Trump Wins: Two Courts Just Told the Left That Election Security Isn’t Voter Suppression

The court also held that local prosecutors who enforce election crimes are not themselves providers of voting services — meaning they can’t be sued for disability discrimination under the ADA on that theory. This closes off one of the left’s favorite litigation strategies: treating any enforcement of election law as a form of discrimination against disabled voters.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling is equally important in practice. Third-party ballot harvesters — people who collect and deliver other voters’ absentee ballots — must still comply with witness signature requirements. Election officials can still verify those requirements are met. Minnesota had rejected roughly 6,000 ballots at issue in the litigation for failing to meet these standards. The state court upheld the rejections.

This is how election integrity is supposed to work. If you’re going to allow third parties to collect and deliver other people’s ballots — which itself creates enormous opportunities for coercion and fraud — the minimum you can do is verify that the witness signatures attached to those ballots are legitimate. The left calls this suppression. Courts are increasingly calling it law.