Judge: Pennsylvania Elections Chief Caused ‘Irreparable Harm’ By Unconstitutionally Blocking Cornel West Ballot Access
'This Court has serious concerns with the Secretary’s application of the election code’s restrictions to Dr. West.''This Court has serious concerns with the Secretary’s application of the election code’s restrictions to Dr. West.'RFK Jr. To Appeal Decision Letting Michigan’s Secretary Of State Keep Him On The Ballot
Kennedy has argued that 'printing and mailing ballots with [his] name appearing as a candidate for an office he no longer seeks cancels his statutory and constitutional rights.'Federal Court Denies Trump’s Request To Pause Manhattan Lawfare Despite SCOTUS Immunity Ruling
Merchan is now set to reevaluate the case on Nov. 12 in light of the immunity decision, and he plans to sentence Trump only two weeks later.Federal court rules in favor of Pennsylvania signature verification for mail-in voting, frustrating leftists
Democratic-appointed judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that only those mail-in ballots that are correctly dated can be counted in elections held in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Republican National Committee celebrated the result, suggesting it would bolster voter confidence in the integrity of their elections.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania and other leftist outfits alternatively denounced the ruling, intimating the fight to permit the counting of unsound ballots in Pennsylvania is not over.
Background
Following a lawsuit from the Republican National Committee, the Republican Congressional Committee, and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered state election officials in November 2022 to refrain from counting any mail-in ballots bearing undated or incorrectly dated envelopes.
The court had evidently agreed with the Republicans seeking the injunction who argued the "General Assembly could not have been clearer" when it "mandated that a voter who chooses to vote via absentee or mail-in ballot 'shall ... fill out, date and sign the declaration' printed on the outer envelope of the ballot."
Since Democrats relied more on mail-in ballots than Republicans in previous years, the ruling was expected to lead to more disqualified Democrat votes in the general election.
The Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP and other leftist groups subsequently sued Pennsylvania election officials in an effort to force the state to count such invalid mail ballots.
The original complaint in NAACP v. Schmidt alleged that the refusal to count ballots supposedly mailed on time but lacking a date or incorrectly dated "violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful to deny the right to vote based on an 'error of omission' on a voting-related 'record or paper' that is 'not material in determining whether [a voter] is qualified under State law to vote in [the election].'"
In November 2023, the U.S. Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that federal law requires mail ballots be counted even if undated or bearing a date that is "incorrect."
Republicans swiftly appealed the decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Fortunes reversed
The federal appeals court handed down a 2-1 ruling Wednesday, reversing the district court's ruling.
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro noted in the majority's opinion Wednesday that contrary to the claim advanced in the Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP's complaint, "The Materiality Provision only applies when the State is determining who may vote. In other words, its role stops at the door of the voting place."
"The Provision does not apply to rules, like the date requirement, that govern how a qualified voter must cast his ballot for it to be counted," continued Ambro.
The court underscored that individuals "are not 'denied' the 'right to vote' if non-compliant ballots are not counted."
Ambro added, "We reach this conclusion because a contrary approach cannot be reconciled with the text and historic backdrop of the statute, nor cabined to the date requirement while leaving intact other vote-casting rules that serve valid state interests."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement, "This is a crucial victory for election integrity and voter confidence in the Keystone State and nationwide."
"Pennsylvanians deserve to feel confident in the security of their mail ballots, and this 3rd Circuit ruling roundly rejects unlawful left-wing attempts to count undated or incorrectly dated mail ballots," added Whatley. "Republicans will continue to fight and win for election integrity in courts across the country ahead of the 2024 election."
The RNC further emphasized the importance of reinforcing mail ballot safeguards in Pennsylvania as it is a "crucial swing state."
Mike Lee, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, bemoaned the result, claiming thousands of Pennsylvanian voters might "lose their vote" over their apparent inability to properly cast a ballot.
Ari Savizky, an attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project who unsuccessfully argued the case before the court, said, "We are considering all of our options at this time. And we will not stop fighting for voters."
Philip Hensley-Robin, the director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a plaintiff in the case, claimed that this ruling will "undoubtedly have a negative impact on elderly voters and voters of color" but did not specify why minorities are supposedly more likely to submit faulty ballots.
"We will work with partners to ensure that voters across the state of Pennsylvania know how to make sure their votes are counted," added Hensley-Robin.
Spotlight PA noted earlier this month that the decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whereon certain justices have indicated an interest in taking up the issue.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Federal court rules Biden administration can't force Christian businesses to pay for employees' sex changes
A federal judge ruled Monday that the Biden administration cannot compel religious employers and health care providers to compromise their sincerely held religious convictions by paying for or performing sex-change medical interventions.
The background
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case Bostock v. Clayton County, expanding the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include employment discrimination against individuals on the basis of their sexual preferences or transvestism.
Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services subsequently interpreted the so-called Affordable Care Act and Title VII as requiring employer health insurance plans to cover elective sex-change procedures.
The Christian Employers Alliance, a religious business group, sued the EEOC, HHS, and various officials in the Biden administration in October 2021, stressing the two federal regulatory mandates exceeded the "government's statutory and constitutional authority."
"Many religious employers — including CEA and all its members — hold sincerely held religious beliefs that such gender transition surgeries and procedures are morally wrong," said the original complaint. "Providing these gender interventions contradicts their beliefs that God purposefully created humans as either a biological male or female and that a person's biological sex is immutable."
The CEA's complaint noted that neither the EEOC nor HHS provided religious exemptions from the mandates and that a failure to comply would expose its membership to heavy fines, burdensome litigation, possible criminal penalties, and other costs.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the CEA requested that the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota prevent the Biden administration from imposing the mandates on the CEA.
The ruling
U.S. District Court Judge Daniel M. Traynor acknowledged in his Monday ruling that HHS' interpretation of Section 1557 of the ACA and the EEOC's interpretation of Title VII would require Christian businesses to provide "insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs without satisfying strict scrutiny under the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act].
"Performing or providing health care coverage for gender transition services under the EEOC and HHS coverage mandates impinges upon CEA's beliefs," wrote Traynor. "CEA must either comply with the EEOC and HHS mandates by violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or else face harsh consequences."
He also found that the Biden administration had failed to demonstrate that it could not protect transvestites' rights in a manner that didn't infringe upon the Christian employers' religious liberty.
Accordingly, Traynor slapped both agencies with permanent injunctions, precluding them from imposing their respective interpretations on the CEA in a manner that would require the complainants to perform or pay for sex-change procedures.
The reaction
Shannon Royce, the president of the CEA, said the court's ruling was "a resounding victory for all present and future members of the Christian Employers Alliance."
"We are overjoyed our members will not have to choose between the biblically based employee benefits and quality health care they provide, and the threat of federal enforcement and massive costs for practicing their faith," added Royce.
Matt Bowman, senior counsel and director of regulatory practice at the Alliance Defending Freedom, similarly celebrated the ruling.
"All employers and healthcare providers, including those in the Christian Employers Alliance, have the constitutionally protected freedom to conduct their business and render treatment in a manner consistent with their deeply held religious beliefs," said Bowman. "The court was on firm ground to stop the administration from enforcing these unlawful mandates that disrespect people of faith."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Woman falsely accuses her landlord of saying he doesn't want black tenants — and makes it much worse by involving feds
A Cincinnati woman falsely accused her landlord of saying he doesn't want black tenants, and she pleaded guilty in federal court to making false statements to federal agents about the matter, the U.S. Department of Justice said last week.
What's the background?
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in February 2023 was forwarded several text messages purportedly sent by a Cincinnati-area landlord as part of a civil rights report, officials said, citing court documents.
The landlord owns more than 100 properties — including 56 properties rented through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s housing choice voucher program — and many of his tenants appear to be black, officials said.
In March 2023, Dermisha Pickett met with HUD agents and gave them numerous discriminatory messages purportedly from Pickett’s landlord, officials said, adding that Pickett also claimed her landlord called her as she arrived at the meeting and placed the call on speaker phone.
Pickett told agents she tried to pay her portion of the rent but that her landlord returned it, stating he did not want to rent to black people, officials said.
Fanon Rucker — Pickett's attorney at the time — shared multiple alleged screenshots of texts from her landlord stating he wanted "a white family in this unit" and "will not rent [to] African Americans again," WCPO-TV reported.
"If it doesn't make everybody who hears this angry, then folks need to check their pulse," Rucker said nearly a year ago, according to video from the station.
But the landlord during a later interview with agents told them he didn't want to continue to rent to Pickett because she was causing extensive damage to the property, officials said, adding that phone records and forensic analysis indicate that no text messages were exchanged during the time periods Pickett claimed and that it's alleged she used mobile applications to fabricate the text messages.
WCPO said it was discovered that an alleged voicemail from the landlord was linked to a phone number tied to Pickett.
Now what?
“Making false reports of racial discrimination is unacceptable and can have tangible effects on other tenants who rely on HUD-assisted housing,” Special Agent in Charge Shawn Rice with the HUD Office of Inspector General said. “In this case, if the landlord had violated the Fair Housing Act, his participation in HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program may have been revoked, causing the displacement of approximately 50 families who rely on the Housing Choice Voucher program. These families would have been forced to uproot their families to find new homes, incurring non-reimbursable expenses.”
Pickett, 33, was charged in August 2023, officials said, adding that making a false statement to federal officers is punishable by up to five years in prison.
Here's a video report that aired when the tables started turning on Pickett about six months ago:
Cincinnati woman allegedly made up discriminatory messages from landlord youtu.be
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Why Trump’s Presidential Immunity Defense May Just Lead To An Election Indictment Dismissal
Trump is arguing that presidents, even after their term is over, are absolutely immune from criminal prosecutions arising out of their acts in office.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com