A recent New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/21/briefing/poll-hispanic-voters-us-elections.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> discussed why Hispanics are leaving the Democratic party. The article identified that both the working class and the youth were most likely to vote Republican this year even though they are registered to vote Democrat.  
 
Hispanics make up over 30% of California&#8217;s voters. Because of the large portion of Hispanic voters in California, my campaign for U.S. Senate has been monitoring the Hispanic polling data very carefully. Long before the Wall Street Journal wrote an article on <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-woes-with-hispanic-voters-11659625647" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hispanics moving toward the Republican party</a>, my campaign had already seen this trend in California polls. 
 
Back in December of 2021, our pollsters realized not all Latino voters were leaving the Democratic party. As we dug into the cross-tabs, it became clear that Hispanics over the age of 50 were staying true to Biden and Newsom, while Hispanics under the age of 50 could not stand the failed policies of the woke progressive agenda. When we first saw this trend in the polling, we thought it was just a fluke. However, as we continued to study the cross tabs of other major polls throughout California, it became clear <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/poll-most-cnn-msnbc-viewers-say-disinformation-causing-hispanics-to-vote-republican" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hispanic voters under the age of 50 were splitting</a> with their family tradition of voting Democrat. 
 
Our polling data has consistently shown Hispanic voters under the age of 50 understand the Democratic party has left them and that the party is no longer concerned about the needs of California families and workers. 
 
While this shift in Hispanic youth will play a minor role in the predicted national Republican &#8216;Red Wave,&#8217; it will have a major effect in upcoming California elections. With over three million registered Hispanic voters under the age of 50 in California right now, this demographic is large enough to fundamentally shift The Golden State from being a deep blue state to a state that leans Republican in one election. Yes, you read that right — the future political direction of the state of California lies in the voting preferences of the Hispanic youth. 
 
Gavin Newsom and the Democratic party understood Hispanics were leaving the party, which is one of the reasons why they poured tens of millions of dollars into the Hispanic media markets during the Recall election. However, as Biden, Newsom, and the woke progressive agenda continue to put the needs of their rich elite donors above the needs of the people, no amount of advertising can convince them to vote to destroy the American dream for their families. Every day the woke progressive agenda is further separating Hispanic voters from the Democratic party. 
 
The future is bright in California for the Republican party as Hispanics discover that their Hispanic values and Republican values align. As Hispanics look for a new political home, they will find that Republicans are ready to stand beside them and support their dreams and ambitions of realizing the American dream. 
 
While the Republican party will be helping Hispanics to realize their American dream, Hispanic youths will destroy Newsom&#8217;s dream to be the next President of the United States. 
 
Mark Meuser is the Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate in California. He is also a constitutional lawyer with the Dhillon Law Group.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Voters Cast Ballots In California Primary

Young Hispanic Voters Are The Future Of California Politics — And They’re Leaning Right

California

Hispanics

Readers Pass

Republicans

Voters

American families have been suffering from record inflation. While Biden is celebrating the passage of his Inflation Reduction Act, his administration <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm">announced that inflation rose</a> to 8.3% with food jumping to 11.4%. Inflation is on the rise because of woke progressives&#8217; tax and spend agenda. Inflation was about to be made worse by the game of political chicken since the freight railroad workers <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/unions-can-hold-up-the-democrats-at-gunpoint-ben-shapiro-flames-joe-biden-for-caving-to-railroad-labor-demands">were about to strike</a>. Senate Democrats chose to do nothing, putting the agenda of their biggest donors ahead of the needs of working families.
This problem has been long in the making but if the strike had hit, it would have come at the worst possible time. Railroads are responsible for transporting both the natural resources needed to fuel America&#8217;s energy needs and the food to feed our nation. A national railroad strike would have created a supply chain problem affecting both gas and groceries.
Months before COVID-19 turned the world upside down, the railroads and unions began their negotiations to adjust the compensation packages of the railroad workers. Two and a half years later the parties were still at an impasse and President Joe Biden, pursuant to the authority granted to him by Congress, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/07/15/executive-order-on-establishing-an-emergency-board-to-investigate-disputes-between-certain-railroads-represented-by-the-national-carriers-conference-committee-of-the-national-railway-labor-co/">issued an Executive Order</a> which created an emergency board.
This Executive Order prevented the parties from going on a strike for sixty days while the board <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/45/160">reviewed the facts and issued its recommendations</a>. This Statute gave President Biden exclusive authority to determine who was on the Emergency Board. After conducting five days of hearings between both parties, on August 16th, the Biden Emergency Board issued its report.
The railroads were offering the workers a 16% raise over five years (2020-2024) while the unions were requesting a 28% raise over the same five years. After hearing expert testimony and reviewing all the evidence presented, the Board determined that the workers were entitled to a 22% raise plus an annual $1,000 service bonus.
The workers also asked for three additional paid holidays (Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Juneteenth, and Veteran&#8217;s Day). The railroads argued that they were already compensating the workers for 11 paid holidays whereas the transportation industry had on average seven paid holidays. The Biden Emergency Board recommendation was that the railroad workers be given &#8220;an additional paid day off for employees for absences due to sickness, fatigue, or personal reasons.&#8221;
America has learned that the major sticking point in this negotiation is that the workers want 15 annual paid sick days with unlimited rollover. The railroads contend that the program would cost $688 million annually and that most of the unions have already negotiated for some form of paid sick days or a &#8220;Supplemental Sickness Benefit Plan.&#8221; Ultimately the railroads argued that the workers have &#8220;a number of personal leave days, 11 paid holidays, and up to five weeks of vacation.&#8221; The Biden Emergency Board after hearing all the testimony and the arguments of both sides determined that 15 additional paid sick days was not the &#8220;appropriate way to address the concerns&#8221; of the workers regarding attendance policy.
According to 45 U.S.C. 160, the parties had 30 days to negotiate in good faith after the Biden Emergency Board issued its report before they could strike. This clock was set to expire tonight. The commerce of the United States was about to be disrupted. This week, Senator Burr of North Carolina introduced <a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/sjres61/BILLS-117sjres61is.pdf">Senate Joint Resolution 61</a> which simply required both parties to accept the terms issued by the Biden Emergency Board.) However, with the financial stability of the country at jeopardy, Senate Democrats refused to act. They were willing to watch American families suffer so long as they did not cross their biggest campaign donors.
Some might argue that this is unconstitutional for Congress to interfere with a union negotiation. However, it is not unprecedented for the government to interfere with union strikes. In 1919, when the Boston police walked off their jobs, Massachusetts governor Calvin Coolidge supported the hiring of new officers to replace those who left. In 1981, when 11,319 Air Traffic Controllers walked off the job, President Ronald Reagan terminated them and hired their replacements.
S.J. Res. 61 relies on Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution for its authority to demand that the parties execute a contract per the terms outlined in the Biden Emergency Commission. The Constitution <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1/ALDE_00013403/">grants Congress the authority</a> &#8220;to regulate Commerce &#8230; among the several States&#8221;. Using this enumerated commerce power, throughout the 1800s, Congress passed the necessary laws to allow private corporations to build, develop, and operate railroads. 
When these private corporations were interfering with interstate commerce by developing a complex system of predatory shipping rates for farmers and small businesses, in 1887, Congress stepped in and created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate the railroads. Congress, using its commerce power created a regulatory agency that interfered with the business contracts of individuals and corporations.
Had the railroads shut down because of a strike, the cost of gas and groceries would have skyrocketed exponentially. We already saw the consequences to the nation&#8217;s supply chain when the port of Los Angeles was not able to timely unload ships. It was because of this impending supply chain crisis that Republican Senators introduced S.J. Res 61. Senator Bernie Sanders blocked the Republican rescue plan and Senator Schumer was nowhere to be seen. 
Senate Democrats are kowtowing to their donors (unions) rather than ensuring that there is cereal at the grocery stores next week.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wee-hours-deal-reached-at-last-minute-to-avert-crippling-railroad-workers-strike">Late-night negotiations averted a strike</a> that would have destroyed the American economy for years to come. However, the Senate Democrats showed their hand that they are no longer the party of the working people but instead they only serve the needs of their political donors. Senate Democrats were willing to allow the economy to crash to ensure the ongoing financial contributions to their campaigns from the nation&#8217;s unions.
Mark Meuser is an attorney with the Dhillon Law Group and a candidate for U.S. Senate in California.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Biden Speaks On The Railway Labor Agreement In The Rose Garden

Senate Democrats Showed They’re Willing To Destroy The Economy To Keep The Political Contributions Rolling

Democrats

Joe Biden

Labor Unions

Railroads

U.S. Senate

This week President Joe Biden announced that he is going to forgive $10,000 of student loan debt for those who make less than $125,000 ($20,000 to Pell Grant recipients). Contrary to the pontification of the political pendants promoting the President&#8217;s plan, the debt does not magically disappear. Instead, the debt is transferred from the individual students to the national debt.
This student loan transfer program is an accounting gimmick taking over $300 billion in secured national debt and transforming it into unsecured national debt.
I agree that the cost of education has far outpaced inflation or the earning potential of students. Schools are not on the hook if the student can&#8217;t pay the loan back. Over the last several decades, school administrations have become bloated with bureaucracy. Schools are so focused on increasing their budgets that they are not ensuring that the students have the education necessary to enter the job market with skills that the workforce needs.
Many are talking about how unfair this is to those who chose not to take out student loans or have already paid them off. Regardless of whether this is fair or unfair, the biggest problem is that the U.S. Constitution does not give spending power to the president. Article 1, Section 7 reserves for Congress the power of the purse.
In reading <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/24/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-student-loan-relief-for-borrowers-who-need-it-most/">the Fact Sheet</a> put out by the White House, I could not find one word that even attempted to explain how the president had the authority to forgive these loans. I have studied this issue and I cannot find anyone who can show me any provision in the statute that gives the president this authority.
Late yesterday, however, the General Counsel for the Department of Education <a href="https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1528451/download">published a memorandum opinion</a> revealing how they think the President is justified to make this loan transfer.
This memorandum is just the government lawyers opinion on how they think they can expand the authority of their boss. Congress gave the President the authority to modify the payment schedule of a loan during a local or national emergency so that a student who is affected by the emergency is not put in a worse position financially. 
This memorandum makes the false assumption that since the President can modify the payment schedule during an emergency, Congress intended them to be able to modify the outstanding balance. The memorandum does not change the fact that Congress has the constitutional power of the purse and they never gave the President the power to reallocate debt from secured debt to unsecured debt.
Our founding fathers believed that allowing Congress to control taxing and spending would be a strong check against the executive branch from becoming just like a tyrannical monarch. They understood the disastrous consequences that would occur if one individual could control the nation&#8217;s finances. 
Our founders understood the need to limit the powers of the executive. They understood the need to balance the powers between the states and the various branches of the federal government. Rather than give the executive power over the purse, our founders gave this power to Congress. Congress makes the decisions on how we spend our taxpayers&#8217; dollars.
While some argue that we forgave large loans under the PPP, this is not a fair apples-to-apples comparison. Congress authorized the PPP program that way from day one. Businesses who took out PPP loans knew that if they dotted their i&#8217;s and crossed their t&#8217;s they would not have to pay that money back. Regardless of whether this was a good policy should not cloud the discussion about the president&#8217;s unprecedented power grab to render Congress unessential. If a president has the power over the purse, why have a Congress? Let&#8217;s just eliminate Congress, let&#8217;s just eliminate the Senate and the president will have complete control over every aspect of the federal government.
The terms set out by Congress on these student loans are that the student would have to pay it back and that they could not file bankruptcy to avoid paying the loan. A president does not have veto power over laws that have already been enacted by their predecessors. 
I agree we must have a serious discussion about the abuses that have led to the $1.6 trillion in student debt. We need to make these schools more responsive to the needs of the community and the students that they serve. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Just because schools have abused the student loan program, does not mean that we should throw away our constitutional republic and allow America to be ruled by a tyrannical dictator.
Transferring $300 billion of secured debt to unsecured debt is not going to fix the $1.6 trillion- problem. Even if Biden had the authority to transfer this student debt to the shoulders of future American taxpayers, this executive action is only paying lip service to the problems. Biden is just putting a bandaid on gangrene. There is a major problem that needs to be solved and Biden is just kicking the can down the road while placating his political supporters.
Mark Meuser is a constitutional attorney with the Dhillon Law Group. He is also the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate for the state of California.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

treasury department building washington dc

‘Like A Band-Aid On Gangrene’: Why Forgiving Student Loans Is Unconstitutional

Student Loan Cancellation

Student Loans

On Tuesday, the Dhillon Law Group, where I serve as an election law attorney, filed a lawsuit against the state of California. This lawsuit alleges that California is <a href="https://publiuslex.com/pf/nvra/">violating federal law</a> by not ensuring that only citizens are on the state&#8217;s voting rolls. Three California voters brought this lawsuit: Roxanne Hoge, Ali Mazarei, and Corrin Rankin. Both Hoge and Mazarei are legal immigrants who earned the privilege to vote by becoming citizens of the United States.
In 1993, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). This law mandated that states create more options for individuals to register to vote. This law also placed restrictions on the states on how they were to maintain their voter rolls. Under the NVRA, the state has a duty to regularly maintain the voter rolls by removing those individuals who had died or moved away.
The NVRA also requires a state&#8217;s secretary of state to determine the eligibility of each applicant before placing him or her on its voter rolls. Eligibility throughout the NVRA means that there is citizenship. Thus, the NVRA requires the states to ensure that someone is a citizen prior to placing him or her on the voter rolls.
State records show that before the California secretary of state&#8217;s office places an applicant on the voter rolls, it checks with state administrative records to ensure the individual is not a felon and that the voter application is not a duplicate. The state admits that it does not review state administrative records to determine if an applicant is a citizen of the United States. If California does not even bother to check the citizenship status of voter applicants, it can continue to claim to the media that there is no evidence of non-citizens being placed on its voter rolls.
Last year, the California secretary of state admitted he had no idea how many non-citizens were on the voter rolls. Earlier this year, a state audit was released that showed non-citizens were not only registered to vote, but had voted in California elections. These two news stories made it clear that California did not use state administrative records to ensure that only citizens were being registered to vote. Rather than follow federal law and make a determination of citizenship before placing an applicant on the voter rolls, the state simply waits for a scandal to break before responding by removing a non-citizen from its voter rolls. This is improper.
The California secretary of state has claimed that there is no state administrative record that tracks citizenship of Californians. This is clearly not true, since a state audit was able to determine that non-citizens were not only on the voter rolls but had also actually voted. Contrary to what the secretary of state wants the media to believe, there are multiple state administrative records that contain the citizenship status of voters. Every applicant for a state driver&#8217;s license is required to provide proof of identity. These proof-of-identity documents include citizenship status. If an individual cannot prove that he/she is lawfully a United States citizens, a driver&#8217;s license is still doled out but that individual is supposedly not simultaneously also registered to vote.
By bringing this lawsuit, the plaintiffs desire to hold the secretary of state&#8217;s feet to the fire. It is time that California be required to follow federal law and ensure that everyone who is on the voter rolls is actually eligible to vote. This lawsuit is necessary because California has a bad habit of thumbing its nose at federal election laws and dragging its feet as long as possible. When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 — which required states to establish a statewide voter registration list — California was the last state to comply. It did not do so until 2016.
Earlier this year, Judicial Watch won a major victory against California requiring the state to follow federal law in removing from the voter rolls those who have died and those who have moved. California had chosen to simply not send out the required notices, and the voter rolls were thus bloated with ineligible voters.
Californians deserve the assurance that the state is following federal law and ensuring that only citizens are on the voter rolls. By its own admissions, the state is not verifying voter applicants&#8217; citizenship status. Since California has claimed that it is not doing anything wrong, this lawsuit had to be brought to force California to follow the NVRA.
&nbsp;
Mark Meuser is an election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group, which is based in California. You can follow Mark Meuser on Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/markmeuser">@markmeuser</a>.

California on atlas

MEUSER: Legal Immigrants Sue California For Failure To Verify Voters’ Citizenship Status

Illegal Immigration

Lawsuit

On Tuesday, the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/21/electoral-college-members-not-bound-popular-vote-c/?fbclid=IwAR2LAesCtm9AW4OL_c_gQpQQeHr6o71eIC4jpRn6dhizP_i-zepssKAoho0">ruled</a> that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution when he removed an Electoral College delegate who had chosen to vote for John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton. The secretary of state nullified the vote of the delegate and installed a new delegate who voted in accordance with the popular vote of the state of Colorado.
Michael Baca, a loyal Democratic voter, was elected as a delegate to the Electoral College in November 2016. By voting for Kasich instead of Hillary, Baca was attempting to be a part of a movement by Electoral College delegates across the country to pull away votes from both Trump and Hillary so as to send the election to the U.S. House of Representatives. The Constitution provides that if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote (270 Electoral College votes), then the top three candidates in the Electoral College are to be presented to the House of Representatives and the House is to select the next president.
Baca&#8217;s plan was dependent upon other Republican Electoral College delegates also voting for Kasich. Trump received 304 Electoral College votes and, for the plan to succeed, 35 Republican delegates would have also had to cast their votes for Kasich. While Kasich would not have received any votes in the general election, his third-place finish in the Electoral College would have made him eligible for the Republican-controlled House to elect him as president of the United States.
Needless to say, this was just the first attempt by Democrats to try to remove Trump from the White House. And this week, the 10th Circuit dealt a serious blow to the Democrats&#8217; latest scheme to try to circumvent the Electoral College. In another diagnosed case of &#8220;Trump Derangement Syndrome,&#8221; many Democratic leaders have encouraged state legislatures to enter into an agreement wherein the states in the compact <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45462/thwarting-tyranny-save-our-states-seeks-protect-josh-hammer">award all their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote</a>. This agreement is to take effect as soon as enough states have joined so that there are at least 270 Electoral College votes guaranteed by the compact.
Many Democrats hate the Electoral College because they feel it deprived them of the White House in 2000 and in 2016. Democrats hate the fact that they can&#8217;t win the race for the White House according to the Constitution, and they have thus decided that it is in their political self-interest to change the rules so that they can try to win the presidency more often.
At this time, there are 15 states plus the District of Columbia that have entered into the agreement. To date, the compact has 196 out of the 270 Electoral College votes it needs before going into effect.
The problem with this harebrained scheme being promoted by the Democrats is that it attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and the process to properly amend the Constitution. In order to amend the Constitution, three-quarters of the states must ratify a proposed constitutional amendment that has already passed by either a two-thirds vote by Congress or via a constitutional convention called for by the states.
Democrats know that they cannot get three-quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. As such, rather than give up on their desire to abolish the Electoral College, they instead have decided to change the rules on how the Constitution can be amended.
The good news is that the 10th Circuit, with its ruling on Tuesday, has telegraphed the beginning of the end of the Democrats&#8217; latest scheme to end the Electoral College. If a state cannot require that its delegates vote in accordance with its own state&#8217;s popular vote, it will therefore also never be able to require that its delegates vote in accordance with the nation&#8217;s popular vote.
While the 10th Circuit decision does not directly deal with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the reasoning of this decision will be used when lawyers argue the eventual unconstitutionality of the compact. Tuesday&#8217;s court ruling is a brick in the wall that will hinder the Democrats&#8217; unconstitutional attempts to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College.
Mark Meuser is an election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group based in California. You can follow Mark Meuser on Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/markmeuser">@markmeuser</a>.

Electoral College Map

MEUSER: Federal Court Deals Serious Blow To The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Constitution

Democratic Party

Electoral College

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

This week, Donald Trump submitted his 2018 Taxpayers First Budget. In producing the budget, Mick Mulvaney, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, announced that the Trump Administration has discovered approximately $300 billion in federal spending in programs that have expired. This unauthorized spending has a real impact on balancing the budget.
The Trump administration has not yet announced a full list of the programs that are unauthorized, but a quick review of the 2018 budget found 11 programs that Trump is terminating because Congress has not renewed the program in some time.
1. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration
The Economic Development Administration spent $251 million dollars in 2017. This agency&#8217;s authority to exist expired in 2008.
2. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grants and Education
In 2017, NOAA spent $217 million on state, local, and/or industry interests (think special interest).
3. Department of Health and Human Services, Community Services Block Grant
The Community Services Block Grant funds approximately 1,000 non-profit and local government organizations to a tune of $714 million dollars. These funds are not tied to performance and the money has been allocated based on what a state received in 1981.
4. Department of Homeland Security, Port Security Grants and Transit Security Assistance
The 2018 Budget did not mention how much the individual Port Security Grant program spends each year but did mention it was an unauthorized program and that the Department&#8217;s budget would be reduced. Overall, the 2018 budget eliminates $218 million from Homeland Security for programs that are being eliminated.
5. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Choice Neighborhoods
The 2018 Budget proposes to eliminate the $125 million budget of Choice Neighborhoods and allow state and local governments to provide incentives to private interests to improve neighborhoods.
6. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Block Grant
The Community Development Block Grant has spent approximately $150 billion since its inception in 1974. The 2018 budget states that the grants have not demonstrated a measurable impact.
7. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Indian Community Development Block Grant
This $60 million block grant fund is being eliminated because it is duplicative and no longer authorized by Congress. This fund authorized grants to Tribes for the construction of affordable housing. There is no matrix to prove that this grant actually had any impact on affordable housing.
8. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program Account
In addition to offering duplicative services, this program has been expired since 2001. For 16 years, this program has been giving money to non-profit organizations to assist with community development activities. This program will waste $56 Million in 2017.
9. Department of Justice, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
This duplicative and unauthorized program reimburses states and local governments for the cost of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens. This program is poorly administered in that the local governments applying for the funds did not actually have to use the funds for detaining illegal criminal aliens. A large portion of the funds go to New York and California.
10. Department of Transportation, National Infrastructure Investments
This $499 million discretionary grant program was part of the 2009 stimulus bill. It spends federal dollars on local projects with no national or regional interests. This grant program has not been authorized by Congress for the last two years.
11. Department of Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
This program was created in 1994 and is currently unauthorized. This program was designed to assist in the expansion of credit for &#8220;low-income and underserved people and communities.&#8221; This fund has created 1,100 Treasury-certified CDFIs. The Trump 2018 budget is eliminating the ability for this program to issue grants but is allowing the program to provide oversight for the 1,100 CDFIs that the program created in the last 23 years.

11 Unauthorized Government Spending Programs Trump Cut From His 2018 Budget

Donald Trump

Federal Government