Mark Meuser @MarkMeuser

I’m not a doctor and I don’t pretend to play one on social media … but I think it is safe to say that Kris Mayes has a very severe case of TDS. The Arizona Supreme Court finally ended her 2 year prosecution of Trump’s team because her office did not follow the law. In other words, the Arizona AG had to break the law in order to attempt to prosecute Trump’s team for … wait for it … allegedly breaking the law. Now, less than 48 hours later, she is going to do it all over again. I think Kris Mayes TDS is so bad that the only cure for her is to resign from office, move to a location that has no access to the internet and the main stream media and do nothing political until after 2028. If she does not do this, her TDS is so severe she is likely to continue to violate the law in her reckless attempt to “get Trump.”

The Supreme Court finally said in an opinion something that State Legislators have been arguing for a while. “While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, ibid., States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.” Today SCOTUS gave back to the States a little more power and confirmed that Federal District judges do not have legislative power to alter elections at the last minute. I know I am stating the obvious but they are judges, not elected officials. Elected officials can act at the last minute, judges must exercise restraint.

@BenBartlettt I’ll go over.

@Carpenter_Scott I would guess Swalwell.

The most important question to be answered tonight is how many California Democrats are so uninterested in the California governor’s race that they cast a ballot for Barrack D. Obama Shaw.

@PalominoOMG The name placement is selected by a random draw and then rotates by districts so each candidate actually has their name at the top of the ballot one - two times.

Just a reminder that pretty much all polls showed Hillary Clinton winning in 2016 and that polls were showing Kamala winning in 2024. Remember, polls are a tool used by politicians to try to persuade gullible voters to change their mind. Most of the polls you are reading are bought and paid for by the Democratic Party. Last time I checked, most of the people who follow me on X do not take their marching orders from the Democratic Party. I have not endorsed any candidate for California Governor, but please do not make your choice for California governor just because some politician is pushing a poll. If you think Hilton is the best candidate, vote for him. If you think Bianco is the best candidate, vote for him. Also, it really irks me when a candidate for public office is asking his opponent to drop out of the race "for the good of the party." If you really have the good of the party in mind, maybe you should be the one who drops out. Don't ask others to do what you yourself are not willing to do. If you really think it is the best for the party that one candidate drop out, be the leader and drop out.

Redlands Tea Party Patriots @RedlandsTParty

4 days ago

@browncow912111 @turbs888 @SuperBasedInCa @RealJackHibbs @SteveHiltonx Where is @ChadBianco in all of the polls? A distant 4th place. EVERY VOTE FOR BIANCO INCREASES THE RISK OF A DEM TOP TWO FOR GOVERNOR While most polls show Steve Hilton in first or second place and ~5% ahead of Steyer, polls have a margin of error, usually 2-4%. In addition,

1 1 3 1K 0

The fact that we have all the technology in the world at our disposal and we will not know the results of the election is Exhibit A on why Shirley Weber needs to be replaced.

Ashley Zavala @ZavalaA

4 days ago

California's Secretary of State says we likely won't know the results of the governor's race on election night. "We've got 60 candidates. That in itself is historic... There's so much going on," @CASOSVote Shirley Weber told me.

1K 250 573 420K 58

Dear Politico, Let me fix your headline: Louisiana Republicans pass a non-gerrymandered map that eliminates the unconstitutional map that was drawn with the race of the voter as the predominate factor.

@finished_done @DOJFraudDiv @HarmeetKDhillon sounds like fun but I do not have all the work experience they are looking for.

I have come to the conclusion that Democrats in California cannot run an advertisement without mentioning President Trump. It is like he is living rent free in their heads and in their campaign ads.

Tom Steyer is running a commercial attacking Xavier Becerra over taking political contributions from Chevron. The ad says this is bad because Becerra might listen to Chevron. I love watching the democrats attack each other. Chevron is responsible for 35% of the states refinery production. At a time when gas is so high, it might be a good thing to listen to a company that is so important to gas prices in the state. Remember gas prices affect transportation and transportation cost will affect the California way of life. Maybe politicians need to listen to the refineries rather than political activist who do not seem to suffer the consequences of their disastrous political policies. Maybe just maybe if California politicians listened to business California might be better off. It is fascinating that there are so many voters in California who are brainwashed that big oil is evil that Steyer’s team think that this ad is a viable political strategy. An ad attacking a candidate for taking a political contribution from a company that has such a large influence on this state’s future. I would like to encourage all those who support Steyer because he is not taking corporate money to live between now and Election Day without buying or using anything from a corporation. That means you can’t go to any grocery store, no gas, you can’t drive your car, in fact you can’t take public transportation because those vehicles or trains were built by corporations. You can’t buy your Starbucks. For the next 16 days about all you will be able to do is drink water. Enjoy your life.

Today I listened to a Democratic pollster admonish the crowd not to put too much credence in prediction markets for political results. She said we needed to listen to the experts polling people each day and claimed prediction markets are controlled by young men with too much money. About five minutes later, she was asked for her predictions for the US House and Senate elections this November. Her response: a 95% chance Democrats take the House and a 45% chance they take the Senate. I’m sorry, but her predictions are so far out of alignment with professional pollsters that she is clearly not sharing survey responses but pushing her political desires. No wonder she told everyone to ignore prediction markets—if she can discredit them, maybe CNN will put her on air to publish her partisan agenda masquerading as polls.

For my latest article as the @Liberty_Ctr Miles Visiting Fellow, I wrote in @dcexaminer about how the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport makes it easier for lawfare targets to fight back against rogue state AGs.

Last nights SCOTUS followup ruling in Callais will have interesting ramifications for election law litigation. Last nights ruling appears to green light red states who whose primary elections have not yet been held which contain unconstitutional racial gerrymandered congressional district maps to go redraw the maps and the federal courts should stay out of that process.

For years leftist groups have been manipulating congressional districts by requiring state legislatures to give special privileges to certain Americans because of the color of their skin. Now that their unconstitutional scheme has been ended by SCOTUS, I find it entertaining that these same leftist groups are now accusing Republicans of gerrymandering when all they are doing is exercising their constitutional right to un-gerrymander the districts that these leftist groups had forced upon the nation. Always remember that the Constitution gave the power to draw congressional districts to state legislatures, not to leftist groups who want more power over your taxes in Washington D.C.

Dear Democracy Docket, If the GOP picks up two seats as a result of yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling, does that mean the House Democrats have had two more votes in Congress over the last couple of years that they should not have had? Why should Louisiana suffer another two years with individuals in Congress voting contrary to the wishes of the state’s voters? It sounds like Gov. Landry is trying to ensure the people’s voice is properly heard in Congress while you prioritize partisan politics.

“Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered” is probably the best way to understand today’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. For years, left-leaning groups have pushed an increasingly aggressive reading of the Voting Rights Act to force red states to draw more majority-minority districts (or in other words, to draw districts which often translate into more Democratic-leaning districts). The Supreme Court just put a firm limit on that strategy. Basically, left-leaning groups pushed the Voting Rights Act beyond its original limits. Rather than focusing on traditional race-neutral districting criteria, those drawing lines were constantly looking at race to produce maps that predictably advantaged Democratic candidates. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear in the past that states generally cannot allow race to predominate in drawing district lines absent a sufficient legal justification. Today's decision clarifies that plaintiff groups cannot rely on race-driven alternative maps to force additional majority-minority districts unless §2 of the Voting Rights Act actually requires it. Plaintiff groups must use the same criteria in drawing alternative maps as the states use. That includes satisfying the State’s legitimate districting goals, such as political considerations, without relying on race as the driving factor. Furthermore, today's decision made clear that historical discrimination, standing alone, is not enough to justify race-based districting today. Leftist organizations who wish to claim that maps are drawn to fix past racial discrimination must show that this past racism supports a present-day inference of intentional discrimination. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is an enforcement tool under the 15th Amendment to stop intentional discrimination. Today's decision prevents the Voting Rights Act from being used as a tool to produce predetermined electoral outcomes through race-based line drawing. The Court confirmed that the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity to the ballot box, not equal results from the ballot box. Bottom line: this decision takes away one of the primary legal tools used to pressure states into creating additional VRA districts and makes it much harder to sustain those claims going forward.

Just finished a presentation at the Nixon Presidential Library where I was educating and entertaining my audience on the stories that transpired between 1761 and 1776 that lead to the Declaration of Independence and how these experiences shaped our Constitution.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Today I had the opportunity to debate the SAVE America Act in an auditorium full of College students. During my presentation I explained how I got involved in election integrity and during that explanation I mentioned Bush v. Gore. I suddenly realized that almost every person in the room (other than the professors) were born after Bush v. Gore.