https://joehoft.com/georgia-house-votes-to-have-official-watermarks-on-all-ballots-in-election-to-prevent-counterfeiting/ Georgia’s House voted to have all ballots have watermarks that will prevent them from being counterfeited in future elections. It’s being reported that the Georgia State House voted to add security to ballots used in their elections. Georgia voters could see a watermark on their ballot beginning in November, a move Republican supporters said would assure citizens that their ballots are authentic.The House on Wednesday voted 167-1 for House Bill 976, sending it to the Senate for more debate.

Attend the Commissioners' Meeting 1 Historic Courthouse Sq. Suite 1 Hendersonville, NC 28792, Wednesday, February 21, 2024 @9:30AM. Sign up to speak. Come to support. It's your county. You need to save it! Paid for by Asheville Tea PAC and not by any candidate or candidates’ committee. www.ashevilleteapac.org https://www.blueridgenow.com/story/opinion/2024/02/17/weintraub-not-too-late-to-change-the-road-were-on/72587982007/ If I owned a GPS that could give driving directions and advise me on what direction the county was moving in, it would be squawking right now in a loud digital voice: “Make a U-Turn, The Road You’re On Is Closed!” Despite what our incumbent commissioners running for reelection say, Commissioners Andreotta and Hill, the last few years have not been a picnic for most residents of Henderson County. In many ways, our rural communities have been under attack from inappropriate development that threatens their way of life and their area’s natural heritage. Crab Creek and East Flat Rock won stellar victories to prevent a major storage facility and asphalt plant from destroying their communities. But how many communities can afford to come up with tens of thousands of dollars to defend their neighborhoods? And even in winning, they are in no better position to fight the next one when another misguided developer comes knocking on their doors. Or yours. Ditto for Etowah and their battle to maintain the sanctity of their community against a major development, the Macedonia community that fended off a shooting range, and Edneyville that might see their rural character wiped off the map if a major sewer system is built which, like flies to honey, will bring a swarm of developers turning farmland into asphalt land. There is a better way, but not much time to get there before it's clear we’re at the end of the road.  We have the opportunity to take the driver’s seat by doing two simple things. The first is vote the commissioners out who have stood against land conservation and vote in more conservation-minded people, like Jay Egolf and Sheila Franklin. The second: Let your voice be heard by attending (and/or writing) commissioners at the upcoming public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan proposal and tell them Just Say No! I dusted off my old copy of the 2020 Comp Plan, the one the county is currently supposed to be following. In a citizen’s survey taken in 2004 over 65% of us said 1) agriculture and open space should be protected, 2) growth should be directed away from floodplains, 3) large commercial development should be located where sewer and water services are present and be environmentally responsible. In the recent citizen’s survey for the 2045 Comp Plan, an overwhelming majority said protecting open spaces and forests, preserving farmland, and conserving unique natural areas was their most important priority. (Notice the pattern here?) Why is the Comp Plan important? Every land-use decision the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners make are supposed to be based on the guidance of the Comp Plan. If it provides few protections that we, the people, have declared in countless surveys, public hearings and forums, then the will of the development community, not the will of the people, will ultimately triumph. So, what are our concerns? The current plan would expand the Utility Service Area into rural communities, which would rapidly accelerate the loss of farmland and foster massive development, turning what’s left of rural communities into suburban sprawl. Its failure to address protecting floodplains and creating limits on building on steep slopes would endanger everyone living or working down slope or near floodplains, as we’ve seen in recent volatile rainstorms. Previous Commissioners responded to citizens concerns by creating a 2020 Comp Plan that emphasized growth should be focused where existing utilities are located. In other words, building a new sewer in Edneyville, encouraging inappropriate development in Etowah and more would be discouraged. The current Comp Plan proposal provides no such guidance, meaning that every neighborhood is forced to “lawyer up” because they can’t count on the county to respect their rural character. The 2020 Comp Plan also discouraged building on steep slopes, building in floodplains, and keeping the Urban Services Area out of rural areas. These were eliminated in the 2045 proposal. Clearly the 2045 Comp Plan proposal takes a giant step backwards. We have no choice but to tell our commissioners in no uncertain terms a resounding NO. Do not pass this poorly developed plan. Give a newly elected Board of Commissioners a chance to conform the plan to the people’s will. Keep out of our floodplains, steep slopes and rural communities. Sprawl turns precious farmland into development land, forestland into dollar store havens and threatens water quality and costs taxpayers dearly. The 2045 Comp Plan proposal is a recipe for just this. Your choice is simple. Re-take the steering wheel and attend the Feb. 21 Comp Plan public hearing at the Historic Courthouse at 9:30 a.m. and tell the commissioners NO to the current Comp Plan. And vote out our incumbent commissioners who would rather sell our county than protect it. To write commissioners or find out if they postponed the public hearing, visit www.hendersoncountync.gov/boc. David Weintraub is a cultural preservationist who can be reached at SaveCulture.org or 828-692-8062. Vote Jay Egolf and Shelia Franklin to turn this around.

Representative Jackson; Sir, today the North Carolina State Board of Elections managed to push through three temporary rules that were clearly beyond the scope of S747 (S.L. 2023-140) during today's Rules Review Commission hearing.  All three rules were aimed at constraining (even challenging for arbitrary & capricious purposes) our poll observers, making it easy for discretionary dismissal of PO's from voting sites.   They did this despite our strongest objections orally and in writing. Unfortunately, the RRC has little authority to address the qualitative aspects of these rules, and the NCSBE General Counsel exploits that technicality at every hearing, even sometimes reminding the RRC they have little or no authority to constrain what the agency does.  This wanton exploitation of our election laws is disturbing and deserves aggressive action in olur legislature in the upcoming session. I pray the NCGA will gird up for the short session and address the priority issues we have documented over the past year.  S747 dealt with several, but we have a half dozen other loopholes or deficiencies in law that could easily be addressed if the will of our legislators were aligned.  (During the 2023 long session, we experienced more movement in the Senate than we did in the House.) We are presently drafting language that would go a long way towards closing some of the most exploited statutory loopholes. Beginning right after the March primary, we will make our subject matter experts available to you to provide that language, briefings, and documentary evidence to justify each proposed legislative change.  I am confident we can make these proposals move in the Senate as well.  (We have a couple of trusted legislators there as well.) Please let us know if you can think of any special visits or presentations we might accomplish to improve our ability to strengthen election integrity in NC this session. Warm Regards/ Jim Womack President, NC Election Integrity Team www.nceit.org Tel. (919) 770-4783 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NCEIT'S OBJECTIONS TO THESE PROPOSED RULES FOR POLL OBSERVERS Proposed Rule- 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (Challenge to the Appointment of an Observer) *Inappropriately consolidates the challenge rule for Board of Election members and Judges into one rule instead of separate rules with unique procedures for each * The rule fails to articulate what constitutes specific reasonable grounds for challenging a poll observer’s appointment as outlined in § 163-45.1 (f) of S.L. 2023-140. * For a challenge hearing to follow due process and to comport with the intent of § 163-45.1 (c), the hearing must be convened in advance of the scheduled period of poll observation service. *The rule fails to establish criterion for Boards of Election to use in adjudicating challenges and fails to indicate whether a unanimous vote or a majority vote is required to uphold the challenge. * It seems appropriate for the NCSBE only to adjudicate appeals of challenges to state party- or statewide candidate-appointed poll observers. Appeals from county level are superfluous. *The proposed rule lacks discussion of permanent or persistent challenge of a poll observer; nor are there any criteria for preventing a challenged poll observer from returning for poll observer duties on a subsequent day or at an alternative site during the same election cycle. Proposed Rule- 08 NCAC 20 .0102 (Appeal of Removal of an Observer from a Voting Site) *The removal of an appointed poll observer is a serious step that potentially leaves a party or candidate blind to the activities inside a voting enclosure. *This rule should prescribe an escalation process that serves due process and maintains election integrity. *The rule should first establish a process for an informal hearing by all three judges present to prevent partisan influence on the decision to expel an observer, short of law enforcement action (which is always an option at the discretion of the Chief Judge). *The appointing authority should be noticed the poll observer has allegedly violated statutory guidelines and will be subject to an immediate informal hearing in or near the voting enclosure, away from the voting process. * If all three judges at a precinct or early voting site concur that removal is the appropriate recourse, then the local appointing authority should be afforded the ability to replace the observer. *If a ruling is not unanimous to remove an observer during the informal hearing, the observer should be allowed to remain on-site, subject to close observation by the judges. * If a poll observer is removed during the hearing, a written record of the removal should be documented, signed off by all judges at the voting site, with a copy provided to the appointing authority. * Appeals of a poll observer’s removal past beyond the informal hearing are fruitless in that the removal has already occurred and cannot be timely reversed. *At early voting sites located within the local Election Office, where there are no judges present, the challenge of a poll observer should come from the Site Administrator, member of the Elections Office, or a member of the Board of Elections. *In poll observer challenges at BOE Early Voting sites, the informal hearing should be adjudicated by the Site Administrator, a senior member of the Elections Office, and one member of the local Board of Elections, available on-call for such purposes. *Nowhere in the statute is there discussion of the possibility for permanent or indefinite removal of a poll observer; nor are there any criteria in thye statute for preventing a removed poll observer from returning for poll observer duties on a subsequent day or at an alternative site during the same election cycle. *The proposed rule should prescribe any criteria that would prevent a removed poll observer from being rescheduled for subsequent duties. (There is little doubt that candidates or political parties will seek to reinstate any removed poll observers as soon as possible. Volunteers are difficult to fund and recruit.) *NCSBE should consider setting a threshold of “law enforcement action taken” or “conviction of election violation” as being standards for indefinite or permanent removal of a poll observer. *Just because a person was challenged for removal on one occasion is not justified grounds for his removal for the duration of an election cycle. What if a person was removed because of the party's failure to be properly appoint him to serve the first time. Or what if a person is removed because of a disruptive hacking cough one day, but is healthy for his next scheduled suty? Proposed Rule- 08 NCAC 20 .0103 (Identification of Observers) *The statute clearly indicates the Chief Judge may use reasonable methods to verify the identity of individuals appearing at the voting place to serve as an observer; but the verification of identity process ends when the observer has produced a valid ID upon arrival. *There should be no requirement for the poll observer to identify his or her name or political party in a manner visible to voters within the voting enclosure.  Doing so makes the PO vulnerable to targeting by opposing partisans for political gain. *This rule should be deleted as the statute is already clear that Poll Observers are to be identified only by their position or role in the voting enclosure- not by their name or political party.

S747 in SECTION 2. G.S. 163-22 is amended by adding two new subsections to read: " (t) The State Board shall not accept private monetary donations or in-kind contributions, directly or indirectly, for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis." SECTION 4. G.S. 163-33 is amended by adding two new subdivisions to read: " County boards of elections shall not accept private monetary donations or in-kind contributions, directly or indirectly, for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis. This subdivision does not prohibit the following in-kind donations: a. Use of a voting site, if that voting site is used for the purpose of conducting elections. b. Food or beverages for precinct officials or other workers at the voting place or county board of elections office. c. Ink pens and personal protection equipment to be used in an election." Center for Tech and Civic Life Federal Funding Scheme FEMA “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities” (BRIC) Grants 2020 - The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), a Left-Wing, Non-Profit received a $350 Million “Donation” from Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, and distributed it to 2,500 Election Offices. Ninety percent of the funds went to jurisdictions that Biden won. 2021 - Citizen outcry against outside funding and influence in elections led to thirty state legislatures passing statutes to ban these activities, known as “Zuck Bucs” bans. Six Democrat governors vetoed these bills. With two veto overrides and a constitutional amendment, there are now twenty-seven states with “Zuck Bucs” bans. 2022 - To influence elections, and circumvent the “Zuck Buc” bans, CTCL formed the US Alliance for Election Excellence, with an $85 Million grant from The Audacious Project. The scheme involved naming “Centers of Election Excellence”, and offering grants and/or “Alliance” membership. 2023 - CTCL named 16 of these “Centers” in 11 states, awarding $13 Million and $5 Million in 11 grants, to locations won by Biden and Trump, respectively. The CTCL legal team was able to come up with a plan to circumvent the “Zuck Bucs” bans in Dekalb County, GA and Coconino County, AZ. Once again, there was citizen outcry about this new scheme. Out of the original 16 “Centers”, 3 refused the grants, 3 turned down the membership, and 2 have cancelled their membership. The goal of the Left is massive federal funding of elections. In 2021 CTCL, with the Center for Safe and Modern Elections, formed the Election Infrastructure Initiative, working with Democrats in Congress to get $10 Billion for Election Offices. Thankfully, this plan has not been successful. 2024 - CTCL has announced their latest scheme to secure federal funding by assisting Election Officials to apply for FEMA “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities” (BRIC) Grants. They will be hosting a series of Webinars with a Federal Funds expert to conduct this training. Today, CTCL held their first Webinar. Dan Meuse, from Princeton and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, explained that the goal of this $700 Million program is to reduce spending on disasters by investing in hazard mitigation. He never made the direct connection with these goals to election offices. He suggested possible projects, like the risk to election equipment and ballot storage in a flood zone, risk of losing power in an area that is susceptible to severe storms, risk of disruption in transportation and damage caused by wildfires. The grants cover building disaster mitigation capacity, projects to increase resilience and project management costs. FEMA will accept 1 application, of consolidated local applications, per state, each sub-app is 75 pages. There is a 25% Match, 10% for a “Disadvantaged Community”, and a cost analysis. The deadline is February 29, with decisions in August. The CTCL host said, watch for notices for future federal grant webinars. Our “Action Items” are to attend the webinars and report on the content to grassroots organizations, conservative media and appropriate Congressional Committees. We must expose and stop this scheme. Ned Jones Citizens Research Project                                                                                                                                                                     Election Integrity Network                                                                                                                            ned@electionintegrity.network January 25, 2024 NCSBE Numbered memo 2024-01 "In addition, a county board may accept a monetary donation or in-kind contribution if the funds will not be used for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis.  Examples of such donations or contributions: * Costs for attending professional development conferences that may include events discussing topics pertaining to elections. * An elections professional organization or service provider providing best-practice guides or presentations to county staff on various elections procedures. * Assistance designing communication tools that are not directly facilitating a process integral to carrying out an election. For example, a non-profit organization could provide a tutorial to a county board of elections on how to make its website more accessible to disabled individuals." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I fail to see how these permissible uses match up with the intent of the NCGA's prohibition on monetary and non-monetary contributions from private organizations as stipulated in S.L. 2023-140, Section 4 (NCGS 163-33)... "(18) County boards of elections shall not accept private monetary donations or in-kind contributions, directly or indirectly, for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis. This subdivision does not prohibit the following in-kind donations: a. Use of a voting site, if that voting site is used for the purpose of conducting elections. b. Food or beverages for precinct officials or other workers at the voting place or county board of elections office. c. Ink pens and personal protection equipment to be used in an election." Just another case of quibbling by the NCSBE.  Looks as if our "anti-Zuckbucks provision needs additional clarification.  (This is why we need your task forces up and running in every county!) Jim

NCSBE Attorney Paul Cox tries to paint observers as being involved in incidents of intimidation, harassment and even threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers. There's ot one shred of evidence. Watch the video and notice his body language. He doesn't look straight into the camera. https://rumble.com/v4b3nd9-voting-machine-rules-nc-state-board-of-elections.html So, we need to submit another Public Records request to our local Board of Elections to once again prove the corrupt NCSBE wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Threat Report Sample FOIA Pursuant to (Your state FOIA/Open Records statute), I am making the following request. Since early in 2021, Election Officials and the Media have been reporting a dramatic increase in incidents of intimidation, harassment and even threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers. Please provide any documentation and reports of any incidents of intimidation, harassment and threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers in your office. Please include any reports that were submitted to local and/or state law enforcement. Additionally, please provide any documentation and reports of any incidents of intimidation, harassment and threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers that were submitted to the DOJ Election Task Force, the FBI Election Hot line and the DHS-CISA Election Incident Reporting System. Date Range: 1/1/21 – Present

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2023 SESSION LAW 2023-140 SENATE BILL 747 S747-v-6 AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES REGARDING ELECTIONS LAW. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1.(a) G.S. 163-227.2 is recodified as G.S. 163-166.40. SECTION 1.(b) G.S. 163-227.5 is recodified as G.S. 163-166.45. SECTION 1.(c) G.S. 163-227.6 is recodified as G.S. 163-166.35. SECTION 1.(d) G.S. 163-166.01 is recodified as G.S. 163-166.25. SECTION 1.(e) G.S. 163-228(a1) is recodified as G.S. 163-166.50. SECTION 2. G.S. 163-22 is amended by adding two new subsections to read: https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/Senate/PDF/S747v6.pdf

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/19/infamous-zuckbucks-group-tries-to-election-meddle-again-this-time-with-federal-tax-dollars/ CTCL hopes to connect selected election officials with FEMA money, increasing activist and nonprofit control over local election offices in 2024. On Wednesday, in an email sent to a network of election officials and nonprofit organizations, the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) announced it would begin efforts to facilitate applications to a massive federal government grant program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This program could potentially funnel more than $700 million to election offices during the 2024 election under the auspices of CTCL officials and their partners in the nonprofit world of left-wing election activism. CTCL is the organization that funneled hundreds of millions of Mark Zuckerberg’s dollars into key election offices to increase Democrat turnout in the 2020 election. CTCL announced in “ELECTricity,” its regular e-newsletter sent to thousands of election officials who are part of its network, that it will host a webinar on Jan. 25 to assist those officials in applying for FEMA’s 2024 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. According to FEMA, BRIC is intended to “support[s] states, local communities, tribes and territories as they undertake hazard mitigation projects, reducing the risks they face from disasters and natural hazards.” FEMA states on its website that “BRIC’s available funding is $1 billion (for this grant application cycle), and for Flood Mitigation Assistance, the available funding is $800 million. These funds are intended to help state, local, tribal, and territorial governments address future risks to natural disasters, foster greater community resilience, and reduce disaster suffering.” During the 2021 BRIC grant cycle (the last year for which figures are available), the program’s two top project types by total project cost were flood control at $1.39 billion and utility/infrastructure protection at $1.26 billion. The BRIC program, with total spending expected to amount to $1 billion in 2024, presents a unique funding opportunity for election offices, according to CTCL Communications Manager Andra Abbate in an email obtained by the Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute. All previous BRIC grants appear to have been for some form of natural disaster relief. Nevertheless, CTCL asserts in its email invitation that it will assist election offices in applying for BRIC grants. According to its creative interpretation of the new Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, elections should be classified as a “critical service” deserving of competitive FEMA grant funding. According to the email, “As a core element of government function, elections are a critical service and eligible for this government funding.” The webinar plans to cover the application process, and “will include sample content, as well as inspiration for what the grant funds can be used for.” What Is CTCL Really Up To? CTCL burst into the public spotlight in 2020 with its highly controversial $332 million Covid-19 Response Grant Program (Zuckbucks), which was aimed at gaining control of election offices in areas that were of critical importance to Democrats in the 2020 election through large, “strings attached” grants to election offices. CTCL money financed the takeover of election offices at the city and county level by partisan activists and made those offices a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, ballot harvesting efforts, and data-sharing agreements that were favorable to Democrat candidates. Many CTCL-funded election offices then became launching pads for intensive multi-media outreach campaigns and precisely targeted, door-to-door voter turnout and mail-in ballot-chasing efforts in densely populated urban areas packed with potential Democrat voters. CTCL’s interference in the 2020 election gave rise to a host of laws passed by state legislatures to ban the private funding of election administration. As of Dec., 27 states have passed laws that prohibit, limit, or regulate the use of private or philanthropic funding to run elections. Democrat election activists are nothing if not ingenious, however. By tapping into a huge reservoir of potential federal funding, CTCL and its partners could skirt the prohibitions against “private funding” of elections, while gaining de facto control over a much larger funding source than could be provided by individual billionaires such as Zuckerberg, all the while using it to mount the same sort of technical, data-driven, and activist-led manipulation of the election system in favor of Democrats that they mounted in 2020. The Role of Election Offices Does Not Include Increasing Voter Turnout If election offices are claiming to need “extra” multimillion-dollar grants on top of their normal public funding sources to the tune of CTCL’s $332 million injection of private funding in 2020 (or even more in 2024), it is because they are planning to expand their activities into areas where election offices do not belong. Likely a significant part of the additional funding they will seek will be devoted to the shadowy (and costly) world of high-end data aggregation, statistical analysis, and the implementation of behavioral science solutions to mobilizing potential Democrat voters. Furthermore, very few — if any — voter turnout operations are nonpartisan in their effect. An election official who acts to increase voter turnout in a D +40 district will expect, on average, to increase the vote margin of the Democratic candidate by roughly 400 votes for every additional 1,000 votes he encourages, since his actions will yield an average of 700 additional votes for the Democrat candidate and 300 votes for the Republican. That’s not baseless speculation; that’s basic statistics. It makes no difference if the content or intent of his actions are nonpartisan. The purpose of election offices is to maintain the polls and accurately count votes, not to “get out the vote” in their jurisdictions through leveraging extremely valuable “inside” information and providing system access to data analysts and partisan election activists to aid in voter canvassing or targeted ballot harvesting. Lawmakers should be aware that CTCL and its partners in the Democrats’ “shadow party” appear to be up to mischief once again and should subject their relationship with the BRIC grant program, and public election offices in general, to closer scrutiny, with an eye toward eliminating election interference in 2024 by yet another well-funded cabal of “election fortifiers.” William Doyle, Ph.D., is research director at The Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas. He specializes in economic history and the private funding of American elections. Previously, he was associate professor and chair in the department of economics at the University of Dallas. He can be contacted at doyle@rodneyinstitute.org. BUILDING RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE CTCL ELECTION INTEGRITY ELECTION INTERFERENCE ELECTIONS FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA ZUCKBUCKS

The Master Class Curriculum is based on the Citizens Guide to Building the Election Integrity Infrastructure. This series of short training videos walk through the Citizens Guide and provides a simple, step-by-step process for creating and maintaining citizen oversight of the election process. We encourage you to watch these training videos as often as necessary for you to become confident in your understanding of these important topics, and also to use them as training modules during your in-person task force meetings or on your statewide or local coalition calls. Sign Up to Join Election Integrity Network. https://whoscounting.us/masterclass/ Sign up at the bottom of the page. Registration for the classes is below. You must register to get into the Zoom. Citizen Research Project | Ned Jones, EIN Every Tuesday at 6 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Election Technology | Jim Womack, NCEIT Every 2nd and 4th Thursday at 4 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Introduction to Election Integrity Infrastructure | Kerri Toloczko and Ned Jones, EIN Every 2nd and 4th Thursday at 7 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Vote By Mail / USPS | Ned Jones, EIN Every 1st and 3rd Tuesday at 4 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Legislative Development | Kathleen Harms, TN Every Wednesday at 2 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Voter Roll Maintenance | Willard Helander, EIN Every Wednesday at 4 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Vulnerable Voters | Kerri Toloczko, EIN Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 4 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Every 1st Thursday at 7 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Election Audits | Mike Raisch Every 1st and 3rd Thursday at 4 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Building Local Task Forces | Joshua Taylor Every 2nd and 4th Thursday at 7 p.m. (ET) Register HERE Media Training | Kerri Toloczko Every 1st Thursday at 7 p.m. (ET) Register HERE

The recent passage of NC Senate Bill 747 saw critical needed changes to our elections laws to make it easy to vote but hard to cheat. With the lobbying efforts from NCEIT and all of you, we are able to see these significant changes. (Our efforts are not yet finished.) One of those changes in the law is to the ousting of the infamous CTCL that tries to infiltrate your local Board of Electiions. (See Shining the Light on Zuck Bucks in the 2020 Battleground States) We celebrate our victories and then we move on. This is a great piece from The Federalist regarding that victory. Dear Legislators; I was elated to read the lead article in today's Federalist citing the withdrawal of Brunswick and Forsyth County's respective boards of elections from their alliance with the infamous Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/19/exclusive-north-carolina-counties-withdraw-from-democrats-zuckbucks-2-0-dark-money-group/ I want to congratulate you for helping make this possible through adequate legislative and local funding of elections and by passing Senate Bill 747 into law this past session.  Your conscientious support for election integrity will go a long way towards improving the fairness, transparency, and even the quality of our future elections. Warm Regards/ Jim Womack President, North Carolina Election Integrity Team www.nceit.org Tel. (919) 770-4783

https://open.substack.com/pub/actforamerica/p/the-war-on-gas-powered-vehicles-and?r=2j2kp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970: Exploited to Ban Gas-Powered Vehicles and Wage War on Fossil Fuels The nation finds itself grappling with the unintended consequences of unelected federal regulators evolving into an unbridled, quasi-fourth branch of government. In a twist of fate, Congress inadvertently elevated California to an equal authority as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the regulation of vehicular emissions – a fact unbeknownst to most Americans. This elevation, enacted under the Clean Air Act of 1970, has authorized states to choose between following California's more stringent guidelines or adhering to those set by the EPA. This pivotal decision has unwittingly empowered California to wield influence far beyond its borders, shaping emissions standards and policies for a significant portion of the nation. California, wielding a special privilege granted under Section 177 of the CAA, has emerged as a powerful force, exploiting its authority in ways the legislation never intended. Governor Gavin Newsom's fervent adherence to the Davos Globalist Climate Agenda has propelled California to unanticipated heights, with a ripple effect impacting over one-third of states. California, once a pioneer in curbing air pollutants, is now wielding its power to wage a war on fossil fuels. TWO YEARS TO FIRST IMPACT! California state's Advanced Clean Cars II rule requires zero-emission vehicles to represent 35% of new cars and light trucks in lots by 2026, and then 68% by 2030, before reaching 100% in 2035, though drivers will be able to keep their existing gas-powered cars or buy used ones. This abuse of California's 'cooperative federalism' calls for urgent action. States must prohibit the adoption of California regulations and only recognize EPA guidelines, defending against the perilous influence of Gavin Newsom's policies. With 17 states at high risk of embracing California's radical stance, it is crucial to send a resounding message – advocating for clean air does not equate to endorsing a war on fossil fuels or compromising the freedom to choose our mode of transportation, a fundamental Constitutional right. Nine states have already adopted California’s radical law including Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington while the remaining states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington DC are poised to be next. With approximately 79% of the nation's energy grid sourced from fossil fuels, the shift to EVs seems like a deceptive shell game. Does the push for EVs genuinely benefit the planet, or is it merely orchestrating a dubious financial reshuffle from the private sector to fossil fuel-powered state-controlled municipalities while claiming the moral high ground? JOB LOSSES IMMINENT: Tens of thousands of current blue-collar jobs are inevitably on the chopping block, driven by both existing California regulations and the more stringent regulations proposed by the Biden Administration (67% of all auto sales by 2032), underscores the pressing need for immediate intervention. Together, we hold the power to influence change and halt the devastating trajectory of the war on fossil fuels and gas-powered vehicles. By uniting our voices and ensuring our concerns are heard, we can compel both states and the federal government to reconsider these policies. Let us rally friends and family to join this collective effort, making a resounding statement against measures that compromise our freedom of choice and the energy independence vital to our nation. It's time to stand united and advocate for a future that values diverse energy sources and respects our rights. Share

https://voterintegrityproject.com/if-ohio-can-why-cant-north-carolina/ January 10, 2024 Jan 10, 2024 — During the same week that NC election officials starts sending absentee ballots to voters and allowing them to vote without photo ID, a federal Judge in Ohio upheld one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, begging the question of when NC lawmakers will get around to fixing our state’s laughably weak voter ID laws. Ohio State Rep. Thomas Hall sponsored HB 458 On Monday, an Ohio federal judge, upheld a strict voter ID law that does NOT include loopholes for people who claim “reasonable impediments” to obtaining valid ID, something codified in NC’s already weak voter ID law. The lawsuit was filed last year by their teacher’s union and other lefties, after Ohio Governor DeWine signed HB 458, an omnibus bill that included badly needed election law reforms and does away with allowing people to vote with non-photo ID documents like bank statements and utility bills. After this weeks victory in an Ohio federal court, the only forms of voter ID their state allows are an Ohio driver’s license; a State of Ohio ID card; an Interim ID form issued by the Ohio BMV; a US passport; a US passport card; a US military ID card; an Ohio National Guard ID card; or a US Department of Veterans Affairs ID card. Unlike NC, an Ohio voter who is unable or unwilling to provide any of those documents must either not bother voting or return to the elections offices with a law-enforcement quality ID card. Nowhere in Ohio law will a vote count if the voter claims they can’t get a legal ID card. Lawmakers in Ohio must already know that such people are lying. Exceptions Galore in NC If you’re normal, you probably didn’t realize that in NC, voters not wanting to provide a legal photo ID can still vote, simply by filling out a form and signing it. We’ve always contested the idea, but Speaker of the House, Tim Moore and Emperor of the Senate, Phil Berger ignored our concerns and in 2018, they codified a “Photo ID Exception Form” that turns our already laughable photo ID law into, literally, the weakest voter ID law in the nation. In an artful dodge, the 2017-2018 Republican super-majority Legislature rushed their voter ID legislation after nearly 60% of the voters approved a voter ID amendment that included these troublesome words: “...which may include exceptions.” In Ohio and elsewhere, those exceptions generally refer to people who have religious objections to being photographed.  In NC our veto-proof “Republican” majority used that loophole to allow all kinds of ways to cheat. Now, the NC State Board of Elections is perfectly within the law when their website says, “If the voter does not show an acceptable ID, the voter may . . . complete an ID Exception Form and then vote with a provisional ballot.” In case you see the word, “provisional” as some sort of relief, the Moore-Berger Legislature thought of that. To make sure the bad guys can still cheat, they included language that prevents any common-sense county election board members from rejecting all provisional voters who use the form to evade our voter ID laws. To that point, §163-166.16(f) says, “If the county board of elections determines that the registered voter voted a provisional ballot only due to the inability to provide proof of identification and the required affidavit required in subsection (d) of this section is submitted, the county board of elections shall find that the provisional ballot is valid unless the county board has grounds to believe the affidavit is false.” But wait… there’s more! Absentee voters can get in on the fraud too! As the SBE legally advises, “Voters who vote by mail must include a photocopy of an acceptable ID when returning their ballot, or they may complete an ID Exception Form. The voter places the photocopy of ID or ID Exception Form in a pocket on the outside of the ballot container envelope, which is then placed in an outer return envelope to protect the privacy of the voter.” (Emphasis added.) What’s next? Will Beelzebub Marc Elias swoop into NC’s Middle District at the last minute and get a Judge to decree that the form negates the requirement for absentee ballot witnesses? Those Pesky HAVA ID’s Another reason we love the Ohio voter ID law is that it comes close to matching that of Indiana and Georgia, two states whose voter ID laws already survived a full SCOTUS vote by a 6-3 majority back in 2008, with reliable Democrat-appointment John Paul Stevens writing the opinion. While NC lawmakers in 2018 could have crafted the law to match those other states’ already SCOTUS-approved laws, Berger and Moore had other ideas that undermined voter ID in North Carolina. Among the loopholes included in NC law, were Democrat-designed provisions that have long defined “voter ID” as a piece of paper with their name on it. Meanwhile, on Ohio’s Secretary of State’s website, here is the approved list of documents they do NOT allow as voter ID: Source: Ohio SOS (click image for details). The excuse we’ve repeatedly gotten from NC’s legislative leaders is that they hope to avoid getting tied up in a lawsuit. Then, as an act of contrition, they ignore our warnings and write a watery voter ID laws that still drew lawfare from the usual suspects. Then, if the Plaintiffs get lucky, they land a Leftist ideologue for a judge. This lifetime-appointed Judge then lowers the bar on election integrity. The result is weaker and weaker voter ID laws. This week, Ohio proved that real voter ID laws can still survive a federal court challenge. With the departure of Speaker Tyrant Timmy, we sincerely hope the new leadership will quit pretending to fix our election laws and actually get serious. ###