Leftist election law activist David Becker, with the assistance of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, carried out a scheme depriving citizens of their privacy and voting rights, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court by a civil liberties watchdog. 

The complaint charges that Becker is using the two left-leaning nonprofits he founded — the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research to “infiltrate WisDOT’s Division of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) database to access the driving records containing the personal information of millions of Wisconsin residents and eligible American voters.” In doing so, the lawsuit alleges, Becker and ERIC “exploited” the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status in acquiring highly sensitive information for purposes strictly prohibited under the federal Driver’s Privacy and Protection Act (DPPA). 

Stunningly, the complaint charges that the Wisconsin Elections Commission hasn’t had a contract with ERIC for more than eight years, further exacerbating the alleged illegal data collection. An Elections Commission official denies the charge, telling The Federalist the membership agreement with the state-run voter monitoring system remains in effect. 

The lawsuit, brought by Citizen AG, a conservative civil liberties law firm, on behalf of La Crosse, Wisconsin, resident Jennifer McKinney, seeks declaratory relief, damages, and an injunction against ERIC, CEIR, Becker and the Department of Transportation from “obtaining, disclosing, and using personal information from driving records for voting or election-related purposes.” 

Becker and the others “have knowingly engaged in and will continue to knowingly and intentionally engage in a coordinated effort to obtain,

Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, Republican nominee for vice president, described the interwoven interests of corporations and the Democrats advocating for open borders at the expense of the American people, calling it “fundamentally the end of American democracy.”

Vance joined the “Joe Rogan Experience” for a three-hour interview released Thursday, where he said the motivation behind the Biden-Harris administration allowing millions of illegals to pour across the southern border is twofold: An electoral power play and kowtowing to corporate interests looking to swindle American workers.

“I do think there’s also a power dynamic to it. In particular, I think Kamala Harris and the Democrats, they want to give these millions upon millions of illegal aliens the right to vote,” Vance explained. “They want to legalize them. They want to make it easier for them to participate in our elections. And that means, fundamentally, the end of American democracy, because you’re talking about 25 million people here.”

Vance went on to explain that even if some of the illegals are allowed to vote, the scales would tip so far in Democrats’ favor that Republicans would not win another national election for decades.

“It will have degraded the voting power of the people who have the legal right to be here,” he said, adding that President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty to illegals is the reason why California has become a “one party state.”

“I’m a conservative Republican. But Reagan screwed up a lot,” he explained. “The amnesty thing he really screwed up. …

The Biden-Harris administration and Democrat litigators appear to be jointly executing a lawfare assault against the integrity of our elections. In the face of this onslaught, will Americans’ voting rights be sustained?

If an Oct. 30 ruling is any indication, it appears the Supreme Court at least may be willing to step into the breach in defense of our republic — a hopeful harbinger amid an expected flurry of 2024 election-related litigation. 

In a 6-3 ruling, with the court’s three most leftist justices dissenting, the court issued an order striking down a preliminary injunction backed by the Biden-Harris Justice Department thereby protecting Virginia’s effort to remove more than 1,500 self-identified noncitizens from the voter rolls. In so doing, the court delivered a shot across the bow of a DOJ in effect laboring to protect the non-rights of non-Americans to interfere in our elections and the federal judges who had validated the administration’s efforts.

At issue in the case is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and its regulations for removing voters from the rolls, about which lower courts have issued conflicting opinions.

Colloquially known as the “Motor Voter Act,” the bill aimed to increase the number of “eligible citizens” who register to vote in federal elections, while “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.”

Section 7 of the NVRA lays out requirements for cleaning the voter rolls. It stipulates that authorities may remove registrants from eligible voter