patrick.net

California Voter ID Initiative Surpasses One Million Signatures, Set to Appear on November 2026 Ballot

The initiative requires Voter ID to cast a ballot and to verify the citizenship of registered voters

In a record-breaking haul, the backers of the CA Voter ID Initiative have collected more than 1 million signatures after just 90 days – but they intend to continue to collect signatures until they reach a comfortable 1.2 million haul. 874,641 valid signatures are needed to force the issue on the 2026 statewide ballot – and extra signatures are needed to fully ensure the measure has more than enough valid signatures to qualify.

“We are absolutely thrilled with the overwhelming and broad-based support for the CA Voter ID initiative – and by submitting 1.2 million signatures we are confident this initiative will qualify for the November 2026 midterm ballot” said CA State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, one of the initiative’s proponents.

If you're in California and haven't signed the petition yet, please do sign it!

Make Congressional representation dependent solely on the number of US citizens in a state, not the total number of people in the census, which counts tens of millions of illegal aliens.

It's the extra Congressmen allocated to districts which have lots of illegals, because the census counts ALL people in a district, including illegals.

That's wrong, and must be stopped:

In 2020, they put their African-American clients in the vanguard, hoping to provoke Mr. Trump into a bloody suppression of the George Floyd riots. Didn’t really work, though the riots were a grand distraction from Marc Elias’s behind-the-scenes nefarious setup to queer the balloting process in that year’s election — a thumping success! All that mischief propelled brain-dead “Joe Biden” into the Oval Office, the perfect stooge to front for Hillary and Obama in their campaign to disorder the US body politic.

None of that worked for them in 2024, though, and only, apparently, because Elon Musk got wind of some election-hacking signals from a bunker in Serbia, and somehow managed to put the kibosh on its functionality. . . but that’s another story not quite yet spun for the public. Anyway, Mr. Trump got back into the Oval Office and now there is — forgive the cliché – hell to pay. Folks looking at jail time, famous folks, folks previously inoculated against such a fate. And it’s driving them batshit crazy. What on earth to do?

As it happens, enough Americans are sick and tired of the race hustle that its antics no longer avail the Democratic Party in stirring up animus against order, so now the party sends its women out onto the front lines to bang on police car windows, scream at the officers to perform sex acts on themselves, and impede their duties. In the course of all that action, one of them, Renee Nicole Good, got shot last week gunning her Honda Pilot at officer Jonathan Ross. ...

And these broken people are egged on to self-destruction by the cynical managers of a criminal political party desperate to hide its crimes and avoid prosecution. When the arraignments begin, the derangements will ebb. Just watch and see.

When the arraignments begin

The New York Times reported the unintentionally encouraging story below the headline, “Supreme Court Sides With Conservative Congressman in Illinois Election Rules Challenge.”

You remember how many Trump lawsuits were thrown out by courts in 2020 for “lack of standing”? The Supreme Court just changed how standing works, making it harder for trial courts to dismiss election challenges going forward. And they did it in two different ways, both of which are vast improvements.

First, SCOTUS essentially said that any candidate automatically has standing. ...

Second, candidates not only have standing, but now they needn’t wait until after the election when they can prove problems occurred. They can now file suit well in advance of elections, so long as they can explain that problematic rules pose a reasonable threat to their chances.

According to the Times, Democrats were hardest hit. “Election law experts warned that a favorable decision could clear the way for a host of lawsuits challenging all kinds of election rules in states throughout the country,” the Times explained, “particularly from Republicans, who have advanced a narrative that some state rules, especially involving mail-in ballots, unfairly favor Democrats.”

If Republicans know what they are doing, we should soon see the “host of lawsuits” blooming all across the country, like colorful wildflowers cropping up along Florida’s Turnpike in springtime. Just in time for the mid-term elections in November.

This wasn’t the only election case pending at the high court. Later this term, SCOTUS will also hear arguments in a Mississippi case, about whether counting mail-in ballots past the deadline (and only stopping when the desired result is reached) is illegal in federal elections. “A decision upending Mississippi’s rules could affect dozens of other states,” the Times gloomily predicted, “throwing election rules into chaos before the midterms.”

Everything is coming together, almost as though it had been planned this way. Stay optimistic.

In more great appellate news, the Colorado Sun ran a story yesterday headlined, “Colorado appeals panel appears skeptical of Tina Peters’ sentence. It might be the first truly good news for election whistleblower Tina Peters since she was first sent to prison. ...

“The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights,” Appeals Judge Craig Welling said.

During sentencing, District Court Judge Matthew Barrett called Ms. Peters a “charlatan” and said she posed a “danger to the community” for “spreading lies about voting” and undermining the democratic process.

Not only that, but just as legally significant —maybe even more so— the appellate judges seemed honestly shocked and appalled that Tina’s jurors were given a verdict form with the wrong legal standard on it. The jurors were instructed on misdemeanor charges, even though Peters was sentenced for felony charges.

There was more good news for Tina. Recently, after President Trump pardoned Ms. Peters of any federal crimes (she’s jailed under state law), Colorado’s Democrat Governor Jared Polis said he would consider clemency, and even described Ms. Peter’s sentence as “harsh.”

Oregon election authorities to begin clearing 800K inactive voters from its voter rolls

Oregon's Democratic Secretary of State Tobias Read said last week that the state is expected to purge 160,000 of its 800,000 inactive voters from the registry immediately, after they failed to meet the criteria to keep their registration active.

This is treason.

We should never use any voting machines.

All votes should be black pen on paper only, counted by hand by all parties, and in public view.

A Democrat-aligned federal judge in Oregon moved Monday to block the Trump administration from accessing the state’s unredacted voter rolls.

The ruling dealt another setback to the Justice Department’s effort to obtain detailed voter registration data from Democrat-run states.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, a Joe Biden appointee, said he intends to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit and will issue a written opinion in the coming days.

Yesterday, Politico ran a terrific elections story headlined, “Virginia state court blocks Democrats’ redistricting push.” The subheadline said it all: “The ruling is a major setback for Democrats’ efforts to redraw the lines in the state.”

If you’ve been following the great redistricting arms race, you know the playbook: one side redraws maps in their favor outside the normal census cycle, the other side screams unfair! and then rushes to do the exact same thing in their own states. It’s mutually assured gerrymandering.

Yesterday, circuit court judge Jack Hurley, Jr., in rural Tazewell County, Virginia, just dropped a reality check on the Democrats’ play in the Commonwealth. He blocked their entire push to ram through a constitutional amendment that would have let them redraw congressional districts mid-decade, potentially flipping the current purplish 6D-5R split into something dark blue – maybe even 10D-1R in their most hopeful schemes.

In other words, Democrats basically tried to turn Virginia all-blue, even though at least 40% of its residents vote red, with a rushed, last-minute constitutional referendum jammed onto ballots without proper notice and without even kissing voters first.

Judge Hurley didn’t decide whether the gerrymander itself was fair— he didn’t need to. He ruled that the whole process was procedurally invalid: Democrats rushed through it and skipped steps. Judge Hurley drily observed, “Certainly, both houses of the Commonwealth’s legislature are required to follow their own rules and resolutions.”

That’s probably all she wrote. The state constitutional amendment enabling the mid-census redistricting is now blocked. Kaput. There will be no voter referendum this spring. So there will be no new maps in time for 2026 midterms. The current court-drawn maps with their 6D-5R split remain in place, unless a state supreme court appeal succeeds. Most commenters think the state’s top judges lean conservative, so a reversal seems unlikely, given all the problems Judge Hurley pointed out.

Virginia Republicans called it “a decisive victory for the rule of law.” Democrats complained that “Republicans who can’t win at the ballot box are abusing the legal process... This was court-shopping, plain and simple!” Court-shopping. That’s rich.

The mid-decade redistricting wars rage on. California and Utah already delivered Democrat gains —lawsuits in progress— while Texas and other red states added more seats. Texas recently beat the Democrats’ challenge at SCOTUS, so its new +5-GOP map sticks. The gerrymander-go-round keeps on spinning, and where it stops, nobody knows.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, yesterday the Hill ran an unintentionally encouraging op-ed headlined, “The Supreme Court could bring Texas-style gerrymandering to your state.” Several outlets, including WaPo, ran the exact same op-ed yesterday, which seems to defy normal journalistic inclinations toward exclusivity, but who cares, especially when a narrative needs a push? The op-ed anguished over the most anticipated decision of the entire court term, maybe of the whole Trump 2.0 era.

One of the most influential decisions this Supreme Court term is over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which regulates states into ensuring that minority districts exist. The rationale is not that electoral districts should reflect the state’s political makeup, giving Democrats and Republicans proportional representation. Haha! That would be silly. The Act is all about skin color, arrogantly presuming that people with similar melanin levels vote the same.

Courtwatchers forecast that SCOTUS is preparing to knock down one of the Act’s final pillars, causing the entire rotten racial edifice to topple over into the dustbin of history. If that does happen, then a whole bunch of states —particularly but not only Southern states— are salivating at the chance to redraw racially-reserved districts for political advantage— a goal SCOTUS has already explicitly approved.

“If this case is decided unfavorably,” the op-ed warned darkly, “all levels of government will rush to redraw their maps in discriminatory ways, disrupting the 2026 primary elections.” Or improving the 2026 primaries, depending on how you look at it.

It’s a nail-biter. The decision is expected this term. It could happen any day now —which would leave time for adjustments prior to the midterms— or it could come at the end of the term in July, possibly too late to make any difference this time around. You can bet the planning is well underway.

Either way, this promises to be a blockbuster Supreme Court term, including this VRA case and other monumental decisions, such as whether Trump can keep running his tariff dashboard the same way, whether men can play in women’s sports, and whether presidents have authority to remove Fed governors like mortgage fraudster Lisa Cook. It’s going to get spicy.