Mark Meuser

Today I listened to a Democratic pollster admonish the crowd not to put too much credence in prediction markets for political results. She said we needed to listen to the experts polling people each day and claimed prediction markets are controlled by young men with too much money. About five minutes later, she was asked for her predictions for the US House and Senate elections this November. Her response: a 95% chance Democrats take the House and a 45% chance they take the Senate. I’m sorry, but her predictions are so far out of alignment with professional pollsters that she is clearly not sharing survey responses but pushing her political desires. No wonder she told everyone to ignore prediction markets—if she can discredit them, maybe CNN will put her on air to publish her partisan agenda masquerading as polls.

For my latest article as the @Liberty_Ctr Miles Visiting Fellow, I wrote in @dcexaminer about how the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport makes it easier for lawfare targets to fight back against rogue state AGs.

Last nights SCOTUS followup ruling in Callais will have interesting ramifications for election law litigation. Last nights ruling appears to green light red states who whose primary elections have not yet been held which contain unconstitutional racial gerrymandered congressional district maps to go redraw the maps and the federal courts should stay out of that process.

For years leftist groups have been manipulating congressional districts by requiring state legislatures to give special privileges to certain Americans because of the color of their skin. Now that their unconstitutional scheme has been ended by SCOTUS, I find it entertaining that these same leftist groups are now accusing Republicans of gerrymandering when all they are doing is exercising their constitutional right to un-gerrymander the districts that these leftist groups had forced upon the nation. Always remember that the Constitution gave the power to draw congressional districts to state legislatures, not to leftist groups who want more power over your taxes in Washington D.C.

Dear Democracy Docket, If the GOP picks up two seats as a result of yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling, does that mean the House Democrats have had two more votes in Congress over the last couple of years that they should not have had? Why should Louisiana suffer another two years with individuals in Congress voting contrary to the wishes of the state’s voters? It sounds like Gov. Landry is trying to ensure the people’s voice is properly heard in Congress while you prioritize partisan politics.

“Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered” is probably the best way to understand today’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. For years, left-leaning groups have pushed an increasingly aggressive reading of the Voting Rights Act to force red states to draw more majority-minority districts (or in other words, to draw districts which often translate into more Democratic-leaning districts). The Supreme Court just put a firm limit on that strategy. Basically, left-leaning groups pushed the Voting Rights Act beyond its original limits. Rather than focusing on traditional race-neutral districting criteria, those drawing lines were constantly looking at race to produce maps that predictably advantaged Democratic candidates. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear in the past that states generally cannot allow race to predominate in drawing district lines absent a sufficient legal justification. Today's decision clarifies that plaintiff groups cannot rely on race-driven alternative maps to force additional majority-minority districts unless §2 of the Voting Rights Act actually requires it. Plaintiff groups must use the same criteria in drawing alternative maps as the states use. That includes satisfying the State’s legitimate districting goals, such as political considerations, without relying on race as the driving factor. Furthermore, today's decision made clear that historical discrimination, standing alone, is not enough to justify race-based districting today. Leftist organizations who wish to claim that maps are drawn to fix past racial discrimination must show that this past racism supports a present-day inference of intentional discrimination. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is an enforcement tool under the 15th Amendment to stop intentional discrimination. Today's decision prevents the Voting Rights Act from being used as a tool to produce predetermined electoral outcomes through race-based line drawing. The Court confirmed that the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity to the ballot box, not equal results from the ballot box. Bottom line: this decision takes away one of the primary legal tools used to pressure states into creating additional VRA districts and makes it much harder to sustain those claims going forward.

Just finished a presentation at the Nixon Presidential Library where I was educating and entertaining my audience on the stories that transpired between 1761 and 1776 that lead to the Declaration of Independence and how these experiences shaped our Constitution.

Today I had the opportunity to debate the SAVE America Act in an auditorium full of College students. During my presentation I explained how I got involved in election integrity and during that explanation I mentioned Bush v. Gore. I suddenly realized that almost every person in the room (other than the professors) were born after Bush v. Gore.

@finished_done @Stellaaa @HarmeetKDhillon Don’t think a class action is the proper tool. At the end of the day, the appropriate tool would be a qui tam lawsuit to force the fraudsters to give the money back with punitive damages to the government.

@Stellaaa @HarmeetKDhillon @MarkMeuser can you or do you know who could help with this?

Any Californians interested in getting a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT together for the knowingly GROSS NEGLIGENCE and theft of $180B+ of our tax dollars? Any attorneys want to get on board? We have standing and the evidence pouring out is overwhelming. Cc @HarmeetKDhillon

People do not understand how tight of margins restaurants work with. I’m sure there is more to this story, but raising the cost for one restaurant and not their competitors means that competition gets an unfair advantage and the consumer will vote with their wallet.

Dear Tom Steyer, You do realize that as governor of California you have no power or authority to demolish ICE. The fact that you are making campaign promises impossible to fulfill shows me you are not qualified to run for governor. It is sad that your supporters lack significant knowledge of our government framework and that this strategy of lying to California voters might actually be a successful campaign tactic. The fact that the California Federation of Teachers has endorsed you and your deceptive campaign makes me wonder if they even understand how the United States government works and the separation of powers. If our own teachers do not understand how government works and are supporting candidates who do not understand it, how are they qualified to teach our children how government works?

Are the walls caving in on California’s political elite? For too long, such fraud has been allowed to survive. If times are changing, the political elite will hopefully soon enjoy the benefits of government-supported housing and meals—at the cost of their individual liberty and freedom to go where they want, when they want.

Those who have heard me speak know that I like to start my presentations with a historical story. In light of the upcoming 250th birthday of the USA this week, I incorporated a new story into my presentation. The story was such a hit that I decided to publish an X article on this often-forgotten part of our history. x.com/MarkMeuser/sta…

Sunset tonight at Newport Beach.

The @TPUSA Halftime show now has over 4M viewers. @NFL are you listening yet?

With over 3M tuning in to the #TPUSAHalftimeShow I think a statement has been made. My only question is whether the @NFL is listening?

I would ask what they are smoking?

well well well

While I am disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to not issue an injunction in the Proposition 50 case, this is not the end of the road. This case will move back to the district court where we resolve the merits of the lawsuit. This case will probably end up back at the Supreme Court very soon where the Court will need to address the merits of the case. At the end of the day, we did everything we could to try to stop Gavin Newsom's unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The 2026 elections will be run on what I believe are unconstitutional maps. However, as the case works its way back through the court system, it is still possible that the Court to stop the Proposition 50 map from controlling the 2028 and 2030 elections.