Latest news with #JudicialWatch
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court will hear Bost's appeal over Illinois' mail-in ballots
The U.S. Supreme Court announced in an order filed on Monday that it will hear a southern Illinois congressman's appeal over the state's counting of mail-in ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Muphysboro, and two Illinois delegates to the Republican National Convention first filed the lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections in May 2022 — alleging that counting ballots after the election violated federal election law. A President Trump-appointed judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bost and the other plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge the state law. The high court agreed to hear Bost's appeal on standing during its next term, which is scheduled to start in October. 'With the American people's confidence in our elections at a discouraging low point, it's more important than ever we work to restore their trust,' Bost said in a statement. 'I believe a big part of that effort is ensuring all votes are tallied by Election Day, not days or weeks later.' The conservative activist group Judicial Watch will represent Bost and the other plaintiffs' appeal. 'The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. 'Illinois' 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.' A spokesman for the Illinois State Board of Elections declined to comment on the pending litigation. Bost has represented Illinois' 12th Congressional District since 2015, which includes portions of the Metro East. St. Louis Public Radio's Rachel Lippmann contributed to this report.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would decide whether Republicans can challenge Illinois' law that allows mail-in election ballots to be counted 14 days after Election Day, following lower federal courts' previous dismissals of the GOP effort. The lawsuit, led by downstate Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, comes as the GOP and President Donald Trump have pushed for the recognition of a singular Election Day ballot count — most recently in a presidential executive order issued in March — despite state laws allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked or voter-signed and certified on or before the election date. In the Illinois case, both the U.S. District Court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled Bost and two presidential electors lacked legal standing when they challenged the law in May 2022. The courts did not decide on the merits of the case regarding the legality of post-Election Day ballot counting. But in dismissing the lawsuit in July 2023, U.S. District Judge John Kness also wrote that he thought Illinois' 2015 law complied with the U.S. Constitution as well as federal election law and does 'not conflict with the federal mandate that Election Day be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.' 'By counting only mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, the statute does not extend the day for casting votes in a federal election,' Kness, a Trump appointee, wrote. In a 2-1 decision in August of last year, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the lower court's dismissal due to lack of standing. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization that had worked unsuccessfully with Trump to stop post-Election Day ballot counting in the 2020 presidential race, is representing Bost and appealed last November to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit contended the state law violated the federally established date for federal elections. About 20 states have similar post-Election Day counting laws. But in its appeal to the nation's highest court, Judicial Watch noted a federal appeals court in Louisiana last fall sided with Republicans and ruled Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballot counting after Election Day violated federal law. Bost has argued the counting of 'late, illegal ballots dilutes the value of' lawfully cast votes and infringes upon his right as a federal candidate to stand for office and that he faces added costs for poll watchers post Election Day. Bost has also alleged that post-Election Day votes could reduce his margin of victory and that this 'will lead to the public perception that my constituents have concerns about my job performance' and would 'influence numerous third parties, such as future voters, Congressional leadership, donors and potential political opponents.' Trump has made numerous false, misleading and unsupported claims about mail-in balloting, calling them in his 2020 election loss a 'whole big scam.' But even as he argued against them, the Republican National Committee and the Illinois Republican Party ramped up efforts to get GOP voters to cast ballots by mail. Still, the RNC and the National Republican Congressional Committee filed briefs in support of the election law challenge. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, called it 'an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision' that they view illegal. 'The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity,' Fitton said. 'Illinois' 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.' Yet in its appeal, Justice Watch said Bost and the GOP activists 'do not allege voter fraud, nor do they allege that ballots were mailed after Election Day, contrary to Illinois law.' Instead, they allege ballots received after Election Day are illegal and are 'as invalid as if they were received one year after Election Day.' The U.S. Justice Department under President Joe Biden filed briefs in support of the Illinois law, in part because the statute was aimed at ensuring that late arriving votes cast overseas by U.S. military members would be counted. Ironically, Bost, in his sixth House term from Murphysboro, is a Marine veteran who serves as chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. In a statement, Bost said he was 'thankful' the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling that he lacked standing to challenge the law. 'With the American people's confidence in our elections at a discouraging low point, it's more important than ever we work to restore their trust,' Bost said. 'I believe a big part of that effort is ensuring all votes are tallied by Election Day, not days or weeks later,' he said. 'This is a critical moment for the rule of law and election integrity.'
Chicago Tribune
a day ago
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would decide whether Republicans can challenge Illinois' law that allows mail-in election ballots to be counted 14 days after Election Day, following lower federal courts' previous dismissals of the GOP effort. The lawsuit, led by downstate Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, comes as the GOP and President Donald Trump have pushed for the recognition of a singular Election Day ballot count — most recently in a presidential executive order issued in March — despite state laws allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked or voter-signed and certified on or before the election date. In the Illinois case, both the U.S. District Court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled Bost and two presidential electors lacked legal standing when they challenged the law in May 2022. The courts did not decide on the merits of the case regarding the legality of post-Election Day ballot counting. But in dismissing the lawsuit in July 2023, U.S. District Judge John Kness also wrote that he thought Illinois' 2015 law complied with the U.S. Constitution as well as federal election law and does 'not conflict with the federal mandate that Election Day be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.' 'By counting only mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, the statute does not extend the day for casting votes in a federal election,' Kness, a Trump appointee, wrote. In a 2-1 decision in August of last year, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the lower court's dismissal due to lack of standing. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization that had worked unsuccessfully with Trump to stop post-Election Day ballot counting in the 2020 presidential race, is representing Bost and appealed last November to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit contended the state law violated the federally established date for federal elections. About 20 states have similar post-Election Day counting laws. But in its appeal to the nation's highest court, Judicial Watch noted a federal appeals court in Louisiana last fall sided with Republicans and ruled Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballot counting after Election Day violated federal law. Bost has argued the counting of 'late, illegal ballots dilutes the value of' lawfully cast votes and infringes upon his right as a federal candidate to stand for office and that he faces added costs for poll watchers post Election Day. Bost has also alleged that post-Election Day votes could reduce his margin of victory and that this 'will lead to the public perception that my constituents have concerns about my job performance' and would 'influence numerous third parties, such as future voters, Congressional leadership, donors and potential political opponents.' Trump has made numerous false, misleading and unsupported claims about mail-in balloting, calling them in his 2020 election loss a 'whole big scam.' But even as he argued against them, the Republican National Committee and the Illinois Republican Party ramped up efforts to get GOP voters to cast ballots by mail. Still, the RNC and the National Republican Congressional Committee filed briefs in support of the election law challenge. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, called it 'an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision' that they view illegal. 'The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity,' Fitton said. 'Illinois' 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.' Yet in its appeal, Justice Watch said Bost and the GOP activists 'do not allege voter fraud, nor do they allege that ballots were mailed after Election Day, contrary to Illinois law.' Instead, they allege ballots received after Election Day are illegal and are 'as invalid as if they were received one year after Election Day.' The U.S. Justice Department under President Joe Biden filed briefs in support of the Illinois law, in part because the statute was aimed at ensuring that late arriving votes cast overseas by U.S. military members would be counted. Ironically, Bost, in his sixth House term from Murphysboro, is a Marine veteran who serves as chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. In a statement, Bost said he was 'thankful' the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling that he lacked standing to challenge the law. 'With the American people's confidence in our elections at a discouraging low point, it's more important than ever we work to restore their trust,' Bost said. 'I believe a big part of that effort is ensuring all votes are tallied by Election Day, not days or weeks later,' he said. 'This is a critical moment for the rule of law and election integrity.'
New York Times
a day ago
- General
- New York Times
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Illinois Mail-In Ballot Law
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would hear a case brought by a conservative congressman who had challenged an Illinois election law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after an election. Representative Mike Bost, a Republican who represents a district in downstate Illinois, along with two federal electors, sued the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022. They argue that the state's law violates federal statutes establishing an Election Day because it allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the election. Republicans have repeatedly challenged state laws that allow ballots sent by mail to be counted after Election Day, an issue that President Trump pressed after his loss in the 2020 election, in which the use of mail balloting expanded because of the coronavirus pandemic. A federal trial court had dismissed the case, finding that Mr. Bost and the electors lacked standing, meaning that they were not able to show they were directly injured by the state law. A federal appeals court agreed. Mr. Bost, who is represented by the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, asked the justices to weigh in. The election law dispute is one of four new cases that the justices agreed on Monday to add to their docket for next term. The others include a case about whether immigrant detainees can sue a private detention company that they accuse of forcing them to perform labor; a Montana case about when law enforcement officers may enter a home without a search warrant if they believe an emergency is underway; and a dispute over whether a U.S. soldier injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan can sue the government contractor who had employed the bomber. The justices had already agreed to hear another high-profile dispute during their upcoming term, which will begin the first Monday in October — a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law that prohibits conversion therapy intended to change a minor's gender identity or sexual orientation. The justices will likely add more cases in the coming weeks as they wrap up their current term. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
West Point decision to cut ‘duty, honor, country' from mission statement under fire again
EXCLUSIVE: A United States Military Academy mission statement swap from "duty, honor, country" to "Army Values" is coming under fire again — this time by a conservative judicial and government watchdog group who claims the school engaged in a "cover up" scheme when it altered its mission statement in 2024 as part of an effort to advance a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda. On March 11, 2024, West Point Superintendent Lt. Gen. Steven Gilland publicly announced that West Point would update its mission and insert the term "Army Values" in lieu of "duty, honor, country." Even so, Gilland stressed that "duty, honor, country" would remain West Point's motto as it has been since 1898. Judicial Watch obtained documents via a Freedom of Information Act request seeking all emails regarding the removal of "duty, honor, country" from the mission statement between officials at West Point. Hegseth Quips '99.9%' Of Dei Initiatives Are Gone From The Military Under Trump's Watch Among the documents Judicial Watch obtained is a document from Gilland detailing mission statement talking points for Founders Day speakers that was sent on March 23, 2024. The memo instructs speakers to "AVOID saying 'removed,' 'replaced,' 'deleted'—just refer to the 'updated mission statement and reinforce that the motto remains unchanged.'" The memo does not explicitly connect the mission statement change to any DEI initiatives. Read On The Fox News App However, Judicial Watch argues that the talking points document it obtained implies DEI was a factor in the mission statement change because the document also contains an FAQ section that appears to downplay the role of DEI, claiming only five to eight students each year complete West Point's Diversity and Inclusion Studies minor. "These records detail how the DEI agenda helped change the mission statement of West Point — and how leadership under the Biden administration tried to cover it up," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a Thursday statement to Fox News Digital. But in the memo outlining mission statement talking points, Gilland urged speakers to push back against the narrative that the mission statement change was done for political purposes. "EMPHASIZE the actual seven values as some in the audience don't realize Army Values is a defined term and to counter the social media narrative that the Army Values change for political reasons. AVOID comparing DHC to AV—it's not either/or," the mission statement talking points document said. Naval Academy Closing Dei Offices To Align With Trump Executive Orders: Memo "AVOID the perception that the External Review Team was political or made the decision. The Academy selected them. They advised. Academy leadership made Decisions," the document said. The term "Army Values" keeps "duty" and "honor" within its core set of values, but also includes the following: loyalty, respect, selfless service, integrity and personal courage. Gilland said in a statement announcing the change that "country" is reflected in the term "loyalty." "The Army Values include Duty and Honor, and Country is reflected in Loyalty, bearing truth faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other Soldiers," Gilland said in an announcement about the mission statement change. Gilland also said that "duty, honor, country" is "foundational to the United States Military Academy's culture and will always remain our motto." An Army spokesperson directed Fox News Digital to Gilland's original announcement where he wrote: "Our absolute focus on developing leaders of character ready to lead our Army's Soldiers on increasingly lethal battlefields remains unchanged." West Point is one of several U.S. military academies that trains students to become military officers. Meanwhile, West Point's mission statement has been changed nine times in the past century, and the words "duty, honor, country" didn't make it into West Point's mission statement until 1998. As of March 2024, West Point's mission statement is: "To build, educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets to be commissioned leaders of character committed to the Army Values and ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation." West Point Disbands Gender-based, Race Clubs In Trump's Dei Sweep West Point's previous mission statement, first adopted in 2005, remained: "To educate, train and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army." West Point's superintendent at the time, Lt. Gen. William Lennox, requested the change in 2005 and then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker approved the change. Meanwhile, Republicans have pushed to incorporate "duty, honor, country" back into the mission statement. For example, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spearheaded legislation in January to add the words back to the military academy's mission statement. "For centuries, the United States Army has set the global standard for military excellence because its leaders embrace a lifetime of selfless service and embody the values of 'Duty, Honor, Country.' West Point's removal of these core values from its mission statement risks eroding the foundation of American military leadership," Cruz said in a statement in article source: West Point decision to cut 'duty, honor, country' from mission statement under fire again
