Free Republic

New polling confirms Americans are not as crazy and clueless as their mainstream media. Despite all the media BS about peaceful protests, Americans are not so willing to go along with ripping down all the statues of heroes and saints, burning and looting the business districts and threats to abolish the police. According to a new poll by Democracy Institute the fallout from the Black Lives Matter protests and riots will win President Trump his reelection.

New Jersey is holding its primary today, in which the default is to vote by mail. Anyone voting in person must fill out a provisional ballot. And the provisional ballot requires your drivers license number. So voting in person now requires Voter ID, you fill out a lengthy form, and vote with a paper ballot. Normal voting in person does not exist. I've heard for years that Voter ID is a republican plot which suppresses minority Voters. But now it's required if you want to vote in person. I'm hearing numerous reports of people voting in person and telling the...

Ever since President-elect Donald Trump soundly defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, several electors in the Electoral College have threatened to vote against the will of the people in their state to against both Trump and Hillary Clinton. One group of electors who are supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton experienced a major setback in court and one judge has reminded them that they can be replaced.

The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters are required to support presidential candidate who wins state. After lower courts split on the question, the U.S. Supreme Court decided today it will hear a case to decide whether presidential electors are bound to support the popular vote winner in their states or can opt for someone else. States want the ability to punish or replace these so-called "faithless" electors...

As the Democrat Left seeks to circumvent the Electoral College with the National Popular Vote Compact, in which states agree to assign their presidential electors to whomever receives the most votes nationally, even if the other candidate won their state, a federal appeals court has thrown even more shade at voters. As the Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Colorado ruled 2-1 that the then-secretary of state was wrong to remove and replace an elector who wanted to cast his ballot for GOP alternative John Kasich rather than Hillary Clinton, who won in Colorado. [...] You...

Long before discussions of impeachment became commonplace, a means of denying President-elect Donald Trump the White House was floated and circulated among liberal groups. They formed a national alliance shortly after the 2016 election designed to manipulate the Electoral College by persuading and pressuring electors not to vote for Trump when members of the Electoral College met to cast their votes on Dec. 19, 2016, but to vote for an alternative candidate. As we all know, they were not successful. But what happened to the small handful of electors who broke their pledges ? There were seven nationwide, including...

On May 7, the plaintiffs filed this 40-page brief in League of United Latin American Citizens v Abbott, w.d. Texas, 5:18cv-175. This sets forth why the plaintiffs believe that the winner-take-all system for choosing presidential electors in 48 states violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. There are similar cases pending in three other states. It just happens that the Texas case is the first one in which the plaintiffs have set forth their legal argument. All four cases have the same high-powered law firms working for the plaintiffs.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states may punish “faithless electors” — those members of the Electoral College who refuse to cast their ballots for the candidate whom the majority of voters in the state have chosen.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College. The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway. So-called faithless electors have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the...

WASHINGTON — The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday. The unanimous decision in the "faithless elector" case was a defeat for advocates of changing the Electoral College, who hoped a win would force a shift in the method of electing presidents toward a nationwide popular vote. But it was a win for state election officials who feared that empowering rogue electors would cause chaos. The November general election is...

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections. The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by their voters. "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority decision. --This breaking news report will be updated.

We’ve had close elections before, but political experts are bracing for events that might be unprecedented come November. Surprisingly large portions of both Republicans and Democrats seem poised to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election if their side loses. Some even favor authoritarian rule over elections as the best way to run the country. And a new worry for 2020 is the risk that more mail-in voting could delay official results well past Election Day, leaving voters wondering whether it will be Donald Trump’s agenda or Joe Biden’s, once January arrives. New research by the Democracy Fund Voter...

One of the most pernicious phenomena of modern times is the collusive lawsuit. This is how it works: a left-wing organization sues a government agency that is also controlled by the left. The lawsuit alleges that the agency is obliged to do something that the agency would like to do, but the Democrats can’t get it passed. Then the parties–supposedly adverse, but actually in collusion–“settle” the case by having the agency agree to do what it wanted to do all along. If all goes well, a court enters an order enforcing the settlement. So the net effect is that a...

With more than a dozen Supreme Court decisions still pending before the session is scheduled to close at the end of the month, it is looking more and more likely the term will be extended into July — a rare occurrence for the justices. ..... Some of the most eyed cases still pending include challenges on the power of congressional subpoenas, restrictions on abortion providers and tests to the limits of religious liberty. ... Trump’s finances Abortion: In Russo v. June Medical Services LLC, the high court is considering whether Louisiana is violating constitutional rights ... by requiring doctors performing...

President Trump said Wednesday that he will “strongly regulate” or even “close down” social media platforms, one day after Twitter flagged two of his posts. The president made the vow on Twitter after the social media platform added a message to the tweets that linked to a page disputing the accuracy of his posts. Trump and other conservatives argue that social media is censuring or silencing their messages. Read more “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices,” Trump said over two tweets Wednesday morning. “We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow...

Whenever I write about voter fraud, I feel obliged to inject some nuance and caveats, which typically boil down to this: The Right tends to exaggerate the prevalence of the problem, while the Left tends to dismiss and downplay it entirely. The truth is that while there is no evidence of widespread and systemic abuses, fraud does occur, and common-sense steps to ensure the integrity of the ballot and electoral process should not be reflexively assailed as racist or forms of (heavily debunked) "suppression." Indeed, measures like voter ID requirements are broadly popular among the electorate, despite frequent demonization. Democrats...

Vote-by-mail would federalize a state-based electoral system, introducing something Democrats tend to use when they're desperate for a win: chaos. Leftists know that changing the rules of the game can bring victory, and have long tried to change election rules to do just that. When COVID-19 came, facing a contentious race with a populist incumbent president, Democrats turned to their vast network of money-men, many under the umbrella of the “dark money” empire known as the Arabella Network, and set about using the new crisis to their advantage. Their latest push is an expansion of vote-by-mail and its cousin, ballot...

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., pushed mail-in voting as a way to counter alleged Republican attempts to suppress minority votes. “It's really a great system," Merkley said, referring to mail-in voting. "One of those valuable things, which will become more and more important is it stops so many forms of voter suppression and voter intimidation. The Republicans are trying to stop poor people from voting, they’re trying to stop college students from voting, people of color from voting, Indian tribes from voting." He made those comments during a Tuesday interview with Sirius XM host Dean Obeidallah. Merkley added that mail-in balloting...

The California Department of Social Services announced that it will be providing state-funded disaster relief assistance to undocumented immigrants through the Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants (DRAI) Project.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote. If enough electors do so, it could upend an election. The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump. The...