EIPCa, Election Integrity Project, Every Lawfully cast Vote Accurately Counted

They. Got. It. Wrong.

What Now?

July 13, 2026

When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 14^th Amendment birthright citizenship decision, it drove a stake right through the heart of election integrity in this nation, and guaranteed there would be virtually unrestrained foreign influence in our elections.

New headlines have registered the truth of the deplorable fact that 14^th Amendment abuse has been well underway for quite some time. In January, 2018, NBC posted this headline: “Birth tourism brings Russian baby boom to Miami.”

A Wallstreet Journal headline in December of 2025 read: “Chinese Billionaires Having Dozens of U.S.-Born Babies Via Surrogate” with the sub-title: “Videogame executive Xu Bo said to have more than 100 children, and other elites build mega-families, testing citizenship laws and drawing on nannies, IVF and legal firms set up to help them.”

Birthright tourism is a flourishing industry.

ALL of these “citizens” will have the right to VOTE in American elections, either via absentee ballot from their true native land, or from their American soil domicile.

All of these children will be enabled to bring their extended families to the U.S. through chain migration. Those who do not assimilate as real Americans have the potential of “fundamentally transforming” (i.e. destroying) America as it was founded to be.

This is the path to national suicide condoned, sanctioned and incentivized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its

Birth Right Citizenship decision last month.

They. Got. It. Wrong.

Instead of relying on the original intent of the 14^th Amendment, they leaned on the distorted, more recent misinterpretation of it in more recent years.

Instead of correcting a disastrous historical error, they enshrined that error into permanence and issued a clear and almost inevitable path to national suicide.

During the time the 14^th Amendment was being crafted, voted on and sold to the states, its authors and proponents argued extensively that its guarantee of birthright citizenship would NEVER apply to children born to individuals in this country either temporarily or illegally.

They made it abundantly clear that its application was for those previously enslaved in the American South and their descendants, and for children of immigrants granted permanent residency status.

That’s why they included the most important phrase, “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

People here illegally or temporarily (student visa, work visa, tourist visa) are NOT subjects of America but of the country of their origin.

That same status applies to any children born to those individuals; by virtue of the fact that they are minors and not yet sovereign individuals, they do not have their own status, but are defined by the status of their parentage.

After its passage, the 14^th Amendment was applied correctly for 40+ years before it began to be twisted into the pretzel it has been since then, and baked into permanency by the recent SCOTUS decision.

Jeff Childers, in his daily “Coffee and Covid” newsletter, remarked:

“In his scathing dissent, Justice Alito wrote what we are all thinking:

‘This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.’ Justice Thomas, known for his brevity, landed a massive, novella-length, 91-page dissent, which I believe to be the longest dissent of his extensive career - nearly twice his previous record.

“Dissenting Justices Thomas and Alito argued that the majority defined the word ‘jurisdiction’ too broadly, erroneously treating it as a synonym for ‘within our borders.’ Roberts shot back that the dissenters were adding requirements into the word —like domicile and allegiance— that aren’t explicitly there.

“To give you a taste, Justice Thomas made this common-sense argument about the definition:

‘The country had just emerged from a civil war that cost the lives of over 600,000 men due to a treasonous denial of allegiance to the Union. Going forward, there would be no national citizenship absent a reasonable expectation of national allegiance.’

Three justices wrote at length —91 pages in Thomas’s case— laying out a fully developed alternative constitutional framework and calling birthright citizenship the Supreme Court’s ‘most important issue.’

Kavanaugh supplied a roadmap for Congress.”

Justice Kavanaugh, though he sided with the Court’s majority, wrote, “The Constitution’s Citizenship Clause may well be ambiguous on this precise question.

“But Congress resolved that ambiguity by codifying birthright citizenship broadly in 8 U.S.C. §1401(a).

“The executive order doesn’t violate the Constitution — it violates Congress’s statute. And Congress can change that statute.”

Although SCOTUS got it wrong, CONGRESS can make things right… because Congress has the power to clarify the definitions

of “CITIZEN” and “JURISDICTION.”

Both major political parties used to be in alignment on this issue.

In 1993, Harry Reid (D-NV) advanced a bill to outlaw birthright citizenship. He was quoted on October 31, 2018, by the Washington Post as saying “No sane country would allow birthright citizenship.”

The Democrat bill introduced by Reid stipulated,

“Any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident… shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States.”

On June 30, 2026, just eight days ago, Senator Moreno of Ohio

announced he will reintroduce Harry Reid’s exact bill.

Also on June 30, 2026, the DOJ issued new orders to all districts, prioritizing prosecution of birth tourism, which is already illegal under federal law.

Senior DOJ official Colin McDonald issued a directive that people who come to the United States under “false pretenses” to give birth and secure ⁠citizenship for their child could be criminally charged under laws barring visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft and wire fraud.

To quote Childers (on p.2):

“This time, legislators can’t drag their feet claiming that Trump is asking them to do something unconstitutional, because Kavanaugh just green-lit it. They can’t complain it isn’t urgent, because Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch called it critically important in their dissents. Half of the conservative justices would have supported Trump’s order, with one explaining how Congress can fix it.”

More good news:

To lean again on the wisdom of Jeff Childers, “Before 2026, birthright citizenship was a wonky, fringe argument that had not captured the American public’s attention. Now the issue is all over social media. For the first time since 1898, the public is engaged.”

Childers urges us to see the SCOTUS ruling as “a step forward, a necessary, stepwise increment toward reversing a schizophrenic, controversial, 128-year-old law.”

It is a challenging perspective for us to take, emotionally. It demands that we rely upon the 535 mostly feckless, impotent, dysfunctional and cowardly members of the U.S. House and Senate.

But when Americans work together with resolve,

there is NOTHING we cannot accomplish.

Demand unceasingly that Congress DO ITS JOB

End the silent filibuster

Pass the SAVE America Act

Pass the Reid/McDonald Birthright Citizenship Ban.

Let’s DO this, America!!!

Click here to post on your social media.<

pdf of article

What Does it Mean to Vote in Person?

July 6, 2026

“I vote in person.” I want to make sure my vote counts!

We often hear variations of that statement from dedicated patriots who believe voting in person is the safest way to vote. Over 15 years of research and documentation have solidified EIPCa’s long-time belief in the validity of that statement.

But we also find there is often a misunderstanding about what voting in person really is.

Sealing your ballot in the return envelope and dropping it in the mail is NOT voting in person.

Sealing your ballot in the return envelope and dropping it in a community drop box is NOT voting in person.

Sealing your ballot in the return envelope and giving it to a family member, friend or ballot harvester is NOT voting in person.

Sealing your ballot in the return envelope and dropping it into the container designated for that purpose at a polling location is NOT voting in person.

Sealing your ballot in the return envelope and dropping it off at the County Elections Office is NOT voting in person.

Sealing your ballot in the return envelope and putting it directly into the hands of the County Clerk or Registrar of Voters is NOT voting in person.

To vote in person is to submit a ballot that is

NOT enclosed in an envelope.

It’s that simple.

Those who choose to vote in person do so to fulfill certain goals:

1. Expedited counting. Many who vote in person say they want to be sure their “vote is counted today.” A vote cast without an envelope at a polling location is counted that very day, or early the following morning if cast before Election Day.

2. Maintaining voter privacy and ballot secrecy. An in-person ballot is anonymous and cannot be tracked back to who cast it.

3. Avoiding errors in ballot processing. An in-person ballot avoids the delay and potential for error or intentional manipulation inherent in the processing of envelope ballots.

4. Maintaining chain of custody. By law, an in-person ballot goes from the voter’s hands to a secure ballot container. At the end of the day, it is moved by at least two people to a smaller transport container which is tamper-evident sealed. That container is taken by TWO trained individuals to the counting center or to a collection point, where it is transferred with signed chain of custody to the TWO or more trained individuals who will take it to the counting center.

Once at the counting center, it will be unsealed and its contents will be moved “in front of God and everybody” to the tabulation room and tabulated. The chain of custody is never broken.

Achieving these goals is not possible

when the ballot is in an envelope.

1. Expedited counting. Ballot envelopes must be sorted and scanned. Then they are signature verified, a highly subjective process which is so diluted by California’s weak standards as to be basically useless, but nonetheless time consuming.

Depending on when ballots are mailed or dropped off, processing delays range from 24 hours to several weeks.

2. Maintaining voter privacy and ballot secrecy. The return envelope has the voter’s name and address clearly printed, as well as the voter’s signature, which in most counties is not obscured under the flap but clearly visible and open to mischief as it passes through the hands of postal workers and drop-box transporters.

The ballot only becomes “secret” after it is removed from the envelope after the signature verification process.

During signature verification, the verifiers have access to the voter’s entire record, including party affiliation.

While they are not supposed to allow partisanship to influence their decisions, they are only human, and even subconsciously may be influenced by that knowledge.

3. Avoiding errors in ballot processing. Besides being vulnerable to the inherent inaccuracies in signature verification, ballots are subject to damage as the envelopes are mechanically sliced open and extracted from the envelope. Many are caught in the slicer and must be pieced together and re-made (duplicated) before tabulation, another process that could produce error or intentional manipulation, or even make some portions of the ballot indecipherable.

All extracted ballots are examined for damage (stains, smudges, tears, extraneous writing, water spots, etc.), and sent to be re-made if any are detected.

4. Maintaining chain of custody. Envelopes and the ballots they contain lose chain of custody the moment they enter the USPS system.

They pass through many unsupervised hands during the USPS processing, are transported to and from the voter’s mailbox by only ONE, unsupervised carrier, and removed from USPS mailboxes by ONE, unsupervised worker.

Every election, media reports abound of batches of ballots found dumped in ditches or under bushes by a worker wanting to finish rounds early or just create mischief.

Envelopes returned by community drop box sit in that box (many remote and unsurveilled) for up to 96 hours by law, vulnerable to vandalism, accident or the forces of nature.

Every election since the implementation of drop-box use, there have been media reports of burned or substance-damaged ballots inside those boxes.

As the boxes are emptied, the ballots can be exposed to careless handling, which may misplace, “fold, spindle or mutilate” envelopes and their contents. They are also vulnerable, especially during inclement weather, to water damage.

All of these consequences condemn the ballots to the remake process, which creates further delay in counting and subjects ballots to potential error or malfeasance.

Regardless of how you submit your ballot (mail, drop box, polling location, elections office, third person), if it is in an envelope, it is NOT an in-person vote!

It…

will NOT be expeditiously counted,
is NOT a secret ballot,
IS subject to mishandling and abuse, and
does NOT have chain of custody.

The only exception is a ballot submitted by a person who registers to vote and votes simultaneously.

This process is called Conditional Voter (same day) Registration, and while the ballots are submitted in an envelope, the only processing required is the entering of the voter’s information into the county and state database.

The ballot’s only vulnerability is during slicing/extraction, or if the voter somehow damages the ballot while marking it.

The decision to vote in person in California or use the envelope option is entirely the voter’s, and there are pros and cons to each method of voting.

EIPCa encourages voters to consider them all, and choose the method that gives them the most comfort and satisfaction.

Currently, for many reasons--mostly nefarious (see the EIPCa article coming soon) -- the majority of Californians vote by mail. Because that is a fact, the participation of citizen observers is critical. Please see EIPCa’s article series on how and why to become a citizen observer, and do your part in the Fall to protect the integrity of the process.

Click here to post on your social media.

pdf of article