NC Mail-in-Voting has Begun

The 2026 Elections are Uunderway, and even though Election Day itself is still nearly Two months away, the First Votes in the Race have already been Cast. Tens of Thousands of North Carolinians start receiving Mail-in-Ballots this week. The State began Mailing them 9/4/2026 to nearly 50,000 People who have already Requested them and will continue doing so for Weeks to come as more Rrequests come in. The Final Deadline to Request a Mail-in-Ballot is 20/20/2026.

Also 9/4/2026 the State Opened the Online Portal that Military and Ooverseas Voters can use to Vote. At least Nine Voters cast their Ballots before the Eend of the day 9/4/2026, according to Elections Officials. With Uuncertainty swirling around Mail-in-Voting in 2026, due to Changing Rules at the State Level, and Federal Lawsuits, Ppeople may have Questions about how to make sure their Ballots will Count, if they Vote-by-Mail.

“North Carolinians who want to vote by mail: Pay attention to the latest guidance and give yourself plenty of time to get your vote in,” Gov. Josh Stein (D) wrote Friday, as He Decried New State-Level Rules, that will make it more likely that People’s Ballots could be Thrown-Out in 2025.

Request a Ballot Online, In-Person, or by Mail. Voters have Multiple Options to Request a Mail-in-Bballot. They can do so Online, or by Filling Out a Request Form, and Ssubmitting it either by Mail or In-Person at their County’s Board-of-Elections Office. Anyone can Vote-by-M mail. Unlike some States that require an Excuse, North Carolina allows Anyone to Vote-by-Mail. However, the Vast Mmajority of Voters Cast their Bballots in Pperson.

Important Deadlines: The Final Day to Request a Mail-in-Ballot is 10/20/2026 at 5 p.m. However, Officials are Advising Ppeople Not-to-Wait until the last minute to Request a Ballot, if they Plan to Vote-by-Mail. Under a 2023 Change to State Law, Bballots Not Received by Election Day will be Thrown in the Trash. So bring your Ballot to the post Office, and ask to have them Time Staped.

Limits on Who Can Help: Voters should be Careful when requesting Ballots for Oother Ppeople, or when getting Help Filling Out or Returning their own Bballot. Most of the time, the Oonly People who can Help are someone’s “Close Relatives.” That Rule doesn’t Aapply for Ddisabled Ppeople. But for Everyone else, a Close Relative is Defined as your Sspouse, Brother, Ssister, Parent, Gandparent, Child, Grandchild, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Daughter-in-Law, Son-in-Law, Stepparent, or Stepchild.

Track your Ballot’s Progress. You can Follow your Ballot through the Mail, and the Full Ccounting Pprocess, using an Aapp North Carolina has Partnered with called BallotTrax. It can give Voters Peace of Mind that their Ballot wasn’t Llost in theMmail, or allow Tthem the Knowledge to go try and Vote a Different Wway, if it does look like the Ballot wasn’t Delivered.

You don’t have to Mail your Mail-in-Bballot. There are other Ooptions for People who don’t Trust the Mail, or who don’t have $1.98 worth of Sstamps, or who might be Worried that Mail Services won’t Deliver their Ballot by the 11/3/2026 Deadline. You can Hand-Ddeliver your Filled-in- Ballot Two ways: At your County's Early-Vvoting Llocations during the Eearly Voting Pperiod from 20/15-31/2026, or at your County Elections Ooffice. Just make sure to do so before Ppolls Close at 7:30 p.m. on Election Day.

If you request a Mail-in-Ballot, you don’t have to Use it. Every year Thousands of People Request Mail-in-Ballots, but End-Up either Not Vvoting, or Vvoting-in-Person. You can Request and Receive a Mail-in-Ballot but then go Vote during Eearly Voting or on Election Day instead. There’s No further Ssteps needed to Cancel your Mail-in-Ballot. It will be Automatically Canceled, once you Vvote some other way.

But don’t Vote Twice. The Rules over Mail-in-Voting can Confuse some People, including President Trump (R), who gave North Carolina Voters Ffaulty Iinstructions in 2020, that could’ve led to Voter Fraud Charges for Anyone who did what Hhe said. Trump told His Supporters who had already Voted-by-Mail to go Vote in Person, to Test the System’s Ability to Catch possible Fraud. Voting twice is Illegal, the State Board of Elections Chimed in to tell Voters at the time. It’s also a Felony under North Carolina Law,to induce Someone to Vvote Twice, although Trump was never Charged for His Comments. Facebook Blocked Peope from Sharing Videos of Trump’s Comments, due to Voter Fraud Concerns.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump’s Executive Privilege Face Legal Limits

Executive privilege protects candid presidential advice, but it is not a blanket shield from Congress or the courts. The key dispute is whether the Trump administration’s approach crosses that line—and what evidence would establish it.

The Trump administration is taking executive privilege too far, according to a Hill opinion headline that puts a familiar constitutional clash back in focus. The argument is not that executive privilege is illegitimate; it is that the Trump administration’s use of it may exceed the doctrine’s legal limits when it blocks congressional oversight or evidence needed by courts.

That distinction matters. Presidents need space for candid advice, yet executive privilege has never been an unlimited right to withhold records or prevent testimony. The available source material does not identify the specific present-day claim at issue, so the strength of the criticism ultimately turns on the documents, witnesses, and legal justification involved. Executive privilege is a broad label for several protections the executive branch may invoke to keep certain internal information confidential. Its core rationale is practical: a president and senior advisers may be less frank if every difficult conversation is expected to become public.

The Constitution does not expressly use the phrase “executive privilege.” Still, presidents have asserted forms of confidentiality since the early republic, and courts have recognized a constitutional interest in protecting some presidential communications.

That history is why a claim of privilege cannot simply be dismissed as improper because it limits disclosure. A functioning presidency involves sensitive diplomacy, national-security judgments, legal advice and deliberations that precede a decision.

The leading Supreme Court decision is United States v. Nixon, decided in 1974 amid the Watergate investigation. President Richard Nixon argued that executive privilege protected Oval Office recordings sought for use in a criminal case.

The Court unanimously rejected the idea of an absolute, unqualified privilege. It recognized the need for confidential presidential communications while holding that the legitimate needs of the judicial process could outweigh that interest.

The ruling did not produce a simple formula that resolves every dispute. It did establish a durable principle: the president’s confidentiality interest must be weighed against a concrete need for information, especially in criminal proceedings.

That is the legal foundation for arguments that any administration, including Trump’s, goes too far when it characterizes privilege as categorical rather than limited and context-specific.

Different claims carry different weight Not every withheld item is protected in the same way. Legal analyses commonly distinguish presidential communications from the deliberative-process privilege, attorney-client material, national-security information and law-enforcement records. The scope and legal footing of each can differ.

Presidential communications generally concern the president and close advisers and receive substantial protection. Deliberative-process claims typically cover pre-decisional internal discussions across the executive branch, but may be easier to overcome when oversight needs are strong. National-security and active law-enforcement concerns can be especially weighty, although an agency still must explain the basis for withholding information.

Testimonial immunity is a related but distinct claim that has been asserted to resist congressional testimony by senior presidential advisers. Those categories matter because broad rhetoric can obscure the real question: What precisely is being protected, and why? A privilege claim tied to a defined conversation or a narrowly described document is different from an attempt to block an entire line of inquiry.

Congress has a legitimate oversight interest in examining how laws are carried out, how public money is spent and whether misconduct occurred. The executive branch has a legitimate interest in avoiding routine disclosure that could turn internal advice into political theater.

In practice, the branches often negotiate. They may narrow a subpoena, provide private briefings, release redacted records or set limits on questioning. That bargaining process explains why many privilege confrontations never generate a final court ruling.

It also leaves key boundaries unsettled. The Senate Republican Policy Committee’s overview of the doctrine notes that many questions have been resolved through political accommodation rather than binding judicial decisions. That uncertainty creates room for aggressive claims—and for aggressive counterclaims.

Supporters of a robust privilege argue that Congress can weaponize investigations and chill the advice presidents receive. Critics respond that an overly broad approach lets the executive branch decide for itself which checks on power it will accept.

The strongest case against expansive executive privilege is not that presidents should have no confidential communications. It is that the privilege should be tailored to its purpose and supported with a specific explanation.

A sweeping assertion can delay investigations long enough to reduce their practical value. It can also make it harder for lawmakers, courts and the public to determine whether the government acted lawfully. Delay is particularly consequential when the records concern an event already under serious official scrutiny.

There is also an institutional cost. Every administration has incentives to preserve secrecy-friendly precedents for itself and future presidents. A short-term political dispute can therefore shape the balance of power long after the officials involved leave office.

That is why the criticism aimed at the Trump administration should be assessed on particulars, not party identity. The relevant questions are whether the information falls within a recognized category, whether disclosure would cause a real institutional harm, and whether Congress or a court has demonstrated a countervailing need.

Without the details of the particular Trump administration assertion referenced by the opinion headline, it is not possible to determine whether a specific claim would survive a court challenge. Labels alone do not settle the legal question.

A serious evaluation would need to identify the records or testimony sought, the privilege category asserted, the administration’s stated rationale, whether alternatives such as redactions were considered, and the strength of the investigative or judicial need for disclosure.

The larger takeaway is less ambiguous: executive privilege is real, important and limited. A president may protect candid advice, but the Nixon precedent makes clear that confidentiality cannot automatically defeat the demands of law, evidence and accountable government.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Ukrainian Drones Pounding Russia’s Economy

Ukraine’s long-range drone strikes are inflicting pain on some of the most strategic sectors of the Russian economy. The costs are adding up. By pounding refineries, shipping terminals, and e-commerce warehouses, Ukraine is using economic pressure to weaken its larger Foe and push Moscow to end the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that the strikes won’t change his military aims, and Russia has hit back with its own ruthless drone strikes.

The Ukrainian effort is being felt by ordinary Russians, many of whom were previously shielded from the war’s consequences. The broader economy was already slowing after an earlier wartime boom. Here’s how Ukraine’s attacks are disrupting business in Russia, the most damaging aspect of Ukraine’s drone campaign has been its targeting of Oil Refineries, which led to fuel shortages and rationing measures over the summer. One of the hottest new smartphone apps in Russia is a crowdsourced tool to help drivers locate gas stations with available fuel.

Russia’s refinery industry processed 3.8 million barrels of oil a day in 8/2026, a sharp drop from the 5 million barrels a day it handled the same month last year, according to Energy Aspects, a data and analysis firm. To ease the crisis, Russia began importing gasoline from as far away as India, an ironic move for one of the world’s biggest crude producers. It also loosened fuel-quality standards to allow more supplies from second-tier, Soviet-built refineries and Banned diesel exports.

Official Russian Government statistics show the price of gas is up 19% this year and recently resumed climbing after a dip in August. The run-up has confounded efforts by Russia’s Central bank to curb inflation, which is running at about 6% annually, above its 4% target. Ukraine has carried out more than 30 strikes since July on logistics hubs used by Wildberries or Ozon, Russia’s two largest e-commerce companies. The attacks set off raging fires at some of the warehouse complexes, imperiling the businesses of thousands of third-party vendors who sell goods over the popular online platforms.

Entrepreneurs posted tearful videos on social media to plead for help, after their Inventory was torched. The attacks have caused more than $10 billion in damage to infrastructure and goods, and will result in at least $12 billion in lost sales over the next 12 months, according to estimates from Data Insight, a Moscow-based research firm. Putin has pledged government help for Wildberries vendors. The Russian leader has begun to acknowledge the costs of Ukraine’s strikes. Last week he put total losses from Ukraine’s campaign against economic infrastructure at 1% of Russia’s gross domestic product—equivalent to around $25 billion—while playing down such costs as “not critical for us.”

Тhe attacks on the e-commerce sector have fueled worries about potential knock-on effects on Russia’s banks, especially state-owned VTB, a major lender to Wildberries and its vendors. Analysts estimate Wildberries owes $6 billion to $7 billion to VTB. While that accounts for a relatively small slice of VTB’s loan book, jitters over Wildberries have contributed to a selloff in VTB’s shares on the Moscow Exchange. The bank’s share price has slumped more than 25% this year and hit an all-time low in late August. VTB and Wildberries didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Russians have shown a growing preference for holding cash this year, a shift that could threaten the banking sector if it continues. In the second quarter, individuals withdrew more from banks than they deposited in them, a reversal from past patterns, according to Russia’s central bank. The central bank linked the shift to disruptions of online payments caused by mobile-internet outages. It didn’t spell out what caused many of those outages: Ukrainian drone incursions, which often led officials to pull the plug on internet coverage as a preventive measure.

Starting in July, Ukraine effectively shut down the main corridor for Russian exports of wheat, barley and other crops with a series of strikes on export terminals and cargo vessels on the Black Sea and the neighboring Azov Sea. Russian wheat exports fell more than 50% in August from the same month last year, sinking to their lowest level since 2010, according to SovEcon, an agricultural consulting firm.

The blockage has led to a domestic glut, depressing prices for Russian farmers, even as global wheat prices are near a three-year high. The governor of Russia’s breadbasket Rostov region declared a state of emergency in late August, citing the disruption to local agriculture. “It’s an unprecedented scenario,” said Andrey Sizov, managing director of SovEcon. He predicted a wave of farm bankruptcies in Russia in the coming months.

Aviation: Frequent travelers to Russia say the disruption to civil aviation is one of the most noticeable results of the Ukrainian campaign. Airports routinely shut down for hours at a time when drones are detected nearby, forcing flight delays and cancellations. There were 993 airport closures across Russia in August, a roughly fivefold jump from half a year earlier, according to figures from aviation-security firm Osprey Flight Solutions.

Kyiv has signaled that it could squeeze Russian aviation further. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Russia’s airspace “will effectively be closing” due to drone activity, a warning to the largely non-Western airlines that still service Russian airports and their insurers.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

If NATO Sends Troops into Ukraine

Here's how quickly Russia's Battlefield Advantages could start Disappearing.

A Direct NATO Intervention would dramatically Change the Military Balance in Ukraine, by introducing Western Airpower, Intelligence, Air Defenses and Ground Forces, on a much Larger Scale.

Russia would Suddenly be Fighting Capabilities Ukraine Possesses only in Limited Quantities.

But the Central Danger would be Escalation: Once NATO and Russian Troops begin Attacking each other Directly, Controlling how Far the Conflict Spreads, becomes much more Difficult.

Key Support Activities

NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU): NATO member countries are sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment to Ukraine, including anti-tank and air defence systems, artillery systems, munitions, drones, tanks and fighter jets. NATO's Article 5 security guarantee and its iron-clad promise of collective defence provides Allies with the confidence that they can send weapons to Ukraine without diminishing their own security. Furthermore, Allied forces are training Ukrainian troops to use this equipment. All of this is making a difference on the battlefield every day, helping Ukraine to uphold its right of self-defence, which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. To coordinate all of these equipment donations and the training of Ukrainian forces, Allies have established NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU). Based in Wiesbaden, Germany, with three logistics hubs in the east of the Alliance, NSATU is staffed by around 300 personnel from Allied and partner countries.

NATO’s Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine: Through NATO’s Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) and related funds, Allies have pledged over EUR 1.4 billion (approximately USD 1.6 billion) to meet Ukraine's critical needs for non-lethal aid. This includes cold-weather clothing, body armour, fuel, transport vehicles, secure communications, combat rations, demining equipment, medical supplies, and much more. In addition, under the CAP, Allies have committed to supporting Ukraine further with a multi-year assistance programme, which will help Ukraine transition from Soviet-era to NATO standards, training and doctrines; help rebuild Ukraine's security and defence sector; and continue to cover critical needs.

NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training and Education Centre (JATEC): The NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training and Education Centre (JATEC) in Bydgoszcz, Poland is helping both Allies and Ukraine identify and apply lessons learned from Russia’s war against Ukraine. This contributes to NATO’s deterrence and defence, and increases the ability of Allied and Ukrainian forces to operate together effectively. The JATEC is staffed by both NATO and Ukrainian personnel. Since opening in February 2025, the Centre has carried out projects focused on air defence, protection of critical infrastructure and resilience.

Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine: To ensure that support continues, Allies made a Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine at the 2024 Washington Summit. Through proportional contributions, Allies agreed to provide a minimum baseline funding of EUR 40 billion in 2024, and to provide sustainable levels of security assistance in subsequent years. Allies far exceeded this amount in 2024, providing over EUR 50 billion, almost 60% of which came from European Allies and Canada. At the 2026 Ankara Summit, Allies pledged to provide EUR 70 billion in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026. They also affirmed their commitment to sustaining at least an equivalent level of assistance for 2027.

Supporting Ukraine’s innovation Ecosystem: Both NATO and Ukraine benefit from a strong Ukrainian innovation ecosystem, in which Ukrainian start-ups find innovative solutions to real-world operational challenges. At the 2024 Washington Summit, NATO and Ukrainian leaders endorsed the NATO-Ukraine Innovation Cooperation Roadmap to enhance cooperation between NATO’s and Ukraine’s innovation networks, strengthening the military and technological edge of both Ukraine and NATO. The Roadmap also encourages stronger ties between NATO’s and Ukraine's innovation initiatives, including through prize challenges, hackathons and other collaborative activities. For example, the Ukraine-NATO Innovation, Technology and Engineering programme (UNITE – Brave NATO) is the first joint NATO-Ukraine programme focused on scaling prototyped and tested innovative technologies that help meet Ukraine’s interoperability requirements with NATO. Launched in November 2025, the programme accepts joint bids by teams of Allied and Ukrainian companies, with its first round providing up to EUR 10 million in joint grant funding, allocated equally by NATO and Ukraine.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

KY Cleans its Voter Roles

More than 318,000 Deceased Voters have been Removed from Kentucky's Voter Rolls, since Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) took Office, according to the latest Voter Registration Data Released by His Office.

Adams said a total of 318,918 Voters who have Died have been Removed during His Tenure.

That brings the Total Number of Voter Registrations Removed from the Rolls since J1/2020, to 753,181.

"We've vigorously purged voters who have moved away, passed away, or been put away. Kentucky is a national success story for clean elections," said Adams.

In 8/2026, Kentucky Removed a Total of 3,664 Voter Rregistrations. Those included:

3,233 Deceased Voters
258 who Moved Out-of-State
74 Dduplicate Registrations
65 who were Judged Mentally Incompetent
18 who Voluntarily De-Registered
9 Identified as Nnon-Citizens
7 Felony Convicts
Kentucky also saw 8,266 New Voters Register 8/2026.

Republicans make up the largest Share of Kentucky's Registered Eelectorate, with 1,624,505 Voters, or about 48%.

Another 386,382 Voters, or about 11%, are Registered under other Political Affiliations, most of whom are Independent.

Republican Registrations Increased by 1,849 Voters, while Democrats saw Registration Numbers Iincrease by 260.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Russia’s Draft Net Before They Can Run

The Digital Net is Closing Quickly without Warning. Rights Organization (Idite Lesom) Rreported Dozens of Cases in late August, where Border Guards Unexpectedly turned Young Conscripts Away at Checkpoints. Customs Oofficers stopped Men at the Gate with No Advance Notice. In One Extreme Instance, a Traveler Cleared His Status on the Official Portal, Right before Boarding a Flight to Yerevan, only to be Stopped at Passport Control.

Moments after being turned away, the Restriction suddenly Updated on His Screen. Out of 73 Ddraft-Age Men who sought Help from the Rrights Project, while trying to leave Russia Directly. Border Guards turned back 23 Travelers, Attempting to Escape through Neighboring Belarus proved even more Treacherous for Yyoung Men.

Belarusian Agents Stopped Seven out of 11 Conscripts who Tried that Route.

Human Rights Advocates noted that Border Services in both Nations, now Share Integrated Electronic Military Records.

The Sudden Crackdown comes as Rumors Swirl about a New Mobilization Wave following the September State Duma Elections.

The State Duma Election is Russia’s Parliamentary Election to choose Members of the Lower House, a Political Event the Kremlin typically Clears before Launching Unpopular Measures like a Fresh Wave of Military Mobilization. Mounting Casualties in Ukraine, now Estimated at Oover 1.4 Million by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, are Fueling these Draft Efforts.

According to the Institute for the Study of War, the Kremlin is Laying the Groundwork for another Massive Rcruitment Drive.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

NJ Limits ICE Access at Voting Locations

A Federal Judge dismissed the Justice Department’s (DOJ) Challenge to New Jersey Executive Order 12 (EO12) with Prejudice, leaving the State’s Restrictions on ICE use of Non-Ppublic State Property in place. The Ruling says Federal Immigration Law Permits State Cooperation, but does Not compel New Jersey to Provide its Property or Personnel. The Judge Rejected the Trump (R) Administration’s attempt to Invalidate a State Policy that Restricts Federal Immigration Officers from using Nonpublic areas of State Controlled Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner Granted New Jersey’s Motion to Dismiss on 9/4/3036 and Ordered the frederal Government’s Complaint Dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case. The ruling leaves Executive Order 12 in force unless a higher court intervenes. Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) Signed EO12 on 2/11/2026. It directs New Jersey Executive Branch Departments and Agencies Not to Permit Federal Immigration Officers to Enter, Access, or Use Nnonpublic Areas of State Property to Facilitate Civil Immigration Enforcement, unless a Judicial Warrant or Judicial Order, or another Listed Eexception, Applies.

The Order also Bars those Agencies from Allowing State Property to be used as a Staging area, Processing Location, or Operations Base for Civil Immigration enforcement. “State property” is defined broadly to include facilities, premises and parcels owned, operated, leased or controlled by executive Bbranch Departments and Agencies, including Office Buildings, Parking Lots, and Garages. The Order expressly Allows Federal Authorities into areas Open to the General Public on the same Tterms as Everyone else. It also Permits Compliance with Judicial Warrants and Orders, State Criminal Law Enforcement, Participation in Joint Task Forces whose Primary Ppurpose is Not Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement, and other Listed Circumstances.

New Jersey framed the Policy as a Decision about how State Property and Resources should be Used. Sherrill’s Office said when the Order was issued, that State Facilities serving Ssensitive Populations could be Disrupted if Residents Feared Encountering Immigration Agents there. The DOJ Sued New Jersey and Sherrill on 2/23/2026. Its 21 page Ccomplaint asserted three Supremacy Clause Theories: that Federal Iimmigration Law Preempted the ExO, that the Order Unlawfully Discriminated against the Ffederal Government, and that it Directly Regulated Federal Operations.

Federal Lawyers Aargued the Policy made Iimmigration Enforcement more Difficult and Lless Safe. The Complaint said ICE often seeks to take Custody of People in Ssecure Settings, including when People are being Rreleased from State Custody, rather than making Arrests Later in Public Places. The Government also Argued that Federal Statutes require Detention or Removal of certain Non-Citizens and that the State Order Interfered with that Federal Mission. Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R) said when the Case was Filed that States could Not Deliberately Iinterfere with Federal Efforts to Remove People subject to Immigration Enforcement and Arrest Criminals. The Government asked Castner to Declare Executive Order 12 Invalid and Permanently Block New Jersey from Eenforcing it.

The Sstate answered that the Constitution does Not Require New Jersey to make its Own Property or Employees Available to carry out Ffederal Civil Immigration Policy. That Argument put the Case at the Intersection of Two Constitutional Principles: Federal Supremacy and the Rule Against Federal “commandeering” of State Governments. The Judge found Standing First. Astner did Not Dismiss the Case because the Federal Government Lacked Sstanding. That means the Ccourt reached the Legal Sufficiency of the DOJ’s Claims rather than Avoiding the Dispute on Jurisdictional Grounds. Federal Officials claimed the State Policy forced Immigration Officers to Conduct some Operations in less Controlled Settings, increasing Safety Risks. Castner concluded that Allegation was Concrete enough at the Pleading Stage and Sufficiently tied to EO12. But if they Know who they want, why wait for them to Vote?.

She also found a Favorable Rruling could have Partially Redressed the Aalleged Injury by Restoring Discretion to State Officials who otherwise might have allowed Access. With Standing satisfied, the Opinion moved to the Core Question: whether the EO actually Cconflicts with Federal Law or Impermissibly Bburdens the Federal Government. That is where the DOJs case Failed.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker