June 16, 2026 election

early voting dates: June 11 12 (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) and June 13 (8 a.m. to 2 p.m.)

NOTE: Many more races have been added and more information! Our voter guide provides our recommendations in Oklahoma elections in which we are familiar. There are some races that we may miss or don’t have the information needed to make a suggestion. We cover Osage County/Tulsa County/Wagoner County areas more extensively, but do our best to cover the major elections in other counties and across the state.

This guide originated as friends asked who we were voting for since they knew we researched the candidates. While this guide has evolved, it still reflects our personal opinions and insights.

OK SQ 832 - $15 Minimum Wage Initiative

Vote No.

This state question is detrimental, especially for lower-income workers. This allows for the minimum wage to get tacked to the minimum wage in NYC and California, which are completely different economies, and allows it to increase without a vote indefinitely. It will ultimately force some businesses to close or to fire part of their employees in order to have to pay the others the mandated rate. This will simply create more unemployment rather than help those it claims it will help.

U.S. SENATOR: -

Kevin Hern R

Hern has been our Oklahoma Representative since 2018 and has won handily ever since.

Nick Hankins R

An out-of-the box thinker with logic and discernment. He has unique ideas and is willing to work to try to implement them and get America back on course with our Constitution and America First principles. Not his first rodeo, but still a big race to enter. But a good choice.

Gary Ty England R

While voters may not recognize his name, he was the bandmate and close friend of Garth Brooks. He says he is for limited government and fully supports the Constitution along with our inherent rights and conservative principles. It appears this is a first run to build name recognition. I tried to get him to come to the area to speak and it never worked out.

Brian Ragain R

Brian has 20 years of experience as a firefighter-paramedic, and a registered nurse. He has some knowledge working in the energy field.

Sean Buckner R

Served in the Air Force through Desert Storm and then once out started his own real estate firm and built a small business into a bigger business. So has experience building something from nothing and leading people. He is a journalist and an advocate for justice.

Troy Green D

Jim Priest D

R.O. Joe Cassity, Jr. D

N’Kiyla Thomas D

Ervin Stone Yen - D

Sevier White L

Curtis Stinnett I

Ron Meinhardt I

Meinhardt is registered as a Republican, but changed to Independent once Hern entered the race. Is that just a strategy to avoid having to face all the candidates in the primary? But registered Republican so he can vote in the primary? He made a comment in a Republican chat that that he was going to vote for Nick Hankins evidently to skew the vote against the front runners.

U.S. HOUSE Dist 1 Our Choice - Jackson Lahmeyer R OK GOP Certified

He has been endorsed by President Trump, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and General Mike Flynn among others. Lahmeyer emerged in 2020 when he ran as an unknown against Senator Lankford. He has been actively involved in issues to stop child trafficking, and stood courageously against the illogical COVID rules from the beginning which brought harm to our economy, small businesses and the ability to just freely live life.

Mark Tedford- R

Has been a member of the House since Tedford missed almost half his votes in the House the last two years! He skipped the GOP-led candidate forum, refusing to face off with his opponents. Wonder what he was afraid of? His inability to show up and choices in the above decisions make his leadership questionable in my opinion. On the OK Grassroots 2025 Scorecard, which evaluated 149 House bills, he only scored a 30.85% for conservative voting. That score was the LOWEST score of all 81 Republicans in the entire state House of Representatives! Worse, 8 of the 20 Democrats in the state House voted more in accordance with the Republican platform than Republican State Representative Mark Tedford.

Of over 930 something bills he was supposed to have voted on during the 2025 and 2026 sessions in the State Legislature, he missed 427! How is that okay? How do you miss almost half of your votes? Well, for one, he took a vacation during one of the February May sessions. Why would you schedule your vacation DURING your session which only lasts 4 months? Then this year, he was on the campaign trail working to get this higher position rather than showing up for work. He wins the award for the most missed votes for 2026. I think he has shown us enough about who he is.

John Croisant D

A current member of the Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education representing District 5. He served as Vice President and later President of the TPS School Education Board under the failed leadership of former Superintendent Deborah Gist who resigned in August 2023. Even during that turmoil, Croisant continued to defend Gist and her failing policies. He clearly has been unable to see when something is failing and action when action needed to see change. That is a huge concern.

Jed Cochran R

Jed served as Northeast Oklahoma Field Representative and District Director for U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe with some varied experience in that position and in 2014 as a senior advisor and then political director for Rep Steve Russell. From 2019 to 2023, he served as Chief of Intergovernmental Relations for Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum for the city of Tulsa. Currently he is a partner and lobbyist for Capitol Ventures Government Relations. Hmmm.

Dan Rooney DROPPED OUT

Nathan Butterfield R

Endorsed by Tulsa Sheriff Vic Regalado.

Kim David R

She is currently the OK Corporation Commissioner. In 2022, 28% of her total campaign donations received were from energy-related PAC/lobbyist money. Really a BAD look for someone supposedly working for the good of Oklahomans. She recently said that she thought Oklahoma was doing everything right concerning data centers and argued they would not increase energy costs for Oklahomans, but statistics show that data centers are raising utility bills by around 30% wherever they go. When asked at a recent meeting about receiving over $100,000 in lobbyist money, David actually said she had no idea where her campaign contributions came from. All the above disqualifies her in my opinion. One of the most disturbing was her lead to table a bill that many citizens had showed up to have heard on the Floor and she pushed that it would be tabled without even being heard. The bill was regarding abortion. Click here to see what happened.

Courtney Gill R

A newbie to the political field, but she did well in the candidate forums. She knew about issues and was able to give solid responses. In my opinion, she is not ready to be elected YET but someone to keep our eye on for the future.

Todd Woods - R

Another one, who with a little more seasoning, could make a good showing in the next

Nancy Dyson R

Lacks discernment into people and issues.

Paul Royse R

Kelly Walsh - R

U.S. HOUSE Dist 2 Our Choice - Josh Brecheen (incumbent) - R

Will Webb R

Erik Terwey D

Brandon Wade D

Ronnie Hopkins I

U.S. HOUSE Dist 3 more next issue

Our Choice - Wade Burleson R

He holds a degree in Business Administration and Finance from East Central University and is the president of Istoria Ministries, a Christian nonprofit and was appointed by Frank Keating to the Higher Education Program Board in 1996. He ran against Lucas before and is now running again. Good job Wade. We need someone who stands for Oklahoma values in this position!

Frank Lucas (incumbent) R

Continues to show who he is as he has voted with Democrats to earmark funding supporting abortion, gender transition procedures on children, DEI activism, and partisan pet projects and also voted often to send money to Ukraine in which we all know there was virtually no oversight of where those millions went.

Jules Roberson D

Roberson identifies herself as an avowed progressive and a Democratic Socialist, advocating for universal healthcare, abolishing ICE, mass amnesty.

Suzie Byrd D

She is a former reporter for the Enid News & Eagle. She launched the “Purple Campaign,”

U.S. HOUSE Dist 4 More in the next issue.

Our Choice - Marcie Everhart R

fresh air in the midst of this district that has been held by Cole for too long.

Take a listen to Everhart: https://bit.ly/RopeReportEverhart

Tom Cole (incumbent) R

He has served in this position since 2003. His claims to be conservative are not holding up when voters would do some research. He has voted with Democrats to earmark funding supporting abortion, gender transition procedures on children, DEI activism, and partisan pet projects. All that money that our federal govt voted to send to Ukraine? You can thank Cole for that as he was for it. Time for his district to vote him out.

Mitchell Jacob D

Jeff Pixley D

Rocco Bonacci - I

U.S. HOUSE Dist 5 Stephanie Bice (incumbent) R

Jena Nelson D

Trey Martin D

Robert P. Henri I

Austin Nieves I

OK GOVERNOR: OUR CHOICE - Mike Mazzei R

But through the last few months, he has definitely shared his detailed plans to reshape the state, lower taxes, and turn our educational system around. His campaign, in my opinion, has been decisive with details, not just promises. However, his initial announcement regarding the Inola smelter for the needed aluminum and jobs it would create didn’t fly well with many of us because it appears he didn’t actually negotiate the deal and created AI commercials as if he negotiated the deal and was buddies with Hillary Clinton. All fake. LOL He did go further into his thoughts regarding the smelter which can be read here.

Jake Merrick - R

Merrick was my first choice initially and a strong fighter for conservative values. I still really like him, but after watching his campaign, I believe it would be in our best interest if he got a little more seasoned in some areas and then run in another 4 or 8 years, depending on who wins in November. I pray that his strong but small group of supporters don’t just split the vote from Mazzei. Some Mazzei supporters were overheard discussing their goal and efforts per social media to keep Merrick in the race to take Mazzei’s votes so Mazzei could be in the runoff. While it appears Merrick has had a surge in the last week, elections are math and he just doesn’t have the numbers expected to split the vote largely because he didn’t have the money to compete in the millionaires club. His creative run across Oklahoma didn’t register with the media and probably would see no different now.

Chip Keating R

And just nothing excited me with him. Plus, his approval of surveillance flock cameras across the state is an issue. When and if he doesn’t see how they are being used against us? It means he either doesn’t have discernment or he is good with the surveillance. Either way it’s not enough to get him across the finish line, because like myself, I had mixed feelings about his dad, as I do with Chip.

Gentner Drummond R

He is certainly the individual with the most money and most business experience of any of the candidates in the race. He is probably one of the strongest leaders, but still not my first choice. As Attorney General didn’t like his stand regarding the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School. Neither did some of the other Supreme Court members. Justice Alito really took him to task over it. I did like his creation of the Organized Crime Task Force to combat cartels and crime syndicates and his work to clean up the illegal marijuana grows that have peppered our state.

I have been frustrated over issues such as the case against the police officer who threw a 71-year-old man to the ground which resulted in his death, and the fact he was named the Secularist of the Week at one point by The Freedom from Religion Foundation which doesn’t exactly warm my heart. There is still the issue of he/his wife gave to Biden in 2020. And his campaign’s calls for Democrats to change their registration to Republican to vote for him is what has helped create the UniParty issue.

Charles McCall R

During his tenure as Speaker of the House in the Oklahoma Legislature, McCall blocked numerous conservative bills from ever seeing the light of day. As House leader, he green-lit SB 36X, handcuffing then-Superintendent Ryan Walters to the budget of his Democratic predecessor, Joy Hofmeister. No incoming leader should ever be held to the plans/budget of their predecessor. It appeared he simply had a personal agenda there and was hell-bent on using his position to do whatever served his purposes rather than what served the best purposes of Oklahomans. Hardly what we need in someone in the governor’s seat. McCall’s continual claim to be conservative is laughable when looking at his conservative index voter guide and can’t get past the banana.

Cyndi Munson D

She is currently the House Minority Leader and Representative for HD85 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. She has taken over $113,000 in PAC lobbyist money and aren’t we tired of elected officials who are taking lobbyist money for their votes?

Leisa Haynes R

She is a former city manager and Main Street program administrator with experience in local government and community development. She has a lot of spunk to her and has some good ideas. Doesn’t have a chance of winning and not my first choice anyway. But an A for effort.

Kenneth Sturgell R

A very nice guy and obviously a good heart running for the right reasons. I just never got the sense when I listened to him that he had the ability to do the job.

Jennifer Domenico R

Calup Anthony Taylor R

Connie Johnson D

Arya D

Jerry Griffin I

Previously a member of the Tulsa Public School Board of Education from 2020-24 until his resignation. In 2022 he ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Tulsa City Council. Several sites announced he was running for Superintendent of Public Schools in this election, which with his background seems a better fit, but he actually filed for the governor’s race. Haven’t heard much from him since.

Robert E Brooks Sr I

The lack of information on this guy, makes this candidate a laughable choice. He will show up on the general election ballot in November only because he ran as an independent and they have no primary election.

Orlando Bush I

OK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR:

There is more than one good candidate in this race—

Our Choice Justin (JJ) Humphrey R

He has been serving in the Oklahoma House since 2017. If JJ is elected, we will see this position really become important as the Lieutenant Governor becomes the deciding vote in a tie in the Legislature and would be doing so much more than just marketing the state. It’s been a fluff job. He has been actively going after corruption in our state for the last several years exposing the corruption in DHS and bringing about a change of leadership there. He has been exposing corruption in the district attorney offices across the state and fighting for Oklahomans. The current controlling establishment run by Hilbert in the OK House hate him so much because he can’t be bought. When Humphrey was scheduled to give his farewell speech in the House, they managed to ensure the House camera was not broadcasting his speech to the public! These guys fear him because he has been a fierce advocate for uncovering corruption. We need him.

Darrell Weaver R

Has been serving as a state senator for Oklahoma since 2018. He is former law enforcement as an Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics agent for almost 30 years and has been a small business owner. He would probably be my second choice.

David Ostrowe R

David is Governor Stitt’s Chief Operating Officer for Oklahoma. Not sure that’s a good thing in my book because of my mixed feelings on Gov. Stitt at this stage. He is a Navy vet and has a wealth of business experience and has grown many companies.

T.W. Shannon R

I have always wondered about the hype around T.W. Admittedly he looks good and sounds good, but what has he actually done that is worthwhile for our state in the last 4-5 years? But to hear him talk, you would think he saved Oklahoma with one hand tied behind his back. Let’s remember he did help write the Amicus brief that brought us the McGirt Decision and the division that has come from that. And he was mentored by Tom Cole, who doesn’t hold true conservative values based on his voting record and stance.

When TW filed to run for Lt Gov, it appears he still owed $50,000 from his last campaign that had not been settled. But he recently attended a $40,000/plate fundraiser for JD Vance? Perhaps that money would have been better spent paying back the previous campaign? Recently at a candidate forum, T.W. got mad that one of the candidates was allowed to show up late and so walked out. What we can see from actions like that are immature candidates, who if elected would be immature elected officials representing us. They tell us who they really are and the lack of maturity when they don’t get their way.

Brian Hill R

He has served in the OK House since 2018 in District 47 which includes parts of OKC, Mustang and Tuttle. He created the Oklahoma ONE Plan which includes his strategy to strengthen the economy by investing in infrastructure, expanding workforce development, supporting small businesses, grow tourism, and attract new opportunities creating 10 distinct regional economic hubs to help all 77 counties thrive.

Victor Flores R

I think would be extremely hard for him to do well in this position if elected.

Kelly Forbes D

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Our Choice Jon Echols R

Choosing Echols not because he is a perfect candidate, but a better one than his opponents in my opinion. Of the things I have appreciated is how he helped stop a Senate bill to allow Drivers Licenses for illegals. And he helped fast track a bill that ensured Oklahoma would not be bound by requirements or mandates issued by World Health Organization, but we would remain to determine what is best for the state.

Jeff Starling R

Starling hasn’t shown up for several forums/debates with his opponents. What is he hiding? He obviously doesn’t want to be in a conversation with those he is running against to let the voters do a comparison. His work as a litigator for an organization that worked for Clinton and Obama is a concern as is my frustration which his determination to NOT pursue justice for Oklahomans regarding vaccine-related detriment and mandates. The evidence is overwhelming of the harm for many Oklahomans hospitalized during that time and those in nursing homes where families were blocked from seeing them and sometimes beneficial drugs blocked. Starling doesn’t see this as important. Maybe he should tell that to the families who lost loved ones over it.

Winner will face off with Nick Coffey D in November.

STATE TREASURER Our Choice - Todd Russ (incumbent) R

Todd has done a really good job in this position and there is no reason to fix what isn’t broken.

Cindy Byrd R

I think Cindy did a great job as auditor and taking on some really hard tasks. The last minute move to run for this position after running for months for lt governor, probably lost me.

Kiefer Perry L

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Our Choice Dr. James Taylor R

a History and Government teacher, community leader, pastor, he has lived the need for a change. His priorities center on improving academic outcomes, strengthening support for teachers, and building genuine partnerships with parents who wants to focus on teacher shortages, practical legislative solutions, and accountable spending that improves student outcomes. Something we currently don’t have.

2nd choice John Cox R

My concern with Cox, is although I like him overall, his performance as a superintendent in a smaller school district didn’t show anything outstanding in their results. So why should we expect suddenly in a bigger pond he can produce results? I think he could do the job but don’t think necessarily spectacular results.

Toni Hasenbeck R

Has been in the OK House since 2018. Since filing she has made the claim that she is the most conservative representative we have. She did like her Women’s Bill of Rights bill that she authored. However her voting record doesn’t put her as the most conservative representative. Her Conservative Index score is just 62%. When you did down part of the reason when she voted for HB 3379 to prevent state universities from being able to research if a student applying had a criminal background.

Adam Pugh RINO and appears ineligible per a previous ruling.

Has been part of OK Senate since 2016. He co-chaired the Economic and Workforce Committee on the Legislative Joint Committee to determine who would receive state ARPA funds (Pandemic Relief Funds). With his help, $10 million went to the Oklahoma Arts Council where his wife works. THAT kind of stuff is what we want to see quit happening. Also, Pugh shouldn’t be able to run at this time for state Superintendent because compensation for the position was increased during Pugh’s senate term. Meaning if he won, he was essentially voting in a raise for himself. This was prohibited in the case of Fair v. State Election Board (1994) which mirrors the current situation with Senator Pugh. In that case State Senator Mike Fair was prohibited from running mid-term for State Labor Commissioner because compensation for the labor commissioner position had been increased during Fair’s senate term. He terms out of his senate seat in 2028, so this simply looks like he is looking how to stay in politics. Yuck.

Jennettie Marshall D

She has served on the Tulsa School Education Board. She really worked hard for Tulsa families in this position, but too many positions on which I disagree with her.

Robert Franklin R

Debra A. Herlihy R

William E Crozier R

Craig McVay D

LABOR COMMISSIONER will share my reasons in next issue.

Our Choice Kevin West R

Fought for Oklahomans when he and Rep Tom Gann filed a brief asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to overturn $98 million in rate increases for Oklahoma Natural Gas (ONG) well as billions of the utility’s ratepayer-backed bonds. The rates were approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) and then commissioner Todd Hiett. Running West’s brief claimed the OCC failed to perform lawful audits of ONG’s bonds in every rate case since the bonds were issued.

Additionally, in December 2025, with Rep. Rick West, R-Heavener, Gann and Kevin West asked the court to overturn a $127 million rate increase and $760 million in winter storm bonds for customers of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E). Now THAT is the kind of action we want to see from our representatives who are standing up for us!

Lisa Janloo R

Her huge support of Otis Moses (D) makes me question why. He has donated to her as well, but politically it doesn’t appear they should be on the same page, but evidently they are.

John Pfeiffer R

Keith Swinton R

Kevin Dawson D

Mike Hall L

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER will share my reasons in next issue.

Our Choice Greta Shuler R

She is self-funded and has the kind of grit we need to bring needed change. Some say she doesn’t have the insurance experience needed. I disagree. She has been in insurance for around 15 years and has been a small business owner for several years as well. So she knows the importance of working for Oklahomans and not the big insurance companies. She also has a pretty ingenious plan on how to lower insurance rates, by working with fire depts to lower homeowners’ fire ratings (ISO ratings) to get response rates down so ratings are lower and insurance rates are lower as well. Something that hasn’t been said.

Bob Sullivan R

Has more of an insurance company backer compared to Quinn and Meredith and has the needed experience to do the job. However, one of his biggest endorsements is from RINO Chris Kannady, who called conservative Republicans in the OK House names. And if Kannady likes Sullivan, it tells us a lot.

Marty Quinn R

The biggest issue with Quinn is that his home is in Arkansas and his insurance license is for Arkansas as well. Evidently, he has been renting a house in Oklahoma to campaign here to see if he could win the seat and then move back to Arkansas. It seems he is the pick of the current insurance commissioner whose opinion I don’t hold in high regard who in my opinion stood firmly with the big insurance companies. That right there makes me think we would have a 2.0 version if Quinn were elected, which would not be good for Oklahomans, but great for insurance companies. No thanks.

Chris Meridith R

By his own admission he has been a lobbyist for State Farm. Need I say more? No way. We need someone fighting for US not the big insurance companies.

Craig MacIntyre D

He has around 30 years experience in many different areas of the insurance business which would be helpful in the position. He says his plan is to lower insurance rates but doesn’t share specifics. He was the only one I heard who shared specifics.

CORPORATION COMMISSIONER Our Choice Justin Hornback R

This guy gets an award for sticking with it as he has run for this office twice before. Maybe the third time is the charm. He has 20 years experience in pipeline welding industry which has included being an inspector and knowledge in regulations, safety, energy generation and transmission pipelines which would all be helpful.

Brad Boles R

He has served in the Oklahoma House for the last 6 or 7 years. His previous experience includes being a mayor and serving as former Chairman of the Board of OK Manufacturing Alliance. His grassroots voting record leaves something to be desired and his support of the Green energy scam voting yes on a law that apparently exempts solar and wind companies from property taxes.

Harold D. Spradling D

Rhonda Eastman D

Donald Anthony Clytus D

Question: Has this information been useful? If so, please consider chipping in $5-$10 or more to help us continue do the research & publish these guides. We exist based on donations. Awake Oklahoma is a 501c4 non-profit. But donations are NOT tax deductible. Help us continue! Donate at: https://bit.ly/DonateAwakeOklahoma

OKLAHOMA LEGISLATORS:

House of Representatives watch for more races and info in the June edition.

HD 6

Our Choice - Amber Ellis R

Rusty Cornwell - R

Eli Richard - R

HD 8

Our Choice Tom Gann R (incumbent)

Tom Gann’s record of service and fight for his constituents speaks for itself. Here is just one example of how he has fought for Oklahomans when he and Rep Kevin West filed a brief asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to overturn $98 million in rate increases for Oklahoma Natural Gas as well as billions of the utility’s ratepayer-backed bonds. The rates were approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) and then commissioner Todd Hiett.

Running Gann’s brief claimed the OCC failed to perform lawful audits of ONG’s bonds in every rate case since the bonds were issued. Gann filed a similar brief asking the Court to overturn $250 million in rate increases and some $700 million in ratepayer-backed bonds that the OCC had approved for Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO).

Additionally, in December 2025, with Rep. Rick West, R-Heavener, Gann and Kevin West asked the court to overturn a $127 million rate increase and $760 million in winter storm bonds for customers of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E). Now THAT is the kind of action we want to see from our representatives who are standing up for us!

Todd Rice

HD 9

Our Choice Scotty Stokes R

Endorsed by Rogers County GOP, Stokes is the director of Rogers County Emergency Management with 30 years experience as a fire captain and paramedic.

Debbie Long R

Her record as Claremore mayor and the recall effort against her by citizens speaks for itself.

Crystal Campbell - R

Winner will face off with Andrea Biscardi D in the general in November.

HD10

Our Choice Jake Bair R

Lives in the Skiatook area and is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Said he refuses to take lobbyist money and completely supports the Constitution.

Judd Strom R incumbent

Liberal as a public Ukrainian with a conservative voting record of around 53%. So only a Republican about half the time. LOL.

Cuen Funderburke R

Winner will face off with Isaac Mattox D in November.

HD 11

Our Choice - Wendi Stearman R

Earned a conservative index score of 100% for the past two years.

John Kane R

Could not be as a bad choice but his voting record in areas such as economic development and growing the government not as conservative as Stearman.

HD12

Our Choice Mark Chapman R (incumbent)

More could be said for probably everyone. He is working to get back with his constituents when they call and understand the issues in Wagoner County. That’s a good thing and I believe him to be a good man who wants to do the right thing and is honest.

Sandy Hodges R

Currently the tax assessor for Wagoner County. Why has she not publicized to seniors that they can fill out an application to freeze their property taxes? (You can.) Seems like that would be helpful for citizens. At every meeting where I have heard her campaigning, she states she isn’t the one who determines how much our homes will be taxed. Of course she is. Yes there is software that gives guidelines, but if that is all she is doing is going by what the software says and not actually doing anything else but running software figures, then we can get a secretary to do that. The job is supposed to have EVALUATION based on the property. It’s dishonest to say she isn’t responsible because isn’t SHE the one who sits before the Equalization Board to defend their assessments?

She was formerly the Wagoner County State Committee person. But in that elected position, she missed several State Committee meetings which she had been elected to attend. When that was exposed, she claimed she hadn’t missed a meeting in years. The problem was she was referring to a monthly community meeting and we were talking the meetings she was elected to attend and she knew it. That’s just not honest, and honesty is certainly needed in an elected official. She’s a no.

HD14

Our Choice Roy Timmons R

Chris Sneed

The winner of the election will face off with Jeremiah Gantz D in November.

HD29

Our Choice - Brian Jackson R

This is more about a hard no against Hilbert. Anyone would be better. Vote Brian Jackson!

Kyle Hilbert Incumbent RINO

Hilbert repeatedly used his position as Speaker of the House to block conservative bills that NEEDED to be heard. He flexed his muscles to block bills as political retribution against those who made him mad to prove he could. What a child. Marzipan area dark represents at this point he only represents his own self-serving ideals and oh yeah, the lobbyists. Of ALL the Representatives in the State House he took the most money from lobbyists. Almost $250K. Bought and paid for? Working for Oklahomans or lobbyists? Check it out. https://moganetwork.com/research#chart-house-overview

HD32

Our CHOICE Jim Shaw R (incumbent)

Shaw is one of the strongest leaders and fighters we currently have in the House. He put together the Save Oklahoma Plan and has fought to ensure Oklahoma is protected. Liberal leadership worked to keep his bills from getting hearings on the Floor. His punishment for not going along with them but also proves that he is fighting for us against them!

Jack Vaughn R

HD33

Our Choice Molly Jenkins R

B.J. Roberson R

HD 36

Our Choice Jenni White R

Jenni has been in the fight to expose corruption and get election integrity back into Oklahoma. In fact she was on the Oklahoma County Election Board and got removed for her efforts to expose corruption. Think about that for a moment. She is a researcher who stands for conservative values.

John George

Joe Sarge Nelson

Winner will face off with Leslie Hellebuyck D in November.

HD 36

Our Choice Philip Weiland R

A political newbie, but sure seems like we need someone else in this position after Maka’s report showed his overall conservative voting score in 2025 was just 36%!

John Haste R (incumbent)

His authorship of SQ833, was rejected by Oklahoma voters 61% -38% which would have put infrastructure fees into our property taxes. Anyway you mix it his plan was to give us more taxes and project developers bigger financial breaks. Maka’s report said he believes Spoke’s Weiland simply confuses voters when he voted no. Now get this he did not want more taxes and developers should be paying. Now THAT is getting tax payers should be paying.

In my opinion Haste has done little to help his district.

Winner will face off with Rick Larsen D in November.

HD 38 covering parts of Grant, Garfield, Kay, Logan, and Noble counties.

this race we have two. We like them both. You decide.

Our Choice Brian Hobbs R

2nd time around running for this seat and lots of momentum. He has lots of varied experience. He has been a former mayor of Newkirk, OK. He is the former GOP Chair for Kay County and currently the Congressional District 3 Vice Chair. He is an Army veteran and very active in his local area.

Our 2nd Choice Michael Norman R

Resides in Logan county. He is a former teacher and a small business owner. He is against lobbyist money.

Jim Neal R

He previously ran for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2008 as a Democrat.

Madison Bolay R

Received significant funding from the Oklahoma Conservative Coalition and direct contributions from the Hilliary family, who are linked to broadband grants.

Suzanne Callihan R

Danielle Deterding R

The winner will face off with Doyle Lewis (D) in November.

HD40

Our Choice Chris Banning (incumbent) R

Banning is still relatively new to this seat and so I will give grace in the areas I think he just missed it. But he needs to do better and more consistent with his voting record and his research. But the his opponent below is a hard no.

Casey Sutterfield (Grippando) RINO

She filed under the name Sutterfield, but her legal name is Casey Grippando. Her posts on Facebook under her real name reveal her hobbies include pole dancing, bashing and lying about Charlie Kirk and supporting Hamas and Oct 7 massacre of Israelis. No wonder she has a different name to run under or it is her real name and the other her dance name? If a candidate can’t even be honest in their filing how do we trust anything about them?

HD42

Our Choice Kaity Keith R

Cindy Roe

HD47

Our Choice - Kevin Warnemuende R

Toby Thompson R

Kevin Simon R

Kevan Gentry R

Indigo Oliver D

HD69

Our Choice Angela Strohm R

She has pledged to refuse lobby special interest money. She promotes defending property rights and stopping the forced data centers which have lacked transparency especially in the Tulsa area. She wants to see free turnpikes and is a conservative fighter. She can’t be bribed and is hard worker. She won’t bow to the Establishment and she has remained active in her volunteer work for Oklahoma. She supports pro-life and 2nd amendment among other things.

Carrie DeWeese R

A political outsider, new to this arena and making a good show for her this entry. She is a real estate agent and Chairperson for the National Association of Home Builders Professional Women in Building Council between 2003-2008.

Cody Nichols R

A marine corp veteran and an advocate for increasing limiting govt overreach, for Parental Choice Tax Credit and while increasing teacher compensation. He supports the Second Amendment and pro-life.

Sheila Dills R

She already served in this seat once from 2018 through 2022. Her Freedom Index voting score was 60% during that time. Sheila has all the establishment players behind her, which makes her not my choice as I want someone who will consistently vote conservative, not as told and not a puppet.

HD 86

Our Choice David Hardin R (incumbent)

David has done a great job, quick to respond and has fought for his constituents. No need for a change here.

Ryan Martin

HD98-

Our Choice Gabe Woolley R (incumbent)

Gabe has proven to be a fierce advocate for justice and for the people of Oklahoma. He actually talks/listens to the needs of his constituents and researches, researches, researches.

Dean Davis

With MiOSS and questionable behavior toward law enforcement revealing an entitlement attitude when he was previously in this position, there is nothing that should change in his thought process and probably would see no different now. He didn’t even bother to campaign until two weeks before the election. Can we say lazy? We have a really great representative (Gabe Woolley) in HD98 so why would revert to the previous?

Question: Has this information been useful? If so, please consider chipping in $5-$10 or more to help us continue do the research & publish these guides. We exist based on donations. Awake Oklahoma is a 501c4 non-profit. But donations are NOT tax deductible. Help us continue! Donate at: https://bit.ly/DonateAwakeOklahoma

State Senators

SD2 -

Our Choice Payton Pepin R

This is as much a choice of NO WAY for Seifried as it is a thumbs up for Pepin. He has vowed to not accept lobbyist money and will fight the green energy scam but instead promote real energy sovereignty.

Ally Seifried R (RINO)

Seifried is bad news all the way around. She claims to be a Trump conservative, but the number of hard-core Trump-hating Democrats that donate to her seems to negate that claim. Plus, her vote to continue to give SNAP benefits to illegals when our ability for SNAP benefits is already compromised in the state, makes her a no. Her conservative voting record is 37% and has taken over $130,000 in PAC money which tells the story about who she really is.

The winner of the above race will face Winner will face off with Randy Cowling D in the general election.

SD4

Our Choice Kenny Smith R

Kenny has the heart of someone who wants integrity and a fighter working for them. You need someone who will not only show up but has been doing good work and full of integrity. That is Smith.

Tom Woods - R

He joined the Air National Guard six months AFTER being elected and went to Japan and Virginia being “deployed.” Why? If he was elected to do a job, why would you do that there? How could he be there to do the job? That was not a good decision because he was elected to represent his constituents, but then he isn’t there half the time. When he was, it was pretty worthless. He voted to increase utility bills for utility projects yet to be built! (SB998) He voted yes for wind turbines to be able to be built ¼ mile from your front door (SB2). He voted yes to allow international corporations to lobby for your tax dollars to fund their corporations as long as they register with the OK Sec of State. (HB 2762) What??? And also voted to increase the spending budget in Oklahoma by $200 million (SB1177). He definitely needs to go!

The winner will face Ellen Cuff D in the general election.

SD10 Osage, Kay and Tulsa

Our Choice - Jadan Terrazas - R

Conservative Christian and Constitutionalist. He is pro small govt and wants to work to see lower taxes. He has made a pledge that he will not take lobbyist money. Gone be bought out by dark money like the candidate he is running against. He doesn’t support the smelter and defends land owner rights.

Bill Coleman R Incumbent HORRIBLE

This guy needs to go. He voted yes on a bill that would give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants which would have rewarded illegal border-crossers with official state identification, with all of its implications such as potentially giving drug cartels and human-smugglers easier access to banking and financial systems. Instead of protecting our borders, Coleman helped advance the agenda of those who violate our laws. He wrote the bill (SB1620) for license-plate scanners that would unleash a surveillance state and Orwellian mass-tracking technology across Oklahoma! Fortunately, only a handful of senators voted with him! Last he voted for a bill that forced social workers (including those serving our schools) to embrace progressive “gender-affirming ideology”. If a social worker chose to provide counseling consistent with biblical teaching on sexuality, they could be branded as “unethical” and the state could potentially censure them or even yank their license to practice.

SD12

Our Choice - Craig Stump R

Endorsed by OK2A supporting the 2nd Amendment and OKGOP Certified. Formerly a deputy for Greer County sheriff’s dept and worked for American Airlines for over 30 years. He stands against the Green energy scam and taking on Gollihare because thank God someone needed to.

Todd Gollihare

He coauthored and voted yes for bill to increase your electricity bills to pay for utility companies projects that are YET TO BE BUILT. There is no end/termination date with it. Voted for 700 foot wind turbines to be allowed to be built a quarter mile from homes. Voted for solar companies to have 50 years leases on CLO (commissioners of the land office) land while the cattle industry only allowed five year leases! Mad yet?

Winner will face off with Erika Watkins D- in November

SD26

Our Choice Brady Butler R

Rich Koch - R

Jessica Winegeart R

SD 28

Our Choice Robert Trimble R

Grant Green - R

Absolutely not! He was behind SB224 for a work for efficient and sufficient solution. Sounds great EXCEPT what it really did was create a way to collect data on all public school kids and it could then be shared with 3rd party entities.

SD32

Our Choice Dusty Deevers R

Jean Hausheer

Curtis Erwin

SD34

Our choice would be either Prieto or Taylor.

Sen. Dana Prieto R incumbent

Pros and cons with Prieto. His freshman year less than stellar in my opinion, he was listening to many of the wrong people and making many poor votes. His voting record his sophomore year has been much better if you are looking for a conservative candidate. His work to expose the corruption in DHS along with Rep. JJ Humphrey, on the other hand was awesome. He took a lot of flack over it, but kept pushing through. The result was the director had to step down thanks Sen. Prieto for that!

Kent Taylor R

Recorded as having good integrity of these other three candidates and so can only go by what they say or what we can find. However, that being said, I like Taylor a lot. He is a business professional and former executive at Helmerich and Payne with 30 years in finance and international business management. He has negotiated multi-million dollar contracts with his work in Venezuela for example and says he can’t be bribed if elected because they tried in Venezuela plenty of times.

Aaron Forst R

Ran as a Democrat for the House around eight years ago. Now running as a Republican. Doesn’t seem to have changed his stance much. I definitely like Taylor or Prieto better from what I’ve heard.

Brent Driskill - R

Most likely there will be a runoff in August and then the winner of that race will go to the general election where they will face:

Amy Hossain D

SD42

Our Choice - Melana Bracht R

Brenda Stanley - R

GARFIELD COUNTY:

County Commissioner Dist 3

OUR CHOICE NeAnne Clinton R

Clinton actually helped Maly get elected and is now running against him. She has been a fierce defender researching and protecting citizens not only in Garfield but other counties regarding the issues of the solar farms popping up and how many have negatively impacted our communities and why. She is a Yes. Yes. And Yes. Garfield you need NeAnne in this position to fight for you and protect your county!

Clarence Maly - R

Removed the right for citizens to speak at meetings to silence any opposition. Admitted to signing contracts without reading them first! He signed for the transmission lines Cimarron Link with inventory.

KAY COUNTY

District 8 Office 1 - Judge

OUR CHOICE Scott Loftis

Once he announced his conservative leaning, one of his opponents went calling him a bigot because he said ideology absolutely matters. Because they absolutely matter. Loftis is a good man, a man of integrity who can be trusted. I believe he is the best choice for Dist 8.

Rob Davis

Lee Turner

NOBLE COUNTY

Distict 8 Judge

OUR CHOICE Scott Loftis

Once he announced his conservative leaning, one of his opponents went calling him a bigot because he said ideology absolutely matters. Because they absolutely matter. Loftis is a good man, a man of integrity who can be trusted. I believe he is the best choice for Dist 8.

Rob Davis

Lee Turner

OKLAHOMA COUNTY:

Oklahoma County Assessor

Our Choice - Larry Stein R - incumbent

He boldly called out the $1 million arrow in Oklahoma County clerk’s office. I know saying he is a great choice but you have only the three candidates and he is by far a better choice than the other two. Gibbons past issues, would make me stay with Stein.

John Gibbons D

He has not held an elected position but ran for HD88 in 2014 where he was defeated in the primary. Perhaps because he was hit with a DUI from a 2012 arrest when suspects were not charged at the time because highway patrol troopers failed to turn in paperwork to prosecutors. Seems rather convenient that it was unfound during the guy’s campaign in 2014. Nevertheless that is an issue and we don’t need another elected official with an alcohol problem. We already have enough of that in our current Oklahoma legislature of drinking on the job. Why add to it?

Ferlin Kearns R - Horrible

The Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce endorsed Kearns despite his previous criminal record and lack of paying taxes in previous years. What it looks like is the good old boy system at work simply in place. He appears on personal experience with him to be a puppet who does no research or verification before he opens his mouth to make statements or cast a vote. Probably why the Chamber likes him. If you want transparency and accountability Kearns is NOT your guy.

OSAGE COUNTY

SD10 Osage, Kay and Tulsa

Our Choice - Jadan Terrazas

Conservative Christian and Constitutionalist. He is pro small govt and wants to work to see lower taxes. He has made a pledge that he will not take lobbyist money. Won’t be bought out by dark money like the candidate he is running against. He doesn’t support the smelter and defends land owner rights.

Bill Coleman R Incumbent - HORRIBLE

USQHKLb5ggvHCMKMmgPMCgv5MCM5cg1LCCfQcgCMK.)5Cd3-)SM$)v.QPg.H-Qcg5HgHCM illegal immigrants which would have rewarded illegal border-crossers with official state identification, with all of its implications such as potentially giving drug cartels and human-smugglers easier access to banking and financial systems. Instead of protecting our borders, Coleman helped advance the agenda of those who violate our laws. He wrote the bill (SB1620) for license-plate scanners that would unleash a surveillance state and Orwellian mass-tracking technology across Oklahoma! Fortunately, only a handful of senators voted with him! Last he voted for a bill that forced social workers (including those serving our schools) to embrace progressive “gender-affirming ideology”. If a social worker chose to provide counseling consistent with biblical teaching on sexuality, they could be branded as “unethical” and the state could potentially censure them or even yank their license to practice.

County Commissioner Dist 3

Our Choice Chad Ray R

Ran against Cartwright in 2022, but lost. He is now the only living candidate running in this race with the passing of incumbent Charlie Cartwright. This should be an easy choice, except Cartwright is on the ballot as he passed away after ballots were printed and someone is still putting out signs for him. Don’t waste your vote.

DEAD Charlie Cartwright R

Cartwright passed away May 11, but is still be on the ballot. Obviously can’t take office. Condolences to his family.

County Treasurer

Our Choice - Bridget West R

She is currently the 1st Deputy to the current Treasurer with over 4 years experience, and ten years experience in banking including time handling county business.

Shawna Myers R

Was elected to office of Osage County GOP Chairman in June 2023 and removed just over a year later after the County Committee lost confidence her ability to lead. She made 10 Amazon & TEMU purchases with Osage County GOP funds between the time of notification of meeting to remove (6/28/24) and 2 weeks after her removal (9/5/24). After 7 months retaining the remaining GOP funds, she returned $2471.63, short $450.33 with no treasurer reports, bank statements, few receipts and no leftover merchandise. Not a good track record for someone running for the position of treasurer.

ROGERS COUNTY

Rogers County Commissioner, Dist 1

Our Choice - Lane Brown R

Lane is young, but a fireball. He has been actively working and fighting for Rogers County and has consistently stood up against the data center and the nefarious actions of the Claremore crew trying to implement it and silence citizens who are speaking out against it. One thing is for sure Lane isn’t one to be silenced and will fight hard for what he believes in.

Duane Beawer R

Darren Andrews - R

Teddy Noland - R

Kenny Breshears R

Endorsed by the incumbent who supported the green energy scam and data centers. This shows a complete lack of discernment about what is really happening and the lack of transparency and alignment with Beale Infrastructure (which in the Coweta data center was proven they sent out fraudulent emails as if residents supporting the data center!) They are the same ones behind the Claremore data center. Good luck with that.

TULSA COUNTY

For additional information and rankings you can go to: https://bit.ly/TulsaCountyCandidates

Treasurer:

Our choice Brandon Shreffler R

Endorsed by Dr. Everett Piper who can also see we need fresh blood in this position. Shreffler is a political outsider with both the education and experience to do this job. He also is not a part of the good old boy network. He has grit and hard work. He has a Bachelor’s in Finance and MBA along with plenty of experience over the last 20 years in the private sector. He has already been doing research to protect Tulsa’s money and wants to know where that money is going! He would be a great fit for this position.

John M. Fothergill R (RINO) - Incumbent

Did you know he was the only vote against a pay raise for Tulsa County deputies? No I guess he didn’t think putting their lives on the line every day deserved more money, and yet it appears that HE has received a pay raise every year for the last 3 years or so. Like big pay raises. So pushing a pencil is more important than our deputies? Also, why not call and ask him where the excess money goes from your house auctions after the debt is paid. Also, as a treasurer, he seems really good at spending taxpayer dollars. For example, he paid $205,196 for a countertop renovation for his office. Must have been some kind of amazing granite? And also there needs to be an investigation of over $2 million in software and professional services over the past four years paid for from what are extremely generic, vague invoices. Is there any oversight happening? This guy needs to go. Vote for Shreffler!

County Commissioner, Dist 1

Our Choice Idris Shelby R

He has only been on my radar for a short time, but I like what I have seen. He was in the US Air Force for 11 years and is now a healthcare and business professional with more than a decade of leadership experience. He holds multiple degrees, including an MBA in Healthcare and Administration and doctoral work in Christian education and leadership from Liberty University. This guy doesn’t carry baggage like his opponent does! Really anyone would be better than Sallee after he sold Tulsa down the river.

Stan Sallee Incumbent R

Who is Stan Sallee? Someone lacking discernment. He was the county commissioner who opened the door for Project Clydesdale data center in Tulsa working closely with Beale which we now know of their nefarious actions in Coweta (Project Anthem) creating fake emails from residents saying they were behind the data center to try to get it approved. He signed the NDA that started this mess and has continued to advocate for Beale ever since. His staunch support of Karen Keith (D) for mayor after the coverup of the Tulsa Juvenile Center debacle is another red flag. Then he appointed her to INCOG where he just happens to be the Chair. Those two are just linked at the hip. Voters already said they didn’t want her but he was determined to keep giving her some voice and voting power. We’ve seen enough of the damage to Tulsa.

Tulsa County District Attorney

Originally, I was not going to make a state this race, but the antics by the Kunzweiler team and the lack of truth from the Tulsa DA’s campaign, made it imperative that I make a choice.

OUR Choice Colleen McCarty R

She is the founder of Oklahoma Appleseed, an organization which she built here to advocate for justice. She has been running a team of lawyers through that organization she has built. Her HC are mostly liberal ideological more of a personal preference. But as I weigh the two candidates in the balance, I determined I would rather have a fighter willing to actually prosecute the bad guys and work to stomp out injustice than what we currently have in the position. McCarty has relentlessly fought to uncover the truth and protect the kids from the abuses exposed at the Tulsa Juvenile Center where her opponent, who SHOULD have been fighting for the kids, apparently was working to shut down that investigation. I experienced that personally when he tried to block an attempt by citizens to gather signatures to impanel a grand jury. A grand jury that ultimately could have investigated HIS office.

People may argue that McCarty doesn’t have the prosecutorial experience. Kunzweiler does. But what good is the experience when he doesn’t use it to prosecute but to make plea deals?

Questions about where Colleen stands? Seen the ugly memes? Click here for her responses: https://mccartyforda.com/thetruth/

Steve Kunzweiler R (Incumbent)

His constant claim that he is the only true conservative in the race and that I know a good prosecutor are completely false statements in my opinion. I’ve continually heard people complain that McCarty is a liberal and a gem of a Democrat. I started to investigate her months ago after some trusted, very conservative Republican legislators reached out to me and said she needed to be the next DA because of her strong stand for justice and going against injustice. It started me on a journey of investigation into both candidates.

One of my personal experiences with Kunzweiler was how he tried to intimidate a group of women at a meeting so they couldn’t sign the petition to impanel a grand jury regarding the Tulsa Juvenile Center. He told us it was a felony to sign the petition. I believe in a court of law that would be called obstruction of justice? In the meeting that day, after he warned the crowd about being careful about signing the petition, only four were brave enough to sign it out of about 60-70 who were there. Several told us they were too afraid of getting arrested if they did. Click here to hear the recording. He showed up at another club and did the same thing there.

The petition fell short of the needed signatures. I wonder why? That is indefensible.

Kunzweiler’s history shows he prefers plea deals to prosecution as you look at the Elliott Binney case.

In the recent, and much publicized case, Binney, who had four previous DUI incidences already had his lawyer, Allen Smallwood, working on a plea deal with Kunzweiler’s office. Then the 5th instance occurred. Binney, whose wife admitted he was drinking at the time, ran from the scene where his teen daughter died. According to a Rethink Reporter filing, Binney’s lawyer gave a $1000 donation to the Kunzweiler campaign. Later the DA’s office made a deal for Binney to receive a reduced sentence. Kunzweiler defended his actions during a public meeting claiming there was no public evidence Binney was drinking. However Binney’s own wife said he was drinking at the time of the accident, which was reported several places. Is Kunzweiler losing his memory? Or just not paying attention when he made statement? You have to wonder, but neither works for someone in this position. I have had numerous friends tell me of their frustration with the DA’s office where they feel they have been denied justice and their day in court. Add to that his attempts to try to prevent people from signing the petition for the grand jury which an investigation into the Tulsa Juvenile Center abuse and rapes would ultimately investigate his office as to why it took years for anything to happen. It was McCarty’s Oklahoma Appleseed group that launched into that investigation helping bring it to light NOT Kunzweiler.

Is Tulsa a safer place to live under Kunzweiler? Can Tulsans be assured they will receive justice after looking at his track record? I think Tulsans deserve better. Gotham City needs to go.

This race is so highly contested in my opinion because McCarty’s run for this office has been shining a light on how bad Tulsa County has become.

District 14 Judges (Tulsa county area)

Office 1:

Our Choice Caroline Wall

Tom Sawyer

Office 4:

Our Choice Phillip Peak

Received the District 12 Prosecutor of the Year award in 2024

Dustin Allen

I have concerns about some who endorsed him. Looks to be very tied into the system while Tulsans want justice not just the system.

Absolutely NOT - Loretta Radford

Judge Radford has repeatedly disparaged Republicans on her social media posts. Judges have to at least appear neutral for citizens to feel they have hope for justice within the courtroom. For obvious obvious disdain for Republicans raises the legitimate question for Republicans whether she could do that or not.

WAGONER COUNTY

County Commissioner Dist 1

James Hanning R - incumbent

Hanning has been the District 1 County Commissioner since 2011 when he ran for office out of frustration that roads were not getting repaired. So he ran, won and started working on the roads. I have toured the facility compared to the other districts and found a depth of organization and planning that I didn’t expect and the preparation and purchase of equipment that has helped keep District 1 prepared. He voted AGAINST the solar farms trying to invade our county and he REFUSED to sign the NDA he was pressured to sign regarding the data center they tried to bring into Coweta. He has been relentlessly attacked by some who want his seat and who seem willing to resort to any tactics to get it. I think Hanning has done a good job overall and certainly has run Dist 1 with more organization than Dist 3.

Terry Oard R

Terry was a state trooper for 20 years and then a successful small business owner. He decided to run after multiple frustrations and inconsistent answers in trying to file for a building permit from the planning commission. What should have been a relatively easy task wasn’t at all and he got the run around and couldn’t get the same answers twice on city/county requirements. Roads in his area are another reason he is running including one particular area, which is a high-risk stop where there have already been two fatalities. Terry already has some experience in the areas needed to do the job. He is running to get some things done where he feels they are not getting done.

Josh Stenros R a horrible choice

His job background doesn’t equate to experience for this office. He has none. We have had lots of personal experience with this man where he has proven to be a bully and quite willing to make outrageous claims in order to advance or achieve his agenda. The only good news about his running for office is that it has kept his mouth in check from his typical verbal assaults since he knows people are watching him through this campaign. When he loses, God help us all, for the probable return to his typical bullying behavior. He would be a disaster in any elected position. The dark money behind him is more testimony of who he is. James says No guys.

County Commissioner Dist 3

This race is a tough call because honestly these are some good men, each with unique experience that will be helpful for this position.

David Greeno - R

Was a city councilor in Porter for 10 years and asst. mayor for 4 years and then the mayor of Porter for 4 additional years. He has the most experience working with city and county government and budgets along with his experience with road construction and infrastructure needs. He courageously challenged the Election Board over Patrick Sampson’s candidacy when he claimed residency in Dist 3 to qualify to run when all indications have shown Sampson could not be living where he claimed.

Johnny Walker - R

Has worked for the railroad for years and has benefited from learning about new technology available that is equally applicable to road construction. This knowledge can save time and money and he believes will provide better quality than the present technologies in use. He has extensive experience in working with the tribal grants, not just government grants, helping us to utilize money already available that we are not yet taking advantage of.

Donnie Yocham R

Has lived in Wagoner County since he was 11 years old. He has owned and managed his own business for 26 years which includes building roads, driveways, house pads, and providing water drainage that works. This experience would be helpful as we have issues where some new housing additions being built are causing issues for neighboring additions because the water drainage was properly handled.

A small business owner. Definitely sees the need to work on roads and infrastructure, but also build more needed industry and provide better checks and balances regarding emergency management.

Dennis McCollough R

Many years experience working with the NRCS of Wild Life Conservation and Wetland Development writing grants across the state overseeing millions of acres. The agency doesn’t get any tax dollars and they have had to learn to leverage the money from hunting and fishing licenses to cover their budget bringing in $3-$4/dollars for every dollar in license purchases. That’s a skill set we can use! He wants to make sure money is being spent correctly with more accountability and transparency which actually every candidate referred to that need. My only complaint is McCollough didn’t show up for candidate forums to talk in group discussions.

Patrick Sampson R NO! OUTSIDE DISTRICT 3.

He was a former Wagoner City Councilor who said he moved to Coweta (Dist 3) to run for this position. However, he continued to serve as a Wagoner City Councilor until August or September, even though he states he moved prior to that. How can you serve in an area you don’t live in? So was he living in Coweta, but still serving as a Wagoner City Councilor? Which means he was still living in Wagoner and claiming to live in Coweta so he could file to run as the Dist 3 Commissioner?

A dispute was filed and brought before the Wagoner County Election Board, who overruled the complaint questioning his Coweta address stating Sampson could run. My own investigation revealed the house, which Sampson claimed to live in to qualify, was up for The Shriffs Auction on June. The election is June 16. So even if Sampson had been living in that house his deed to the house to others who was supposed to be living in the house according to the probate judge. Plus, the auction was BEFORE the election. Evidently the winning bidder never paid the 10% due the day of the sale it wasn’t Sampson which means the house goes back up for auction. But what is clear, is that Sampson ISN’T living in the house he said he was to qualify to run in the district. The Wagoner County Election Board should have disqualified him according to the rules. They didn’t and so he is on the ballot. My encouragement is Don’t throw away your vote. I have no doubt if by chance Sampson did win, this will be challenged in court. In fact, there is already a police investigation filed on him for multiple issues. Bottom line is Sampson hasn’t been honest, not to mention, he is the least qualified of the five anyway.

WASHINGTON COUNTY

HD 11

Our Choice - Wendi Stearman R

Earned a conservative index score of 100% for the past two years.

John Kane R

Wouldn’t be as a bad choice but his voting record in areas such as economic development and growing the government not as conservative as Stearman.

Has this Voter Guide helped you? Let a friend know how to sign up.

Sign up at AwakeOklahoma.com to make sure you always receive them in your inbox.

Has this information been useful? If so, please consider chipping in $5-$10 or more to help us continue do the research & publish these guides. We exist based on donations. Awake Oklahoma is a 501c4 non-profit. But donations are NOT tax deductible. Help us continue! Donate at: https://bit.ly/DonateAwakeOklahoma

Click here and then insert your address for information on the races in your area.

Please don’t forget to vote June 16!

Voter Guide
AwakeOklahoma.com + Grassroots.Today

• In today’s political environment, who are the sovereigns: The People, political action committees or lobbyists?

• Does dark money influence an elected official’s vote?

• Oklahoma State Senator Bill Coleman, a case study.

• Examine who pays for the campaign advertisement.

Sovereign: One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. — from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

“Whoever has the gold makes the rules” — an often-quoted expression, meaning that those with wealth, power, or resources control the decisions and set the standards.

“In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people are their superiors and sovereigns.” — Benjamin Franklin.

Super PACs, PACs and Lobbyists: The Political Money Machine Everyone Complains About and Politicians Won’t Unplug

If you have followed politics for any time, you have heard “Super PAC” used as a curse word — an excuse and sometimes a business model.

In Oklahoma, with an 80% Republican majority, Super PACs, PACs and lobbyists support incumbents that vote for their agenda and punish those that oppose their agenda which results in bigger government, less accountability, financial tax favor (corporate welfare), or protection from regulation for them and restrictions for smaller companies. This typically results in less freedom, more taxes or/and larger government. One certainty, political favor is for the high tower crowd or powerfully connected. These offerings favor large corporations, associations, unions, NGOs and special interests. To assure victory for the allied incumbent and, when there is a true conservative opponent, rest assured dark money will find its way into the campaign.

Super PACs, PACs and lobbyists are not just an ugly feature of modern politics. They are one of the cleanest ways for people and entities with money to deceive the voter with false claims. Too many voters derive their opinions from mailers, texts, billboards, or emails and never come in contact with the established office holder. The typical voter is too busy with work and family to dig into the voting records of these elected officials.

Let’s Look at Examples of Super PAC’s Tools

• Candidate gets flattened by attack ads? Super PACs.

• Insiders get resources dedicated and support for their campaign? Super PACs.

• Millionaire dumps cash into a race? Super PACs.

• Party insiders prop up some polished empty suit or lackey for the establishment. Yes, Super PACs again.

Everybody complains about them. Almost nobody in power wants to get rid of them.

That tells you something.

Let’s not be naïve. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. In Oklahoma, 80% of our state legislators are Republican, but very few conservative bills are heard in committee or on the floor. Why? Because dark money has an advantage. These money groups who live in the shadows of reporting donors, leverage these funds to defeat conservatives and quell the voices of the elected officials that represent those principles, the grassroots voter, “We the People”. The “trans-republicans” have used these tools to purge true conservative legislators.

An Example from The New York Times

“Republican Purges and Feuds in Oklahoma Show the Pitfalls of One-Party Rule” — The New York Times, by Campbell Robertson (Nov. 2, 2018)

The 2018 fight inside the Oklahoma House was largely a clash between House leadership and a bloc of very conservative Republicans often called the “Platform Caucus.” These legislators based their votes on the Oklahoma State Republican Party Platform, which was developed by the grassroots of the Republican Party.

According to the Associated Press, Oklahoma Representative Chris Kannady openly acknowledged helping organize an effort against some members of his own party after disputes over the 2018 tax package that funded teacher pay raises. One of the largest tax increases in Oklahoma history. Campaign finance records showed he contributed to challengers running against certain incumbents, and he described a broad coalition that wanted to remove members viewed as obstructing the caucus or leadership’s direction.

The reporting specifically identified several conservatives who lost after being targeted by challengers and outside spending.

The New York Times reported that of the 19 House Republicans who voted against the tax package, only four remained in the general election after retirements, term limits, and primary defeats. It described the effort as a “housecleaning” operation and identified Kannady as the “ringleader” of what he called “the Project.”

The tax increase challenged House leadership. House leaders and allied Republicans argued that the caucus could not govern effectively with members who consistently opposed leadership priorities.

Outside Money

A major part of the controversy involved the Virginia-based Conservative Alliance PAC, which reportedly spent roughly $750,000 on mailers, radio ads, and other attacks against several of the same conservative incumbents. Questions about who funded the PAC became a significant issue because the organization did not disclose individual donors.

The Quote That Drew the Most Attention

The New York Times article quoted Kannady saying:

“Once you cut out the cancer that was attacking us…” — Rep. Chris Kannady

That quote became one of the most frequently cited lines from the controversy.

Political Impact

The result was a noticeably more leadership-aligned House Republican caucus going into the 2019 session. Supporters argued it made the caucus more governable and less internally divided. Critics argued it weakened the conservative wing of the House and demonstrated the length and span of dirty tricks of leadership-backed dark money in Republican primaries.

The Republican House is still suffering the repercussions of that coup, with an autocratic liberal leadership with its members falling in line to their dictates, political pressures or even bifurcation.

After the Super PACs bombard the voter with their guys’ exaggerated or false achievements or blast the challenger with attack ads, then the candidate can sweep in with their Madison Avenue glossies full of self-aggrandizing fluff. What an effective one-two punch to elevate the establishment candidate and bury the grassroots challenger.

Most Americans hear the phrase and never get a straight answer on what a Super PAC actually is. That confusion is not an accident. Confused, misguided and misinformed voters are easier to manage, which is the intent of the disinformation and false claims promoted to the voter.

So Here Is the Plain-English Version

A Super PAC is an independent expenditure-only political committee. According to the Federal Election Commission, it can raise unlimited money from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political committees. The tradeoff, supposedly, is that it cannot give directly to a candidate and cannot legally coordinate with a candidate’s campaign or a political party. Unlimited money, but “independent” spending only.

That is the theory, anyway.

In practice, it means a candidate cannot take $100,000 or more given straight into the campaign account, but an allied outside group can vacuum up that same money, turn it into ads, mailers, digital warfare, opposition research, and enough manufactured momentum to make a weak or sell-out legislator look like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” In our case Oklahoma City. These campaign ads give the impression that their guy is the next Thomas Jefferson, but in reality, they govern more like Bernie Sanders, selling our country down the toilet for position and power.

And there it is, the loophole-shaped canyon at the center of modern American politics.

Free Speech or Political Manipulation?

Supporters call this free speech. Critics call it legalized influence peddling dressed up in constitutional language. One thing is for sure, the voter and individual donor is at a disadvantage, the playing field is rigged, and not toward the hard-working family trying to make ends meet.

The legal theory behind Super PACs is that independent spending is different from direct giving. In other words, if a billionaire funds a group that spends millions to help a candidate, that is treated differently than simply handing the candidate the money himself.

Normal voters are expected to nod solemnly and pretend that distinction makes this feel clean.

It does not.

This is where people start rolling their eyes, and rightly so. If a campaign operative leaves a candidate’s team on Friday, lands at a Super PAC on Monday, and starts pushing the same message with better lighting and a larger budget, voters are supposed to believe it is all gloriously independent because the paperwork was filed correctly.

Surrrre!

And if you believe that, I have a bipartisan reform package to sell you.

To be fair, the legal line is real. The FEC defines an independent expenditure as spending that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and is not made in consultation, cooperation, or at the request or suggestion of the candidate, campaign, or party. If that independence disappears, the spending can be treated as coordinated communication, and that triggers a different set of rules. So no, this is not technically a no-rules free-for-all.

But let’s not pretend the existence of rules means the system is honest.

Super PACs matter because money does not guarantee victory, but it absolutely buys dominance. It buys airtime. It buys digital saturation. It buys mailboxes, phone screens, consultants, polling, research, and enough repetition to pound a message into the public mind until people mistake volume for truth.

The system is rigged by our election laws and regulations, penalizing the citizen with different rules than these created entities.

Super PACs are a weapon. And like most weapons in American politics, they usually end up in the hands of the people with the deepest pockets, the slipperiest lawyers, and the least amount of shame.

Another Oklahoma Case Study: Senate District 10

There have been 20 mailers for Bill Coleman mailed in the last 3 months, seven authorized by the Coleman Campaign and 13 by non-campaign organizations, Super PACs, PACs and Lobbyists. Here is a brief description of those.

Blueprint for Oklahoma’s Future is a Super PAC and has sent out 5 mailers on Coleman’s behalf. Each mailer, depending on the number of mailers sent, can cost between $4,000 to $7,000. You do the math.

When you visit Blueprint’s website, it tells you little about who they are or what they advocate. This out-of-state organization directs you to two different addresses, both in Tulsa. Address one is a P.O. Box at a UPS store on 71st and Yale. The second address does not exist. The second address stated as an office suite is, in reality, a residence located there which faces an adjacent street. Why would Senator Coleman allow this deception? The campaign rules are rigged to the benefit of the establishment that carries the water for their overlords.

Bill Coleman is the 2nd highest recipient of gifts in the legislature.

Let’s Examine a Few of Bill Coleman’s Votes

SB 1591 — Giving Illegal Alien Invaders an Official Oklahoma ID

Not just once, but twice, Bill Coleman voted to grant Oklahoma driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants — a plan pushed by a liberal immigration lawyer from south Oklahoma City. That vote would reward illegal border-crossers with official state identification, with all of its implications such as potentially giving drug cartels and human-smugglers easier access to banking and financial systems. Instead of protecting our borders, Coleman helped advance the agenda of those who violate our laws. SB1591 (2022)

SB 1620 — Coleman Authored a Dangerous Expansion of the Surveillance State

Bill Coleman didn’t just vote for license-plate scanners — he wrote the bill that would unleash Orwellian mass-tracking technology across Oklahoma. These systems are handed out through questionable, sole-source contracts, come with known cyber-security risks, and are ripe for abuse. Even worse, their unconstitutional deployment could lead to overturned convictions, harming public safety and re-victimizing Oklahoma crime victims. And while law-abiding citizens get monitored in real time, these systems often exempt immigration enforcement, letting those who crossed our border illegally avoid accountability while tracking citizens who are playing by the rules. Fortunately, only 13 Senators voted for Coleman’s bill and it was defeated by a large margin. SB1620 (2024)

SB 670 — Coleman Voted to Mandate Government-Designed Mental-Health Screenings on Every Oklahoman

SB670 forces doctors and nurses to administer a state-approved psychological test to every patient — including your children — just to see a primary-care provider. If a provider refuses, they can be punished. This law empowers unelected medical boards to define mental health ideology for the entire state and gather private data on every Oklahoman who seeks care. SB670 (2025)

SB 623 — Silencing Christian Counselors from Giving Biblical Counsel

Coleman voted for SB 623. It was sponsored by a liberal Democrat from Tulsa and would align Oklahoma social-worker licensing standards with national woke activist groups. If a Christian social worker — including those serving in our schools — refused to embrace progressive “gender-affirming” ideology or provided counseling consistent with biblical teaching on sexuality, these liberal organizations could brand them “unethical” and the state could censure them or even yank their license to practice, basically putting them out of a job. Fortunately, though Coleman and the Senate passed the bill, the House didn’t approve it, but it was too close of a call for comfort. This was something that one would expect in Soviet Russia, not the United States of America. SB623 (2019)

HB 2147 — Allowing City Government to Foreclose on Private Property

Coleman supported dismantling long-standing safeguards that once prevented city governments from overreaching. With his vote, cities can now move to foreclose on and take private property, using code enforcement as a weapon — allowing aggressive code enforcement to become a pretext for government seizure of private land. HB2147 (2025)

HB 1712 — Coleman’s Toll on Your Freedom

Coleman backed the “Road User Charge Pilot,” a plan designed to pave the way for tolling virtually every mile Oklahomans drive — using intrusive tracking technology to monitor your driving actions and charge you for them. The state poured millions into this experimental program, a level of waste that is almost as shocking as the idea behind it. It didn’t end there. When the pilot wrapped up, the program’s publicly promoted website, the very link citizens were instructed to use to interact with state officials, fell into the hands of domain squatters tied to offshore gambling interests, exposing participants to needless privacy and security threats. HB1712 (2021)

SB 511 — Coleman Voted to Enable Illegal Drug Use

When Bill Coleman voted for a state authorized program that distributes free drug paraphernalia for recreational use, he sent a dangerous message: illegal drug use is acceptable — and the government will help you do it. Rather than insisting on recovery, accountability, or treatment, Coleman supported giving users the tools to stay trapped in addiction. His choice helped push deadly drug culture deeper into our communities. SB511 (2021)

In addition to the above votes, Bill Coleman scored a 35.9% out of 100 on the Republican Platform Scorecard.

I will leave it up to you to decide if this senator reflects your values or the values of the established money donors.

And that is the real story.

Lobbyists, PACs vs. Main Street: How Lobbyists and PACs Quietly Run the Game

If you want to understand why ordinary Americans feel ignored by elected officials, start here: lobbyists get meetings and wine and dine your elected officials, PACs get leverage, and grassroots voters get ignored and too often the shaft.

That is not bitterness. That is the system working exactly as designed.

Lobbyists and PACs are not the same thing, but they live in the same swampy ecosystem.

A lobbyist is paid to influence government action. That can mean writing and creating the legislation that favors their industry, literally handing lawmakers polished language they can pretend they wrote themselves, promoting a bill, stopping a bill, shaping regulations, or nudging agencies.

A PAC, or political action committee, is a vehicle for political money. PACs raise and spend funds to influence elections. Some give directly to candidates. Some spend independently. Some are tied to corporations, unions, trade groups, or ideological causes.

Different tools. Same pressure campaign.

And from a grassroots perspective, the problem is not that Americans have the right to petition government. Of course they do. The First Amendment is not the enemy here.

The problem is that influence has become institutionalized and financialized; it has become the norm with most of our elected officials.

If your side has ten fired-up parents showing up after work to make their case, and the other side has lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, PAC money, and a media rollout already scheduled for Thursday morning, guess whose message lands first and normally gets executed?

You already know.

What Lobbyists Actually Do

Lobbyists exist to influence public policy. In our capital, that usually means lobbyists often:

• Write the bill and legislators attach their name

• Meet with members of the legislature for influence

• Press for or against legislation

• Influence executive branch agencies

• Help shape regulatory language

• Organize campaigns around specific policy outcomes

• Wine and dine for face time and influence

Sometimes they represent industries. Sometimes unions. Sometimes activist groups. Sometimes nonprofits. Not all lobbyists’ causes are bad. Some lobbyists really do provide expertise. There are exceptions — some lobbyists actually support the U.S. Constitution and your God-given rights. Some may be an expert in a technical area.

But mostly they advocate for causes that should never get within fifty feet of public policy and do not benefit the citizen. Their value is not just information. Their value is access.

What PACs Actually Do

PACs exist to collect and deploy political money. That usually means:

• Raising contributions from donors

• Giving money to candidates or committees, depending on the PAC type

• Funding ads, mailers, texts, digital campaigns, and turnout efforts

• Building political leverage before and after Election Day

In plain English, lobbyists work the policy side and PACs work the election side. And funny enough, those worlds tend to know each other very well.

Why the Grassroots Should Care

This is the part elected officials never want to say out loud. The issue is not just corruption in the cartoon-villain sense. It is dependency. When lawmakers spend hours every week fundraising, when staff rely on talking points from outside influence shops, and when legislation gets shaped by people paid to shape it, the grassroots citizen is no longer at the center of representative government.

Here is an afterthought.

That is why people stop trusting institutions. Not because they are uninformed. Because they can see the pattern. The donor class gets face time. The lobbyist gets a seat at the table. The citizen gets a nod and a thank you, now carry on. That is not healthy self-government. That is managed access.

In a crowded primary, a contested race or a low-information race, that matters. A lot. The side with more money gets more chances to define the battlefield before most voters even realize a war has started.

And this matters especially on the right.

Grassroots conservatives like to think energy and conviction are enough. Sometimes they are, with an engaged and motivated electorate. But often the grassroots walks into a knife fight carrying yard signs while the donor class arrives with media consultants, bundled cash, and a well-honed plan and the tools to execute those plans.

So, the next time some candidate claims he is running a pure, people-powered, grassroots campaign while a “totally independent” group drops six to seven figures to save them, you are allowed to laugh.

Quietly, if you are in church.

Less quietly, if you are paying attention.

Because in the state capital, “independent” is often a legal term, not a believable one.

Resources for the Voter

OKGrassroots 2025 Legislator Scorecard:

https://okgrassroots.com/oklahoma-legislative-scorecard-2025/

Oklahoma State Capital Report, Jason Murphey:

https://oklahomastatecapital.substack.com/p/introducing-the-first-ever-peoples

The MOGA Network, LLC:

https://moganetwork.com/charts

<p>Speaking with Newsmax's Bianca de la Garza, Dhillon laid out what any conservative with a functioning brain already knew was happening. Dead people on voter rolls. Duplicate registrations. People who moved but somehow still vote in their old district. And the kicker: non-citizens registered to vote.</p>

<h2>The Numbers Don't Lie</h2>

<p>Here's what the DOJ found in their review:</p>

<ul> <li>Hundreds of thousands of people who shouldn't be on voter rolls</li> <li>Dead voters still registered as active</li> <li>Duplicate registrations across jurisdictions</li> <li>Non-citizens registered to vote (and some actually voted)</li> <li>People who moved but remain on old district rolls</li> </ul>

<p>"We have also found, separately, non-citizens on the voter rolls, and so now we're doing our due diligence to identify the extent to which they may or may not have voted," Dhillon explained.</p>

<p>Translation: they're finding out how many illegal votes were actually cast. Because of course there were illegal votes cast.</p>

<h2>Los Angeles: A Case Study in Election Chaos</h2>

<p>Want to know how bad this gets? Look at Los Angeles County. In 2017, they settled a lawsuit with Judicial Watch and admitted they had over one million people on their voter rolls who shouldn't have been there. One million. In one county.</p>

<p>Dhillon also mentioned "crazy videos from California" showing homeless people being used to sign petitions and register to vote, then sign ballots for other people. "That's easy when you have a system where there's no voter ID, ballots are being mailed to outdated voting lists," she noted.</p>

<p>Easy indeed. Almost like it was designed that way.</p>

<h2>29 States Refuse to Cooperate</h2>

<p>Here's where it gets really interesting. The DOJ has filed federal lawsuits against 29 states and the District of Columbia because they refuse to provide their voter registration rolls for review and audit.</p>

<p>Twenty-nine states. Why would any state refuse to let federal authorities verify their voter rolls are clean? What exactly are they hiding?</p>

<p>You already know the answer. They're hiding the same thing Los Angeles was hiding: massive voter roll corruption that makes election integrity impossible to guarantee.</p>

<h2>The SAVE America Act Solution</h2>

<p>This is exactly why the SAVE America Act matters. The bill requires proof of citizenship for voter registration and mandates regular voter roll maintenance. Basic stuff that should have been standard practice decades ago.</p>

<p>But Democrats oppose it lockstep. Chuck Schumer calls it voter suppression. Progressive groups call it racist. The media calls it unnecessary.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, we have hundreds of thousands of ineligible registrations and confirmed illegal voting happening across the country.</p>

<p>Who opposes basic election integrity measures? Only people who benefit from the chaos.</p>

<h2>What Comes Next</h2>

<p>The Senate is currently debating the SAVE America Act. If it passes, states will be required to verify citizenship for voter registration and clean up their rolls regularly. If it doesn't, we'll keep getting the same results: corrupted voter rolls, illegal voting, and election results nobody can trust.</p>

<p>Dhillon's work proves what conservatives have been saying for years: our election system has massive integrity problems that can only be fixed with federal intervention. The DOJ review isn't just finding problems. It's documenting the scope of a crisis that threatens the foundation of our republic.</p>

<p>The question isn't whether we need the SAVE America Act. The question is whether we'll pass it before the 2026 midterms, or keep pretending these problems don't exist while our elections become increasingly meaningless.</p>

<h3>Further Reading</h3>

<ul> <li><a href="https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/03/17/51-48-senate-now-kicking-off-weekend-long-debate-on-save-america-act-n2200325">Senate Kicks Off Weekend-Long Debate on SAVE America Act</a></li> <li>DOJ Civil Rights Division Press Releases on State Voter Roll Lawsuits</li> <li>Judicial Watch Settlement with Los Angeles County (2017)</li> </ul>

That does not settle every legal question in the case. It does mean the sheriff's investigation stays alive for now. And in a state where election officials constantly demand trust while resisting scrutiny, that matters.

The dispute centers on a reported 45,896-vote gap in Riverside County. According to figures presented by the Riverside Election Integrity Team and repeated by Bianco, county records showed 611,428 ballots cast in the special election but 657,322 votes certified. County Registrar Art Tinoco says that larger number comes from a misunderstanding of raw data and that the real discrepancy is only 103 votes. So here is the obvious question: if the answer is really that simple, why the rush to shut the review down?

What the court actually did

CalMatters reported that Bonta's office asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to halt Bianco's ballot recount effort immediately, arguing the sheriff had not established probable cause for a criminal investigation. The court denied the emergency filing, not because it endorsed every claim Bianco has made, but because it said the attorney general filed in the wrong court. That is not a final merits ruling. It is still a loss for Bonta, and a timely one.

Bianco has described the review as a fact-finding mission. He has said the point is not to rig an outcome for or against Prop 50, but to find out why the numbers do not match and whether Riverside voters were given a clean count. That is a pretty normal thing to want in a republic.

"Our embarrassment to law enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, just filed an emergency writ with the court of appeals to stop ballots from being counted in Riverside County. Why in the world would Rob Bonta want that count stopped? Unless he was afraid of what that count would uncover."

The numbers are doing most of the talking

This is where the data does the roasting. You have one side saying there was a massive unexplained gap. You have another side saying the gap was tiny and the watchdog group misread incomplete election records. Fine. Then walk the public through it carefully, preserve the evidence, and let the questions be answered in daylight.

• The citizen watchdog group says the gap was 45,896 votes.

• Registrar Art Tinoco says the actual gap was 103 votes.

• Bianco obtained warrants and seized roughly 650,000 ballots for review.

• A California appeals court refused to halt the review on Bonta’s emergency request.

Nobody serious should be afraid of transparency. If Tinoco is right, a credible review should help restore confidence. If he is wrong, Californians deserve to know that too. Either way, blocking the process before it plays out is a strange way to reassure the public.

Why Proposition 50 made this explosive

This was not some sleepy school board race. Proposition 50 dealt with congressional redistricting and carried real political consequences. According to reporting from the Press-Enterprise, the measure passed statewide with 64 percent of the vote and won Riverside County with 56 percent. It also had national stakes because the new maps could potentially hand California Democrats five more U.S. House seats in 2026.

Which means any uncertainty tied to the vote count was always going to draw attention. Because of course it was.

Bonta says stop. Bianco says explain yourself.

Bonta's office has argued the sheriff is on a fishing expedition that could undermine confidence in California elections. State officials and outside academics quoted by CalMatters and the Press-Enterprise voiced concern that a sheriff's office is not the normal body to handle ballots and that chain-of-custody questions could become serious if the process is sloppy.

Those concerns are not imaginary. They are worth taking seriously. But they cut both ways. Californians have spent years being told to stop asking questions, stop looking too closely, and trust the experts. That script wears thin when the state's top law enforcement officer looks more eager to freeze an inquiry than to help resolve it.

"Why would you interfere and obstruct an investigation instead of assist? What are you afraid of?"

That was Bianco's response, and it lands because it gets to the heart of the fight. If the larger discrepancy claim is nonsense, prove it. If the sheriff overreached, prove that too. But prove it with facts, not with a panic filing designed to stop the count before voters can see what is actually there.

Why conservatives should pay attention

Conservatives have been warning for years that election confidence is not protected by censoring skepticism. It is protected by transparent rules, verifiable records, and officials who do not treat oversight like an act of rebellion. President Trump has broad grassroots support precisely because millions of Americans are tired of being lectured by institutions that demand blind trust after every controversy.

This Riverside fight fits that pattern. Reasonable people can disagree about the size of the discrepancy or the sheriff's methods. What should not be controversial is the basic principle that suspicious numbers deserve scrutiny. In a healthy system, accountability is not the threat. Evasion is.

• If the official count is sound, a transparent review strengthens confidence.

• If records were mishandled, the public deserves to know before the next election.

• If state officials are right, they should be able to show their work clearly.

• If watchdogs are right, blocking scrutiny only makes the eventual fallout worse.

The bottom line

The appeals court did not hand Bianco a total legal victory. It did hand Bonta a defeat in his attempt to shut the review down fast. That matters because the central issue is still unresolved, and unresolved questions do not become less dangerous when politicians try to smother them.

California can still choose the grown-up option here. Open the records. Defend the process. Let the numbers be tested. Let the public watch. If the discrepancy is only 103 votes, then the state should welcome the chance to prove it. If not, then voters just learned why scrutiny was treated like a problem.

Either way, asking citizens to trust a black box while officials fight to keep the lid closed is not election integrity. It is PR.

Further Reading

• RedState: Panic Move Fails, Court Slaps Down Dem AG Bid to Block Recount of Seized Ballots Amid 45K Vote Discrepancy

• CalMatters: Court denies California’s bid to halt Riverside sheriff’s recount of 2025 election ballots

• Press-Enterprise: Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County sheriff’s office

The April 21 special election centers on a constitutional amendment that would let the General Assembly temporarily adopt new congressional districts before the 2026 midterms. Supporters say it is a response to redistricting fights in other states. Critics say it is an obvious partisan play that could turn Virginia's current 6-5 Democratic delegation into a 10-1 Democratic advantage in the U.S. House.

And that is where the poll numbers get uncomfortable for Democrats.

Even Democrat Voters Are Wary

According to polling obtained by The Daily Signal from Heritage Action, 70 percent of Democrat voters said electoral maps should not be allowed to favor one political party over another. That is not a close call. That is a flashing warning sign.

The same reporting says 50 percent of voters were confused by the language on the ballot. Again, because of course they were. The official question asks whether Virginia should amend its constitution to allow lawmakers to temporarily adopt new districts "to restore fairness in the upcoming elections" before returning to the normal process after the 2030 census.

Who votes against "fairness" if that is the word staring back at them on the ballot?

That is exactly the point opponents are making. The issue is not whether fairness sounds nice. It does. The issue is whether voters are being asked to approve a mid-cycle power grab packaged in language soft enough to make it sound like civic virtue.

The Ballot Language Does a Lot of Heavy Lifting

Supporters have leaned hard on the word "temporary." Gov. Abigail Spanberger has argued the amendment is a short-term response to moves in other states and says Virginia's standard redistricting process would remain in place long term.

But critics are not buying the cleanup language. Fox News reported that Republicans and conservative activists have argued the proposal is misleading on its face, especially because the map tied to the amendment could wipe out nearly every Republican-held congressional seat in the commonwealth except one.

The Center Square also reported that former Gov. Glenn Youngkin called the amendment "a blatant lie" and warned it would permanently rig Virginia's congressional maps and disenfranchise voters. You do not have to agree with every political flourish to see the core problem: if a proposal is truly so fair, why does it need to be sold with wording that leaves half the electorate confused?

What the numbers show

• 70 percent of Democrat voters in the Heritage Action poll said maps should not favor one party

• 50 percent of voters said the ballot language was confusing

• Virginia's current U.S. House split is 6 Democrats to 5 Republicans

• Critics say the proposed map could shift that to 10 Democrats and 1 Republican

• More than 436,000 ballots had already been cast, according to The Center Square's reporting on state election data

Those are not minor details. Those are the whole story.

Spanberger's Reversal Is Hard to Ignore

There is also the small matter of consistency. Fox News highlighted earlier comments from Spanberger praising opposition to gerrymandering as a bipartisan priority. Now she is backing an amendment critics say would bless exactly that kind of partisan redraw. Supporters insist this case is different because the national environment is different.

Maybe. But voters are allowed to notice when "gerrymandering is bad" suddenly becomes "gerrymandering is necessary" the minute their side can benefit from it.

That tends to raise eyebrows outside campaign headquarters.

What This Fight Is Really About

This referendum is being framed as a technical redistricting dispute. It is not. It is a test of whether Virginia voters will reward politicians for using lawyered-up ballot language to push through a map they might reject if stated plainly.

If the question read, "Should Democrats be allowed to redraw Virginia's congressional map before the next census in a way that could hand their party a 10-1 edge?" the sales pitch would look a little different.

Instead, voters get a polished phrase about restoring fairness. Convenient.

And there is a broader lesson here for conservatives. Election integrity is not just about voter rolls, ballot harvesting, and machine rules. It is also about whether the rules of representation get rewritten midstream by politicians who think they have found a clever way around public skepticism.

Why Virginia Voters May Slam the Brakes

The Heritage Action numbers suggest the public instinct is still healthy. Voters, including many Democrats, do not like obviously tilted maps. They do not like confusing ballot language. And they do not like feeling tricked.

That should matter.

Virginia voters now have a simple choice. They can reward a political class that thinks rebranding a partisan maneuver as "fairness" makes it honest. Or they can reject the gimmick and remind Richmond that words still mean things.

One option protects trust. The other protects politicians.

You already know which one grassroots conservatives should pick.

Further Reading

• The Daily Signal: Heritage Action poll findings on Virginia's redistricting referendum

• Fox News: Coverage of Gov. Abigail Spanberger's endorsement and criticism of the amendment

• The Center Square: Reporting on early voting turnout and the amendment's likely political impact

That should not be controversial. Yet here we are.

According to RedState, at least six Republican-led states are lining up ballot measures that echo President Trump's push for stronger election integrity protections, including proof of citizenship standards tied to voter registration. WV News separately reported that West Virginia voters will see a constitutional amendment this November that would tighten the language in the state constitution to say that only citizens of the state who are citizens of the United States are entitled to vote.

What West Virginia Is Actually Doing

West Virginia's proposed amendment is not some wild policy experiment. It is a clarification move. The current constitution says citizens of the state are entitled to vote. The amendment would revise that to say only citizens of the state who are citizens of the United States are entitled to vote.

That matters because vague language is an open invitation for future gamesmanship. You do not wait until the loophole is exploited nationwide before closing it. You close it while you still can.

WV News reported the proposal comes through Senate Joint Resolution 9 and will appear on the November ballot. Secretary of State Kris Warner told the outlet that noncitizen voting is not a massive current problem in West Virginia, but he still backed the amendment as a safeguard.

"It is an issue," Warner said of noncitizens casting ballots in the state. "Would I tell you it's a huge issue? I'm not going to say that."

And that is exactly the point. Election integrity is not supposed to kick in only after the barn door is hanging off one hinge.

Why States Are Moving Now

The SAVE Act has become one of the defining election-integrity fights in Washington. Supporters say it would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and help restore public confidence in the system. Democrats, naturally, are treating verification like an attack on democracy, which is an interesting way to describe confirming that voters are actually eligible to vote.

So red states are doing what federalism allows them to do. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states the primary role in setting the times, places, and manner of elections, subject to congressional override. Translation: states do not have to sit on their hands just because the Senate cannot get its act together.

That is why these ballot measures matter beyond any single state. They are a reminder that election integrity does not rise or fall on one Senate vote. States still have tools. Republican lawmakers are using them.

The broader message

These amendments send a few unmistakable signals:

• Citizenship matters

• States are not waiting for D.C. permission

• Voters are being asked to decide the issue directly

• Election integrity remains a live grassroots issue in 2026

Nobody should need a flow chart for this. If citizenship is required for voting, then the law should say so plainly.

The Principle Is Bigger Than the Numbers

Critics often respond with some version of this line: noncitizen voting is rare, so why bother? Because principles do not become optional just because the violation count is low.

You show ID to board a plane, buy age-restricted products, and complete all kinds of routine transactions. But some politicians still act as if asking for citizenship verification in elections is a bridge too far. Funny how the rules are always oppressive right when they might protect the ballot box.

This is where ordinary voters are way ahead of the political class. Most Americans understand that voting is a covenant of citizenship. It is tied to allegiance, accountability, and membership in the nation itself. That is not xenophobia. That is self-government.

From a conservative Christian perspective, stewardship matters. A nation has both the right and the duty to guard what has been entrusted to it. Elections are one of those trusts. Leaving the language fuzzy because nobody wants another media tantrum is not prudence. It is negligence.

Why This Helps President Trump's Election Integrity Push

President Trump has made election integrity a top priority, and these state-level moves reinforce that agenda instead of waiting for the usual Senate swamp delay tactics to clear. Reasonable people can debate the best mechanics, but the goal is not complicated: secure the vote, reassure the public, and make sure the people choosing America's leaders are actually American citizens.

That is not extreme. It is basic civic hygiene.

And if opponents really believe the public is with them, they should have no problem letting voters weigh in. These amendments do exactly that.

Further Reading

• RedState: Red States Now Bypassing Senate to Lock Voting to Citizens Only

• WV News: West Virginia voters to consider bolstering citizenship requirement via amendment this November

• U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4

Congress can keep stalling if it wants. Red states are moving anyway. And honestly, that is probably the most encouraging part of the whole story.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has taken custody of more than 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 Proposition 50 special election after a watchdog group alleged roughly 45,000 excess votes in Riverside County. Instead of welcoming a transparent review and ending the argument with facts, state officials moved to shut the investigation down.

That tells you a lot.

According to reporting from Hot Air, Fox News via Yahoo, the New York Post, and Breitbart, the dispute began when the Riverside Election Integrity Team claimed county election records did not match the official numbers reported by the state. Riverside election officials say the watchdog group misunderstood intake logs that were only estimates, not final counts. They insist the final tally was within 103 votes, or 0.16 percent, of the original estimate.

Fine. Then count the ballots and prove it.

What Sheriff Bianco Says He Is Doing

Bianco has framed the investigation in very simple terms.

“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded.”

That quote, reported across multiple outlets, is the heart of the case. The sheriff is not asking Californians to accept a speech, a memo, or another lecture from the people already running the system. He is saying: count the ballots.

A Superior Court judge reportedly issued a warrant and appointed a special master to oversee the process. That matters. This was not some random political stunt where deputies kicked in a door and started freelancing. There is now a court-supervised investigation tied to a specific claim of a major discrepancy.

And when a judge thinks the allegation is serious enough to justify a special master, maybe the proper response is not panic.

Sacramento's Response Looks Awfully Familiar

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber argued that Bianco has no authority to conduct what amounts to a recount and warned that his actions could undermine confidence in elections. Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said it was merely trying to understand the legal basis for the probe and raised concerns about the affidavits behind the warrants.

That is the official line.

The political reality looks different.

Bianco said his office received multiple letters from Bonta ordering him to stop the investigation. He also blasted Bonta as “an embarrassment to law enforcement.” Strong words, yes. But they came after the state's top law enforcement officer appeared more interested in stopping scrutiny than encouraging clarity.

Here is the problem for Sacramento: voters can count too.

When citizens hear that a watchdog group found a possible 45,000-vote discrepancy, and the immediate response from powerful Democrats is to block a deeper review, regular people do not hear “trust the experts.” They hear “please stop looking.”

Because of course they do.

Why Proposition 50 Makes This Bigger Than One County

Proposition 50 was not some sleepy local bond measure. It was a high-stakes special election tied to congressional redistricting and partisan power. California Democrats wanted new maps to answer Republican moves in Texas. So when questions arise around vote totals in a race with national consequences, the public has every reason to demand a clean explanation.

Here is what makes the whole thing politically radioactive:

• The election involved congressional map changes

• A watchdog group raised a specific numerical challenge

• A sheriff sought a physical ballot count

• A judge allowed the investigation to move forward

• The attorney general tried to stop it

That is not a small optics problem. That is a billboard.

The State's Defense Might Be Right. It Still Needs Proof.

To be fair, Riverside elections official Art Tinoco says the watchdog group misread preliminary intake logs and that the final count was basically in line with expectations. If that explanation is correct, a physical review should settle the matter quickly.

That is what makes the resistance so strange.

If the sheriff's probe is nonsense, transparency is your friend. If the watchdog team's math is wrong, the count exposes it. If the system worked, the ballots vindicate the system. Confidence rises when officials invite scrutiny, not when they swat it away.

Who benefits from blocking verification? Not the voter. Not the public. Not anybody who actually wants confidence restored.

This is why election integrity remains such a live issue across the country. Too many Americans have watched officials insist everything is fine while treating basic questions like acts of rebellion. That approach does not calm distrust. It manufactures more of it.

What Californians Should Watch Next

The next phase matters more than the headlines.

Watch for these points:

• Whether the special master is allowed to complete a full count

• Whether the chain of custody remains transparent

• Whether the state releases records promptly or keeps hiding behind process

• Whether officials answer the numerical challenge directly instead of changing the subject

If you live in California, your question is not complicated: do your leaders want confidence built on evidence, or confidence enforced by command?

Count Them

Maybe Riverside Election Integrity Team got it wrong. Maybe state officials are right. Great. There is an easy way to find out.

Count the ballots. Publish the findings. Show the public the receipts.

A constitutional republic cannot run on vibes, status, or credentialed scolding. It runs on trust, and trust is earned through transparency. California officials say this investigation could undermine confidence. No. Refusing scrutiny is what undermines confidence.

If 650,000 ballots are clean, a count will prove it. If something is off, Californians need to know that too.

Either way, the answer is the same.

Count them.

Further Reading

• Hot Air on the Riverside County ballot investigation

• Fox News report via Yahoo on Bianco, Bonta, and Weber

• New York Post coverage of the ballot-count dispute

• Breitbart summary of the Proposition 50 investigation

If that is what happened, this is not some harmless technical foul. It goes straight to the heart of whether petition drives in California are legitimate, whether voter records are being abused, and whether anyone in power still believes election law should mean what it says.

What the undercover footage appears to show

The Daily Caller reported that undercover journalists working with James O'Keefe took the footage to Los Angeles residents whose names and addresses were allegedly used on petitions. One resident said a woman named Vicky Walker had not lived at his address for at least nine years, yet he still receives her ballot. Another man, Paul Sun, was shown video of a homeless individual allegedly signing a petition under Sun's name and address.

That is not a paperwork mix-up. That is a flashing red warning light.

According to the O'Keefe Media Group report, journalists documented at least 28 cash-for-signature exchanges over just a few days in the Skid Row area. Petitioners were allegedly paid between $7 and $10 per signature, while some homeless signers were reportedly offered only a few dollars, along with cigarettes or marijuana. Because of course the people doing the dirty work always seem to get the smallest cut.

"If you mess up, I can't get paid," one signature gatherer allegedly said in footage cited by the Daily Caller.

The details matter

• One homeless man allegedly told an undercover journalist he was getting paid $3 while signing 14 names

• The Daily Caller reported that a signature gatherer watched closely to make sure the petition was filled out correctly because, in his words, mistakes meant he would not get paid

• O'Keefe Media Group said voter information including full names, addresses, and signatures appeared to come from registered voter lists

• The petitions reportedly involved major political and labor fights, including healthcare tax proposals and Los Angeles wage disputes

That last point matters. This was not random street chaos. It appears tied to organized political and policy campaigns with real money behind them.

California law is not vague here

California Elections Code Section 18613 states that any person who signs an initiative, referendum, or recall petition using a fictitious name or the name of another person is guilty of a felony and can face imprisonment. California Penal Code Section 470 also makes it a crime to sign another person's name with intent to defraud.

O'Keefe Media Group also cited California Elections Code Section 18603 and federal law, 52 U.S.C. §10307(c), which bar paying people for registration or petition activity in unlawful ways.

In plain English: if the allegations are true, this is not clever campaign work. It is fraud.

Why this hits a nerve with voters

Grassroots conservatives have been warning for years that bloated voter rolls, weak verification, and political machines that treat rules like suggestions create the perfect environment for abuse. California's political class has spent a long time acting offended whenever anybody points that out. Now an undercover video lands showing people on Skid Row allegedly signing names for cash.

So here is the obvious question: who exactly benefits from making verification sound mean and accountability sound extreme?

You already know the answer.

The Daily Caller report noted that residents shown the footage were disturbed to see their names and addresses allegedly being used. And they should be. If your name can show up on a petition you never signed, what confidence are you supposed to have in the rest of the process?

The bigger issue is trust

Petitions are supposed to reflect actual public support. They are the door voters use to put ideas on the ballot, challenge elected officials, and shape public policy. Once fraudulent signatures enter the pipeline, the whole process gets contaminated.

That means:

• Legitimate signatures are diluted by fake ones

• Campaigns that follow the law are put at a disadvantage

• Public faith in direct democracy drops even further

• Every future petition fight becomes another battle over whether the system can be trusted at all

And that is before you even get to the taxpayers. O'Keefe Media Group's report raised additional questions about organizations operating near the activity and the broader network around petition operations. Those claims deserve investigation too. Quickly.

What should happen next

California officials should not brush this off as another weird local story. If the state is serious about election integrity, investigators should determine where the names came from, who financed the circulators, which petitions were affected, and whether criminal charges are warranted.

Not next year. Now.

Because if people are forging signatures on one of the most visible streets in Los Angeles, in broad daylight, while everyone is apparently supposed to shrug, then the real scandal is bigger than one petition scam. The real scandal is a political culture that stopped being shocked by fraud a long time ago.

Further Reading

• Daily Caller: Fraudsters Allegedly Use California Homeless Population To Forge Voters' Signatures, Report Shows

• O'Keefe Media Group: Election Fraud On Skid Row: Cash & Drug Exchange For Signatures

• California Elections Code §18613: False or ineligible signatures on petition

• California Penal Code §470: Forgery law text

Over the weekend, Bianco seized more than 650,000 ballots tied to California's 2025 special election on Proposition 50 and said his office intends to physically count them. Why? Because a local watchdog group says the numbers do not add up, alleging roughly 45,000 excess votes in Riverside County alone.

That is not a paperwork typo. That is the kind of discrepancy that gets normal people to stop scrolling and ask a very reasonable question: what exactly happened here?

According to Breitbart, the New York Post, and a Fox News report republished by Yahoo, the dispute centers on Proposition 50, the California ballot measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw congressional districts in a way widely understood to benefit Democrats. State elections officials say the watchdog group's analysis is flawed. Bianco says the obvious way to settle the argument is to count the ballots and compare that total with the votes recorded.

“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a press conference.

Simple enough. Which is probably why Sacramento wants it shut down.

What Started the Fight

The spark came from the Riverside Election Integrity Team, a third-party watchdog group that says it found about 45,000 excess votes in the county's November 2025 special election records. That claim was quickly rejected by local election officials, who argued the group misunderstood how Election Day intake logs work.

Riverside elections official Art Tinoco told county supervisors that the initial intake logs are estimates, not final tabulations. According to the reported explanation, the final tally ended up within 0.16 percent, or 103 votes, of the original estimate.

That is the state's defense.

Bianco's answer is even simpler: if the watchdog team is wrong, a physical count should prove it. If they are right, Californians have a much bigger problem than another angry press release from the political class.

Sacramento's Position: Trust Us, Please

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber argued Bianco has no authority to conduct what amounts to a recount. She warned that the sheriff's actions risk undermining public confidence in elections and suggested deputies do not have the expertise of election administrators.

That talking point would land better if confidence were already high. It isn't.

When voters hear that 650,000 ballots cannot be reviewed because the wrong public official wants to count them, many are going to hear something else entirely: the system is very comfortable demanding trust and very uncomfortable accepting scrutiny.

And that is where this story stops being a local turf war and starts sounding like a national warning.

Bonta Wants the Probe Stopped

California Attorney General Rob Bonta says his office only wants to understand the legal basis for the sheriff's investigation. His office told Fox News that it sought the warrants and investigative file under the attorney general's supervisory authority over county sheriffs.

Bonta's office also said it has concerns about alleged legal deficiencies in the affidavits supporting the warrants.

Bianco is not buying the innocent-bureaucrat routine. He said his office received multiple letters from Bonta ordering him to stop the investigation, and he called the attorney general “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”

That exchange matters because it tells you exactly where the pressure is coming from. Not from citizens demanding answers. From state officials demanding that the questions stop.

Why This Matters Beyond Riverside County

Proposition 50 was not some obscure municipal bond issue nobody noticed. It was part of a high-stakes fight over congressional maps and political power. If there are serious unanswered questions about the vote totals, Californians deserve clarity, not condescension.

Here is what makes the optics so bad for the state's political leadership:

• A watchdog group raised a specific numerical concern

• The sheriff responded by seeking a physical count

• State officials moved quickly to say he should not be doing that

• The public is now left to choose between “trust the process” and “count the ballots”

You already know which message plays better outside a Sacramento press office.

Election integrity should not be controversial. Honest elections are not a partisan luxury. They are the floor, not the ceiling. If your system is sound, transparency helps you. If transparency scares you, people notice that too.

The Real Question

Reasonable people can debate who has formal authority here. Fine. But that is not the deepest question.

The deeper question is this: why are California's top officials more animated about stopping an investigation than resolving the doubts that triggered it?

If the Riverside Election Integrity Team got the math wrong, prove it publicly. Count the ballots. Show the chain of custody. Release the numbers. End the argument with facts.

If state officials are confident in the result, they should welcome the chance to make that confidence visible.

Instead, the instinct seems to be the same one voters have seen too many times before: circle the wagons, invoke process, and hope the public gets bored.

Maybe that works in a newsroom. It works less well with voters who are tired of being told election concerns are illegitimate the moment they become inconvenient.

Sheriff Bianco says he wants a physical count. California's political establishment says he should back off. In a healthy republic, the answer is obvious.

Count the ballots.

Further Reading

• Breitbart report on Bianco's ballot seizure and investigation

• New York Post report on the Riverside County dispute

• Fox News report via Yahoo on Bonta and Weber's response

According to the Washington Examiner, Trump said he would accept a $5 billion cut in ICE funding that Democrats have been demanding, but only if Democrats vote with Republicans to pass what he called the SAVE America Act package. That package, as described in his Truth Social post quoted by the Examiner, would include voter ID with photo, proof of citizenship to vote, limits on mail-in voting with exceptions, paper ballots, a ban on men in women's sports, and a ban on transgender procedures for children.

In other words, Trump offered Democrats their spending concession, but only if they stop pretending election security and child protection are extremist ideas.

That is not a small ask. Which is exactly why it matters.

What Trump Actually Proposed

The Washington Examiner reported that Trump's offer came as the partial government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding hit day 37. Senate Democrats have been pressing for cuts to ICE funding as part of a deal. Trump did not simply say no. He countered.

Here is the trade he floated, based on the Examiner's account of his post:

• A $5 billion cut in ICE funding

• Voter ID with a photo requirement

• Citizenship verification to vote

• Restrictions on mail-in voting, with exceptions

• Paper ballots

• A ban on men competing in women's sports

• A ban on so-called transgender mutilation of children

That is a remarkable frame shift.

Instead of arguing only about agency funding, Trump tied the fight to the cultural and election issues grassroots conservatives actually care about. Smart politics? Yes. Also a useful test.

Because if Democrats really want the deal badly enough, now they get to explain why they are willing to fight harder for less ICE enforcement than for verifying citizenship before voting.

The Numbers Tell You a Lot

The Examiner reported that Democrats have also demanded broader DHS changes, including body cameras for ICE officers and judicial warrants for immigration operations. Fine. That is their position.

But look at the contrast Trump created:

• Democrats want a major ICE funding cut

• Trump says he is open to the cut

• In exchange, he wants election verification and child-protection measures

Who says no to that trade?

Apparently the party that treats voter verification like a civil rights violation and basic moral boundaries like an inconvenience.

You do not have to agree with every piece of the package to see the strategic point. Trump is forcing the argument into the open. No more fuzzy talking points. No more procedural fog. If Democrats reject the deal, they are rejecting it with the terms on the table.

Why the SAVE Act Piece Matters Most

Congress.gov's bill page for H.R. 22 shows the SAVE Act is formally titled the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The core premise is not complicated. American elections are for American citizens.

That should not be a revolutionary sentence. Yet here we are.

According to the Examiner, Senate Democrats have opposed the SAVE Act's proof-of-citizenship and photo-ID requirements. That tells you almost everything you need to know about where this fight is headed.

The obvious question

If Americans are expected to verify identity for flights, jobs, banking, and a long list of ordinary transactions, why is voting the one sacred civic act some politicians insist must remain insulated from serious verification?

That is not a gotcha question. It is the whole question.

Trump Forces Republicans to Pick a Side Too

Trump did not stop with Democrats. He also reportedly urged Senate Republicans to combine these measures into one bill, eliminate the filibuster, and even cancel Easter recess if needed.

Then came the line that will make the consultant class reach for decaf: Republicans who vote against America on this package, he said, should be identified clearly and will not be elected again.

Blunt? Absolutely.

But grassroots voters are tired of the same old routine. A bill gets introduced. Everybody gives a stern speech. Leadership shrugs. The calendar wins. Then someone says maybe next session.

Trump's post cuts through that ritual. He is telling the party to stop acting like election integrity and cultural sanity are optional side quests.

What this means for conservatives

If you care about secure elections, this fight matters because it forces clarity:

• Do your senators support proof of citizenship to vote, or not?

• Do they support photo ID, or not?

• Will they trade away ICE funding without getting major policy wins back?

• Will they fight through recess and Senate procedure, or hide behind them?

You already know where this is going.

The Bottom Line

President Trump just offered Democrats a bargain that exposes the whole debate. He is willing to give ground on billions in ICE funding if the other side will finally accept commonsense election safeguards and basic protections for children and women's sports.

If Democrats refuse, they are not rejecting extremism. They are rejecting verification, boundaries, and accountability.

And if Republicans blink, voters should notice that too.

Because at some point the question stops being whether Washington knows what the grassroots wants. It does. The question is whether anyone in that town is willing to fight for it when the pressure hits.

Further Reading

• Washington Examiner: Trump open to $5 billion ICE funding cut if SAVE Act passes

• Congress.gov: H.R.22 - Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act

And yet Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is still saying no.

Because of course she is.

What the Fight Is Actually About

According to The Federalist, Murkowski has joined Democrats in opposing the SAVE America Act even as Senate Republicans push the bill forward. The basic idea behind the legislation is not exotic. It would require proof of U.S. citizenship at registration and voter identification for federal elections.

That should not be controversial. It is not some wild constitutional experiment. It is the kind of basic verification Americans deal with all the time.

Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas put it plainly in Senate floor remarks supporting the bill:

"Why should voting, the most sacred act in our republic, be the only place where we don't ask for basic proof, that you're eligible, that you are who you say you are."

That question is hard to answer honestly, which may explain why opponents keep trying not to answer it.

Murkowski Says She Supports Voter ID. Just Not This Bill.

Murkowski's own office says she supports voter ID while opposing the SAVE America Act. Her argument is that Alaska's geography, rural communities, and documentation realities make the bill difficult to implement quickly. She argues that a one-size-fits-all federal standard could burden voters in places that are not connected by roads and where obtaining documents can be difficult.

That is a real logistical argument. It deserves to be heard.

But here is the problem. Republicans did not spend years warning about election integrity just to be told, at the moment of decision, that we are powerless to verify citizenship because ferry schedules are complicated.

If a state has implementation concerns, fix the implementation. Amend the logistics. Work the timeline. Do the job. What you do not do is use administrative headaches as a reason to leave the front door open.

The Public Is Not Confused About This

The numbers are not close.

Wisconsin Watch recently compiled national polling showing broad support for voter verification measures:

• Pew Research Center found 83% of U.S. adults favored requiring government-issued photo identification to vote.

• Gallup found 84% favored requiring photo ID at the polls.

• Gallup also found 83% favored requiring first-time registrants to provide proof of citizenship.

• Rasmussen found 77% of likely voters viewed photo ID as a reasonable election integrity measure.

Read those numbers again.

This is not some 51-49 knife fight driven by cable news hysteria. This is overwhelming public support. Even Marshall noted that roughly 70% of Democrats support voter ID. When you have Republicans, independents, and a large share of Democrats all landing in the same place, the issue is not public opinion. The issue is political class resistance.

Trump Is Right to Make This a Priority

President Trump has treated the bill like what it is: a foundational issue. If you cannot guarantee that only citizens are registering and voting in federal elections, then every downstream promise about confidence, fairness, and legitimacy starts wobbling.

This is why the establishment habit of treating election integrity like an optional side quest is so maddening. Senate Republicans can pass commemorative resolutions in a blink. They can find time for side legislation, procedural maneuvering, and enough throat clearing to power the entire Capitol complex. But when it comes to securing elections, suddenly everything becomes impossibly complicated.

Funny how that works.

What Conservatives Should Watch Next

The Senate fight is not just about Murkowski. It is about whether Republicans are willing to push through the usual excuses and make election integrity a governing priority instead of a campaign slogan.

Here is what matters now:

• Whether Senate leadership keeps pressure on holdouts instead of letting the issue quietly die

• Whether Democrats are forced to defend opposition to measures backed by most of their own voters

• Whether Republicans refine the bill's implementation details without surrendering the core requirement of citizenship verification

• Whether grassroots voters keep making clear that this is not negotiable

Reasonable people can debate how a law should be implemented in Alaska, Arizona, or anywhere else. But the core principle is not difficult: American elections should be decided by American citizens.

That is not radical. That is the minimum.

Further Reading

• The Federalist: Memo To Senate: Saving America's Elections Is Your No. 1 Job Right Now

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski statement: "I support voter ID but oppose the SAVE America Act"

• Sen. Roger Marshall floor remarks supporting the SAVE America Act

• Wisconsin Watch polling roundup on voter ID support

The real question is not why voters want this. The polls already answered that. The real question is why a handful of senators still think they can stand in the way of basic election verification and expect the grassroots to shrug. They should not count on that. Not this time.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says his office is investigating Proposition 50 after the Riverside Election Integrity Team alleged there were roughly 45,000 excess votes in the county. State election officials say the watchdog group's math is wrong. Bianco's answer is straightforward: fine, then count the ballots and prove it.

That is what has Sacramento rattled.

What Sheriff Bianco Is Actually Doing

According to Breitbart, Fox News reporting republished by Yahoo, and the New York Post, Bianco seized more than 650,000 ballots over the weekend as part of an investigation into the November 2025 election. At a Friday press conference, he described the process in plain English.

“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded.”

That is not some wild conspiracy theory. It is called verification. You know, the thing normal people do when the numbers are disputed.

The dispute centers on Proposition 50, the California ballot measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw congressional districts in a way widely understood to benefit Democrats. Because of course it was. When questions emerged about the vote totals in Riverside County, a local election integrity group claimed it found around 45,000 excess votes.

State and county election officials rejected that conclusion. Riverside elections official Art Tinoco said the group misunderstood election-day intake logs, which he described as estimates rather than exact tallies. Tinoco argued the final vote total was within 0.16 percent, or 103 votes, of the original estimate.

That sounds reassuring. Unless you think the public should be allowed to confirm it.

Why State Officials Want This Shut Down

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber says Bianco has no authority to conduct a recount. Attorney General Rob Bonta's office says it only sought documents and wanted to understand the legal basis for the probe. Bonta's office also said it had serious concerns about the warrants and claimed the sheriff had delayed and stonewalled requests for information.

Here is Weber's position, as quoted in multiple reports:

“The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has taken actions based on allegations that lack credible evidence and risk undermining public confidence in our elections.”

That line always comes first, doesn't it? Asking questions undermines confidence. Verifying the numbers undermines confidence. Looking under the hood undermines confidence.

No. What undermines confidence is a system that demands trust while resisting transparency.

Bianco fired back hard, saying Bonta had sent multiple letters telling him to stop. He called the attorney general “an embarrassment to law enforcement” and said it was deeply concerning that a supposed law enforcement official would be outraged by an election integrity investigation.

And that is the real story here. Not just the ballots. The panic.

The Bigger Election Integrity Fight

If the state's numbers are solid, a physical count should settle the matter. If the watchdog group's claims are flawed, an honest review will expose that quickly. Either way, sunlight helps.

Instead, California's ruling class seems to be sending a different message:

• Trust the experts.

• Do not ask too many questions.

• Definitely do not bring receipts.

• And whatever you do, do not count the actual ballots unless we say so.

You do not have to accept every fraud claim thrown around online to see the problem. Election integrity is not a left-right luxury issue. It is basic constitutional hygiene. A republic depends on citizens believing votes are lawful, accurately counted, and open to scrutiny.

That is especially true when the measure in question affects political power itself. Proposition 50 was not about naming a state insect. It involved congressional maps and partisan advantage. You would think California officials would welcome extra transparency on something that consequential.

Instead, they are acting like an audit is a hostile act.

What Comes Next

The central factual dispute is narrow enough for ordinary Americans to understand. The Riverside Election Integrity Team says there may be around 45,000 excess votes. Elections officials say no, the final count was effectively consistent with the initial estimates once the process is properly understood.

Good. Then count the ballots.

If Bianco's investigation confirms the official tally, that result should be published plainly and defended confidently. If it uncovers something more serious, voters deserve to know that too. Either outcome serves the public better than the familiar California approach of sneering at skeptics and hiding behind procedure.

And let us be honest about the politics. Democrats have spent years benefiting from a media culture that treats election security concerns as suspicious unless they come from the left. But when the issue involves actual ballots, actual numbers, and an actual investigation, the old talking points start looking thin.

The question is not whether Sacramento finds this probe inconvenient. The question is whether California voters are still allowed to verify an election when the people in charge would rather they just move along.

Further Reading

• Breitbart: California Sheriff Seizes 650K Ballots to Determine 2025 Election Integrity

• Fox News Digital, via Yahoo: California sheriff seizes 650,000 ballots in defiance of state officials over election count dispute

• New York Post: California sheriff seizes 650,000 ballots in defiance of state officials over election count dispute

That is the frustration driving the latest blast from The Federalist, which called out Sen. Lisa Murkowski and other Senate Republicans for spending floor energy on smaller items while a major election integrity fight sits in limbo. And honestly, you can see why grassroots voters are annoyed. If requiring proof of citizenship and voter ID for federal elections is not urgent now, when exactly does it become urgent?

This is not some fringe process complaint. The SAVE America Act has become one of the clearest tests of whether Washington Republicans are serious about election integrity or just enjoy making campaign ads about it every two years.

What the fight is about

At its core, the SAVE America Act would tighten federal election safeguards in a few basic ways.

What supporters say the bill would do

• Require proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections

• Require photo identification for voting in federal elections

• Strengthen voter-roll verification procedures

• Push the Senate to treat election integrity like an actual governing priority

According to The Federalist, that is precisely why the floor drama matters. The complaint is not only that Democrats oppose the bill. Everybody already knows where Democrats stand on voter verification. The bigger irritation is that some Republicans still manage to wander off into less important business while the main event is sitting right there.

And yes, voters notice that.

Murkowski's objection, in her own words

To be fair, Murkowski has explained why she opposes the bill as written. In a February statement on her Senate website, she said she supports voter ID but believes the SAVE America Act would disenfranchise many Alaskans because of the state's geography, limited road access, and document requirements.

She argued that Alaska's election system is not like Florida's or Texas's, and that a federal one-size-fits-all rule could force rural residents to travel long distances and spend serious money just to register or update records.

Here is how Murkowski framed it:

"Election integrity matters, and the right to vote must be reserved for U.S. citizens. So why do I oppose the SAVE America Act? The answer is twofold: The Constitution largely leaves it to the states to determine election requirements, and the bill as written would disenfranchise many Alaskans."

That is a real argument. It is not crazy to say a remote state has logistical challenges. But here is the question conservatives are asking: if your problem is implementation, why block the broader push instead of fighting to improve the bill?

Because those are not the same thing.

Why the Senate's priorities are taking heat

The Federalist highlighted Murkowski's successful push for a Senate resolution honoring Native Hawaiian women and pointed to Sen. Cynthia Lummis introducing unrelated conservation legislation while the SAVE America Act remained bogged down.

Nobody is saying those issues can never be discussed. The point is sequencing. If election integrity is as important as Republicans say it is, why does the Senate keep acting like it can get to it after a few errands?

That is where the sarcasm writes itself.

The republic is supposedly hanging in the balance. But first, a commemorative resolution.

Why this is landing badly with the base

Grassroots conservatives have heard the same story for years:

• Election security matters

• Noncitizen voting must be prevented

• Voter confidence must be restored

• Now is not quite the moment to force the issue

Funny how the perfect moment never arrives.

President Trump has treated the SAVE America Act as a major priority, and Senate Republicans have repeatedly said secure elections are foundational. If that is true, then every delay, detour, and procedural shrug looks worse.

Senate Republicans are making the case themselves

Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas made the basic argument on the Senate floor in support of the bill. According to his office, Marshall said the legislation is about one simple thing: making sure only duly registered American citizens cast ballots in American elections.

He also put the voter ID point in plain English:

"Why should voting, the most sacred act in our republic, be the only place where we don't ask for basic proof - that you're eligible, that you are who you say you are."

That question hits because normal Americans live with verification rules constantly. You show ID to board a plane, open a bank account, buy alcohol, check into a hotel, and handle all kinds of ordinary business. Yet when conservatives ask for citizenship checks and voter ID in federal elections, suddenly Washington acts like it has stumbled into a civilizational crisis.

Please.

The real political problem

Democrats are the obvious obstacle to final passage. Supporters of the SAVE America Act say that even many Democratic voters back voter ID, but Senate Democrats still refuse to move with Republicans on the issue.

That matters. But it also means Republicans have even less room for internal drift.

When the other side is unified against voter verification, every Republican side quest becomes more noticeable. Every symbolic distraction becomes a reminder that the party still struggles to treat election integrity like the priority it claims it is.

Questions voters should be asking

• Do you support proof of citizenship for voter registration or not?

• Do you support photo ID for federal voting or not?

• If you have concerns, what exact amendment would fix them?

• Why are secondary priorities moving faster than the election bill you call essential?

Those are not trick questions. They are the minimum.

The bottom line

Murkowski says she supports voter ID but opposes the SAVE America Act as written. Fine. Make the case. Offer fixes. Fight over the language. That is part of legislating.

But while the Senate burns time on lower-stakes items, conservatives are right to ask whether their own party understands the moment.

The SAVE America Act is not a messaging gimmick. It is a basic test of whether Republicans are willing to secure federal elections with the kind of verification standards Americans already accept in everyday life.

If the Senate cannot get serious about that now, then voters are justified in wondering what exactly all the speeches were for.

Further Reading

• The Federalist: Memo To Senate: Saving America's Elections Is Your No. 1 Job Right Now

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski: "I support voter ID but oppose the SAVE America Act"

• Sen. Roger Marshall remarks backing the SAVE America Act

If you're wondering why this even has to be litigated, same. The country somehow managed to turn the phrase "Election Day" into a week-long group project, and now the justices are being asked to decide whether federal law means what it says.

According to The Center Square, Mississippi allows mail ballots to arrive up to five days after Election Day so long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have similar late-arrival rules. Republicans argue federal law sets a single day for federal elections, which means ballots should be in by then.

The Core Question Is Not Complicated

This case is wrapped in legal filings, but the basic issue is simple.

• Federal law sets an Election Day for federal offices

• Mississippi accepts certain ballots after that day

• The Supreme Court now has to decide whether those two things can coexist

Jason Snead of the Honest Elections Project told The Center Square that "Federal law clearly states that ballots must be received by Election Day." That is the argument election integrity advocates have been making for years. Not because voting should be hard, but because rules should be rules.

And that is where the Left always gets slippery. They act like requiring ballots to arrive on time is some kind of attack on democracy. No. It is called having a deadline. Your property tax bill has one. Court filings have one. Airline check-in has one. But when it comes to ballots, suddenly we are told deadlines are oppressive.

What Late Ballot Rules Actually Do

Every extra day of counting creates more uncertainty, more suspicion, and more room for procedural chaos.

That does not mean every late ballot is fraudulent. It does mean the public's trust takes a hit when results drag on and the universe of countable ballots keeps shifting after polls close.

The polling cited by The Center Square makes that pretty plain:

• 78% of voters said ballots should be received by election officials by the end of Election Day to make elections more secure

• 59% said they would not trust results if ballots received after polls close are counted

• 60% said counting late-arriving ballots makes cheating easier

Those are not fringe numbers. Those are the sort of numbers that make consultants nervous because regular Americans are saying the obvious part out loud.

The Status Quo Is a Confidence Problem

You do not build trust by telling voters to stop noticing a messy system.

You build trust by making the system clean, clear, and easy to explain. If a ballot must be received by Election Day, voters know the rule. Election officials know the rule. Campaigns know the rule. Courts do not have to invent new theories every November.

That is not voter suppression. It is administrative sanity.

The Military Voter Argument Matters. But Congress Already Addressed It.

Mississippi's side argues that a strict receipt deadline could jeopardize ballots from military and overseas voters. That concern deserves to be taken seriously. These are Americans serving abroad or living overseas, and their votes matter.

But the legal answer is not, "Then every state can blur Election Day for everyone else."

The Federal Voting Assistance Program explains that the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, better known as UOCAVA, and the later MOVE Act require states to send absentee ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days before federal elections. In other words, Congress already built protections into federal law for those voters.

So the real question becomes this: if Congress created a system to help overseas and military voters cast ballots on time, why should states get to use those voters as a blanket excuse for late-arriving domestic ballots?

That is a serious distinction, and the Court may very well draw it.

The USPS Postmark Problem Is Real Too

There is also a practical wrinkle here. USPS recently clarified that postmarks generally reflect when a mailpiece first reaches an originating processing facility, not necessarily the exact day a voter dropped it in a mailbox or handed it to a carrier.

That matters.

If a state is relying on postmarks to validate late-arriving ballots, but the postmark date may not always match the date of mailing, then the system gets even muddier. USPS says voters who want a postmark matching the date of mailing can request a manual local postmark at a retail counter. Useful information, sure. Also the kind of detail a normal person is unlikely to know without digging through postal guidance.

Which raises the obvious question: why build election rules around a process this fuzzy in the first place?

Clear Rules Beat Creative Interpretations

Here is the better standard for federal elections:

• Plenty of early voting

• Plenty of absentee access for eligible voters

• Ballots sent out on time

• Ballots returned on time

• Counting begins and ends under known rules

That is not radical. It is competent.

What the Supreme Court Could Settle

The Court is not likely to issue a decision until June, but the stakes are bigger than Mississippi.

If the justices rule that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day in federal contests, states with late-receipt rules will have to adjust. If they uphold Mississippi's law, expect more litigation, more confusion, and more of the same "trust us" messaging from a political class that keeps acting shocked when voters do not.

Election integrity is not about making it harder for honest people to vote. It is about making it harder for bad systems to keep eroding trust. And yes, those are different things.

The question before the Court is almost embarrassingly basic: does Election Day mean Election Day?

It should not take the Supreme Court to answer that. But because of course it does, here we are.

Further Reading

• The Center Square: U.S. Supreme Court to hear mail-in ballots case Monday

• USPS: Postmarking Myths and Facts

• Federal Voting Assistance Program: UOCAVA Overview

According to reporting from RedState and primary footage released by O'Keefe Media Group, undercover journalists in downtown Los Angeles documented petition circulators offering cash, cigarettes, and marijuana in exchange for ballot petition signatures. Not persuasion. Not education. Straight-up inducements.

And because corruption rarely travels alone, the confrontation reportedly turned violent when members of the investigative team challenged what they were seeing. Turning Point USA Frontlines also documented similar activity and threats in the same area. So this was not one weird clip taken out of context. It looks a lot more like a system that has gotten comfortable operating in broad daylight.

What the footage reportedly shows

O'Keefe Media Group says its undercover journalists posed as homeless individuals on Skid Row and documented at least 28 cash-for-signature exchanges over just a few days. In one recorded exchange, a petitioner identified as Brenda Brown allegedly said, "We gon' give you $2," while also talking about getting people registered so she could get paid.

That matters because many of the people being targeted appeared not to understand what they were signing. According to OMG's write-up, petitioners were being paid $7 to $10 per signature and in some cases claimed they could make more than $1,000 per day.

If that is true, then the incentive structure tells its own story. When the money depends on volume, the pressure is not to inform people. The pressure is to collect signatures as fast as possible, legality be damned.

Frontlines TPUSA released additional footage showing petitioners allegedly offering cigarettes and reacting aggressively when confronted by an undercover journalist. One man reportedly tried to pitch a petition as helping women and stopping sexual assault by Uber drivers, while appearing unable to clearly explain what the measure actually did.

Because of course the sales pitch gets vague right when the camera turns on.

The law is not exactly subtle here

California law is plain. California Elections Code Section 18603 says that anyone who offers or gives money or other valuable consideration in exchange for a signature on an initiative, referendum, or recall petition is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Federal law is also relevant in certain election contexts. Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute reproduces 52 U.S.C. Section 10307(c), which says anyone who pays, offers to pay, or accepts payment for registration to vote or for voting can be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to five years, or both, in covered elections.

Here is the short version:

• Cash for signatures is not normal politics

• Cigarettes for signatures are not harmless street hustle

• Marijuana for signatures is not "community outreach"

• If people do not understand what they are signing, the fraud concern gets even uglier

None of this should be controversial. The only controversial part is that so many people in power seem allergic to admitting what is right in front of them.

Why Skid Row keeps showing up in these stories

The O'Keefe report says the activity was happening directly across from the Weingart Center and alleges that employees there pointed homeless individuals toward petitioners and even offered advice about plausible deniability. Those are serious allegations. They deserve serious scrutiny.

OMG also noted that this is not the first time Skid Row has shown up in a signature fraud case. The outlet pointed to prior arrests from 2016 and later charges tied to exchanging cash and cigarettes for petition signatures under the same California code section.

So ask the obvious question: if this has happened before, why does it look like nobody learned a thing?

That question matters because Skid Row is not just another neighborhood. It is one of the clearest symbols of progressive misrule in America. Government spends fortunes. Nonprofits absorb mountains of taxpayer money. The human misery stays. And somewhere in the middle, political operators allegedly treat vulnerable people like a cheap signature mine.

That is the cost of government without accountability.

What this says about election integrity in California

Conservatives have been mocked for years for insisting that weak controls invite fraud. Yet the argument here is not abstract. The cameras captured petitioners allegedly offering things of value to people who often seemed confused, vulnerable, or both.

This story also exposes a deeper problem than one bad actor with a wad of cash.

The bigger issue is the culture behind it:

• People seem confident enough to do it in public

• Some participants allegedly bragged about how much they make per signature

• Law enforcement, according to OMG, did not immediately treat the conduct as a criminal matter

• The target pool was people least able to evaluate what they were signing

That is not a breakdown at one point in the chain. That looks like rot up and down the chain.

And if Democrats want to say this is just about petitions, not ballots, they are missing the point on purpose. A political culture that tolerates bribery, confusion, and exploitation in one part of the process is a culture that cannot be trusted to protect the rest of the process very well either.

Reasonable people can debate policy. There is nothing reasonable about paying desperate people for signatures they do not understand.

The bigger political problem for California's ruling class

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did not create every hustler on Skid Row. But they do own the environment where public disorder, soft enforcement, and ideological denial make this kind of abuse easier to pull off.

California's governing class loves lecturing the rest of the country about democracy. Fine. Start by protecting the integrity of your own petition system.

If investigators confirm what these videos appear to show, then there should be charges, audits, and a hard look at every organization or contractor involved. Who hired these petitioners? Who trained them? Who benefited from the signatures? Who looked the other way?

Those are the questions adults ask.

Because once you are paying homeless residents with cash, cigarettes, or weed to sign political documents, you are not defending democracy. You are running a hustle.

Further Reading

• RedState: Watch: Fraudsters Pay LA Skid Row Residents for Petition Signatures Then Attack Investigative Team

• O'Keefe Media Group: Election Fraud On Skid Row: Cash & Drug Exchange For Signatures

• California Elections Code Section 18603

• 52 U.S.C. Section 10307 via Cornell Law School

Now grassroots groups are turning up the pressure because too many senators still act like this is optional. The Election Integrity Network and Heritage Action have both urged citizens to contact the Senate and demand action. President Trump has also made clear that Republicans who cannot back election integrity should not assume an automatic endorsement. Fair enough.

If Republicans say only citizens should vote in American elections, this is where they prove they mean it.

What the Bill Actually Tries to Do

Supporters of the SAVE America Act have kept the case simple. According to Sen. Roger Marshall, the bill would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, require voter ID, and tighten validation for mail ballots. The principle is plain: American elections should be decided by American citizens.

That should not be controversial. It should be obvious.

Marshall framed it in terms ordinary people understand. Americans show identification to board a plane, open a bank account, buy alcohol, get a hotel room, and pick up certain prescriptions. So why is voting treated like the one sacred public act that must be protected from the terrible burden of proving who you are?

"Polls show that even around 70% of Democrats believe voter ID is common sense and essential for fair elections," Sen. Roger Marshall said in floor remarks posted by his office.

That is the part nobody in Washington can really explain away. The public is ahead of the Senate on this issue.

Why the Grassroots Are Pushing So Hard

The pressure campaign did not come out of nowhere. Voters have spent years watching the political class talk tough about election integrity and then drift into procedure, delay, and throat-clearing the moment a real fight shows up.

Here is why grassroots conservatives are leaning in:

• Proof of citizenship is easy to understand and broadly supported

• Voter ID polls well across party lines

• Public confidence in elections remains badly damaged

• Republicans campaigned on securing elections, not managing the optics of doing nothing

Heritage Action argues that existing federal law leaves too much room for weak verification and says the SAVE Act closes that gap by requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration. The Election Integrity Network has similarly urged conservatives to call senators and make clear this is not a side issue.

And it is not a side issue. If the system cannot reliably verify who is voting, confidence erodes fast.

Murkowski’s Objections, and the Bigger Problem

Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she supports voter ID in principle but opposes the SAVE America Act as written. In a February opinion piece reposted by her Senate office, she argued that the bill would be difficult to implement in Alaska, especially in remote communities far from election offices. She raised concerns about documentation, rural access, and the practical burden on voters in a state where many communities are off the road system.

Those are real logistical questions. Congress can address logistical questions.

What frustrates conservatives is the familiar pattern. When the issue is symbolic, the Senate can move quickly. When the issue is election security, suddenly every difficulty becomes fatal, every edge case becomes a veto, and every reform must die for the sake of sensitivity.

Because of course it does.

The Federalist highlighted that contrast by noting Murkowski helped advance Senate Resolution 650, honoring American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women, even as the Senate battle over the SAVE America Act dragged on. The resolution passed by unanimous consent. Nice. Meanwhile, the bill tied to whether citizens trust federal elections is treated like dangerous contraband.

That is why voters are irritated. Not because every implementation concern is fake, but because Washington always seems most energetic about everything except the thing voters were promised.

The Senate Choice Is Pretty Simple

Reasonable people can debate how to handle rural communities, document mismatches, and transition periods. But those are implementation details, not arguments against the core principle.

The core principle is this:

• Only citizens should vote in federal elections

• Citizenship should be verified, not assumed

• Identity should be confirmed at the polls

• Election law should build trust before problems happen, not after

None of that is extreme. It is responsible.

President Trump Raises the Stakes

President Trump has described the SAVE America Act as one of the most important and consequential pieces of legislation before Congress and warned that Republicans who oppose it should not count on his endorsement. That matters because it tells nervous Republicans this is not a messaging exercise. It is a test.

And honestly, it should be.

Voters are tired of Republicans who sound like fighters in campaign season and then behave like cautious interns once the votes matter. If election integrity is a real priority, then keep the debate going, force the issue, and make opponents explain why proving citizenship is too much to ask in a federal election.

If Democrats really think their own voters support ID requirements, why are so many in Washington still hiding behind process and panic language? Why is basic verification always the line they cannot cross?

What Comes Next

The grassroots strategy is not complicated. Call senators. Keep the pressure up. Refuse to let this dissolve into another round of Senate fog where everyone gives speeches, nobody takes responsibility, and the country gets another lecture about why common sense is somehow impossible.

This is bigger than one bill. It is about whether the Senate understands that trust in elections is part of the foundation of self-government. Lose that, and the whole system gets shakier.

The SAVE America Act is not asking for something exotic. It is asking the federal government to verify citizenship and identity before a ballot is cast in a federal election.

That should have been standard a long time ago.

The only real question now is whether the Senate wants to act like election integrity is urgent, or keep treating it like a side quest while the grassroots does the homework for them.

Further Reading

• The Federalist: Memo To Senate: Saving America’s Elections Is Your No. 1 Job Right Now

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski: I support voter ID, but oppose the SAVE America Act

• Sen. Roger Marshall: What’s Stopping Democrats from Backing Voter ID?

• Heritage Action: Tell Congress to Pass the SAVE Act

In Mississippi, mail ballots can arrive up to five days after Election Day if they are postmarked by Election Day. According to The Center Square, fourteen states plus Washington, D.C., have similar rules. That means the justices are not just deciding one Mississippi dispute. They are weighing whether states can keep stretching federal elections past the date Congress put on the calendar.

And yes, that matters.

Because if the voting period is over, but ballots can still show up days later, you do not really have an Election Day. You have Election Week, maybe Election Week Plus Shipping Delays, and everybody is supposed to smile and pretend that is normal.

What the Case Is About

According to The Center Square, Republican lawyers argued that federal law sets a clear day for federal elections and that ballots need to be in by that date to count. Jason Snead of the Honest Elections Project put it bluntly: “Federal law clearly states that ballots must be received by Election Day.”

Mississippi and its defenders argue the issue is more complicated, especially for military and overseas voters. That is the part worth slowing down for.

The Department of Justice’s overview of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, or UOCAVA, explains that Congress already created a separate framework to protect military families and Americans living abroad in federal elections. Under the MOVE Act amendments, states generally must transmit absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days before a federal election. The law also provides backup procedures for those voters, including the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot.

In plain English: Congress did not forget military voters. It built protections for them.

That does not automatically answer every legal question in *Watson v. RNC*, but it does undercut the lazy talking point that election integrity and military voting are somehow opposites. They are not.

The Postal Problem Nobody Can Ignore

There is also a practical problem sitting right in the middle of this fight.

The U.S. Postal Service said in a January 2026 statement that postmarks are generally applied at processing facilities, not necessarily on the same day a ballot is dropped off. USPS also said the date on a postmark “will not necessarily match the date on which the customer’s mailpiece was collected by a letter carrier or dropped off at a retail location.” If a voter wants the postmark date to match the mailing date, USPS says the voter should request a manual local postmark at a retail counter.

That is not a small detail. That is the whole ballgame.

If your election system depends on postmarks, but the Postal Service itself says those postmarks may not reflect the day the ballot was actually mailed, then you have built a rule on top of a shaky foundation. Because of course that would create confusion.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Mississippi

This case matters for at least four reasons:

• It tests whether federal election law has a real deadline or just a suggestion.

• It could affect late-arriving ballot rules in fourteen other states and Washington, D.C.

• It puts pressure on states to clean up absentee procedures before the next major federal cycle.

• It forces courts to reckon with the gap between election law theory and postal reality.

That last point matters more than the usual talking heads will admit. Election systems should be simple enough for voters to understand and tight enough for the public to trust. If ballots must arrive by Election Day, voters know the rule. If the rule is actually postmarked by Election Day, except postmarks may not mean what you think they mean, and maybe some categories get carved out later, then good luck explaining that mess at your county church potluck.

Voters Already Know the Answer

The Center Square reported that a poll conducted by CRC Research for the Honest Elections Project found 78 percent of likely voters said requiring ballots to be received by election officials by the end of Election Day makes elections more secure. It also found that 60 percent said counting ballots received after polls close makes it easier to cheat.

You do not need a PhD to understand why.

The longer the counting window drifts beyond Election Day, the more public trust bleeds out. People want rules that are clear, uniform, and actually enforced. They especially want that after years of election fights, courtroom battles, and elite lectures about how asking basic accountability questions is somehow impolite.

No. The public is allowed to want an election system that closes when it says it closes.

The Real Choice Before the Court

The justices can pretend this is just a technical dispute over statutory wording. It is not. It is about whether the country will keep normalizing uncertainty in federal elections.

A clean rule does not disenfranchise voters. A sloppy system does. If states know ballots must be received by Election Day, they can educate voters, mail ballots earlier, and follow the federal framework Congress already set for military and overseas voters.

That is called governance.

Further Reading

• The Center Square: U.S. Supreme Court to hear mail-in ballots case Monday

• Department of Justice: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

• USPS: Postmarking Myths and Facts

If Election Day can slide into the rest of the week whenever ballots are still trickling in, then the phrase means nothing. The court now has a chance to restore a very old idea that should not be controversial at all: Election Day means Election Day.

And yet here we are. While President Trump has called the bill one of the most important pieces of legislation in Congress, Sen. Lisa Murkowski is still arguing that Alaska is too unique for basic verification. Because apparently the greatest republic in the world can land fighter jets on aircraft carriers, but asking voters to prove citizenship is just a bridge too far.

That is the fight now. Not whether election integrity matters. It does. The question is whether Senate Republicans will treat it like the priority they keep claiming it is.

What the SAVE America Act Actually Does

Supporters of the bill have kept the pitch simple. According to Sen. Roger Marshall, the legislation would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, require voter ID, and validate mail-in ballots. The goal is straightforward: only American citizens should be casting ballots in American elections.

That should not be some wild, fringe idea.

Marshall argued on the Senate floor that even about 70 percent of Democrats support voter ID. He also made the comparison a lot of Americans are already making at home:

It’s something most of us do every day: show an ID to board a plane, open a bank account, buy alcohol, get a hotel room, or pick up some prescriptions. Why should voting, the most sacred act in our republic, be the only place where we do not ask for basic proof?

That is the heart of the issue. You verify your identity for all sorts of ordinary transactions. But when it comes to choosing the people who write your laws, control your taxes, and shape your children’s future, suddenly verification is treated like oppression. Convenient.

Murkowski’s Case Against the Bill

Murkowski says she supports voter ID in principle but opposes the SAVE America Act as written. In a February opinion piece reposted by her Senate office, she argued that the bill would be difficult to implement in Alaska, especially in rural communities far from regional election offices.

She points to real logistical challenges. Alaska has many communities off the road system. Some voters rely on mail registration. Some documents do not line up neatly. In her telling, the bill could burden legal voters, especially in remote areas.

Fine. Those concerns can be discussed.

But here is what conservatives keep noticing: the senator seems much more eager to talk about why the bill is hard than why election integrity is necessary. That is why grassroots voters are frustrated. They have heard this tune before. Washington always has a reason to delay the thing voters actually want.

And while the debate drags on, Murkowski also helped move Senate Resolution 650, recognizing the heritage and contributions of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women. The resolution passed by unanimous consent.

Good for them. Truly.

But if the Senate can move symbolic resolutions without drama, why does every serious election integrity measure get treated like a constitutional crisis?

Why Grassroots Conservatives Are Turning Up the Heat

The pressure campaign is not complicated. Voters want senators to stop treating the SAVE America Act like optional homework.

Here is why the issue is breaking through:

• Proof of citizenship polls well because people understand it instantly

• Voter ID remains broadly popular across party lines

• Public trust in elections is still shaky after years of chaos and denial

• Republicans promised action, not another round of procedural throat-clearing

President Trump has made the bill a top domestic priority. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has brought it forward. Advocacy groups like Heritage Action and the Election Integrity Network are pushing constituents to call their senators.

That matters, because Senate math is what it is. Republicans can make the case, but Democrats are the ones blocking the votes needed to move this cleanly. So yes, pressure matters. A lot.

This Is About Confidence, Not Theater

The left likes to pretend conservatives are inventing the problem. That misses the point. Election laws are not just about catching wrongdoing after the fact. They are about building public confidence before the fact.

A system that verifies citizenship and identity is not radical. It is responsible. It tells the country that voting is a serious civic act, not a casual administrative suggestion.

And if Democrats really believe their own voters support ID requirements, what exactly are they afraid of? Why is this always the hill they choose to die on?

Reasonable people can debate implementation details. Alaska has real geographic challenges. Other states have their own quirks. But that is an argument for competent execution, not surrender. Congress can address logistics without gutting the principle.

The Senate’s Choice

Here is the part your senator needs to hear: voters are tired of watching Republicans campaign like fighters and govern like nervous interns.

If the SAVE America Act is as important as leaders say, then treat it that way. Keep the pressure on. Force the votes. Make Democrats explain why proving citizenship is unacceptable for federal elections but ID checks are perfectly normal for everything else in American life.

This is not some side issue. This is the legitimacy of the ballot box.

And if Washington cannot muster the will to verify who is voting in federal elections, voters are going to ask a very fair question: what exactly are these people in the Senate doing all day?

Further Reading

• The Federalist: Memo To Senate: Saving America’s Elections Is Your No. 1 Job Right Now

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski: I support voter ID, but oppose the SAVE America Act

• Sen. Roger Marshall: What’s Stopping Democrats from Backing Voter ID?

According to court filings cited by The Daily Signal, Fulton County previously described the archived 2020 election materials as being held in approximately 750 boxes. A later affidavit lowered that estimate to over 700 boxes. After the FBI seizure, the county's own federal complaint said agents removed approximately 656 boxes containing original 2020 election materials. That is not a paperwork typo. That is a gap large enough to drive a campaign bus through.

The Numbers Do Not Match

Georgia State Election Board Vice Chair Janice Johnston has been saying the obvious part out loud. If county officials told courts one thing and the post-seizure paperwork shows something else, somebody needs to explain it.

"That's almost 100 boxes of evidence," Johnston told The Daily Signal.

Here is the timeline that matters:

• In a November 2024 petition, Fulton County said 2020 election materials were archived in approximately 750 boxes.

• In a February 2025 affidavit, Elections Director Nadine Williams described the materials as stored in over 700 boxes.

• In the county's February 2026 federal complaint, officials said the FBI removed approximately 656 boxes.

You do not need a PhD in statistics to notice the direction of travel here. Every time the records are described, the stack gets smaller.

Why This Matters

This is not a fight over office supplies. The FBI search involved ballots, tabulator tapes, and ballot images from the 2020 recount, according to Georgia Public Broadcasting's reporting on the unsealed affidavit. Those are the core records investigators would want if they were trying to answer complaints about ballot counting discrepancies.

If the official inventory has shifted by dozens of boxes, that matters on its face. If records were moved, misplaced, miscounted, or never where officials said they were, that matters even more. Election integrity depends on a clean chain of custody and records that actually exist when the public asks to see them.

And that is before you get to the ballot image issue.

The 370,000 Ballot Image Problem

Johnston also says more than 370,000 ballot images from the original Nov. 3, 2020 count are missing. That claim adds another layer to a case that already looked messy enough.

Ballot images are not decorative. They are part of the documentary trail that lets investigators, watchdogs, and courts test what happened. When those images are unavailable, confidence does not go up. It goes down.

Fulton County says it fully complied with the FBI search warrant. County spokeswoman Jessica Corbitt told The Daily Signal that agents spent more than eight hours at the Elections Hub and Operations Center, were made aware of all 2020 documents, and selected the files they removed.

That statement may satisfy the county's lawyers. It does not answer the public's obvious question. If the agents had access to all 2020 documents, why do the historical counts of stored boxes still not line up with what was actually seized?

Then Came the Lawsuit

Because of course it did.

After the raid, Fulton County sued the Justice Department and asked the court to return the seized materials and block federal review while the dispute plays out. County leaders framed the search as overreach. Johnston called the lawsuit over the top.

That contrast tells you a lot. County officials want the records back and the review slowed down. State election officials want clarity on what existed, what was handed over, and whether the public has been getting the full story.

GPB reported that Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts suggested the seizure was really about interference in future elections. That is one theory. Another is much simpler: investigators believed the records were important enough to seize, and the conflicting inventory numbers are exactly why.

The Confidence Gap

This is where establishment voices always try to fast-forward the conversation. They say the public should move on. They say asking questions about 2020 is somehow dangerous. Fine. Then answer the questions.

• Why did the estimated number of boxes shrink over time?

• Where are the missing boxes, if they exist?

• Were records moved before the FBI arrived?

• Why are hundreds of thousands of ballot images reportedly missing?

If Fulton County has clean answers, now would be a wonderful time to share them.

What Grassroots Conservatives Should Watch Next

This story is no longer just about one county and one old election dispute. It is about whether election records are preserved, traceable, and available for lawful review when serious questions are raised.

Reasonable people can disagree on tactics. They cannot disagree on the need for records to match reality. If courts were told 750 boxes, then 700-plus boxes, and investigators walked away with 656, the burden is not on voters to stop noticing. The burden is on officials to explain the discrepancy.

That is especially true in Fulton County, where public trust has already been battered for years. Transparency would calm this down. Stonewalling does the opposite.

And until somebody gives a straight answer, the question will keep hanging there like a bad smell in a government hallway: where are the boxes?

Further Reading

• PJ Media: There's Something REALLY Screwy Going on in the Georgia 2020 Election Fraud Investigation

• The Daily Signal: Fulton County Numbers Don't Match After FBI Seizure

• Georgia Public Broadcasting: Unsealed affidavit lists items taken during FBI search of the Fulton County election center

In a race separated by 23 votes, 222 questionable ballots is not background noise. That is the whole story.

Why Berger Is Pushing for a Hand Recount

According to The Center Square, Berger and Page were separated by only two votes on primary election night. After canvass, the margin widened to 23. A machine recount did not change the outcome in any meaningful way, leaving Page ahead 13,135 to 13,112.

That would normally be the end of it. Berger says not so fast.

In his letter to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Berger argued that the machines did not count 222 ballots labeled as overvotes or undervotes. His point was simple: if even a small number of those ballots contained discernible votes that machines missed, the result could change.

“In such a close election, we must be certain that every lawful vote is counted,” Berger wrote, according to The Center Square.

That is not radical. That is the job.

What Overvotes and Undervotes Actually Mean

An overvote happens when a ballot records too many selections in a race. An undervote happens when it records fewer than allowed. North Carolina election officials describe those categories as part of the normal vote-counting process. But in a razor-thin race, the obvious question is whether any ballots were marked in a way that a machine could not cleanly interpret, even though a human reviewer might.

And that is where Berger's request gets serious.

He is not merely asking for another pass through the same machines. He wants a hand-to-eye review, at minimum for the ballots categorized as overvotes or undervotes, and preferably for all ballots in the contest. Because of course if the whole dispute is whether a machine missed voter intent, running the same ballots through machinery again is not exactly a thrilling answer.

The Numbers That Matter

Here is the core math from the contest:

• Sam Page: 13,135 votes

• Phil Berger: 13,112 votes

• Margin: 23 votes

• Ballots flagged as overvotes or undervotes: 222

You do not need a political science degree to see why Berger is fighting this.

Those 222 ballots are nearly ten times the margin. If just a fraction contain valid votes that were not recognized in the machine tally, the race could flip. Maybe they do. Maybe they do not. That is exactly why a hand review exists.

There Is More Than One Dispute Here

The recount request is only part of the picture. Berger has also filed election protests tied to what he says were administrative errors in Guilford and Rockingham counties.

According to The Center Square's reporting, Berger argues:

• Eight registered voters in Guilford County should have been eligible to vote in the District 26 primary but were blocked by a ballot-style error

• One voter had a residency change issue involving Guilford and Rockingham counties

• Another case involved a party affiliation change from Democrat to unaffiliated

• Three unaffiliated voters reportedly requested Democratic ballots, then switched to Republican ballots that were counted as provisional

That is a lot of sloppiness for a contest this close.

And if you are a voter in North Carolina, this is the part that should get your attention. Election integrity is not just about headline-grabbing fraud cases. It is also about boring administrative competence. Ballot styles. Voter records. Party affiliation handling. Provisionals. The unglamorous stuff is where trust is either built or wrecked.

Why This Matters Beyond One Senate Race

This is not some backbench local squabble. Berger has been one of the most powerful Republicans in North Carolina politics for years. A challenge to his seat already makes this race notable. A challenge decided by 23 votes, with 222 uncounted ballots in the mix, makes it a statewide warning flare.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections says a sample hand recount can be used to determine whether discrepancies are significant enough to require a full hand recount. Fair enough. Run the sample. Follow the rules. Count every lawful vote.

That should not be controversial. The only people nervous about verification are usually the people who prefer slogans to scrutiny.

What Comes Next

Under state procedure cited by election officials, a sample hand-to-eye recount can trigger a broader recount if discrepancies justify it. Berger is asking election officials to take a hard look now, not after everyone has moved on and pretended the process was close enough.

Good.

Close elections do not need less transparency. They need more. If the machines got it right, a hand review can confirm it. If they missed voter intent on enough ballots to matter, voters deserve to know that too.

North Carolina Republicans do not need spin. They need confidence that the count was accurate. In a 23-vote race with 222 uncounted ballots sitting in the shadows, confidence is earned the old-fashioned way. By counting.

Further Reading

• The Center Square: Hand recount request submitted by Berger

• North Carolina State Board of Elections: Election Results Dashboard and recount procedures