Prior to the
public release of its latest report,
PILF shared its detailed findings with current Palm Beach County Supervisor of
Elections Wendy S. Link (PBSOE). Supervisor Link’s office committed to
reviewing findings and taking necessary corrective actions going forward, while
also sharing other matters beyond her immediate control with the Florida
Secretary of State. Essentially all findings worthy of official action were
created during now-removed Supervisor Susan Bucher’s term of office, or a
predecessor.
“We are one year out from the 2020
General and this report is a stark reminder that you can’t have election
‘security’ without integrity first,” PILF President and
General Counsel J. Christian Adams said.“Palm Beach County serves as an example of
the types of vulnerabilities found within Florida’s voting system that could be
leveraged by an outside saboteur. Our research suggests these problems are
fixable well before the presidential election.
“I want to particularly commend Supervisor Link’s
office for not only providing necessary data during our research, but also
keeping an open door and accepting our findings,”Adams added.
PILF discovered a
variety of apparent flaws
and procedural errors ranging from snowbird double voting, duplicate voter
registration, non-citizen voter participation, illegal addresses, and even deceased
voting.
Access to Calm Before the Storm: Are Palm Beach
County’s Elections Protected Against Emerging Threats? is available, here.
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.
J. Christian Adams joined the Frank Beckmann Show on WJR Detroit today to discuss the Southfield Clerk’s alleged attempts to
invalidate 193 absentee votes in the 2018 midterm election.
12 Times Donors Were Targeted
for Harassment or Worse
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – October 1, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed
an amicus curiae brief in the
U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s
request to be heard regarding California’s donor disclosure laws.
In the brief,
the Foundation cites 12 examples where donor disclosure laws or efforts were
leveraged to fuel personal attacks against otherwise private individuals – even
in some cases where privacy protections were officially violated to achieve the
end result. Supporters of both charitable and political ventures have risked
threats of violence (including their minor children), commercial boycotts, and
personal ruin.
“Donor anonymity is
a bedrock American value. Private
associations deserve to have their donors remain private,” PILF President and General
Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “This tradition led to the creation of civil
society institutions that worked for the betterment of the country. Hopefully,
the Court will find a way to uphold that tradition. This case is one way.”
Texas Public
Policy Foundation –
According to the group, in 2012, an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B was
officially leaked and entered circulation among various news media outlets,
despite it being confidential under federal law.
National
Organization for Marriage –
In March 2012, the organization learned its unredacted 2008 Schedule B was
posted on an opposing group’s public website. The IRS later admitted to
“improperly” releasing the document to a private individual contrary to federal
law.
The IRS
Targeting Scandal –
Conservative groups targeted by the IRS during their application process were
subjected to unnecessary questions including for names of donors.
Friends of
Abe –
Politically-conservative Hollywood figures seeking fellowship in an anonymous
fashion faced a demand from the IRS to effectively reveal their member roster.
LULAC v. PILF – During discovery for a now-settled
lawsuit, the progressive group committed extensive resources and attention to
understating this Foundation’s fundraising and donor relations efforts. The
federal court eventually indicated that the probes were irrelevant to the case.
Chick-fil-A – Agitation against America’s most
profitable fast food chain’s charitable contributions and spiritual modus operandi is as notorious as the quality of their chicken sandwich. Some
municipalities, like San Antonio, Texas, officially banned the franchise from operating in local
government spaces.
Competitive
Enterprise Institute/U.S. Virgin Islands – In April 2016, the CEI was subpoenaed by USVI Attorney General
Claude Walker for a decade’s-worth of internal records, including donor information.
The demand was eventually withdrawn.
California’s
Prop 8 – Opponents of Prop
8 utilized public disclosures of supporters’ information to compile online maps
detailing private homes and places of business.
Will &
Grace – Cast members for
the NBC comedy took to Twitter in August 2019 and demanded that lists of
attendees to a President Donald Trump fundraiser be revealed due to the
public’s “right to know” their identities.
Rep. Joaquin
Castro (D-TX) – Shortly
after the recent mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, the congressman published a
list of San Antonio-area donors of the Trump re-election campaign, saying they
“fuel” hatred to Hispanics, hinting to a shared causality with the tragic
event.
Michigan
Chamber of Commerce – A
local organization executed an ad campaign featuring members of the MCC’s
executive board, accusing them of running a “dark money” effort to prevent
redistricting reform. Social media promoters and commenters opined about the
need for a guillotine, firing squads, and the general sense how violence “can
be used for good.”
SoulCycle – After a company investor hosted a fundraiser for President Trump, a boycott effort
substantially drove down attendance to training sessions.
California law
requires any IRS-designated 501(c)(3) charitable organization wishing to
solicit donations in the state to annually file IRS Form 990s with unredacted
Schedule Bs. These files list every donor giving at least $5,000 a year to the
group in question. Petitioner AFP Foundation has refused to disclose the
documents since 2001.
The Public
Interest Legal Foundation also refuses to disclose its Schedule Bs—preventing
any targeted fundraising in the state.
The Foundation’s brief,
filed in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence,
Foundation for Michigan Freedom, and Texas Public Policy Foundation urges the
Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari from the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals as requested by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Kaylan L.
Phillips and J. Christian Adams serve as attorneys of record for PILF in this
matter.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the
nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American
elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance
obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across
the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election
officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
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, the Foundation
seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of
American elections. ###
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN) – September 30, 2019. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) initiated a private investigative effort into and around allegations of official election fraud reportedly perpetrated by Southfield City Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins during the Michigan’s November 2018 General Election.
“It is unacceptable in this political environment for
an election official to allegedly attempt to alter or invalidate absentee
ballots for any reason,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian
Adams said. “It is equally troubling to see Michigan officials downplay
the matter. Michiganders and the larger American electorate deserve another set
of eyes to help explain—in plain language—the course of events, motivations,
and trends as to why these particular 193 absentee voters were allegedly
targeted by Hawkins for disenfranchisement. The inner workings of our elections
are typically a mystery to the public even in the best of times. This demands
complete transparency.”
Upon reviewing the Michigan felony
complaint records regarding Southfield Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins, the Foundation opted to utilize several federal and
state open records laws tailored to election administration and absentee
balloting files.
Documents of
particular interest relate to lists of all registered voters in Southfield who
attempted to vote absentee for the 2018 midterm elections, in addition to
detailed records exhibiting which voters were impacted by Clerk Hawkins alleged
actions. Other records sought can help confirm that all eligible and properly
submitted ballots were counted according to Michigan law.
PILF has also asked
to inspect records held by the Elections Division in Oakland County, Michigan,
the office that discovered the alleged alteration of voting records.
The Foundation intends
to distribute a catalog of findings to better educate the general public on
official election fraud risks ahead of the 2020 Elections—particularly in the
area of absentee balloting, which has seen an increase in popularity with
voters and fraudsters, alike.
Section 8 of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) empowers any party to physically
inspect local election records related to voter list maintenance efforts.
Michigan law grants similar access rights for voter registration records and
records related to the application, mailing, return, and official handling for
each absentee ballot in a given election.
The Public Interest
Legal Foundation is building a record of targeted research efforts that focus
on particular elections and jurisdictions. In April 2019, the Foundation filed
state and federal law enforcement complaints regarding apparent double voting efforts in Florida and New York. In
October 2018, PILF helped trigger a Texas Attorney General
investigation referral into
apparently altered voter registration applications mailed to non-U.S. citizens
in the Rio Grande Valley.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the
nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American
elections—bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance
obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across
the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election
officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
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.) – September 9, 2019: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams will testify before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee regarding evidence of current and ongoing voting discrimination this Tuesday, September 10.
“It has never been easier to vote in the United States
than now. In some cases, voter access has broadened to the point that it lacks sufficient
safeguards to ensure immigrants and felons don’t register before they are
eligible. There is still work to be done, however.”
In prepared remarks, Adams explains how Guam attempted to
discriminate against U.S. citizens wishing to participate in a recent
plebiscite election:
“The legislature of Guam passed an election law
confining the right to vote in a status plebiscite to a preferred racial group
– so called ‘native inhabitants’ … Guam
imposed voter qualifications based on blood ancestry much like the Oklahoma
grandfather clauses struck down by the Supreme Court over a century ago … When [my
client] sought to register to vote at the government office, his registration
form was marked ‘VOID’ by election officials. Even in the Jim Crow south of the
early 1960’s, southern registrars weren’t brazen enough to deny the right to
vote explicitly on having the wrong racial blood.”
Adams adds that oft-described “civil rights” groups like those invited to testify
alongside him are conspicuously missing from modern challenges.
Adams also explained how the Commonwealth of Virginia improperly removed U.S. citizen voter
registrants after questioning their eligibility:
“Virginia has been cancelling the voter registrations
of American citizens, mistakenly cancelling them as ‘declared non-citizens.’
This is happening because the Motor Voter law passed in 1993 is outdated … Yet
as in Guam, the improper cancellation of American citizens on the voter rolls
has not seemed to draw the attention of any of the traditional civil rights
groups who so zealously catalog the latest threat to voting.”
The hearing is scheduled for 10am Tuesday, September 10,
in the Rayburn HOB 2141.
Read a copy of Adams’
testimony, here. You can watch at the House Judiciary
Committee here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the
nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American
elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance
obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across
the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election
officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
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. ###
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN.) – August 19, 2019: The Public
Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is spotlighting jurisdictions across 29 states for in-depth inspections
of voter registration records and local list maintenance practices in
preparation for the 2020 presidential election. At least 244 counties across 28
states plus Alaska and D.C. report bloated voter rolls to federal officials. In
response, public records research, voter roll audits, and various litigation
activities are now underway.
“One of the most effective strategies for protecting the integrity of
American elections is keeping voter rolls clean,” PILF President and General
Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Carefully
maintained records will better prepare state and local governments to quickly
recover from any future cyber-attacks. In addition to fraud concerns, unkempt
rolls can serve as a warning signal to future corruption and failures in local
governments.”
Registrants in highlighted jurisdictions can expect a variety of research techniques and legal actions from the Foundation in preparation for the 2020 Election, such as full battery voter registration records request letters and comprehensive voter list audits. Based on these efforts, the Foundation will opt for formal agreements addressing corrective strategies where possible or, federal litigation under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993.
The NVRA (also known as “Motor Voter”) requires state and
local election officials to properly maintain voter rolls and ensure that only
eligible voters are registered. Holding more registrants than living adults
indicates that election officials have failed to properly maintain voter rolls.
States with counties of concern are (# of counties):
Kentucky (58), Michigan (29), South Carolina (25), Mississippi (22), Colorado (19),
Alabama (14), Illinois (13), South Dakota (11), Kansas (8), Texas (8), Nebraska
(6), Georgia (5), West Virginia (4), Iowa (3), Montana (3), Missouri (2),
Washington state (2), Louisiana (2), Florida (1), New Mexico (1), Arizona (1),
Arkansas (1), California (1), Indiana (1), New York (1), North Carolina (1),
Virginia (1), and Wyoming (1). Alaska and Washington, D.C. also join the list.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation has a distinguished record of bringing litigation
against counties and locales with bloated voter rolls—yielding settlements and
consent decrees that, if followed properly, will put jurisdictions on a path to
more realistic voter registration rates. PILF has been involved in bringing
nine separate lawsuits in the last two years to enforce list maintenance
provisions of the NVRA, including in Texas, Mississippi, Florida, North
Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Foundation works to ensure that voting
records meant to be publicly available are disclosed according to federal law.
In the past two years, PILF sued jurisdictions in Texas, Pennsylvania, and
North Carolina to enforce public inspection rights.
If a state or local official fails to respond to PILF’s correspondence
or corrective findings, they risk a federal lawsuit.
A listing of all jurisdictions flagged for registration rates exceeding 100% can be found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the
nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American
elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance
obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across
the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election
officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
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.) – June 28, 2019: Public
Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) was invited to participate in a SCOTUSblog
symposium on the Census case opinion released Thursday. Below are
some excerpts from the submission:
In short, the court concluded that the secretary could
reinstate the citizenship question and had good reason to reinstate the
citizenship question, but the explanation he provided for why he did so was
lacking, and that, in itself, is a fatal flaw worthy of sending the issue back
to the Department of Commerce. Game over? Maybe not.
…
Not only is there disagreement among the justices
regarding the court’s analysis, there is disagreement among commentators about
the effect of the decision. There is a genuine question about whether the
Commerce Department can satisfy the court’s concerns in time for the 2020
census and, if so, how.
…
Adding to the complication is that the Supreme Court decision only
involved the challenges that were brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. There are separate challenges to the
reinstatement of the citizenship question pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
for the 9th and 4th Circuits, and in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland. Despite the New York court’s decision blocking the reinstatement
of the question in mid-January and the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the
case this term, the other lower courts proceeded with their own fact-finding
and ruled against the government.
Read the Foundation’s prior case filings on the matter here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active
public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more
than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection
rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to
serving as amicus in more than a
dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and
policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
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.) – June 27, 2019: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding the inclusion of a citizenship question on the upcoming 2020 Census.
“Chief Justice Roberts unfortunately was the deciding vote,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “He agreed with the arguments of the institutional Left that how the Census question was added was more important than the common sense of asking the question in the first place. This is an unfortunate victory for the Swamp that opposed collecting facts about how many aliens are in the United States.”
“It is a sign of our time that the inclusion of a question about citizenship on the census has become a subject of bitter public controversy and has led to today’s regrettable decision. While the decision to place such a question on the 2020 census questionnaire is attacked as racist, there is a broad international consensus that inquiring about citizenship on a census is not just appropriate but advisable.” — Justice Alito
Read the Foundation’s prior case filings on the matter here.
The Foundation had made several arguments as an amicus party as this
case developed.
Robust citizenship data is necessary to determine if redistricting
maps properly protect minority voters. In the decades-long absence of
general citizenship data provided by the Census, the DOJ had to selectively
employ citizenship estimates – yet only in jurisdictions where such
data were available. Without it, DOJ and others live in a statistical fog to
determine whether a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically
compact to necessarily yield a single-member district.
Citizenship data helps facilitate private efforts to enforcing
voting laws. Census data are critical to determining which
jurisdictions are falling behind federal mandates to maintain voter rolls free
from bloat and corrupted entries. Courts have repeatedly relied on the ratio
between registered voters and resident citizens in a locale as valuable
insights—yet the citizenship data in its current form is not without flaws and
can risk skewed interpretations. Improved data quality will also help empower
private interests to ensure that federal law is being followed.
Disagreement between Executive Branch Officials and career
bureaucrats cannot serve as evidence of discriminatory intent. Plaintiffs are conjuring evidence of discriminatory intent due to
administrative policy changes after an election. If such arguments are
successful, core foundational concerns regarding the Executive Branch are
endangered. The brief notes: “the Constitution of the United States makes plain
that ‘executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of
America.’ As the Supreme Court stated, ‘The insistence of the Framers upon
unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well
known.’ The unitary Executive is essential for individual liberty.”
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active
public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more
than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection
rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to
serving as amicus in more than a
dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and
policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
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 Supreme Court
wisely chose to reject federal overreach into the states’ constitutional authority
to conduct redistricting,” PILF President and General Counsel J.
Christian Adams said. “Partisan foes
of the federalist balance of power have yet again sunk millions of donor
dollars. The 15th Amendment gives federal courts the power to stop
racial discrimination. The Constitution
doesn’t give federal courts the power to pick partisan outcomes.”
Read the Foundation’s prior case filings on the matter here.
The Foundation made several arguments as an amicus party in recent months.
The original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment does
not support political gerrymandering causes of action. [The authors] were
elected from districts with far greater disparity between statewide political
preferences and the partisan composition of legislative delegations than those
districts challenged [in the North Carolina action].
Allowing a federal cause of action for partisan
gerrymandering upsets the Constitutional balance. States have the general
power to manage their own elections subject to explicit and well-defined exceptions, like violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The lower court’s
decision is an affront to the important federalist balance and should be
rejected.
The Constitution grants States the power over
elections. To the States, the Framers granted exclusively the authority to
control who may vote in federal elections … Congress’s power to regulate how elections are held, however, is superior to the States’ power to do the same
only when they differ.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active
public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more
than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection
rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to
serving as amicus in more than a
dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and
policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
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 NCSBE is hiding
records detailing their reported efforts to identify and remove noncitizens
registered to vote,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “The disclosure of these records will better
improve policymakers’ understanding of how to prevent future ineligible
registrations—as opposed to constantly playing defense.”
The NCSBE denied
access to several forms of documentation outlining how state and/or local
officers identify and eventually remove registrants for citizenship-eligibility
defects using immigration or driver licensing data. These refusals constitute a
violation of the public inspection rights under the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993, as outlined in the complaint.
In 2018, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District indicted
19 foreign nationals for allegedly participating in the 2016 Election and
others.
The new case was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division. The case
number is 5:19-cv-00248. Attorneys for the Public Interest Legal Foundation are J. Christian Adams and Noel H. Johnson. Benton Sawrey of Narron Wenzel, P.A.
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. ###
Menu
