Texas AG Ken Paxton is suing 4 battleground states in the Supreme Court


Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (R.) is suing four battleground states in the Supreme Court, accusing them of using the coronavirus pandemic as a pretext to sidestep election laws and swing votes to Democrats.

The suit says state officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the Constitution when they unilaterally revised voting deadlines and allowed widespread mail-in voting. Similar post-election claims from Republican groups and the Trump campaign have struggled to gain traction in court.

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania … usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” the lawsuit reads. “Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily.”

Texas wants the High Court to order a special election in the four battleground states and disqualify any Electoral College votes based on current results. Such orders would be unprecedented. Paxton is also pressing the Court to act on an expedited basis and hear oral arguments on Friday, an unusual move and an extraordinary one given the relief Texas requested.

Timing is a problem for Texas, since electors must be appointed on Monday. Paxton said the Court can just ignore the deadline, which is set in federal law. He said the justices “should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm.”

The justices rarely decide lawsuits filed directly in the Supreme Court, as Texas’s case is. While the Constitution provides that the Court should hear cases involving the states, the justices have long held that they have discretion to turn them away.

Paxton’s future in public life is in question after senior aides accused him of bribery and abuse of office. An FBI investigation is ongoing. His current term expires in 2022.

Texas v. Pennsylvania motio… by Washington Free Beacon

Sen. Cruz, Colleagues Submit Amicus Brief To Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Rick Scott, (R-Fla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) today submitted a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the petitioners in the case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and in defense of laws that combat election fraud.

The amicus brief argues that the Voting Rights Act does not prevent states from enacting neutral election integrity measures like Arizona’s ban on ballot-harvesting, or other measures such as in-precinct voting requirements, voter ID requirements, election observer zones, and straight-ticket voting.

The full text of the amicus brief may be viewed here. Excerpts are below.

“‘The risk of voter fraud [is] real.’ As this Court has repeatedly confirmed, States have the authority and responsibility to ensure the integrity of their elections. These measures do not deny anyone the equal ‘opportunity’ to vote ‘on account of race or color.’ […]

“In the past decade, plaintiffs have pushed an aggressive Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act theory seeking to invalidate voting laws regulating absentee voting, precinct voting, early voting, voter identification, election observer zones, voter registration, durational residency, and straight-ticket voting. […]

“In the past few years, many recommended election-integrity regulations–which impose no more than ‘the usual burdens of voting,’–have been challenged in a wave of novel Voting Rights Act litigation. […]

“Were this Court to adopt the sweeping interpretation […] advocated by Respondents, these recommended laws and other neutral time, place, and manner voting laws would be put in grave danger across the country.” 

Arizona Sees Massive Turnout, Smooth Process in Early Voting | Arizona News  | US News photo




41 page Amicus is found here.

For reference on the Voting Rights Act, go here.

Real Financial Data on Dominion Voting Systems

by: Adam Andrzejewski


Key points:


  • Dominion Voting Systems is the second largest vendor in the non-transparent and entrenched election system industry where three vendors control 88-percent of the market.
  • Recent Dominion contracts with major counties and cities across America set service agreements for years or even decades—helping lock-in the company’s dominant market position and prevent competition.


Dominion Voting Systems was paid $118.3 million to provide election services during the past three years, according to public records. Their revenues came from 19 states and 133 local governments including counties, cities, and even a couple of school districts.

IMAGECAST® PRECINCT - Dominion Voting Systems photo

Since presidential election of 2020, Dominion has come under wide public scrutiny, particularly in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—critical toss-up states with close winning margins.

In their Dunn & Bradstreet filings, Dominion claimed annual sales of $36.5 million with contracts in 22 states and 600 local jurisdictions. However, the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative estimated that Dominion was in 1,645 jurisdictions with $100 million in annual revenues (2018).

So, our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com tracked Dominion’s revenues using state and local government spending disclosures, i.e. their checkbooks. (Dominion is a private company and, therefore, is not required to disclose financials. However, public bodies must be transparent, because they spend taxpayer money.)

Compiling the records required open record requests in 49 of the 50 states and in 11,400 local governments. Only California, which we are suing, rejected our sunshine request.

Here is a state-by-state description of our findings. (Download our raw payment data spanning 2017 through 2019.)

Georgia: In 2019, a $107 million ten-year contract with Dominion procured by the Secretary of State covers 30,000 touch screen voting machines and the installation of a “verified paper ballot” voting system. $89 million in payments were front-loaded into the first two-years of the contract.

New Mexico: Dominion received $52 million from the state government. Services included the full suite of hardware and software information-technology agreements.

Michigan: $31.5 million flowed from the state government ($30.8 million) and 22 localities over the last three years. Top spending local governments included Detroit ($457,880); Livonia ($65,310); Saginaw ($53,314); Dearborn ($22,975) and Antrim County ($20,056).

Services included machines, equipment repair, election services, ballot marking printers, vote tabulators and ballot boxes, modem cell services contracts, election coding, and voting machine coding.

Nevada: Clark County, the largest in Nevada, contracted for $28.7 million to have the company run its elections through 2032. The Secretary of State’s Office paid Dominion for $510,130.

California:  In 2019, the County of Santa Clara contracted with Dominion for up to $16.2 million to run their election services for the next eight-years. San Francisco’s 2019 contract covers five-years for an amount not to exceed $12.7 million.

$11.1 million in payments to Dominion came from just 15 counties and cities. The largest payer was Alameda ($5.2 million). Other counties included San Francisco ($4.2 million, Butte ($376), Glenn ($42,350), Monterey ($233,291), San Benito ($173,049), Santa Cruz ($583), Shasta ($3,975), Sierra ($9,571), Siskiyou ($127,314), Kern ($127,267), San Luis Obispo ($500,536), and San Mateo ($457,703).

Illinois: Cook County, the second most populous county in the country, signed a $31 million ten-year contract with Dominion in 2018. Competitor Election Systems & Software (ES&S) sued alleging equipment scanning problems and lack of state certification; later, ES&S dropped the case. Chicago has a ten-year $22 million deal.

From 2017-2019, payments of $6.2 million from six counties and cities flowed to Dominion. Cook County ($5.5 million) and the City of Chicago ($533,018) were the largest payers. Other counties included DuPage ($70,520), Kankakee ($9,900), Macoupin County ($15,153), and Winnebago ($18,900).

Arizona: We found the 2019-2022 contract in Maricopa County at total taxpayer cost of $6.1 million over three-years. The City of Phoenix also paid Dominion $48,300.

New York: The state spent $95.8 million with Dominion from 2008 through 2014 then renewed the contract through 2021.

From 2017-2019, $4.4 million from 44 government entities paid Dominion. Here are the top five counties: Suffolk ($1.1 million), Niagara ($539,334), Orange ($336,480), Monroe ($301,435), and Madison ($300,884). Interestingly, there were six school districts paying Dominion for election services.

Purchase descriptions ranged from batteries, compact flash memory cards, receipt paper for voting machines, warranty and support for “imagecast voting,” EMS 3-day training, absentee central count ballots and election day ballots, “pre marked test ballots,” firmware and hardware warranty, voting systems, and much more.

Pennsylvania: $1.1 million from five counties contracted with Dominion: Armstrong ($701,560), Crawford ($201,880), Washington ($121,880), Somerset County ($39,286), and Warren ($10,532). The disclosures did not list the services purchased.

Wisconsin: Dominion voting machines are used in the counties of Racine, Washington, and Ozaukee. In the large counties of Dane and Milwaukee, ES&S machines are used.

We were not able to capture government checkbook data on Dominion expenditures in Wisconsin.



Sen. Schumer’s Dark Money Going to Georgia

When it comes to dark money, the one senator that shouts the loudest is Sheldon Whitehouse over judge nominations at all lower courts and the Supreme Court. But here comes another lane of dark money so as Senator Schumer says it, we take the Georgia senate race and we can change the country.

Chuck Schumer - Chicago Tribune

Considering the Georgia senate race, Schumer may be a little worried as he said: the Senate should hold hearings on President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees before Biden takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

A dark money organization aligned with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) funneled a record $40 million to liberal advocacy groups for voter engagement efforts, new filings show.

Majority Forward, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that is affiliated with Schumer’s Senate Majority PAC, sent the grants to more than a dozen left-wing groups, several of which are active in Georgia’s pivotal runoff elections. The new tax forms show that Majority Forward experienced a financial windfall heading into the 2020 elections. The group raised $76 million from anonymous donors between June 1, 2018, and May 31, 2019. It then flooded 16 liberal advocacy groups with funds for voter registration efforts. The largest grants include $14.8 million to America Votes, $10.1 million to the Black Progressive Action Coalition, and $3.5 million to the League of Conservation Voters.

Many of the groups funded by Majority Forward will be key players in the Georgia runoffs, which will determine control of the Senate. The Black PAC, a super PAC affiliated with the Black Progressive Action Coalition, has already dropped six figures into canvassing efforts for Democratic candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff.

Majority Forward also cut a $376,000 check to the Voter Participation Center, a registration group that has been active in a number of states including Georgia. The center has drawn fire for “shaming” people into voting and angered election officials, who say the group’s mailers have contained mistakes. It plans to send additional mailers to over four million Georgians before the runoffs in January.

Majority Forward eclipsed the cash the group raised and spent over its previous three years combined. From mid-2015 to mid-2018, the group hauled in $69 million and disbursed $16 million. Its prior best year came in 2016 when it took in $34.2 million in contributions and passed $9.5 million to other groups working to elect Democrats. The documents showing its activity from mid-2019 to mid-2020 will not be available until late next year.

Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, said nonprofits like Majority Forward are as important as explicitly partisan outfits like campaigns and party committees. “[M]ost people don’t realize the politicized (c)(3) river of money is several multiples larger than the ‘hard’ political money river and the (c)(4) independent expenditures river combined,” Walter told the Washington Free Beacon.

While Majority Forward primarily funds other advocacy nonprofits, the group also injected more than $10 million directly into the 2020 election. It pushed the majority of that cash through the Senate Majority PAC, with which it shares personnel and office space. Both groups are led by J.B. Poersch, a Schumer ally, and their relationship has been described as “ridiculously cozy” by watchdog groups.

Majority Forward did not respond to a request for comment.


Learn About the US Election Assistance Commission

Primer: On September 12, 2018, President Trump signed an Executive Order imposing sanctions in the event of Foreign Interference in a United States election.

Gotta wonder based on the text of the Executive Order if John Ratcliffe at ODNI is working the case as introduced by Sidney Powell regarding SmartMatic.


Many have said the United States needs election reform. The last time there was real reform was in 2002 and with the launch of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. This commission operates in cadence with the Help America Vote Act. Did you know about that Federal law and it is under the authority of the Department of Justice? Nor did I until I found myself in a rabbit hole yesterday.There is a LOT here so it may get confusing but it will put much of what the press conference was about yesterday and in context by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) supports state and local election officials in their efforts to ensure accessible, accurate. and secure elections. EAC develops guidance to meet the Help America Vote Act requirements, adopts voluntary voting system guidelines, and serves as a national clearinghouse of information on election administration. EAC also accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, as well as audits the use of Help America Vote Act funds.

Note the above text from their website that reads ‘accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems. Did the EAC give approval for Dominion? YES, that is found here also on the website.

Further, at least 2 former members of the EAC went on later to join the Board of Directors for SmartMatic, the software in question hosted on Dominion machines.

Gracia Hillman, who served as a commissioner and chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2003-2010); and

Paul DeGregorio, an elections expert who also served as commissioner and chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2003-2007). Further details from a 2018 Associated Press article includes:

Gracia Hillman served as commissioner on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from 2003 to 2010, and as chairman. During her career, she also served as Vice President for External Affairs at Howard University, Senior Coordinator for International Women’s Issues at the U.S. Department of State, President and CEO of WorldSpace Foundation, and Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of the U.S., the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the National Coalition on Black Voter Participation.

Ms. Hillman has provided leadership as an officer and director of numerous nonprofit boards of directors and government commissions. She has represented the United States government before the United Nations, Organization of American States and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Paul DeGregorio served as commissioner of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from 2003 to 2007, and during his tenure at the EAC served as chairman. At the EAC, Mr. DeGregorio oversaw federal election reform, such as the implementation of the Help America Vote Act and the establishment of the first federal certification of voting systems.


So, this HAVA law is funded and appears to operate with an estimated $500 million for 2020. That being the case, it is also then assigned an Inspector General to investigate compliance at the State and Federal level. (I have not found any IG reports however)

State by state funding for 2020 is:

Okay, got it. Now exactly how are those funds allocated, spent and who approves that at the Federal and State level? Help figure that out.

So, remember that Cares Act that was passed by Congress and signed into law with President Trump’s signature? Well, if the HAVA law was already there, why was there a supplemental annex to the Cares Act? Was it just due to the pandemic? Go here and click around to see what you can fully determine.

The HAVA Election Security Funds were appropriated in 2018 and 2020.  The two HAVA Election Security Fund appropriations, authorized under Title I Section 101 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, mark the first new appropriations for HAVA grants since FY2010. This funding provides states with additional resources to secure and improve election systems.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 included $380 million in grants, made available to states to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance technology and make certain election security improvements.


Then the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 authorized an additional $425 million in new Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds.

Guidance on Managing Funds


It should also be noted that SmartMatic has several U.S. patents and there have been several lawsuits regarding the use of the patent(s) where the system can or cannot be sold across the world. ES&S and Dominion have essentially the whole voting market in the United States. ProPublica, a left leaning government accountability organization did a large summary in 2019 on voting irregularities across the US and it is an interesting read.

Patent History
Patent number: 9092922
Type: Grant
Filed: Dec 12, 2007
Date of Patent: Jul 28, 2015
Patent Publication Number: 20090152350
Inventors: Antonio Mugica (Caracas), Eduardo Correia (Caracas), Roger Pinate (Caracas)
Primary Examiner: Daniel Hess
Application Number: 12/000,411
  1. https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/court-of-chancery/2013/ca-7844-vcp.html
  2. https://patents.justia.com/patent/9092922
  3. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-market-for-voting-machines-is-broken-this-company-has-thrived-in-it