Connect with us

Politics

Michigan Supreme Court Candidates Sound Off On Election Officials’ ‘Overreach’ At Debate

Published

on

Four candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the Michigan Supreme Court gathered Thursday night to explain their judicial philosophies and sound off on what they consider “overreach” from election officials at FloodGate Church near Hartland, Michigan.

According to a press release, Pure Integrity Michigan Elections and Stand Up Livingston County hosted the debate, which showed how the candidates compare on election integrity and the rule of law.

State Supreme Court elections in Michigan are considered nonpartisan, but candidates do seek a state party’s nomination to get on the November ballot, according to Bridge Michigan.

Alexandria Taylor, state Rep. Andrew Fink, Appeals Judge Mark Boonstra, and Circuit Judge Patrick William O’Grady — all running for the Republican nomination — attended the debate.

Patrice Johnson, chair of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections, said in a press release she thinks the debate was an unusual event for judicial races.

“People don’t usually have a chance to see judicial candidates side by side in order to compare their ideologies and skill sets,” Johnson said. “It seemed like the right thing to do.”

Executive Orders in Elections

Moderators asked candidates for their thoughts on programs like President Joe Biden’s “Bidenbucks” executive order, which directed federal agencies to boost voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts without Congress’ approval. As The Federalist previously reported, the program has drawn criticism for targeting left-wing voting blocs and inviting third-party meddling in election administration, much like the “Zuckbucks” operation in 2020.

O’Grady appeared to cite a recent Republican National Committee lawsuit challenging

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Fontes, GOP Ask AZ Supreme Court To Allow 100K Electors To Vote Full-Ballot Following Registration ‘Error’

Published

on

Arizona’s Democrat secretary of state and Republicans are asking the state supreme court to allow nearly 100,000 electors to vote “full-ballot” this November after it was discovered an error by government officials put their ability to vote in state and local races in jeopardy.

“We will not stand by as voters are disenfranchised, especially so close to an election,” Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda said in a statement. “Rushing to disenfranchise voters now would not only be illegal but would severely undermine confidence in our elections.”

As my colleague Brianna Lyman reported, the issue in question came to light earlier this week when state officials revealed they “found approximately 97,000 voters who are currently listed as full-ballot voters despite having not fulfilled the requirement to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote in statewide elections.” The error appears to have resulted “from the way the Motor Vehicle Division provides driver’s license information to the state’s voter registration system,” according to left-leaning Votebeat Arizona.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said these voters “lean more heavily Republican” and are between 45-60 years old, as reported in the Votebeat article.

In Arizona, voters registering via state registration form must provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) to vote in state and local races. Those who are unable to provide such proof are registered as “federal-only” voters and can only cast ballots in federal races.

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer filed a lawsuit with the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking that the secretary be forced

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Conservative Legal Group Sues Gavin Newsom For Hiding Child Gender ‘Transitions’ From Parents

Published

on

A conservative legal nonprofit is suing California Gov. Gavin Newsom for state prohibitions that prevent schools from telling parents about student requests to identify as a different gender without the student’s consent.

In July, the state’s far-left governor signed Assembly Bill 1955, which bars school officials from notifying parents when their children go by different names or request to use bathrooms for the opposite sex unless the children consent to the notification. The bill further bars any policy that would require schools to inform parents of their child’s gender “transition.” The pro-Trump legal foundation, America First Legal, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to challenge the law on behalf of California parents and the City of Huntington Beach, which has been resisting Sacramento radicalism since conservatives captured a majority on the town council two years ago.

“This law violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of parents to make decisions about their minor children regarding all medical treatment — in this case, social ‘transitioning,’” the nonprofit said in a press release. “Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their child. The government cannot intervene in their relationship simply because it does not like the parents’ decision.”

The California law is the first of its kind at the statewide level, as many parents grapple with whether to remain on the West Coast given the hostility toward parents who protest radical gender policy. Last year, California Republican state Sen. Scott Wilk bluntly recommended parents “flee” to keep their children.

“In the

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Melania Trump Must Pick Up Where Michelle Obama Unsuccessfully Left Off In Tackling Childhood Obesity

Published

on

Former First Lady Melania Trump is already preparing to resurface as a presidential spouse next year, and she has an opportunity to drive change and forge unity in confronting the most desperate long-term health crisis in centuries.

Now running with the unprecedented endorsement of a legacy Kennedy, the Trump family may soon reclaim White House authority and with it the opportunity to pick up where former First Lady Michelle Obama left off. Childhood obesity represents one of the few issues on which the new Republican White House can reclaim moral authority and also galvanize a bipartisan political movement with a major push to end this destructive epidemic.

When the Obama family came into office, the epidemic of childhood obesity catalyzed what at first had seemed an optimistic initiative to tackle the health care crisis plaguing our children. By 2009, nearly 17 percent of children aged 2-19 were obese, representing a striking increase from just 5 percent in 1971. In 2017, the number had grown even higher, with more than 19 percent of children in America, or nearly 1 in 5, struggling with obesity. The number of kids and teens coping with “severe obesity” reached 6 percent for the first time ever by 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The first lady’s movement obviously failed, and the campaign did so for two probable reasons: 1) half the country wrote off the celebrity-infused campaign as an unserious example of nanny-state finger-wagging from elites in D.C., and 2)

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending