Voting After Election Day? SCOTUS Stops CA's Scam!

California politicians created election month allowing ballots to float in after election day.

But the U.S. Supreme Court is close to ruling that all that's got to end.

ballots got to be in by 8 p.m. on election night. Coming up, we'll tell you all about the

Supreme Court case and how it will impact California elections in 2026.

I'm Carl Demyo, Chairman of Reform California and a California State Legislator.

As you know, we have covered election reform on this show. And of course,

I'm leading the fight to enact a California voter ID initiative in the November 2026 election.

We need your help with that. I'm going to cover the Supreme Court case on

what defines election day. And can California politicians continue to allow ballots

to be mailed in after the election and be received after the election and still counted?

Very suspicious. Not the way most people think an election should be conducted,

but that's how we're doing it currently in California. The Supreme Court is poised, I think,

to end that bad practice. But for you, we need your help. Whatever happens with the Supreme Court

is in their hands. But what is in your hands? The California voter ID initiative.

And it is now on the ballot thanks to so many volunteers for collecting over 1.36 million signatures.

We've got the voter ID initiative on the ballot this November. It requires citizenship

verification, the audit of the voter rolls, and of course, an ID to cast a ballot.

But unless we pass it in November, this won't become the California State election law.

So we need your help. Go to the website voteridinitiative.com voteridinitiative.com.

Sign up to volunteer because we need an army of volunteers to canvas and get out the vote

this November also considered shipping in a contribution. If you can't contribute or volunteer,

please at least sign up at the bottom of the website. First name, last name, email, phone, and zip code.

And we will keep you informed on the progress of the campaign. No, we do not share or sell any of

your personal information. We use it to build a grassroots movement to fight and take back California.

So sign up at the bottom of that website. We've got a lot to get to on this Supreme Court case.

It is going to be very consequential in California elections. Let me tell you what's

currently being done in California. Currently, the Democrats have enacted laws that allow

mail-in ballots to go out to everyone 30 days prior to the election. So we start the election

instead of November 3rd. We're starting it all the way on October 3rd when everyone receives

a mail-in ballot. Everybody used to be the only people that requested mail-in ballots would

get it. Nope, now everyone gets it. That means that we have a 30-day time window for people to

cast a ballot. The Democrats still say that's not enough time. People get the ballot 30 days out.

They don't have enough time. We used to only have one day to vote. Now we have 30 days in advance

of the election day. But that's still not good enough for Democrats. Now they want to add an

additional day. No, an additional week. No, an additional, oh, maybe two weeks for ballots to be

returned. No, I'm not talking about counting ballots. That's already delayed. I'm talking about

when someone casts their ballot, when it is received. Under California state law, any ballot

that is received after the election, as long as it has a postmark, has to be counted.

But recently, Democrats have said, well, the postal service may not do postmarks. So if it

doesn't have a postmark, if it's missing a postmark, it should too be included because the presumption

is the postal service didn't stamp it. And so therefore, let's not harm the voter. So a bunch of

unpostmarked ballots, according to Democrats, should be counted, even if they're not received

by election day, they're received after election. This is insane. And so a number of states that have

this law, like California, have an issue now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's the headline

from SCOTUS blog. Justice has seemed ready to overturn state law, allowing for late arriving

mail-in ballots. And it is all about a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted

as long as they're postmarked and received within five days of election day. Now that

is not as Lucy Goosey as California, as I just described, they're allowing ballots with no postmark

here in the state of California. It's the case of Watson versus Republican National Committee.

And we can kind of get a sense for where the justices are leaning based upon their comments and

their questions in oral arguments. So this case was argued this past week at the Supreme Court. So

we got to hear from the justices. And some of the quotes from some of the liberal justices are,

well, they're so precious. Where do they use liberal justices? Get their law degrees, a cracker

jack box. So you got the comments being made in a majority of justices basically said, look,

U.S. Congress established in two U.S. Code seven, the time of an election. It says, quote,

the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every even number year, is established as

the day for the election in each of the states and territories of the United States, representatives

and delegates to the Congress commencing on the third day January next thereafter. This was enacted

in 1875 and tweaked in 1934. A long standing, a long standing requirement.

U.S. Constitution allows for the Congress to determine the day of the election.

Now, it allows discretion for the states to conduct elections, but the date of the federal election,

that's in the hands of Congress. So the argument in this case is if Congress establishes that

as the day that no ballots received after that day shall be counted. It's in violation of federal

law in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Now, majority of the justices did say that they

are inclined to rule in favor of overturning this Mississippi law. And what's unique about this

is, or alarming about this, is Justice Jackson said the quiet part out loud.

No, no, yeah, Contendi Brown Jackson, who's four of the states allowing ballots to be received

after the election day. She said, we're trying to figure out what Congress meant when it

had included election day in its federal statutes. Somebody give this potted plant a little bit of

water and turn her towards the light. What did they mean? I don't know about you class, but let's read

it again. The Tuesday next after the first Monday and November, in every even number year,

is established as the day of the election. Pretty simple, but this moron says, we're trying

to figure it out. We're trying to figure it out. How about you? We do this, Justice Jackson,

voting shall continue until Democrats win every seat. Oh, it's right. She won't be happy until

that is the law. We either are going to have trust and confidence in our elections or we're not.

Plain and simple. This should not be a partisan question and it should not take a rocket scientist

to figure out that we have an election day and that there should be some guardrails and

some sort of certainty. Now, LA Times, Mark Barraback, who's an idiot, columnist, says,

California can have both easy voting and quicker election results. Here's how. He goes on about

this liberal activist who basically says that she's got ideas for how the election could be made

a lot quicker. She's ahead, this is Kim Alexander, head of the California Voter Foundation,

a far left group. And he describes them as making California state elections more efficient,

more transparent, more accountable. No, you're trying to make it more Lucy Goosey.

He talks about how her dad was a Republican. Does that mean she's a Republican? No, she's a liberal.

They go on to say that there are some things that they have in their reform package to

how to make things better. She doesn't mention voter ID because they're opposed to voter ID.

She doesn't mention citizenship verification. She's against citizenship verification.

She's against auditing the voter rules. What is she for? Increase funding for the county registrars

or voters because if you just throw money at a problem, it'll get better. Now, educate voters and

encourage them to turn in their ballots earlier. Now, this is what I agree on. I actually think you

should vote the first week of the election when you get your mail-in ballot October 3rd or May 3rd

for the primary. And you should vote immediately so that you can track your ballot for the next 10 days.

That way you can verify that your vote is actually received and counted.

And if there's a problem by day 20, you can go get a provisional ballot and vote again.

It's vote but verifying. And that's the only way it works is if you vote early.

So I agree with them. We should encourage voters to vote early. And that way they're counted.

And there's not a pile of mail-in ballots sitting there on election night still to be counted weeks

after the election. So voters kind of work with us here. Vote early.

For Republicans out there who say, oh, we don't want people to know how we're voting.

You're a perfect voter. They know that you're going to show up and vote. There's no surprise here.

There's no concept of secret stealth ninja voting. Vote early, first week of the election,

bank your vote, and then verify it. You wait till election day and walk your mail-in ballot in.

It's treated as a provisional ballot. It's counted last. If it doesn't match the signature,

you get disenfranchised. The last cycle, 300,000 ballots were discarded because they didn't match

signatures. 200,000 of those ballots were saved, salvaged through what we call ballot-curing.

But that took weeks of effort after the election to tell people, hey, your ballots been discarded

unless you confirm that you actually voted. A hundred thousand people who signatures did not match

and we don't even do good signature checking. So signature checking is inadequate.

But 100,000 people didn't get counted in the election. So I encourage everyone vote early,

bank your vote, verify your vote. Also, when you vote early, you get to help out the candidates.

You support because they take you off the list and they don't waste money calling you, texting you

or mailing materials to you. Better managed California's voter database.

Doing it from Sacramento top down. No, no, no, no, no, no. I do not trust the Secretary of State

of California. I think the responsibility for maintaining the accuracy of our voter database should

be jointly held by the county registrar and the Secretary of State. Because if one of them isn't

doing the job, then at least we have a shot to get the other to do the job. And I can tell you

right now, the current Secretary of State will not do her job. None of these reforms, some of which we

agree with, some of which we vehemently disagree with. None of them substitute for voter ID.

None of them substitute for having a certain set election day and not allowing ballots to float in

days and weeks after the election. If you agree with us in the need to improve our elections,

the best way you can help out is help us pass voter ID. I do think the Supreme Court will

issue a ruling striking down. California's law that allows ballots to arrive after election day.

It'll be a marginal impact. The real big impact is still voter ID. So while we welcome this

likely Supreme Court ruling, setting a certain and firm election day for ballots to be returned by,

we still need to verify who's casting those ballots. And that's where you come in with voter ID.

So go to the website voter, voter ID initiative dot com voter ID initiative dot com volunteer

contribute and sign up. Until next time, I'm Carl D'Mio, chairman of reform California and

a California state representative. Thanks for watching and I hope you enjoyed this episode. But before

you click away, please subscribe to this channel and click that notification button so you get updated

when we post new episodes. Plus like this video and share it with your friends so that we can help

spread our message across the state.