Two major victories issued today at the Supreme Court have set the precedent for upholding the integrity of our elections.
The first case was related to Arizona election rules that prohibit third parties from collecting mail-in ballots (also known as ballot harvesting) and disallow votes that were casted in the wrong precinct. The argument against these rules were that it somehow disadvantages the state’s minority groups in violation of the Voting Rights Act. However, the Supreme Court upheld the election rules as reasonable measures to ensure the security of elections and that this safeguard does not at all violate the Voting Rights Act.
ACLJ Director of Government Affairs Thann Bennett explained the importance of this ruling:
The ruling is so important because it is a win for the Constitution. The Constitution clearly gives the authority to set the mechanics of elections to the states. . . . This ruling today justifies the position that we’ve been advocating for from the beginning – that if you want secure elections then the right place to house that authority as the Constitution does is at the state level. . . . The Supreme Court rightly acknowledged that today.
The second victory is pertaining to an issue we are very familiar with – the targeting of conservative organizations. We’ve already fought this fight and won against the IRS. But in California, the issue at hand was California charities and organizations who receive financial contributions were going to have to disclose the information of major donors. This is clearly a concern as the information could be used to target conservatives or other groups making it unable for their organizations to fulfill their missions like we have seen before. Ultimately, the Supreme Court backed donor privacy for these charities.
We filed two critical amicus briefs in this case defending conservative groups and the First Amendment, and ultimately the Court sided with us that Americans must be protected. Being a donor to a conservative charity should not subject you to harassment. Period. We won.
ACLJ Director of Policy Harry Hutchison commented on the consequences of targeting organizations for political gain:
It’s clear beyond question that the release of donor information has a chilling effect, on what? Freedom of speech and freedom of association. In California specifically, it’s important to note that an individual who took the leadership at a leading tech firm lost his job. Why? Because his donation to a group that was opposed by the politically correct Left in California was disclosed publicly. So, at the end of the day, it’s very important to note that the attorney general of California standing on the broad shoulders of Kamala Harris and other former attorney generals basically was targeting . . . conservative groups. Why? Because they want to shrink the political capacity of those organizations to advocate on behalf of their members. This decision upholds both the first amendment rights of the charities and the first amendment rights of donors. That means that those charities should continue to receive donations from a wide range of individuals. That is very important for our democracy.
We’ve told you that the Department of Justice is suing the state of Georgia over a voting law similar to the voting laws the Supreme Court just upheld in Arizona and California. With victories coming out of the Supreme Court, there is hope that many states will follow and adjust their voting laws to ensure fair elections.
The ACLJ is needed now more than ever to fight the battles of election integrity and the targeting of conservatives. We have launched an internet exclusive television series with a new one coming out every single week on a host of important issues like voting laws. In each episode, we outline our work on the issue and the history behind it. Go to www.morethanever.com or search “ACLJ more than ever” on YouTube to keep up with the new episodes.
With the support of our ACLJ members, we are able to broadcast daily radio and TV programs that reach millions. That includes Bald Beagle, our history channel for kids that highlights important events and figures from our nation’s history in a fun and engaging way. The latest episode, Independence Day: Freedom Should Be Celebrated, explains why the Fourth of July is such a special day here in America. Visit www.baldbeagle.com or check it out on YouTube and share it with your kids, grandkids, or anyone interested in the history of our great country.
Today’s full Sekulow broadcast is complete with even more analysis of the two important Supreme Court decisions in Arizona and California.
Watch the full broadcast below.
As you vote, our legal team is preparing to defend the Constitution and the integrity of elections. Have your gift DOUBLED today. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
Packing the Supreme Court would be one of the most radical acts ever carried out by a U.S. President. In fact, not since 1937 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to add six seats to the Supreme Court has any President seriously considered this far-reaching act. When FDR first tried this, he...
In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt’s (FDR) effort to expand the power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty and federalism was blocked by the United States Supreme Court’s Originalist reading of the Constitution. As a result, he instead initiated a plan to pack the Court...
The radical Left has announced a plan to pack the Supreme Court by hostile takeover . The radical Left in Congress, led by Representative Jerry Nadler (NY) and Senator Ed Markey (MA), are circumventing President Biden – who we just told you announced an Executive order to appoint a commission to...
Breaking News: By Executive Order, President Biden has created a new commission to study packing the Supreme Court. On today’s Sekulow , we discussed President Joe Biden’s latest Executive Order , which he signed last Friday to put together a commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.