressed in amicus briefs filed by literally dozens of conservative organizations supporting the Eagle Forum’s motion to quash (i.e., throw out) the subpoena, Justice Department lawyers caved and narrowed their request—as the judge in the case put it—to “1%” of what they were demanding before.
As we head toward the 2022 elections, it is a safe bet that few Americans can identify the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, even though it’s one of the most significant amendments. Ratified on April 8, 1913, it completely changed the balance of power in our federal system.The amendment provided for the direct popular election of U.S. senators. That sounds non-controversial now, but it meant taking the power away from state legislatures that were originally given the authority to choose the senators representing their state in Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which took center stage Tuesday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, prohibits a state from imposing a “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color … .” Courts have found that states violate this provision when they draw new legislative districts that dilute the voting power of minority voters by either packing as many of these voters as possible into a single district or by splitting these voters among various other districts—practices known as “packing” and “cracking” voters.