Judicial Watch: Fighting for Election Integrity

In the fight for election integrity, Judicial Watch continues to notch voter-friendly victories across the country.

In California, Judicial Watch sued the state for failing to maintain accurate voter rolls—a requirement of the National Voter Registration Act. The law requires the removal of most inactive voter registrations after two general elections. The numbers are astonishing. The JW lawsuit charges that California failed to remove 873,000 inactive voters from their registration rolls who have been inactive for more than two general elections. Sometimes a lot more: tens of thousands of the registrations have been inactive for over ten years. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the American Independent Party of California and Don Wagner, an elected member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors who is running for California Secretary of State.

Last week, the Justice Department filed notice that it intended to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of Wagner and the Independent Party. Citing data from Judicial Watch’s original complaint, the Justice Department said in its Complaint in Intervention that California “does not comply with the NVRA’s requirement that the state conduct a general program of voter registration list maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove persons from the voter rolls who have become ineligible.”

JW President Tom Fitton welcomed the federal move. Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections. “The Justice Department is right following Judicial Watch’s lead and join our fight to clean up California’s dirty voting rolls,” Tom said.

This isn’t Judicial Watch’s first election-integrity rodeo in California. In 2019, Los Angeles County settled a JW lawsuit that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million names from voter rolls.

In April, Judicial Watch announced a historic milestone—the removal of six million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide. In Colorado, 372,000 ineligible voter names were removed from voter registration lists following a lawsuit and settlement. In the settlement, Colorado agreed to a sweeping voter roll cleanup, with extensive follow-up and reporting. In Oregon, Judicial Watch reached a settlement in its federal lawsuit against the state. Oregon officials confirmed that 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists.

In June, Judicial Watch came close, but ultimately lost, an election integrity case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Judicial Watch led the effort to uphold Election Day at the Court. We represented the Libertarian Party of Mississippi in the case, arguing that a single day for Election Day should be enforced and the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day be prohibited. In our brief to the Court, we argued that “the whole point of the federal Election-Day statutes is to set a single uniform day for the election. Allowing ballots to trickle in days or weeks after Election Day is antithetical to that basic goal.” In its July 2 ruling, a closely divided Court declined to uphold a single, uniform Election Day. Tom called the 5-4 decision “astonishing.”

But in January, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of granting standing in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors. The case challenged an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to fourteen days after Election Day. The landmark ruling in the Bost case established an important principle, affirming the rights of a political candidate to bring election-ballot disputes to federal court.

#

Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial Watch. Tips: [email protected]

Investigative Bulletin is published by Judicial Watch. Reprints and media inquiries: [email protected]

The post Judicial Watch: Fighting for Election Integrity appeared first on Judicial Watch.