State supreme courts in key battleground states could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the November 5 presidential election.
According to a report from The Daily Signal, the political leanings of these high courts may impact how election laws are interpreted and enforced in closely contested states.
Several battleground states, including Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina, have enacted election reforms since 2020.
These reforms encompass enhanced voter ID requirements and prohibitions on private funding for election administration. However, the effectiveness of these laws may ultimately depend on how state supreme courts choose to interpret and apply them.
The political makeup of state supreme courts varies across battleground states. Democrats currently hold majorities in the high courts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
In contrast, Republican justices maintain control in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Nevada's Supreme Court is evenly split between the two parties.
Recent elections have shifted the balance of power in some state courts. In 2023, Wisconsin's supreme court flipped from a Republican to a Democratic majority. This change resulted in the reversal of previous decisions, including one regarding the legality of ballot drop boxes. Conversely, North Carolina's supreme court transitioned from a Democratic to a Republican majority following the 2022 elections.
The composition of state supreme courts could significantly influence the resolution of election-related disputes. Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, expressed concern about the politicization of some state courts:
Unfortunately some state supreme courts have become just as political as some of the idealogues that have been confirmed to federal judgeships. If it's a close election, I have no doubt we will be inundated with litigation.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, noted that the situation in battleground states has become more challenging for election integrity advocates. He stated:
In most of the battleground states, state supreme courts have gotten worse. Also, some of the executives in those states—the governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state—may not defend existing election laws.
State supreme court rulings have already impacted election procedures in some battleground states. In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court issued a controversial decision in 2020 allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrived up to three days after Election Day, despite state law requiring ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day.
More recently, a Pennsylvania state appeals court ruled that mail-in ballots must be counted even if a voter writes the wrong date on the return envelope. This decision could have implications for future elections in the state.
The composition of state supreme courts plays a critical role in shaping election laws and procedures. Recent shifts in court majorities, particularly in Wisconsin and North Carolina, may lead to significant changes in how election disputes are resolved.
As the November election approaches, the decisions made by these courts could have far-reaching consequences for the electoral process and outcomes in key battleground states.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina State Board of Elections, alleging that recent instructions on absentee voting violate state law.
According to Just The News, the litigation, filed last week, targets a memo sent by the board to county election offices regarding the handling of absentee-by-mail ballots.
The complaint, joined by the North Carolina Republican Party and a registered voter from Pasquotank County, argues that the board's guidance contradicts state laws requiring absentee ballot security envelopes to be sealed for the votes to be counted. This lawsuit marks the sixth legal challenge faced by the board in just 43 days.
The RNC contends that Numbered Memo 2021-03, issued by Elections Board Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell, provides guidance that conflicts with statutory requirements.
The plaintiffs argue that this memo undermines the carefully drafted absentee-voting statutes put in place by the General Assembly.
Jason Simmons, the state Republican Party Chairman, expressed disappointment in Bell's actions, stating:
State law is clear in this matter and it is unfortunate that Director Bell is acting beyond her authority. We will continue to enforce integrity in the elections process and adherence to statutory requirements.
The lawsuit cites four specific statutes that require absentee ballots to be received by county boards of elections in sealed envelopes to be considered valid.
The plaintiffs claim that the memo in question advises county boards of elections that an absentee ballot may be counted even if it is not submitted in a sealed container-return envelope. This guidance, they argue, directly contradicts the clear language of state law.
Before filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs attempted to seek a declaratory ruling from the board. However, this request was rejected, prompting the legal action.
The litigation names the board as a whole, each member in their board capacity, and Executive Director Bell as defendants. The board's composition includes three Democrats and two Republicans.
This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges faced by the North Carolina State Board of Elections in recent weeks. Since July 22, the board has been involved in litigation related to various election issues.
Previous lawsuits have addressed ballot access for the Justice For All Party, and the We The People Party, voter roll maintenance, and a freedom of speech case involving John F. Kennedy Jr. This latest challenge adds to the growing list of legal battles facing the board as the 2024 election cycle approaches.
The RNC's lawsuit highlights ongoing tensions between political parties and election officials over the interpretation and implementation of voting laws. As the case progresses, it may have significant implications for how absentee ballots are handled in North Carolina during future elections. The outcome could potentially impact voter confidence in the absentee voting process and shape the state's approach to ballot security measures.
ABC News has released the rules for the upcoming presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, scheduled for September 10th.
The debate, to be held at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, will feature 90 minutes of debate time with two commercial breaks. ABC News reports that the event will be moderated by "World News Tonight" anchor David Muir and ABC News Live "Prime" anchor Linsey Davis.
Trump has claimed on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the debate will not allow for adjustments to the nominees' height behind the podium. This statement comes amid the former president's history of making height-related comments about political opponents.
The debate will follow a structured format with specific time allocations for each segment. Candidates will have two minutes to answer each question, followed by a two-minute rebuttal and an additional minute for follow-up or clarification.
There will be no opening statements, but each candidate will have two minutes for closing remarks.
A virtual coin toss determined podium placement and the order of closing statements. Trump won the toss and chose to give the last closing statement, while Harris selected the right podium position on screen, which is stage left.
Microphones will be live only for the candidate whose turn it is to speak and muted for the other candidate. Only the moderators will be permitted to ask questions during the debate.
Trump's recent social media post about height adjustments has drawn attention to the topic of candidate appearances during debates. He wrote on Truth Social:
No boxes or artificial lifts will be allowed to stand on [sic] during my upcoming debate with Comrade Kamala Harris. We had this out previously with former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he was in a debate, and he was not allowed a "lift."
The former president went on to claim that such adjustments would be "a form of cheating." This statement references Trump's past feud with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, whom he taunted as "Mini Mike Bloomberg" during the 2020 Democratic nomination bid.
The topic of candidates' heights has been a recurring theme in political discourse. Vice President Harris has previously clarified her own height during an interview with Katie Couric, stating that she is "5'4" and a quarter — sometimes 5'4" and a half," and "5'7' and a half" in heels.
Trump's height has been reported as both 6'2" and 6'3". The former president's focus on height has been a pattern in his political rhetoric, previously making unsubstantiated claims about Bloomberg requesting to stand on a box during a Democratic primary debate.
In conclusion, the upcoming presidential debate between Harris and Trump will follow strict rules set by ABC News. The event will take place without an audience and feature specific time allocations for questions and responses.
Trump's recent claims about height adjustments have reignited discussions about candidate appearances during debates. As the debate approaches, both candidates are likely preparing their strategies for this high-stakes political encounter.
A recent poll suggests that Vice President Kamala Harris is perceived as more politically extreme than former President Donald Trump, according to Fox News.
The New York Times/Sienna College survey, released on September 8, 2024, indicates that a larger portion of voters consider Harris "too liberal or progressive" compared to those who view Trump as "too conservative."
The poll reveals a narrow lead for Trump over Harris, with 48% of voters favoring the former president and 47% supporting the vice president.
This slim margin suggests that Harris's initial boost from replacing President Biden on the Democratic ticket may be waning as the election approaches its final stages.
Nearly half of the surveyed voters, 44%, described Harris as "too liberal and progressive." In contrast, only about one-third of respondents labeled Trump as "too conservative." The poll found that a majority of voters believe Trump is "not too far" to the left or right on key issues.
These findings indicate that Trump may have an advantage in being perceived as more centrist than his opponent. The New York Times reported that this perception is one of Trump's "overlooked advantages" in the race.
Interestingly, the poll also revealed that 11% of voters think Trump is "not conservative enough," while 9% believe Harris is "not liberal or progressive enough." This suggests that both candidates face some criticism from within their respective ideological bases.
The survey highlighted a significant gap in voter familiarity with the candidates. A substantial 28% of voters reported needing more information about Harris before they could support her. In comparison, only 9% said the same about Trump.
This disparity in voter knowledge could be attributed to Harris's limited media engagement since becoming the Democratic nominee. As of the poll's release, Harris had gone 49 days without holding an official press conference, although she did participate in a joint interview with her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, on CNN.
Trump, on the other hand, has maintained a more visible public presence. His campaign strategy appears to focus on protecting his reputation as a candidate who holds positions that may have been considered more traditionally Democratic in the past, such as opposition to entitlement cuts and skepticism towards free trade agreements.
The New York Times/Sienna College poll was conducted between September 3 and 6, 2024, using telephone surveys with 1,695 registered voters across the country. The results provide a snapshot of voter sentiment as the election enters its final phase.
The poll's findings suggest a tight race between Harris and Trump, with both candidates facing challenges in appealing to centrist voters. Harris's perceived ideological stance may be a hurdle for her campaign, while Trump's ability to position himself as more moderate could be a key factor in maintaining his slight lead.
As the election approaches, both campaigns will likely adjust their strategies to address these voter perceptions. Harris may need to focus on increasing her media presence and clarifying her policy positions to alleviate concerns about her being "too liberal." Trump, meanwhile, may continue to emphasize his more centrist positions on certain issues to maintain his advantage among moderate voters.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., recently shared his thoughts on Vice President Kamala Harris' apparent shift away from some far-left policies as the November election approaches.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sanders offered a candid assessment of Harris' evolving stance on key issues, as reported by Fox News.
When questioned about Harris' change in position on policies such as Medicare-For-All and fracking, Sanders suggested that the vice president was taking a pragmatic approach. He emphasized that Harris was not abandoning her ideals but rather adjusting her strategy to increase her chances of winning the upcoming election.
Sanders, known for his own progressive stance, maintained that he still considers Harris a progressive despite their differing views on certain issues. He acknowledged that while their approaches may vary, particularly in healthcare, they share common ground on several important matters.
The Vermont senator highlighted areas where he believes Harris aligns with progressive values. These include expanding Medicare, raising the minimum wage, and addressing issues related to Social Security and affordable housing.
Sanders expressed optimism about Harris' potential success if she campaigns on these shared progressive ideals. He suggested that focusing on these issues could lead to a significant victory for the Democratic ticket.
Harris has addressed questions about her changing policy positions in recent interviews. During a CNN interview in August, the vice president defended her evolving stance, insisting that her core values remain unchanged.
Harris stated:
I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed. You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed, and I have worked on it, that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. We did that with the Inflation Reduction Act.
The vice president emphasized continuity in her values, particularly regarding border security and environmental issues. She pointed to her past experience as California's attorney general to underscore her consistent approach to law enforcement and border-related matters.
A spokesperson for the Harris campaign has confirmed the shift in some key policy positions, framing it as a "pragmatic" approach aimed at building consensus. This strategy is presented as a contrast to their characterization of former President Donald Trump's agenda.
The campaign emphasizes Harris' commitment to bringing various perspectives together, citing the Biden-Harris administration's success in achieving bipartisan breakthroughs on issues such as infrastructure and gun violence prevention.
An adviser to the Harris campaign suggested that her current positions have been shaped by her three years of experience in the Biden administration, implying that governance has influenced her policy outlook.
As the election draws nearer, Harris' evolving policy positions are likely to remain a topic of discussion. Sanders' comments offer insight into how progressive leaders view these changes. The upcoming debate between Harris and Trump on Tuesday, hosted by ABC News, may provide further clarity on the vice president's current policy stances and how they compare to her previous positions.
Former President Donald Trump momentarily halted his speech during a rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, on Saturday after a supporter collapsed.
According to RSBN, Trump paused to acknowledge the medical professionals assisting the individual, demonstrating his concern for attendees.
The incident occurred during Trump's address to a large crowd gathered in Mosinee. As reported by RSBN, Trump interrupted his remarks to thank the doctors for their swift response to the medical emergency. This action highlighted the former president's attentiveness to his supporters' well-being during campaign events.
Trump's immediate reaction to the situation showcased his awareness of the crowd's needs. He briefly suspended his speech to ensure the collapsed individual received proper care and to commend the medical team for their efforts.
The former president's words reflected his concern for the supporter's health and his appreciation for the medical staff's quick action. His pause in the proceedings allowed for the necessary attention to be given to the medical situation at hand.
Trump's gesture of gratitude towards the doctors present at the rally emphasized the importance of having medical support available during large public gatherings. It also demonstrated his willingness to prioritize the safety and health of attendees over continuing his prepared remarks.
During the same rally, Trump took a moment to speak positively about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, expressing appreciation for their endorsements. His comments indicated a sense of unity among figures who have shown support for his campaign.
Trump's remarks about Kennedy were particularly warm, highlighting their long-standing acquaintance and Kennedy's commitment to the country's well-being. The former president's acknowledgment of Kennedy's endorsement suggested he views it as a significant boost to his campaign.
Similarly, Trump's praise for Gabbard focused on her perceived common sense approach, indicating his appreciation for her support as well. The inclusion of these endorsements in his speech suggests Trump is working to broaden his base of support heading into the election season.
Trump addressed the crowd with a message of optimism regarding the upcoming November 5th election. He framed the date as a potential turning point for those dissatisfied with the current political establishment in Washington.
The former president's words:
To every citizen who is sick and tired of the parasitic political class in Washington that sucks our country of its blood and treasure, November 5th will be your liberation day. November 5th, this year will be the most important day in the history of our country. Because we're not gonna have a country anymore if we don't win.
This statement encapsulates Trump's campaign rhetoric, positioning himself as an outsider fighting against what he characterizes as a detrimental political elite. His use of strong language underscores the urgency he aims to convey to his supporters about the importance of the election.
In conclusion, Trump's rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, was marked by several noteworthy moments. The former president paused his speech to address a medical emergency involving a collapsed supporter, showing concern for attendee welfare. He praised Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard for their endorsements, indicating a broadening of his support base. Trump also delivered a message of hope to his supporters, emphasizing the significance of the upcoming November election in his campaign narrative.
The composition of state supreme courts in key battleground states could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the November 5 presidential election.
The Daily Signal reported that several states have enacted election reforms since 2020, but the effectiveness of these laws may ultimately depend on how state supreme courts interpret and apply them.
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, states such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina implemented various election reforms. These changes included strengthening voter ID requirements and prohibiting private funding for election administration. However, the political leanings of state supreme courts could significantly influence how these reforms are upheld or challenged in the lead-up to and following the 2024 election.
The political makeup of state supreme courts varies across battleground states. Democrats currently hold majorities in the high courts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. In contrast, Republican justices maintain control in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Nevada's Supreme Court is evenly split between the two parties.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, expressed concern about the changing landscape of state supreme courts. He noted that in many battleground states, the composition of these courts has shifted in ways that may not favor existing election laws.
Hans von Spakosky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, warned about the potential for increased litigation in the event of a close election. He emphasized the political nature of some state supreme courts, comparing them to ideologically driven federal judges.
Several battleground states have experienced shifts in the control of their supreme courts since the 2020 election. Notably, the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped from Democrat to Republican control, while Wisconsin's high court transitioned from a Republican to a Democratic majority.
The change in Wisconsin's supreme court has already had significant consequences. Following the Democratic victory in 2023, the court reversed previous decisions made by the former conservative majority, including a ruling on the legality of ballot drop boxes.
In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court's Democratic majority made controversial decisions leading up to the 2020 election. These rulings included extending the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, a move that was criticized by Republican legislators and election integrity advocates.
Annette Olson, CEO of the MacIver Institute, a Wisconsin-based think tank, expressed apprehension about the unpredictability of the state's supreme court in election-related matters. This uncertainty highlights the potential for judicial decisions to shape the electoral landscape in crucial swing states.
Von Spakosky emphasized the importance of focusing on state judicial elections, particularly in states where judges are elected rather than appointed. He argued that conservatives have often neglected this aspect of the political process, potentially ceding ground in the legal battles that can shape election outcomes.
The influence of state supreme courts extends beyond election day itself. Recent rulings, such as a Pennsylvania state appeals court decision mandating the counting of mail-in ballots even with incorrect dates on return envelopes, demonstrate how judicial interpretations can affect election procedures and results.
State supreme courts in battleground states wield significant power in shaping election outcomes. Their decisions on election laws, voting procedures, and potential post-election disputes could prove decisive in a close race. The political composition of these courts, shaped by recent elections and appointments, may play a crucial role in determining how election reforms are implemented and challenged.
According to a report by Just the News, former President Donald Trump has announced plans for a sweeping crackdown on election fraud if he returns to the White House.
During a speech in Mosinee, Wisconsin, Trump outlined his intentions to expand the 25th Amendment, targeting vice presidents who might conceal a president's incapacity.
Trump's proposal aims to allow for the removal of a vice president who "lies or engages in a conspiracy to cover up the incapacity of the president of the United States." This move appears to draw a connection between Joe Biden's perceived mental decline and potential concealment by Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump emphasized the severity of such actions, stating:
If you do that with a coverup of the president of the United States, it's grounds for impeachment immediately and removal from office, because that's what they did.
The former president's plans extend beyond constitutional amendments. He expressed his commitment to prosecuting those involved in election fraud, promising severe consequences for offenders.
Trump took to his TruthSocial platform to further elaborate on his intentions, warning of potential legal repercussions for various individuals involved in election processes, including lawyers, political operatives, donors, and election officials.
Trump's message on TruthSocial was unequivocal about the scope and intensity of his proposed crackdown:
Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.
This statement underscores Trump's determination to address what he perceives as widespread election fraud, a claim that has been a cornerstone of his political narrative since the 2020 election.
The former president's focus on election integrity appears to be a key component of his campaign strategy for the 2024 presidential race. By promising tough action against alleged cheating, Trump is appealing to his base while also raising concerns among his critics about the potential implications of such measures.
Trump's proposed changes to the 25th Amendment and his pledge to prosecute election fraud raise significant questions about the future of American democracy. These proposals could potentially reshape the relationship between the president and vice president, as well as impact the conduct of elections.
The former president's statements reflect his ongoing concerns about election integrity, a theme that has dominated his political discourse since leaving office.
His promises of unprecedented prosecution levels for those involved in alleged election fraud signal a potential shift in how election-related disputes might be handled in the future.
Trump's focus on these issues is likely to be a central theme in his campaign strategy, potentially influencing voter perceptions and shaping the political debate leading up to the 2024 election. His proposed actions, if implemented, could have far-reaching effects on the American political system, electoral processes, and the balance of power within the executive branch.
Former President Donald Trump claims that height-enhancing devices will be prohibited during the upcoming presidential debate.
According to Fox News, Trump made this assertion in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Saturday.
In his statement, Trump declared, "No boxes or artificial lifts will be allowed to stand on during my upcoming debate with Comrade Kamala Harris." He further alleged that such devices would constitute cheating, adding that the Democrats "cheat enough" already.
Trump's comments harken back to previous debates and political rivalries. He specifically mentioned former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, claiming that Bloomberg was not allowed to use a "lift" during a past debate.
The former president has a history of making height-related jabs at his political opponents. During Bloomberg's 2020 Democratic nomination bid, Trump frequently referred to him as "Mini Mike Bloomberg" and alleged that he had requested to stand on a box during a primary debate.
However, it's important to note that Bloomberg's campaign vehemently denied these claims at the time. A spokesperson for Bloomberg's 2020 campaign dismissed Trump's assertions, stating, "The president is lying. He is a pathological liar who lies about everything: his fake hair, his obesity, and his spray-on tan."
While Trump's post focused on the alleged prohibition of height-enhancing devices, it's worth noting that Vice President Kamala Harris has previously addressed questions about her height.
In an interview with Katie Couric earlier this year, Harris clarified:
I am 5'4" and a quarter — sometimes 5'4" and a half. And with heels — which I always wear — I'm 5'7' and a half, thank you very much.
Trump's own height has been reported as both 6'2" and 6'3", although this has not been a significant point of contention in recent debates.
It remains unclear whether Trump's claims about debate rules stem from actual discussions with ABC, the network hosting the upcoming debate, or if they are merely speculative.
The former president's focus on this issue could be seen as an attempt to set the stage for the debate and potentially influence public perception. By bringing up the topic of height and alleged attempts to artificially enhance it, Trump may be trying to shape the narrative around the physical presentation of the candidates.
However, it's important to note that debates typically focus on policy issues and candidates' qualifications rather than physical attributes. As the debate approaches, it will be interesting to see if this topic continues to be a point of discussion or if attention shifts to more substantive matters.
The upcoming presidential debate between Trump and Harris will likely be a pivotal moment in the 2024 election cycle. Trump's comments about height-enhancing devices add an unusual element to the pre-debate discourse. As the event draws near, voters will be watching closely to see how both candidates present themselves and their policy positions. The debate's outcome could have significant implications for the election, potentially influencing voter perceptions and preferences in key battleground states.
Former President Donald Trump publicly expressed his gratitude to the Supreme Court for its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling that revoked long-standing protections for women’s reproductive rights.
According to Boing Boing, his praise comes as various groups celebrate the rollback of these rights and look toward further societal restrictions. The ruling, which many view as a significant reduction in women's rights, has stirred both celebration and concern across the political spectrum.
He recently praised the Supreme Court’s decision as "brave," a stance that has sparked controversy. Supporters of the ruling, including Trump, are advocating for more restrictive policies that could extend beyond just abortion rights.
Throughout his political career, Trump’s position on abortion has fluctuated, most notably in Florida, where he initially faced backlash from evangelical groups.
These groups had expressed dissatisfaction with his perceived reluctance to support more stringent anti-abortion measures in the state.
Now, however, Trump has made a notable shift back to his former hardline stance, stating that he is "back to taking credit" for pushing a total abortion ban.
Though Trump has praised the Supreme Court for its actions, many have pointed out that courage is often demonstrated by decisions that align with widespread public support. The ruling, however, has proven divisive, with large portions of the population expressing outrage over the rollback of so-called "reproductive rights."
Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, through initiatives like Project 2025, are reportedly planning further social restrictions that could affect various demographics beyond women.
Some political analysts believe this issue could significantly damage Trump's chances in a future presidential election. One commentator observed, "This issue alone... should be enough to kill his campaign in a landslide," suggesting that Trump’s alignment with the court's ruling may alienate moderate voters, particularly women.
Trump's positioning as a champion of conservative values risks further polarizing an already divided electorate. Some right-wing factions may hail the Supreme Court's ruling as a triumph for traditional principles. Others caution that it could severely impact Trump's political prospects.
Amid the controversy, Trump has steadfastly lauded the Supreme Court's decision. He portrays himself as a pivotal figure in reshaping the nation's legal and cultural landscape. Critics, however, argue that this approach may ultimately prove counterproductive to his campaign.
The ramifications of the Supreme Court's ruling and Trump's endorsement of it will likely remain central to the national political discourse leading up to the 2024 election. The question of whether Trump can effectively navigate the ensuing backlash remains unresolved.
The political terrain continues to evolve while proponents and opponents of the decision prepare for upcoming challenges. Trump's campaign is unfolding against this backdrop. His position on abortion and alignment with the Court's ruling will undoubtedly face scrutiny from voters across the political spectrum. Whether this stance will reignite support or signal the twilight of his political career remains uncertain.