A North Carolina appeals court controversially overturned over 60,000 votes in a state Supreme Court race, a decision potentially setting a precedent for future election challenges. Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who lost by a narrow margin, targeted ballots with minor registration issues or lacking strict photo ID from overseas voters, disproportionately impacting Democratic-leaning areas. This ruling, if upheld, would effectively institutionalize election denial and provide a blueprint for overturning future elections, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the democratic process. The decision has sparked outrage and legal challenges, with experts arguing it violates federal due process principles and sets a dangerous precedent.
Read More
A proposed ban on barcodes on ballots, potentially driven by a desire to slow down vote counting, presents a complex issue with significant implications. The idea seems to stem from a belief that delaying the vote count could create opportunities for political manipulation and unrest. This delay could provide more time to challenge the legitimacy of the count, potentially leading to a chaotic situation where claims of fraud are amplified and used to undermine the election outcome.
This strategy plays into a broader pattern of undermining faith in democratic processes. By intentionally slowing down the process, the intention might be to sow discord and distrust, enabling the exertion of influence on the final result.… Continue reading
President Trump’s executive order, titled “Restoring Trust in American Elections,” mandates new voting rules deemed unconstitutional by many. The order, driven by unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, oversteps executive authority by dictating state election procedures, including requiring proof of citizenship on voter registration forms and restricting mail-in ballot deadlines. This action is predicted to face legal challenges due to its infringement upon states’ rights to regulate their own elections, as explicitly outlined in the Constitution. The order also includes impractical demands, such as mandating the use of nonexistent voting machines, further highlighting its potential flaws.
Read More
President Trump’s executive order, ostensibly aimed at ensuring fair elections, includes provisions exceeding executive authority, such as mandating documentary proof of citizenship and ballot receipt deadlines. More concerningly, the order empowers the Justice Department to withhold federal election funding from states refusing information-sharing agreements. This compels states to share data on voter registration, even routine maintenance tasks, potentially weaponizing the DOJ against states. Election experts warn this oversteps presidential power and could cripple state election administration.
Read More
Trump signs an executive order mandating proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. This action immediately sparks a firestorm of debate, raising questions about its legality, its practicality, and its potential impact on the upcoming elections. Many immediately point out that the Constitution assigns the power to regulate elections to the states, not the federal government. This executive order seems to directly contradict this established principle of states’ rights, a point often emphasized by those who support the order’s intended goals.
The practicality of the order is also heavily questioned. Many wonder how such a requirement would be enforced, especially considering the diverse documentation Americans possess, and the variations in how states manage voter registration and verification processes.… Continue reading
US Postmaster General Louis Dejoy’s resignation is a significant event, sparking a wide range of reactions. Many see it not as a victory, but rather as a prelude to further challenges for the Postal Service. The concern is that his departure paves the way for someone even less favorable to the institution, potentially accelerating efforts towards privatization and further undermining its operations.
The timing of Dejoy’s resignation is also viewed with suspicion. Some believe he fulfilled his purpose – namely, weakening the USPS before a potential return to power by a particular political faction – and now departs having achieved his objectives.… Continue reading
Crockett’s assertion that the US may not even “have elections” in four years is a stark warning, raising concerns about the future of American democracy. This statement, while alarming, reflects a growing anxiety about the erosion of democratic norms and institutions. The gravity of such a claim shouldn’t be dismissed lightly, especially coming from a sitting member of Congress.
The potential for a future without free and fair elections is deeply unsettling. The suggestion highlights a belief that the current political system is rigged, controlled by powerful elites who prioritize their own interests above the will of the people. This isn’t just hyperbole; there’s legitimate concern about the influence of money in politics and the manipulation of election processes.… Continue reading
During a CNN appearance, Rep. Jasmine Crockett expressed doubt about the 2028 presidential election, citing concerns about current leadership and echoing previous claims that President Trump is dictatorial and undermining democratic norms. This statement followed a question regarding a potential Ocasio-Cortez primary challenge against Senator Schumer. Crockett’s comments, which went unchallenged by the interviewer, add to her history of controversial remarks regarding Trump and the 2024 election results. Her skepticism about future elections reflects a broader concern among some Democrats about the stability of American democracy.
Read More
Executive Order 14215 asserts broad presidential control over numerous federal agencies, notably the Federal Election Commission (FEC), prompting a Democratic National Committee (DNC) lawsuit. The DNC argues this action, explicitly targeting the FEC, unconstitutionally undermines the agency’s independence and jeopardizes fair elections. The lawsuit cites established Supreme Court precedent supporting Congress’s authority to protect agencies from direct presidential control, directly contradicting the executive order’s claims of Article II justification. The order’s constitutionality, particularly regarding the FEC’s authority, is the central point of legal contention.
Read More
The Democratic Party is challenging a recent executive order issued by President Trump, arguing it grants him excessive control over regulatory agencies, particularly the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The lawsuit claims this order jeopardizes the FEC’s independence, potentially allowing partisan influence over campaign finance law enforcement. The plaintiffs seek a court declaration upholding the FEC’s independent status and a block on the executive order’s application to the FEC. This action counters a conservative legal movement aiming to centralize executive branch power within the White House, potentially circumventing Supreme Court precedents protecting independent agencies.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood