The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) dismissed a legal challenge to President Trump’s effort to exclude illegal aliens from being counted in congressional apportionment to protect the representation of American citizens.
On Friday, in a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS threw out a legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the state of New York against Trump’s effort to exclude illegal aliens from congressional apportionment counts that decide how many lawmakers represent each state in Congress.
The majority of justices issued an unsigned opinion which called the ACLU and New York’s challenge “premature” because it is unclear how many persons would be excluded from counts and the impact it would have on various states’ representation.
The opinion states:
At the end of the day, the standing and ripeness inquiries both lead to the conclusion that judicial resolution of this dispute is premature. Consistent with our determination that standing has not been shown and that the case is not ripe, we express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented. We hold only that they are not suitable for adjudication at this time.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The court’s three liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — issued a signed dissent in which they said the effort should be deemed unconstitutional.
“Because I believe plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable, ripe for review, and meritorious, I would affirm the lower court’s holding,” Breyer wrote in the dissent. “I respectfully dissent.”
Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) applauded Trump for moving forward with the plan.
“It is crystal clear that our national government should represent the American people, and no one else,” Wilcox said in a statement. “And court after court has held that illegal aliens are not part of the American people. They, therefore, should not be represented by our elected officials in Washington, as they would be if included in the apportionment count.”
“We applaud the President for having the clarity of vision to see this, and the forthrightness to act on it. And we are glad that today the Supreme Court tossed out this lawsuit meant to block him,” Wilcox said.
The decision allows Trump to follow through on the effort, though the Census Bureau has yet to deliver final counts to the Commerce Department. Capitol Hill reports have indicated that final counts may not be ready until after President-elect Joe Biden assumes office on January 20, 2021.
Biden has suggested that he will not pursue the effort, claiming previously that the U.S. Constitution “clearly requires” illegal aliens to be counted in congressional apportionment.
States such as Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia are projected to lose congressional seats if the illegal alien population is included in congressional apportioning.
Today, there are an estimated 11 million to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. The Census estimates that based on current legal and illegal immigration levels, by 2060 about one-in-six residents will have been born outside the country.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
The Trump administration announced two key actions Wednesday designed to protect entities that sought to avoid supporting abortion.
Both announcements addressed longstanding issues handled by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights. In a press release Wednesday, HHS said it would block $200 million in federal Medicaid funds slated for California “due to the state illegally mandating that all health care plans subject to regulation by the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) cover abortion without exclusion or limitation.”
It also said it referred a case to the Justice Department involving a nurse who was allegedly forced to assist in an elective abortion. DOJ announced on Wednesday that it would bring a suit against the University of Vermont Medical Center over the issue.
“California and the University of Vermont Medical Center have violated federal conscience laws and refused to work with us to take corrective action, so we are now taking action to hold them to account,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said.
CBS ‘ABORTION ACCESS’ REPORTER SLAMS ‘TONE DEAF’ PENCE FOR HOLDING PRO-LIFE EVENT DURING PANDEMIC
Roger Severino, who leads the department’s Office of Civil Rights, said: “Whatever one thinks of the legality of abortion, no one should be punished for declining to pay for or assist in the taking of human life.”
The University of Vermont (UVM) Medical Center did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment. According to WCAX, the CBS television station in South Burlington, Vt., the medical center said it didn’t feel it had discriminated against the nurse involved.
Dr. Stephen Leffler, president and CEO of the UVM Medical Center, reportedly said: “I want to be very clear we are very sensitive to our employees’ religious and moral beliefs, and we believe are very confident that we have a policy that protects our employees’ rights while being certain to offer all legal and safe procedures for patients that seek our care.”
The decisions came at the end of an administration which anti-abortion advocates have touted as being led by the “most pro-life” president in U.S. history.
Vice President Mike Pence held a triumphant event earlier in the day, declaring that “life is winning.”
During his speech, he heralded the administration’s “great progress” on the issue and touted the president’s efforts to “save lives” during the coronavirus pandemic.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., mocked the “pro-life” label on Wednesday, tweeting that HHS’ decision came during a pandemic.
OVER 25 BLACK MINISTERS SIGN LETTER TO WARNOCK ON ABORTION
“Nothing like the ‘pro-life’ party eliminating healthcare during a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. California will survive without this $$ for now — but their frail, pathetic patriarchal system they are so desperate to protect won’t,” he said.
Despite that label, the administration has faced pressure from pro-life activists to do more with the limited time he has left.
Live Action’s Lila Rose and Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden recently called on the administration to do more in an op-ed titled, “Just Defund Planned Parenthood Already — Here’s How.”
Following Daleiden’s 2015 explosive undercover videos on Planned Parenthood, Congressional investigators sent referrals to the Obama administration regarding potential violations of fetal trafficking laws and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
After Trump took office, the Justice Department reportedly opened an investigation into the matter and Congress has urged the DOJ to update them on the issue. With roughly a month before President-elect Biden’s inauguration, the Trump administration has not yet announced further action on those two issues.
However, Biden has already announced his choice of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to take over HHS — pending Senate confirmation. A number of Catholic and conservative organizations have already criticized the pick of Becerra for being a pro-choice advocate. This makes the likelihood that Trump’s agenda at HHS after Biden assumes office will not be realized.
Becerra, like Biden, is a Roman Catholic.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
According to WCAX, Vermont’s attorney general, T.J. Donovan, said the new lawsuit was baffling.
“The idea that you’re going to file this type of lawsuit 35 days to go before there is a change in the administration where you will have a new attorney general, frankly, is baffling,” he said.
Kash Patel, chief of staff to Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, has filed a $5 million lawsuit against CNN and several reporters who work at the cable outlet for what he claims are false reports that defamed him.
The suit was filed on Friday in Virginia Circuit Court and named CNN reporters Barbara Starr, Zachary Cohen, Ryan Browne, Alex Marquardt, and Nicole Gaouette as defendants, in addition to the network itself.
The complaint said CNN “deliberately or recklessly conveyed a false message” to garner attention and embarrass Patel.
Fox News reported on the development:
Patel, who was previously a top aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) ad a Trump advisor, claims CNN published a series of articles from Nov. 24 through Dec. 4 penned by the defendants that “contain a series of false and defamatory statements” about him, according to the complaint.
The complaint says defamatory statements in the articles include, “Trump loyalist connected to Biden conspiracy theories is leading Pentagon transition,” “Kash Patel, a Trump loyalist, … was connected to efforts to spread conspiracy theories about Joe Biden,” Kash “has also worked to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election,” “Pentagon blocked Biden’s intelligence transition team from meeting with agencies,” and “Defense Department transition office … is led by a Trump loyalist connected to efforts to spread conspiracy theories about the President-elect,” among other similar examples.
Patel’s legal team said CNN retaliated against him because he helped poke holes in the network’s narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia before the 2016 election.
Patel’s attorney, Steven S. Biss, argued:
…publication of the Defamatory Statements is part of a general pattern of retaliation and discrimination against Kash. …a larger conspiracy undertaken between 2018 and the present to discredit Kash through the publication of false statements and the promotion of unfounded left-wing political narratives.
Biss said Patel “uncovered many inconvenient facts undermining the fake political narrative about ‘collusion’ between members of the Trump campaign and Russians when he was counsel for Nunes, then-chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.”
CNN attacked Kash and published defamatory falsehoods about him because CNN was deeply invested in promoting the Russia collusion hoax and the fraudulent “dossier” manufactured by Fusion GPS for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Kash debunked CNN’s reporting… CNN’s latest brutal attack on Kash’s reputation in the Articles is a continuation of past smear campaigns to discredit Kash.
Biss said in the Fox report that “millions who read the Defamatory Statements clearly understood them to be referring to Kash and clearly understood them to convey a defamatory meaning” and defended Patel’s character. He wrote:
The Defendants fabricated the Defamatory Statements and knew, therefore, that the statements were false. They knew that Kash was not the source of a single conspiracy theory and had no connection to any conspiracy theory about Biden. Defendants provide no evidence or example of any stories spread by Kash about Biden because there are none. CNN reported on the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry and read the Democrats’ report, and knew, therefore, that no evidence was uncovered connecting Kash.
“Defendants harbored extreme professional and personal animus, bias, spite and ill-will towards Kash as a result of Kash’s revelations of CNN’s corrupt business practices and deceitful misreporting,” Biss wrote. “Because of this malice and desire to injure Kash, Defendants knowingly and recklessly ignored the probable falsity of the story and printed it.”
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter or send news tips to firstname.lastname@example.org
Texas GOP Chairman Colonel Allen West. (Photo by David Silverman/Getty Images)
OAN Newsroom UPDATED 5:55 PM PT – Wednesday, December 9, 2020
Red states are joining Texas in a Supreme Court lawsuit aimed at delaying presidential electors in multiple states.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading the charge against multiple states that allegedly violated the Constitution during the 2020 election.
Ken Paxton, Attorney General State of Texas. (Photo by Gabriel Aponte/Getty Images for Concordia Summit)
On Wednesday, Paxton filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The lawsuit argues the ‘Equal Protection Clause‘ was violated. All four states account for 62 electoral votes, which is enough to question the outcome of the presidential election.
Additionally, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led a group of 17 states in support of the Texas lawsuit on Wednesday.
The group filed a brief with the Supreme Court. The brief claims state officials exploited the coronavirus pandemic to make changes to the elections that would purposely make them prone to potential fraud.
The Texas GOP chairman said that potential for fraud not only affected the states involved, but millions of other Americans. In an interview with Steve Bannon Tuesday, Chairman Colonel Allen West said Texas had the legal right to pursue the case.
“We’re not asking for ballots to be thrown out,” West said. “We’re asking for this to go back to the legislature and the state legislators…will decide those electors, which again is constitutional by Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.”
He added that America has the gold standard of an electoral system and protecting it isn’t a political issue.
“I think you’re going to see about 10 [states] sign onto this petition,” West noted. “I know…Louisiana has come on board, you just talked about South Carolina and I believe Missouri and several others will stand beside this as well.”
UPDATE: THREE other states are expected to join the Texas lawsuit headed to SCOTUS, according to Colonel Allen West (Chairman of Texas Republic Party).
*A total of 10 states may be apart of the Texas lawsuit by end of week.
Does a government have to pass a law to make something compulsory, or can businesses make it a must-have anyway?
The world is about to find out, after Qantas CEO Alan Joyce declared international travellers must have a COVID-19 vaccine to get on a flight.
It looks like the vaccine won’t be mandatory for Australians at home.
But whether people will have access to their favourite goods and services if they don’t get the vaccine is more complicated.
Will the vaccine be compulsory for Australians?
The short answer is no, but it’s clear the Government wants as many people as possible to have it.
In August, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he expected the vaccine “to be as mandatory as you can possibly make it”.
But just hours later, Mr Morrison said that the Government would not make vaccination mandatory for anybody.
“It’s not going to be compulsory to have the vaccine,” he said.
Will it be mandatory for international travellers?
Although Australians won’t have to be vaccinated, it’s becoming more likely that international travellers will.
The Government’s own vaccination policy already notes it could be mandatory for international travellers.
“While the Australian Government strongly supports immunisation and will run a strong campaign to encourage vaccination, it is not mandatory and individuals may choose not to vaccinate,” it says.
“There may however, be circumstances where the Australian Government and other governments may introduce border entry or re-entry requirements that are conditional on proof of vaccination.”
And travel to some countries already requires a vaccine.
For example, the Smart Traveller website tells Australians to carry their yellow fever vaccination certificate when travelling to Brazil, saying “you may need it to enter”.
Health Minister Greg Hunt said today that “early guidance” would be that international arrivals would be expected to be vaccinated or face quarantine.
Mr Hunt’s comments suggest those who can’t have the vaccine, for example those who are immunocompromised, will still be able to travel.
What is the air travel sector doing?
Qantas has declined to elaborate on the comments made by Mr Joyce yesterday.
But Mr Joyce isn’t the only one thinking about changes to international travel.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), a group of 297 airlines including Qantas, is calling for systematic COVID-19 testing of all international travellers.
To help support this, it announced on Tuesday morning that it was in the final development phase of a new vaccine passport app.
This will record if someone has been vaccinated, and share the information with airlines and immigration authorities.
It’s due to be piloted later this year, ahead of a launch early in 2021.
Simon Westaway, the head of the Australian Tourism Industry Council, said requiring travellers to have a coronavirus vaccination could act as a “circuit breaker” for disruptions across the sector.
He argued Australia should also consider introducing rapid COVID-19 testing at airports, as used in a number of other countries.
“I think rapid testing is really starting to prove its worth, it’s important that authorities give that absolutely full berth,” he said.
“I do think you’re going to need a combination or a suite of really efficient, easy measures to give people confidence in travel, but importantly to have operators and authorities to have that confidence as well.”
What are businesses in Australia planning to do?
A vaccine is unlikely to be available until March, so it’s still too early for many businesses to be considering whether or not they will require customers to have it.
The National Retailers Association hasn’t received any feedback from members or had any discussions yet.
Coach operator Murrays said it was too soon to say if passengers would face vaccination rules.
But the Australian Dental Association said dentists would accept people without vaccinations.
“The fact is, visiting the dentist has always been safe to attend and there is no reason not to visit your dentist,” a spokesperson said.
“But we can understand why Qantas wants to introduce a system of proof, as they will have passengers huddled together for long periods of time on flights.”
The AFL and NRL did not respond to requests for comment when asked if fans would face vaccination requirements.
Can businesses discriminate based on the vaccine?
In May, then-chief medical officer Brendan Murphy said employers and workers should turn away sick employees and visitors, and said the Government would “protect” and “defend” them if they did so.
The Government has sought to increase the rate of vaccinations in the past.
When he was social services minister in 2015, Scott Morrison introduced the ‘no jab, no play’ scheme which withheld welfare payments from families who conscientiously objected to vaccinations.
On the other hand, it has shown respect to those reluctant to download the COVIDSafe app.
When legislating for the COVIDSafe app earlier this year, the Government included provisions that made it a crime to coerce someone to use the app by refusing entry.
But refusing someone a service because they do not have a vaccination due to medical reason could be illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act.
Paula O’Brien, senior lecturer at Melbourne Law School, is part of a group studying the legal implications of a vaccine for businesses.
“Anti-discrimination law and human rights law are two major areas for businesses to consider when working out a policy on mandatory COVID vaccination,” Dr O’Brien said.
She said hospitals, aged care and childcare facilities had already had to deal with employment issues around vaccination of employees, but COVID-19 was pushing these issues into new realms.
“While some businesses have navigated this around staff before, it’s new to be navigating it around customers,” she said.
Whatever has happened in the past, laws today are more fluid than they have been. An emergency period under the Biosecurity Act is still in place.
This has allowed the Government to overwrite other laws to prevent and control COVID-19, including restricting cruise ships and international travel.
The period was extended in September until December 17.
Will I have to pay for the vaccine?
No, the Government has promised the vaccine will be free and available to Australians in 2021.
But this will come at a cost to taxpayers.
The Government is spending more than $3.2 billion on COVID-19 vaccines.
Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny has filed a defamation lawsuit against Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov. The claim has been sent to Moscow’s Presnensky District Court, which has yet to set a trial date.
Agudath Israel of America Leads Law Suit Against NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Over Covid Closures
Some Rabbis are even telling people to go forward with holiday celebrations as usual because “God will protect them.”
Hasidim Protesting NY Covid Restrictions – From ABC7 News Video
Agudath Israel of America has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking for a temporary restraining order to bar the State of New York from enforcing its limits on house of worship attendance in certain areas of the state. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the new restrictions in part due to the large spikes in Covid-19 in certain communities, specifically, the Ultra-Orthodox in Brooklyn who have flouted calls for social distancing during the Jewish holiday period.
These activities have led to recent violent protests, confrontations with the police and even assaults on members of their own community who were reporting on the protests. (Read more on that here.)
The organization maintains that Governor Cuomo’s Order’s restrictions unconstitutionally discriminate against religious practice while simultaneously permitting comparable secular conduct. Moreover, they say, the restrictions violate Free Exercise rights because they appear to target conduct due to their religious motivation.
OK, so that may be technically legally true, but why do they not at the same time call on their people to voluntarily follow all of the recommended guidelines to limit the spread of the Corona Virus.
While most of the Orthodox Jewish leadership has acknowledged the need for limitations this year due to the Corona Virus threat, some fail to see the danger. There are extreme groups whose leaders for some reason see the limitations imposed by governments as an attack on their religion. This is in spite of the fact that in places such as New York the shutdown has affected all manner of businesses as well from places of entertainment to small businesses.
And some extreme Hasidic leaders seem to think that the practice of Jewish rituals and commandments will protect people from infections. One such leader is Rabbi Moshe Shaul Klein of the Or HaChaim neighborhood in Bnei Brak. The Jewish Press reported that Rabbi Klein said, “I don’t say what you should do in practice, I only explain what the view of the Halacha (Jewish Law) is: It is not a problem to convene according to the Halakha for the purpose of a mitzvah because the mitzvah protects.”
“The outlook of the medical people is not that of the Torah. Those who are not Torah scholars do not understand that Torah and mitzvoth (Jewish commandments) are the source of life for the people of Israel,” added Rabbi Klein. “Regarding the authorities, we should heed the advice of the doctors, but regarding mitzvoth the outlook is different.”
The Jewish Press has described is Rabbi Moshe Shaul Klein as a Posek – A Rabbi authorized to make major decisions in Jewish Law – whose opinions and rulings are accepted by all Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) communities. But he sounds more like a Christian Scientist than an Orthodox Rabbi. Jewish Law clearly states that on the fast day Yom Kipur, the Day of Atonement, if a doctor orders someone not to fast, then we make the person eat and drink according to the medical determinations. We force the person to eat and do not let him insist on fasting against a doctor’s orders.
So if this is the case even on Yom Kipur, why then is it so hard to accept that going about business as usual is going to endanger the lives of your fellow Jews. To put this in the terms of Halacha, fasting on Yom Kipur is a direct commandment from God. Celebrations on Sukkot and this weekend’s holiday known as Simchat Tora are only customs. We will leave it to the reader to draw the a priori conclusion here.
Let’s put forward this simple hypothetical example. If the local authorities came by just before the holiday and said that the synagogue, or whatever venue was reserved for the celebrations, must be closed due to a fire hazard, or fear that is in danger of collapsing, and prohibit admission to it, would these same people not accept such a ruling. Then if they had to hold the celebrations outside in a park instead, but a hurricane came by or a fire were to break out right by the park, surely they would send everybody home for their safety.
If not now during the Corona Virus pandemic, then when? If we will not make sacrifices this holiday season to protect ourselves from Covid-19, then who will do so for us?
And the danger is much greater this weekend as Jews around the world will observe the holiday Simchat Tora in which the Tora itself is celebrated. The holiday tradition is for large groups to come together to sing and dance with Tora scrolls. This, of course, is problematic to say the least in the Corona Virus era.
But most Orthodox Jewish acknowledge the danger in observing the holiday as usual, with no cancelations or limitations of the traditional celebrations. The New York Board of Rabbis has come out and condemned the recent violence committed by members of the Hasidic community during protests against the Covid-19 restrictions.
It released a statement saying, “We cannot defend individuals in our Jewish community who demonstrate a blatant disregard for the COVID-19 health protocols and endanger their lives and those of other people. COVID-19 is a non-discriminating disease that must be fought by all people following the rules without exception.”
“We believe in collective responsibility where we are accountable for our behavior and reject collective guilt where everyone is depicted without distinction. Therefore, it is the duty of citizens within those virus hotspots to take responsibility for their behaviors which are no doubt causing the drastic surge in cases. Their job is not to respond with defensive rhetoric, but rather do everything in their power to bring down the spread of COVID-19.”
Strong, but necessary, words.
Everyone have a safe, happy and meaningful end of the Sukkot holiday, Shmini Azeret and Simchat Tora. Next year in a Corona Virus free Jerusalem.
Terry Wallace has named the clubs who he believes would suit out-of-contract Collingwood forward Brody Mihocek, saying he would play a crucial role at Melbourne, Essendon or Western Bulldogs.
With Collingwood’s season now over after their loss to Geelong in the semi-final on Saturday, the club is now faced with several list decisions on out-of-contract stars such as Darcy Moore and Jordan De Goey as well as Mihocek.
The 27-year-old was picked up as a mature-aged player in the 2017 Rookie Draft and has so far played 58 games for the Magpies in three seasons.
Speaking about Mihocek’s, Wallace listed three opposition clubs who could do with a medium-sized forward like him.
“He’d suit Melbourne, no doubt,” he said on AFL Nation.
“He’d suit Essendon and still suit the Bulldogs; I know they’ve gone to the well (to recruit new forwards) but it’s not necessarily working for them (this year).
Anthony Hudson said the talk around Mihocek’s future was an interesting proposition, considering he would likely command a significant contract at an opposition club.
Hudson said whether he stays at Collingwood or not would come down to if he’s “tempted” by a big-money offer.
“Mihocek is the one that really interests me,” he said.
“I think they’ll get the other two deals of (Darcy Moore and Jordan De Goey) done but Mihocek wouldn’t have been on much money until now, his chance to earn a really big living out of (another club) would be there from someone.
“(The question is) is he tempted by that.”
Mihocek kicked 25 goals from 18 games in 2020, while also averaging just under four marks.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania rejected a lawsuit from the Trump administration to limit the number of drop boxes in the state for mail-in ballots.
U.S. District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, who was appointed by President Trump, said that the GOP’s claims to harm were “speculative” that drop boxes and other efforts to expand voting access would be vulnerable to fraud. He said the campaign’s claims to injury were not “concrete.”
“Plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud, they must at least prove that such fraud is ‘certainly impending,’” the judge wrote. “They haven’t met that burden.”
Democrats saw another win in Texas where a federal judge shot down Gov. Greg Abbott’s directive to limit ballot drop boxes to one per county.
“All of these assumptions could end up being true, and these events could theoretically happen,” Ranjan continued. “The relevant question here is: are they “certainly impending”? At least based on the evidence presented, the answer to that is ‘no.’”
Ranjan also shot down the campaign’s effort to reverse a Pennsylvania rule that county boards of elections would not reject ballots “where the voter’s signature does not match the one on file.”
The ruling sends the matter back to lower courts, which have been hesitant to accept Republican allegations of voter fraud.
The Trump campaign said it intends to appeal the ruling.
“President Trump is winning the fight for a free, fair election in Pennsylvania,” Matthew Morgan, the Trump campaign’s general counsel, told The New York Times.
“We’ve continued the fight against the Democrats’ completely unmonitored, unsecure drop boxes in the federal courts. Clearly, we disagree with the Western District’s decision on unsecure drop boxes, and President Trump’s team will immediately file an appeal.”
The ruling spells optimism for Democrats in the key battleground state. Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016, the first time a Republican presidential candidate won the state since 1988.
Pennsylvania has seen a record number of residents register to vote.
“We think that our total voter registration may be at an all-time high,” Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar said during a press conference this week.
About 8,908,777 people have registered to vote, Boockvar said, including 4,175,532 Democrats and 3,459,627 Republicans. About 875,191 had no affiliation or identified as independents, and 398,427 identified as other.
Nearly 2.5 million people are expected to vote by mail, according to Boockvar, who noted that this was the total amount of mail-in and absentee ballots that were expected to be approved.
About 1.5 million people voted by mail in the primary, so that is an increase of around 1 million applications since June.
More than 2.3 million ballots have already been mailed or are in the process of being mailed, according to Boockvar.
The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against Philadelphia after it claimed poll watchers were unlawfully banned from early voting offices. Election officials have said, however, that poll watchers do not legally need to be admitted to early voting centers.
And the early voting process in Philadelphia was fraught with technical difficulties as satellite election offices opened last week. Some voters waited in line for hours as delays were said to be caused by problems with the voter database, which prevented the processing and approval of mail-in ballot applications, and the printing of other materials.