Tuesday 23 April 2024

Supreme Court Declines Texas Democrats’ Challenge to Mail-In Voting Law


The Democrat-Marxist plan to steal elections like they did in 2020 depends on mail-in voting schemes. It is well documented that the Democrats always do better with mail-in voting. It’s much easier to cheat that way.

In a pivotal legal ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a Texas statute that restricts mail-in voting based on age, marking a significant setback for efforts to expand no-excuse absentee balloting in the state, the Epoch Times reported.

This decision effectively halts the push by Democrats and other groups to broadly implement “no-excuse” mail-in voting in Texas, with potential ramifications extending to other states possessing similar legislation.

The case, originally brought forth in 2020 by the Texas Democratic Party and a cohort of voters amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, sought to eliminate the state’s age-based restrictions on mail-in voting. 

Under current Texas law, only voters who are 65 years of age or older can vote by mail without providing a specific reason, such as illness or disability.

The plaintiffs in the case argued that the law was discriminatory against younger voters and in violation of the 26th Amendment, which prohibits age discrimination in voting. The plaintiffs aimed to make mail-in voting more accessible to all ages.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the appeal effectively preserves the Texas law, marking a victory for those advocating for stringent election integrity measures. They argue that expanding mail-in voting without cause could compromise election security and increase the risk of fraud.

In 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled against universal vote-by-mail in Texas. This is good news for America, Texas, and the rule of law.

“The Supreme Court rejected a Democratic bid to force universal vote-by-mail in Texas, leaving intact a state law. We won’t compromise election integrity in Texas with voting schemes that are subject to fraud. We will protect elections in Texas,” Gov. Abbott wrote at the time.

Bloomberg reported:

The U.S. Supreme Court turned away a Democratic bid to force universal vote-by-mail in Texas, leaving intact a state law that lets people cast no-excuse absentee ballots only if they are 65 or older.

The Texas Democratic Party and its allies argued unsuccessfully that the law violates the Constitution’s 26th Amendment, which says the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.”

Voting by mail became a sharply partisan issue amid President Donald Trump’s unsupported contentions that the practice led to widespread fraud in the November election. Texas’s Republican governor and attorney general urged the Supreme Court to reject the Democratic appeal.

Mail-in voting enabled Democrats to steal Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a significant uptick has been reported in voter registrations without a photo ID in three critical swing states: Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

The conservative advocacy group End Wokeness brought this trend to light on Tuesday, citing figures that point to a surge since the start of 2024, with Texas experiencing a staggering 1,250,710 such registrations, Pennsylvania with 580,513, and Arizona recording 220,731.

Poll: Supermajority of American Voters Oppose Abortion Past 12 Weeks

 As the Biden administration accelerates their strategy of promoting abortion as their go-to issue ahead of the November elections, a new poll confirmed the results of numerous previous polls, showing that a supermajority of American voters oppose abortion after the third month of pregnancy — a view that is not in line with the Democratic Party’s public position of unrestricted abortion.

On Wednesday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a poll revealing that 66 percent of American voters are opposed to late-term abortions beyond 12 weeks. These latest numbers are largely similar to polling results from the last 20 years, which show anywhere from 55 to 71 percent of Americans opposing second trimester abortions and 70 to 86 percent opposing third trimester abortions.

Notably, Democratic lawmakers in recent years have consistently refused to say if they would place any limits on abortion, even up to the moment of birth.

The current Democratic Party platform makes no reference to placing any limits on the procedure, going so far as to say that the party would work to overturn any and all pro-life protections enacted by duly elected state lawmakers, as well as any federal protections: “Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights.” 

The platform goes on to state that Democrats would force taxpayers to pay for abortions by “repeal[ing] the Hyde Amendment,” a position that is opposed by 60 percent of Americans.

The platform further declares that Democrats will sweep away all state pro-life protections by “codify[ing] the right to reproductive freedom” in federal law, which the party has already attempted to do with the “Women’s Health Protection Act.”

Despite the Democratic Party’s unwillingness to show any moderation on abortion, Republicans in recent months have struggled to find their footing on how to message on the issue and have often not taken advantage of the contrast between public opinion on late-term abortion and the Democratic position.

Former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel has urged GOPers to point out the Democrats’ extremism in recent months. “We are the pro-life, pro-woman, pro-family party, and we can win on abortion,” she said. “But that means putting Democrats on the defense and forcing them to own their own extreme positions.”

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. Steve Daines voiced similar sentiments, pushing candidates to “not run away from the issue.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Director of Family Research Council Action Matt Carpenter contended that the Democratic Party is engaging in a money-centric strategy to overcome the discrepancy between their abortion extremism and public opinion.

“Across the nation, pro-abortion groups are pushing for ballot measures which would amend state constitutions to allow abortion through all stages of pregnancy, on the taxpayer dime,” he observed. “Liberal dark money groups are pouring campaign cash into these efforts, and Democrat political operatives are licking their chops at the thought of a super-charged pro-abortion turnout at the polls. Forgetting for a moment that poll after poll shows voters are concerned mostly about the cost-of-living crisis, rising crime, and the daily invasion at the southern border, the reality is voters are not supportive of second and third trimester abortions.”

Nonetheless, Carpenter went on to acknowledge that pro-life Republicans face challenges in educating voterson abortion ahead of November.

“While the pro-abortion side relies on a phalanx of pundits repeating their euphemisms, the pro-life movement has their work cut out for them to educate voters as to the extreme nature of these measures, which would prevent states from protecting unborn children from abortion in the second and third trimesters,” Carpenter said.

Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, also acknowledged the challenges in the current political climate but encouraged GOP candidates to be unafraid of making plain the Democratic Party’s position on abortion.

“The tragedy of only 66 percent of voters opposing late-term abortion points to the prevalence of the culture of death,” Szoch told The Washington Stand. “It demonstrates that our culture has become one that values people based on what they can do or accomplish as opposed to the fact that each person is a son or daughter of God. We have a lot of work to do building a culture of life.”

Szoch concluded, “That said — 66 percent of voters is a majority of Americans who agree that killing an unborn child after viability is a grave evil. Political candidates should recognize that speaking the truth about the Democratic Party’s views on life — their desire for abortion through (and even infanticide after) birth — is out of step with the American people.”

AP Article Makes Dubious Suggestion Abortion Bans Caused ERs To Turn Women Away

 An Associated Press article last week suggested pregnant women have been turned away from emergency rooms due to state abortion bans, but the examples do not appear to support that narrative.

The report, which was published Friday, cites three examples — two women who were turned away from emergency rooms and another woman who delivered her baby in a car and lost it after a hospital told her they could not give her an ultrasound. The AP cites federal documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed early last year.

“The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide,” the article states.

Pregnant women have “become radioactive to emergency departments” in states with abortion bans, the AP quoted a health law and policy professor as saying.

The woman who delivered in a car and lost her baby initially showed up with stomach pain at Person Memorial Hospital in Roxboro, North Carolina, where staff told her they would not be able to give her an ultrasound.

The hospital staff failed to tell her it would be risky to leave without being stabilized, federal investigators said. She delivered her baby in a car while on the way to another hospital 45 minutes away, and the baby did not survive.

It is unclear how North Carolina’s 12-week abortion ban would have affected this woman’s devastating situation.

Person Memorial Hospital reported the incident, and a hospital spokeswoman said they continue to “provide ongoing education for our staff and providers to ensure compliance.”

In another example the AP cites, a woman who was having contractions was turned away from Falls Community Hospital in Marlin, Texas, when the doctor on duty told her they did not have “obstetric services or capabilities,” according to federal investigation records. The doctor recommended the patient drive to a Waco hospital about 35 minutes away.

The hospital broke the law, according to investigators with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The article does not explain how Texas’ abortion ban, which includes exceptions for cases where the pregnancy would risk the life or a major bodily function of the mother, would have affected this woman’s case.

Another woman miscarried in a restroom toilet after staff at a stand-alone emergency room in a Houston strip mall refused to check her in when her husband asked for help delivering the baby.

The woman’s husband called 911 as she miscarried in the Sacred Heart Emergency Center’s lobby restroom, telling first responders in Spanish, “She is bleeding a lot and had a miscarriage … I’m here at the hospital but they told us they can’t help us because we are not their client.”

First responders arrived 20 minutes later and took the woman to a hospital. They appeared confused about the staff’s refusal to help the woman, 911 transcripts cited by the AP show.

State law requires stand-alone emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients, a spokeswoman for Texas Health and Human Services told the AP.

Again, it is unclear how Texas’ abortion ban would have affected this case.


In yet another example, a security guard at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Melbourne, Florida, would not allow a pregnant woman into the triage area because she had a child with her. Medical staff could not find a fetal heartbeat when she returned the next day, the AP said.

Florida bans abortions after six weeks, but it is not clear how the law would have affected this case.

Legacy media outlets have made a variety of claims about the repercussions of state abortion bans, saying they affect everything from miscarriage care to treatment for ectopic pregnancies.

However, in many cases, the details reveal these situations are much more complex.

EU Tightens Sanctions On Iran After Iranian Attack On Israel

 The European Union, responding to the recent Iranian attack on Israel in which it fired roughly 350 drones and missiles, decided on Monday to tighten sanctions on Iran, barring the exportation of  EU-made components used for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and ballistic missiles.

“After Tehran’s attack on 13 April against Israel, which saw over 300 projectiles headed from different fronts towards the Jewish nation, the EU began working on an expanded raft of sanctions to cover the production of missiles and enlarge the catalogue of prohibited drone-related components,” EuroNews reported, noting of Iran that the “country has over the years developed an intricate network of operators to obtain sensitive dual-use items, which can be used for both military and civilian purposes, and evade long-standing international sanctions.”

The EU sanctions reportedly will increase restrictions to the “whole region of the Middle East and the Red Sea,” according to High Representative Josep Borrell.

On the other hand, no move was made by the EU to name the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, although that idea has been discussed since the Iranian regime cracked down on protesters last year. “There are doubts within the EU members whether this step can be legally taken (which first requires a national decision in this regard, that is, for a court in one of the EU countries to declare it a terrorist organization) and, most importantly, whether it would be a convenient thing to do, as it would further close the already narrow channels of communication with Tehran,” El Pais noted.

In mid-February, every EU country except Hungary warned Israel not to attack Rafah, Hamas’ last stronghold in Gaza. In recent years, Hungary’s relations with Israel have been very warm; in May 2020, Hungarian Foreign Minister Petar Scheirto made it clear Israel could depend on Hungary for support, saying Hungary would “continue to oppose anti-Israeli statements in front of the European Union, the United Nations and in international forums.” He called accusations against Israel for war crimes “absurd” while noting that both countries had been under attack in the international arena “as a result of political voting.”

Ilhan Omar Tries To Defend Columbia Protesters (And Her Daughter), And It Backfires Immediately

 Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) attempted to run defense for the anti-Israel protesters — a group that includes her daughter, Barnard student Isra Hirsi — and got hit with an immediate wave of backlash.

Omar, whose daughter was among the students who were suspended and detained for their participation in anti-semitic protests on Columbia University’s campus, defended the protests in an X post, claiming that the protests had been “co-opted” and that was the real reason they looked bad.

“Throughout history, protests were co-opted and made to look bad so police and public leaders would shut them down. That’s what we are seeing now at Columbia University,” Omar said. “The Columbia protesters have made clear their demands and want their school not to be complacent in the ongoing Genocide in Gaza. Public officials and media making this about anything else are inflaming the situation and need to bring calmness and sanity back.”

Omar’s efforts to spin the anti-semitic protests were quickly met with rebuttals from critics, many of whom pointed out the fact that protesters were on camera shouting and chanting slogans that called for the genocide of the Jews and the destruction of Israel.

“Inventing a conspiracy to blame the antisemitism and terror support of the protestors on police and others doesn’t work when everyone can see the truth …” AG (@aghamilton29) posted, adding, “It’s almost hilarious the extent to which the defenders of the antisemitic mobs at Columbia are completely reliant on pretending the numerous videos and the witness testimony from Jewish students simply don’t exist to preserve their narratives.”

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY) added, “Ilhan, there’s video. Lots of it. These antisemites don’t need police & public leaders to make them look bad. They’re doing that all by themselves. Only demands should be: Hamas, surrender; Release the hostages.”

Referencing Columbia’s move to remote learning on Monday due to the increased tensions on campus, Erielle Azerrad pointed out: “Jews are studying remotely because of Omar’s daughter.”

“Nothing was co-opted here,” Pradheep Shankar said. “These idiots were always fascists and antisemites (including her daughter). Nothing has changed since the evening of 10/7. The Columbia protester demands are irrelevant, because they are nonsense, and they should ignored. Kick them out.”

NFL Patriots Owner Bob Kraft Yanks Money From Columbia Until ‘School Can Protect Its Students’

 New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft has announced that he will no longer provide funding to Columbia University until the “school can protect its students” amid “extreme anti-Semitism” from pro-Palestinian protestors.

In a message posted on Monday on X, the Patriots owner — who’s the founder of The Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCASorg) — wrote that he’s “deeply saddened at the virulent hate that continues to grow on campus” at his alma mater Columbia University and “throughout our country” following the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel.

“…The school I love so much — the one that welcomed me and provided me with so much opportunity — is no longer an institution I recognize,” Kraft’s statement read. “I am no longer confident that Columbia can protect its students and staff and I am not comfortable supporting the university until corrective action is taken.”

“It is my hope that Columbia and its leadership will stand up to this hate by ending these protests immediately and will work to earn back the respect and trust of the many of us who have lost faith in the institution,” he added. 

It is my hope that in this difficult time, the Kraft Center at Columbia will serve as a source of security and safety for all Jewish students and faculty on campus who want to gather peacefully to practice their religion, to be together, and to be welcomed,” the NFL team owner’s statement concluded.

On Monday, the New York City university moved to remote learning out of safety concerns stemming from pro-Palestinian protests that have unsettled the Ivy League school’s Jewish population as the Passover holiday is set to begin, as previously reported.

Minouche Shafik, the president of Columbia University, announced the move in a statement calling for a “reset” after a rabbi for Columbia and its partner school Barnard College urged Jewish students to go home due to the “extreme antisemitism and anarchy” that the university and New York Police Department could not contain.

“To deescalate the rancor and give us all a chance to consider next steps, I am announcing that all classes will be held virtually on Monday,” Shafik said early Monday morning. “Faculty and staff who can work remotely should do so; essential personnel should report to work according to university policy. Our preference is that students who do not live on campus will not come to campus.”

Trump Lawyer: Democrats Care More About Keeping Trump Off Campaign Trail Than They Do Winning In Court

 One of former President Donald Trump’s top lawyers explained this week that he believes that Democrats used their criminal cases against Trump to try to keep him off the campaign trail.

Attorney Chris Kise made the remarks during a Fox News interview when asked by host Jesse Watters what he believed was happening.

“Well, I think, you know, the Democrats claim that Trump is a threat to democracy,” he said. “The real threat to democracy is the willingness to abuse the power of your office to influence what should otherwise be a free and fair election. And that’s exactly what’s going on downtown in the courtroom. I mean, look at just this week. You’ve got a hearing in a civil case about essentially nothing. You’ve got a criminal trial starting. And later this week, there’ll be a Supreme Court argument. All in cases that were made up specifically for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.”

Kise said that the trials that Trump faced all had a “similar pattern” and he wasn’t even sure if the Democrats even cared that much about winning them.

“I’m not even sure that they really care what the outcome was,” he said. “We went downtown and had a hearing to determine that $175 million of President Trump’s cash that he posted, is actually worth $175 million. And a bond form that has been in use for 100 years in the State of New York is actually valid, but we wasted time, money, and resources. And I think that’s the goal. Let’s drain the President’s time. Let’s drain his focus. Let’s drain his resources. All while now President Biden is somehow magically out of the basement campaigning. He’s on the campaign.”

Speaking on the draining impact that being on in the courtroom has on a person, Kise said: “It does take a toll. I think that President Trump will withstand that toll, because he’s an extraordinarily resilient individual. But it’s demonstrative of exactly what they want. The Democrats have President Trump where they want him: Trump on trial, President Biden on the campaign trail. That’s what they’re looking to do. They’ve realized, you know, there’s two ways really to influence human behavior. You can inspire it, or you can manipulate it. President Trump inspires people. But I think the Democrats have realized that President Biden isn’t going to inspire anyone. So now we have to manipulate the outcome. And that’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re using the weapon that they have, the power of these court cases. I mean, in 30 years, I’ve never seen any one defendant face multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions all at the same time.”