North Miami Beach Democrat mayor arrested, charged with 3 counts of felony voter fraud, faces 15 years in prison

[rebelmouse-proxy-image,27,0,69 crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//" expand=1]

The mayor of North Beach Miami in Florida – a Democrat – is facing 15 years in prison after being arrested and charged with voter fraud.

Miami Beach Mayor Anthony DeFillipo was arrested on Wednesday. He has been charged with three felony counts of voter fraud. The charges are third-degree felonies, which each count is punishable with up to five years in prison.

Six months before his arrest, a complaint was filed with the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics & Public Trust alleging DeFillipo lived in the town of Davie in Broward County. The North Miami Beach city charter requires elected officials to reside in the city.

DeFillipo admitted that he owns a property in Davie, but said it was for his family to live in because he was experiencing marital issues at the time. He insisted that he lives at his property in North Miami Beach. Records show that DeFillipo owns two properties in Davie, which he admitted.

DeFillipo and his wife purchased a six-bedroom home in the Sierra Ranches community in Davie for $1,226,500 in July 2022, according to Broward County property records. He acknowledged that he serves on the homeowners association board for the Davie community.

An investigation into DeFillipo allegedly revealed that the Democrat mayor relocated to his residence in Davie.

Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle accused DeFillipo of driving from Davie to North Miami Beach to cast his vote in three different elections in August, October, and November 2022. Rundle said her office utilized cell phone data to determine that DeFillipo traveled from his property in Davie to vote in a precinct in North Miami Beach, and then returned to his home in Davie.

"We believe the evidence shows (DeFillipo) voted illegally three times," Rundle declared.

Rundle said, "Our voting laws apply to everyone. There are no unwritten exceptions."

DeFillipo has denied the allegations of voter fraud.

DeFillipo's attorney, Michael Pizzi, said his client's arrest is politically motivated.

"The mayor has explained over and over again, and under oath, he always intended to and always lived in North Miami Beach," Pizzi said. "We look forward to a speedy exoneration."

The Miami Herald reported, "A registered Democrat, DeFillipo, 51, served on the city commission for five years before becoming mayor in 2018. A licensed real estate broker, DeFillipo is CEO of TD Managing Enterprise."

DeFillipo is reportedly the third North Miami Beach mayor to be arrested in 11 years.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

North Miami Beach Mayor Anthony DeFillipo arrested over 'voting irregularities'

Democratic operative sentenced to jail for illegal ballot harvesting in 2020 Arizona primary election

[rebelmouse-proxy-image,0,0,1 crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//" expand=1]

A Democratic operative was sentenced to jail for allegedly harvesting ballots during the 2020 primary election.

Guillermina Fuentes – a 66-year-old school board member and former mayor of the small border city of San Luis – pleaded guilty to collecting four early ballots in the 2020 primary. On Thursday, Fuentes was sentenced to 30 days in jail and two years of probation for her alleged election crimes.

In the plea deal, prosecutors dropped three felony counts claiming that Fuentes filled out one voter's ballot and forged signatures on some of the four ballots she illegally returned for non-family members.

Arizona prosecutors had sought a year in jail for the crimes committed by Fuentes. Meanwhile, the attorneys for Fuentes argued for probation.

KSAZ-TV reported, "Fuentes collected the four completed mail ballots from acquaintances in San Luis, and gave them to co-defendant Alma Juarez while working a table outside a polling place where she was urging people to vote for a slate of city council candidates. Juarez carried them inside and put them in a ballot drop-off bin. Election officials in Yuma County confirmed that the ballots were legitimate and the mail-ballot envelopes were signed by qualified voters, so they were counted."

Yuma County Superior Court Judge Roger Nelson considered being more lenient on Fuentes if she had admitted that she had committed a crime.

Fuentes reportedly declared, 'I’m not a criminal."

Nelson blasted back, "Well, you are a criminal. You committed a criminal offense. I don’t think you recognize that as a criminal offense. That’s the problem that I have.”

Nelson continued, "It's been an issue for a long time, or at least it’s been alleged that it’s an issue, that people vote for others, take their ballots. Everybody that’s involved in politics in this area knew that a new law was passed. You certainly knew it, that that law was new, even went up to the Supreme Court."

"Many of the things that were put forward as mitigating factors, I think they’re also aggravating factors," Nelson added. "You have been a leader in the San Luis community for a long time. People look up to you, people respect you, and they look to what you do."

Fuentes' attorney – Anne Chapman – railed against the punishment, "The Court’s sentence today is an unjust result in a political prosecution where the only alleged harm was the delivery of four lawfully voted ballots."

Fuentes reportedly lost her school board seat and cannot serve in an elected or appointed post unless the felony conviction is dropped to a misdemeanor.

Georgia 2020 election investigators find only 4 cases of dead people voting

Election investigators in Georgia looking into claims that thousands of dead voters cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election were able to find only four instances of this happening, according to a report.

In the aftermath of the contested 2020 presidential election, former President Donald Trump alleged that as many as 5,000 dead voters cast absentee ballots in Georgia's election, which he claimed was part of a larger effort by Democrats and Joe Biden to steal the election. But state election officials conducting audits and investigating allegations of voting irregularities have repeatedly failed to find evidence that substantiated Trump's claims.

The Georgia State Election Board conducted exhaustive reviews of dozens of allegations that dead voters cast ballots in the 2020 election. After the conclusion of the board's investigations this month, almost all voters were found to be alive. The board referred just four cases to the state attorney general's office, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Each of the four absentee ballots cast by dead voters was returned by relatives.

Once case involved a 74-year-old woman named Sharon Nelson, who submitted an absentee ballot on behalf of her late husband, William Nelson, after he died in September 2020.

“He was going to vote Republican, and she said, ‘Well, I’m going to cancel your ballot because I’m voting Democrat.’ It was kind of a joke between then,” Nelson's attorney, Barry Bishop, told the State Election Board. "She received the absentee ballot and carried out his wishes. ... She now realizes that was not the thing to do.”

Georgia election officials said there must be consequences for breaking the law, even if there was no malicious intent.

“Remorse is something we hear a lot, and it’s something I appreciate because sometimes we do make these mistakes unknowingly,” election board member Anh Le said during a Dec. 14 meeting. "However, the law is what it is."

Other cases involved two women who illegitimately submitted ballots on behalf of their recently deceased husbands. In the fourth case, a ballot was submitted for deceased Augusta voter Leon Rowe. Investigators found that the signature on his absentee ballot matched the handwriting of his mother, Alline Rowe, who herself died in October 2020.

At a recent telephone town hall, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said that allegations that large numbers of dead people voted in the 2020 election were untrue.

“What I tell people is what really happened in Georgia, because we proved that none of that was what happened,” Raffensperger said.

Improper handling of absentee ballots can result in fines between $100 and $5,000 per violation, AJC reports.

The attorney general's office said it will continue to investigate the cases referred to it by the State Election Board.

Texas Lt. Gov. Patrick pushes for 2020 election audit bill

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) wants the state legislature to take up a bill that would allow for audits of the 2020 election once lawmakers reconvene for their third special session in a few weeks.

According to the Houston Chronicle, during a telephone town hall Monday evening, Patrick told supporters that an election audit bill is one of his priorities for the upcoming legislative session. As lieutenant governor, Patrick presides over the Senate, and during the last session, he helped fast-track the bill, which failed to advance before the close of the legislature's second special session this year.

Patrick and other Republican supporters of the audit legislation hope to pass it during the third special session.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R), would allow candidates, local party chairs, and election judges to request "an explanation and supporting documentation" if they suspect a local election official violated the law or if they want more information about alleged irregularities in precinct-level election results. If the person making a complaint is "not satisfied with the explanation and supporting documentation," he or she may request an audit of the results from the Texas secretary of state.

The audits would be conducted by an "election review advisory committee" appointed by county clerks that would comprise equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. Nominees for the committee would be submitted by the county political parties.

"This bill, SB 97, is about election irregularities, giving a chance for the people involved to ask questions," Bettencourt said last week before the close of the legislative session. "This is not about anything else except what gets measured gets fixed because if we know why they've had that discrepancy, we can fix the problem in the future."

Democrats are opposed to the legislation and have unfavorably compared it to the audit effort in Arizona, which has been plagued by controversy and delays and criticized by local GOP officials who have defended their handling of the election. They have also expressed concerns that the Texas bill would allow for frivolous requests for election audits.

"Your bill raises some concerns that we might have people who have not the greatest of motivations ... just create harassing requests for audits," said state Sen. Nathan Johnson (D-Dallas) last week.

Bettencourt countered that his bill will enable anyone making allegations of voting irregularities to have a civil remedy for their claims to be investigated. Currently, state officials can only review elections if there are criminal charges. Unlike Arizona, the audits would not be conducted by a third-party private company.

While former President Donald Trump made numerous unproven claims that the 2020 presidential elections in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and other states where he lost to Joe Biden were illegitimate, he won in Texas and has never claimed fraud took place there.

Nevertheless, state Republicans have demanded 2020 election audits in several of Texas' largest counties where Biden defeated Trump, including Dallas and Tarrant Counties.

Officials in Texas have previously described the 2020 election as "smooth and secure." According to the state attorney general's office, there are currently 510 pending prosecutions of voter fraud offenses against 43 defendants. Only two of those cases are related to the 2020 presidential election in Texas, the Dallas News reported in June.

The Trump campaign has released 234 pages of affidavits regarding alleged voting regularities in Michigan. Here's what they say.

In recent days, the Trump campaign has touted a number of affidavits collected from poll workers in Michigan that they say proves the existence of widespread irregularities in the Michigan vote counting process, and which they plan to attach as an exhibit to an expected lawsuit that will challenge the certification of the vote in Michigan.

The campaign released those affidavits Tuesday to some members of the media (thanks to Brad Heath of Reuters for providing me with a copy). The full .pdf file of exhibits can be read here. I have endeavored to separate the actual allegations of fraud in this post. Keep in mind that, at this point, these are mere allegations that have not been tested by cross-examination or any other form of investigation.

3. EXHIBIT 1 (affidavits) (compressed).pdf

By my count, the 234 pages contain affidavits from 101 individuals. The majority of them appear to be handwritten impressions of the counting process.

Here, by my count, is a complete list of actual allegations that raise the potential of voter fraud from these affidavits:

  • Alexandra Seely claimed that she challenged 10 votes at a given table and that those challenges were not recorded. She claims that poll workers would not take out the "log" to record her challenges.
  • Articia Bomer claimed that "At approximately 4:50am I witnessed a man spraying a chemical on a ballot counting machine. He then placed twenty-seven ballots into the machine and I noticed tape on the top of the ballot where a ballot number would normally be. Throughout the night I witnessed him insert these same 27 ballots at least five times." Note that this could have been repeated attempts to get the machine to scan ballots that would not scan rather than the same 27 ballots actually being counted five times.
  • Betty Tyson claimed that she saw poll workers reviewing rejected ballots and curing where an erroneous or defective mark had made the ballot unreadable by the machine. She claims that some of the workers "added votes where there was no X or [check mark]," but does not specify how many.
  • Multiple affidavits raised as their sole complaint that they witnessed ballot duplication (transfer of correct voter data from a damaged or defective ballot to another one that can be read by a machine) being done and that there was not a GOP observer present for that process. It is unclear whether Michigan law requires this, but it seems certain that best practices would have been to avoid such a scenario. The number of ballots that are damaged in machines is, by all accounts, very small.
  • A number of the affidavits claim that GOP poll workers were not permitted to access records that were necessary to properly challenge some ballots.
  • Cythnia Brunell claimed that, at the table she observed, she believed 11 ballots would have been rejected due to irregularities she believed had occurred, but only four were. The other seven were scanned through the counting machine. It is unknown what the ultimate disposition of those votes was.
  • David Piontek claims that he saw an unnamed poll worker scan six ballots from the "problem ballot" file and that the computer declared them an "unlisted person." According to Piontek, the worker manually entered the ballots into the system and assign each voter a fictitious birthdate of 1/1/1900. A Jeffrey A. Gorman also stated this issue in his affidavit. The fictitious birthdate issue has been explained ad nauseam, but these allegations do raise at least the possibility that non-registered voters had their votes counted. This accusation was also noted in several other affidavits. Best estimate is that approximately 100 of these ballots were identified throughout the course of the affidavits.
  • Jacqueline Zaplitny alleges that, "I was told to observe the computers that were identifying ballots that showed 'error'. I was told [to] view the people that were 'determining the intent of the voter.' There were multiple ballots that were 'corrected' on ballots that should have been overvoted and not counted." Without seeing the ballots in question, it is difficult to determine the validity of this claim.
  • Michael Cassin, who identified himself as an independent poll watcher, said that he made six challenges to ballots that were not recorded in the log. A handful of other affiants raised similar contentions, although some of their challenges are, just by the way they are described, things that could not be challenged (e.g., one worker described trying to challenge a poll worker taking a pile of ballots off a table and moving it somewhere else).
  • Patricia Rose alleged that she witnessed a poll worker attempt to run a batch of 50 ballots through a machine four times due to the machine jamming. According to her affidavit, "The ballot stack she was feeding in kept getting jammed. Rather than stop and go seek the assistance of a supervisor or technical support person, she removed the remaining ballots in the in-feed tray, and kept taking the scanned ballots off the top feed and adding them back to the stack, reinserting the whole stack again, and scanning them in again." The affiant was able to identify a number of batches where this happened, but was unable to say whether those votes had actually been counted multiple times, or whether the machine had been reset in-between each batch. This allegation was repeated regarding a different batch by Glen Sitek.
  • Multiple affiants claimed that signature verification was not being done, or that they did not see it being done, on absentee ballots.
  • Whitney Meyers claimed that, "On the street in front of the Department I witnessed workers with 'Detroit Elections' aprons on collecting ballots from cars. I witnessed multiple drivers in cars drop off multiple ballots, including more ballots than people in the car." Meyers did not explain how she arrived at this conclusion or whether she brought it to anyone's attention at the time. She also indicated that she saw a worker accept at least one ballot after the polls closed at 8pm. She also alleged that an unnamed individual placed "ballots" (did not specify or estimate how many) into one of the ballot drop boxes after 8pm and before the box could be locked.
  • William Henderson alleged that eight ballots went missing from a given batch that he identified, but he does admit that it's possible they were located elsewhere and counted appropriately there.
  • Brett Kinney claims that he successfully challenged a group of ballots, which were initially set aside as being problem ballots but were subsequently processed. It is not clear whether this was done because these challenges were ultimately rejected, or for some other reason.
  • Anita Chase claims that she checked the voter records and discovered that her deceased son, identified as Mark D. Chase, voted twice since he passed away, including in the 2020 election.

This list constitutes the entire body of potential actual fraud allegations raised in the affidavits. The testimony contained in these affidavits clearly pertains to fewer than 1,000 total ballots, although it should be noted that numerous affiants complained that they were not able to see what was happening because they were required to maintain six feet of social distance or because people were in their way.

Some (most?) of the allegations in the affidavit concern allegations that GOP poll watchers were treated differently (worse) than Democratic poll watchers, or that the majority of the people in the room were Democrats or were friendlier to the Democrats. Although these allegations are at least potentially relevant politically (albeit they are not tremendously surprising in Wayne County), they do not directly pertain to the issue of voter fraud, so I have not included them in this list, although you may certainly peruse them and draw your own conclusions.

The material in the affidavits alleging an "atmosphere" of intimidation and hostility toward the GOP poll workers is voluminous. I would estimate that it constitutes a significant portion of the material in the affidavits. I have not repeated most of it here because it does not directly establish or allege voter fraud.

Reading between the lines, some of the frustration experienced by the poll workers and refusal to entertain further complaints may have been come by honestly. The affidavits are rife with complaints about things that were, in fact, done properly and in accordance with the law.

For example, one affiant described at length how she insistently and repeatedly attempted to challenge a group of ballots that had already been placed in a "problem" ballot box (i.e., they had already been successfully challenged). This is, again, not the fault of people who got about 10 minutes of training in the procedures, but you can imagine that the cumulative effect of these challenges (which appear to have been quite voluminous, just based on the people who submitted affidavits) may have led to some short fuses and unwillingness to explain the same thing to each of the 200-plus watchers who were present.

Additionally, a large portion of the affidavits' contents centers on complaints regarding the counting process and what poll watchers viewed as selective enforcement of social distancing measures like six feet distance and mask wearing. Again, these complaints are in the affidavits and can be perused at leisure, if you are interested. They are not proof of voter fraud.

The affidavits contain many complaints that poll workers were not able to see as well as they would have liked due to having to remain six feet away from the tables due to COVID-19 social distancing measures. Many of the affiants claim that poll workers intentionally blocked their view of certain aspects of the counting process. These claims are difficult to evaluate without having been present in the environment.

I have omitted all of the complaints contained in the affidavits about poll workers being insulted, etc. This behavior should not have occurred, and you can read all about it in the affidavits if you wish. In most cases, it is not clear, however, who leveled the insults, nor what the context of the conversation was. Ultimately, those complaints are beyond the purview of this article.

I have also summarily omitted complaints about the number of poll watchers allowed in the location, and complaints about the boarding up of windows and/or cheering of people who were ejected. By all accounts, including the admission of the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign had more than 130 observers present and on site at the TCF Center during the entire duration of counting. Additionally, the controversy over whether the windows should have been boarded up in order to prevent people outside from filming what was going on inside is not directly relevant to allegations of voter fraud. Probably the most common complaint in the affidavits is from people who were not, in fact, allowed into the counting facility. Ultimately, the argument about how many people should have been allowed in the room is beyond the purview of this article.

I have also omitted some allegations that are, on their own terms, completely unsupported by eyewitness testimony and are mere conjecture on their own terms. For example, one affiant complained that s/he was completely unable to see what was happening with a particular batch of ballots, but then followed that up with a statement of belief that the people s/he could not see were illegally altering ballots.

Additionally, some of the allegations appear to be borne out of failure to understand how the process was supposed to be carried out. For instance, one of the affidavits complains that when the computer identified a "duplicate" ballot (which presumably refers to a situation where someone has voted in person and also requested a mail-in ballot), the ballot was removed from the pile and then passed to the next person at the table. However, that is exactly what was supposed to happen to those ballots: they were supposed to be removed from the rest of the pile and considered as a provisional ballot until a check could be performed to determine whether the mail-in ballot was ever received.

Where an affidavit raises a complaint for which there is an obvious, non-fraud explanation (for instance, the complaints about 1/1/1900 birthdays), or where it complains about things that happened exactly as they should have (e.g., "I observed ballots that should have been duplicated due to being torn, stained or damaged. A supervisor instructed the workers to run damaged ballots through the tabulator and only to duplicate rejected ballots") I have omitted it. I do not, by the way, blame any of the affiants for raising these issues; many of them make clear that they responded to calls for volunteers on Facebook and received very little training.

Many of the allegations present an incomplete picture, from which it is impossible to draw any conclusions at all. For instance, numerous affiants complained that people who showed up to vote but who had requested a mail-in ballot were allowed to vote. This was proper procedure, and their in-person ballots were supposed to be provisional until it could be determined if they had turned in a mail-in ballot or not. Most of the affiants raising this complaint do note that the ballots were set aside, as is proper, but have no information about what was revealed when these provisional ballots were checked against the mail-in list.

Also, it should be noted that the affidavits contain numerous complaints about lack of security at the counting location, and I have also not included those. Having personally worked as an observer for elections before, I will say that none of the complaints strike me as representing unusual behavior (I don't recall having my ID checked and I certainly don't recall being searched or having my belongings searched when I entered a poll location); however, perhaps many of these complaints should lead to reforms in the security process for counting votes.

Notably, many of the affiants also complained about batches of ballots being left unsecured on or underneath tables; however, none of the affidavits contains any testimony about these boxes being tampered or destroyed or added to in any way.

TheBlaze has reached out to officials for the State of Michigan and Wayne County for comment on the issues raised by the affiants.

Twitter video screenshot

George Stephanopoulos ignores Gov. Kristi Noem as she rattles off examples of voting irregularities — but Noem puts the smackdown later on

George Stephanopoulos — host of ABC News' "This Week" and prominent member of former President Bill Clinton's administration — seemed to ignore or mischaracterize South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem's examples of voting irregularities in last week's presidential election.

What are the details?

During Sunday's interview, Stephanopoulos asked Noem if she would work with former Vice President Joe Biden — whom numerous media outlets on Saturday declared the winner of the 2020 election over President Donald Trump — with regard to the coronavirus.

Noem's interview came after far-left New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's, in which he urged Republicans to accept Biden's victory and predicted more governors will acknowledge the pandemic's severity once Trump leaves office, Townhall reported.

"Well, it is a regional increase that we're seeing. We are testing more," Noem replied. "And, frankly ... I'm not going to take advice from Gov. Cuomo. He has the second-worst death rate per 100,000 people in this nation. He's at 173 deaths per 100,000 per capita; South Dakota's at 54."

She then noted such questions are "premature" since the election technically isn't over, and legal challenges from the Trump camp appear to be on the way.

"We have not finished counting votes," Noem said. "There're states that have not been called, and back in 2000, [Democratic presidential nominee] Al Gore was given his day in court. We should give President Trump his day in court, let the process unfold because, George, we live in a republic. We are a government that gets its power from the consent of the governed. That is the people. They give their consent on Election Day. Election Day needs to be fair, honest, and transparent, and we need to be sure that we had an honest election before we decide who gets to be in the White House the next four years."

Stephanopolous rushed in to interrupt while Noem was finishing her sentence, asking if she had any evidence that it wasn't an honest election and adding that he's spoken with Republican officials who gave "zero evidence" of widespread fraud.

Besides the fact that voting irregularities in a handful of swing states are at issue as opposed to "widespread fraud," Noem told Stephanopolous his assertions were "absolutely not true" and that "people have signed legal documents, affidavits, stating that they saw illegal activities, and that is why we need to have this conversation in court. The New York Times itself said that there were clerical errors. ... In Michigan we had computer glitches that changed Republican votes to Democrat votes. ... Dead people voted in Pennsylvania."

"So George, I don't know how widespread it is. I don't know if it will change the outcome of the election," she added. "But why is everybody so scared just to have a fair election and find out? We gave Al Gore 37 days to run the process before we decided who was going to be president. Why would we not afford the 70.6 million Americans that voted for Trump the same consideration? If Joe Biden really wants to unify this country, he would wait and make sure we had a fair election."

By the end of the interview, despite all the points Noem made, Stephanopoulos wedged in a whopper, saying "It starts with providing evidence; you still have not provided that, but I'm afraid we're out of time today. Gov. Noem, thanks for your time."

"Let the process work, and we will," she said.

The smack comes down

Noem wasn't about to let things go after the interview. She replied to the "This Week" video tweet of her chat with Stephanopoulos — and added a well-deserved zinger when the intrepid poster referred to her state as "North Dakota":

"More mischaracterization from ABC," she wrote. "Watch the interview, I gave several specific instances of serious election integrity concerns. Oh, and it's SOUTH Dakota":

More mischaracterization from ABC. Watch the interview, I gave several specific instances of serious election integ…
— Governor Kristi Noem (@Governor Kristi Noem)1604865156.0

Lawsuit: At least 21,000 dead people registered on Pennsylvania’s voter rolls

There are at least 21,000 dead people registered on the state of Pennsylvania's voter rolls, according to a lawsuit filed by a legal group.

A lawsuit filed on Thursday by the Public Interest Legal Foundation claims that there are tens of thousands of deceased registrants on voter rolls in Pennsylvania. The amended lawsuit filed against the Pennsylvania Department of State alleges that Pennsylvania failed to "reasonably maintain voter registration records under federal and state law" during the 2020 presidential election cycle.

The lawsuit alleges that a vast majority are from over a year ago. According to the lawsuit, 92% of the 21,000 deceased people on Pennsylvania's voter rolls died earlier than October 2019. Thousands of the alleged registered dead people reportedly died over five years ago.

"As of October 7, 2020, at least 9,212 registrants have been dead for at least five years, at least 1,990 registrants have been dead for at least ten years, and at least 197 registrants have been dead for at least twenty years … Pennsylvania still left the names of more than 21,000 dead individuals on the voter rolls less than a month before one of the most consequential general elections for federal officeholders in many years," the filing states.

The legal group claims that in 2016 and 2018, there were 216 instances of dead people voting.

"This case is about ensuring that those deceased registrants are not receiving ballots," PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said in a statement. "This case isn't complicated. For nearly a year, we've been offering specific data on deceased registrants to Pennsylvania officials for proper handling ahead of what was expected to be a tight outcome on Election Day.

"When you push mail voting, your voter list maintenance mistakes made years ago will come back to haunt in the form of unnecessary recipients and nagging questions about unreturned or outstanding ballots," Adams warned.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is an Indiana-based 501(c)(3) public interest law firm founded in 2012 that claims it is "dedicated entirely to election integrity."

"The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections," the PILF website states. PILF has previously filed cases in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.

On Thursday, the Trump campaign filed a federal lawsuit in Nevada in an attempt to stop the counting of "illegal votes." The suit alleges that thousands of nonresidents and dead people have cast ballots in the state.

In Michigan, there were reports of extremely elderly voters, who would be so old that they would likely be deceased, mailing in absentee ballots. A viral social media post allegedly showed several people who were over 118 years old casting their ballots in the 2020 election. Michigan's secretary of state's office said the error is a glitch in the system.

Latest Nevada results show Biden widening lead over Trump as president's campaign claims illegal voting

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden expanded his lead in Nevada after several outstanding mail-in ballots were counted Thursday, as President Donald Trump's campaign makes allegations of illegal voting in the state.

Biden and Trump have so far run neck and neck in the state, with Biden holding a slight lead over Trump before the latest results were announced. As of Wednesday, Biden led Trump by just .64%, a little more than 8,000 votes. At noon on Thursday, Biden's lead grew to 12,042 votes, according to multiple reports.

UPDATE: Recently released results put @JoeBiden ahead of @realDonaldTrump in Nevada by almost 12,000 votes #Election2020
— Hemmer Reports (@Hemmer Reports)1604596570.0
NEWS: @JoeBiden lead in Nevada just expanded to more than 12K with another round of counted ballots added to the to…
— Sarah Ewall-Wice (@Sarah Ewall-Wice)1604596296.0

Many of the ballots still to be counted are from Clark County, a Democratic stronghold.

Whichever candidate wins Nevada will gain six Electoral College votes of the needed 270 Electoral College votes to win the White House.

On Wednesday, Nevada elections officials announced that all in-person early votes, all in-person Election Day votes, and all mail-in ballots through Nov. 2 had been counted. Still to come are mail ballots received on Election Day and those received over the next week, officials said.

Voters casting mail-in absentee ballots needed to postmark their ballots by Tuesday, Nov. 3. State elections officials will receive postmarked ballots until Nov. 10. With the large volume of absentee ballots because of the coronavirus pandemic, the final vote count may remain unknown until next week.

During a Wednesday press briefing, Biden campaign manager Jen O'Malley Dillon predicted Democrats would win the state.

The Trump campaign is filing a federal lawsuit in Las Vegas Thursday to stop the counting of "illegal votes" in Nevada, Fox News reported. The campaign claims to have evidence of deceased and nonresident voters casting ballots in the 2020 election.

Former Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp, and Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald announced the lawsuit at a news conference.

"We are confident that when all legal votes are tallied — and only legal votes are tallied — President Trump will win the state of Nevada," Grenell told Fox News.

An anonymous source that spoke to Fox News about the lawsuit claims the campaign has evidence that "tens of thousands" of people voted in Nevada illegally.

With the margin for victory so narrow in several states, the Trump campaign has vowed to demand a recount anywhere the campaign loses within a 1% margin or less. The campaign has already demanded a recount in Wisconsin, where Biden defeated Trump by a little over 20,000 votes.