Speaker 1: Breaking news. The California Secretary of State, a Democrat, has
Speaker 1: just ordered all county election officials in California to count
Speaker 1: ballots after election day, even if they don't have a
Speaker 1: postmark on them. This is in direct violation of a
Speaker 1: recent Supreme Court ruling and it only invites fraud. What
Speaker 1: we're doing to fight back, Boloney, this is why people's
Speaker 1: trust and confidence election has waned. This is an outrageous regulation.
Speaker 1: I'm Carl Demio, chairman of Reform California and a California
Speaker 1: state representative, and that's right. The California Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: an incompetent extremist Democrat politician named Shirley Weber. She has
Speaker 1: issued regulations that are completely in violation of a recent
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court ruling. She's trying to force county election
Speaker 1: officials because all the counties, the fifty eight counties, actually
Speaker 1: run the elections in each of their counties in terms
Speaker 1: of printing, distributing, and counting ballots. She's ordering all the
Speaker 1: county election officials to count mail in ballots even if
Speaker 1: they're received after election day, which the Supreme Court said
Speaker 1: was okay. Don't like it, but it's okay. But without postmarks.
Speaker 1: This is insane to say, oh, you know, if you
Speaker 1: get a ballot that arrives a couple days after the
Speaker 1: election and there's no postmark on it, you still have
Speaker 1: to count it because the intent of the voter might
Speaker 1: be quite clear. This is in violation of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruling. It also is absolutely an invitation for fraud
Speaker 1: in our elections. This is not a practice that should
Speaker 1: be allowed. And that is why this my office, my
Speaker 1: State Assembly office sent Surely Weber a formal demand notice
Speaker 1: requesting that she changed this new regulation and make it
Speaker 1: clear to election officials that they should comply with the
Speaker 1: recent Supreme Court ruling handed down. Let me go through
Speaker 1: the regulation itself in just a moment. You're going to
Speaker 1: see for your own eyes how crazy this is. But
Speaker 1: the fight that we have before us is not just
Speaker 1: to call Shirley Weber out on this insane rule. But
Speaker 1: we can do something to restore public trust and confidence
Speaker 1: in our elections, to improve the integrity in our elections,
Speaker 1: and that is we can pass Proposition thirty nine in
Speaker 1: this November midterm election. Prop thirty nine is the bipartisan
Speaker 1: voter ID initiative to clean up our voter roles and
Speaker 1: to make sure we do citizenship verification that only people
Speaker 1: who are eligible should be receiving battles. More importantly, it
Speaker 1: does require verification of the identity of people whether they're
Speaker 1: voting in person or through mail in ballots. This is
Speaker 1: a balanced approach to voter ID. It is common sense,
Speaker 1: and this is how we can fight back against absurd
Speaker 1: rules like oh, we need to count ballots after election
Speaker 1: day without a postmark. Go to the website voter ide
Speaker 1: Initiative dot com voter ide Initiative dot com learn more
Speaker 1: about what Prop thirty nine does, but also get involved
Speaker 1: in the fight. Get off the couch, get into the street,
Speaker 1: sign up as a volunteer, because we have to make
Speaker 1: sure we overcome a rigged title on the ballot that
Speaker 1: the politicians have put on Prop thirty nine. They say
Speaker 1: it prohibits citizens from voting. Nothing could be further from
Speaker 1: the truth or trying to make sure that every eligible
Speaker 1: voters vote counts and is not canceled out with a
Speaker 1: fraudulent vote. So learn about the initiative, sign up as
Speaker 1: a volunteer to distribute the plain English voter guide so
Speaker 1: people know what they're voting on. That they're not just
Speaker 1: looking at that rig ballot title that the Democrats slapped
Speaker 1: on the initiative. And of course chip in a contribution.
Speaker 1: We are being outspent ten to one. This is a
Speaker 1: David versus Goliath fight. We need your help, So chip
Speaker 1: in a contribution at that website or volunteer at voter
Speaker 1: id Initiative dot com voter ide initiative dot com. So
Speaker 1: here is the actual rule. This is the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State's website standards for valid and invalid vote by Mail ballots,
Speaker 1: and look at number eight Vote by Mail ballot identification.
Speaker 1: She says, you have got to consider the ballot valid.
Speaker 1: A voter's ballot shall be considered valid if any of
Speaker 1: these conditions are met. The regulation she has added is
Speaker 1: number eight vote by Mail identification. Envelope has no dated postmark,
Speaker 1: you still have to count there's no postmark, the postmark
Speaker 1: is not eligible or eligible, or there's no date stamp
Speaker 1: for the receipt. Without any postmark, the ballot must still
Speaker 1: be counted. If the voter wrote a date on the
Speaker 1: ballot or the envelope otherwise indicates what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Otherwise indicates the ballot was executed on or before election day.
Speaker 1: So if you just simply say, oh, you know, I
Speaker 1: got this ballot, it's going to arrive in the mail
Speaker 1: after the election. Just going to write down my date
Speaker 1: today's election day. Suddenly a ballot appears. How do you
Speaker 1: know that it's not just slid into your mailbox by someone.
Speaker 1: This is insane. You should not. This is where you
Speaker 1: basically are going to have people questioning whether someone saw
Speaker 1: a close vote count on election night and decided to
Speaker 1: go out and salt additional ballots after the fact. We
Speaker 1: can not allow this lucy goosey approach. And by the way,
Speaker 1: this is in direct violation of what the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: just ruled in June in the Watson versus Republican National
Speaker 1: Committee case. This was over a Mississippi law that said, hey,
Speaker 1: we're going to collect and receive ballots after the election.
Speaker 1: And of course Republicans said, well, we don't think that's
Speaker 1: a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea.
Speaker 1: But the Supreme Court said, well, as long as the
Speaker 1: voter votes and executes their ballot before on or before
Speaker 1: election day, then they should count it. And the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court noted that the postmark was the evidence of whether
Speaker 1: the voter voted on or before election day, no matter
Speaker 1: when the ballot is returned or received by the election office.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court wrote, it is the postmark that is
Speaker 1: the evidence that the voter met the deadline of election day.
Speaker 1: Here it is on page two of the ruling. The
Speaker 1: question before the court is narrow whether counting ballots post
Speaker 1: marked by election day but received up to five days
Speaker 1: later violates federal election day statutes. That is the question.
Speaker 1: The postmark is crucial here because, as the court case
Speaker 1: then opined on, is that an election day is that
Speaker 1: the voter makes their decision before the deadline of eight
Speaker 1: pm on election night, and the ballot can be received
Speaker 1: any time thereafter, like military or oversees ballots. But the
Speaker 1: election day is defined as when the voter casts the ballot,
Speaker 1: and the postmark then becomes the evidence that they met
Speaker 1: the deadline. The Secretary of State in California doesn't care
Speaker 1: about that ruling, doesn't care about common sense or internal
Speaker 1: controls or integrity intras. She just says it if it
Speaker 1: has a little scribble date on it, you gotta count it,
Speaker 1: or otherwise can be interpreted as being done timely, blowney
Speaker 1: This is why people's trust and confidence and election has waned.
Speaker 1: This is an outrageous regulation trying to force county election
Speaker 1: officials to count ballots that have not met the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court standard of being timely cast. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: Should we count a ballot received after election day with
Speaker 1: no postmark as long as someone wrote a date on it.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this is a big risk factor
Speaker 1: or a small risk factor? Sound off in the comments
Speaker 1: below on this video. I truly want your thoughts on
Speaker 1: this because I think this is a big deal. That's
Speaker 1: why I'm making a big stink about it. And this
Speaker 1: is all the more reason why we need your help
Speaker 1: to pass Prop thirty nine in the November midterm election
Speaker 1: to restore integrity, clean up our voter roles. Do citizenship verification.
Speaker 1: The voter Idea Initiative is the solution. We need your help.
Speaker 1: Go to voter ide Initiative dot com, voter id Initiative
Speaker 1: dot com and join the fight until time. I'm Carl Tomo,
Speaker 1: Chairman of Reform California and California State Representative. Thanks for
Speaker 1: watching and I hope you enjoyed this episode. But before
Speaker 1: you click away, please subscribe to this channel and click
Speaker 1: that notification button so you get updated when we post
Speaker 1: new episodes. Plus, like this video and share it with
Speaker 1: your friends so that we can help spread our message
Speaker 1: across the state.