A citizens’ advocacy group has standing to challenge California’s controversial election laws and regulations in federal court, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“This lawsuit is monumental because it is the first to challenge the constitutionality of California’s election laws and procedures, and we are the first not to stand,” said Mariah Gondeiro, senior counsel at Advocates for Faith and Freedom, in a statement following the decision.
Advocates for Faith and Freedom (AFF) is a Murrieta, Calif.-based public interest law firm representing Election Integrity Project California (EIPCa), the citizen advocacy group that filed the lawsuit.
“If we win, California will be required to enforce secure and consistent voting and counting procedures,” Gondeiro said.
“For more than a decade, Election Integrity Project®California has researched and documented every aspect of the California election process and identified how these laws turned election day into a 60-day election season full of easy-to-handle procedures” , said EIPCa President Linda Paine. , said in the statement.
“We are now seeing California-style laws in states across the country creating the same problems that have been observed and documented by EIPCa-trained observers in California for years,” Paine said.
The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the U.S. District Court in Central California, which had previously ruled that the EIPCa lacked standing.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit said the EIPCa’s mission is to “”ensure that every vote lawfully cast is accurately counted” and to use the observations of its volunteers to “advocate for a greater electoral integrity”, and that California regulations have frustrated its mission by ‘driving[ing] to widespread irregularities in the electoral process that threaten to disenfranchise California voters.
The court noted that, according to the EIPCa complaint, “California has enacted legislation requiring every active registered voter in California to receive an absentee ballot, and the state has not developed procedures to ensure that only eligible voters will receive these ballots in the future.
“The Complaint further alleges that the California Secretary of State has enacted regulations that prevent the enforcement of meaningful standards for verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.
“According to the complaint, these inadequate processes give rise to “enormous opportunities for error and fraud” and “[b]Because the same or substantially similar laws, regulations, ordinances and practices govern and will govern future elections, the same situation will be repeated in future elections.
With the case returned to the District Court, both parties will now begin preparing for the discovery phase of litigation. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and 13 county registrars are named in her EIPCa lawsuit as defendants.
The decision that the EIPCa has standing to challenge California’s election laws comes as hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots cast in the Nov. 8 midterm elections have yet to be counted, from so that two races for congressional seats remain undecided.
As The Epoch Times reported Monday, one of two unnamed races in California includes the 13th congressional district. Currently, Republican John Duarte is ahead of Democrat Adam Gray by about 800 votes, according to the data. Meanwhile, in the state’s 3rd Congressional District, Republican Kevin Kiley holds a nearly 5-point lead over Democrat Kermit Jones with about 71% of the votes counted Tuesday, according to The Associated Press.
Among the procedures challenged by EIPCa is California’s mailing of absentee ballots to every registered voter in the state before an election. The state also allows vote harvesting, a process by which voters can fill out their ballot and then give it to someone who promises to vote.
In its appeal to the Ninth Circuit, EIPCa argued that “over the years, California has passed laws, ordinances, and regulations under the guise of increasing voter turnout. While a laudable goal, these laws and regulations have systematically undermined the integrity of elections by legalizing unrestricted and unrestricted ballot collection, eliminating the chain of custody, consolidating voting universal by mail (“VBM”) and removing signature verification requirements.
“The state and county respondents assert that the appellants do not have standing because their allegations amount to widespread and speculative allegations of voter fraud. They even attack the appellants’ motives for bringing this action. The appellants are bringing this case to ensure the integrity of future elections, and ensuring that all votes are counted equally protects democracy, because “(f)free and fair elections are the very foundation of our republican form of government”.