With SAVE America Act stalled, Florida House passes its own version

As I said if they pass this I an a ton of other married people cannot vote. There is no time to get a passport, and there is no provision in either law for a maded marriage license acceptance so you can vote. Well unlike the federal bill this one allows a driver’s license as proof, and as I have one of those I might still get to vote. But if they strip it out to mirror the federal bill I lose the right to vote again. It is republicans showing how desperate they are to win when they are so unpopular that they need to rig and steal the elections. However there was voter fraud in Florida in the 2024 election, all citizens republicans who voted more than once for tRump, stole mail in ballots to vote for tRump, or ass one mail man did he threw away mail in voting from known democratic areas. Hugs

The Florida vote comes two weeks after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, a landmark bill that would require Americans to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to cast their vote. If adopted, the bill would likely prevent millions of Americans from voting.

“What this legislation actually does is to prevent eligible U.S. citizens from voting,” Kanter Cohen said, “and that’s really the key issue.”

a current Florida driver’s license

In lockstep with the Trump administration, Florida Republicans say they are pushing the legislation to crack down on voting by noncitizens – despite the fact that election audits have repeatedly shown that illegal noncitizen voting is extremely rare. But the party continues to ignore those findings, using the myth of noncitizen voting as a tool to pass restrictive legislation aimed at creating more barriers to voting.

In other states, similar proof of citizenship laws have prevented tens of thousands of citizens from voting. But in Florida, with 13 million voters on the rolls, the scale could turn out to be even greater.

With SAVE America Act stalled, Florida House passes its own version

Florida State Capitol building

The Florida House of Representatives voted 83-31 Wednesday to move forward with a sweeping voter suppression bill that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of Floridians, at least, by creating new requirements for citizenship checks.

The alarming legislation represents the state-level component of a national Republican effort to make voting more difficult for American citizens.

Under the Florida House bill, residents wouldn’t be able to register to vote unless the state Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles database can verify their citizenship, or until the applicant provides proof of citizenship. The bill would also require the state to verify the citizenship status of all existing registered voters whose legal status has not already been verified.

State Rep. RaShon Young (D) said the legislation would have serious consequences for Floridians.

“This is fearmongering and disenfranchisement and voter suppression dressed up as security,” he said. “This is modern day gatekeeping and bureaucratic obstruction, administrative overreach and poll tax by paperwork.”

The Florida vote comes two weeks after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, a landmark bill that would require Americans to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to cast their vote. If adopted, the bill would likely prevent millions of Americans from voting.

But the SAVE America Act is expected to face an uphill battle in the Senate, leading some state legislatures to attempt to pass their own versions.

Florida could be the latest to join other GOP-controlled states that have enacted similar state-level proof of citizenship laws like Arizona, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Wyoming, Indiana and Ohio. More states are currently considering similar legislation, including Utah, South Dakota and Missouri.

But the bills haven’t been successful everywhere. Texas failed to pass a proof of citizenship bill last year.

The Florida legislation closely mirrors the federal measure, according to Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel for the national voting rights group Fair Elections Center.

“This would do a lot of the same things, in terms of preventing American citizens from voting who don’t have access to documentary proof of citizenship documents,” Kanter Cohen said.

The Florida House version of the bill would only go into effect in January 2027. But under a similar bill set for consideration in the Florida Senate, the new rules would take effect this July, before the November midterm elections. A House committee already gave preliminary approval to the bill earlier this month.

“What this legislation actually does is to prevent eligible U.S. citizens from voting,” Kanter Cohen said, “and that’s really the key issue.”

The timing of the proposal – as Congress considers a similar federal measure – is no coincidence. The Florida bill could be an effort to align state policies with the proposed federal restrictions to provide consistent rules for running elections, she said.

Under the bill approved by the House, Floridians whose citizenship status cannot be verified by the state would need to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship, including: a current U.S. passport, a U.S. birth certificate, a consular report of birth abroad, a current Florida driver’s license or Florida identification card that indicates U.S. citizenship, a naturalization certificate, a current photo identification issued by the federal or state government that indicates U.S. citizenship, or a federal court order granting U.S. citizenship.

In lockstep with the Trump administration, Florida Republicans say they are pushing the legislation to crack down on voting by noncitizens – despite the fact that election audits have repeatedly shown that illegal noncitizen voting is extremely rare. But the party continues to ignore those findings, using the myth of noncitizen voting as a tool to pass restrictive legislation aimed at creating more barriers to voting.

“The last thing someone who is on a path to citizenship would want to do is to jeopardize their naturalization by voting illegally,” Kanter Cohen said. “And so people don’t do that. That’s not something that’s happening because it has such dire consequences.”

Florida already has systems in place for investigating and prosecuting the small number of noncitizens who register to vote in the state. Last year, Florida found 198 “likely noncitizens who illegally registered and/or voted in Florida” out of the more than 13 million people on its voter rolls, according to a report from the state’s Office of Election Crimes and Security. The office referred 170 of them to law enforcement.

The Florida measure could disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters — including Republicans — to combat these miniscule amounts of possible illegal voting.

Married women of all political affiliations who have changed their last names could be among the most impacted by the legislation. If the voter’s legal name is different from the name on their citizenship document – such as their birth certificate – then the voter would need to provide official documentation providing proof of a legal name change.

The bill also would eliminate some identification documents voters can use to verify their identity at the polls. Floridians would no longer be able to use a debit or credit card, student identification, or retirement center, neighborhood association or public assistance identification.

In other states, similar proof of citizenship laws have prevented tens of thousands of citizens from voting. But in Florida, with 13 million voters on the rolls, the scale could turn out to be even greater.

Trans News In Kansas From Kansas

Doesn’t make it better news, just local. I want to add:

This came about because there is a Republican supermajority in Kansas’s legislature. And that came about because the Republicans, who were in trouble in KS because of things they tried to pull (think Missouri/abortion, etc.) that voters don’t want, were worried that they could lose their majority in the Houses. They told Republican voters that if they didn’t keep a solid majority, there would never be a Republican elected ever again because Dems would redistrict Republicans to that place in Egypt. (But they weren’t that funny about it.) So, Republican voters, yet again, voted Republican even though they had strong misgivings, gave us a supermajority, and now the SOB legislators are doing what they, and only what they, want to do. And here we are on the trans issue, and it’s not the only issue they’re going to force.

I strongly, so strongly advise everyone reading to please please please pay attention to the down ticket elections, who is running, and what they’ve done and what they’re saying they’ll do. You have to elect people who understand they work for you, not vice versa. And now, on with the story.

Trans Kansans struggle with reality of Legislature’s ‘cruelty’ as driver’s licenses are invalidated

By:Sherman Smith and Morgan Chilson-February 26, 20266:52 pm

Jaelynn Abegg, a trans rights activist from Wichita, leads a group of around 50 people who used bathrooms Feb. 6, 2026, throughout the Statehouse to demonstrate what she called the absurdity of a state bathroom ban. The same law that includes the bathroom ban also invalidates driver’s licenses for transgender people. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

TOPEKA — Transgender rights activist Jaelynn Abegg was furious Thursday morning when she received a letter from the state informing her that her driver’s license had been invalidated because of a new state law.

Help is available

The Trevor Project : Call (866) 488-7386, text “START” to 678-678, or visit www.thetrevorproject.org
Trans Lifeline: (877) 565-8860
The LGBTQ Foundation of Kansas
Equality Kansas

Abegg, a Wichita resident, said she would only get a new driver’s license if she needs one before fleeing the state, which she plans to do as soon as she can afford it. In the meantime, she figures her U.S. passport will be “ID enough.”

“When things like this happen, I honestly get a little bit of a demon of rebellion in me, and I’m not sure exactly how I’m going to manifest that, if at all right now, but I can tell you that I’m very angry,” Abegg said. “I’m heartbroken. “This is my home state. I’ve lived here all but two years of my life, and yet, every year since I’ve been living as a woman and having come out as transgender, this state has done nothing but break my heart. If this state was a romantic partner, I would definitely call this an abusive relationship at this point.”

The Kansas Department of Revenue this week sent a letter to Kansans affected by a new law, which took effect Thursday, that requires the gender marker on a driver’s license to match a person’s sex at birth.

The letter informs trans Kansans that because the Legislature didn’t include a grace period for updating credentials, they are “invalid immediately, and you may be subject to additional penalties if you are operating a vehicle without a valid credential.” A spokesman for the agency told Kansas Reflector the law invalidated about 1,700 licenses.

The letter directed trans Kansans to surrender their driver’s license to the state before they can receive a new one, which will cost them $8.

“We apologize for the inconvenience this causes you,” the unsigned letter said.

Republicans in the Legislature placed transgender Kansans in their crosshairs at the start of this year’s session. The House Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing with less than 24 hours notice on the second day of the session for a bill that would invalidate their driver’s licenses. The bill was a response to a Kansas Court of Appeals ruling last year that determined there was no harm in letting people change their gender markers, which Kansans have done since at least 2002 with no complaints.

A week after the rushed hearing, in a flurry of procedural maneuvers, the committee took action on the bill without warning. Republicans added language that would make it illegal for someone to use a public building bathroom, or similar space, like a locker room, that conflicts with their sex at birth. They then inserted the contents of the House bill into an unrelated Senate bill that passed the year before. That allowed the House and Senate to pass Senate Bill 244 the next day without ever holding a public hearing on the bathroom provision.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill on Feb. 13. The House and Senate subsequently overrode her veto with all but one Republican, Rep. Mark Schreiber of Emporia, voting in favor of the bill.

Abegg, who organized a Feb. 6 “pee-in” protest, in which trans people and their allies filled a bathroom at the Statehouse, said lawmakers were “blatantly subverting the democratic process … because they know they’re going to get blowback.”

“This is a hallmark of a Legislature and of a government that has a deep, deep sickness in it, and it really saddens me that we’re living to see days like this, where there’s that sort of situation going on, and there’s not a greater public outcry about it,” Abegg said. “This should be a concern to everyone who values democracy and who values Kansas as a free state.”

Trans Liberty, a political action committee that fights for trans rights, issued its first-ever statewide evacuation order Thursday, when it urged transgender Kansans to flee.

Samantha Boucher, founder of Trans Liberty PAC, said in a statement there is “something deeply wrong with a government that erases its own citizens’ legal identities.”

Abegg said the warning to leave is “absolutely the right approach.”

“I don’t think that legislators in Kansas are done harassing trans people,” Abegg said. “I think that transgender health care for adults is coming next. It would not shock me within the next two to five years to see them come after name changes for transgender people. The cruelty has always been the point, and the objective has always been the complete erasure of transgender people from public life.”

Trans people and their supporters rally Feb. 6, 2026, at the Statehouse in opposition to Senate Bill 244. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

Jessie Lawson, a trans woman from Wichita, initially planned to go to the DMV and refuse to pay for a new license, then decided against it.

“I can work from home and, for the moment, minimize the risk of getting pulled over,” Lawson said.

She said her first thought when she read the letter from the state was to wonder “how conservatives can live with so much fear and hate in their hearts.”

“Even at my most angry, I’ve never wanted to see an entire demographic of people wiped off the planet the way they do. It’s unreal,” she said. “The second thought is how I’m going to survive now that bigotry has been officially sanctioned by the state of Kansas.”

Lawson said she has wrestled with whether she should leave the state where she has lived her entire life.

“I have a great job and own my own home,” Lawson said. “All of my friends are here. Leaving would be very difficult for me. At the same time, this place is becoming increasingly hard for me to exist safely as bigotry takes more and more control of the state government.”

She added: “Please publish whatever you get from us. There needs to be a record that we existed and strove for peace and joy as long as we could.”

Rep. Brooklynne Mosley, D-Lawrence, posted on her Facebook page that she would be available Friday to drive people to the DMV to replace their birth certificates. She said she was willing to personally pay for up to five individuals’ fees if they have financial constraints.

The new law also affects birth certificates.

Jill Bronaugh, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, said individuals will be responsible for contacting the Office of Vital Statistics to replace their invalidated birth certificates, and a $20 fee will apply.

The agency identified 1,849 birth certificates on which the sex has been changed, which can be attributed to correcting data entry errors or recognizing gender changes, she said.

“Each amended birth certificate will be reviewed manually by staff to determine if the birth certificate must be invalidated and amended,” Bronaugh said. “This process is expected to take several months to complete.”

Camp Detention

Appeals court clears way for Texas drag ban to take effect in March

I am so tired of a small group of Christian nationalists who demand the right to force their religious views and church doctrines on the rest of the country. They want and are working for a Christian theocracy in the US. I just posted about how Kanas pushed a law over the veto of the governor that bans trans markers on drivers licenses and makes all trans drivers licenses that don’t match birth sex of the person immediately void and illegal. All because of refusing to accept the facts and medical science. These attacks on drag are just a way to get at trans people. Drag has a long history in vaudeville, on TV from the beginning of comedy, anyone remembeer flip Wilson who was hallirise as a woman. Hugs.

And while the law doesn’t have language explicitly referencing drag performances, SB 12’s original version specifically included them. Republican leaders have also made it clear that drag shows are the target.

“Texas Governor Signs Law Banning Drag Performances in Public. That’s right,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a post on X in June 2023.

Appeals court clears way for Texas drag ban to take effect in March

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday reaffirmed a November ruling removing a block on Senate Bill 12 and denied a request by plaintiffs for a rehearing.

By Alex Nguyen

Nov. 6, 2025, 3:44 p.m. CentralFeb. 25, 2026, 9:00 p.m. Central

Drag Queen Brigitte Bandit performs during a Fight The Trump Takeover Rally at the south side steps of the Capitol on Saturday, Aug. 16, 2025. Ronaldo Bolaños for The Texas T

Texas can enforce a 2023 law that restricts some public drag shows, a federal appeals court reaffirmed in a new ruling on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 12 prohibits drag performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics on public property or in front of children. The law would fine business owners $10,000 for hosting such performances, while those who violate the law could be hit with a Class A misdemeanor.

In September 2023, U.S. District Judge David Hittner declared the law unconstitutional, saying that it “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment” and that it is “not unreasonable” to think it could affect activities like live theater or dancing. More than two years later in November, a three-judge panel in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unblocked the law and returned the case to the district court.

On Wednesday, the appeals court withdrew its November opinion and reissued a largely identical ruling, denying the plaintiff’s request for a rehearing in the process. SB 12 will now take effect on March 18, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, who represented several of the plaintiffs.

As part of the ruling, the panel found that most of the plaintiffs — a drag performer, a drag production company and pride groups — failed to show that they intended to conduct a “sexually oriented performance,” and therefore, could not be harmed by the law. The ruling suggests that the federal judges don’t believe all drag shows are sexually explicit.

Critics of the ban have previously raised concerns that Republican lawmakers were portraying all drag performances as inherently sexual or obscene.

And while the law doesn’t have language explicitly referencing drag performances, SB 12’s original version specifically included them. Republican leaders have also made it clear that drag shows are the target.

“Texas Governor Signs Law Banning Drag Performances in Public. That’s right,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a post on X in June 2023.

SB 12 considers a performance to be sexually oriented if the performer is nude or engages in sexual conduct, which could include “actual contact or simulated contact” between one person and another person’s “buttocks, breast, or any part of the genitals.” It also has to “appeal to the prurient interest in sex” — and most didn’t meet this criteria, according to the appeals court’s ruling.

Kansas Revokes Driver’s Licenses Of Trans Residents

Kansas Revokes Driver’s Licenses Of Trans Residents

February 26, 2026

The Kansas City Star reports:

Transgender Kansans are being informed on the eve of a new state law going into effect that their driver’s licenses will be considered invalid as of Thursday.

“Please note that the Legislature did not include a grace period for updating credentials. That means that once the law is officially enacted, your current credentials will be invalid immediately, and you may be subject to additional penalties if you are operating a vehicle without a valid credential,” read letters mailed by the Kansas Department of Revenue’s vehicles division.

“Pursuant to the new law, if the gender/sex indication on the face of your current credential does not match your sex assigned at birth, you are directed to surrender your current credential to the Kansas Division of Vehicles,” reads the letter, which The Star reviewed multiple copies of.

Read the full article.

The law went into effect after Republicans overrode a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.

Kansas Sec. of State Kris Kobach is somehow not in prison for his role in the private border wall scam with Steve Bannon.

https://youtu.be/_FCrMdyhLcU

Has it all gone wrong between Trump and Starmer?

https://archive.ph/DONGl#selection-1391.0-1391.48

‘The Special Relationship only exists when the Americans want something,’ a former Downing Street aide observed after Donald Trump rejected the Chagos Islands deal. There are profound differences between London and Washington over military action against Iran while the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine this week has exposed further fault lines. The result is that Anglo-American relations are at their worst point since the general election.

Starmer’s team argues he should not be ousted at a time of huge international instability. But the reality of the Anglo-American relationship raises three questions. Where did things go wrong? Does the PM still have some kind of relationship with Trump? And would it matter if he were replaced by Angela Rayner, Wes Streeting or anyone else?

The PM apparently hates the way Trump calls him at random when he is with his family

During the first 18 months of his premiership, it became accepted, correctly I think, that one of the few areas where Starmer excelled was foreign affairs. He seemed particularly good at handling the often capricious President. But it is also true that the two great cleavages of recent weeks – Iran and Chagos – are intimately tied to Starmer’s personal fetish for subordinating the sovereignty of parliament to international law.

If the Prime Minister believes in anything, it is that the web of international treaties constructed to constrain rogue states after the second world war overrides domestic law. His appointment of Richard Hermer as his Attorney General was proof that this would form the backbone of his premiership.

Hermer’s numerous legal opinions flow from this belief in the primacy of international law: that Britain must not support an American attack on Tehran and must not allow America to use British air bases for the attacks. This is what prompted Trump to change his mind on the Chagos deal, by which Britain would cede control of the islands to Mauritius and then lease back British airbases which America also uses.

My understanding is that the US has not made a specific request to use the base for an Iranian operation, nor has the UK explicitly rejected the idea. However, ‘general soundings’ have made clear what the answer would be. Insiders say that Starmer and Hermer’s approach is no different from what any other PM would do. The belief in government is that allowing the US to use our bases without legal backing ‘smells like Iraq’.

This has outraged Team Trump. ‘It’s just not how they roll,’ says one insider who has dealt with the Americans. ‘Their risk spectrum is significantly different. International law, due legal process – they don’t give a shit about that.’ Privately there have been threats that the US will not be there in Britain’s hour of need. The Iran decision led directly to Trump pulling the plug on Chagos. Those who deal with the Trumpies say there is no point ‘continually making the same argument’ and the deal is now ‘in the medium-length grass’.

However, by far the bigger issue is Ukraine and that is where Starmer has deployed most of his capital with Trump. The President and his envoy Steve Witkoff began with a fundamentally misguided understanding of the conflict. ‘All of them basically come back to this belief that it’s about territory, that peace is a real estate deal,’ one insider said. On calls with British officials, Witkoff openly ridiculed the French for saying ‘root causes’ were behind Vladimir Putin’s invasion. ‘He would mock the idea that if there’s peace, the Russians will just rearm and be a threat to Europe.’

The view of Britain’s political and military leaders is quite different after four years of working closely with the Ukrainians. ‘There is a whole generation of Europeans who have made the trip to Kyiv and it feels like the most meaningful thing they’re doing in their political careers,’ a diplomat says.

The key achievement of the Starmer government, in this telling, is that ‘we have persuaded the Americans to listen to us’. A senior adviser says: ‘People are saying that Starmer’s foreign policy is a failure because of Chagos. But if you look at Ukraine, it’s been a success.’

Intercepted phone calls and messages from senior Russians ridiculing Trump have been shared by the British with the Americans. ‘We have continually shown them intelligence that shows the Russians are lying,’ a senior security source revealed. ‘The Russians are privately mocking Trump over his naivety about Putin’s intentions. Putin doesn’t want to end the war.’

‘Of course, he’s always denied any wrongdoing.’

Yvette Cooper, the new Foreign Secretary, spent an hour last week with Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State. But the four key relationships that have moved the dial are Starmer and Trump; David Lammy and Vice President J.D. Vance; the US embassy in Washington, which enjoys closer ties to the White House than any other D.C. diplomats; and, most important, Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, and Witkoff.

Henry Kissinger is said to have asked: ‘Who do I call if I want to call Europe?’ Now a senior member of the Trump administration refers to Powell as ‘dean of the European national security advisers’. A Foreign Office source concludes that if there is regime change in London: ‘The one relationship I fear might be irreplaceable is Jonathan Powell and Witkoff.’

Opinions are divided about whether Starmer’s departure would make any difference. The PM apparently hates the way Trump calls him at random when he is with his family but he has built a ‘load-bearing relationship’ with the President. This is based, in part, on the fact that both have lost brothers. In their first meal together, Trump interrupted a conversation about tariffs to ask if Starmer’s brother had ‘a good death’, genuinely troubled by his loss.

But those who want Starmer gone will agree with the official who says: ‘Trump’s mum was British. He loves the UK and he views having a great relationship with the PM as part of his job.’

Diplomats doubt that any new leader would be given the same space by Labour MPs to develop ties with Trump. But that is another reason why foreign policy will not save Starmer. As one MP puts it: ‘If Keir thinks sucking up to Trump is the argument which saves him, he is going to be in for a rude shock.’

Written by

Tim Shipman

Tim Shipman is political editor of The Spectator.

Republicans Want To Restrict Women From The Midterm Elections

Woot! Late-breaking News, Bringing It Here A Bit Later:

The SAVE Act Is Dead, Fulton County Is Fighting Back; So, Of Course, Trump Wants To Seize Control Of The Election

Here’s everything you need to know after a day of fast moving developments

Joyce Vance Feb 26, 2026

The SAVE Act appears to be dead, at least for now.

Trump wanted his party to enact the SAVE Act because it was supposed to make it more difficult for citizens he thinks are Democrats to vote: Its strict ID requirements would have impacted poor people, elderly people, students, married women, and others.

Although Trump pushed hard for its passage, most recently during the State of the Union address, enough Senate Republicans defected to make passage a possibility too remote to pursue. Republicans attempted a “talking filibuster” to get the bill across the finish line, but the procedural unity that would have required failed to materialize. Per Punchbowl News, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, Utah’s John Curtis, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, and possibly others who weren’t named broke ranks.

It’s a major loss for the president.

There is also good news out of Fulton County, Georgia.

Instead of the hearing we were expecting on the County officials’ request to have their 600 boxes of election records restored to them this Friday, we got an order from Judge J.P. Boulee.

The County officials asked the Judge to use Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 to restore their property to them. That rule permits: “A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” Judge Boulee set forth the four requirements for establishing that the moving party is entitled to have their items returned:

(1) the government displayed a “callous disregard” for the plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

(2) the plaintiff has an individual interest in and need for the material whose return he seeks;

(3) the plaintiff would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the property; and

(4) the plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law absent the Rule 41 proceeding.

The Judge pointed out that a successful Rule 41 proceeding would not deprive the government of the use of evidence for lawful purposes. If returned, the County would be required to preserve the documents for the government’s later use—a requirement that it is already subject to, because these are election records that must be maintained.

The Judge noted his obligation to hear testimony and take evidence if he was ultimately called upon to decide the dispute. That’s something that DOJ might be eager to avoid, given the apparent irregularities in their process, which saw the head of the Atlanta FBI office step aside and a U.S. Attorney from Missouri, instead of the one in Atlanta, handle the matter. He then gave the government an out: “the Court believes it is best for the parties to work toward a mutually agreeable resolution before receiving additional evidence.” He gave them until March 4 to agree on a mediator and until the 18th to report back on whether the mediation succeeds.

It’s a strong move from the Judge. He declines to rule on whether the County officials can meet the high standard for proof under Rule 41. But the fact that he hasn’t denied their request out of hand and is treating it this seriously strongly suggests to the government where this is headed if they don’t reach a deal to return the records to the County. Rule 41 proceedings don’t usually make it this far, and the government has to be concerned that’s a very bad sign for them. The risk that they will still have to return the items they seized pursuant to a court order, and that all of their maneuvering will be publicly exposed in the process, is substantial.

There’s a subtle additional benefit here. The subtext has always been that this process, designed to cast doubt on election officials in the County (even though recounts and court cases confirmed the outcome), was designed to permit Republicans who control the state legislature to take over elections. It will be much more difficult for them to proceed while this process lingers, so a delay of even a couple of weeks, with the elections drawing ever closer, isn’t a bad thing.

And finally, a caution.

The Washington Post reported this morning that “Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.”

Of course, at the time, and with Trump officials in place running cybersecurity, there was a different message. In a Joint Statement, the National Coordinator for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience CISA, the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC), and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC), reported that “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history . … There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised … While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections … we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.” Chris Krebs, Trump’s Director at CISA, told 60 Minutes that “[Election] Day was quiet. There was no indication or evidence that there was any evidence of hacking or compromise of election systems on, before, or after November 3 … We did a good job. I would do it one thousand times over.”

Beyond that, a 2021 intelligence review concluded that China did not engage in efforts to influence the 2020 election. There were multiple audits and recounts, court rulings, and investigations without any finding of widespread fraud. There was no evidence of coordinated foreign interference.

So we all get it. It’s another ginned-up emergency. There wasn’t an outbreak of irrepressible crime on American streets that necessitated the federalization and deployment of the National Guard. Trump made that up. A Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, wasn’t invading the United States. Trump made that up. There wasn’t a balance of payments problem that warranted the imposition of exceptional tariffs. Trump made that up. And there’s not an emergency involving our elections that means Trump should take control of them. He’s making that up too—to the extent that there’s an emergency, he’s the cause of it.

The order Trump’s election denier buddies are pushing would use the supposed China emergency as the reason to declare yet another national emergency. The Post’s reporting suggests they will claim that permits them to “mandate voter ID, ban mail ballots, and change voting machines in November’s midterm elections.” How convenient—all the stuff they want to do, but can’t, because the law doesn’t permit it or Congress won’t pass laws authorizing it, tied up with a nice, neat bow into another one of those “uh oh—emergency, so I can claim extraordinary powers” executive orders Trump has become so fond of using.

The reality is that the president lacks constitutional authority to control elections. The Constitution gives that authority to the states. Even if Trump declared another national emergency, there is no basis for the assertion it would permit him to seize control of the elections. All this plot shows is that Trump lacks confidence in his party’s ability to win the midterm elections.

The election deniers are back in the White House and hard at work, as they were in 2020, to try and prevent American voters from determining the outcome of this year’s elections. Just like it did in 2020, the rule of law will prevail here.

Pro-voter lawyers will go to court if Trump tries to implement this kind of desperate attempt to rig the election. And they will win. Even the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump, now in both the National Guard and in the tariffs cases, when he attempted to drum up fake emergencies to justify his assumption of exceptional powers. Nothing is certain with this Court, but district court judges who are increasingly taking this administration to task and holding it to account are likely to pave a smooth path. And working against the administration is the clear fact that the greatest threat to free and fair elections isn’t China, non-citizens, or Democrats—it’s this president and his cronies.

For years, I’ve been working to educate the public on the fact that voter fraud isn’t the problem—all of the evidence is to the contrary. The real issue is Republicans who use false or dramatically overblown claims of fraud to suppress the vote, and keep eligible citizens from voting. Let’s stay informed and make sure they don’t get away with that this year.

(snip)

We’re in this together,

Joyce