EIPCa and EIPAz’s Friend of the Court Brief influential in Court’s decision
Santa Clarita, Calif. - On Tuesday, July 6, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state of Arizona’s right to protect the integrity of its voting process. The Democratic National Committee had challenged Arizona’s policy that prohibited ballot harvesting and Arizona’s requirement that in-person voters cast their vote at their designated precinct. The Supreme Court concluded that these measures are important in ensuring a fair and accurate election and that Arizona did not violate the Voting Rights Act by enforcing them.
Non-partisan Election Integrity Project California (EIPCa) and Election Integrity Project Arizona (EIPAz), together with attorney Mike O’Neil of Landmark Legal Foundation filed an influential friend of the court brief informing the Court of the dangers of ballot harvesting.
EIPCa’s extensive work documenting the many failures of the California electoral system allowed it to provide a unique perspective of what occurs without important protections, such as the chain-of-custody of vote-by-mail ballots, as well as oversight by diligent election officials.
Last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prohibiting ballot harvesting and requiring in-person voters to cast their vote at their designated precinct violated the Voting Rights Act in that they disproportionately affected minority voters and were enacted with discriminatory intent.
Thursday, the Supreme Court disagreed and overruled the 9th Circuit. Their decision ruled that federal law does not deprive states like Arizona of their authority to establish non-discriminatory voting rules to protect the sanctity of the vote nor did the Arizona legislature act with discriminatory intent when it enacted the policies.
Justice Alito, writing for the majority, noted that states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and that these policies work to prevent such fraud. “Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight,” the Court continued. “Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”
Equally important, the Court found that “[e]nsuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence, is [a] valid and important state interest.”
“We are heartened the Supreme Court has concluded that states have a right to enact commonsense laws that protect the integrity of the election process, thereby restoring the public’s faith in election outcomes,” said Linda Paine, EIPCa President. “Ballot harvesting removes the chain of custody protection allowing harvesters to seek out ballots that will be favorable to one side or another,” Linda went on to say. “It is EIPCa’s major objective that California follow Arizona’s lead and begin to take steps to correct the many electoral vulnerabilities that have plagued our great state for years.”
Election Integrity Project®California (EIPCa) and 13 Congressional Candidates filed a lawsuit California challenging the unconstitutional laws, policies & procedures, emergency regulations that destroy integrity in the election process.
###
Santa Clarita, Calif. – The Los Angeles Times published articles on June 25 by reporters Paige St. John and Anita Chabria, making gross misstatements about Election Integrity Project® California (EIPCa). EIPCa is a nonpartisan charity that for over ten years has championed the right of every eligible citizen to cast an unimpeded vote, protected by laws and procedures that guarantee fairness, accuracy and transparency.
The Los Angeles Times pieces appeared shortly after EIPCa sent a letter to the California Secretary of State with findings that California has 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible citizens, and that almost 124,000 more votes were counted in California’s 2020 general election than voters recorded as voting in that election.
The articles attempted to cast doubt on EIPCa’s findings. Yet, EIPCa’s statistical analysis has never been seriously questioned in its 10+ years of existence. EIPCa uses precise methods that err on the side of caution. Its findings likely underestimate the problem.
The articles also malign EIPCa’s efforts as “racist” and “partisan” efforts at “voter suppression.” This could not be more false. Election integrity is an issue that affects all of our rights as California Citizens, regardless of our race, ethnicity or political views. EIPCa volunteers are diverse and come from all races, political affiliations and places in the world, including many who have experienced true voter suppression in their countries of origin.
The articles falsely smear EIPCa’s research into non-citizen voting as racist against people of Central and South American origin (who actually make up a large portion of EIPCa’s volunteers). Regardless of national origin or immigration status, non-citizens are prohibited from voting for a federal office. Requiring US Citizenship to vote in a US election is common sense and the law of the land.
The articles falsely accuse EIPCa of affiliation with partisan groups. Just one of the articles’ many blatant falsehoods is an accusation that EIPCa’s President Linda Paine has held monthly meetings with California Republican Party leadership. The articles apparently rely on uncorroborated rumor from a few individuals hostile to EIPCa’s mission.
EIPCa trains thousands of citizen volunteers to observe the election process. California law guarantees citizens this right, and allows them to ask questions of election officials. EIPCa volunteers are trained to recognize lawful election procedures, and to ask polite questions of elections officials when they perceive irregularities. Volunteers sign a contract that they will follow EIPCa policy and training to stay within the bounds of California law, and violations of that contract are extremely rare. If they occur, the offender is dealt with immediately and all association with EIPCa is terminated. Although the articles make no mention of it, EIPCa has received support from election officials throughout the state.
These articles appear at a crucial time, and not just because of EIPCa’s recent findings. Pending with the Secretary of State are two sets of regulations that would undercut election integrity, hinder election oversight, and hamstring candidates or parties. These regulations gut the protective purpose of signature verification by hampering election officials’ ability to challenge even severely mismatched signatures, even though CA’s curing process protects voters from disenfranchisement when their signatures have undergone a legitimate change (2 CCR 20960(g)(4)). They also allow voting on paper other than genuine mail ballots (2 CCR 20991(b)(9)), and give election officials unlimited discretion to deny voter registration data to otherwise-authorized recipients, including journalists, election watchdogs like EIPCa, political parties, and candidates (2 CCR 19000-19013).
EIPCa stands for the rights of all eligible citizens to vote, and have their votes counted accurately, equally and transparently. These false articles are an attempt to undermine the hard work of thousands of diverse Californians from all walks of life to protect those rights.
###
Santa Clarita, California (June 22, 2021)-- California’s November 3, 2020 election was marred by significant voting and registration irregularities, according to Election Integrity Project® California, Inc. (EIPCa). The non-partisan organization analyzed the state’s official voter list of February 9, 2021 and reported its findings to California’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber on June 17, 2021. This followed EIPCa reports of 2020 cross-state voting on April 30 and May 18, 2021 that the Secretary has ignored. EIPCa’s June report cites California’s election code that requires officials to provide timely answers to citizens’ questions.
EIPCa seeks answers to the following questions, on behalf of California voters:
|
VoteCal Database Date |
# Counties with Registrations Exceeding # Eligible Citizens |
Total Ineligible Registrations |
|
March 2020 |
11 |
1,063,957 |
|
February 2021 |
23 |
1,834,789 (+72% since 3/20) |
“Many in the nation are questioning the validity of the 2020 general election in their states”, said EIPCa President Linda Paine. “Mass irregularities in California’s registration and voting numbers continue to erode voter confidence here and we are hopeful Secretary Weber will immediately address our questions.”
EIPCa is a nonpartisan IRC 501(c)(3) charity. Contributions are tax-deductible.
CALIFORNIA (June 16, 2021) – The Non-Partisan Election Integrity Project® California and 13 congressional candidates intend to take their fight for fair and honest elections in California to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs in EIPCa, et al. v. Weber, et al. (Central District of California Case No. 2:21-cv-32-AB-MAA) are challenging laws, regulations and election practices that have undermined California election integrity, creating an environment ripe for irregularities. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after Election Integrity Project® California collected over 700 sworn affidavits from trained citizen observers which described various irregularities during the fall 2020 general election in California. The complaint also examines how California laws like ballot harvesting, and last-minute changes like privileging vote-by-mail voting over in-person voting, disadvantaged minority groups.
On June 15, 2021, the federal trial court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the case without ruling on the facts, paving the way for plaintiffs’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit. “This is a potentially groundbreaking case that challenges the blatantly unconstitutional election practices taking place in California and increasingly, in other parts of the country” said Linda Paine, President of Election Integrity Project® California. “Unlike other recent election cases, it is forward looking, seeking to create a fair, honest and transparent election process for all future elections.” Plaintiffs intend to file the notice of appeal within several weeks.
Download pdf of press release here
Congratulations to all EIPCa volunteers who have supported the work of Election Integrity Project®California. Your hard work in helping to document the truth of how elections are managed and ballots processed in the state of California, and your faith in EIPCa to challenge unconstitutional election process has paid off!
Please see the Press Release that went out March 10, 2021 with our Amended Complaint about the Unconstitutional Election Process in CA.
EIPCa continues to need your support to see this lawsuit go to the Supreme Court, if necessity, to challenge the use of laws and procedures that usurp the will of the citizens in California, and any state in nation, by implementing laws, regulations, policies and procedures that remove the integrity of the electoral process.
New efforts have launched this year asking for donations to begin the work that EIPCa has been doing for 10 years. These fundraising efforts do nothing to support this lawsuit. If you would like to support this lawsuit, please consider donating to EIPCa.
EIPCa will also need your help as we work together with other organizations to oversee the upcoming Governor’s race. More details on how we do this coming soon.
U.S. CONSTITUTION
Santa Clarita, California, March 8, 2021 – 
States across the U.S. watch with anticipation the outcome of the March 3rd U.S. Supreme Court Hearing regarding Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (Brnovich), a case involving the extent to which states can enact laws to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Arizona and California are foremost among them because Landmark Legal Foundation submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of Election Integrity Project®California (EIPCa) and Election Integrity Project®Arizona (EIPAz) supporting Arizona.
At issue in Brnovich is whether voting protections enacted by the state of Arizona violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The importance of the Landmark Legal Brief is that it includes EIPCa documentation of the impact of California’s ballot harvesting laws that remove the chain of custody requirement, thereby allowing vulnerable populations and minorities to be exploited without fear of repercussion.
A challenge to the legality of Arizona’s two election integrity measures has worked its way through the judicial system until it reached the Supreme Court. The first challenged law, known as the “out of precinct policy,” requires individuals who vote in-person to cast their respective ballots at their designated precinct. The second law limits who may handle mail ballots on behalf of an individual voter, designating only the voter’s close family members, mail carriers, and elections officials. Specifically banned are groups who target vulnerable populations and attempt to engage in ballot trafficking (ballot harvesting).
“It is our hope the Court will do the right thing and rule that all states, including Arizona, have the right to enact sensible measures to ensure the integrity of the electoral system,” said Linda Paine, President of EIPCa. “The inherent risks associated with widespread use of vote-by-mail ballots demand common sense protections. States have a constitutional responsibility to ensure every lawfully cast ballot is processed in a fair, honest and transparent manner in order to protect citizens from unscrupulous entities who seek to adversely affect elections.”
EIPCa and EIPAz’s brief argues that protections are necessary to prevent voter disenfranchisement and loss of confidence in the fairness and accuracy of the electoral process. In California, for example, the lack of any significant protections of the integrity of the vote-by-mail process led to widespread ballot harvesting in 2018 and 2020. Unless prohibited by law, political operatives can and will target vulnerable populations such as senior citizens, young voters, indigents and noncitizens, collecting their ballots en masse without regard to whether those votes were executed properly. In short, lack of reasonable regulations leaves the system open to fraud.
“Arizona’s policies apply equally and impose no barriers beyond the normal burden of voting,” said Linda Paine. “Other states must avoid the problems that have plagued California’s electoral system for years. If Arizona’s laws are overturned, states will lack the ability to adequately protect the vote” added Paine.
A decision in this case is expected later this year. The full text of EIPCa and EIPAz’s brief is available at: [Here]
Los Angeles County, California, January 5, 2021 – On Monday, January 4, 2021, Primary Law Group, P.C., and co-counsel, Tyler & Bursch, LLP, filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U. S. District Court, Central District of California on behalf of Election Integrity Project®California and ten California Congressional candidates, James P. Bradley, Aja Smith, Eric Early, Alison Hayden, Jeffrey Gorman, Mark Reed, Buzz Patterson, Mike Cargile, Kevin Cookingham, and Greg Raths.
Defendants named in the lawsuit for having violated the Elections Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution are: Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General, Gavin Newsom, Governor of The State Of California, and 13 county Registrar of Voters.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of every eligible citizen to cast an equal vote to determine who will represent him or her in government through the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and, in the case of Federal congressional elections, through the Elections Clause (Art. I, § 4, cl. 1).
Practices that promote the casting of illegal or unreliable ballots fail to contain basic minimum guarantees against such conduct are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by leading to the diminution in value of validly cast ballots.
Election Integrity Project®California, Inc. (EPICa), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, has been investigating elections in California for 10 years, documenting and reporting election abuses to governmental officials. Rather than correct the fundamental flaws in the election process, California state officials have created more opportunities for fraud and manipulation.
Predictably, the conduct of the 2020 election eviscerated citizen oversight, caused mass irregularities and opportunities for fraud, and violated the rights of lawful voters, citizen observers, and candidates.
The expansion of vote-by-mail ballots and the changes in the law to send vote-by-mail ballots to all registered voters created a process where known ineligible voters (including deceased persons, non-citizens, and non-residents) were sent live ballots. As passed elections have shown, deceased persons, non-citizens, and non-residents are often recorded as having voted in elections. That same election fraud occurred in the November 2020 election impacting the Plaintiffs and all of the citizens in each of the Congressional Districts at issue, including Election Integrity Project®California’s volunteer election observers.
Upcoming elections scheduled to take place as early as March 2021 will be similarly affected. Defendant Padilla’s emergency regulations will still be in effect, and it is likely that unconstitutional emergency orders and restrictions will be extended beyond their current sunset dates.
Linda Paine, President of EIPCa stated, “We have been investigating serious problems with California’s election process for 10 years. With over 700 affidavits signed under the penalty of perjury evidencing election code violations, obstruction of our volunteer observers, failure to verify vote-by-mail signatures, irregularities and fraud in the November 3, 2020 election, we have no choice but to bring this federal lawsuit in order an attempt to restore integrity to the election process.”
Joshua Kroot, Partner at Primary Law Group, stated: “The lack of integrity in our elections strikes at the heart of our republic. The failure to correct this problem immediately will do irreparable injury to our nation and devastate the credibility of all elections into the distant future.”
Over the past three decades in California, the rights of California citizens to choose their representatives by means of a fair, honest and transparent electoral process have been intentionally eroded by an onslaught of unconstitutional statutes, regulations and executive orders that, taken together, are designed to create an environment in which elections could be manipulated and eligible voters disenfranchised.
Robert Tyler, Partner at Tyler & Bursch, LLP and President of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said, “COVID-19 has ushered in an unprecedented era of tyranny in state government, and fraud in our elections. Any unbiased observer can recognize that we have a serious problem in California when at least one million more persons are registered to vote than the total number of Californian’s who are actually eligible to vote.”
These changes have massively expanded vote-by-mail, legalized unrestrained and unrestricted ballot harvesting, exploited vulnerable populations, and undermined protections on in-person voting. Cumulatively, these changes in the law, and other administrative neglect, have allowed voter rolls to encompass large numbers of deceased persons, non-citizens, non-residents, and other ineligible voters who, nonetheless, receive vote-by-mail ballots that state elections data show have often voted in elections.
Emergency action is needed. Due to the imminent possibility of evidence tampering, evidence must be preserved and made available to Plaintiffs’ qualified experts, so that an audit can be conducted to determine the extent and effect of the irregularities and fraud reported.
Primary Law Group attorney, Joshua Kroot, Tyler & Bursch attorney, Robert Tyler, and Election Integrity Project®California, Inc., Linda Paine are available for additional comments and interviews only by contacting Desaré Ferraro at dferraro@tylerbursch.com, office 951-304-7583 or cell 714-348-0808.
About Primary Law Group, P.C.: Located in Los Angeles, Primary Law Group has represented many of the world’s largest companies in some of the biggest cases, deals and restructurings in the country. The lawyers at Primary Law Group, P.C. (www.primarylawgroup.com) have practiced at the world’s largest law firms.
About Tyler & Bursch, LLP: With offices in Murrieta and Anaheim, the lawyers and advisors at Tyler & Bursch have been serving their clients throughout Southern California for over 20 years. Tyler & Bursch, LLP (www.tylerbursch.com) provides legal and financial support to the non-profit law firm, Advocates for Faith & Freedom (www.faith-freedom.com). Advocates for Faith and Freedom is a national, pro bono law firm that works to protect constitutional and religious liberty in the courts.
Nonpartisan watchdog claims thousands voted where they no longer reside and 251 voted in both states in November 2020.
January 6, 2021 Santa Clarita, Calif. – More than 60,000 people are currently registered to vote in both California and Nevada, according to Election Integrity Project California (EIPCa). Thousands were mailed ballots by both states for the November 2020 election and more than 3,500 appear to have voted unlawfully in that election.
The findings, based on EIPCa’s analysis of California’s official statewide voter database of November 25, 2020 and Nevada’s statewide database of November 24, 2020, matched registrants on first name, middle name (where available), last name and date of birth. This exposed 60,398 high-confidence matches. Of these, 22,810 additionally share the same phone number and/or their California mailing address matches their Nevada registration address. The remaining matches have exceptionally rare names in both states and are therefore unlikely to be coincidences. Because common names are not included in the analysis, EIPCa’s numbers are conservative.
EIPCa’s analysis found 3,544 who-- once confirmed as registered in both states-- may have voted unlawfully in the November 2020 election. These votes occurred outside the 30-day grace period for voters who move between states:
These findings will be submitted to the California and Nevada Secretaries of State and appropriate U.S. Attorneys. Federal law enforcement will also be alerted.
“Massive numbers of cross-state registrations underscore the chronic voter list maintenance problems plaguing our country, the need to share this data across states, and the dire consequences for election integrity,” said EIPCa President Linda Paine. “We call on the legal system to investigate our findings and prosecute those who voted unlawfully- a felony in federal elections.”