‘SAVE Database’ Uncovers Widespread Problems on Unprecedented Scale
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN.) — September 16, 2020: An independent, nationwide analysis of voter rolls in 42 states has identified thousands of probable deceased and duplicate registrants, as well as cases of individuals credited for voting more than once. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has launched the Safeguarding America’s Votes and Elections (SAVE) Database as an analysis tool to track voter roll deficiencies and potential problem areas across America. Announced today, the groundbreaking findings in their national report indicates that the SAVE Database raises serious concerns over the integrity of states’ voter files as election officials anticipate a surge in mail-in voting this fall.
“The detailed information and analysis presented in this report makes it abundantly clear that states across America, including many that will determine control of the White House and Congress, are unprepared to accommodate a surge in mail-in voting this fall,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “After standardizing registration lists in 42 states, Public Interest Legal Foundation’s SAVE Database uncovered voter rolls saturated with alarming errors. Prior to publishing this report, PILF shared some findings with state election officials in hopes they would validate and act on helpful information. With only weeks to go before the start of early voting, we’re hopeful this report will help spur broader public understanding about apparent problems which call into question the integrity of our election process.”
SAVE revealed349,773 apparently deceased registrants across 41 states’ voter rolls, with New York, Texas, Michigan, Florida and California alone accounting for 51 percent of the total.
During the 2018 General Election, 37,889 likely duplicate registrants are apparently credited for casting two votes from the same address, and 34,000 registrants appear to have voted from non-residential addresses. Additionally, 6,718 registrants were apparently credited for voting after death. During the 2016 General Election, SAVE revealed that number was higher, with a total of 7,890 registrants apparently being credited for voting after death.
After PILF collected data from 42 states and put it into a format where it could be studied, it was rigorously compared to commercial and government databases to increase confidence in the conclusions with particular emphasis on validating identities matched across state lines. Also included with the data were voter history fields, namely, data about when each registrant voted. The combination of state election data, commercial data, and federal sources such as the Social Security Death Index, provides researchers with perhaps the best platform ever constructed to analyze the health of the voter rolls and catalogue potential vulnerabilities.
The findings are a helpful starting point for state election officials to review the findings and make final determinations and take appropriate actions.
Notable Findings:
349,773: total number of potentially deceased registrants across 41 states.
Michigan, Florida, New York, Texas and California account for roughly 51% of national dead registrants.
In 2016, 7,890 registrants were apparently credited for voting after death.
In 2018, 6,718 registrants were credited for voting after death.
North Carolina leads the U.S. in dead registrants credited for voting after death.
43,760 likely duplicate registrants appear to have cast second votes in 2016 from the same address.
37,889 likely duplicate registrants appear to have cast second votes in 2018 from the same address.
Thousands of these apparent double votes were exclusively mail ballots
8,360 – Number of registrants apparently registered in 2 states and credited for voting in both states in 2018.
5,500 – Number of apparently duplicate registrants credited for voting twice in the same state from 2 different addresses in 2018.
34,000 – Number of registrants credited for voting from apparently non-residential addresses in 2018.
Download the full report here. If you are a member of the press and would like to interview or speak with J. Christian Adams and Logan Churchwell, please contact media@publicinterestlegal.org.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the nation in enforcing election integrity laws and the National Voter Registration Act, having brought cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Maine and filed amicus briefs in litigation across the nation.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
County Rule Ensures an Influx of Overvotes in 2020 Election
(PHOENIX, AZ.) – September 4, 2020: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit seeking to prevent County Recorder Adrian Fontes from instructing early voters to correct mistakes on their ballot by simply crossing out their first choice, rather than obtain a replacement. This spoils the ballot under state law. The new cross-out instruction was given in the August primary, despite a specific state procedure barring the practice (AZ Public Integrity Alliance v. Fontes).
The Arizona State Elections Procedure Manual warns that “no votes will be counted for a particular office if they overvote.” If a voter makes a mistake on a ballot, they are required to “request a new ballot” to correct the mistake. Ahead of the 2020 Elections, Maricopa County is unilaterally instructing local voters to cross-out mistakes and re-select their preference on the same ballot—thereby creating overvotes.
Courtesy Maricopa County
The Foundation’s brief outlines how Maricopa County’s actions run directly in opposition to established Arizona law and, if left unchecked, “would infuse chaos into the election and potentially disenfranchise voters.”
“Maricopa County officials are effectively instructing voters to spoil ballots after making a marking mistake. Remember the inspectors with magnifying glasses 20 years ago in Florida? Maricopa County is inviting that experience again in the middle of a pandemic,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Maricopa County should not be allowed to make its own election rules and procedures—especially when they are contrary to Arizona law.”
The Foundation’s brief focuses on two primary arguments.
Maricopa’s cross-out instruction is out of line with the Arizona Election Procedures Manual and runs contrary to state law. The manual is clear: “inform voters that no votes will be counted for a particular office if they overvote (vote for more than candidates than permitted) and therefore the voter should contact the County Recorder to request a new ballot in the event of an overvote.
Defendants arguments to justify the unilateral change lack merit. Having different sets of instructions across counties and even periods of voting creates confusion and can lead to disenfranchisement.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the nation in enforcing election integrity laws and the National Voter Registration Act, having brought cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Maine and filed amicus briefs in litigation across the nation.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
“Voter registration data is subject to public inspection, no matter where you live,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “We are pleased to receive detailed registrant information due to us under the Motor Voter law. We look forward to sharing future audit findings with proper authorities.”
The settlement agreement outlines, in part (emphasis added):
“Defendants shall process the Application and provide the Voter Lists requested on the Application to Plaintiff in exchange for the reasonable fee of $125 required of all applicants who seek similar data from the State of Maryland, except that the data provided to Plaintiff shall include the voters’ dates of birth and voting history for the 2018 Gubernatorial General Election, 2018 Gubernatorial Primary Election, 2016 Presidential General Election, and 2016 Presidential Primary Election.”
The initial complaint filed on December 16, 2019, explained the Foundation requested copies of Maryland’s statewide voter file and select voting histories on November 13, pursuant to the application procedure set forth by the MSBOE. The State notified PILF two days later that its application was denied because neither the organization nor its employees were Maryland registered voters.
The Foundation sought relief under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires officials to make voter list maintenance documents like the voter roll itself available for inspection to the general public. The law also offers a private right to file a lawsuit if denied.
The Foundation recently sued the Michigan Secretary of State for failing to disclose voting records related to the 2018 General Election from the City of Southfield. The Foundation seeks records involving the 193 allegedly altered voter history files from November 2018 that led to six felony charges against Southfield City Clerk Sherikia Hawkins.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The case number was 1:19-cv-03564. The attorney for the Public Interest Legal Foundation is Noel H. Johnson. Baltimore-based Glenn E. Bushel and Richard L. Costella of Tydings & Rosenberg LLP served as local counsel.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the nation in enforcing election integrity laws and the National Voter Registration Act, having brought cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Maine and filed amicus briefs in litigation across the country.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
The Foundation seeks records involving the 193 allegedly altered voter history files from November 2018 that led to six felony charges against Southfield City Clerk Sherikia Hawkins.
“193 Southfield voters trusted their absentee ballots would be counted in November 2018 without issue,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “The criminal allegations surround this case are alarming and must be fully studied to ensure that history doesn’t repeat. The public has a right to know about the voters who had their votes cancelled.”
The complaint, filed August 26, explains in part (emphasis added):
“The records requested are voter history records for a small subset of registrants in Southfield, Michigan. Southfield City Clerk Sherikia Hawkins allegedly created one voter history record for a subset of Southfield voters indicating that they did not vote in the 2018 election in order to nullify the effect of those registrants casting an absentee ballot. In creating a voter history record indicating that the registrant did not vote, it allowed Hawkins to (allegedly and falsely) disregard and not count the absentee ballots of those voters. When the actions of Hawkins were discovered, yet another voter history record was allegedly created, a truthful one indicating that the voters indeed did cast an absentee ballot. The Foundation merely requests these voter history records as they will indicate the registrants who sent voted absentee ballots to Hawkins and for whom Hawkins has been charged with cancelling their vote … Secretary Benson is denying the Foundation access to the requested records.”
The Foundation seeks relief under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires officials to make voter list maintenance documents like, in this case, voting history documents due to their integral part in triggering systematic voter list functions related to potential inactivity. The law also offers a private right to file a lawsuit if denied.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the nation in enforcing election integrity laws and the National Voter Registration Act, having brought cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Maine and filed amicus briefs in litigation across the nation.
The new case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The case number is 1:20-cv-00818. Counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation is Kaylan L. Phillips.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – August 11, 2020: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) released a statement today acknowledging President Donald J. Trump’s appointment of J. Christian Adams to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
PILF President J. Christian Adams:
“I am humbled by President Trump appointing me to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission has a long, noble history of serving as a defender of civil rights – from ending Jim Crow to ensuring that the promises of the Civil War amendments are fulfilled. This nation endured a ferocious upheaval to enact the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. All of the sunk wealth and calamity of a civil war were a high price indeed for these three amendments. We owe it to the generation that made them possible to fulfill the aims of these amendments. But we also owe the generations before that one, the ones that secured the blessings of liberty and domestic tranquility – the rights to worship, to speak freely without fear of violence, and the right to pursue a living – to preserve those rights.
“This hard year has refocused many Americans on basic civil rights we had long taken for granted. The right to assemble and worship, the right to be free from excessive force, the right of self-defense, and the right to pursue the American Dream no matter if you live in Fairfax, Virginia, coal country Pennsylvania, or the south side of Chicago.
“I have a demonstrated history of defending the civil rights of Americans regardless of skin color. I have brought and won civil rights cases that others would not – from Guam, to Mississippi, to defending the integrity of our elections. Everyone is entitled to civil rights and too many for too long have had a too narrow view of that question. I hope to use my time on the Commission to reinvigorate a broader understanding of what our great Constitution has promised is a civil right. Every American should be free to pursue their dreams. In 2020, we see how those rights can be threatened in ways we did not imagine just a decade ago. From free speech, to the right to run a business in Minneapolis, from the right to gather in church, to the right to support candidates for office free from fear, 2020 has presented new challenges and therefore new obligations on those who defend civil rights.”
Civil Rights Litigation and Background
Served as an attorney at the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section from 2005 to 2010.
Received the Department’s Special Commendation for Outstanding Service on October 23, 2008 for work on voting rights cases.
At DOJ, litigated case against Georgetown County, South Carolina, School Board for violations of the Voting Rights Act in county with 38% black population and no representation on school board elected at-large. Case successfully resulted in creation of at least two majority minority districts. Black candidates who could not win a seat on the school board now hold seats.
Also at DOJ, litigated case against Town of Lake Park, extending protections of Voting Rights Act to small towns. Lake Park had black population in excess of 40% and at large town council election that resulted in minority candidates losing every election.
Also at DOJ, successfully litigated the landmark case of United States v. Ike Brown in the Southern District of Mississippi, the first case brought under the Voting Rights Act on behalf of a discriminated-against white minority.
Other cases at the Department of Justice:
United States v. Ike Brown, 494 F.Supp.2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007).
United States v. Ike Brown, 561 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2009)(work on successful appeal of USDC).
United States v. Georgetown County School District, et al, (D.S.C., Case No: 2:08-889).
United States v. Town of Lake Park (S.D.Fl., Case No. 9-80505).
United States v. Alabama, et al. (M.D. Ala., Case No. 2:08-920).
United States v. Vermont, et al., (D. Vermont, Case No.:2:08-217)
United States v. Post Independent School District, (N.D. Tex, Case No.: 5:07-146)(Spanish)
United States v. City of Segraves ISD, (N.D. Tex., Case No.: 5:07-147)(Spanish)
United States v. Smyer ISD, (N.D. Tex., Case No.: 5:07-148)(Spanish)
United States v. City of Earth, (N.D. Tex., Case No.: 5:07-144)(Spanish)
United States v. Littlefield ISD, (N.D. Tex., Case No.: 5:07-145)(Spanish).
United States v. New Black Panther Party (E.D.Pa. 2009)
Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009)
He brought the first private party litigation resulting in the cleanup of corrupted voter rolls under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
When none of the “traditional” civil rights groups would take his case, represented United States Air Force Major (Ret.) Arnold “Dave” Davis who was not allowed to register to vote in a Guam election because he did not have the right ancestry. (Davis v. Guam). Guam enacted a status plebiscite that limited the vote to “native inhabitants” or their blood relatives. Adams took the case pro bono when none of the civil rights groups cared to help him. After multiple trips to Guam, the case was filed. After losing on a motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness in the United States District Court of Guam, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Davis, holding that the law violated the protections of the right to vote free from racial discrimination in the 15th Amendment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. (Davis v. Guam 932 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2019). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2020, ending a decade long case that Adams undertook in 2010.
Brought cases under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to clean voter rolls against multiple states and counties including Indiana, Ohio, counties in Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Represented four presidential campaigns in ballot access litigation in Virginia in 2012.
Appointed to Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017.
He is the author of a New York Times bestseller about civil rights and civil rights enforcement, Injustice (Regnery, 2011).
Was General Counsel to the South Carolina, Secretary of State.
University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D. 1993. West Virginia University, B.A., 1990.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the nation in enforcing election integrity laws and the National Voter Registration Act, having brought cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, and Maine and filed amicus briefs in litigation across the nation.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(LAS VEGAS, NV.) – August 5, 2020: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today released a research brief detailing mail balloting return figures for Clark County, Nevada, during the June 2020 Primary.
Almost 1 in 5 ballots were returned undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service, according to Clark County figures released to the Foundation this week. A stunning 42 percent of undelivered mail was addressed to “active” registrants.
“These numbers show how vote by mail fails. New proponents of mail balloting don’t often understand how it actually works,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “States like Oregon and Washington spent many years building their mail voting systems and are notably aggressive with voter list maintenance efforts. Pride in their own systems does not somehow transfer across state lines. Nevada, New York, and others are not and will not be ready for November.”
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the nation in enforcing election integrity laws and the National Voter Registration Act, having brought cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Maine and filed amicus briefs in litigation across the nation.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
Analysis Discovers Battleground State’s Widespread Deficiencies from Files Ripe with Deceased Registrants to Non-residential Addresses & Cases of Double Registration
TAMPA — As America’s most prized presidential battleground state and a focal point for increased voter turnout, Florida is ill-prepared for mail-in voting according to a new scathing report published The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). Unveiled today, the analysis found that Florida’s flawed voter rolls include widespread deceased and duplicate registrants, potential for double voting, and registrants with non-residential addresses.
“Florida’s concerning registered voter lists paired with the expected surge in vote-by-mail this fall is like watching a high-speed train collision occur in slow motion,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “As a must win state for both political parties, Florida’s history with election integrity, ballot counting and voter rolls makes it particularly vulnerable to potential errors and fraud as we near Election Day. Our report’s findings will hopefully spur action by election supervisors and officials across the state to protect the integrity of the coming elections.”
Due to potential health risks posed by COVID-19, many Americans are expected to forgo their local polling precincts and choose mail-in-voting this fall to cast their ballots. The Florida report is part of a larger PILF project that collected and standardized 42 states’ voter data and marks the first of several state reports to be published in the coming weeks.
Key findings from “Is Florida Ready for the 2020 Elections” report include:
Deceased registrants — South Florida dominates in terms of deceased registrants remaining on the voter rolls, with Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade among the top counties. As of October 2019:
Palm Beach: 3,656 deceased voters on list and 139 votes cast by deceased voters.
Broward: 3,339 deceased voters on list and 10 votes cast by deceased voters.
Miami-Dade: 2,323 deceased voters on list and 45 votes cast by deceased voters.
Hillsborough: 1,121 deceased voters on list and nine votes cast by deceased voters.
Orange: 1,000 deceased voters on list and nine votes cast by deceased voters.
Non-residential addresses –Nationally, during the 2018 General Election, 35,800 ballots were cast in 41 states, including Florida, from non-residential addresses. Florida was among the top ten states with 1,267 registrants on the voter roll who were later determined to either not have a residence anywhere in the state, or who were simply made up.
Double voting – 1,836 Floridians’ records indicate that they voted twice in a national election with a second vote being cast in a different state.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
TAMPA — As America’s most prized presidential battleground state and a focal point for increased voter turnout, Florida is ill-prepared for mail-in voting according to a new scathing report. The analysis found that Florida’s flawed voter rolls include widespread deceased and duplicate registrants, potential for double voting, and registrants with non-residential addresses.
“Florida’s concerning registered voter lists paired with the expected surge in vote-by-mail this fall is like watching a high-speed train collision occur in slow motion,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “As a must win state for both political parties, Florida’s history with election integrity, ballot counting and voter rolls makes it particularly vulnerable to potential errors and fraud as we near Election Day. Our report’s findings will hopefully spur action by election supervisors and officials across the state to protect the integrity of the coming elections.”
Summary of Findings
Deceased registrants — South Florida dominates in terms of deceased registrants remaining on the voter rolls, with Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade among the top counties. As of October 2019:
Palm Beach: 3,656 deceased voters on list and 139 votes cast by deceased voters.
Broward: 3,339 deceased voters on list and 10 votes cast by deceased voters.
Miami-Dade: 2,323 deceased voters on list and 45 votes cast by deceased voters.
Hillsborough: 1,121 deceased voters on list and nine votes cast by deceased voters.
Orange: 1,000 deceased voters on list and nine votes cast by deceased voters.
Double voting – 1,836 Floridians’ records indicate that they voted twice in a national election with a second vote being cast in a different state.
“Federal law requires transparency in election records,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Just because someone isn’t engaging in partisan electioneering should not prevent them from ensuring that Illinois’ voter rolls are in order. Illinois’ records must be made available to the public, not just politicians.”
The complaint, filed July 27, explains the Foundation initially requested access to Illinois’ federally required statewide voter file and voting histories on October 16, 2019. On February 21 and after a failed inspection of records, the Foundation provided notice that litigation would commence if voter registration data was not provided as required under federal law.
The Foundation seeks relief under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires officials to make voter list maintenance documents like the voter roll itself available for inspection to the general public. The law also offers a private right to file a lawsuit if denied.
Other federal courts which have confronted the issue have sided in favor of disclosure of public records.
The Foundation is pursuing litigation against Maine and Maryland for similar inspection rights violations. Delaware and Massachusetts opened access to their respective registration records pursuant to PILF’s federal inspection requests.
The Foundation accesses public voter registration database extracts to perform audits for deceased, duplicated, and otherwise outdated/corrupted records. Findings can result in federal list maintenance lawsuits to correct flagged registrant files. Lawsuits against Detroit and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, recently wrapped along those lines.
The Foundation has also shared data via court briefs involving changes to mail ballot rules and procedures that have arisen due to the COVID-19 pandemic across 11 cases in California, Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The new case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The case number is 3:20-cv-03190. The attorney for the Public Interest Legal Foundation is Sue Becker. Chicago-based Christine Svenson serves as local counsel.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
PILF COVID Briefs Go to 11, Amplify Concerns of Dirty Voter Rolls
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN.) – July 20, 2020: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today filed its eleventh amicus brief to protect the integrity of the 2020 election in the face of an onslaught by Democrat and leftist organizations to nullify state laws. The Foundation filed briefs in federal court in Georgia and the Connecticut Supreme Court. In both, the Foundation provided real data regarding vulnerabilities in the election system in each state that would be made worse if the Georgia plaintiffs succeed and if the Connecticut Governor’s edict to move toward a mail election that suspended Connecticut law remains in force.
With these briefs filed today, PILF is the most active and targeted champion of election integrity fighting those who would nullify state election laws during a crisis.
“We have facts that show mail elections without safeguards are vulnerable to fraud,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “We are making sure courts are aware of these vulnerabilities. In 11 different cases, we have fought on the side of election integrity with real data and actionable analysis of these problems. Duplicate registrants, dead registrants, and people registered and voting in multiple states are made worse by a mail voting system that cancels integrity procedures. Witness requirements, election day deadlines, and automatic mail ballots are just some of the changes our briefs oppose.”
Adams also extends his thanks to supporters for making these eleven court appearances possible:
“Our zealous defense of election integrity would not be possible without the support of those who care. Our extraordinary level of targeted action is only possible because Americans care about clean elections.”
The Foundation found one person in Swissvale, Pennsylvania, simultaneously registered to vote seven different times in a lawsuit the Foundation brought against Allegheny County (PA). His story and thousands more led election officials to correct problems after the lawsuit was filed and settled. A similar lawsuit against the City of Detroit ended after evidence of subsequent voter roll cleanup actions surfaced during discovery. The eleven other cases where PILF has filed briefs are:
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the nation in enforcing election integrity laws and the National Voter Registration Act, having brought cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Maine and filed amicus briefs in litigation across the nation.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated 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. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
Menu
