Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Quick SCOTUS update

Transgender Rights

The Supreme Court has relisted a case involving gender-related surgery for a trans woman who is incarcerated. This just means the Court is taking another look at the case during another private conference. It might mean they’re interested in granting it, or it could just mean someone is writing a dissent from denial of review or some other order.

We’ll know more when the Court issue its order list. It takes four votes to grant review, and the Court is currently down to eight Justices after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Ninth Circuit decision ruled in favor of the incarcerated woman.


  • 1. VIRick  |  October 8, 2020 at 11:06 pm

    India: Third and Fourth Marriage Equality Cases Filed in Delhi High Court

    Per Rex Wockner:

    On 8 October 2020, a third marriage equality case has been filed in India by two women. In this one, filed in the Delhi High Court, the plaintiffs are represented by the queer lawyer couple who took down India's gay sex ban in 2018.

    The case has been filed by Dr. Kavita Arora, who has been living with her partner Ankita Khanna for the past 8 years. The petition seeks to obtain a direction to be issued to the Marriage Officer, South East Delhi, to solemnize their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

    It is the claim of the petitioner that the right to choose one's own partner for marriage under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to same-sex couples, as well.

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    And on the same date, a fourth marriage equality case was filed in India:

    In the Delhi High Court, a similar plea has been moved by two men who were married in the United States, but whose marriage was not registered under the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969 by the Indian consulate in New York, as they were a same-sex couple. Both petitions (that is, cases #3 and #4) came up for hearing before Justice Navin Chawla who directed the registry to list them before the bench of the Chief Justice of the High Court which is already hearing a PIL (case #2) seeking a declaration that same-sex marriages be recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and Special Marriage Act (SMA). The petitioners in case #4 are being represented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy and advocates Arundhati Katju, Govind Manoharan, and Surabhi Dhar.

    So, out of India's many marriage laws, the Hindu Marriage Act (which covers religious marriages between two Hindus), the Special Marriage Act (which covers civil non-religious marriages, as well as inter-faith marriages, which by definition must be performed by civil authorities), and the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969 (which covers recognition of marriages by Indian citizens who marry abroad) have now all been challenged.

    Note: The first report, from "Live Law," does not allow for copy-and-paste without a paid subscription. The second report, from the "Deccan Herald," only allows one to copy-and-paste about 3 lines at a time, but is quite extended, as it valiantly attempted to cover both cases simultaneously.

    PIL = Public Interest Litigation

  • 2. VIRick  |  October 10, 2020 at 10:53 pm

    By Definition, Hindu Marriage Act Is Gender-Neutral, a Union of "Two Souls"

    Per Paras Sharma, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India:

    Same-sex marriages are not a new phenomenon in India, as homosexuality has an ancient history. The history of homosexuality can be traced to the "Rig-Veda," which dates from around 1500 BC. The remarkably sexually-explicit "Kamasutra" also describes the Harems of young boys kept by Hindu aristocrats and Muslim Nawabs. However, with the advent of Brahmanism and later of British Colonialism, these experiences started to be seen as a matter of hatred.

    Furthermore, lack of recognition does not mean that same-sex marriages have not happened in India. In 1987, a marriage occurred where two policewomen married each other with Hindu rituals. The denial of the right to marry the partner of one’s choice is absolutely unjust.

    Hindu scriptures define marriage as the union of "two souls," and the same scriptures also define that a soul has no gender. It is only the human bodies that possess a gender. These scriptures are a major source of Hindu Law, including the Hindu Marriage Act. The Act merely codifies the Hindu Law and does not try to erode the values within the Holy Scriptures.

  • 3. Fortguy  |  October 9, 2020 at 6:04 pm

    Monica Roberts, a transgender African-American activist and journalist based in Houston, has died at the age of 58. In 2006, Roberts founded the groundbreaking and award-winning blog TransGriot (pronounced Gree-oh, a French West African term meaning "storyteller").

    Through her blog, Roberts has brought attention to many transgender victims of violence who often otherwise were widely ignored due to being misgendered by both the police and news media. She also reported widely on court cases and legislative battles involving trans issues across the country as well as tirelessly working to turn Texas blue.

    Samantha Schmidt, The Washington Post republished by The Texas Tribune: Monica Roberts, a pioneering transgender activist and journalist from Houston, dies at 58

  • 4. VIRick  |  October 9, 2020 at 6:08 pm

    An Anticipated Look at the US Senate

    Currently, the US Senate is comprised of 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans. In addition to flipping Arizona, Colorado, and Maine, the Democrats are currently leading in both Iowa and North Carolina. In Iowa, according to the latest polls, Greenfield (D) is 5 points ahead of Ernst (R), 50-45. In North Carolina, Cunningham (D) is 4 points ahead of Tillis (R), 50-46. Alabama is anticipated to be a loss, while both seats in Georgia are anyone's guess. For the full-term seat, Perdue (R) and Ossoff (D) are within 1 point of each other, while in the multi-candidate "jungle" primary to fill Isakson's unexpired term, Warnock (D) is currently leading by 10 points, 36-26-23, against two Republican candidates, only one of whom will survive for the run-off on 5 January 2021.

    In the Arizona race to fill McCain's unexpired term, the winner will take their seat as soon as they are certified, likely leading to a temporary count of 48 Democratic Senators to 52 Republicans. The other winners will take their seats at the beginning of the new Congress in January, with the caveat that the winner to fill Isakson's seat from Georgia will be seated later.

    For the new Senate, we are likely to see 51-53 Democrats to 47-49 Republicans. If the seats from South Carolina and Montana were to be flipped, in addition to both seats from Georgia, we could see as many as 55 Democrats in the new Senate, at which point we then need to push for statehood for both DC and Puerto Rico as quickly as possible.

  • 5. Fortguy  |  October 9, 2020 at 8:13 pm

    Unfortunately, Cal Cunningham is now having to deal with a self-inflicted October Surprise of his own involving an extramarital sex scandal. Cunningham must have been living in a cave somewhere during the whole saga of his fellow North Carolinian John Edwards.

    Alex Rogers and Manu Raju, CNN: North Carolina Democrat's sex scandal renews GOP hopes of keeping majority despite Trump's drag on the ticket

  • 6. scream4ever  |  October 10, 2020 at 11:37 am

    Thankfully it doesn't seem to be hurting him in the polls.

  • 7. VIRick  |  October 9, 2020 at 7:08 pm

    The Race for the Presidency

    According to Real Clear Politics, Biden currently has 358 electoral votes to Trump's 180, as Georgia has narrowly been moved back into the Trump camp. Using their RCP average of multiple polls, these are the 12 closest state-by-state races, of which, at minimum, Biden needs to win the first 5 in order to assure victory (with 279 electoral votes), with the next 5 all being "extra" electoral votes (bringing the total to 358), but probably necessary to make certain that the orange menace understands that he lost:

    New Hampshire (4): Biden is up 9 points, 52.0-43.0.
    Pennsylvania (20): Biden is up 7.1 points, 51.0-43.9.
    Michigan (16): Biden is up 6.7 points, 49.4-42.7.
    Nevada (6): Biden is up 6.0 points, 49.7-43.7.
    Wisconsin (10): Biden is up 5.5 points, 49.5-44.0.
    Florida (29): Biden is up 3.7 points, 48.0-44.3.
    Arizona (11): Biden is up 2.7 points, 48.2-45.5.
    North Carolina (15): Biden is up 1.4 points, 48.3-46.9.
    Iowa (6): Biden is up 1.4 points, 47.2-45.8.
    Ohio (18): Biden is up 0.6 points, 46.8-46.2.
    Georgia (16): Biden is behind by 0.6 points, 46.7-47.3.
    Texas (38): Biden is behind by 4.4 points, 44.8-49.2.

    Over the past number of weeks, the "hotspot" has shifted from North Carolina to Iowa to Ohio and Georgia. If Georgia were to flip back to Biden, along with Maine-2, we would be back to 375 electoral votes to 163.

  • 8. VIRick  |  October 9, 2020 at 8:57 pm

    Philippines: Zamboanga City Passes Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    The rainbow rises in Zamboanga City. The first-class, highly urbanized city in the Philippines, Zamboanga, joins the growing number of local government units (LGUs) that now has an anti-discrimination ordinance (ADO). As helmed by Hon. Lilibeth Macrohon Nuño, the ADO passed the third and final reading at the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the City of Zamboanga on 6 October 2020.

    The ADO is not just specific to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. Instead, it is a more comprehensive ADO that also prohibits discrimination based on race, color, civil and social status, language, religion, national or social origin, culture and ethnicity, property, birth or age, disability and health status, creed and ideological beliefs, and physical appearance. The ADO now goes to the desk of Mayor Maria Isabelle Climaco-Salazar for signing.

    As the sixth-most populous city in the Philippines, Zamboanga has a population of 861,799 people (as of 2015). The ADO was pushed by the local LGBTQIA organization, Mujer-LGBT Organization Inc.

  • 9. VIRick  |  October 9, 2020 at 9:16 pm

    Dominican Republic: Anti-Discrimination Bill in Chamber of Deputies

    Per Yimbert Feliz Telemin:

    Voluntariado GLBT Dominicano saluda conocimiento de proyecto de ley de igualdad y no discriminación por Cámara de Diputados y enviado a la Comisión Permanente de Derechos Humanos de dicho hemiciclo.

    Dominican GLBT Volunteers salute the introduction of the bill for equality and non-discrimination by the Chamber of Deputies and sending it to the Permanent Committee on Human Rights of said chamber.

    Note: This is the first official step to have been taken in the Dominican Republic toward the recognition of the existence of the rights of the LGBT community in that country.

  • 10. VIRick  |  October 9, 2020 at 9:34 pm

    New Marriage Equality Bill Introduced to Guanajuato Congress

    Per Gabriel Gutiérrez G:

    La Dip. Magdalena Rosales de Morena presentó en el Congreso de Guanajuato una iniciativa para reconocer el derecho de todas las personas a contraer matrimonio y fundar una familia sin discriminación alguna.

    The Dip. Magdalena Rosales (Morena) presented in the Congress of Guanajuato an initiative to recognize the right of all people to marry and found a family without any discrimination.

    Several sources point out that despite the law in Guanajuato state still not having been changed, so far, 121 same-sex couples, via amparo, have already married in the state, the highest number to have done so by amparo in any state in Mexico.

  • 11. VIRick  |  October 10, 2020 at 1:40 pm

    US Supreme Court to Continue with Oral Arguments via Telephone Conference

    Per the US Supreme Court:

    The Court will hear all oral arguments scheduled for the November and December 2020 sessions by telephone conference, following the same format used for the October teleconference arguments. The Court will provide a live audio feed of the November and December oral arguments to a media pool, as it did for the October arguments.

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  October 10, 2020 at 2:53 pm

    I Was a Student of Amy Coney Barrett. She Isn’t an LGBTQ Ally.

    During my time at Notre Dame Law, the University was reluctant to recognize the LGBT Law Forum, a student-run organization that hosts events, panels and presentations for students and faculty on legal issues facing the LGBTQ community, and did not employ any openly LGBTQ tenure-track faculty. However, as a private Catholic University, Notre Dame employed a slew of professors whose scholarship opposed the advancement of LGBTQ rights. Despite numerous calls over the past four decades to change its anti-discrimination policy and include gender and sexual orientation as protected classes, Notre Dame continues to uphold the unfettered ability to discriminate as the university’s right. Hundreds of alumni, students and professors have signed petitions over the years to extend the University’s nondiscrimination policy. Professor Barrett has not.

    During my law school years, both conservative and liberal law professors attended LGBT Law Forum events, or events co-sponsored with other affinity organizations, such as the Black Law Students Association and the Hispanic Law Students Association, even just to sit in and learn from our speakers impartially. Professor Barrett did not. You might say, maybe as a professor and as a judge in later years, perhaps Amy Coney Barrett was simply too busy. But, throughout those years, she found the time to deliver speeches and attend numerous panels, luncheons and events hosted by Notre Dame’s Federalist Society, a student-run conservative group that hosts events and panels for students and faculty, as well as events hosted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ hate group whose CEO recently attended Barrett’s Rose Garden confirmation.

    Professor Barrett had the time to introduce a Federalist Society event, featuring homophobic Notre Dame alum Sherif Girgis, the author of, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. She had the time to question the Obergefell decision, and claim that applying Title IX’s protections to trans individuals from discrimination in employment, housing, and more would be an interpretive “strain.” Not only has Barrett proven to be an anti-LGBTQ advocate in her public speeches and legal stance, she has a record of failing to serve as an ally to her Notre Dame Law students — in a time when we could have benefited from the allyship of a prominent professor such as herself.

    Many law professors have opted to speak personally to Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins and address the marginalization of Notre Dame’s LGBTQ students, as well as the importance of valuing students of color, but Professor Barrett, to my knowledge, has not. In 2018, when Professor Barrett’s colleague and my former professor, Gerard Bradley, wrote that “people have had to live with irregular sexual relationships since the dawn of time. But legalized same-sex marriage is different, and worse, than anything that has plagued societies before,” numerous professors reached out to the LGBT Law Forum to offer support, and some staff even publicly condemned the comments. Professor Barrett did not.

    (continued in next comment)

  • 13. ianbirmingham  |  October 10, 2020 at 2:53 pm

    (continued from prior comment)

    Professor Barrett chose not to attend one of the most contentious events in Notre Dame Law history — when Jim Obergefell, Greg Bourke and Michael De Leon, plaintiffs in the consolidated Obergefell cases, came to Notre Dame Law to speak about their experiences fighting for marriage equality before the Supreme Court. Now, Michael De Leon and his husband Greg Bourke — who also happens to be a Notre Dame alum — say that Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment would present a “potential threat to marriage equality, an issue settled by the Court just over five years ago, and would also present an opportunity for Barrett to foist her anti-LGBTQ sentiment on high-court decisions over several decades in the future.”

    Other professors and alumni, regardless of their political affiliation (and many of Catholic faith), reached out to support the LGBT Law Forum when law students wrote in to the school newspaper disparaging the Obergefell ruling, noting that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that the plaintiffs in the case are living “in a way that defies the truth of the Catholic teaching on marriage.” Professor Barrett did not. During her time as a professor, Barrett expressed similar sentiments — including signing letters noting that marriage should be based on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman. Many professors noted that, even if they disagreed with the Obergefell ruling as a matter of faith (which a majority of Catholics do not), they understood the importance of having the plaintiffs speak to Notre Dame’s future attorneys. Professor Barrett, again, did not reach out.

    Reviewing these specific instances of Amy Coney Barrett’s relationship with Notre Dame’s LGBTQ community, you will notice a common theme — her unwillingness to support her students as an ally, and in many cases, her vocal anti-LGBTQ sentiments.

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  October 10, 2020 at 9:13 pm

    Equality Florida blasts Jason Brodeur over bill to limit same-sex couple adoptions

    The state’s biggest advocacy organization for LGBTQ rights is spending $125,000 to blast Republican former Rep. Jason Brodeur for his record on gay rights, specifically regarding gay and lesbian couple adoptions.

    Equality Florida Action, the political action committee for Equality Florida, announced Thursday it is campaigning against Brodeur in his bid to be elected to the open seat in Senate District 9. Brodeur faces Democrat Patricia Sigman in one of the hottest-contested Senate races in the state, representing Seminole County and southern Volusia County.

    Equality Florida is launching a mailer and two social media ads in SD 9 charging that Brodeur “spent his career attacking LGBTQ families.”

    The organization said the effort is the largest it has ever made in a race.

  • 15. ianbirmingham  |  October 10, 2020 at 11:47 pm

    (Video) Life's no drag for Vietnam's transgender cabaret-bingo performers

    Members of Saigon Tan Thoi cabaret-bingo or loto performers share how they use their performances to change public perception about the LGBT and transgender community.

  • 16. VIRick  |  October 11, 2020 at 11:34 am

    9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couple's Children

    Aiden and Ethan Dvash-Banks, two twin boys born to a same-sex American couple, are officially recognized as US citizens. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower-court decision in "Dvash-Banks v. Pompeo" recognizing that the twin’s parents, Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks, are legally-married US citizens.

    Despite the Trump administration’s insistence with regard to a number of LGBTQ families and their children, applying children do “not require a biological relationship between the child and the citizen parent through whom citizenship is claimed” to be citizens, according to the Immigration and Nationality Act and settled Court interpretation of said law.

    “After years of the federal government denying Andrew and Elad’s rights as a married couple, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unequivocally ruled in the family’s favor,” Aaron C. Morris, co-counsel for the Dvash-Banks family and Executive Director of Immigration Equality, said in a statement.

    The ruling was announced this Friday, 9 October 2020, concluding nearly 3 years of legal limbo. In 2010 Andrew, a US/Canadian citizen, married Elad, an Israeli citizen, in Canada. They became fathers in 2016 via surrogacy, with each boy being conceived using one of their father’s sperm and a donor egg.

    “Every federal court that has heard this issue has now found the US State Department’s policy to be contrary to the intent of Congress and US law,” Morris stressed in a statement. “Immigration Equality currently represents three other married same-sex couples fighting for their children’s rights to be recognized as US citizens.”

    The Dvash-Banks case originated in California. A second similar case, "Kiviti v. Pompeo," is from Maryland, and a third, "Mize and Gregg v. Pompeo," is from Georgia.

  • 17. VIRick  |  October 11, 2020 at 11:55 am

    Pennsylvania: Trump-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Trump Voter Fraud Claims

    On Saturday, 10 October 2020, US District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan in Pittsburgh tossed a lawsuit filed by Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee that challenged some of Pennsylvania’s plans to make it easier for residents to vote remotely during the coronavirus pandemic. Specifically, Trump and the RNC argued the state should not be able to set up drop boxes where voters can return ballots, as opposed to sending them back by mail, nor count ballots if the voter’s signature does not match the one election officials have on file.

    Ranjan wrote that, at most, the campaign and the RNC presented a “chain of theoretical events” to show how Pennsylvania’s election policies could lead to voter fraud. For a plaintiff to have standing to bring a lawsuit, they have to show some kind of harm, and without more than speculation about what might happen in the future, Trump’s lawsuit could not clear that bar, the judge concluded.

    “While Plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud, they must at least prove that such fraud is ‘certainly impending.’ They haven’t met that burden. At most, they have pieced together a sequence of uncertain assumptions,” wrote Ranjan, who was nominated by Trump to the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and confirmed in July 2019.

    Federal judges in Montana, Nevada, and New Jersey reached similar conclusions in rulings over the past month that rebuffed Trump campaign lawsuits against states that adopted new rules and practices to expand mail-in voting during the pandemic. The campaign has not pursued appeals in those other cases so far, but Matthew Morgan, the campaign’s general counsel, released a statement on Saturday saying they planned to take the Pennsylvania case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In Montana, on 30 September 2020, US District Judge Dana Christensen dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign, RNC, and state Republicans challenging Gov. Steve Bullock’s decision to allow counties to carry out the November election by mail-in ballots. Christensen noted that at a hearing in the case, lawyers for the campaign and Republican challengers “were compelled to concede that they cannot point to a single instance of voter fraud in Montana in any election during the last 20 years.”

    In Nevada, the Trump campaign, RNC, and state Republican party sued over a law the state legislature adopted this year directing local election officials to send ballots to all active registered voters. On 18 September 2020, US District Judge James Mahan dismissed the case, finding that the claims that the state’s plan would lead to voter fraud were not only speculative, but also not specific to the Republican challengers.

    In New Jersey, state lawmakers approved a plan this year to send all registered voters a mail-in ballot, and adopted other measures aimed at supporting the expansion of mail-in voting. The Trump campaign sued and asked for an injunction blocking provisions that would allow election officials to begin counting mailed ballots 10 days before Election Day and to accept ballots without a clear postmark up to two days after 3 November 2020. On 6 October 2020, US District Judge Michael Shipp denied the campaign’s request, pointing out that the evidence of past voter fraud presented by Trump’s campaign did not relate to issues with ballots received without a postmark, nor to mail-in ballots counted before Election Day.

  • 18. davepCA  |  October 11, 2020 at 4:09 pm

    Multiple courts are concluding that the Trump administration has 'no standing' that would allow them to file suits regarding voter fraud! This is significant.

  • 19. VIRick  |  October 11, 2020 at 8:12 pm

    Ironically, in terms of long-term legal precedent, the tightening of the requirements for "standing" in a civil suit, as handed down in "Hollingsworth," the California same-sex marriage case involving Proposition 8, namely that plaintiffs must be able to demonstrate actual harm before they can be granted "standing" to bring a case, means for all intents and purposes that third-party intervenors (read as "right-wing nut-jobs" or "nervous-Nellie-butt-in-skis") do not have "standing" to bring said case. This tightened rule on "standing" will quite fortuitously live on with us forever, and over time, will continue to re-appear in myriad permutations.

    Thus, as we see here, these Trump-inspired suits theorizing, predicting, and speculating about some future possibility of "voter fraud," but which are unable to be substantiated as having caused any actual harm, simply do not pass the "standing" test, as per "Hollingsworth."

    I particularly enjoyed the very recent Pennsylvania ruling by federal Judge Ranjan, a Trump-appointee newly confirmed in mid-2019, reaming Trump a brand-new sparkling a-hole over this precise "standing" issue.

    Law students will forever study "Hollingsworth," not specifically because it was a same-sex marriage case, but because it was a precedent-setting "standing" case.

  • 20. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 12, 2020 at 3:19 am

    I remember the many disappointed persons with the outcome of Hollingsworth at the time.

    However, as some on this blog said at the time, it was a significant ruling that in the long run would help equality in our queer communities.

    That being said, there were at least two cases where that president was not applied when it clearly should have been. Help me remember them. (Quill and Pen?? and one other.)

  • 21. VIRick  |  October 12, 2020 at 8:45 am

    Any and all of the "pre-emptive-strike" ADF-backed "religious freedom" cases wherein which some "nervous Nellie christian nut-job" seeks an exemption from some state/local non-discrimination law/ordinance so that they can obtain a pass beforehand so as to be able to unabashedly discriminate, particularly in those cases where they are only "thinking about" establishing some sort of ephemeral side-line activity, usually involving the excess nonsense pertaining to the wedding business. Obviously, no harm has been done by the existence of said non-discrimination law/ordinance, since the business does not yet exist, and no customers have even inquired, let alone been refused service, since no service has ever been offered.

    "Brush and Nib" was such a state-level case from a "worried" wedding calligrapher in Phoenix, wherein which, after being tossed at both the trial level and the appellate level, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the plaintiffs' favor, but kept its limited ruling to freedom of speech under the Arizona state Constitution, and further limited it to this one solitary business. "303 Creative" was another in Colorado from a "nervous" wedding website designer that was dismissed, but which at last report has been appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and "Telescope Media" was a third case from a "concerned" wedding videographer in Minnesota that was also dismissed, but which was then appealed to the retrograde 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, receiving a 2-1 favorable ruling there, but was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. And all of this occurred despite the fact that the couple could not cite any harm, since the so-called business did not yet exist. All of these cases should have been summarily thrown out for lack of "ripeness" as well as for lack of standing,– and all three actually were at some stage in their proceedings.

    Although the following point has no legal basis, I enjoy employing the "Amish standard" to illustrate how these kinds of ephemeral "religious liberty" cases clash with other people's devout religious norms, in addition to their not having the proper legal "standing:"

    Despite their own peculiar claims to "biblical" devoutness, I am afraid that the Amish would "shun" all of the above, as they particularly despise hypocrites of this sort, given that using electricity and electronics for some unnecessary amusement is a major violation of their standards.

  • 22. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 12, 2020 at 4:09 am

    Appeals Court Grants Stay to Texas Attorney General in Mail-In Ballot Case.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!