Just today, the Republican National Committee (RNC) launched an online platform to promote the efforts of Republicans to uphold honest and fair elections: ProtectTheVote.com.

At the same time Democrats are pushing federal support of vote by mail or even bills calling for nationwide vote by mail, an interesting thing happened in Nevada.  As RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel points out in an excellent op-ed that discussed Democrat Party lawyer Marc Elias' tactics:

Democrats demand in-person voting be expanded in Nevada, after just claiming it was too dangerous to go to the polls in Wisconsin. Last week, Elias called in-person voting a “national disgrace.” Now, Elias says “converting to an all-mail election in a matter of weeks” is impossible, and voting must be expanded “safely in person.” Nice of them to catch up to the fact that one-size-fits-all nationalized mail-in voting is a bad idea.

We chronicled the Democratic National Committee's efforts and alleged activity to prevent Senator Bernie Sanders from becoming the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee (here, here, and here). As the Iowa caucuses meet tonight and according to recent reports, it may happen again in 2020 as DNC insiders consider reviving superdelegates' primary role at the DNC Convention:

Today, RNLA Vice President for Communications and RNC Committeewoman from California Harmeet Dhillon’s firm and Michael Best & Friedrich filed a lawsuit against California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking to enjoin California Demorats' illegal attempt to keep qualified candidates off the Presidential ballot.  The lawsuit says in part:

As demonstrated by the legislative history and Governor Newsom’s public comments, the Act is a naked political attack against the sitting President of the United States.  The Act subverts the franchise for cheap political gain, creates an extra-constitutional qualification for the office of President, and effectively disenfranchises voters by denying their right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and effectively cast a vote for the otherwise qualified candidate of their choosing.

This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York concerning whether the plan to include a question on citizenship on the 2020 census violated either the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or the Constitution's enumeration clause.  Solicitor General Noel Francisco represented the United States in defense of adding the question, and three advocates argued on behalf of Democrat-controlled states, liberal organizations, and the U.S. House against including the question.