January 21, 2026

To: Harmeet Dhillon, US Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20530

RE: Complaint to end the Senate Blue Slip Policy

Sent via email to:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Ms Dhillon,

The Washington Parents Network is a group of several thousand US citizens in Washington state. Because the current political leaders in our state have almost no respect for our civil rights, federal laws or the US Constitution, our right as parents to control the upbringing of our children is being violated on a daily basis. Thus, during the past year, we have been forced to submit 7 complaints to the Department of Education and/or the Department of Justice. Our previous complaints included hundreds of pages of specific examples of violations of our civil rights. ( Section 1 of this complaint provides a summary of these 7 past complaints.)

This is our eighth civil rights complaint. In a nutshell, we need at least one valid, Senate approved US Attorney for Washington state who is vested with a clear power to investigate our 7 prior complaints and, after finding them to be accurate, to file charges in federal court. Unfortunately, due to threats by Washington Senator Patty Murray, to use an unconstitutional “Blue Slip” policy to block Senate consideration of our “acting” US attorneys, we have no hope of getting a valid US Attorney in our state with the clear power to investigate and take action on our past complaints.

The First Amendment states in part: “Congress shall make no law… abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “

Congress, as referenced in the First Amendment, includes the US Senate. We contend that the current Senate Blue Slip policy - allowing a single Senator to block the appointment of US attorneys in Washington state– has abridged and continues to severely abridge and obstruct our right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is because the US attorney is the person most specifically responsible for investigating our complaints and enforcing our civil rights. While the Senate is entitled to make their own rules, the Senate is not entitled to make rules that violate fundamental rights of the people as established in the US Constitution. The Senate Blue Slip policy is unconstitutional because, as currently practiced, it severely abridges the First Amendment right of the people to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

In addition, the Senate Blue Slip policy, as currently practiced, violates the Separation of Powers provisions of Articles I, II and III of the US Constitution by allowing a single Senator to block the Executive Branch appointment of US attorneys – one of the core functions of the Executive Branch protected by the Article II Vesting Clauses – and thus renders our national elections for President to be meaningless.

Equally important, the Senate Blue Slip Policy violates Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 commonly known as the Appointment Clause of the US Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

US Attorneys are “Inferior Officers” protected by Article II, Clause 2 Section 2. The meaning of the term “Consent” in Article II, Clause 2 requires a simple majority vote of the Senate. The Senate does not have the power to use a Blue Slip policy to allow a single Senator to block the Advice and Consent process.

In an effort to get around the unconstitutional Senate Blue Slip policy, in 2025, the Department of Justice attempted to use various federal laws, including 28 US Code Section 541 and Section 546 and the National Vacancy Reform Act (NVRA) to create either “Acting” or “Special” US Attorneys. Thus far, seven federal courts have issued rulings blocking these efforts by the Department of Justice as being violations of Section 541, Section 546 and the NVRA. (We provide a summary of these 7 federal court rulings in Section 4 of this complaint).

We contend that all three of these federal laws - 28 US Code Section 541 and Section 546 and the National Vacancy Reform Act (NVRA - fail to comply with the simple framework of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and are therefore unconstitutional. The problem with all three laws is that they place a complex series of obstacles in the way of appointing a permanent and valid US Attorney for each district. These obstacles violate the “Inferior Office” options that are specifically and clearly spelled out in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

Together, Section 541, Section 546 and the NVRA constitute an unconstitutional Congressional Takeover of the Appointment powers reserved for the Executive Branch:

While our primary goal is protecting the inalienable right of parents to raise their children, we recognize that this right can not be protected unless our First Amendment civil right to “petition the Government for redress of Grievances” is also protected. While this right extends to all three branches of government, it is the primary core duty of the Executive Branch of the Government to enforce the US Constitution and federal laws. Enforcement of federal laws by the Executive Branch rests primarily with the US Department of Justice. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957 specifically to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all persons in the United States.

We are therefore submitting this Complaint to the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice and requesting that the Civil Rights Division take specific and immediate steps to end the US Senate Blue Slip Policy so that we, the citizens of Washington state can get a US Attorney to enforce the “Petition for Redress of Grievances” Clause of the US Constitution.

Due to the Senate Blue Slip policy, while 27 out of 52 US Attorneys were Senate Confirmed in 2025 in states with Republican Senators, only 4 out of 41 US Attorneys were confirmed in states with Democrat Senators.

Below is an image of US States with at least one US Attorney confirmed by the US Senate in 2025:

Note that there are 17 states with Republican Senators that have at least one Senate confirmed US Attorney and only 7 Republican States without a Senate confirmed US Attorney By Contrast, there only 4 states with Democrat Senators with at least one US Attorney and 20 Democrat States without a Senate confirmed US Attorney!

We have divided this complaint into seven sections:

Section 1 provides a summary of our previous 7 complaints each of which requires investigation and resolution by a US attorney here in Washington state – but none of which are being addressed due to a single Senator blocking the appointment of a US attorney here in our state.

Section 2 provides an analysis of each word of Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution - confirming that the drafters of the US Constitution wanted a strong federal government and would have opposed a Senate One Person Veto of Presidential Nominees

Section 3 explains why Senate Blue Slips as well as 28 US Code Sections 541, 546 and the NVRA are Unconstitutional.

Section 4 provides a summary of current litigation on the obstruction of US Attorney appointments including a summary of 7 cases in the Ninth Circuit, Third and Fourth Circuits.

Section 5 provides a summary of the actions of the US Senate in 2025 blocking the appointment of a US attorney here in Washington state. This includes a summary of the status of all 93 US attorneys in the US.

Section 6 provides a summary of the historical importance of the Redress of Grievances clause – which dates back to the Magna Carte - and the Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process Clause.

Section 7 outlines our proposed remedy to restore a functional federal government. We ask that the Department of Justice demand that the Senate immediately end this Blue Slip practice. Should the Senate refuse to end this illegal policy, then we ask the Department of Justice to file a complaint with the Supreme Court for a ruling that prevents the Senate from using any policy that gives a single senator the right to block a vote on Presidential nominations. We further ask the DOJ to seek a Supreme Court ruling that 28 US Code Sections 541 and 546, and the NVRA violate Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Thank you for helping to restore and protect the right of the people to petition the government for redress of our grievances.

Sincerely, David Spring M. Ed. Director, Washington Parents Network

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

One Page Summary of our Complaint

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states in part:
“He shall... nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... all... Officers of the United States...which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers... in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Our complaint explains why the word “Shall” as used in Article II, Section 2, creates a binding legal obligation for the President to nominate and the Senate to provide “advice and consent” on the appointment of every US Attorney. Any policy, statute or action that fails to comply with Article II, Section 2 is unconstitutional.

The Blue Slip policy in which a single Senator can prevent a Presidential Nominee from receiving a confirmation vote by the full US Senate is therefore unconstitutional.

Three federal statutes, 28 US Code Section 541 and Section 546 and the National Vacancy Reform Act (NVRA - also fail to comply with the specific appointment options provided for in Article II, Section 2 and are therefore unconstitutional.

In addition, the creation by the Executive Branch of any additional officers which have not been been established by Law through an Act of Congress - and which have not been appointed through the specific provisions of Article II, Section 2 is also unconstitutional. Thus, the creation of any “Special US Attorney” is also in violation of Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

Finally, as the US Attorney in each federal district is the person most responsible for protecting the civil rights of the citizens in that federal district – and is therefore the person who the People have a right to Petition for redress of grievances, the failure to provide a “valid” US Attorney in any federal district is a violation of First Amendment of the US Constitution which states in part that:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

Section 1 Summary of our 7 prior complaints to restore Parental Rights

During the past several years, the current political leaders in Washington state have been waging a war against families and the right of parents to raise their children. We as parents have had no recourse to restore our rights because our current Governor (and former Attorney General), Bob Ferguson, was and still is the the chief opponent of parents rights. – along with the current State Superintendent, Chris Reykdal. To make matters even worse, the current Washington state Attorney General (and former US Attorney for Western Washington), Nick Brown is also opposed to parental rights.

Thankfully, in 2024, Donald Trump pledged to restore parental rights. We were therefore hopeful that the new federal administration would help us restore our parental rights here in Washington state. So, in 2025, we filed a series of complaints with the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice. Each of our complaints requires investigation and resolution by a US attorney here in Washington state. But none of our complaints are currently being addressed due to a single Senator, Patty Murray, using a “Blue Slip” policy to block the appointment of a US attorney here in our state.

Our complaints explain how leaders in Washington state have blatantly violated and continue to violate numerous sections of the US Constitution, numerous federal laws and several recent US Supreme Court rulings.

Washington Parents Network Civil Rights Complaint #1: Violating the Title IX Civil Rights of a half million girls in our state

Title IX is a 54 year old federal law to end discrimination against biological girls and protect their right to equal opportunities in educational and athletic programs that receive federal funding. Due to huge biological differences between males and females, this right requires providing girls their own private spaces and sports leagues. Sadly, leaders in Washington state have violated this right by allowing biological males to compete in girls sports leagues and enter girls private spaces. This has resulted in boys winning girls regional and state championships. It has also forced thousands of parents to pull their girls out of public schools in order to protect them from this shocking harm.

In 2024, the Biden administration attempted to dramatically change Title IX without a vote by Congress. About 26 states objected to this change and several federal courts blocked the change. One of these was a ruling called Tennessee v Cardona – a ruling which the US Supreme Court upheld in August 2024. On January 9, 2025, the judge in this case issued a national order requiring all 50 states to comply with the original meaning of Title IX.

Sadly, the leaders of Washington state refused to comply with the either the 2024 Supreme Court ruling or the 2025 federal order. Therefore, on February 28, 2025, the Washington Parents Network was forced to file a 99 page Title IX complaint with the US Department of Education. You can read this complaint on our website at the following link:

https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/washington-parents-network-title-ix-complaint

Washington Parents Network Civil Rights Complaint #2: Against the Seattle Office of the US Department of Education for violating the Title IX Civil Rights of a half million girls in our state

Our Title IX complaint was forwarded to the Seattle Branch of the US Department of Education, which sadly failed to respond to our complaint. Therefore, in March 2025, I visited the Seattle Branch of the Department of Education.

Despite the fact that this branch employed 25 people, there was almost no one at this office. Just row after row of empty cubicles. The one person who answered the door was openly hostile to my request for information about our complaint. Therefore, on March 21, 2025, I filed an additional Title IX complaint with the US Department of Education against the Seattle Branch of the US Department of Education. You can read this complaint at the following link: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/seattle-office-of-civil-rights-ignores-title-ix-federal-court-order

I also reached out to Washington State Congressman, Dan Newhouse, who is working with several groups here in Washington state attempting to enforce Title IX. Congressman Newhouse is working with DOJ leader, Pam Bondi who has promised to investigate all of our complaints. However, I have learned that what is needed is a new US Attorney – but the appointment of this new US attorney is being blocked by Washington Senator Patty Murray who has threatened to use a “Blue Slip” policy to block that appointment. This issue is discussed in Section 2.

I have also learned that, even if the current “acting” US attorney, Pete Serrano, was to investigate and file a official complaint in federal court, there would likely be legal problems with the complaint since the Serrano appointment is more than 120 days old. This issue is discussed in Section 3. In the meantime, the Title IX rights of over 500,000 girls continue to be violated here in Washington state.

Washington Parents Network Civil Rights Complaint #3: Against Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

On April 18, 2025, the Washington Parents Network filed a Title VI Civil Rights Discrimination 64 page complaint under the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Complaint Resolution Process against the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction for requiring all 295 school districts in Washington state to discriminate against over one million students on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance in violation of both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. You can read this complaint at this link: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/washington-parents-network-title-vi-complaint

Our Title VI complaint is based on a 2023 US Supreme Court decision called Students v Harvard. On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court published a 237 page landmark decision in the case of Students for Fair Admission v Harvard which clarified that Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment requires “color blindness” in all federal, state and local programs. The Supreme Court concluded that Title VI prohibits any programs or activities that included “racial preferencing” or dividing people up based on skin color.

Racial preference educational programs have many names including but not limited to Critical Race Theory, Ethnic Studies – and most recently – Diversity, Equity and Inclusion or DEI.

What matters is not the name of the program but whether the program divides people up based on the color of their skin. Any educational program that divides people up based on the color of their skin is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On January 20, 2025, based on the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admission v Harvard, President Trump issued a Presidental Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences.”

On January 21, 2025, again citing Students for Fair Admission v Harvard, President Trump issued a Presidential Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunities.“

On February 14, 2025, based on these Presidential Orders, which were based on Students for Fair Admission v Harvard, the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Dear Colleague Letter requiring all state and local education agencies to comply with Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.

On March 1, 2025, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Frequently Asked Questions  10 page document providing further guidance on OCR’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter. Here are quotes from the March 1, 2025 OCR FAQ:

“In Students v. Harvard, the Supreme Court reiterated that “discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI.”

“Many schools have advanced racially discriminatory policies and practices under the banner of “DEI” initiatives… Schools may not operate policies or programs under any name that intentionally treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races.”

“The First Amendment rights of students, faculty, and staff, and the curricular prerogatives of states and local school agencies do not relieve schools of their Title VI obligations to refrain from creating hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes.”

On April 3, 2025, the OCR sent letters to State Commissioners overseeing K-12 State Education Agencies requiring them to certify their compliance with their anti-discrimination obligations under Students v Harvard in order to continue receiving federal financial assistance.

On April 8, 2025, Washington superintendent, Chris Reykdal, issued a press release refusing to comply with the OCR Certification letter. Reykdal falsely claimed that Students v Harvard only applied to “college admissions policies.“ Reykdal further falsely claimed that Washington educational programs already “met the requirements under Title VI.”

In our complaint, we explained why Students v Harvard applies to all programs that receive federal funding. We also provide 30 examples of why Reykdal’s DEI programs willfully and pervasively violate the Title VI rights of students, parents and school board members.

We asked the Office of Civil Rights to conduct a Directed Investigation of Washington state illegal DEI programs and to withhold federal funds until Reykdal agrees to permanently end these DEI programs.

As with our two Title IX complaints, our Title VI complaint requires an investigation and prosecution by the US Department of Justice, which in turn requires having a US attorney here in Washington state. Sadly, this is not likely to happen as long as Senator Patty Murray is allowed to use the Blue Slip policy to prevent the appointment of a US attorney here in Washington state. This issue is covered in greater detail in Section 2.

While the Department of Justice has appointed “acting” US attorneys for Washington state, the legality of these appointments is currently being litigated in the Ninth Circuit (and three other federal circuits) – a topic covered in greater detail in Section 3.

In the meantime, the Title VI rights of over one million students in Washington state are being violated and will continue to be violated until this Constitutional Crisis is resolved.

Washington Parents Network Civil Rights Complaint #4: Against Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction for violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) rights of hundreds of thousands of parents

On May 9, 2025, the Washington Parents Network filed a FERPA Civil Rights 56 page complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) against the Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction for requiring all 295 school districts in Washington state to force teachers and administrators to keep secret from parents who request important educational records about their children, including the gender transitioning and drug addiction of their children, in programs that receive Federal funding in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Here is a link to this complaint:

https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/parents-rights/washington-parents-network-ferpa-complaint

On April 30, 2025, the US Office of Education announced that their DOE/DOJ Joint Civil Rights Taskforce was launching a Directed Investigation into the Washington State Superintendent's Office. Here is a link to this Press Release: https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/title-ix-special-investigations-team-launches-directed-investigation-washington-state-superintendents-office-0

Here is a quote from this Press Release: “The Investigation Comes Amid Reports that Washington State Policies Conflict with Title IX, FERPA, and PPRA…Today’s investigation into Washington OSPI is a first-of-its-kind, bringing together ED and DOJ, and multiple offices within ED, to adjudicate several potential violations of federal law.”

in our complaint, we provided evidence that during the past 8 years, OSPI, in conjunction with the radical leaders of the Washington state legislature, have threatened several school districts. Attempts by school districts to comply with FERPA by providing parents with accurate and complete disclosure of a students educational records has led to many school districts receiving severe warning letters from OSPI that they must immediately stop providing parents with accurate and complete records or risk losing state funding.

We provided summaries from four school districts, but we have been told by school board directors than more than 20 school districts have received threatening letters from OSPI due to their attempts to comply with Title IX. The exact number of school districts to receive threatening letters is not known due to secrecy policies at OSPI.

In addition, OSPI has required a series of “secrecy policies,” such as Policy 3211, that force all school district administrators and teachers in Washington state to keep a “Double Set of Student Records” in order to deliberately violate the FERPA rights of parents to receive accurate and complete educational records of their students.

In addition, on April 24, 2025, the Washington legislature passed House Bill 1296, which increased penalties for school districts that refuse to keep a “Double Set of Books” in order to hide important educational records from parents.

House Bill 1296 and Policy 3211 both violate a recent US Supreme Court Parents Rights ruling called Mahmoud v. Taylor.

Both also violate a December 2025 Ninth Circuit District Court 52 page ruling in a case called Mirabelli v Olson. Here is the link:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26426903-benitez-order/

Our complaint is also supported by a recent 38 page Parents Rights complaint filed against the Seattle School District with the US Department of Justice by a Parents Rights group called Defending Education which is available at this link:

https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Seattle-OCR-Complaint_Final_Updated12.16.25.pdf

As with our two Title IX complaints and our Title VI complaint, our FERPA complaint requires an investigation and prosecution by the US Department of Justice, which in turn requires having a US attorney here in Washington state. Sadly, this is not likely to happen as long as Senator Patty Murray is allowed to use the Blue Slip policy to prevent the appointment of a US attorney here in Washington state. This issue is covered in greater detail in Section 2.

While the Department of Justice has appointed “acting” US attorneys for Washington state, the legality of these appointments is currently being litigated in the Ninth Circuit (and three other federal circuits) – a topic covered in greater detail in Section 3.

In the meantime, the FERPA rights of hundreds of thousands of parents here in Washington state are being violated and will continue to be violated until this Constitutional Crisis is resolved.

Washington Parents Network Civil Rights Complaint #5: Against Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson for violating Federal Election Laws

On September 5, 2025, the Washington Parents Network filed a complaint with the US Department of Justice Voting Section providing evidence that the Washington State Department of Licensing, under the direction of Governor Bob Ferguson, had illegally registered hundreds of thousands of non-citizens to vote here in Washington state. Here is a link to this complaint: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/complaint-against-bob-ferguson-for-violating-federal-election-laws

As with our two Title IX complaints, our Title VI complaint and our FERPA complaint, our Voting Rights Complaint requires an investigation and prosecution by the US Department of Justice, which in turn requires having a US attorney here in Washington state. Sadly, this is not likely to happen as long as Senator Patty Murray is allowed to use the Blue Slip policy to prevent the appointment of a US attorney here in Washington state. This issue is covered in greater detail in Section 2.

While the Department of Justice has appointed “acting” US attorneys for Washington state, the legality of these appointments is currently being litigated in the Ninth Circuit (and three other federal circuits) – a topic covered in greater detail in Section 3.

In the meantime, the voting rights of every citizen here in Washington state are being violated and will continue to be violated until this Constitutional Crisis is resolved.

Washington Parents Network Civil Rights Complaint #6: Against Washington State Planned Parenthood for violating Federal Trade Commission laws and regulations

On September 19, 2025, the Washington Parents Network filed a 60 page complaint with the Federal Trade Commission via the FTC Gender Affirming Care Comment page against Washington State Planned Parenthood for violating Federal Trade Commission laws and regulations. Here is a link to this complaint:

https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/complaint-against-washington-state-planned-parenthood

Planned Parenthood promotes toxic Trans Drugs as “Gender Affirming Care” by falsely claiming that these drugs can magically “transition” children from one biological sex to the other sex despite the fact that there are at least 6,500 genetic differences between the sexes and no drugs are able to change a child from one sex to the other. A more accurate term for these drugs is “Gender Mutilation Child Abuse.” In our complaint, we provided evidence that thousands of children and their families here in Washington state have been severely and permanently harmed by these fraudulent Planned Parenthood practices.

We also provided a summary of the financial harm to parents and tax payers who are forced to pay for the Planned Parenthood Money Laundering operation – not only through millions of dollars in higher state and federal taxes to pay for Medicaid billings – but also through higher Health Insurance Premiums as the Health Insurance companies are forced to pay millions of dollars each year for Planned Parenthood’s fraudulent billings.

Finally, we provided a summary of legal cases against Planned Parenthood – cases confirming that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly broken federal laws including illegally selling body parts of aborted fetuses and continuing to offer their “services” even after they were ordered to shut down.

As with our two Title IX complaints, our Title VI complaint and FERPA complaint and our Voting Rights Complaint, our Medical Fraud complaint requires an investigation and prosecution by the US Department of Justice, which in turn requires having a US attorney here in Washington state. Sadly, this is not likely to happen as long as Senator Patty Murray is allowed to use the Blue Slip policy to prevent the appointment of a US attorney here in Washington state. This issue is covered in greater detail in Section 2.

While the Department of Justice has appointed “acting” US attorneys for Washington state, the legality of these appointments is currently being litigated in the Ninth Circuit (and three other federal circuits) – a topic covered in greater detail in Section 3. In the meantime, the rights of thousands of children and parents here in Washington state to accurate medical information are being violated and will continue to be violated until this Constitutional Crisis is resolved.

Washington Parents Network Civil Rights Complaint #7: Against Washington State Election Officials for violating Federal Election laws prohibiting online voting

On January 8, 2026, the Washington Parents Network filed a 21 page complaint with the Voting Rights Division of the US Department of Justice providing evidence that Washington state has recently allowed and continues to allow insecure online vote curing in violation of federal election laws. This insecure election process is being used in the most populous county in Washington state, King County, to automatically “cure” some - but not all - of the ballots whose signatures were challenged by election workers. This new online voting system app currently being used in Washington state - called Omniballot - does not meet federal election system testing standards because it is inherently not secure and therefore violates federal election laws. Using an online voting system violates the right of every citizen in Washington state to fair elections.

Here is a link to our seventh complaint:

https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/complaint-against-washington-state-online-voting

As with our two Title IX complaints, our Title VI complaint, our FERPA complaint, our Voting Rights Complaint and our Medical Fraud complaint, our online voting complaint requires an investigation and prosecution by the US Department of Justice, which in turn requires having a US attorney here in Washington state. Sadly, this is not likely to happen as long as Senator Patty Murray is allowed to use the Blue Slip policy to prevent the appointment of a US attorney here in Washington state. This issue is covered in greater detail in Section 2.

While the Department of Justice has appointed “acting” US attorneys for Washington state, the legality of these appointments is currently being litigated in the Ninth Circuit (and three other federal circuits) – a topic covered in greater detail in Section 3. In the meantime, the rights of thousands of children and parents here in Washington state to accurate medical information are being violated and will continue to be violated until this Constitutional Crisis is resolved.

Summary of our previous 7 complaints

Taken together, our 7 complaints provide evidence of a war against the civil rights of parents and our children here in Washington state – violation of important rights – violations that have been inflicted on families in our state for years – ongoing violations of our rights an epic scale – violations of numerous constitutional rights, numerous federal laws and numerous US Supreme Court rulings - violations that requires urgent investigation by the US Department of Justice. But violations that will continue because there are no Senate approved US attorneys in Washington state – and have not been for the past year – all because Washington Senator, Patty Murray, is using an unconstitutional Blue Slip policy to block a vote on a US attorney for Washington state. This monstrous obstruction of justice can not be allowed to continue.

In the next two sections, we will review the unconstitutional Blue Slip actions of the US Senate this past year – and the steps taken by the US Department of Justice to overcome the Senate Blue Slip policy.

 

Section 2 Statutory Construction Analysis of Article II Section 2

The most important rule of statutory construction is that, if the words of a provision are clear, the provision should to be interpreted using the plain meaning of the words in the provision - as those meanings were understood at the time that the provision was written. The second most important rule of legal analysis is that provisions should be interpreted in a manner that gives meaning to every word of the provision. In this article, we will review every word of Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution to support our assertion that the plain meaning of Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution requires the President to nominate each Officer defined by Congress and that the Senate is required to hold an up or down vote for each and every Presidential nomination if that nomination is not clearly covered by one of the three alternate approval options provided for Article II, Section 2. Therefore, any Senate Rule, written or unwritten (such as the Senate Blue Slip Policy) that is used to block a vote on a Presidential Nomination is an unconstitutional violation of Article II, Section 2.

Here is the complete text of Article II Clause 2 - Advice and Consent:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Because we are not concerned here with the Presidential Power to make Treaties, appoint Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls or Judges, we will only review the following words:

“He shall... nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

The word “Shall” creates a Binding Legal Obligation

Here is the legal meaning of the word “Shall” from the Cornell Law School:

“Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.”

Here is the definition from LegalClarity.org:

“In legal contexts, “shall” is often used to signal a mandatory requirement or duty. Some legal systems specifically define the word in an imperative sense, indicating that a particular action must be performed. When used in this way, the term is intended to create the following: A mandatory duty; A binding legal obligation: A requirement that leaves little or no room for personal choice.”

Having reviewed both the records of the US Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers that led to the ratification of the US Constitution as well as other writings of James Madison, I am certain that the drafters of Article II, Section 2 understood that the word “shall” created a binding legal obligation” for the President to nominate Officers and for the Senate to take action to provide Advice and Consent. As we explain below, the word Consent requires an up or down vote of each Presidential nominee.

The word “Consent” in the term “With the Advice and Consent” requires an Up or Down Vote

The words Advice and Consent are rooted in English Common Law to meant that the actions of the King are not official without a vote of approval by the Parliament. In the United Kingdom, a constitutional monarchy, bills are headed:

“BE IT ENACTED by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:”

This enacting formula emphasizes that although legally the bill is being enacted by the British monarchy, it is only with a vote to signify the approval of Parliament that the bill becomes an official law.

As used in Article II, Section 2, the word “advice” can have more than one meaning. The two most common meanings are to “recommend” or to “deliberate.” While there have been many articles on the what the word Advice means, the most detailed historical analysis is from the following article published in 2018 by the Federalist Society:

“As Franklin’s words suggest, whether the recommendatory or deliberative meaning was intended could be deduced from the context. A very important contextual factor was the presence or absence of the preposition with. That preposition usually signaled the deliberative meaning. Thus, in Samuel Johnson’s famous dictionary, the second definition for the verb “advise” was “To consider; to deliberate.” The third definition for the noun “advice” was “Consultation; deliberation: with the particle with.” See Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. London, 1785)

The 2018 Federalist article goes to great lengths to provide more than 20 historical examples to support their claim that the word “Advice” means “deliberative. But in a nutshell, if the word “advice is preceded by the word “with”, then the meaning of “advice is “to deliberate.” That is why the constitutional phrase usually rendered “Advice and Consent” is better rendered “with the Advice and Consent.”

Because the full phrase in Article II, Section 2 includes the word “with”, then the word “with” must also be given meaning. According to a 1785 dictionary, the word “with” means to use the “Deliberation” meaning. If the word “advice is preceded by the word “with”, then the meaning of “advice is “to deliberate.” That is why the constitutional phrase usually rendered “Advice and Consent” is better rendered “with the Advice and Consent.”

Several writings by Madison and Hamilton also confirm that the word “advice” is to mean “deliberation” by the Senate and not to “recommend” a nominee. Thus, the “deliberative meaning of the word Advice means that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a Confirmation hearing where they will deliberate (in other words, consider the pros and cons of) the Presidential Nominee.

The Second step of the term “With the Advice and Consent” is an Up or Down vote

The key to understanding the entire phrase “With the Advice and Consent” is that it includes two separate steps. The first step is Advice in the form of a deliberative hearing. The second step is Consent which requires an Up or Down vote. There is no other way to arrive at the Consent of the majority of the full Senate.

Thus, the word “Consent” has only one very clear meaning. The Senate has only two options. They can vote to approve the nomination or they can vote against the nomination (Both Madison and Hamilton said exactly this in the Federalist Papers). This vote should be a public vote so the voters know who to blame should the nominee be approved or not approved.

Why the Single Senator Veto (aka Blue Slip Policy) violates the meaning of Advice and Consent

Equally bad, the blue slip policy collapses the distinction between advice and consent. Genuine advice consists of deliberation prior to nomination, and vetting of candidates through public hearings. The president is free to heed or ignore that advice. Consent comes later when the Senate votes publicly on the nomination. The blue slip merges these stages and permits a single senator to veto even a potential nominee with no recorded vote.

The word “Senate” refers to a majority vote of the entire Senate and does not refer to a single Senator

It is very clear from the writings of several drafters of the US Constitution that they never dreamed of a “Blue Slip” unwritten Senate Policy that would give a single Senator the ability to prevent the Advice and Consent process from even occurring in the first place.

Quotes from the Federalist Papers on the meaning and purpose of the Appointments Clause

There is no need to guess or wonder what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the US Constitution back in 1787. This is because the provisions in the Constitution were explained in detail by the Federalist Papers which were a series of 85 essays published in New York newspapers between 1787 and 1788 and written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay about the meaning of the proposed US Constitution. These essays explained the principles on which the new federal system was based and answered several questions about how it functioned. They covered several topics like the need for separation of powers, checks and balances and why a strong federal government was required for the preservation of liberty. They can be read at the following link: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

The essays explain that the existing lack of a strong federal government has led to all kinds of problems. After the Revolutionary War, each state adopted its own Constitution and differences between these state constitutions caused conflicts harming economic growth. There was a national legislature. But it had no power because there was no national executive or judicial branch. The new proposed US Constitution would solve this problem by creating a strong executive branch and a strong judicial branch. It was clear from the essays that the drafters felt that the greatest danger was the legislative branch. Thus several provisions were added to the US Constitution in an attempt to insure “separation of powers” – which would limit the ability of Congress to take over or control the Executive or Judicial branch.

This is why it is certain that the drafters of the US Constitution would have strongly opposed the Senate Blue Slip Policy as well as Section 541, Section 546 and the NVRA.

The following are quotes from the Federalist Papers confirming that the drafters of the US Constitution wanted a strong federal government and would have opposed Congressional a One Senator Veto of Presidential Nominees and would have opposed allowing Congress to manipulate the appointment process by imposing a series of additional conditions.

The Appointments Clause, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 was explained in the following passage:

FEDERALIST NO. 66 (Alexander Hamilton): “It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President.... Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.”

Why a majority vote is required:

Federalist 54 (Madison): “under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect . . . on the majority of votes in the Federal Legislature… In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

Why the legislative branch should not be trusted: Federalist No. 49: “We have seen that the tendency of republican governments is to an aggrandizement of the legislative at the expense of the other departments.”

Why Congress should not be allowed to take over the Executive branch:

Federalist No. 51: “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments… Each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others… As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.”

Federalist No. 70 (Alexander Hamilton): “A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.”

As further proof that the focus was on limiting the power of Congress and protecting the right of the Executive Branch, the following link has a history of how Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s1.html

It shows that on June 13^th Madison stated that he:

“objected to an appt. by the whole Legislature. Many of them were incompetent Judges of the requisite qualifications. They were too much influenced by their partialities. “

On June 18^th, 1787, Madison proposed:

“The supreme Executive authority of the United States . . . to have the sole appointment of the heads or chief officers of the departments of Finance, War and Foreign Affairs; to have the nomination of all other officers (Ambassadors to foreign Nations included) subject to the approbation or rejection of the Senate.”

On July 18^th, Mr. Ghorum stated:

“ The Executive would certainly be more answerable for a good appointment, as the whole blame of a bad one would fall on him alone.”

On July 21^st, 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, Madison stated:

“that he was not anxious that 2/3 should be necessary to disagree to a nomination. He had given this form to his motion chiefly to vary it the more clearly from one which had just been rejected. He was content to obviate the objection last made, and accordingly so varied the motion as to let a majority reject.”

On September 7^th, 1787, near the end of the Constitutional Convention, Governor Morris said: “as the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security. As Congress now make appointments there is no responsibility.”

After this observation, the “with the Advice and Consent” part of the Appointments Clause was passed.

Statutory Analysis of the Exceptions Clause of Article II, Section 2
The Exception clause was added to end of the Appointments clause near the very end of the Constitutional Convention. On September 15, 1787, Governor Morris moved to add:

"but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the heads of Departments."

Mr Sherman seconded the motion.

Mr. Madison protested that “It does not go far enough if it be necessary at all--Superior Officers below Heads of Departments ought in some cases to have the appointment of the lesser offices.”

A vote was then held on the motion and the motion failed due to the vote being a tie. After further discussion, which was unable to address the request of Mr. Madison to grant the right of Superior Officers the right to make appointments of lesser officers, a second vote was held on the original Morris motion and this time, the original motion passed.

To understand why US attorneys should not be subject to the Senate Blue Slip process, we begin with the US Constitution. Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

According to a 2012 study by the Congressional Research Service, there are between 1,200 and 1,400 civilian officers of the US which are subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate prior to commissioning.

As we covered earlier, the meaning of the term “advice” is to hold a public hearing. The meaning of the term “consent” is to require a public vote with a simple majority vote of the Senate providing consent. The policy of allowing a single Senator to use a Blue Slip to block consideration of a nominee is clearly contrary to the intent of these two terms.

As for the meaning of “Inferior officers,” in Edmond v. United States (1997) the US Supreme Court stated that "'inferior Officers' are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate."

Since US Attorneys are under the supervision of the Attorney General, who is subject to the Senate Advice and Consent process, US Attorneys are “inferior” officers. Thus, Congress has exactly three additional options:
Congress may vest the appointment of US Attorneys “in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Note that the word “MAY” means that Congress does not need to vest the appointment of US attorneys in the President alone, the Courts or the Heads of Departments.

If Congress fails to vest the appointment in one of these three ways, the default process, according to the US Supreme Court is that “inferior officers” are subject to the Senate Advice and Consent process.

Also note that, if Congress wants to vest the appointment of Inferior Officers, the word “OR” means that Congress has four mutually exclusive options. These options are:

Option #1: President Nominates & Senate approves with simple Advice and Consent vote.

Option #2: The President Alone appoints – with no conditions.

Option #3: The Courts of Law appoint – with no conditions.

Option #4: The Heads of Departments (such as the head of the US Department of Justice who is also known as the Attorney General) appoints – with no conditions.

As a result of the Senate Blue Slip policy, there are now many districts where one or more members of the Senate refuse to even allow the Advice and Consent process to start. The term “Senate” in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 clearly means the entire Senate – not just a single Senator. The will of the entire Senate can not be determined without a vote and the will of the Senate is determined by the affirmative vote of the majority of the Senate.

To the extent that the Blue Slip policy prevents the Senate from fulfilling its “advice and consent” mandatory duty, which in turn results in even a single district not having a US Attorney, the Blue Slip policy is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the “advice and consent” process must require a hearing before the Senate Judicial Committee and a vote of the US Senate. The Blue Slip policy acts to obstruct the vote of the Senate and leaves it unclear to the voters who is to blame for the fact that they do not have a US Attorney in their district.

 

Section 3 Why the Senate Blue Slip policy as well as Sections 541, 546 and the NVRA are Unconstitutional

One of the first acts of Congress after the ratification of the US Constitution was the Judiciary Act of 1789. The purpose of the Act was to provide a process for enforcing federal laws. To achieve this purpose, the Act required that a US attorney “shall be appointed” for each federal district:

“There shall be appointed in each district a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned.”

The word “shall” means that the action is mandatory. Thus, the appointment of a US attorney for each federal district is not optional. We, as citizens have a right to a US attorney in our district who is charged with enforcing the laws of the United States – including protecting our civil rights. Clearly, something is wrong if we citizens are deprived of a US attorney for years at a time simply because there is a disagreement between the President and one or more Senators.

Constitutional Problems with 28 U.S.C. Section 541 and 28 U.S.C. Section 546 and the National Vacancy Reform Act (NVRA)

Unfortunately, when Congress enacted a law to appoint US Attorneys, Congress failed to follow any of the 4 options required by the US Constitution Appointments Clause. Instead, Congress passed several unconstitutional laws including 28 U.S.C. Section 541, 28 U.S.C. Section 546 and the National Vacancy Reform Act (NVRA). Here we will explain why each of these acts violates the simple framework of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

28 U.S.C. Section 541
In 1966, Congress passed 28 U.S.C. Section 541 which includes the following conditions not permitted by the Appointments Clause :

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.

(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

Constitutional problem with Section 541 (B)
Part B of the Section 541 framework allows the US Attorney from the previous administration to continue in office “until his successor is appointed and qualifies.” This provision suffers from at least 3 problems:

First, it renders the election that led to the change of administration to be meaningless. The whole point of a Presidential Election is to allow the American people to vote on whether they want a different administration. If the American people vote for a change of Administration, like they did in November 2024, the new Administration is suppose to take effect on January 20, 2025. But Section 541B allows the US Attorneys chosen by the former administration to remain in office even though their boss lost the election. These old US Attorneys sadly are strongly opposed to the new administration and may even take steps to sabotage the new administration.

Second, this provision gives Senate members of the losing party in the prior election a political incentive to use the Blue Slip process to delay and obstruct the appointment of US Attorneys nominated by the new Administration in order to delay the legal actions and policies of the new Administration from taking effect – with the goal being to “run out the clock” for the entire 4 years of the new administration.

Third and most important, keeping the old administration US Attorneys in office while delaying the appointment of the new administration US Attorneys is not one of the four options provided Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Section 541B by its very nature is designed to result in gridlock and is therefore unconstitutional.

28 U.S.C. Section 541
In addition, as amended on June 14, 2007, Congress passed 28 U.S.C. Section 546 which which includes the following conditions not permitted by the Appointments Clause :

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.

(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—

(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or

(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

Constitutional problem with Section 546
Section 546 is even worse than Section 541. Section 546 adds several additional conditions and limitations which are not specified or in keeping with the simple framework of Article II, section 2, clause 2.

For example, the appointment can only be for 120 days. This time limit condition violates the language of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Instead, if Congress wants to give the appointment power to the Attorney General, the appointment power has to be without conditions or time limits.

Section 546 (b) includes the provision that if a person has been rejected by the US Senate, they can not be appointed even temporarily after that. This is the reason why the Trump administration has failed to even submit the nominations of many of their “acting” or “special” US Attorneys to the Senate for consideration. The Trump administration is afraid that their nominees will be railroaded by a single Senator using the Blue Slip process and never even get to an up or down vote in the Senate – and will then not be allowed to serve even temporarily as US Attorneys. Again, this condition clearly violates the simple Framework of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Instead, if Congress wants to give the appointment power to the Attorney General, the appointment power has to be without conditions.

Section 546(d) is a Frankenstein provision that transfers the responsibility to appoint US Attorneys to the District Court judges who are supposed to be Independent. Nowhere in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 is this Frankenstein option mentioned as even a possibility.

To add insult to injury, Section 546(d) uses the word “MAY” instead of the word “SHALL.” This means that the District Court judges can decline to appoint a US Attorney – which is exactly what many District Courts have decided to do. But as a result of Section 541 and Section 546, many districts, including both districts in Washington state do not currently have US Attorneys with clear authority to investigate crimes, protect civil rights and file complaints in federal courts.

National Vacancy Reform Act (NVRA)
The National Vacancies Reform Act (5 U.S.C. Section 3345) is a federal law establishing a complex procedure for temporarily filling vacancies in an appointed office of an executive branch before the appointment of a permanent replacement using the Senate Advice and Consent process. The NVRA many conditions not permitted by the Appointments Clause. For example, the NVRA allows an incoming President 300 days to temporarily and unilaterally fill positions with "acting" officers. After this initial period, the offices officially become vacant and the President has 210 days to fill the vacancies.

Constitutional problem with Section the NVRA
The NVRA is different from Section 541 and Section 546 in that it applies to all federal vacancies rather than just US Attorneys. It also imposes an extremely complex series of conditions and time limits that must be followed for the temporary person to be valid. The problem with all of these conditions and time limits is that none of them are in keeping with the simple Framework of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Instead, if Congress wants to give the appointment power to the President, the appointment power has to be without conditions.

Why None of these three Acts comply with the simple framework of Article II, section 2, clause 2 and are therefore unconstitutional
Together, these three laws place a complex series of obstacles in the way of appointing a permanent and valid US Attorney for each district. To be clear, we are only concerned with the appointment process for US Attorneys for each district – since US Attorneys are an essential tool for enforcing the First Amendment Right of the People to petition the government for redress of grievances and since US Attorneys (unlike federal judges) serve at the discretion of the currently elected President.

The Blue Slip policy violates the Advice and Consent provision of the US Constitution

Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution states in part:

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

However, this clause does not allow either the House or the Senate to use rules, written or unwritten, such as the Senate Blue Slip, to violate other sections of the US Constitution.

See, e.g., Vander Jagt v. O’Neill, 699 F.2d 1166, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“If Congress should adopt internal procedures which ‘ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights,’ it is clear that we must provide remedial action.”) (quoting United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892))

Also see United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. at 5. In Ballin this Court addressed the validity of a House rule for determining the presence of a quorum. While acknowledging that “the constitution empowers each house to determine the rules of its proceedings,” the Court held that the rule making power of the Senate or the House is not absolute and that neither house “may . . . by its rules ignore constitutional restraints.”

The Senate “blue -slip” policy appears nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in federal statute, and nowhere in the standing rules of the Senate. Instead, it functions as an unconstitutional veto over the President’s power to staff the federal law enforcement and judiciary.

A single senator’s silent refusal to return a blue slip is not a constitutional check on the president’s appointments. The Appointments Clause considers that the Senate’s check will be exercised through transparent public processes: public hearings, public committee votes, public floor debate, and recorded yea or nay votes on confirmation. A non-public process with backroom deals before the committee chair, never debated in open session, cannot be reconciled with Constitutional accountability.

We will next cover current litigation on these three unconstitutional laws in the section 4. However, there is only one possible solution to end the current gridlock and restore US Attorneys to every federal district – that is to ask the US Supreme Court to declare Section 541, Section 546 and the NVRA to be unconstitutional to the extent that they violate Article II, section 2, clause 2 and to the extend that they obstruct the appointment of US Attorneys. In addition, the US Supreme Court must declare the Senate Blue Slip Policy to be unconstitutional to the extent that it obstructs the Advice and Consent process by prohibiting a vote on Presidential nominees for US Attorneys.

 

Section 4 Summary of current litigation on Senate obstruction of US Attorney appointments

Since a few US Senators have used the Blue Slip policy to block the Senate from its “advice and consent” duty, several states in addition to Washington currently do not have a clearly US Attorney. The Trump administration has attempted to appoint “acting” US Attorneys and “special” US Attorneys (as we describe in Section 4). However, many of these have been challenged in federal courts. We will here cover the current litigation on some of these cases in order to demonstrate that the failure to declare Section 546 to be unconstitutional merely results in ongoing gridlock – depriving millions of Americans to have a valid US Attorney in their district.

United States v. Salazar Del Real, District Court, D. Nevada The case file for this case is at the following link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70952148/united-states-v-salazar-del-real/

This case is a dispute between the US Department of Justice which claims that their “acting” US Attorney (Ms. Chattah) is a valid US Attorney for Nevada versus several Defendants who claim that Ms. Chattah is not a valid US Attorney because she has exceeded the 120 day limit.

On September 10, 2025, the US DOJ filed a 28 page brief explaining why Ms. Chattah is a valid US Attorney for Nevada. Here are quotes from their brief:

“Ms. Chattah is validly serving as the Acting United States Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq. The Attorney General reclassified the prior First Assistant United States Attorney as Executive United States Attorney, which the Attorney General could do under 28 U.S.C. § 542(b). Once (a) Ms. Chattah resigned as interim United States Attorney, and (b) the Attorney General appointed her as Special Attorney and designated her as First Assistant United States Attorney (exercising authority under §§ 509, 510, and 515), Ms. Chattah automatically became the Acting United States Attorney under 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(1).”

“At minimum, the Attorney General validly appointed Ms. Chattah as a Special Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 515 and directed her to supervise the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada (“USAO-NV”). Whether or not Ms. Chattah technically qualifies as Acting United States Attorney, the Attorney General has validly delegated to her the authority to supervise all pending prosecutions and other matters in the USAO-NV, subject in turn to the supervision by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, both of whom are Senate-confirmed.”

“On March 28, the Attorney General appointed Ms. Chattah as United States Attorney pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546, effective April 1. Pursuant to that statute, Ms. Chattah was authorized to serve as United States Attorney on an interim basis for 120 days. See 28 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2).”

“On July 28—119 days into Ms. Chattah’s term as United States Attorney—Ms. Chattah resigned from that position. See Exhibit 2. The same day, the Attorney General appointed Ms. Chattah as a Special Attorney under authority including 28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, and 515; designated her First Assistant United States Attorney “effective upon her resignation” as United States Attorney; and noted that as First Assistant United States Attorney, Ms. Chattah “will have the authority to serve as Acting United States Attorney upon a vacancy in the office subject to the conditions and time limitations of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349(d).”

“The President has not nominated Ms. Chattah, nor anyone else, to serve as United States Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 541(a), and the district court has not appointed Ms. Chattah, nor anyone else, to serve as United States Attorney for the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). Accordingly, Ms. Chattah continues to serve as Acting United States Attorney under the default provision of the FVRA, 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(1).”

“Although 28 U.S.C. § 547(1) authorizes the United States Attorney to “prosecute for all offenses against the United States” in her district, the authority to do so is not exclusive. All the functions of the United States Attorney, including the power to prosecute, are also vested in the Attorney General, 28 U.S.C. § 509, and the Attorney General has the power to supervise and direct United States Attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys in the discharge of their duties, 28 U.S.C. §§ 510, 515, 519. In particular, the Attorney General may “specifically direct” any Department of Justice officer or other “attorney specially appointed” by her to “conduct any kind of legal proceeding … which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct….” 28 U.S.C. § 515(a). Accordingly, even if Ms. Chattah were not validly serving as the acting U.S. Attorney, she would be fully authorized, by delegation, to supervise criminal prosecutions in Nevada.

“Ms. Chattah is authorized to supervise this case because the Attorney General validly appointed her as a Special Attorney under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515 and delegated her the authority to supervise all pending prosecutions.”

“Finally, the defendants argue that this Court should appoint another interim United States Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). (But) Ms. Chattah resigned her interim position as United States Attorney before her 120-day term expired. Accordingly, the district court has no authority to appoint an interim United States Attorney.”

Nevada District Court September 30, 2025 Order

Unfortunately, the District Court judge disagreed with the US Department of Justice. On September 30, 2025, the Court issued a 32 page order. Here are quotes from this order:

“On March 28, 2025, the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, appointed Sigal Chattah to be the interim U.S. Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 546(a). Ms. Chattah’s appointment was made effective April 1, 2025, and § 546(c)(2) limited her service to 120 days. If a permanent U.S. Attorney was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate within that 120-day period, the statute provided that the judges of the Nevada District Court could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled by the President and Senate. 28 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2)-(d). That procedure was not followed.”

“The Nevada District Court Judges recused from hearing these motions to dismiss, presumably because the motions implicate their own power to appoint an Acting U.S. Attorney. See 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). “

“Defendants’ motions involve three sets of statutes:
(1) the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349 (“FVRA”), (2) 28 U.S.C. § 546, which is a separate statute that addresses appointments of interim U.S. Attorneys, and (3) 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, which are general delegation statutes that authorize the Attorney General to share her power with lower level attorneys.”

“The FVRA is a general statutory scheme passed by Congress to regulate the temporary filling of vacant Executive Branch positions that require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation (commonly called “PAS” positions)… A person who temporarily fills a PAS position under one of these FVRA provisions is referred to as an “acting officer… An acting officer may serve for 210-days “beginning on the date the vacancy occurs.” Id. § 3346(a)(1)”

“In addition to the general vacancy-filling provisions of the FVRA, Congress has enacted a specific statute for temporarily filling U.S. Attorney vacancies. Section 546 provides that the Attorney General can appoint a U.S. Attorney to serve until the earlier of a PAS appointment or the expiration of 120 days.”

“General Delegation Statutes — 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515”

“Several statutory provisions grant the Attorney General power to delegate authority to U.S. Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and other lawyers working in the DOJ… Section 509 begins by providing that “all functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General,”

“Section 510 then provides that “the Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as [she] considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.” Id. § 510. And § 515 provides that “the Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal[.]” Id. § 515.If Ms. Chattah is not serving validly under the FVRA, the government contends she can continue supervising prosecutions in Nevada using authority delegated under these statutes.”

“After considering the “high bar” established by subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) for presidential appointment of acting officials, the court in Giraud observed that “if the President may simply name anyone as the first assistant at any time and thereby vest them with acting powers, [the subsection (a)(2) and

(a)(3)] limitations on acting service are rendered entirely irrelevant.” 2025 WL 2416737, at *15. The President would be “free to select someone from outside the Government, with no experience in the relevant agency, and immediately imbue them with the functions and duties of a PAS office.”

(Note: a PAS office is an office subject to the Advice and Consent process).

“The government argues that the language of subsection (a)(1) is present-tense, meaning that it can operate at any time during a vacancy, and that a vacancy clearly existed when Ms. Chattah became first assistant.6 “Accordingly,” the government argues, “whoever is the first assistant to a vacant office, at any time during the period of the vacancy, automatically becomes the acting officer… The Court is not persuaded. “

On page 15, the order states:

“By choosing to make subsection (a)(1) an automatic default mechanism for filling vacancies temporarily, Congress exerted its constitutional power to specify how non-principal officers in the Executive Branch could be appointed. And by placing significant restrictions on the President’s power to fill those vacancies under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3), Congress largely controlled who could be appointed.”

“To reinforce its choices, Congress made the FVRA “the exclusive means for temporarily authorizing an acting official to perform the functions and duties” of a PAS office, unless Congress itself has created another agency-specific statute. 5 U.S.C. § 3347(a). The FVRA also makes clear that general delegation powers cannot be used to fill vacancies. Id. § 3347(b). And it provides that the acts of persons serving in violation of the FVRA are void. Id. § 3348(d).”

All of the above is true. But all of the above clearly exceeds the authority given to Congress by Article II, Section 2 Clause 2 and therefore the NVRA is an unconstitutional abuse of Congressional power – at least to the extent that it fails to comply with the framework of Article II regarding the appointment of US Attorneys.

On page 25, the Nevada District Court Order states:

“Some may ask what happens if Ms. Chattah cannot serve under the FVRA. There are several possibilities. The President (and only the President) could appoint a temporary Acting U.S. Attorney who satisfies the strict requirements of § 3345(a)(2) or (a)(3). The judges of the District of Nevada could choose to exercise their power under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) and appoint an Acting U.S. Attorney until the position is filled. Or the President could nominate a U.S. Attorney and seek quick confirmation by the Senate.”

As noted earlier, the first two options are not among the options in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and are therefore unconstitutional. The third option ignores the Blue Slip policy in the US Senate being used to obstruct any Trump nominees from being considered by the Senate Advice and Consent process. Therefore, the only Constitutionally valid option is for the Department of Justice to go directly to the US Supreme Court and ask them to enforce Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Nevada Court October 23 2025 Order staying the September 30 Order
The Department of Justice appealed the Nevada District Court September 30, 2025 Order and asked that the Order be stayed pending appeal. On October 23 2025 the Nevada District Court stayed the September 30, 2025 Order. Here is a link to the October 23, 2025 Order

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176025/gov.uscourts.nvd.176025.57.0.pdf

Here are quotes from this order:

“To justify a stay, a moving party must at least show that “serious legal questions are raised” by the appeal… The Court recognizes that the disqualification motions raise novel and important issues. Only one other court has addressed these issues. See United States v. Giraud, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 2416737 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2025). They present important questions of when and how the President or Attorney General can fill a vacancy in a U.S. Attorney position on an acting basis. These issues are sufficiently serious to satisfy the first stay requirement.”

“The potential harm arises from the Constitution’s division of federal powers and the deference and respect each of the three federal branches should afford each other. The concern, as the Ninth Circuit has noted, is “harm to the separation of powers.” United States v. Williams, 68 F.4th 564, 570 (9th Cir. 2023). Such harm is particularly relevant in this case because “the doctrine of separation of powers requires judicial respect for the independence of the prosecutor.”

This case is currently set for trial later in 2026. Regardless of the outcome of that trial, the loser will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court. It will therefore likely take years to resolve. During this time, citizens in Washington State will be left with a possibly invalid US Attorney. Such a delay is therefore not acceptable.

New Jersey District Court United States v. Giraud
The other case with a developed public record is United States v. Giraud. Here is a link to the case filings:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69409921/united-states-v-giraud-iii/

The US Department of Justice filed a 29 page Brief on July 29, 2025 which can be downloaded at this link:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.557842/gov.uscourts.njd.557842.108.0.pdf

Here are quotes from this brief:

“Ms. Habba is validly serving as the Acting United States Attorney. The Attorney General properly appointed her as the First Assistant United States Attorney; the First Assistant can serve as the Acting United States Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act when that office is vacant; and the President properly removed as United States Attorney an individual whom the District Court for the District of New Jersey purported to appoint.”

“At minimum, Ms. Habba has been properly appointed as a Special Attorney to the Attorney General of the United States and directed to supervise the USAO-NJ. Pursuant to that appointment alone, she could still supervise this case—which was initiated by a validly empaneled grand jury and a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney—and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to it can continue prosecuting it under their own delegated authority from the Attorney General, subject to supervision by both Ms. Habba and Senate-confirmed officials in Main Justice, including the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.”

“The President had nominated Ms. Habba as United States Attorney on June 30, 2025. The President withdrew that nomination last Thursday, July 24. Id. The Senate had never acted on it, much less rejected it.”

“The same day, Ms. Habba resigned her interim position as United States Attorney. Exhibit D. The Attorney General then appointed her as a Special Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 515, which appointment Ms. Habba accepted.”

“Exercising her authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515 and 542, among other provisions, the Attorney General also designated Ms. Habba as First Assistant, effective upon her resignation as United States Attorney. Exhibit G. All of this occurred on Thursday, July 24, before the 120-day limit period in § 546(c)(2) expired.”

“Ms. Habba is validly serving as the Acting United States Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), 5 U.S.C. § 3345.”

“The real separation of powers violation in this case would be to force the President and Attorney General to permit a judicially appointed United States Attorney to remain in office despite their stated preference for someone else to lead that office.”

“At minimum, the Attorney General validly appointed Ms. Habba as a Special Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 515 and directed her to supervise the USAO-NJ. “

On August 1, 2025, the District Court issued a 27 page Opinion which can be read at this link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.557842/gov.uscourts.njd.557842.116.0.pdf

Here are quotes from this opinion:

“On June 30, 2025, with about one month remaining in her interim appointment, President Trump formally nominated Ms. Habba to be the United States Attorney. But the Senate did not act, and the 120-day deadline grew nearer.”

“On July 22, 2025—120 days from March 24, 2025, when President Trump posted that Ms. Habba had been appointed “effective immediately”—the Judges of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey invoked their statutory power to appoint a United States Attorney upon the expiration of an Interim United States Attorney’s 120-day term pursuant to section 546(d).”

“Trump Administration officials, knowing that Ms. Habba’s term did not end until midnight on Friday, July 25, 2025, conceived a multi-step maneuver to keep her in the United States Attorney role.”

“Ms. Habba’s name has appeared on the signature block of each of the Government’s briefs in this case bearing the title “Acting United States Attorney.”81 Assuming that Ms. Habba is legally barred from holding that office, as I am for the purposes of this opinion, such involvement would be illegal and subject to invalidation under the Appointments Clause or statute.”

On August 12, 2025, the Department of Justice filed a 34 page brief in opposition which can be read at this link:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.557842/gov.uscourts.njd.557842.127.0.pdf

Here are quotes from this brief:

“The office of U.S. Attorney is indisputably vacant, as Ms. Habba resigned as interim U.S. Attorney on July 24 and the President on July 26 removed the individual whom the District Court had purported to appoint as her successor. The Attorney General properly appointed Ms. Habba Special Attorney and designated her as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA or First Assistant), and as the First Assistant, she can serve as the Acting U.S. Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Ms. Habba’s role as Acting U.S. Attorney contravenes neither the FVRA nor 28 U.S.C. § 546(d).”

On August 21, 2025, the court issued a 77 page Opinion which can be read at this link.

Here are quotes from this opinion:

The Executive branch has perpetuated Alina Habba’s appointment to act as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey through a novel series of legal and personnel moves. Along the way, it has disagreed with the Judges of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and criminal defendants in that District about who should or may lead the office. Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not.

“Undeterred, the Government responds that she may still perform the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney through her appointment as a Special Attorney vested with the powers of a United States Attorney pursuant to statutes generally vesting all of the duties of the Department of Justice in the Attorney General and granting the Attorney General power to delegate all of her duties. I proceed by (1) describing the contours of this theory, and then explain why I conclude that it is not viable because: (2) the scope of the delegation is commensurate with the powers of a PAS United States Attorney; (3) the Government’s maneuver is prohibited by the FVRA’s exclusivity provision, 5 U.S.C. § 3347(b).”

Third Circuit Opinion
On August 25, 2025, the Department of Justice appealed. The Third Circuit issued a 1 page decision on December 1, 2025 affirming the Trial Court. They also issued a 32 page Opinion which can be read at this link.

Here are quotes from this Opinion:

“The United States Attorneys’ offices are some of the most critical agencies in the Federal Government. They play an important role in the criminal and civil justice systems and are vital in keeping our communities safe. the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability.”

“The Government argues that Habba is the Acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey under the FVRA by virtue of her designation as First Assistant U.S. Attorney. In considering this claim, we must decide: (1) whether only the first assistant in place at the time of a PAS officer’s resignation automatically assumes acting officer duties under § 3345(a)(1); and (2) whether the nomination bar in § 3345(b)(1) prevents a person from assuming acting officer duties even if her nomination is no longer pending before the Senate. We answer both questions in the affirmative.”

“The Government contends that, even if Habba is not the Acting U.S. Attorney under the FVRA, she nonetheless “may continue to exercise prosecutorial and supervisory authority. . . pursuant to the Attorney General’s express delegation of authority to her in her capacity as Special Attorney and First Assistant U.S. Attorney.”. This broad delegation is directly contrary to the exclusivity provision of the FVRA.”

“The FVRA is “the exclusive means for temporarily authorizing an acting official to perform the functions and duties of any [PAS] office,” 5 U.S.C. § 3347(a), unless a statute expressly authorizes another means of acting or interim service in a specified office, id. § 3347(a)(1.”

The New Jersey Third Circuit case has not yet been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LETITIA JAMES, Eastern District of Virginia
The meaning of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 is also being litigated in two cases in the Fourth Circuit. The case file for the first cases is at this link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71601414/united-states-v-james/

On November 24, 2025, the District Court issued a 26 page order which can be read at this link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.583342/gov.uscourts.vaed.583342.140.0_3.pdf

Here is a quote from this Opinion: Ms. James now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As explained below, I agree with Ms. James that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Ms. James’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.

On December 19, 2025, this ruling was appealed by the DOJ to the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES COMEY, Eastern District of Virginia
Also in Virginia federal court, on November 24, 2025 a judge issued a 29 page opinion dismissing a criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey on the grounds that the interim U.S. attorney who filed the charges, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. Here is a link to the Comey Dismissal Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.213.0_1.pdf

Here are quotes from this Opinion:

“Mr. Comey now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As explained below, I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”

“Congress has established a mechanism, set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 546, for appointing interim U.S. Attorneys when a vacancy arises.2 Section 546 essentially “divide[s] the responsibility for making interim appointments between the Attorney General and the district courts.”

“On September 22, 2025, the Attorney General issued an order “authorizing Lindsey Halligan to be the Interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia during the vacancy in that office” (“September 22 Order”). Att’y Gen. Order No. 6402-2025. The September 22 Order cites only 28 U.S.C. § 546 as the basis for Ms. Halligan’s appointment.”

“According to the Government, this case is “simple.” In its view, the “one and only” limitation on the Attorney General’s authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys under section 546 is subsection (b), which bars the Attorney General from appointing anyone whom the Senate has refused to confirm. “Nothing in the text,” it continues, “explicitly or implicitly” precludes the Attorney General from making multiple interim appointments during a vacancy. Id. at 8. Thus, it concludes, because “the Senate has not refused advice and consent to Ms. Halligan,” the Attorney General “lawfully appointed her as interim U.S. Attorney” on September 22. “

“The text and structure of section 546(d) in particular make clear the appointment power (1) shifts to the district court after the 120-day period and (2) does not revert to the Attorney General if a court-appointed U.S. Attorney leaves office before a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney is installed.”

“This reading is reinforced by the negative-implication canon, which recognizes that the “expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 107 (2012). To be sure, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the “force of any negative implication . . . depends on context,” and that the “canon applies only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded,” NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017).”

“In sum, the text, structure, and history of section 546 point to one conclusion: the Attorney General’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney lasts for a total of 120 days from the date she first invokes section 546 after the departure of a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney. If the position remains vacant at the end of the 120-day period, the exclusive authority to make further interim appointments shifts to the district court, where it remains until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate.”

January 6 2026 United States of America v Davante Jefferson
Also in the Virginia federal court, in a separate case, a different federal judge issued a 3 page order asking Lindsey Halligan to explain why she continues to call herself the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and is still serving in that position even though another judge determined in November that she had been unlawfully appointed to the position. Here is a link to this Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586310/gov.uscourts.vaed.586310.16.0.pdf

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond in writing “explaining the basis for ... identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling. She shall also set forth the reasons why this Court should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment in this matter.”

The judge’s order goes on to say Halligan "shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement."

While the November ruling regarding Halligan’s appointment had been appealed the judge noted that since the order had not been paused, it remains “binding precedent of the district and is not subject to being ignored.”

On January 13, 2026, the DOJ filed an 11 page response to the January 6, 2026 court order which can be read at this link:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.22.0.pdf

Here are quotes from this response:

“The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Judge Currie’s orders dismissing the indictments in United States v. Comey, No. 1:25-cr-272 and United States v. James, 2:25-cr-122 and flouts no fewer than three separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system.”

“Adding insult to error, the order posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers. “

“The dismissal orders in Comey and James do not prohibit, or render factually false, the United States’ continued representation of its legal position that Ms. Halligan is the United States Attorney.”

“Although Judge Currie concluded that Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed under Section 546, she did not purport to enjoin Ms. Halligan from continuing to oversee the office or from identifying herself as the United States Attorney in the Government’s signature blocks. Indeed, Judge Currie did not issue any remedy beyond those two cases—she simply dismissed the indictments without prejudice.”

“Judge Currie stated that “the appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

“But that is simply a statement of her basis for ordering dismissal of the indictment, not an independent declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is a remedy that operates as “a final judgment” entered at the conclusion of a case initiated by “an appropriate pleading,” not an interlocutory order on a motion in a criminal case.”

“But even if Judge Currie had somehow issued a declaratory judgment – which she did not – such relief would still not bind the United States in other cases or prevent Ms. Halligan from otherwise holding herself out as the United States Attorney. A declaratory judgment does not “order[] that anything be done” or “seek execution of performance.”

“The Supreme Court flatly rejected the idea, apparently still championed by this Court, that “once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires, and the Executive must conform to that view... The United States is not required to treat her reasoning as law in any other case.”

“On July 15, 2024, Judge Cannon dismissed United States v. Trump on Appointments Clause grounds, concluding that Jack Smith was not properly appointed as a “Special Counsel.” See Order, United States v. Trump, No, 23-80101-CR-Cannon, ECF No. 672 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2024). Yet in the days and weeks that followed, the Government continued – openly and without objection by any Court – to file documents identifying Jack Smith by his title as Special Counsel while appellate review proceeded.”

It is the United States’ position that Ms. Halligan was properly appointed as interim United States Attorney—a position the United States has maintained in part based on internal legal advice from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. That Judge Currie dismissed two indictments based on her disagreement with that position does not prevent the United States from otherwise maintaining it.

To answer the Court’s inquisition directly: “the basis for Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling” is that, in the Government’s view, Ms. Halligan is the United States Attorney, and Judge Currie’s ruling did not and could not require the United States to acquiesce to her contrary (and erroneous) legal reasoning outside of those cases. “

On January 20, 2026, the Court issued another 18 page Order which can be read at this link:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf

Here are quotes from this order:

Ultimately, the Court concludes for the reasons that follow that Ms. Halligan’s continued identification of herself as the United States Attorney for this District ignores a binding court order and may not continue; otherwise, Ms. Halligan and anyone who joins her on a pleading containing the improper moniker subjects themselves to potential disciplinary action in this Court pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules.

Judge Currie held that Ms. Halligan’s appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025.”

As of this writing, the Department of Justice has not sought a stay of Judge Currie’s rulings from her, the presiding judge in either case, or the Fourth Circuit.

Notably, even if Ms. Halligan was validly appointed by Attorney General Bondi on September 22, 2025, that appointment would expire today, January 20, 2026.

“Ms. Halligan has not only ignored Judge Currie’s rulings, she has also turned a blind eye to an Order from the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit. The Court finds it inconceivable that the Department of Justice, which holds a duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States even those with which it may have disagreement would repeatedly ignore court orders, while simultaneously prosecuting citizens for breaking the law.

Ms. Halligan’s arguments based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. are similarly inapposite. Ms. Halligan quotes CASA for the proposition that “‘neither declaratory nor injunctive relief applies beyond the parties.” (Response at 3 (quoting CASA, 606 U.S. at 844).) But that statement concerned the “enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances,” neither of which stands at issue here. CASA, 606 U.S. at 844.

More importantly. CASA addressed the specific question of the legality of nationwide or universal injunctions “whether Congress has granted federal courts the authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy' which the Court correctly termed an “expansive remedy.” Id. at 839-40. No such injunction was ordered here.

“Judge Currie, speaking for all district judges in this District, found Ms. Halligan’s appointment as Interim United States Attorney unlawful and issued two orders dismissing indictments, both of which were premised directly on that rationale. Those Orders, though currently on appeal, have not been overturned or stayed, and thus constitute the law of this District. Having been found by this Court to be unlawfully appointed, Ms. Halligan lacks lawful authority to represent herself as the United States Attorney before this Court.”

Ms. Halligan’s insistence on including “United States Attorney” in her signature block exhibits disrespect not just for this Court, but also flaunts the Rule of Law more broadly. It also self-evidently manifests noncompliance with Judge Currie’s Orders.

Ms. Halligan’s Response asserts that she is free to act in an unlawful capacity, because she disagrees that she does so unlawfully. But that’s not how our legal system works. By having continued to exercise a position to which she was unconstitutionally appointed, including by signing the indictment in this case as "United States Attorney,” Ms. Halligan exercised “power that [she] did not lawfully possess. Collins V. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220, 258 (2021). In the words of Justice Gorsuch, since Ms. Halligan was “unconstitutionally installed,” she “cannot wield executive power except as Article II provides. Attempts to do so are void.

For all of these reasons, the Court hereby STRIKES the words “United States Attorney' from the signature block on the Indictment (ECF No. 1), as well as all other Government filings in this case. (ECF Nos. 13, 18, 22.) The Court further BARS Ms. Halligan from representing herself as the United States Attorney in any pleading or otherwise before this Court until such time as she may lawfully hold the office either by Senate confirmation or appointment by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), should either occur. That bar shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 21,2026, and shall apply to any filings submitted thereafter.

 

New York Northern District Litigation
On January 8, 2026, a New York federal judge disqualified a DOJ appointed federal prosecutor in investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James. U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield blocked subpoenas requested by John Sarcone, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York. The judge said the Department of Justice did not follow statutory procedure after New York judges declined to extend Sarcone’s tenure in 2025. Here is a link to this 24 page Opinion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.149556/gov.uscourts.nynd.149556.50.0.pdf

Here is a quote from this opinion:

“Mr. Sarcone’s service was and is unlawful because it bypassed the statutory requirements that govern who may exercise the powers of a U.S. Attorney. U.S. Attorneys must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. When a vacancy arises, federal law provides limited alternatives to fill the position temporarily. None authorized Mr. Sarcone to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney.”

October 28, 2025 California Central District Order
On October 28, 2025, a California federal district judge in the Ninth Circuit issued a 64 page Order disqualified the acting U.S. attorney Southern California Bill Essayli, saying he had stayed in the temporary jobs longer than allowed by law. Here is a link to this case file: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71218463/united-states-v-ramirez/

Here is a link to the Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.983892/gov.uscourts.cacd.983892.56.0.pdf

Here are quotes from this Order:

“Bilal A. Essayli (“Essayli”) is not lawfully serving as Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California. The Attorney General’s July 29, 2025 order did not function to put him in that role. And he has been unlawfully serving in that role since he resigned as Interim United States Attorney.”

“Defendants contend that Essayli is unlawfully serving as Acting United States Attorney based on the manner by which he assumed the duties of an office that, by statute, requires the permanent occupant to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. “

“FVRA Section 3345(a) is triggered only by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a PAS officer, so Essayli’s service as Acting United States Attorney cannot be premised on his resignation from the interim role… Because Essayli was not a PAS officer when he resigned from the position of Interim United States Attorney, his resignation from that position could not and did not trigger § 3345(a).”

On December 5, 2025, a 15 page Reply brief was filed which can be read at this link.

Here are quotes from this brief:

“The Appointments Clause deserves at least that footnote. It is not, as suggested by the government’s effort to avoid a ruling, a “trifling technicality.” Trump v. United States (Trump S. Ct.), 603 U.S. 593, 650 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring). It is a foundational imperative. Of the six federal judges to have considered these challenges, this Court stands alone in endorsing the continued supervisory service of an improperly appointed temporary U.S. Attorney.”

“On the merits, the government insists that the Appointments Clause is satisfied because the agency head appointed Mr. Essayli. But that skips the first step of the analysis: the agency head’s action must be authorized by statute in the first place. On that point, the government is circumspect. It never comes out and says directly which statute authorized Mr. Essayli’s appointment. Instead, it turns to hand-waving and implication, including its suggestion that the Attorney General’s appointment power arises from the general “statutory and regulatory structure” writ large. “

“That is the whole ballgame. The Appointment Clause requires confirmation unless Congress has passed a law saying otherwise. Congress has never done so with respect to the office and powers Mr. Essayli now claims.”

“The government embraced Mr. Essayli’s inferior-officer status at the start of this motion practice, but it now waffles. The most direct statement of the government’s position is that Mr. Essayli’s officer status is “not at all clear.”

“The Court should reject that tactic at the outset. The government should not be permitted to litigate this case initially on the premise that Mr. Essayli “is an inferior officer,” and now backtrack to contend that he may not be.”

“At any rate, the suggestion that Mr. Essayli might be a mere employee is absurd in context of the case law...Exercising all those powers, Mr. Essayli is at least an inferior officer. He is paid a salary to supervise all cases in the district on a day-to-day basis—whether there are five indictments or fifty—not a per-case fee for occasional duties.”

“First assistant” authority. One of the government’s points is so misleading it warrants separate discussion… He is wielding significant authority, but the whole point is that he lacks that authority: it was not validly conferred on him by Congress.”

“This is just another way for the government to cast the trick it has played in benign language: appoint an ineligible individual to a vacant office, give him a different title not set out in the statutes, and thereby avoid all statutory limits on the appointment… The Appointments Clause requires confirmation of inferior officers, unless Congress clearly provides otherwise by statute.”

“In response to the defense’s call to identify a statutory office authorizing Mr. Essayli’s service, the government repeatedly cites a regulation, see R.R. 4, 7 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 0.137(b)), and relies not on any one statute but on the general “statutory and regulatory structure” of the Department.”

“The government cites no authority for the proposition that the executive itself, through agency regulation, can create an office and except it from the Appointments Clause without congressional approval. That is not the law… As Judge Currie recently confirmed in finding an Appointments Clause violation in Virginia, “by Law” means “by statute.” United States v. Comey, (E.D. Va. Nov. 24, 2025).”

“There has certainly been no statement (clear or otherwise) by Congress that a “first assistant” office exists, nor any statement that such a first assistant can wield inferior-officer powers without satisfying the default confirmation requirement. Across several decades, the consistent message from Congress has been: if the executive wants to appoint someone to wield U.S. Attorney powers, it can! But it must do so through one of the many statutory paths Congress has created—not one the executive has devised for itself… The government similarly nowhere mentions Section 543, the statute authorizing the appointment of special attorneys.”

“At the end of the day, the government’s string-cite theory is just another way of saying that the executive has a blank check to appoint whomever it desires. And the government’s theory is limitless: any position at the Department of Justice could be replicated under a different name and be filled indefinitely with an illegible and nonconfirmed person.”

The above case is still ongoing.

Summary of Current Litigation… It is time to change course and go directly to the heart of the issue

There have been at least 8 cases in 7 federal courts that have reviewed the Department of Justice attempts to use a combination of Section 541, Section 546 and or FVRA Section 3345 or other federal laws to evade the Blue Slip obstruction of Article II, Section 11, Clause 2 in order to appoint Interim, Acting or Special US Attorneys. All of these attempts have been blocked in federal courts. While some of these cases are being appealed, the appeals will likely take years and are unlikely to result in valid, permanent US Attorneys – especially in States like Washington that have a Senator who has vowed to use the Blue Slip to block Trump nominees.

The good news is that a simple reading of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 does not give a single Senator the right to block the “advice and consent” process. Nor does it give Congress the right to impose conditions such as Section 541, Section 546 and or FVRA Section 3345 on US Attorney appointments.

We therefore urge the Department of Justice to change course and seek a US Supreme Court ruling enforcing the plain meaning of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. This will allow US Attorney nominees to be approved with a simple majority vote of the US Senate.

Section 5 Actions of the a few Senators using Blue Slips to block the appointment of US attorneys in 2025

As we have previously explained, it is required by law that each of the 93 federal districts have a valid US Attorney who the People can go to for redress of grievances due to violations of their inalienable civil rights.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Blue Slip policy started in 1917 as an informal courtesy to encourage the President to collaborate with home-state senators during the nomination process. The Senate Judiciary Committee Blue Slip policy not codified in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rules and is instead a informal unwritten policy set by the Chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Importantly, until recently, the Blue Slip was informational only and not used to veto or completely block the Senate vote on Presidential nominees for either judgeships or US attorneys (which merely serve 4 year terms and are typically replaced by new Presidents at the beginning of their term.) Historically, during the past 100 years, the Blue Slip policy was rarely used. US Attorneys were approved in mass by voice vote.

From 1917 to 1955, under five Democrat and six Republican chairmen, home-state Senators were given the opportunity to testify before the Judiciary Committee in a nominee’s confirmation hearing. A negative blue slip, however, “was not intended to prevent committee action.” (See Sollenberger, The History of the Blue Slip, pp. 9–10. See also Binder and Maltzman, Advice and Dissent, p. 50 (“Before 1956…negative blue slips were treated as advisory to the committee and the full chamber, rather than as a single-handed committee veto exercised by a home state senator.”).

In other words, the blue-slip courtesy highlighted the views of home-state Senators but did not obstruct the Senate Advice and Consent process.

Senator James Eastland (D–MS) chaired the Judiciary Committee from 1956 to 1978. Unlike his predecessors, he treated negative or withheld blue slips as “absolute vetoes by Senators. Senate Judiciary Chairman Ted Kennedy (D–MA) criticized the “one-member veto” (Sollenberger, The History of the Blue Slip, p. 11). So did Chairman Thurmond.

Chairman Joe Biden offered the clearest rejection of the blue-slip courtesy as a single-Senator veto. In a letter to President Ronald Reagan in June 1989, he stated that a negative blue slip is a “significant factor to be weighed by the committee…but it will not preclude consideration of that nominee unless the Administration has not consulted with both home state Senators prior to submitting the nomination to the Senate.”

Chairman Orrin Hatch (R–UT) wrote President Bill Clinton in February 1995 stating that he would follow the “policy as articulated and practiced by Senator Biden in 1989. He repeated this position in the spring of 2001, saying that a negative blue slip would not be an automatic single-Senator veto.”

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D–VT) changed the blue slip back into a single-Senator veto.

The Blue Slip Policy becomes unclear
In the past few years, the Blue Slip policy has become unclear. For example, On November 16, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley said, “I will not allow the White House to just steamroll home State Senators, but, as I have said all along, I will not allow the blue-slip process to be abused.”

Grassley also stated that he would “honor the blue-slip process, but that there are always exceptions.”

This lack of clarity has resulted in the Blue Slip policy being morphed into a political tool of obstruction, used to arbitrarily block Presidential nominees. While historically only a tiny fraction of US attorneys were blocked with Blue Slips, in 2025, a few Democratic Senators are blocking the appointments of nearly all Trump US Attorney nominees.

The”threat” of a blue slip is now being used preemptively to block potential nominees before they are even publicly nominated and thereby robbing the public of transparency over how they are being weaponized.

This Blue Slip Obstruction has brought litigation on important federal civil rights questions to a standstill – rendering both the US Constitution and important federal laws as well as recent US Supreme Court decisions to be meaningless and unenforceable as there are currently no US attorneys to file complaints against law breakers in many states – including Washington state.

Between 1987 to 2010, about 90% of Presidential nominees were confirmed by the Senate:

Source: https://mjnelson.org/papers/Atty%20May13.pdf page 24.

During his first term, President Trump nominated 86 people to be US attorneys, and 84 of them were confirmed (97%).

President Biden nominated 76 people to be US attorneys: 68 of the nominations were confirmed by the US Senate (90%). 94 percent of US Attorneys during the Biden administration were confirmed by voice vote.

However, in 2025, 52% of US Attorneys in Republican states but, due to blue slip threats, only 10% of US Attorneys in states with a Democrat Senator were confirmed:

(See tables below for list of 2025 confirmed US Attorneys)

On November 15, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) stated: “For the vast majority of the blue slip’s history, a negative or unreturned blue slip did not stop the Senate Judiciary Committee from holding a hearing and vote on a nominee. In fact, of my 18 predecessors as chairman of the committee, only two allowed home-state senators unilateral veto power through the blue slip. ... Consultation with the White House is something we senators should value and encourage. But we should not allow home-state senators to abuse this courtesy by attempting to block committee proceedings for political or ideological reasons. …”.

At the outset of the November 29, 2017, meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), indicated that the blue slip policy would not be used as a means by which a home-state senator could prevent committee hearings. Grassley stated: "Home-state senators are entitled to lobby against confirmation, but they can't deny a nominee a hearing for political or ideological reasons. ... Some of my colleagues and outside groups have criticized me for allegedly abolishing a Senate tradition. As I've explained, that's not true. I'm restoring the traditional policy and practice of the vast majority of my predecessors over the past 100 years."

In 2025 a few Senators used Blue Slips to create a Constitutional Crisis
Sadly, in 2025, a few Senators elected to block the Senate Advice and Consent process using Blue Slips and the threat of Blue Slips. As the following Tables show, after nearly a year of the Trump Administration, only a small fraction of these 93 federal districts have valid US Attorneys. Many nominees have stalled, or not even been considered, because the home state senators have refused to return a “blue slip” for the nominee. The “blue slip” process allows home state senators to effectively veto the President’s nominees for positions in their state. If a senator refuses to return a blue slip for a nominee, the nomination will not even be considered. The practice started in the Senate over 100 years ago. But the Blue Slip policy has no basis in the US Constitution. The Senate’s role is advice and consent by a public vote of the full body.

On September 3, 2025, Senate Judiciary Chair Grassley claimed that Democrats are blocking all Trump US Attorney nominees:

“Communities around our country are in desperate need of U.S. Attorneys to protect the public and uphold the rule of law… You can’t prosecute the case if you don’t have the U.S. Attorney there to lead the effort and coordinate the effort with other branches of government.”

“Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues have engaged in blanket obstruction of all nominees in their misguided attempt to derail the Trump Administration… This sweeping obstruction, shockingly, includes even highly qualified U.S. Attorneys that are supported by Democratic Senators. The actions of Senate Democrats are putting the American public in harm’s way… On May 22nd, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee announced a hold on the nomination of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Since then, the Senate Minority Leader and Senate Democrats have expanded the hold to apply to all 93 U.S. Attorneys. This blockade of public officials is unprecedented and untenable.”

Zero percent of U.S. Attorneys have been confirmed by voice vote so far during the second Trump administration.

As of September 2025, Trump had just two Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys in place. As of January 2026, the US Senate had confirmed 31 US Attorneys (about 33%) but they were nearly all in Republican states. In states with a Democratic Senator, only 4 US Attorneys were confirmed out of 41 federal districts – (about 10%).

Thus, there was a dramatic increase in blocking the appointment of US Attorneys in 2025 – especially in states with a Democratic Party Senator. Senate Republicans overcame the partisan blockade in States with Republican Senators in October, confirming 18 U.S. Attorneys as part of the first nominations package of 107 executive nominees.

Below, we divide US Attorneys for all 93 districts into two groups. The current US Attorneys are as listed on the Department of Justice web page: https://www.justice.gov/usao/us-attorneys-listing

However, because most of these current US Attorneys have not been confirmed by the US State, they can not assumed to be valid US Attorneys.

The first Table includes States with one or more Democrat senators. These states had 4 confirmed US attorneys for 41 positions… Only about 10% have been confirmed by the Senate and 90% have not been confirmed by the Senate as of January 2026:

Party	State - District	Current US Attorney	Confirmed by Senate
B	Maine	Andrew Benson	no
B	Pennsylvania East	David Metcalf	confirmed 10/07/25
B	Pennsylvania Middle	Brian D. Miller	no
B	Pennsylvania West	Troy Rivetti	no
B	Wisconsin East	Brad Schimel	no
B	Wisconsin West	Chadwick Elgersma	no
D	Arizona	Timothy Courchaine	no
D	California Central	Bilal Essayli	no
D	California East	Eric Grant	no
D	California North	Craig Missakian	no
D	California South	Adam Gordon	no
D	Colorado	Peter McNeilly	no
D	Connecticut	David Sullivan	no
D	Delaware	Benjamin Wallace	no
D	Georgia Middle	William Keyes	no
D	Georgia North	Theodore Hertzberg	no
D	Georgia South	Meg Heap	no
D	Hawaii	Ken Sorenson	no
D	Illinois Central	Gregory Gilmore	no
D	Illinois North	Andrew Boutros	no
D	Illinois South	Steven Weinhoeft	no
D	Maryland	Kelly Hayes	no
D	Massachusetts	Leah Foley	no
D	Michigan East	Jerome Gorgon	confirmed 12/18/25
D	Michigan West	Timothy VerHey	no
D	Minnesota	Daniel Rosen	confirmed 10/07/25
D	Nevada	Sigal Chattah	no
D	New Hampshire	Erin Creegan	confirmed 12/18/25
D	New Jersey	None listed	no
D	New Mexico	Ryan Ellison	no
D	New York East	Joseph Nocella	no
D	New York North	John Sarcone	no
D	New York South	Jay Clayton	no
D	New York West	Michael DiGiacomo	no
D	Oregon	Scott Bradford	no
D	Rhode Island	Charles Calenda	no
D	Vermont	Michael P. Drescher	no
D	Virginia East	Lindsey Halligan	no
D	Virginia West	Robert Tracci	no
D	Washington East	Pete Serrano	no
D	Washington West	Charles Neil Floyd	no

States with two Republican Senators have 27 confirmed US Attorneys in 52 federal districts (52%).

Party	State - District	Current US Attorney	Confirmed by the Senate
R	Alabama Middle	Kevin Davidson	no
R	Alabama North	Prim Escalona	no
R	Alabama South	Sean Costello	no
R	Alaska	Michael Heyman	no
R	Arkansas East	Jonathan Ross	no
R	Arkansas West	David Fowlkes	no
R	Florida Middle	Gregory Kehoe	no
R	Florida North	John Heekin	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Florida South	Jason Quiñones	confirmed 08/02/25
R	Idaho	Bart Davis	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Indiana North	Adam Mildred	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Indiana South	Thomas Wheeler	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Iowa North	Leif Olson	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Iowa South	David Waterman	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Kansas	Ryan Kriegshauser	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Kentucky East	Paul McCaffrey	no
R	Kentucky West	Kyle Bumgarner	no
R	Louisiana East	David Courcelle	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Louisiana Middle	Kurt Wall	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Louisiana West	Zachary Keller	no
R	Mississippi North	Scott Leary	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Mississippi South	James Kruger	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Missouri East	Thomas Albus	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Missouri West	Richard Price	no
R	Montana	Kurt Alme	Confirmed 10/07/25
R	Nebraska	Lesley Murphy	Confirmed 10/07/25
R	North Carolina East	Ellis Boyle	no
R	North Carolina Middle	Dan Bishop	no
R	North Carolina West	Thomas Ferguson	confirmed 12/18/25
R	North Dakota	Nicholas W. Chase	Confirmed 10/07/25
R	Ohio North	David Toepfer	Confirmed 10/07/25
R	Ohio South	Dominick Gerace	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Oklahoma East	Christopher Wilson	no
R	Oklahoma North	Clint Johnson	no
R	Oklahoma West	Robert Troester	no
R	South Carolina	Bryan Stirling	confirmed 12/18/25
R	South Dakota	Ron Parsons	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Tennessee East	Francis Hamilton III	no
R	Tennessee Middle	Braden Boucek	confirmed 12/18/25
R	Tennessee West	D. Michael Dunavant	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Texas East	Jay Combs	no
R	Texas North	Ryan Raybould	no
R	Texas South	Nicholas Ganjei	no
R	Texas West	Justin Simmons	no
R	Utah	Melissa Holyoak	no
R	West Virginia North	Matthew Harvey	confirmed 10/07/25
R	West Virginia South	Moore Capito	confirmed 10/07/25
R	Wyoming	Darin Smith	no
X	District of Columbia	Jeanine Pirro	Confirmed 08/02/25
X	Guam	Shawn Anderson	no
X	District of Puerto Rico	Stephen Muldrow	no
X	Virgin Islands	Adam Sleeper	confirmed 10/07/25

The total number of US attorneys confirmed by the US Senate in 2025 was 31. This means that about 62 federal districts are without a Senate Confirmed US Attorney. But this division is not even. Instead, States with no Democrat Senators had more than 50% of their US Attorneys confirmed while States with one or more Democrat Senators had only 10% of their US Attorneys confirmed in 2025.

Below an image of US States with at least one US Attorney confirmed by the US Senate in 2025:

Note that there are 17 states with Republican Senators that have at least one Senate confirmed US Attorney and only 7 Republican States without a Senate confirmed US Attorney. The odds of a citizen living in a Republican state not having a valid Senate-confirmed US Attorney is only 7/24 equals 30%.

By contrast, there only 4 states with Democrat Senators with at least one US Attorney and 20 Democrat States without a Senate confirmed US Attorney! The odds of a citizen living in a Republican state not having a Senate-confirmed valid US Attorney is only 20/24 equals 83%.

Thus a person living in a state with a Democratic Senator is 4 times more likely to not have a valid US Attorney than a person living in a State with one or more Republican Senators.

The real world effect of the current unconstitutional regulations is that one full year after the beginning of the new administration, the effect of the 2024 election changing administrations has only occurred in Republican states and citizens living in States with Democratic Senators do not have a valid Senate approved US Attorney to submit their Petitions for Redress of Grievances. The seriousness of this problem is addressed in the next section.

Section 6 Historical importance of the Redress of Grievances clause and the Right to Due Process Clause

In Section 1 of this complaint, we summarized 7 complaints we filed with the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice during the past year. These complaints provide evidence that the inalienable rights of millions of citizens are being violated here in Washington state – including violations of several clauses of the US Constitution, several federal laws and several US Supreme Court rulings.

These violations are serious crimes which require investigation – similar to filing a complaint with the local Police Department. The US Department of Justice is the federal agency in charge of enforcing federal laws. The specific person at the Justice Department who is supposed to investigate violations of federal law and file charges if they find enough evidence that a federal crime has been committed is the US District Attorney. If there is not a valid Senate confirmed US Attorney to investigate federal crimes and file charges in federal court, then our Constitutional rights become meaningless. Even rulings of the US Supreme Court become meaningless.

This is especially true in the current case where we have provided evidence in our 7 previous complaints that the political leaders here in Washington state are committing federal crimes, violating our Constitutional rights and ignoring US Supreme Court rulings.

One might claim that the US Department of Justice itself has the power to investigate our complaints and file charges in federal court. While this is technically true, as a practical matter, it is not reasonable. The United States is a very large nation of 330 million people. It is not reasonable to expect that Pam Bondi or Harmeet Dhillon can defend all of the rights of all 330 million people in all 50 states. This is why our nation has been divided into 93 federal districts with 93 US District Attorneys. Here in Washington state, we have two federal districts (Western and Eastern) to protect the rights of 8 million people. This is 4 million people per US District Attorney. Assuming each US Attorney oversees an office of about 100 prosecutors, or people who do the actual local investigations, this is only one federal prosecutor for every 40,000 people. If there is not a valid US Attorney to investigate federal crimes and enforce federal laws and federal civil rights, then those laws and civil rights become meaningless.

Why Acting or Special US Attorneys are not valid US Attorneys
There are no “temporary” or “interim” or “acting” or “special” US Attorneys in the US Constitution. Congress has the right to pass laws creating new federal officers – including inferior officers. But the process for the appointment of these new inferior officers must comply with the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. As we explained in Section 2 of this complaint, the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) provides only four specific ways for appointing inferior officers:

But instead of passing a law in keeping with one of these four provisions, Congress has passed several laws including Section 541, Section 546 and the NVRA which claim to create temporary or interim US Attorneys. But all three of these laws contain several limitations and obstacles to appoint these temporary US Attorneys – and these limitations are contrary to the plain meaning of the Appointments Clause. Thus, all three of these laws are unconstitutional.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the “default” option for appointing inferior officers is Option 1 – namely appointment after the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. Sadly, this option is not possible in Washington state due to the Blue Slip threats of Washington Senator Patty Murray.

Here is a quote from the above article:

“Patty Murray, Washington’s senior Democratic senator, opposes his selection and plans to use a Senate maneuver known as the “blue slip” process to prevent the Pasco lawyer from serving in the federal post.”

“ I will be using every legislative tool I have to block his confirmation,” she said.

The century-old practice has irked President Donald Trump, who has had some of his picks opposed by Democratic senators. He has called it “old and outdated” and threatened legal action to end it:

“I have a Constitutional Right to appoint Judges and US Attorneys, but that RIGHT has been completely taken away from me in States that have just one Democrat United States Senator,” Trump posted on social media.

On August 6, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Pete Serrano to be the Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington state. Pete Serrano is an advocate for protecting parents rights. The interim appointment end December 9 2025.

As the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington State, Serrano supervises a staff of approximately 79 prosecutors, civil litigators, and support personnel, according to the Department of Justice.

On August 28, 2025 Washington Senator Patty Murray, stated that she would do everything in her power – including the Blue Slip - to prevent Serrano from being considered by the US Senate. As a result of Senator Murray’s threat, Serrano was never nominated, as being nominated and rejected would disqualify him from serving.

Pete Serrano has stayed on as the top federal prosecutor in Eastern Washington despite his temporary appointment running out after being blocked with the blue-slip process by Senator Patty Murray. This is because Attorney General Pam Bondi gave Serrano two new job titles—First Assistant United States Attorney and “special attorney”—allowing him to continue leading the Eastern District office until a new US Attorney is officially named.

Senator Murray replied to legal maneuver of the Department of Justice by stating “This move spits in the face of the law and Congress — and it sets a dangerous precedent and risks jeopardizing the legitimacy of the US Attorney’s Office moving forward.” In her statement, Senator Murray called the Bondi appointment of Serrano to be a “special” US Attorney, “a transparent end run around the Constitution and Congress”.

In Section 3 of this complaint, we provided a summary of several recent federal court cases – all of which concluded that “First Assistant” US Attorneys and “Special” US Attorneys were not “valid” US Attorneys because these offices were not in keeping with either the US Constitution or the laws passed by Congress.

All of the federal judges in all of the cases concluded that, despite being appointed by Pam Bondi, all of the “special” US Attorneys she appointed were not valid US Attorneys and therefore did not have the authority to file complaints in federal courts. Several of the judges then dismissed the complaints. For example, on November 24, 2025 a federal judge issued a 29 page opinion dismissing a criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey on the grounds that the interim US attorney who filed the charges, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. Here is a link to the Comey Dismissal Order.

Here is a quote from this Opinion: “Mr. Comey now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As explained below, I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”

Sadly, the Department of Justice has thus far failed to argue that the three federal laws on which the judges have been ruling the US Attorney appointments to be invalid are themselves in violation of the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. We are therefore facing a Constitutional Crisis in which millions of citizens in states such as Washington with Democratic Senators do not currently have a valid Senate confirmed US Attorney to investigate the complaints we have submitted.

The only group with the authority under the US Constitution to resolve this dispute between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch is the US Supreme Court. However, the US Supreme Court has been very reluctant to challenge either the constitutionality of laws such as Section 541 passed by Congress or rules such as the Blue Slip policy passed by the Senate.

The Justice Department will have to provide the Supreme Court with reasons that go beyond merely claiming that Trump complaining that his right to appoint US Attorneys has been taken away “in States that have just one Democrat United States Senator.”

The Justice Department will have to explain how and why the Senate Blue Slip policy violates the US Constitution. But even if the Senate Blue Slip policy were ruled unconstitutional, the Senate could still block the appointment of US Attorneys. Imagine if the Democrats take over the US Senate in 2026. They could simply come up with other rules. Or hold hearings and votes in which all of the Presidents US Attorney nominations are rejected. While this has never happened in the past, what happened in 2025 also has never happened in the past. Congress could also continue to use the complex limitations of Section 541, Section 546 and the NVRA to block US Attorneys.

This is why in addition to letting the Supreme Court know that the Executive branch is being harmed by the Senate Blue Slip policy and Section 541, Section 546 and the NVRA, the First Amendment Right of the People to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances is also being harmed. The Department of Justice and the Supreme Court should insist on a solution which restores the right of the American people to have a valid, Senate approved US Attorney in every federal district. We will therefore explain here in this section why this right exists and why it is so important to a functioning government.

The Three R’s… A Right to Petition includes the right to a Reply and a Remedy

The Right to Petition the government for redress of grievances dates all the way back to the Magna Carte and includes the Right to a Reply and a Right to an enforceable Remedy. As an initial and important clarification, I want to make it clear that by the word “petition”, I am not referring to a “political” petition (which may be directed at Congress seeking to change an existing law or create a new law). Instead, I am referring to a legal petition - which is directed at the Executive Branch (originally directed to the King) and seeks to investigate violations of existing laws and enforce existing federal laws and/or constitutional rights.

First Amendment Right to a Remedy and the Magna Carta
The words “petition” and “redress” in the Petition Clause of the First Amendment are rendered meaningless if the Clause merely includes the right to ask for redress. Instead, this clause derives directly from British Common law and the Magna Carta in which the words “petition” and “redress” include the affirmative right to a meaningful remedy - which in turn includes a mandatory duty by the Government to acknowledge, investigate, debate and most importantly vote on the issues raised by the petition. It is only by the action of voting on grievances that the citizens will be able to determine who to vote for or against in the next election.

This essential right is based on an ancient legal principle: “Ubi jus ibi remedium” which translates into English as “Where there is a right, there must be a remedy.” While the 1215 version of the Magna Carta codified due process rights in chapter 39, a right to a remedy in chapter 40 and the right to petition in Chapter 61, the 1225 version combined these chapters into a single chapter 29.

Chapter 40 of the original 1215 charter and read as follows: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

Chapter 61 of the 1215 charter — the right to petition — reads, in part:

“If we . . . offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the . . . twenty-five barons, they shall come to us . . . to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we . . . make no redress within forty days . . . the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land.”

Chapter 61 used the term “redress” four times and in each case specified what would happen if the redress was not promptly supplied. This redress had to include an actual remedy or resolution of the complaint or legal petition of grievance.

The King had an affirmative duty to respond and provide redress or remedy to legal petitions under the Magna Carta. The English verb “petition” derives from the Latin verb “peto,” a conjugated form of which is used in the very first codification of the right to petition in the 1215 Magna Carta. In that document, the Latin verb is clearly used to refer to a demand rather than a request.

The principle was further clarified in the famous case of Ashby v. White (1703) 92 Eng. Rep. 126, 137 which emphasized the reciprocity of rights and remedies: the equitable maxim that “equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.”

“If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for . . . want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal. . . . Where a man has but one remedy to come at his right, if he loses that he loses his right.”

A remedial right logically entails a correlative remedial duty on the part of the government, and a remedial duty logically entails remedial power. But the overriding objective of the Bill of Rights, as indicated by the very first word of the First Amendment, was to constrain — not to aggrandize — federal power

Two years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Supreme Court decided Chisholm v. Georgia, a dispute between an individual seeking judicial redress for legal injury and a state invoking sovereign immunity from federal court jurisdiction. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In a 4–1 decision, the Court came down decisively on the side of individual remedial rights, declaring that Article III gave federal courts jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit filed by a British subject against an unconsenting state

The 1803 case of Marbury v Madison also provide strong evidence that the Founding generation understood the right to petition the Government to include the right of legally injured persons to obtain meaningful remedies. Writing for a unanimous court, and citing Blackstone, Chief Justice John Marshall emphasized the individual’s right to obtain — and the courts’ corresponding duty to provide — meaningful judicial redress for a meritorious legal grievance. Marshall declared it “a settled and invariable principle, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress. When it comes to individual legal rights, he “who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.

Marshall characterized “the right of every injured individual to claim the protection of the laws as the very essence of civil liberty” and affording such protection among “the first duties of government… “If the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right,” Marshall warned, the United State government “will certainly cease to deserve the high appellation of being emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”

It is essential that the remedy not only address the current violation of our constitutional rights – but also deter future Congressional violations of our constitutional rights.

While the Supreme Court does not have the power to require Congress to adopt any particular solution, the Supreme Court can order Congress to act in a reasonable manner – consistent with Article II, Section 2 Clause 2 - to insure that the right of the People to have a valid US Attorney is maintained. Because “Justice delayed is Justice denied,” an example of what would be considered reasonable should be provided.

The Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment also supports our claim that we, the People, have a right to a valid US Attorney

The Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment also supports our right to have a valid Senate confirmed US Attorney in order to protect our civil rights through legal petitions submitted to US District Attorneys.

The Fifth Amendment states in part: “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

The word liberty was used by the drafters of our US Constitution to be equated to our civil rights. Without our civil rights, there is no liberty. Without the US Attorney, we have no local person to turn to to protect our civil rights and our liberty.

In addition, the words “due process of law” in the context of protecting our civil rights is not possible without a US Attorney. This particularly true in Washington state where the Washington State Attorney General has access to hundreds of State Attorneys. No private person can possibly stand up to such a mob of State attorneys. The only person in our state who might be able to stand up to this mob of state attorneys is the US Attorney.

In the next section, we will provide a framework for permanently restoring the right of the people to have a valid US Attorney in every federal district.

Section 7 Proposed remedy to restore the right of the People to a US Attorney in each federal district

The executive branch must be allowed by the Senate to provide citizens with a US attorney in each federal district. Senate Rules, either formal or informal that go beyond “advise and consent” and instead “block and obstruct” violate both the Redress Clause of the US Constitution and the Fifth Amendment “due process” clause.

The local US attorney must accept and investigate and respond to all complaints of violations of constitutional rights and federal laws. If the claims are found to be valid, the US attorney must seek enforcement in federal courts. It is then up to the federal courts to decide if rights or laws have been violated and if so, what the legal remedy would be.

The final issue is: what a permanent solution to this constitutional violation would look like? What would be a reasonable remedy?

We think that the remedy must include at least three components:

First, we ask that the Department of Justice demand that the US Senate end this Blue Slip practice - and should the Senate refuse to end Blue Slips - that this Blue Slip policy be taken to the US Supreme Court for a ruling that prevents the US Senate from using the Blue Slip policy to abridge and obstruct the First Amendment right of the people to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Second, we ask the Department of Justice to seek a ruling from the US Supreme Court that 28 US Code Sections 541 and 546 and the NVRA are all unconstitutional violations of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Third, we ask that the time to provide the People with a US attorney in each federal district can not exceed a reasonable period of time after the election of and installment of a new government. As one example of a reasonable period of time, it is understood that the first task of a new government is appointment of Principal Officers. Assuming the new government submits the nominees for these Principal Officers within one month of taking office, the Senate must hold hearings and vote on all these principal officers within one month after receiving the nominations.

Assuming that the Senate receives the nominees for the 93 US attorneys within two months of taking office, the Senate must hold public hearings and public votes on these US Attorney Nominees within one month after receiving these nominees.

Should the Senate reject one or more nominees, Congress should choose one of the three options in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 for selecting a US Attorney. As a reminder, these three mutually exclusive options are:

#1: The President chooses US Attorneys – no limitations.

#2 The head of the Department (aka US Attorney General) choosesUS Attorneys – no limitations.

#3 The Courts choose US Attorneys – no limitations.

To be clear – Article II, Section 2 Clause 2 only permits the selection of one of these options. If Congress should choose the the third judicial option, then the courts will have a mandatory duty to choose a US Attorney in every federal district that does not have a valid, Senate confirmed US Attorney within one month after the date that the Senate voted against confirmation of a nominee (it will not be an optional duty as is the case under the current unconstitutional federal laws). Allowing a US Attorney from the prior defeated administration to continue in office should only occur with the consent of the current newly elected administration.

This entire process should not exceed four months from the time the new administration takes office. The key point is that somebody must choose a US Attorney and that the People can not have their right to a US Attorney delayed by either the Congressional Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch for more than four months.

The other key point is that we are only seeking this ruling for the 93 US Attorneys. While it has been estimated that there are more than 1000 “inferior officers”, we contend that the US Attorneys serve a “core and essential” function of the Executive branch and that this core function is essential to protect the civil rights of the people.

Limitation of Supreme Court ruling to US Attorneys
We also recognize that each administration is limited to a term of four years and thus, there is a need to have US Attorneys appointed during the first year of each administration in order for the new US Attorneys to have the time needed to investigate Civil Rights complaints and file charges in federal courts before the end of the first year of the new administration – in order to give the federal District Court, Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court a chance to rule on the issues raised in citizen complaints and the charges filed by the US Attorneys.

We understand that the Blue Slip process is also being used to block judicial appointments. But because judicial appointments are not time limited (federal judges have lifetime appointments), a different process may be appropriate to protect the right of the people to federal judges.

Conclusion
It is apparent from reading the Federalist Papers that neither Madison or Hamilton ever imagined a day in which a few Senators from the party that lost the election would be able to use an unwritten Senate Blue Slip rule to block the appointment of US Attorneys in 90% of the States with a Senator from the losing political party. But that is exactly what happened in 2025.

The People living in those states have had both their First Amendment Right to Petition and their Firth Amendment Right to Due Process severely abridged by this shocking and unconstitutional action.

We, the People living in one of these States, ask the Justice Department to seek a ruling from the US Supreme Court to enforce Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution in order to restore our civil rights as well as our right to have a valid US Attorney.

Finally, once we have a valid US Attorney in either the Eastern or Western District, we ask that our seven prior civil rights complaints be investigated, and if found to be valid, that the US Attorney seek a remedy in federal court as soon as possible.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for helping us restore our civil and parental rights.

Sincerely,

David Spring M. Ed.

Director, Washington Parents Network

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Washington Parents Network Complaint against Washington State for violating Federal Election Laws prohibiting online voting

January 16, 2026

To: Maureen Riordan, Voting Section Acting Chief
US Department of Justice - Voting Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20530

RE: Complaint against Washington State election officials for violating Federal Election Laws prohibiting online voting

Sent PDF via email to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Ms Riordan,

The Washington Parents Network is a group of several thousand registered active voters in Washington state. While our primary goal is protecting the right of parents to raise their children, we recognize that this right can not be protected unless our right to fair elections is also protected.

Sadly, elections in Washington state are not currently fair due to a “quadruple whammy” of insecure election practices. First, as we described in our September 2025 complaint, in contrast to most states, that do not register non-citizens and make efforts to remove voters from the voter rolls when they move, Washington leads the nation in illegally registering non-citizens to vote. Washington also leads the nation in failure to remove voters who have moved from the voter rolls – leading to Washington state having the least accurate voter rolls in the nation.

While the national average for removing voters due to moving is about 30%, the rate in Washington state was only 6.5% in 2024.

This is over 100,000 less than expected. The failure to remove moved voters was most blatant in King County - Washington’s most populous county. King County should have removed about 30,000 moved voters in 2024. Instead, only 6001 moved voters were removed. The actual rate in King County was only one fifth what it should have been.

Second, in contrast to “in-person voting” which allows for In person verification of a voters identity, Washington is one of only 8 states that is a “Mail In Only” state. This means that ballots are mailed out “at least 18 days” before the election and are accepted up to 3 weeks after Election Day. Mail in “Ballot curing” (see below) is also allowed weeks after the election - making Washington Elections “Day” up to 6 weeks long. This problem is currently being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.

Mail In Only also means that there is no way to truly verify who actually filled out any particular ballot. Instead, the only measure used to verify the ID of the voter is their signature on the outside of the envelope in which they mail back their ballot.

The combination of Washington’s all-mail voting and extremely inaccurate voter rolls, leads to hundreds of thousands of “ballots” being mailed to “ghost” voters – or voters who are not actually eligible to vote. This massive number of bad ballots has lead to a contest on social media in Washington state to see who gets the most “ghost” ballots sent to them. The current record is a woman from Bellevue Washington (in King County) who received 16 ballots addressed to her apartment number with different names on them of either moved voters or non-citizen voters.

This massive number of ghost ballots leads to the third whammy which is the unreliable Mail in ballot signature verification process. Ballot signatures are reviewed by county election workers when ballots are received. Most often, the “official” signature is from the Department of Licensing (DOL) and is captured when a person applies for a Washington Drivers License – a process that currently does not require that the person be a US citizen (as we described in our September 2025 complaint).

If the voter’s signature does not match their signature on file with the state, or if their ballot envelope signature is missing, the ballot might be “challenged” by county election workers. The rate of rejected ballots varies significantly from county to county. For example, according to a 2025 report from the Washington Secretary of State, in the 2024 General Election, Adams county had a ballot rejection rate of 2.64% while Thurston County had a rejection rate of only 0.57%. In short, some counties have a signature rejection rate that is 5 times greater than other counties. See appendix B, page 51 at this link:

https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/2024%20Annual%20Elections%20Report.pdf

Because the rate of challenged signatures varies significantly from county to county, it is apparent that the signature verification process is not held to the same standard in different counties. Instead, while there are official state standards, the actual rejection of ballots appears to depend almost entirely on the opinion of individual election workers in each county.

As just one example, on January 8, 2026, a Pasco Washington woman was arrested and charged with multiple felony counts related to identity theft and illegal voting in the 2024 General Election. Apartment manager Esperanza Contreras, collected four ballots, which were addressed to former tenants. She completed the ballots, signed the envelopes fraudulently, and submitted them to the auditor’s office. Despite the fraudulent signatures, three of the four ballots were counted, while the fourth was rejected due to a mismatched signature.

Irrefutable Evidence of Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale
Despite the inaccuracy of Washington’s voter rolls and the massive number of ghost ballots mailed and the lack of consistency of rejected signatures, defenders of Washington’s voting system have repeatedly claimed that there is no evidence of voter fraud in our past elections. This claim is utterly false. In our previous complaint, we provided a mountain of evidence that Washington elections have suffered huge, statistically impossible shifts in voting results in recent years.

As just one example, in Washington, between 2016 to 2020, our voting age population increased by 5%. But the number of registered voters increased by 15% - three times the rate of population increase. This is clear evidence that hundreds of thousands of “ghost voters” were added to the voting rolls in Washington state from 2016 to 2020. Even more remarkable, an additional one million total ballots were counted in the 2020 Presidential Election (4 million ballots versus 3 million ballots) – an increase in Mail In ballots counted of 33% - despite a population increase of only 5% since 2016 – over six times the rate of population growth.

Our original complaint can be read at the following link: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/complaint-against-bob-ferguson-for-violating-federal-election-laws

This leads to an obvious question: How could the actual increase in the number of Presidential ballots in 2020 be more than six times the increase in state population?

The answer is that hundreds of thousands of “ghost ballots” (or ballots from non-citizens and people who had moved but were still on the voter rolls) were magically turned in by someone in the 2020 election. Clearly, just requiring signatures is not enough to stop voter fraud on a massive scale.

Illegal Online Mail In Ballot Curing
As bad as all of the above has been, the complete lack of security in Washington Elections has been made even worse by a recent change in the Washington vote verification process. The fourth and final whammy is that Washington state has recently allowed and continues to allow insecure online vote curing in violation of federal election laws. This insecure election process is being used in the most populous county in Washington state, King County, to automatically “cure” some - but not all - of the ballots whose signatures were challenged by election workers.

Historically, voters with a challenged ballot signature were sent a written notice through first-class mail from the county election office that their ballot signature could not be matched to the voter’s signature on file or was missing, and a formal written declaration was included with the notice allowing the the voter to sign with a valid signature in order to “cure” the ballot and have it counted. Ironically, the curing declaration is considered “valid” not if it matches the “official” signature – but rather if it matches the rejected signature on the ballot outer envelope!

Voters were allowed weeks to mail back or physically return these vote curing forms – meaning that the results of close elections might not be known for weeks. Thus, Election Day has turned into Election Month here in Washington state.

A September 2025 42 page study by the University of Washington of Mail In signature vote curing here in Washington during five primary and general elections between 2020 to 2024 concluded that “1.6 percent of ballots cast were challenged for a missing signature or a signature that did not match the signature on file.” Since the UW study analyzed a total of 24 million votes cast between the 2020 and 2024 Primary and General Elections, the total number of challenged ballots was about 384,000 ballots. Of these challenged ballots, about 70% suffered from signature mismatches and 30% did not have any signature at all.

In addition, the study found that “60 percent of ballots with signature challenges (missing signature or mismatched signature) have been cured.” This fact also means that 40% of ballots with signature challenges were ultimately rejected and not counted in the official results.

The study also found that non-white voters had substantially higher ballot rejection rates. “Black (1.3 percent), Hispanic (1.5 percent), and Asian (1.5 percent) voters experienced ballot rejection rates much higher than White voters (0.9 percent).” Also “The ballot curing rate for White voters is about 10 percentage points higher (60.1 percent) than for Black voters (51.5 percent), Hispanic voters (50.7 percent), or Asian voters (48.6 percent).

The study also found that younger voters were four times more likely to have ballots rejected due to signature mismatch than older voters. “Roughly 4 percent of ballots cast by voters 18 to 25 years old from 2020 to 2024 were rejected, compared to less than 1 percent of ballots cast by voters 66 or over”. (This could be due in part to the fact that younger voters are more likely to move than older voters).

Finally, the percent of cured ballots has risen significantly from 55% cured in the 2020 election to 67% cured in the 2024 election – a fact almost certainly due to online vote curing:

This new online voting system app currently being used in Washington state - called Omniballot - does not meet federal election system testing standards because it is inherently not secure and therefore violates federal election laws. The new process allows for the online curing of ballots. Online has never been secure. In the 2024 Primary, Omniballot was used by King County Elections to “cure thousands of mail in ballot signature challenges – tipping a statewide election to a candidate who would have lost were federal election laws followed. King County Elections operates the “Signature challenges” website at https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/elections/how-to-vote/ballots/signature-challenges

“The fastest way to fix your signature challenge is to complete and return the Signature Resolution Form online. Login with your name and date of birth and follow the instructions. You can sign using your mouse, or with your finger on your device.”

Clicking on the above link from the King County Elections page takes the voter to this Omniballot page:

https://wa.omniballot.us/sites/53033/site/app/home

Omniballot is an online voting tool created and run by a corporate third party called Democracy Live, a for profit third-party company, that operates the OmniBallot website. Click on Submit your Signature Resolution form to see this screen at this URL:

https://wa.omniballot.us/sites/53033/site/app/signature-resolution/vr

All that is needed to complete the process is the voters first name, last name and birth date. If you lack this information, Omniballot also allows you to access a voters record merely by entering their address. Here is a link to a video showing this process:

https://x.com/i/status/1848229541002744149

You can reach this screen by clicking on this link:

https://wa.omniballot.us/sites/53033/site/app/ob/vr/wa/vr

Here you will see the following instructions:

Not registered to vote? If you are overseas or a uniformed service citizen, click here to register to vote and look up your ballot using your address.

Click on the above link to reach this page where you can look up ballots by their address:

https://wa.omniballot.us/sites/53033/site/app/ob/address

Here, as is shown in the video, you can enter the address of a fake voter and click Continue. You will then be asked to enter a first name and last name to go with the address:

Then click Continue. You will then see the following screen:

Click No. You will then see this screen:

Scroll down to see the entire official ballot. Pick out a few races. Then scroll to the bottom and click Continue. You will then be asked to review your selections. Scroll to the bottom and click Continue. Then click Download Ballot Packet.

You will then see a PDF file of the official ballot.

Not only online – but no signature even required!
In addition, the new online voting process does not require a valid signature. Instead, a person can provide the last four digits of their Social Security number. As of November 2023, a King County voter may complete and return a signature resolution form on the KCE website at https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/elections/how-to-vote/ballots/signature-challenges using the Omniballot signature curing form submission tool.

If the ballot has been challenged for a signature mismatch, the voter may select an option for verifying their identity: signature, driver’s license or identicard number or the last 4 digits of their Social Security Number.

(The last 4 digits of a SSN is not secure verification of ID since that data is readily available on the Internet).

However, according to the National Public Data, a massive data breach including the Social Security numbers of nearly every American was hacked in April 2024 and the hack was disclosed in August 2024. The data leaked also includes full names, phone numbers, and current and past addresses. The total number of records breached is estimated to be 2.9 billion records, totaling 277GB of data. According to the nonprofit National Cybersecurity Alliance, it is likely “everyone with a Social Security number was impacted.” Already, Social Security numbers and other sensitive personal data are appearing on the dark web, ready for potential identity theft and other exploitation. See these articles:

https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/08/national-public-data-hack-safeguard-identity-combat-fraud/

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/23/was-my-social-security-number-stolen-national-public-data-breach-questions.html

Even prior to this latest security breach, millions of social security numbers were available on the dark web. Massive data breaches are not new. A 2017 Equifax data breach was estimated to have affected half the U.S. population. In 2013, a Yahoo data breach may have hit all the company’s accounts, or a total of 3 billion people.

Omniballot Online vote curing – additional evidence of insecurity
Washington is one of 38 States that requires all election hardware and software comply with US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) standards, which were most recently revised in 2021.

WA Rev Code § 29A. 12.080 (2018) states:“No voting device shall be approved by the secretary of state unless it: (5) Except for functions or capabilities unique to this state, has been tested and certified by an independent testing authority designated by the United States election assistance commission.”

WAC 434-335-040 (2020) states: “No voting device or its component software may be certified by the secretary of state unless it…. (f) has been tested and approved by the appropriate independent testing authority approved by the United States election assistance commission…”

EAC standards prohibit use of wireless technologies and require direct physical security and control of all election equipment.

Omniballot has not been tested by a federally accredited laboratory and would not comply with the federal EAC standard even if it was tested. Therefore, Omniballot violates Washington state election law and should not be allowed to be used by King County Elections.

King County Elections use of Omniballot is done by renting server space on an Amazon server – a server system that has been hacked many times - does not qualify as direct physical security and control of the election hardware or software or voter data. King County Elections is also in violation of RCW 29A.60.165(4) which states: (4) An auditor who provides electronic means for submission of a ballot declaration signature shall establish appropriate privacy and security protocols that ensure that the information transmitted is received directly and securely by the auditor and is only used for the stated purposes of verifying the signature on the voter's ballot.

RCW 29A.60.165(4) uses the word “shall”. This means that the actions are required and not optional. This RCW requires two conditions to be meet. The first condition is that the information transmitted must be transmitted directly to the auditor. The second condition is that the information must be transmitted securely.

Regarding the first condition, the information is not transmitted directly to the auditor. King County Elections is NOT in “sole control” of the Amazon Virtual Private Server (also called an Instance). Amazon is also in control of the Instance and the third party provider of Omniballot called Democracy Live is also in control of the Instance. Thus, the Omniballot Online Vote Curing process is not secure. In fact, it is blatantly insecure.

King County Elections has claimed that Omniballot is “secure” because it uses a single tenant infrastructure so that KCE has a separate AWS environment. No other Democracy Live customers have access to KCE’s environment.

However, the “single tenant infrastructure is nothing more than a Virtual Private Server (also known as a VPS). A virtual private server is not an actual independent private server. The word “Virtual” means that it is not a real private server. It is just disc space on one of Amazon’s servers. Therefore, Amazon has access to the virtual private server and Democracy Live has access to the virtual private server. In addition, while no other Democracy Live customers might have access to the KCE’s disc space on the Amazon VPS, this statement dodges the real point that either Amazon or Democracy Live has access to this VPS. It also dodges the point that hackers can access the VPS. Here is a link to an Amazon web page that documents recent security problems with their servers:

https://aws.amazon.com/security/security-bulletins/?card-body.sort-by=item.additionalFields.bulletinId&card-body.sort-order=desc&awsf.bulletins-flag=flag%23important&awsf.bulletins-site-type=*all&awsf.bulletins-year=*all

Here are quotes from an article explaining in detail some of the recent large security breaches that have happened on AWS:

“The (AWS) breach impacted data related to over 100 million individuals in the Capital One breach alone, while the Pegasus Airlines breach exposed 6.5 terabytes of sensitive data, and the Uber breach affected 50 million passengers and 600,000 US driver records. The data exposed in the breaches included personal information such as names, dates of birth, social security numbers, credit card information, email addresses, phone numbers, drivers' licenses. “

How was AWS hacked?
“Hackers breached sensitive data by exploiting misconfigured Amazon S3 buckets, firewall misconfigurations, and vulnerabilities in AWS server configurations. In some cases, they installed malware or altered code to further compromise the affected systems. The breaches were often discovered by security firms or ethical hackers, prompting the affected companies to take action and secure their data.”

For more information on the AWS data breach, check out the following news articles:

Amazon Web Services (AWS) Data Breaches: Full Timeline Through 2023

High Profile AWS Breaches: Lessons To Be Learned

This security problem does not just affect Amazon Web Services – it affects all servers connected to the Internet – all of these millions of servers are under constant attack from hackers – which is why election data should never be connected to the Internet.

Proof that Omniballot is not certified by the US Election Assistance Commission
Here is a link to all voting systems that have been certified for security by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission:

https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/certified-voting-systems

Omniballot is not on the list and has never even applied to be on the list.

Here is a link to the EAC page on Election Security:

https://www.eac.gov/voters/election-security

Here is a link to their 6 page summary:

Here are some quotes from this summary:

“The purpose of the EAC’s national voluntary voting system certification program is to independently verify that voting systems comply with the functional capabilities, accessibility, and security requirements necessary to ensure the integrity and reliability of the systems. Industry experts, election officials, and federal agencies collaborate to develop certification standards in a transparent process. “

This guide outlines some of the many best practices election officials employ to secure voting systems through an election cycle.

Best practices election officials use to secure the computer include:

Never connecting it to the internet or other external network.

Here is a link to the EAC Guidelines page:

https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) are a set of specifications and requirements against which voting systems can be tested to determine if they meet required standards. Some factors examined under these tests include basic functionality, accessibility, and security capabilities. While the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates the EAC to develop and maintain these requirements, adhering to the VVSG is voluntary except in select states where it is required by their own state law. 

On February 10, 2021, the EAC's Commissioners unanimously adopted the newest VVSG standard, version 2.0. In November and December of 2022, the VVSG 2.0 was fully ready to be used for testing with the accreditation of both Voting System Test Labs (VSTL) by the EAC to test to this new standard.

Here is a link to the 2021 standard:

https://www.eac.gov/news/2021/02/10/us-election-assistance-commission-adopts-new-voluntary-voting-system-guidelines-20

Here are quotes:

“As elections are decentralized throughout the country, the VVSG are the only set of uniform specifications and requirements against which voting systems can be tested to determine if the voting systems meet required standards. Some factors examined under these tests include basic functionality, accessibility, accuracy, reliability, and security capabilities. “

“The major updates included in the VVSG 2.0 are the following:”

“Improved cybersecurity requirements to secure voting and election management systems associated with the administration of elections.”

“Software independence”

“Requires systems to be air-gapped from other networks and disallows the use of wireless technologies”

“Physical security”

Note that the Omniballot process fails to comply with at least two conditions required for election security. The first condition is that wireless technologies, such as remote Amazon servers, are not allowed.

The second condition is physical security of the server. Obviously, King County Elections does not control the physical security of a remote Amazon server.

Here is a link to an 84 page PDF of which requirements are used by each of the 38 states that use the Election Assistance Commission standards. According to this 2023 document, Washington state requires that election equipment be tested by a “federally accredited laboratory.” All federally accredited laboratories require compliance with the new Election Assistance Standard. See page 81 of 84 which states:

“Requires testing by a federally accredited laboratory. WA requires that its voting systems are tested and certified by an EAC accredited independent testing authority, so long as its functions are in keeping with the unique requirements of the state.”

Since Omniballot has not been tested by a federally accredited laboratory and clearly would not comply with the federal EAC standard even if it was tested, Omniballot violated Washington state law and should not be allowed to be used by King County Elections.

Independent Experts also conclude that Omniballot Online Voting is not secure
Here is what independent security experts have stated about the Omniballot security problem: “OmniBallot’s design is overly simple, and ignores 30 years of research about building E2E-verifiable online voting. The voter’s identity and ballot choice are just sent to a server in Amazon’s cloud, which generates a ballot that officials can download. As a result, there’s no way for voters, officials, or Democracy Live to be sure votes aren’t modified,” J. Alex Halderman, professor of computer science and engineering at U-M and an author of the report, said”. 

“The Omniballot online process causes your vote to be transmitted over the internet, or via networks attached to the internet, exposing the election to a critical risk that votes will be changed, at wide scale, without detection. “

“Discontinue online voting. No readily available defense can adequately mitigate the risks of OmniBallot’s electronic return mechanism.”

Halderman, J. Alex; Specter, M. A., Security Analysis of the Democracy Live Online Voting System, 2020

Recommendations from the Department of Homeland Security, the bipartisan findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the consensus of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine accord with the researchers’ assessment that returning ballots online constitutes a severe security risk. 

On April 9, 2020, more than 60 scientists and election experts signed a letter to governors, secretaries of state and state election directors urging them to refrain from allowing the use of any internet voting system.

An Example of Online Signature Harvesting Harm to Washington Parents Networks Members
In the 2024 Washington State Primary, members of the Washington Parents Network, including myself, publicly supported Sue Pederson for Public Lands Commissioner as Sue supported Parents Rights. One of Sue’s opponents, Dave Upthegrove opposed Parents Rights. On August 6, 2024, the Election Night results showed that Sue Pederson was ahead of Dave Upthegrove by nearly 4000 votes in this “Top Two” primary election:

However, thanks in part to more than 2,000 Omniballot Online Ballot Signature cured in King County, Upthegrove was able to close the gap and win second place in this Top Two Primary by 51 votes:

On August 20, 2024, results certified by county canvassing boards showed Dave Upthegrove in second place, with a margin of only 51 votes (0.0027% of the total votes) over Sue Pederson.

On September 5, 2024, the Washington State Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Snohomish County Court. Here are quotes from this lawsuit:

“During the 2024 primary election, 2092 ballot signature affidavits were cured using the OmniBallot system in King County… But for King County’s illegal use of the OmniBallot system, Pederson would have advanced to the November 2024 general election… RCW 29A.60.165(4) requires that “an auditor who provides electronic means for submission of a ballot declaration signature shall establish appropriate privacy and security protocols that ensure that the information transmitted is received directly and securely by the auditor and is only used for the stated purposes of verifying the signature on the voter’s ballot.”

“Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the ballots cured using the OmniBallot system are invalid because the information transmitted by the voter is received and validated by a private for profit third party third-party prior to transmittal to the King County Auditor… Plaintiffs also seek declaratory judgment that the use of a private for profit company to receive and validate signatures is inconsistent with RCW 29A.60.165(4) and unlawful.”

Sadly, the lawsuit was dropped by the Republican Party after the 2024 General Election. Omniballot is still being used by King County Elections.

Federal Authority to Prohibit Online Voting
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment, every voter has the right to have their vote counted equally and accurately. Every voter has the right to vote privately and anonymously, and know that their votes were counted as cast. Thus, a voter’s identity must be confirmed to ensure no one else votes in their name. This combination of privacy and identification is impossible with online internet voting technology. Remote electronic voting – including voting online via a web portal or a mobile phone app – has been analyzed and found insecure by virtually all cyber security experts for the past 20 years.

In-person, voter-verified paper ballots are the most secure way of voting. These paper ballots can be audited and recounted to confirm election results. In contrast, ballots cast via the internet cannot be meaningfully audited. Even if an election official prints an electronically received ballot, the voter never interacted with the printed copy and cannot verify it is correct, meaning the printout cannot reliably document voter intent.

No internet-connected system of any kind, let alone a voting system, is invulnerable to attack, whether the votes are transmitted by email, a web portal, or via a mobile app. Vulnerabilities include voter authentication attacks (forged voter credentials), malware on voters’ devices (malicious code hidden in apps or software updates) that can modify votes undetectably, denial of service attacks (slowing or crashing the system by overwhelming it with traffic or taking advantage of a bug), server penetration attacks (remote break-in and control of the election server) and spoofing attacks (directing voters to a fake voting website instead of the real one).

Federal authority over elections derives primarily from Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Elections Clause, states, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of [choosing] Senators."

Thus, while states have primary responsibility for administering elections, the federal government maintains ultimate authority over elections, including guarding the safety and integrity of congressional elections. In particular, Congress has the authority to prevent unconstitutional voting discrimination or voter dilution in a state or local election. Congress's authority to legislate - and the US Department of Justice enforcement - regarding unfair election practices, derives not only from its Article I powers, but also from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

An April 2024 report by the U.S. Department of Justice states that they are “committed to ensuring full compliance with all federal laws regarding elections. This includes provisions of federal law that apply to methods of casting a ballot.” https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1348591/dl?inline

Request that the US Department of Justice Investigate use of Online Voting in Washington state

Washington state allowance of online voting combined with inaccurate voter rolls and all mail in ballots renders our elections to be among the most insecure and illegal of any state in the nation. We ask the Department of Justice to investigate the concerns we raise in this complaint about online voting in Washington state and enforce federal election laws and the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution by requiring Washington state election officials, including Washington State Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs and King County Department of Elections Director, Julie Wise, not only to end the registration of non-citizens - but also to end online voting.

Thank you for your assistance in this important matter. For more information, please contact me via email.

Regards, David Spring M. Ed.
Director, Washington Parents Network
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
425-876-9149
6183 Evergreen Way, Ferndale, WA 98248

September 19, 2025

From: David Spring, M. Ed., Director, Washington Parents Network

To: Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20580

RE: Complaint against Washington State Planned Parenthood

Sent via FTC Gender Affirming Care Comment Page

To Whom It May Concern:

The Washington Parents Network is a group of nearly 3,000 parents in Washington state concerned about protecting the rights of parents and children. One of our concerns is that profit-driven corporations, including Planned Parenthood, have been making millions of dollars by giving children toxic Trans Drugs, such as puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, for uses not approved by the FDA. These drugs have serious adverse side effects including obesity, tumors and increased rates of blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, depression, suicide and permanent sterility. Yet nowhere on the Planned Parenthood Washington State Affiliate Transgender promotional website page does it provide any warning about either off label non-FDA approved usage or adverse side effects. Instead, Planned Parenthood makes false and deceptive claims including that these drugs are safe and that they reduce the risk of suicide – when in fact these drugs are not safe and they actually increase the risk of suicide.

 Planned Parenthood promotes these toxic Trans Drugs as “Gender Affirming Care” falsely claiming that these drugs can magically “transition” children from one biological sex to the other sex despite the fact that there are at least 6,500 genetic differences between the sexes and no drugs are able to change a child from one sex to the other. A more accurate term for these drugs is “Gender Mutilation Child Abuse.”

On July 28, 2025, the FTC began accepting public comments on how to hold corporations like Planned Parenthood accountable for their fraudulent and deceptive practices. In this complaint, we provide a summary of how the fraudulent practices of Planned Parenthood harm children and their parents here in Washington state as well as a review of scientific studies on the harm of Trans Drugs.

We show that thousands of children and their families here in Washington state have been severely and permanently harmed by these fraudulent Planned Parenthood practices.

We also provide a summary of the financial harm to parents and tax payers who are forced to pay for the Planned Parenthood Money Laundering operation – not only through millions of dollars in higher state and federal taxes to pay for Medicaid billings – but also through higher Health Insurance Premiums as the Health Insurance companies are forced to pay millions of dollars each year for Planned Parenthood’s fraudulent billings.

Finally, we end our complaint with a summary of legal cases against Planned Parenthood – cases confirming that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly broken federal laws including illegally selling body parts of aborted fetuses and continuing to offer their “services” even after they were ordered to shut down.

The Federal Trade Commission is empowered to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive practices; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe rules defining acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices.

We ask that Planned Parenthood of Washington be prohibited from continuing to give non-FDA approved Trans drugs to children in our state and that Planned Parenthood be fined for each of the thousands of children they have harmed in the past as a result of their fraudulent and deceptive medical claims.

In addition to the attached PDF, you can view our FTC complaint against Planned Parenthood of Washington at the following web page:

https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/news/complaint-against-washington-state-planned-parenthood

Sincerely,

David Spring M. Ed.

Director, Washington Parents Network

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Washington Parents Network FTC Complaint against Planned Parenthood of Washington

 

 

I Introduction… Follow the Money

In what can only be described as a money laundering operation, Planned Parenthood makes a huge amount of money getting thousands of kids here in Washington state addicted to toxic Trans drugs. The majority of this money comes not from the Trans victims, but from tax payers through federal and state programs like Medicaid - combined with rising mandatory payments by those paying monthly health insurance premiums as all health plans in Washington state are required to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

For more than 40 years, their evil scam has been funded by hundreds of millions – and even billions - of dollars from state and federal tax payers – through programs like Medicaid – all while failing to disclose any of the deadly side effects of their Trans drugs and while making fraudulent medical claims about the benefits of their snake oil drugs. As a result of their fraudulent medical practices, Planned Parenthood is now being sued by angry “Detransitioners” whose lives have been destroyed as a result of being suckered into believing their false medical claims. It is likely that these Trans Cult investigations and lawsuits will eventually cost Planned Parenthood millions – and even billions - of dollars in fines.

Planned Parenthood National Crime Wave
We will begin by outlining the National structure of the Planned Parenthood money laundering operation. Since 2000, Planned Parenthood has committed over 7.5 million abortions for which it was paid $11.4 billion in federal funds with annual profits leading to its current net worth of over $3 billion.

The national office of Planned Parenthood issues annual reports with the latest being the 2023-2024 annual report. Because of the harm to children of Trans Drugs, Planned Parenthood hides its Trans Drug program by calling it “Other Procedures” in their annual reports. On Page 23 of the 2024 Report, it shows 77,858 Other Procedures. It also hides its Trans Drug program under Preventive Care Visits which were 129,594. On Page 24, Planned Parenthood shows $3.1 billion in total assets. On page 25, it shows that 39% of its revenue comes from tax payers through programs like Medicaid (called Apple Health in Washington state). On page 26, the report shows that the total payments by tax payers were $792 million in 2024.

Here are links to last four Previous Annual Reports

2019 – 2020

2020-2021

2021-2022

2022-2023

Here is a table of how these numbers have changed in the past few years.

Year	# Other Procedures	Tax Payer Subsidies
2020	17791	$618 million
2021	15902	$633 million
2022	256550	$670 million
2023	177237	$699 million
2024	77858	$792 million

Note on recent decline in Other Procedures: In 2022, Congress began investigating the Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Cult expansion and the reported numbers of Other Procedures began to fall. Based on whistleblower reports and legal filings, it is likely that Planned Parenthood began hiding their Trans Drug Cult under other categories (as the number of Gender cases at Planned Parenthood of Washington have continued to rise). Nor should these numbers be regarded as accurate. For example, the 2021 Planned Parenthood report listed “15,902” Other Procedures.” But an August 2022 NPR report noted that “Over 35,000 of Planned Parenthood’s patients nationwide sought gender-affirming hormone replacement therapy in 2021.” So the real numbers may be more than double the reported ones.

Growth of Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Cult
The first time Planned Parenthood Federation of America mentioned transgender services in its annual report was in the 2014-2015 AR, which stated, “Planned Parenthood affiliates expanded access to hormone treatments for transgender patients, with 26 centers now offering this care in California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, Vermont, and Washington State.”

By 2018, the number of facilities grew to 31 states, a tally that held into 2019 when Planned Parenthood wrote, “More than 200 health centers in 31 states” were “providing hormone therapy for transgender patients.” Thus, between 2014 and 2019, Planned Parenthood saw a 669% increase in facilities offering cross-sex hormone injections for transgender-identifying individuals, an increase from 26 centers to 200 centers.

By 2020, Planned Parenthood’s website noted, “Nationally, Planned Parenthood is the second largest provider of Gender Affirming Hormone Care” (which is more accurately described as getting kids addicted to toxic Trans Drugs).

A 2023 report found that “the average Planned Parenthood affiliate CEO is in the 98th percentile of US wage earners, making $317,564 annually.” 

Washington State Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Centers
In addition to a Virtual and Telehealth option, Planned Parenthood has 30 Trans Drug centers in Washington state including Bellevue, Bellingham, Bremerton, Centralia, Ellensburg, Everett, Federal Way, Friday Harbor, Kennewick, Lynnwood, Marysville, Moses Lake, Mount Vernon, Olympia, Pasco, Port Angeles, Pullman, Puyallup, Seattle, University District, Northgate, White Center, Spokane, Spokane Valley, Sunnyside, Tacoma, Vancouver, Walla Walla, Wenatchee and Yakima.

Here is the Transgender webpage for Planned Parenthood of Washington.

Here are quotes from their Overview Page:

“In 2018, Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho expanded its current healthcare services for transgender patients to include Gender Affirming Hormone Therapy services. “

This page does not include any warnings about Trans Drugs causing either cancer or sterility.

There are a couple of cartoon videos on the “What to Expect” page.

This page does not include any warnings about Trans Drugs causing either cancer or sterility.

Here is a quote from the “Criteria for Starting Hormone Replacement Therapy” page:

“Our criteria for hormone therapy reflect the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines.”

This page does not include any warnings about Trans Drugs causing either cancer or sterility.

Here is a quote from the “What to expect at your first visit” page:

“Our program starts with a visit with our TGA (Transgender/Gender Affirming) Team Specialist. Please anticipate an hour to an hour and a half for this visit. The TGA Team Specialist will explain the Gender Affirmation Health Program at Planned Parenthood Greater Washington & North Idaho, ask some health history and personal information questions, discuss possible changes, expectations, and limitations of hormone therapy, discuss both reversible and irreversible effects of hormone therapy, provide you a folder of resources and information and discuss any social transition questions or concerns.”

Whistleblowers and legal filings have noted that the while the discussion may mention the possibility of sterility, it does not mention that sterility is CERTAIN and irreversible or that cancer rates are greatly elevated.

Here are quotes from the “Safe Sex for Trans Bodies” page which is a 17 page PDF at this link:

Page 13 discusses Hormones and Surgery. Here is a screenshot:

This page does not include any warnings about Trans Drugs causing either cancer or sterility.

Page 15 discusses Surgery. Amazingly, this page does not include any warnings about Trans Surgery causing sterility!

The final web page is called : “Hormone Therapy Self Injection.”

Here is a quote: “Congratulations on beginning gender-affirming hormone therapy! Planned Parenthood of Washington is dedicated to ensuring you have the support and resources you need during your transition.”

This page does not include any warnings about Trans Drugs causing either cancer or sterility.

Washington Planned Parenthood Annual Reports
Here is a link to the Washington Planned Parenthood Annual Reports page. The 2018 report states that there were 642 Gender Affirming care visits. Total revenue was 18 million of which 6 million came from Medicaid, 4 million came from Federal/state assistance and 5 million came from Insurance. Expenses were 17 million meaning there was 1 million in profit.

The 2019 report states that there were 1166 Gender Affirming care visits. Total revenue was 21 million of which 6 million came from Medicaid, 4 million came from Federal/state assistance and 5 million came from Insurance. Expenses were 19 million meaning there was 2 million in profit.

The 2020 report states that there were 907 Gender Affirming care visits. Total revenue was 21 million of which 6 million came from Medicaid, 4 million came from Federal/state assistance and 5 million came from Insurance. Expenses were 19 million meaning there was 2 million in profit.

The 2021 report states that there were 1,384 Gender Affirming care visits. Total revenue was 23 million of which 7 million came from Medicaid, 4 million came from Federal/state assistance and 6 million came from Insurance. Expenses were 20 million meaning there was 3 million in profit.

The 2022 report states that there were 2,343 Gender Affirming care visits. Total revenue was 37 million of which 10 million came from Medicaid, 5 million came from Federal/state assistance and 6 million came from Insurance – which is required to pay for Trans Drugs and surgeries in Washington state. There was also a one time donation of 12 million from a billionaire. Expenses were 21 million meaning there was 16 million in profit.

The 2023 report states that there were 2,592 Gender Affirming care visits. Total revenue was 30 million of which 10 million came from Medicaid, 7 million came from Federal/state assistance and 6 million came from Insurance. So the majority of the funding was from tax payers. Expenses were 24 million meaning there was 6 million in profit.

The 2024 report indicates that there were 3,355 Gender Affirming care visits. Total revenue was 29 million of which 9 million came from Medicaid, 7 million came from Federal/state assistance and 6 million came from Insurance – which is required to pay for Trans Drugs and surgeries in Washington state. So the majority of the funding was from tax payers. Expenses were 27 million meaning there was 2 million in profit.

Below is a table showing the growth of Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Cult in Washington state from 2018 to 2024:

Year	Trans Cult Victims	Revenue $ millions	Profit $ millions
2018	642	18	1
2019	1166	21	2
2020	907	21	2
2021	1384	23	3
2022	2343	37	16
2023	2592	30	6
2024	3355	29	2

In the past 7 years, the total profit of the Washington branch of Planned Parenthood was about $32 million dollars thanks to state and federal tax payers.

How Washington Medicaid spending quintupled over a decade
Thanks in part to increases in subsidies for Planned Parenthood, Washington state’s Medicaid spending has quintupled, or increased five times over, since the 2013-15 biennium, according to a July 2025 analysis by The Center Square. Along with that increased spending, the number of those on Medicaid – including Trans Drug Cult victims - has climbed.

In the 2013-15 operating budget, Washington state taxpayers spent $4 billion per year on Medicaid. Spending was evenly split between the federal government and the state (at about $2 billion each). In the 2025-27 biennium, Washington state is planning to spend $21 billion per year on Medicaid with $13 billion per year coming from the feds. However, with President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Act, Washington state could lose $5 billion annually in federal Medicaid funding, according to estimates from the nonpartisan health research group KFF. In other words, federal spending might on Medicaid in Washington state might fall from $13 billion per year down to $8 billion per year – but still be four times more than in 2015!

This reduction will not actually occur until 2027. The BBB Act introduces mandatory "community engagement" requirements, which will require Medicaid recipients—particularly low-income adults—to log at least 80 hours per month in employment, education, or volunteer activities starting in December 2026. Certain groups, such as parents of children under 13, disabled veterans, and individuals with serious medical conditions, are exempt from these requirements.

Why the Washington State Medicaid costs exploded after 2015
According to a 2014 report by the Washington Policy Center, Washington’s Medicaid program was expanded by the state Legislature through “a one-line budget gimmick,” after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states could voluntarily choose whether to do so under the Affordable Care Act. Prior to that, Medicaid provided health insurance for families with children that earned less than 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, for long-term care patients, and the disabled. The expansion included any adult who earns less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level. In 2013, there was an estimated 1.3 million people enrolled in Washington’s Medicaid program, known as Apple Health. According to the Washington Health Care Authority, this number increased to 2.17 million residents enrolled in Apple Health as of January 2022. Nearly half of all births in Washington state in 2020 were covered by Apple Health.

The high point in enrollment was 2.3 million in 2023. In 2024, it was 2 million. And February, 2025, Apple Health (WA ST medicaid) enrollment was 2 million. This includes about 300,000 illegal aliens. It also includes thousands of Trans people getting drugs from Planned Parenthood.

While federal law generally bars illegal immigrants from being covered by Medicaid, a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor pays about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise illegal immigrants.

After the BBB was passed, Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson said that Washington tax payers would pick up the $5 billion in funding for Planned Parenthood that the federal government will no longer cover. Thus could be more than $10 million per year just for Planned Parenthood– to pay for giving our kids toxic Trans Drugs that are not even approved by the FDA. This commitment to continue Planned Parenthood funding is despite the fact that Washington state is facing a budget deficit of billions of dollars and despite the fact that the Washington legislature has already voted to impose record tax increases here in Washington state during the coming year.

Thus, the only way to stop Planned Parenthood from continuing to receive millions of dollars in fraudulent payments for giving kids toxic Trans Drugs is for the Federal Trade Commission to order Planned Parenthood to stop deceiving children and their families and to require that they instead tell parents and children the truth about the dangers of toxic Trans Drugs.

Status of Litigation on the Big Beautiful Bill Clauses Defunding Planned Parenthood

On July 7, 2025, in response to the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill, Planned Parenthood filed a motion in the Massachusetts federal court claiming that the portion of the bill defunding Planned Parenthood was done in an illegal manner. The case is called Planned Parenthood v Kennedy. Here is a link to the case filings.

On July 28, 2025, the federal judge, who was appointed by Obama ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood. On August 5, 2025, the US DOJ filed an appeal and a 24 page motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. Here are quotes from their motion:

“This Court’s preliminary injunctions bar the government from enforcing an Act of Congress that established a new limit on Medicaid spending. All three democratically elected parts of the federal government concluded that the Medicaid program should no longer subsidize certain large abortion providers. The Court recognized that under Article I of the Constitution, Congress holds broad discretion to control federal spending. Yet it entered injunctions compelling the government to distribute taxpayer dollars to entities that are not statutorily entitled to receive them based on a federal policy against subsidizing abortion.”

“Rarely if ever has an Act of Congress been enjoined on such flimsy grounds. This Court deemed the Medicaid funding restriction at issue here a bill of attainder. But the Supreme Court has only applied the Bill of Attainder Clause five times in its history—on each occasion in cases involving extraordinary laws punishing groups such as Confederates and Communist Party members. Halting federal subsidies bears no resemblance to the severe punishments—including death, banishment, and imprisonment—previously understood as implicating the Clause.”

“The Supreme Court has recognized a strong presumption that “Acts of Congress … should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits” by the Supreme Court. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers) (quotation marks omitted). Indeed, in “virtually all” cases where a lower court has held a federal statute unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has “granted a stay if requested to do so by the Government.”. That is particularly appropriate here, where the injunctions displace the democratically elected branches judgment that abortion providers should not benefit from taxpayer dollars, thus intruding both on Congress’s Article I authority over federal spending and on the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce the law.”

On August 29, 2025, the Obama judge issued a 23 page order on the motion to stay pending appeal. The judge denied the stay of her earlier ruling which now leaves the matter up to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If they fail to stay the lower court order, the DOJ has stated that they will take the matter directly to the US Supreme Court.

The American Center for Law and Justice has filed a 23 page Amicus brief in this case. Here are quotes from their brief:

“Ordering Congress to spend money it has declined to appropriate would violate the separation of powers. The Appropriations Clause reserves the power of the purse exclusively to Congress. Courts cannot compel Congress to spend money any more than Congress can compel courts to decide cases. The relief Plaintiffs seek—an injunction forcing Congress to fund their operations—would transform federal judges into super-legislators empowered to redirect public resources according to judicial rather than legislative priorities.”

“Planned Parenthood seeks to claim a constitutional right to be subsidized by the taxpayer. There is no such right. On the contrary, there is a fundamental distinction between governmental interference with conduct and governmental decisions about what activities merit public funding. Congress has ample authority to choose not to subsidize activities like abortion and to promote life instead. This lawsuit against Congress’s appropriations decisions should fail for this fundamental reason.”

“Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court upheld South Carolina’s decision not to provide Medicaid to Planned Parenthood, concluding that the relevant statute did not create a right to sue. Medina v. Planned Parenthood S. Atl., No. 23-1275, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2492, at *2 (June 26, 2025)… The Supreme Court affirmed South Carolina’s right to exclude abortion providers from its Medicaid program and held, overruling much of the precedent Planned Parenthood relies upon in its complaint, that Planned Parenthood lacked an enforceable right to sue South Carolina to stay on the state Medicaid program. “

In response to the potential cut to Planned Parenthood, Washington governor Ferguson stated that “Washington state will cover the gap caused by the federal government’s defunding of Planned Parenthood.”

Thus Washington tax payers will be paying even more in subsidizing the false medical claims of Planned Parenthood of Washington.

Here is a link to the case files for this case. Given that the Obama judge has over-ridden an Act of Congress, it is highly likely that the US Supreme Court will over-rule the Obama judge.

UPDATE: On September 11, 2025, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous 3 judge decision issued a 2 page order overturning the Obama lower court judge. Here is a quote:

“The July 21, 2025 preliminary injunction and the July 28, 2025 preliminary injunction are hereby stayed pending disposition of the respective appeals. The separate motions by the State of Louisiana and the American Center for Law and Justice for leave to file an amicus brief also are GRANTED and the briefs are accepted for filing as of this date.”

In plain English, this means that the Act of Congress defunding Planned Parenthood is back in effect. But as a practical matter, since the Act of Congress does not go into effect until January 2027, federal funding for Planned Parenthood will continue for at least the next year and three months.

II Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Cult Sex Ed in Public Schools

The primary source of new victims for Planned Parenthood is free sex ed programs offered to teachers and students in Washington Public Schools. For example, in 2021, a teacher at a middle school in Tacoma, Washington, distributed Planned Parenthood fliers to eighth-graders. Middle school students were given a flier detailing their legal rights on sex-based issues, including their ability to get an abortion without informing their parents. The flier distributed by an 8th-grade teacher at Stewart Middle School angered parents who thought the subject matter was inappropriate. The school has since apologized and said the document was put together by Planned Parenthood, not the individual teacher.

The flier detailed at what age students could give consent to have sex with someone younger or older. For example, it says, “It is not a crime if you are … 11 and have sex with somebody 2 years older or less … 12 to 13 and have sex with somebody who is 3 years older or less … 14 or 15 and have sex with somebody who is 4 years older or less.” Additionally, the flier tells students at what age they can obtain abortions, birth control, and STD tests without parental notice or consent.

What Planned Parenthood calls “sex education” refers to programs encouraging children to engage in all manner of sexual exploration and risky sexual behaviors, circumventing and alienating their parents. Ultimately, this “sex education” creates lifelong customers who will come to Planned Parenthood for contraception, STD tests, and abortions.

In addition, Planned Parenthood has numerous online resources to circumvent parents. The section of its website devoted to reaching teens has articles on everything from sex and pornography to sexual orientation and gender identity, complete with videos like “Consent 101: How Do You Know if Someone Wants to Have Sex?” Many of the videos have explicit animations of various sexual acts, including the use of sex toys, or feature live people engaging in what could rightly be called pornography. In a video posted in January 2024 titled, “What is Virginity?”, Planned Parenthood falsely tells young people that virginity “is a completely made-up concept.”

Sex Ed To-Go
Sex Ed To-Go is Planned Parenthood’s online “gender affirming care” lesson, for students as young as middle schoolers, suggests using “liquid filled condoms” to mimic a penis and provides instructions on how to circumvent parental notice safeguards if “you’re looking for hormones without extra gate keeping.”

Sex Ed To-Go includes free sex-education lessons in Spanish and English developed by Planned Parenthood for teachers and students. The module titled “Gender Affirming Care” is designed for students in eighth grade and above. The lesson plan explains inaccurate Trans Cult gender terminology, explores “types of things people can do to help their body and appearance match their gender identity,” directs students on finding “resources,” and details “how to support someone who is transgender, non-binary, or transitioning.”

The course includes four types of Trans Cult “transitioning”:
1) “Social transition,” meaning “changing your pronouns, hairstyle, name,”
2) “legal transition,” by falsifying legal identification documents,
3) “medical transition” by taking toxic trans drugs, and
4) “surgical transition” by “removing breasts or genitals.” Planned Parenthood’s lesson also discusses different types of drugs such as cross-sex hormones administered in the form of injections, pills, patches, or topical gels.

The “social transition” section includes a range of “gender-affirming devices” that modify appearance without medical intervention. The guidance includes a description of “tucking the testicles into the body and pulling the penis back between the legs” with either tape or particular underwear to “create a smooth and flat crotch.”

The lesson tells students that a “binder” and “tape” can constrict breasts for the appearance of a flatter chest, although it warns that breast-binding can “cause injuries, like broken ribs” and advises that such devices should not be worn for more than eight hours or while sleeping. For those who want the appearance of breasts, the module mentions the options to wear “push-up bras” or “stuffing a normal bra with something soft like socks.”

When discussing “medical and surgical transitions,” the module falsely claims that “puberty blockers are medications that pause puberty” with the aim to “give young people time to explore their gender identity before permanent body changes happen,” and Planned Parenthood falsely suggests that puberty will resume after ceasing such medications. But the lesson then hints that these drugs have long-term consequences, saying they “might change someone’s body permanently, like affecting whether they can get or cause a pregnancy when they are older.”

Planned Parenthood Teen Council Sex Clubs
In addition to free but extremely inaccurate sex education, Planned Parenthood of Washington offers Teen Council Sex Clubs that actually pay students to promote Planned Parenthood in their local high schools. Kids in Grades 10 to 12 can earn $400 for being leaders of Planned Parenthood Teen Councils in several school districts in Washington including Seattle, Olympia, Skagit County and Whatcom County.

Teen Council is a year long program. Here is their website’s description of this program: “Applications are typically due in April or May prior to the enrollment year.  No one is expected to already know about sexual health or peer education before joining Teen Council. We are looking for passionate youth who want to educate their peers, create a more inclusive world, and be resources in their communities. “

Here is a “testimonial” from a person named “Rayy”:
“My sex ed has been full of misconceptions and sex ed has often been a way to just prohibit teen sexual activity. This has had adverse impacts on LGBTQ, BIPOC, and fem-identified folks. I know change is needed and that’s why I joined Teen Council. “

Planned Parenthood of Washington also offers a Sex Ed program called the Youth Empowerment Program or YEP for 10th to 12th graders in Spokane, Yakima, Wenatchee and Tri-Cities.

Here is their description of this program:

“The Youth Empowerment Program meets biweekly for two hour regular meetings. In addition to regular meetings, teens are expected to participate in community events and presentations monthly, as well as special opportunities like retreats, Lobby Day, and conferences! This program is free! There are no fees or materials to purchase, and Planned Parenthood sponsors the cost of events.”

For negative comments from parents about this group, visit this Facebook page.

In the Bellingham School District, Fifth Graders were given a sex ed lesson by Planned Parenthood described in this article. A concerned parent, Graham, wanted to discover what her fifth grader would be learning if she allowed him to take the class. “The curriculum isn’t great as written,” she said, “but the room for interpretation is vast and when you throw in an instructor from Planned Parenthood, it becomes downright dangerous.”

Beginning with the first lesson and the puberty video the principal told Graham and parents who received the newsletter fifth graders would be watching, there are many things that would potentially bother parents. The video states that children don’t have to talk to their parents about these things if they are not comfortable, but they can talk to anyone they want.

The Bellingham Schools advisory group was told that Hagstrom was the current coordinator for Whatcom Teen Council, explaining that the “Teen Council presents about abstinence in middle schools and lessons are usually 55 minutes.” That line alone shows the misleading nature of Planned Parenthood’s involvement in Bellingham’s schools, because abstinence is not remotely its focus.

The Planned Parenthood School to Gender Clinic Pipeline
The School to Gender Clinic Pipeline begins by Planned Parenthood electing Trans Drug Cult politicians to the Washington State legislature. These brainwashed politicians then pass laws requiring schools to teach Trans Drug Cult Sex Ed propaganda to kids beginning in Kindergarten. These kids are then subjected to Planned Parenthood Sex Education and Sex clubs and encouraged by their teachers to join the Trans Drug Cult.

The kids then go to Planned Parenthood to get toxic Trans Drugs.

 

 

III Planned Parenthood Sex Ed falsely claims that gender occurs along a continuum

Planned Parenthood’s Trans Drug program falsely claims that gender occurs along a continuum. The truth is that in well over 99.9 percent of all cases, infants are conceived with either XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes. There are almost no cases of infants being born “intersex.” There are also almost no cases of children whose hormones are not consistent with their sex at birth. In fact, numerous scientific studies have proven that the hormones of boys have almost no overlap with hormones of girls. There is no Continuum.

Evidence that Biological Sex is Binary and not a continuum
The term “sex” refers to biological sex which in turn is based on genetics. In genetics, the definition of sex is based on chromosomes present in every cell of our bodies. A person who has only X chromosomes is a female and a person who has a Y chromosome is a male. Crucially, biological sex is not something “assigned at birth.” Rather biological sex is determined at conception.

Using a clinical definition for “intersex” to mean an infant who is not clearly either a male or a female at birth, the actual rate of intersex infants is about one in 2,000 – or about 0.05%. Some have falsely claimed that Transgenderism is due to a person being “Intersex.” However, a 2021 study of more than 1,000 people, who thought they were Transgender, found that the rate of an XX or XY genetic abnormality was about the same as the normal population. In plain English, less than one percent of people who thought they were Trans had an XX or XY abnormality. Over 99% of these Trans Cult victims had normal XX or XY genes – confirming that Transgenderism is a mental health problem… not a genetic problem. There is no gender “continuum.” It is extremely dishonest to associate “intersex” issues – which are extremely rare physical genetic problems - with “Transgenderism” which is a clearly a mental health problem that has no relationship to intersex problems.

Genetic Differences between Human Males and Females
In terms of differences between human males versus females, a 2017 Genetics study confirmed that there are more than 6,500 significant genetic differences between human males and females.

Nearly all of these 6,500 variations are at the cellular level – meaning they affect every cell in the body including every neuron in a person’s brain. Over 30 different areas of the body are affected by these 6,500 differences.

Varying one or two hormones still leaves a biological male with 6,498 measurable differences compared to a biological female. For example, the mitochondria in male cells have a higher metabolic rate than the mitochondria in female cells. This difference appears within two days of conception. Because mitochondria are the “energy factories” of our cells, this alone can account for male advantages in sports.

Put in plain English, it is not biologically possible to turn a male into a female or vice versa no matter how many drugs a child takes. Children who wish to change from one sex to the other deserve to be told this fundamental biological truth. Parents and teachers who currently think it is possible to change a child’s sex by giving them drugs and chopping off their body parts also need to be told this fundamental biological truth.

Serotonin differences in the brain are only one of these 6500 genetic differences

As just one example, serotonin differences in the brain are regulated by a group of genetic markers that act (are expressed) much differently in males and females. The serotonin levels in male brains is about 52% greater than in female brains. Here is a link to this study.

This is likely one of the reasons why girls are more sensitive to stress and why girls are more likely to suffer from Depression than boys. Here are brain scans of 4 male and 4 female subjects:

Serotonin synthesis capacity values declined at an earlier age in girls than in boys. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10072042/

In another recent study of brain differences using three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35), the researchers also found huge differences in brain functioning. Here is the link: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121

Here is a quote: “These findings strongly suggest that what’s going on in a woman’s brain at rest is significantly different from what’s going on in a man’s brain at rest. These findings strongly suggest that the determinants of cognitive functions in male brains are profoundly different from the determinants of cognitive functions in female brains.”

Here is a 2022 study of huge sex differences in heart mitochondria. Here is the link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31544-5

Here is the quote: “We observed that expression of genes encoding mitochondrial proteins are higher in males than females in humans.”

In short, there is no science that supports the ridiculous claims that Reykdal frequently makes about a “continuum.” Instead, hundreds of scientific studies confirm that there are only two sexes – male and female – and these two sexes are radically different.

 

 

IV Evidence that Transgenderism is a Mental Health Problem

The core symptoms of gender dysphoria in childhood rarely exist in isolation. Severe psychopathology preceding the onset of GD is common. For example, in a study of 47 adolescents seeking GD treatment, 75% (35/47) had been or were currently undergoing child and adolescent psychiatric treatment for reasons other than gender dysphoria when they sought referral. 64% (30/47) were having or had had treatment for depression, 55% (26/47) for anxiety disorders, 53% (25/47) for suicidal and self-harming behaviors. 68% (32/47) had their first contact with psychiatric services due to other reasons than gender identity issues.

Adverse Child Events precede Gender Confusion
Adverse Childhood Events (ACEs) refer to a range of negative situations a child may face or witness while growing up, such as physical neglect, parental separation or divorce, living in a household in which domestic violence occurs, or living with an alcoholic. These experiences negatively alter the brain at a deep level where most basic needs originate and a person’s identity is formed. Because there is a known and strong relationship between Childhood Mental Health problems such as anxiety, depression and detachment, and a relationship between these problems and GD, there is almost certainly a relationship between adverse child events, including sexual abuse, and the development of gender confusion.

Trauma in childhood is known to impact child development and the occurrence of mental health problems later in life, and research shows that mental illness precedes the onset of transgender ideation in young people. This suggests that gender distress is not the problem—mental illness is. For example, a major 2018 study of mental health in transgender-identifying youth found overwhelming evidence that mental illness is present before the onset of transgender belief.

This study compared over 1,300 trans-believing youth with age-matched peers using clinical data gathered from three large pediatric practices in California and Georgia. Psychological disorders such as anxiety, depression, and attention deficit disorders were several times higher than the peer group, suicidal ideation was up to 54 times higher, and self-harm was up to 144 times higher.

A 2021 Australia study found gender confused children had suffered an average of 5.5 adverse childhood events compared to 1.7 for the control group. Likely as a result of these ACEs, 86% of gender confused children suffered from at-risk attachment patterns compared to 18% for the control group. In addition, 88% of the gender confused group in this study suffered from a serious mental health problem. Thus, most gender confused kids suffered from serious mental health problems PRIOR to their gender confusion. Gender confusion is therefore a symptom of underlying mental health problems – not a condition to be “fixed” with toxic drugs.

As another example, a 2015 Finland study found that 75% of gender confused children suffered from serious mental health problems prior to their gender confusion. 64% suffered from Depression, 55% suffered from Anxiety and 53% suffered from Suicidal thoughts.

According to Dr. André Van Mol—the co-chair of the American College of Pediatricians’ Committee on Adolescent Sexuality —in the overwhelming majority of cases, the desire to switch one’s gender identity is closely connected to adverse experiences in childhood. Given the role of ACEs play in the development of gender dysphoria. it is adding insult to injury to advocate that the first and only step in treating trauma done to a child’s identity is to alter their body with cross-sex hormones and surgery. By not addressing the underlying causes of the problem, gender altering treatments are not merely ineffective, they are child abuse.

 

V Planned Parenthood claims that Trans Drugs are safe and effective are false

Nearly every claim made by the Transgender Drug Cult is based on “fake science” which uses unsupported statements by so-called “experts” and undefined terms such as “gender identity” and badly designed experiments such as self-report surveys known to suffer from confirmational bias and “rigged” experiments used by drug companies in order to sell drugs and make billions of dollars in profits.

Fake science can be recognized by a combination of the following seven characteristics:
#1 The underlying motive is greed.
#2 Data is manipulated also known as Cherry Picking the Data.
#3 The time order of events is ignored
#4 No attempt is made to isolate variables.
#5 No attempt is made to determine long term outcomes.
#6 Claims are made about studies that are not supported by the actual data in the study.
#7 Debate is eliminated by asserting that the experts all agree and that the “science is settled.”

Adverse Effects of Puberty Blockers
The most common puberty blocker is called Lupron. It was approved by the FDA in 1993 based on a 2 year study of 22 children, several rats and several rabbits. Some rats developed cancerous tumors. In rabbits, it caused birth defects and abortions. In humans, it can cause convulsions in kids taking SSRIs. It can also cause weight gain, obesity and mood swings.

The FDA has not approved the use of puberty blockers on children who have normal hormone levels in order to cause these children to have abnormal hormone levels. In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about the risk of puberty blockers after six minors (ages 5-12) experienced severe symptoms of tumor-like masses in the brain. Here is a link to the 32 page FDA warning about this toxic drug.

The adverse effects of puberty blockers are serious and permanent. A 2010 drugmaker-sponsored study looked of children who took Lupron from 1991 to 2009. The study reported that several of the 55 kids suffered serious side effects. 15 (27%) suffered mood swings and headaches. One person suffered a heart attack and died after two years of taking Lupron.

More than 20,000 adverse-event reports have been filed with the FDA in the last decade. Women have reported to the FDA hundreds of cases of insomnia, depression, joint pain, and more than 100 cases of blurred vision. Among men who take Lupron, its label warns of increased risk of heart attacks, strokes and sudden death. 

In 1999, the FDA examined 6,000 adverse-event reports about Lupron filed by doctors, patients, and researchers. A court document that summarized the findings said it found “high prevalence rates for serious side effects” including depression, joint pain, and weakness, and noted similar effects in men and women with very different ailments suggested the drug was causing the problems rather than underlying medical conditions.

Lupron was back in the courtroom in 2008, when patient Karin Klein sued the drugmaker. Klein alleged that she was not adequately warned of the drug’s effects and after taking the drug as a teen for a uterine condition, developed degenerative disc disease, jaw-joint dysfunction, and bone thinning, court records show. According to a court record in her case, a report by Dr. John Gueriguian, a former FDA medical officer serving as an expert witness for Klein, said the drug causes “irreversible side effects and permanent severely disabling health problems.”

In a court document, one gynecologist said a salesperson told him he “could earn $100,000 annually” by treating women with Lupron. The settlement resulted in a corporate guilty plea for conspiracy to violate prescribing laws and one of the largest fines at the time, $875 million. 

In 2017, the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that the FDA had received more than 10,000 adverse event reports from women who were given Lupron off-label as children to help them grow taller. They reported thinning and brittle bones, teeth that shed enamel and cracked, degenerative spinal disks, painful joints, radical mood swings, seizures, migraines and suicidal thoughts. Some developed fibromyalgia. There were reports of fertility problems and cognitive issues. Given that Lupron chemically castrates its recipients, diminishing gonadal hormone production entirely, we might expect more research and more caution in prescribing this drug.

Puberty Blocker Adverse Effect on Mood, Memory and Mental Health
The brain is a major target of and source for steroid hormones.  The prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala, responsible for regulating behavior, memory, and emotion, have high densities of estrogen receptors. Depleting estradiol thus can have a significant impact on these functions. More than 50% of women reported severe psychological disturbances ranging from depression and anxiety. 15% reported severe to life-threatening suicidality. 33% reported moderate to severe memory loss.

When children are given drugs to alter their appearance, the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by cross-sex hormones results in the sterility of minors. In addition, GnRH agonists arrest bone growth, decrease bone accretion and prevent the sex-steroid dependent organization and maturation of the adolescent brain.

Dangers of giving children Cross Sex Hormones
The second batch of toxic drugs given to kids by Planned Parenthood are very high does of cross sex hormones.These toxic drugs are given to kids with no warnings to them or their parents about the adverse effects.

While in the Dutch protocol, cross-sex hormones are started at 16 years, cross sex hormones in the US often start at age 12. These cross-sex hormones will permanently sterilize these children. Cross sex hormones begun in adolescence are likely to be administered for four to six decades. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine tracked 315 youths undergoing 2 years of gender affirming hormones (Chen 2023). Among the 315 hormone treated youth there were 2 completed suicides. Curiously, this remarkably high suicide rate is not explored in the article. Several researchers have reported that cross-sex hormones increase the occurrence of various types of cardiovascular disease, including strokes, blood clots, and other acute cardiovascular events. For example, see Getahun, D., et al. (2018). Cross-sex Hormones and Acute Cardiovascular Events in Transgender Persons.

Trans drugs such as puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are so toxic that they cause permanent sterility. A 9 year study from the world’s largest Transgender clinic in the United Kingdom found that 98% of children who were administered puberty blockers went on to take cross-sex hormones and 100% of those taking cross sex hormones became sterile.

Cross-sex hormones are also associated with a fourfold increase in heart attacks in biological females, and a threefold increase in the venous thromboembolism in biological males (Alzahrani, 2019; Nota et al., 2019) The published evidence of adverse impacts make it irresponsible to assert that cross-sex hormones “are safe.”

Danger of giving male hormones to bio females
Girls normally have almost no testosterone. So-called Gender Affirming Care (GAT) requires giving girls who want to be boys huge doses of testosterone to ultimately raise their levels of testosterone to 320 to 1000 ng/dL11 which is the same level as dangerous tumors for women.

A 2022 study of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as part of gender affirming hormone therapies in France states that “our data show a previously unreported proportion of cases indicating cardiovascular ADRs in transgender men younger than 40 years… In transgender men (bio females) taking testosterone, all reported ADRs were cardiovascular events, with pulmonary embolism in 50% of cases” (Yelehe et al., 2022).

With respect to cardiovascular risk, studies of transgender males (bio females) taking testosterone have shown a nearly 5-fold increased risk of heart attacks relative to females not receiving testosterone”

Regarding Testosterone abuse, the FDA warning label reads: "Testosterone has been subject to abuse... steroid abuse can lead to serious cardiovascular and psychiatric adverse reactions...Abuse of testosterone is seen in male and female adults and adolescents… There have been reports of venous thromboembolic events [blood clots], including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) [blood clot of the extremity such as pulmonary embolism (PE) [blood clot of the lung which may be deadly.” “There are also serious concerns regarding liver dysfunction: “Prolonged use of high doses of androgens ... has been associated with development of tumors, cancer and life-threatening liver problems” (Actavis Pharma, 2018).

Research has shown that steroid abuse predisposes individuals to mood disorders, psychosis, and psychiatric disorders. The most prominent psychiatric features associated with testosterone abuse are manic-like presentations defined by irritability, aggressiveness, euphoria, grandiose beliefs, hyperactivity, and reckless or dangerous behavior. Other psychiatric presentations include the development of acute psychoses, depression and acute confusional/delirious states. (Hall, 20005) "Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid Abuse". Psychosomatics 46:4, July-August 2005

Danger of giving female hormones to bio males
Estradiol is a type of estrogen. The normal adult male estradiol range is 60 pg/mL. In gender affirmative therapy, the medical condition of hyperestrogenemia is being deliberately, medically induced by the off-label use of high doses of Estradiol. Estradiol levels are raised to 200 pg/mL, three times above the normal range in an attempt to increase male breast tissue development. Long-term consequences of hyperestrogenemia include increased risk of heart attacks and death due to a five-fold increase in cardiovascular disease (Irwig, 2018)."Cardiovascular health in transgender people." Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2018;19(3):243–251

Giving bio males female hormones also greatly increases the risk of breast cancer. Breast cancer is a relatively uncommon in males. However, a 2019 study of more than 3,000 minors given hormone drugs found that the risk of breast cancer rose 46 times (4,600 percent) in minors subjected to high doses of estrogen (Christel et al., 2019).

The studies of the harms of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are reporting changes in the young people’s bodies that are consistent with heightened risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and potential bone health issues. Here are the recent studies:

Natalie J. Nokoff, et al, Body Composition and Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Transgender Youth on Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists, Transgender Health 6, no. 2 (April 1, 2021) at 111–19

Natalie Nokoff, et al., Body Composition and Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Transgender Youth Compared With Cisgender Youth, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 105, no. 3 (March 1, 2020) at e704–14

Oral estrogen administration to boys also places them at risk for experiencing thrombosis/thromboembolism, cardiovascular disease, weight gain, elevated blood pressure, decreased glucose tolerance and gall bladder disease.

 

 

VI The Planned Parenthood claim that giving kids Trans Drugs reduces the suicide rate is also false

In fact, giving kids Trans drugs actually increases their suicide rate. A 30 year follow up study from Sweden in 2011 showed that individuals who were subject to gender transition surgery had very high suicide rates. Below is a table of adverse outcomes compared to normal controls:

Look at the far right column in the above table to see the risk ratio for transgender adults compared to control adults. For example, those who had gender mutilation surgery were 19.1 more times likely to commit suicide. As the following chart shows, adverse outcomes including death occurred throughout the follow up period.

Nor is this study unique. A 9 year UK study found no improvement in the mental health of the victims. Instead, the study confirmed that those taking Trans Drugs reported increased thoughts of suicide. After a year on puberty blockers, there was a significant increase found in those answering the statement "I deliberately try to hurt or kill myself".

The 2024 Ruuska Finland study 2024 of 2,083 trans persons over 23 years states the average age of those when they entered the study was 18.5yrs. This is the only study with a control group of trans young adults who have NOT received transgendered healthcare. There were 16,643 in this control group. The study found that there were 55 deaths in the study group over this 23yr period. Of those deaths, 20 were by completed suicide (36%). So, compared to the control group general mortality was 66% higher and death by suicide was 300% higher. That is trans people who receive transgender health care are significantly worse off compared to trans people who do not receive transgender health care. Thus, receiving transgender healthcare increases the likelihood of experiencing suicidal thoughts and completing suicide.

The 2023 Erlangsen Denmark study of 3,759 trans clients over 41 years found there was 92 post treatment TGW suicide attempts and 12 completed suicides. These rates for suicide attempt and completed suicide were ‘significantly higher’ compared to the expected rates of the general population.

The 2021 de Blok Dutch study of 4,568 trans persons over 46 years found that the TGW client group, post receiving transgendered health care demonstrated significantly higher rates of mortality by heart disease, lung cancer, HIV related death and by completed suicide compared to expected mortality rates in the general Dutch population.

In the US, states that started giving kids Trans Drugs in the past 9 years have seen a dramatic rise in the number of suicides between the ages of 12 to 23 to the point that the rate is now 3 and a half times higher than in states where kids are not given trans drugs. See this study:

Why Trans Drugs and Gender Mutilation Increase the Suicide Rate
The reason Trans Drugs and Gender Mutilation increase the suicide rate is that the entire Trans Drug Cult is based on a fundamental lie – namely, the false claim that by taking Trans Drugs and chopping off body parts, a child can be magically changed from a girl to a boy or a boy to a girl. It may take the child 10 to 20 years to realize that they have been lied to and that these lies have destroyed their lives. But when they do finally realize that their dream of changing to the other sex is simply not possible, at least some will elect to end their life. The odds of this terrible outcome are increased by failing to give the person the counseling they need to help them address their underlying mental health problems that caused them to want to be the other sex in the first place.

Other Scientific studies on the harm of transgender drugs increasing the risk of suicide
For the past eight years, Planned Parenthood has falsely claimed that if we do not give gender confused kids toxic drugs to “affirm” their desired gender, many of these kids will attempt to kill themselves.This claim is not supported by any credible scientific study. Instead, it is based on mis-quoting a few survey “Self-reports.”

2015 self report survey of 3405 Transgender people
One of their so-called studies is a 2015 self report survey of 3405 Transgender people, 89 of whom were given Transgender “Puberty Suppression” drugs. Here is the actual table of outcomes in the study:

The last row shows that 41.6% of the Trans people given drugs had Lifetime Suicide attempts and 51.2% of the Trans people not given drugs had Lifetime Suicide attempts. But much more important, 45.5% of those given gender mutilation drugs attempted to commit suicide in the previous 12 months with the attempt putting them in the hospital. Meanwhile, only 22.8% of those not given gender mutilation drugs had a suicide attempt that put them in the hospital.

The actual studies emerging from the NIH-funded research reveal a concerning picture with an alarming finding of young people committing suicide during treatment at the rate that is at least forty times the expected rates (2/315). Here is the recent study: D. Chen, et al (2023) at 240–250, 288.

According to suicide.org, 90 percent of all people who die by their own hand, including those who identify as transgender, have untreated mental illness.” https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/25/californias-lgbt-therapy-ban-law-30-years-ago-might-killed/

Research confirms that gender counseling reduces suicides by about 42% while giving gender confused children toxic drugs increases suicides:

The 2022 Reanalysis is called “Do Sexual Orientation Change Efforts SOCE increase the suicide risk for sexual minorities?”

Paul Sullins, a senior research associate at The Ruth Institute, and former sociology professor at Catholic University, found that SOCE actually sharply decreased the risk of suicide or thoughts of suicide.

"What we're left with is a situation where we're being fed a lie that somehow attempting to change sexual orientation is going to fail all the time and it's going to cause harm, and the truth is just the opposite," Sullins told "The Daily Signal Podcast."

Why accounting for the Time Order of Events Matters
Failing to account for the time order of events will often lead to a conclusion that is the exact opposite of the actual effect of any intervention. For example, it is well known that taking small daily amounts of aspirin can reduce the risk of a heart attack. Therefore, those who have already had a heart attack often take a small amount of aspirin every day to reduce their chances of having a future heart attack.

But imagine that a careless researcher studied these heart attack prone people. The careless researcher would certainly find a relationship between taking aspirin and “lifetime occurrences of heart attacks.” Now imagine that based on this relationship, the careless researcher ignored the time ordering of events. This would cause this researcher to falsely claim that taking aspirin caused the heart attacks and therefore that taking aspirin should be banned! This turns out to be the flawed logic behind nearly every study claiming that SOCE causes suicides and should be banned.

In 2022, C. H. Rosik published a review called “A wake-up call for the field of sexual orientation change efforts research”. Here is a link to his review: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02481-7

In his review, Rosik provides the following Table of 20 Anti -SOCE studies – every one of which failed to account for the time order of events by including suicide attempts that occurred before any SOCE was provided.

n short, Anti-SOCE research is based on a House of Cards that fell over thanks to the re-analysis provided by Sullins. We will next review two recent studies both of which confirmed the benefit of gender counseling.

2021 Efficacy and risk of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE)
This next study, called “Efficacy and risk of sexual orientation change efforts: a retrospective analysis of 125 exposed men” takes a much closer look at the actual effects of SOCE compared to the 2015 Self Report Surveys. Here is a link to this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080940/

This study surveyed 125 men who had completed or were in the process of SOCE. At the time of the survey, 42% were still pursuing SOCE and 58% had concluded SOCE. Median time post-SOCE was about 3 years. Participants reported seeking various kinds of help for their conflicted sexuality. The most frequently were religious support groups (81%), pastoral counselors (70%), marriage or family counselors (61.3%), psychologists (57%), non-religious support groups (52%), psychiatrists (26%) and social workers (21.8%).

For all three components of sexual orientation—attraction, identification and behavior—average same-sex orientation in the sample significantly declined following SOCE intervention.

Prior to SOCE participation, the large majority of married men (71%) engaged in homosexual sex. After SOCE, that proportion plummeted to only 14%, and was only about half as prevalent among the married men as among unmarried men. From the standpoint of the men in the sample, one of the most important indications of perceived SOCE efficacy may be its association with drastically reduced unwanted same-sex activity which conflicts with the religious norms of their marriages. Exposure to SOCE was associated with significant declines in same-sex attraction and sexual activity (2.4 to 1.5 on a 4-point scale of frequency). From 45% to 69% of SOCE participants achieved at least partial remission of unwanted same-sex sexuality; full remission was achieved by 14% for sexual attraction and identification, and 26% for sexual behavior.

SOCE related to six psychosocial areas: self-esteem, social functioning, depression, self-harm, suicidality, and alcohol or substance abuse. For all six areas, the positive changes were stronger and more widely distributed than the negative changes. The positive changes affected 94% (for self-esteem) of participants. The experience of marked or extreme positive changes ranged from 12% to 61%, while equally strong negative changes only ranged from 1% to 5%. For all six areas the net change, which is the summative index of both positive and negative changes, was a positive number greater than zero. This indicates that, considering both positive and negative changes, the net effect of SOCE for each area was positive. The strongest net positive effect was for depression. Almost three-fourths (73.2%) of respondents reported positive changes in depression due to SOCE. Only 2.4% (3) of (125) participants experienced marked or extreme negative changes in suicidal thoughts or attempts as a result of SOCE, while nine times that number (28) (21.8%) experienced similarly strong positive changes in suicidality.

2017 Stephen H. Black, The Complete First Stone Ministries Effectiveness Survey Report

The second pro-SOCE study is from First Stone Ministries - a Christian ministry based in Oklahoma City that focuses on “overcoming all forms of sexual brokenness including homosexuality, sexual abuse and addiction to pornography.” They took a survey of clients who had participated in their ministry’s programs over a 25-year period (1990-2015). In the end, 185 former clients completed the First Stone survey.

This survey provides detailed information on the experiences of many people who have undergone Christian-based counseling. Of those who came to the ministry with same-sex attractions (67 percent of all clients), 23 percent reported an elimination of all same-sex attractions. Questions focused more on behaviors showed dramatic results— 78 percent said that the ministry had helped them “in overcoming [some] form of sexual sin and/or brokenness.” And of those who reported that they had a “sexual addiction” before coming to First Stone (61 percent of the total), an amazing 93 percent no longer considered themselves “addicted” at the time of the survey. As for harm, of 98 respondents who wrote concluding comments, 85 were positive, only 7 were negative, and 6 were mixed.

A certain percentage of the LGBT-identifying population will have negative experiences whether they have undergone SOCE or not. To scientifically prove that SOCE is generally “harmful,” one would have to prove that all of the following are true:

• The number of clients who report harm from SOCE exceeds those who report benefits;
• Negative mental and physical health indicators among those who have undergone SOCE exceed those among persons who have undergone alternative “gay-affirming” therapy;
• Negative mental and physical health indicators among those who have undergone SOCE exceed those among persons with same-sex attractions who have had no therapy at all.

There simply is no scientific evidence to prove each of these points. If critics of SOCE claim there is “no evidence” that it can ever be effective in changing any client’s sexual orientation, they are simply wrong.

Studies on the benefits of counseling to reduce suicidal thoughts
While giving kids toxic drugs increases the suicide rate, giving them counseling reduces the suicide rate. A 2019 review of 40 studies on counseling found that 37 (92%) concluded that counseling reduces both suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts.

2021 Study finds Talk Therapy greatly reduces Suicidal Thoughts
The two most common psychological treatments for depression and suicidal thoughts are cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal therapy (IPT). Cognitive Therapy relies on changing a persons thoughts in order to improve their feelings. Inter Personal Therapy helps a person deal with their feelings about past negative events. Most child counselors use a combination of both. In 2021, van Bentum et al. Published a study called, “Cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy reduce suicidal ideation”

Here is their description of their study: “We tested whether CT and IPT outperformed the wait‐list control group by comparing change in Beck Depression Inventory suicide item scores. A total of 182 outpatients, aged 18–65 years, were included and randomly assigned to one of three conditions: CT (n = 76), IPT (n = 75), or a Wait List followed by treatment of choice (n = 31). Each intervention consisted of 20 weekly sessions of 45 min. Treatments were performed by 10 licensed psychologists, psychotherapists, and psychiatrists (five in each condition) with an average 9.1 years of experience.”

The result was that the Wait List subjects had almost no change while the IPT group had a 60% reduction in Suicidal thoughts and the CT group had an 80% reduction.

This combination of studies showing that drugs do not work while counseling does work led Sweden to move away from recommending gender mutilation drugs and towards counseling as the best option for minors. Sweden concluded the risks of puberty blockers and sex hormones outweigh any benefits. They stated that “Health care should not provide interventions that we do not know to be safe and beneficial.”

2023 Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Gender Hormones
One of the main claims made by those who advocate giving drugs to gender confused kids is that giving them drugs will reduce their suicide rate. The claim has never been supported by any actual scientific evidence. But it has been repeated thousands of times. Recently a study was published which analyzed the mental health of 315 transgender kids from 2020 to 2022 who were given cross sex hormones at the Seattle Childrens Hospital Gender Clinic. One of the adverse side effects was listed as “two fatalities.” Here is a link to their study. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2206297

Remarkably, the clinic had the audacity to issue a press release claiming that giving these kids drugs helped improve their mental health. But here are the facts. One suicide per 315 kids is a rate of 317 suicides per 100,000 kids. Two suicides was a rate of 634 suicides per 100,000 kids. The national rate for kids age 12 to 20 is 14 per 100,000. So a rate of 634 suicides per 100,000 is 45 times the national average suicide rate for this age group. This is even higher than a Sweden 2011 study that found the suicide rate of Transgender subjects giving both drugs and surgery was 19 times higher than the general population.

Equally concerning, this study took in a huge amount of data on the suicidal thoughts of subjects during this two year study and then at the last minute decided not to publish this data. Why? The only possible reason is that this data confirmed what we already know – that giving kids transgender drugs does not reduce their suicide rate.

VII Why Minors are not capable of providing informed consent

The next Big lie is claiming that minors are able to make their own decision about whether to start taking toxic drugs . In fact, minors cannot give informed consent because children have immature brains, they are vulnerable to peer pressure, and they don’t grasp long-term consequences. The prefrontal cortex, which is where complex decisions are made, is not fully developed until about age 20.

Final brain maturation begins during adolescence with the prefrontal cortex (that part of the brain associated with high-level reasoning, executive function, weighing of consequences, planning, organization, emotional regulation, and rational decision-making) being among the last to mature.

This is why young adults are more likely to get speeding tickets and car accidents than older adults – a fact well known by car insurance companies. This is also why adolescents are more affected by the influence of peers, less future oriented, more impulsive, and differ in their assessment of risks and rewards compared with adults.

Here is a link to a report on adolescent brain development: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/146/Supplement_1/S18/34490/Adolescent-Brain-Development-and-Medical-Decision?autologincheck=redirected

 

 

VIII Increase in student victims of the Trans Drug Cult in Washington State

Thanks to the Planned Parenthood campaign to misinform teachers into pushing the Trans agenda on students, in the past 15 years, there has been an explosion of Gender Confused students. In 2009, only 7% of students claimed to be LBGTX. By 2015, 11% were Gender Confused. The 2017 CDC survey found that 87% of students were straight, 9% trans (including gay, lesbian and bisexual) and 4% were not sure. The 9% trans result was dramatically higher than historical studies which concluded that less than 1% of adults were trans. The 2021 National Survey found that 26% were Gender Confused. Of the Seattle School District high school students who completed the survey, 34% were Gender Confused. In short, nearly one in three Seattle High School students now claim to be LBGTX.

Gallup Polls confirm the rise in LBGTX students is a social trend.
One of the key goals of growing up is to find a group you can fit in with and belong to. A danger of this need to belong is that teenagers are highly susceptible to joining cults. We define a cult as a group that uses magical thinking to create a myth that promotes a radical lifestyle based on a series of lies. Believing that a person can magically change their gender just by changing their pronouns and then taking toxic drugs is an example of a dangerous cult.

As evidence that what is really happening is related to this generational cult formation, Gallup polls found that the rise in the percentage of those who claim to be Trans is related to their age group. Each younger generation is about twice as likely as the generation that preceded it to identify as LBGTX.

More than one in five Gen Z adults, ranging in age from 18 to 26, identify as LBGTX, as do nearly one in 10 Millennials. The percentage drops to less than 2% of baby boomers and 1% of the Silent Generation. We are thus witnessing the formation of a Trans Cult based on lies and propaganda being spread in our schools using the false claim that students need to be able to take drugs in order to reduce the risk of suicide.

How many students are taking Trans Drugs here in Washington state and what is the cost to tax payers? While the brainwashing starts in First grade, most kids do not fall victim until they are exposed to social media influences in middle school and high school. We have about 550,000 Middle and High School kids in our schools. In the 2021 Healthy Youth Survey, 1% claimed to be Trans. In the 2023 Survey, 4% or 22,000 claimed to be Trans. At this rate, by 2025, 7% or 38,000 will be Trans. By 2027, 10% or 55,000 will be Trans. 38,000 students times $20,000 per year equals $760 million dollars per year spent getting tens of thousands of students permanently addicted to toxic drugs. The lifetime cost of Trans Drugs and Surgery is about a half million dollars or one billion per 2000 kids which comes to tens of billions of dollars paid for by tax payers.

 

 

IX Harm to Washington students of 8 years of Planned Parenthood Sex Ed Propaganda

Consequence #1: Record Parental Removal of their kids from Washington Public Schools
Planned Parenthood’s radical Trans sex ed curriculum has resulted in record number of parents removing more than 150,000 students from public schools since 2017. According to data from the Washington Office of Financial Management, the population of children aged 5-19 have risen by an average of 12,000 per year over the past 12 years. This includes births and people moving to Washington state. This number includes 12,000 in 2022 and 11,000 in 2023. When including this growth of 12,000 students per year, more than 91,000 students have left our public school system since 2018.

Year	Actual October Headcount Enrollment per OFM	Change in Enrollment from previous year	Parents pulling their kids out of school - annual	Parents pulling their kids out of school - cumulative
2015	1079434	12000	0	0
2016	1092384	13000	0	0
2017	1103393	11000	0	0
2018	1107127	3724	8000	8000
2019	1115732	8605	3000	11000
2020	1077739	<38,000>	50000	61000
2021	1074262	<3000>	15000	66000
2022	1077339	3000	9000	75000
2023	1073794	<4000>	16000	91000

In addition, another 6 percent of students who were enrolled in October 2022 dropped out of school by the end of the year. This is another 64,000 students lost for a total of 155,000 students. Since Reykdal took office, there has been a 10% increase in private school enrollment and a 37% increase in home school enrollment.

Consequence #2: Dramatic Increase in Student Absenteeism

Chronic Student Absenteeism has doubled since 2017
The number of students still enrolled in the schools but chronically absent from schools has doubled since 2017. Chronic absenteeism is defined as the percentage of students missing at least 10 percent of a school year. In Washington, this means being enrolled in the schools but missing at least 18 days of instruction. Chronic absenteeism is strongly related to failing courses and later dropping out of school. It is also strongly related to mental health problems including anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, drug abuse and crime rates including the probability of being arrested later in life and related to family unemployment later in life.

A very large number of these chronically absent students are almost never at school. In 2017, Washington was already near the worst in the nation with 17% chronic absenteeism - likely due to the fact that Washington state has among the highest class sizes in the nation. From 2017 to 2022, the national average doubled from 14 percent to 28 percent. The average in Washington state rose from 17% in 2017 to 33% in 2022 and 30% in 2023. See: “Chronic Absenteeism: 2017–2023,” American Enterprise Institute, January 2024. https://www.returntolearntracker.net/

Here are the latest Chronic Absentee rates in selected school districts in Washington state:

Even 17% student absenteeism is not acceptable. In fact, it represents a serious threat to the current and future well being of our children.

Consequence #3: Dramatic Decrease in Student Test Scores

Since 2017, Washington students have suffered record learning losses. These learning losses began even before the 2020 school closures.

How to view NAEP test scores for yourself
Here is a link to the NAEP test results page for Washington: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/WA?chort=1&sub=MAT&st=MN&year=2022R3&sfj=NP&cti=PgTab_OT&sj=WA

Here is a chart on the 4^th Grade Math test. Historically, Washington 4^th graders averaged 5 points above the national average – which was near the top in the nation. In 2019, Washington 4^th graders fell to the national average or 25^th in the nation. In 2017, about half of our Fourth graders were proficient in math. Currently only 35% are proficient:

The Eighth Grade Math score is also bad. In 2017, Washington Eighth Graders were among the highest in the nation at 7 points above the national average - with 41% proficient. Currently, our Eighth graders are only 3 points above the national average and only 28% are proficient. Clearly our students are going in the wrong direction.

The reason Washington state students have historically performed near the highest in the nation is that Washington is one of the eight wealthiest states in the nation. It is therefore shocking that our student test performance has fallen to the national average.

Nevertheless, let’s look at State Comparisons to see how that has changed since 2017. To get to the state comparison page for Washington, go to the above link and click on the State Comparisons tab.

On Fourth Grade Math, Washington is now 27^th in the nation. In 2015, Washington was 8^th in the nation. On Eighth Grade Math, Washington is now 18^th in the nation. In 2015, Washington was 8^th in the nation. Washington is ranked 8^th in the nation in per capita income. Washington therefore should be about 8^th in the nation in NEAP test scores.

The Biggest Red Flag is NAEP Math Scores
Far more concerning than the record drop in 8^th Grade Reading scores, Washington students suffered a record decline on the 4th and 8th Grade Math tests. The reason this should set off alarm bells is that Washington is one of the ten most affluent states in the nation – and all standardized tests are known to be related to family income – with students from more affluent families performing much better than students from poorer families (also know as the Achievement Gap). Because of this factor, Washington students have always performed in the Top Ten states on the NAEP Math tests. On several occasions, our students have performed in the Top Five states as is shown by this graph:

Since 2017 Washington student test scores on the NAEP Fourth Grade Math test have declined more than in any other state in the nation! Since 2017, Washington students have lost more than a year of math learning!

Record Decline in Students passing the 8^th Grade Math Test
The Washington 8^th Grade Math test is important for several reasons. First, it can be correlated to the National 8^th Grade Math test – making it harder to rig. Second, it is a good predictor of students passing the 10^th grade math test. So it is a look into our future. In 2017, only 46% of students passed the Washington state 8^th Grade Math test. In May 2023, only 32% of students passed the 8^th Grade Math test. For the first time in State History, 68% failed the test. In many school districts, 80 to 90% of the students failed this test:

We now have only a few school districts left that are performing well. Sadly, we now have a huge number of school districts that are doing very poorly. It is stunning how many school districts in Washington state now have fewer than 20% of the students who are able to pass the 8^th grade math test.

Consequence #4: Dramatic Decrease in Student Mental Health
8 years of Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Cult propaganda has caused Washington state to fall to 48^th in the nation in childhood mental health.

Consequence #5: Dramatic Increase in Student Drug Overdoses
Studies published in December, 2021 & December 2023 found that Drug Overdoses among Washington state 14 to 18 year olds are the highest in the nation – and more than twice the national average!

In addition, 20% of high school students now think about committing suicide and hundreds of thousands of students now suffer from Depression and Anxiety.

These are only a few of the many signs of students in distress. It is the entire Trans Drug Cult propaganda that has severely harmed children. Which leads us to our final topic of how to end Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Cult propaganda in Washington state.

 

 

X Trans Cult Victim files complaint against Planned Parenthood

In April 2024, attorneys for Cristina Hineman filed a 35 page complaint against Planned Parenthood. This complaint provides a first-hand account of how Planned Parenthood deceives its victims.

Here are quotes from this complaint:

“Plaintiff Cristina Hineman is an example of the growing number of young people who have been victims of so-called “gender-affirming care,” characterized by the immediate, no-questions-asked “affirmation” of one’s desired gender identity, irrespective of the underlying reasons for such desire and without any mental health assessment. “

“At every step of the way, Cristina was failed by the medical and mental health providers that she and her family sought out for help with her depression, anxiety, social exclusion or rejection disorder, and other mental health conditions.”

“As she entered into her teen years, Cristina began dealing with significant mental health issues. Cristina began to suffer from anxiety and major depressive disorder, social exclusion disorder, self-harm, and passive suicidal ideation. After visiting online websites, Cristina became convinced that her numerous mental health struggles would resolve if she adopted a different gender identity. When she told her mental health providers that she was adopting a transgender identity, they unquestioningly “affirmed” this suddenly onset new identity, without conducting appropriate mental health evaluations or offering Cristina appropriate psychological counseling. They would eventually encourage her to pursue life-altering cross-sex hormones and even a double-mastectomy of her healthy breasts.”

“Cristina’s mental health struggles, however, continued to persist and worsen. But convinced that gender transition was the only thing that could fix her, a mere week after switching her identity from agender to transgender male, she went to Planned Parenthood, where, after a single, roughly thirty-minute visit, she was prescribed life-altering cross-sex hormones.”

“The clinicians at that Planned Parenthood would continue to prescribe her testosterone without question for well over a year, and in fact would increase her dosage at Cristina’s request (rather than their own clinical judgment). Those clinicians, however, were simply following the orders from Planned Parenthood Federation, which mandates the treatment protocols Planned Parenthood affiliates, individual health centers, and their clinicians and practitioners must abide by for any patient seeking “gender-affirming” cross-sex hormones; and those mandated protocols are that a Planned Parenthood clinician must give any patient “gender- affirming” cross-sex hormones upon request, without any mental health evaluation or even review of records.”

“Cristina ultimately sought “top surgery,” or an unnecessary removal of her healthy breasts, all the while cheered on by her supposed mental health providers. Settling on the cheapest option she could find, Cristina had a double mastectomy performed on her. “

“It was almost immediately thereafter that she experienced profound regret and realized that transitioning was not resolving her mental health issues but was in fact worsening them, that surgery and hormones had not made her a man. After this realization, she began to detransition.”

“Cristina is now 20 years old and recognizes that she had been betrayed by the lack of care and concern Defendants showed her in facilitating life-altering medical decisions. The scars across her chest and the irreversible changes to her body from prolonged usage of testosterone are constant reminders that she needed an unbiased medical expert willing to evaluate her properly and provide the care she needed.”

 

 

XI Planned Parenthood caught illegally selling Aborted Fetus Body Parts

In 2015, videos released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) exposed Planned Parenthood for negotiating the sale of hearts, lungs, and livers from babies it had aborted. Because it is illegal to profit from aborted fetuses, hearings were held in the Senate and House – both of which found that the allegations were true – which then led to calls to defund Planned Parenthood for breaking federal laws.

2015 Texas dumps Planned Parenthood for selling Aborted Fetus Body Parts

Based on the 2015 videos and Congressional hearings confirming that Planned Parenthood broke federal laws (and Texas laws), Texas dumped Plan Parenthood as a Medicaid provider in October 2015 by sending them a termination letter. Planned Parenthood filed a 20 page complaint on November 23, 2015 in the case called Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Traylor Here is a link to their 20 page complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.784032/gov.uscourts.txwd.784032.1.0.pdf

Here is a link to all the court documents in this case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4560719/planned-parenthood-of-greater-texas-family-planning-and-preventative-health/

On January 4, 2017, Planned Parenthood filed a 3 page motion for a preliminary injunction which is at this link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.784032.58.5.pdf

On January 12, 2017, Texas filed a 43 page response at this link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.784032.70.0.pdf

Here is a quote from the Texas response:

“States have the right to terminate a provider’s Medicaid agreement for reasons bearing on that provider’s qualifications, and “qualified” means “to be capable of performing the needed medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical manner.” The termination of Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid provider agreements in Texas is attributable to the mounting evidence that they engage in gross violations of medical and ethical standards. “

“On multiple occasions, Planned Parenthood has engaged in misrepresentation and obfuscation in order to conceal their activities. After they were caught on an undercover video trying to arrange a deal with a tissue procurement company for fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood began repeating the baseless claim that the videos were deceptively edited, fraudulent, and discredited as if it were a fact. It is not—as the evidence in this case shows — and neither are so many of the other baseless claims that Planned Parenthood continues to make regarding their activities related to fetal tissue donation, their corporate structure, and their dependence on Medicaid funds.”

“Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to mislead the public about the grisly reality exposed by the video footage… The fact that Planned Parenthood is willing to disregard medical and ethical standards compels the OIG to terminate their Medicaid agreements.”

“The free-choice-of-provider provision in the Medicaid Act states that beneficiaries may obtain medical care from any entity or person who is “qualified to perform the service or services required.”The Medicaid statute itself, however, does not define the term “qualified.” See id. at 492. Thus, defining what it means to be a “qualified” provider has been left up to the states. The Fifth Circuit has interpreted the term “qualified” in the Medicaid act to mean “capable of performing the needed medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical manner.” Id. What “professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical” means in particular is defined by state law.”

“Planned Parenthood is not qualified as a Medicaid provider under the law due to evidence that they are willing to violate medical and ethical standards.”

On January 17, 2017, Planned Parenthood filed a 22 page amended complaint against Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) claiming that Medicaid rules protected their “Medicaid freedom of choice.” This new complaint implied that the CMP videos were edited. However, Congress found that the CMP videos were not edited. Here is a link to the Planned Parenthood 22 page complaint:

On January 19, 2017 the judge issued a 2 page order temporarily granting the injunction and requesting more information bu January 30, 2017.

On January 31, 2017, Texas submitted an 11 page motion to dismiss.

On February 21, 2017, the judge issued a 42 page ruling granting the Planned Parenthood Motion for a Preliminary Injunction at this link:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.784032.100.0.pdf

The judge ruled that the videos were not adequate evidence for Texas to get rid of Planned Parenthood. On August 7, 2017, Texas appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit. Here is a link to their 69 page appeal:

Here are quotes from their appeal: page 19

“The Texas Inspector General watched the entire unedited video five times, in addition to reviewing a transcript of the video. The Inspector General also consulted with OIG’s Chief Medical Officer, who also reviewed the unedited video footage and informed the Inspector General that, in his opinion, the video demonstrated that Planned Parenthood violated accepted medical and ethical standards.”

“The Final Notice stated: These practices violate accepted medical standards, as reflected in federal and state law, and are Medicaid program violations that justify termination.”

“The Supreme Court, in O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, held that a private right of action does not exist to challenge a state agency’s determination that a provider is not “qualified” under the Medicaid Act.”

On November 23, 2020, the Fifth Circuit full panel issued an opinion in favor of Texas and against Planned Parenthood Here is the link to their 105 page November 23, 2020 decision:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50282-CV1.pdf

Here are quotes from this decision:

“Our decision rests primarily on two independent bases: (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 1 and (2) the text and structure of § 1396a(a)(23), which does not unambiguously provide that a Medicaid patient may contest a State’s determination that a particular provider is not “qualified”; whether a provider is “qualified” within the meaning of § 1396a(a)(23) is a matter to be resolved between the State (or the federal government) and the provider. “

“The statute only allows Medicaid patients access to providers who are “qualified.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23)(A). The majority correctly concludes, consistent with O’Bannon, that a provider is qualified if and only if the state has deemed that provider qualified to participate in Medicaid… Medicaid regulations “allow states to set reasonable standards relating to the qualifications” of providers. (42 C.F.R. § 431.51(c)(2)). “

“States can, for example, terminate providers for “excessive charges; fraud, kickbacks, or other prohibited activities; failure to provide information; failure to grant immediate access under specified circumstances; default on loan or scholarship obligations; or false statements or material misrepresentations of fact.”

“The OIG provided the district court with a report from a highly regarded forensic firm concluding that both videos were authentic and not deceptively edited.”

Thus the case ended in favor of Texas and against Planned Parenthood. This led to a new case being filed on February 5, 2021 asking for $2 billion dollars in damages against Planned Parenthood. The case is called: United States ex rel Doe v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc.

A whistle blower filed this 73 page complaint against Planned Parenthood in a Texas federal court which ultimately could lead to nearly $2 billion in fines against Planned Parenthood. The complaint was based on court rulings confirming that Planned Parenthood had been submitting millions of dollars of false or illegal Medicaid claims in Texas and Louisiana as far back as January 2010. Here is a link to this complaint.

This case kicked off a mountain of litigation with Planned Parenthood filing a blizzard of motions attempting to delay the court proceedings. Here is a link to the complete 4 page case file:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62341481/united-states-of-america-v-planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-inc/

Here is a quote from this complaint:

“This is a civil fraud action… against Planned Parenthood… as a result of Planned Parenthood having presented false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval under the Medicaid program, and having concealed or improperly avoided an obligation to repay money wrongfully obtained under the Medicaid program.”

Planned Parenthood filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 29, 2022, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint. Here is a link to this 35 page court order.

Here are quotes from this order:

“Relator seeks civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act ("TMFPA"), and the Louisiana Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law ("LMAPIL") on behalf of the United States, Texas, and Louisiana… On November 1, 2021, Texas notified the Court of its election to intervene in the suit.”

“Relator plausibly pleads the existence of an obligation...Defendants argue the effective date of the terminations from the Medicaid programs did not occur until March 2021 because it was "objectively reasonable for Affiliate Defendants to rely on federal and state-court orders, and the thirty-day extension granted by Texas state authorities, in continuing to submit Medicaid claims." But this argument fails for two reasons. First, it ignores the te1minations sent by Texas and Louisiana would become effective 30 days after Defendants received the termination notices. ("If you do not request an Informal Hearing or an Administrative Appeal, your termination will become effective (30) days ... from the date of your receipt of this letter."); (" If you do not request a hearing as discussed above, the effective date of your enrollment will be the 30th calendar day following your receipt of this Final Notice of Termination."). Second, the argument ignores the effect of the Fifth Circuit's ruling vacating the injunctions. Once vacated, Defendants allegedly knew of their obligation to repay the States. “

"Planned Parenthood was effectively terminated from Texas Medicaid, at the latest, by February 1, 2017… Defendants argue Relator fails to plead facts demonstrating how PPFA allegedly directed and participated in its affiliates' alleged wrongdoings. The Court - however- finds Relator's Complaint plausibly alleges facts about PPFA's control and direction of its affiliates, as well as PPFA ' s involvement in its affiliates' violations of medical and ethical standards.”

“A parent corporation may be held liable for acts of subsidiaries when an "alleged wrong can seemingly be traced to the parent through the conduit of its own personnel and management," and when the parent has interfered with the subsidiaries' operations in a way that surpasses control intrinsic to ownership. “

On October 23, 2023, the Court issued a 47 page opinion on competing motions for summary judgment which can be downloaded from this link.

Here are quotes from this decision:

“Planned Parenthood Federation of America ("PPFA") is a nonprofit corporation with nearly $400 million in annual revenue and $500 million in assets… Planned Parenthood employees stated they could avoid federal and state partial-birth abortion laws by claiming they did not intend to procure intact or mostly intact specimens. “

“The federal termination litigation culminated on November 23, 2020, with an en bane decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit... That decision held that the individual plaintiffs had no right of action to challenge Affiliate Defendants' termination and vacated the injunction. After Affiliate Defendants asked Texas for a six-month "grace period" to remain a participant in the Medicaid program, Texas sent a letter on January 4, 2021, denying that request but allowing 30 days for Affiliate Defendants to transition patients to new providers. The day before that period expired, Affiliate Defendants filed a lawsuit in Travis County District Court in Austin, Texas and obtained a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). On March 10, 2021, Judge Livingston denied the requested relief after finding no authority that a federal injunction stays administrative deadlines.”

“Affiliate Defendants billed Texas Medicaid for services until March 10 or 12 of 2021. They have not paid back the money received during the preliminary injunctions or under the state court's TRO.”

“On February 5, 2021, Relator filed this action against Defendants, alleging that they violated state and federal law by (1) falsely certifying their compliance with Texas and Louisiana Medicaid rules and regulations and by (2) failing to repay the government millions of dollars of Medicaid funds that they knew or should have known they were obligated to repay. To those ends, Relator seeks civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act ("TMFP A"), and the Louisiana Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law ("LMAPIL") on behalf of the United States, Texas, and Louisiana. On November 1, 2021, Texas notified the Court of its election to intervene in the suit. “

“Plaintiffs' expert Donald Lochabay, Jr. determined that Affiliate Defendants submitted 45,181 false claims to the Texas Medicaid program and 99,230 false claims to the Louisiana Medicaid program. Plaintiffs allege there were $8,962,161 in false claims submitted to the Texas Medicaid program and $8,059,229 in false claims submitted to the Louisiana Medicaid program. The current minimum penalty for violating the FCA is $12,537 per violation, with a maximum penalty of $25,076 per violation.”

“In Texas, a provider whose Medicaid credentials are terminated is no longer eligible to seek or receive Medicaid reimbursement. Importantly, termination becomes effective 30 days from receipt of the Final Notice if no administrative appeal is requested.”

“a party who relies upon the wrong interpretation of the law should not be rewarded over a party who relies upon the correct interpretation… an overruling decision is not a change of law but a mere correction of an erroneous interpretation."

“Affiliate Defendants' reliance on the vacated injunctions to avoid repayment obligations amounts to "acting in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information."

“Where the defendant has an ongoing business relationship with a repeated false claimant, and the defendant knows of the false claims, yet does not cease doing business with the claimant or disclose the false claims to the United States, the defendant's ostrich-like behavior itself becomes a course of conduct that allowed fraudulent claims to be presented to the federal government… “

“Hence, PPFA can be "directly" liable under Section 3729(a)(l )(G) for "indirectly" causing Affiliate Defendants' submission of false claims without resort to derivative liability. And this could be shown by evidence that PPF A "operated under a policy" that caused Affiliate Defendants to submit false claims. “

On January 11, 2024, the court ordered a stay in the case pending an appeal by Planned Parenthood to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments for the appeal in March 2024.

On February 26, 2025, a three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood. On June 26, 2025, the Fifth Circuit grated an en banc hearing to be heard on September 25, 2025 stating:
“ this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated February 26, 2025, is VACATED.”

Regardless of the outcome of the en banc hearing, it is likely that the loser will appeal this case to the US Supreme Court. The case is still ongoing but it appears likely that Planned Parenthood will eventually face a huge fine for continuing to operate in Texas and Louisiana for years after they were de-certified. Here is a link to the Fifth Circuit legal filings:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68159062/doe-v-planned-parenthood/

The latest filing is a 24 page Amicus brief from the USA (Trump Justice Department) filed on September 8, 2025. Here is the link:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.216753/gov.uscourts.ca5.216753.229.1.pdf

Here are quotes from the USA Amicus brief:

“The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., is the federal government’s primary tool to combat fraud and recover losses due to fraud in federal programs. The United States is a real party in interest in all FCA cases, including those brought by relators under the FCA’s provisions, and has a significant interest in ensuring that courts properly construe the FCA. The United States accordingly submits this amicus brief in support of plaintiff-appellee to address arguments concerning attorney immunity that Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. has made on appeal.”

“FCA actions may be brought by the Attorney General or by a private party in the name of the United States, known as a relator, under the FCA’s qui tam provisions. Id. § 3730(a), (b)(1).”

“Contrary to the panel’s reasoning, there is no basis for extending the absolute immunity accorded to public prosecutors to private attorneys the Supreme Court squarely rejected that equivalence in Ferri, emphasizing that there is a “marked difference” between counsel’s duty “to serve the undivided interests of his client” and the prosecutor’s duty to “represent the interest of society as a whole.”

“Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 or § 1985 (3) cannot be immunized by state law.”

“For these reasons, this Court should conclude that the federal common law immunity afforded to public prosecutors does not extend to the private attorneys of PPFA’s L&L Department. “

Based on the above, it is likely that the Fifth Circuit En Banc Panel will rule in favor of Texas. It is also likely that the US Supreme Court will rule in favor of Texas should the case ever be heard there. Thus, within the next year or two, this case will lead to billions in fines against Planned Parenthood.

In June 2024, in the case of Medina v Planned Parenthood, the US Supreme Court accepted review of the South Carolina decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its list of Medicaid providers. Here is a link to a page summarizing all of the Amicus briefs submitted in this case. These briefs included a 24 page brief filed by 18 Republican states on February 10, 2025. Here are quotes from this brief related to the video of Planned Parenthood selling aborted fetus body parts:

“In July 2015, an organization released video footage, taken surreptitiously, allegedly showing staff at a Planned Parenthood in Texas sifting through the body parts of aborted children and negotiating the sale of those body parts. This footage sparked a congressional investigation.”

“Louisiana also launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood facilities operating in the state and, one month later, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals decided to terminate its agreements with the abortion providers. As per state law, it gave the organization thirty days to appeal the decision. Planned Parenthood did not appeal through the administrative process. Instead, it sued the State in federal court.”

“Planned Parenthood argued the qualified provider provision gave it, or the private individuals who joined the suit, a right to sue the State under § 1983 to reverse the funding decision.”

“Two months later, the Middle District of Louisiana agreed, granting an injunction prohibiting the State from terminating its Medicaid agreements with Planned Parenthood.”

“Also in 2015, the Texas Office of the Inspector General concluded that the same video footage showed Planned Parenthood violating Texas law, including prohibitions on the sale of human body parts. Based on the unlawful conduct, the State concluded that Planned Parenthood was not a “qualified provider” and was no longer eligible to participate in the State’s Medicaid program. Texas terminated its agreements with Planned Parenthood.”

“Rather than challenge the termination though the State’s administrative process—which it had a right to do—Planned Parenthood joined private individuals and sued the State under § 1983.9 Texas asked for dismissal, arguing the qualified provider provision does not clearly and unambiguously contain a private right of action enforceable under § 1983. “

“Two years later, the Western District of Texas rejected that argument. Relying solely on Gee, it held that the individual plaintiffs did have such a right to sue when a provider was determined to no longer be “qualified.” It then proceeded to find that Texas had violated that right and granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Planned Parenthood. “

“In 2019, the Fifth Circuit granted Texas’s petition for en banc review. One year later, in 2020, the en banc Fifth Circuit overruled Gee.”

“In the end, it took six years of litigation in two States for the Fifth Circuit to finally—correctly— determine that Congress never created a right to sue in the first place. Fortunately, it has now done so, and in that circuit, there will be no right to sue unless Congress expressly says there is. This result holds Congress to its duty to make any terms and conditions clear and unambiguous and prohibits courts from reading into statutes implied rights that Congress did not make explicit. This is the result the Constitution requires.”

In June 2025, the US Supreme Court ruled that states can exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Their 64 page ruling rejected a Planned Parenthood challenge to South Carolina's exclusion of Planned Parenthood. Here are quotes from this decision:

“Medicaid offers States “a bargain.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U. S. 320, 323 (2015). In return for federal funds, States agree “to spend them in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions.” Should a State fail to comply substantially with those conditions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can withhold some or all of its federal Medicaid funding. This case poses the question whether, in addition to that remedy, individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials for failing to comply with one funding condition spelled out in 42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(23)(A).”

“A State must submit to the Secretary a “plan for medical assistance.” §1396a(a); see also §1396–1. To win the Secretary’s approval, that plan must satisfy more than 80 separate conditions Congress has set out in §1396a(a). This case concerns one of the conditions state plans must meet.”

The spending power allows Congress to offer funds to States that agree to certain conditions. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 207–208 (1987). But when a State violates those conditions, “ ‘the typical remedy’ ” is not a private enforcement suit “ ‘but rather action by the Federal Government to terminate funds to the State.’ ”

“§1983 provides a cause of action “only for the deprivation of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities,’ ” not “ ‘benefits’ or ‘interests. To prove that a statute secures an enforceable right, privilege, or immunity, and does not just provide a benefit or protect an interest, a plaintiff must show that the law in question “clearly and unambiguously” uses “rights- creating terms.”

“Consistent with this understanding, early courts described federal grants not as commands but as contracts. Because spending-power legislation is “in the nature of a contract,” a grantee must “voluntarily and knowingly” consent to answer private §1983 enforcement suits before they may proceed. And that consent cannot be fairly inferred if the federal spending-power statute fails to provide “clear and unambiguous” notice that it creates a personally enforceable right.”

 

 

XII Proposed Remedies

Time and again, Planned Parenthood has prioritized its profits over the health and well-being of women and children. It is time to hold them accountable for the many lies they have told parents and children to convince them to join the Trans Drug Cult. Lives are at stake — and so is the truth.

We have provided evidence that Planned Parenthood has severely harmed of children here in Washington state through false medical claims including falsely telling them that all they need to do to change from a boy to a girl is change their names and pronouns and start taking toxic Trans Drugs. Despite the harm of these drugs, Planned Parenthood of Washington continues to claim on their website that these drugs are safe and effective when in fact they are neither.

The harm from these false medical claims is not only to the children and families that are deceived by the Planned Parenthood propaganda campaign. The harm also falls on every tax payer in Washington state who is forced to pay higher taxes in order to subsidize the lies of Planned Parenthood. The harm also falls on every student, parent and teacher who are subjected to Planned Parenthood Trans Drug Cult propaganda in our public schools.

We are now left with the question of how to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for their false medical claims?

The Federal Trade Commission is empowered to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive practices; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe rules defining acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices.

We ask that Planned Parenthood of Washington be prohibited from continuing to give non-FDA approved Trans drugs to children in our state and that Planned Parenthood be fined for each of the thousands of children they have harmed in the past as a result of their fraudulent and deceptive medical claims. We further ask that Planned Parenthood of Washington be required to post a notice on every one of their web pages describing in detail the harms of giving kids toxic trans drugs.

In addition, we ask that Planned Parenthood of Washington be prohibited from any contact with our public schools for a period of at least ten years.

In addition, we ask that Planned Parenthood of Washington be prohibited from accepting any tax payer funds for at least ten years.

Finally, we ask that Planned Parenthood of Washington be required to set up a Independently operated Planned Parenthood of Washington Trans Victim Compensation fund to compensate any child and any family harmed by their past Trans Cult lies. In particular, this fund should automatically compensate any Detransitioner at least a million dollars per victim for the fact that their life was severely harmed by Planned Parenthood lies. Given that the Washington Planned Parenthood 2024 report admitted to 3,355 Gender Affirming care visits and that this crime against children has been going on for at least the past eight years, this fund should start with enough money to pay for at least one thousand detransitioners – meaning that the initial balance of this Washington State Planned Parenthood Trans Victim Compensation Fund should be at least one billion dollars.

Thank you for helping us hold Planned Parenthood of Washington accountable for their past and current fraudulent medical claims – and for obtaining justice for their current and past victims.

Sincerely,

David Spring M. Ed.

Director, Washington Parents Network

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 

To: Maureen Riordan, Voting Section Acting Chief
US Department of Justice - Voting Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530

RE: Complaint against Washington Governor Bob Ferguson for violating Federal Election Laws

Sent PDF via email to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Ms Riordan,

The Washington Parents Network is a group of several thousand registered active voters in Washington state. We are concerned about our votes being diluted by hundreds of thousands of non-citizens being registered to vote in Washington state in violation of federal election laws. In this complaint, we provide evidence from the federal Election Assistance Commission 2024 report that Washington state likely has the least accurate voter rolls in the nation.

We believe this problem stems in part from the Washington legislature passing House Bill 2595 in 2018 allowing for Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) when a person obtains a Washington Drivers License at the Washington Department of Licensing (DOL).

While this law was intended to automatically register only US citizens, there is abundant evidence that this AVR law has been used to register hundreds of thousands of non-citizens in our state. For example, Section 202 (3) (e) of this Washington law provides: “Verification of citizenship information, via social security administration data match or manually verified by the agency during the client transaction.”

However, a recent study of Washington voters in 29 out of our 39 counties in Washington state concluded that more than 700,000 Washington voters have Washington Drivers Licenses but no Social Security number. More than 25,000 voters did not have either a Drivers License or a Social Security number. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGU5sU9bfxg

Here is a quote from Glen Morgan who reported this study:

“Based on a review of 29 (out of 39) counties and nearly a million registered active voters, it appears that 14% or more of Washington State's voter rolls are not compliant with Federal law. This would be about 709,000+ voters, and it could be far worse. Missing social security numbers means the Secretary of State's claim that they use the Social Security Administration data to "verify" voter data is false and deceptive. Missing BOTH SS numbers AND Driver's License info (25,000+/- voters) means there is zero verification they exist at all. Finally, this doesn't include the massive number of social security numbers that have been handed out like candy at a parade to non-US citizens so they could obtain Apple Health and SNAP benefits on the taxpayer dime. “

Foreign Exchange Students registered to vote when getting a Drivers License
I, David Spring, personally host students from Japan who wish to learn English and take courses at a local College. They entered our state legally with student visas. However, because they want to drive while in our state, they went to the Washington DOL to obtain a Washington Drivers License. Several of these students have been illegally registered to vote by the Washington DOL Automatic Voter Registration program - even though they clearly are not US citizens, they do not speak English very well and they did not sign a statement swearing to be a US citizen as required by federal election laws.

Statistical Analysis also confirms Washington state has a growing problem with non-citizen voters
The Washington Secretary of State posts voter transactions that include not only monthly reports but also annual reports going all the way back to 2007. You can view these tables at this link:

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/reports-data-and-statistics/monthly-voter-registration-transactions

I used statistical analysis analysis of this data to estimate that the size of the non-citizen voter problem was between 500,000 to 1 million non-citizen voters that could not be accounted for by the normal population growth here in Washington state. Here is this analysis using the Secretary of State Voter Transactions table displayed at the above link and shown in the table below:

You can see from the highlighted line above that the year 2020 was extremely unusual. Motor Vehicle and Online Transactions that year combined for 1 million transactions. Click on the plus sign to show the monthly transactions and you will see that most of these transactions occurred in September and October of 2020. Compare this total to 2024 when they combined for 900,000 – 100,000 less than 2020 despite a growth in population.

Also look at 2008. When combining the two columns on the right, there was only 245,000 transactions. In 2012, there was a 50% jump to 400,000 transactions (despite a population increase of about 5%). And in 2016, there was an unexpected jump to 760,000 – nearly a 100% increase despite a 5% population gain. Then in 2020, there was a 1 million increase for a 30% jump - despite only a 5% population gain. Here is a graph of Registration Transactions by Month over a period of years:

In short, there were about 300,000 more registration transactions in July through October 2020 compared to prior years. This was despite the fact that there was no change in the rate of population increase from 2008 to 2020. This change is well outside of what can be explained by normal or random statistical variation for such a large sample size.

Here is a graph of total Registration Transactions from 2008 to 2024:

Note that these transactions include more than merely new registrations. Still, this distribution is also well outside of what can be explained by normal or random statistical variation for such a large sample size.

Huge increase in Voter Registrations after passage of the Washington State Automatic Voter Registration law
Here is a table of the increase in registered voters during the past 7 Presidential elections in Washington state:

Year	Registered Voters	Increase over previous Presidential election # (%)
2000	3335714	257506 (8.4%)
2004	3508208	172494 (5.2%)
2008	3630118	121910 (3.5%)
2012	3904959	274841 (7.6%)
2016	4270270	365311 (9.4%)
2020	4892871	622601 (14.6%)
2024	5017620	124749 (2.5%)

Source: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/voter-participation-statistics
Here is a graph of changes in the number of Registered voters going back to 2000:

The average change in population between Presidential elections was about 5 percent.

This was also the average rate of voter registration increases. The 2016 increase was at the outside edge of what can be explained by random statistical variation for such a large sample size. The 2020 increase is way outside the range of what could be explained by normal or random statistical variation for such a large sample size

It does not take a statistical expert to see that none of these graphs are statistically possible – and it got much worse peaking with the 2020 election. We do not need to look far for an explanation. Here is the note just below the Table on the Secretary of State website:

“Prior to 2008, Motor Vehicle registrations involved the Department of Licensing providing a form that customers could return if interested in registering to vote. In early 2008, DOL began electronically transmitting customer information to the Secretary of State, requiring no effort on the part of customers that wished to opt in. In July of 2019, Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) was implemented and individuals applying for or renewing an Enhanced Washington Driver’s License or Identification card are automatically registered to vote or have their registration information updated unless they opt out.”

Federal law requires that voters affirmatively swear that they are US citizens in order to register to vote. Automatically registering everyone who applies for a license without this affirmative statement is a violation of federal law.

Other examples of highly unusual Washington Voter Registration data

In Washington, an additional one million total ballots were counted in the 2020 Presidential Election (4 million ballots versus 3 million ballots) – an increase of 33% - despite a population increase of only 5% since 2016. Mail In Ballots increased by 33% as Washington is an All Mail In Ballot state – over six times the rate of population growth. Keep in mind that even the 15% increase in Registered voters was outside the range of values. The maximum that can be explained by normal variation is 10% and the expected increase is 5% of 4 million which is 80,000. So the increase of 1 million implies that 900,000 unexplained ballots were counted in the 2020 Washington state general election.

There is a well known principle in statistics called “Regression to the Mean.” It means that the larger the sample size is, the more likely values will tend towards the average. Washington state has a huge number of voters. Thus, there should be very little variation in the trend lines. The fact that there have been huge variations in the trend lines of voter registrations and name changes in recent years is evidence that something is very wrong with our voter rolls.

2004 to 2020 Washington Presidential Election Ballots
We can compare elections over time to see if there is a change in the trend line of the ballots to population ratio. The average of the previous 4 Presidential elections was 3 million votes plus or minus 100,000 votes. The 2020 election suddenly skyrocketed by a million ballots to an amazing 4 million votes. This dramatic change can not be explained by a population increase because Washington’s population growth rate has not changed much over this period (it has increased by about 100,000 per year):
2004 6.1 million
2008 6.5 million
2010 6.7 million Census confirmed
2012 6.9 million
2016 7.3 million
2020 7.7 million Census confirmed

But a closer look at the data reveals an even more ridiculous set of facts. Here is a summary of voter registration increases and Mail In Ballot increases compared to population increases in Washington state since 2016.

From 2016 to 2020, the Washington State population rose from about 7.3 million to about 7.7 million – an increase of about 400,000 or about 5%. According to the US 2020 Census, 21% of the Washington State population is under 18. Therefore the increase in the voting age population was .79 x 400,000 or 316,000.

During this same time, the number of registered voters rose from 4.27 million to 4.89 million – an increase of about 620,000 or 13%. In short, all 316,000 of the new voting age population who moved to Washington State between 2016 and 2020 registered to vote - PLUS an additional 303,000 people who already lived here registered to vote. In addition, 530,000 of the 620,000 or 85% of this increase occurred in a single year – 2020.

Even more remarkable, during this same time, the number of ballots counted rose from 3,363,440 in the 2016 General Election to 4,116,894 in the 2020 General Election – an increase of 753,454 ballots or 18.3%.

Even more remarkable, during this same time the number of ballots in the Presidential Race rose from 2,964,465 in 2016 to 3,954263 in 2020 – an increase of 989,798 ballots or 33%. Even if every new voting age person was registered to vote, an increase of 316,000 in new registered voters times an 80% turn out rate would lead to 0.8 x 316,000 or 253,000 additional ballots. Yet the actual increase in the 2020 Presidential race was 989,798 additional ballots. Thus, there appears to be 500,000 to 700,000 additional Mail In Ballots in 2020 - even after accounting for the increase in population – which is completely out of the trend line for any election in Washington state for the past 20 years.

This leads to an obvious question: How could the actual increase in the number of Presidential ballots in 2020 be more than six times the increase in state population? Where did the unexplained 500,000 to 700,000 additional ballots counted come from?

Recent Federal Election Reports also confirm highly unusual data for Washington State voter registrations

Every two years, the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) publishes reports on voter registrations in all 50 states as well as every county in all 50 states. To view these reports, go to this link and scroll down the page:

https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports

The EAC Report PDFs provide data on all 50 states. To see the county data, download the Excel Spreadsheets. We will begin with the 2024 report which can be downloaded directly at this link. At about page 200 of the 2024 EAC report, you will see the following Table 4 Voter List Maintenance — Confirmation Notices:

Washington sent confirmation notices to 23% of active voters – similar to the national average of 19.5% of active voters. However, while the national valid response rate with Address Update (2.9%) and without Address Update (4.4%) totals 7.3%, the valid response rate in Washington is much less than 1%.

This fact confirms that Washington has a huge percent of voters with bad addresses on their voter rolls.

In the last column in the table above, it appears that Washington also has a low percent of invalid responses. However, this is only because Washington has the highest rate of Unreturned confirmation notices in the nation – a fact shown on the following table:

While the national average for unreturned notices is 69.7%, the Washington rate is 98.3% - highest in the nation. This fact is evidence that Washington state has the least accurate voter roll addresses in the nation.

Despite having a huge percent of non-returned confirmation notices, Washington has a very low percent of voters removed from the rolls. The national average is 9.1% and the rate in Washington is only 6.5% - as is shown on the following table:

Table 5 of Voter List Maintenance – Removal Actions:

The above table also confirms that while the national average rate for removals due to the voter moving is 30.8%, the rate in Washington for voter moving removals is only 9.8%.

Washington also has a very high percent of confirmation notices returned where the new voter asked to be removed from the voter rolls. While the national average voter request for removal is only 2.6%, in Washington state it is an amazing 20.2% - second highest in the nation – with only Oregon having a higher rate of 22.1% (Note that Oregon has Automatic Voter Registration like Washington and appears to have problems similar to Washington in terms of registering huge numbers of non-citizens.

In Washington state, in 2024, 73,581 people – all of whom were likely automatically registered to vote while getting a drivers license – but who were almost certainly non-citizens, returned their voter registration confirmation card requesting to be removed from the voter rolls – as is shown on the following table:

The fact that Washington has such a huge rate of voter requests is clear evidence that Washington is registering non-citizens who do not want to be on the voter rolls. But keep in mind, 73,581 is only the ones who returned the confirmation cards. It is likely that there are also huge numbers of non-citizens who did not provide a valid address and therefore never got a confirmation card in the first place and are thus still on the Washington voter rolls..

Also, these problems were not limited to 2024. They are also present in the 2022 EAC report. For example, in the 2022 report, the unreturned confirmation notice rate nationally was 57.4% but in Washington was 98.1% (again highest in the nation). The voter request removals nationally were 4.5% - but 15.5% in Washington and 24.2% in Oregon. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/2022_EAVS_Report_508c.pdf

Note that while the national average "voter requests to be removed from the voter rolls" went way down in 2024 compared to 2022, in Washington state, there was a huge increase from 15.5% to 20.2%. We need to ask why 73,581 voters who just got put on the voter rolls by the Automatic Voter Registration process would immediately want to be taken off the voter rolls. The only rational answer is that they never wanted to be on the voter rolls in the first place – because they were non-citizens.

Evidence Washington State is also failing to remove voters who have moved out of their prior jurisdiction

Washington removed a total of 363,792 voters from the voter rolls - which was 6.5% of the 5 million voters. But of this total, 73,581 were by voter request – in other words, voters who were likely non-citizens and had been added to the voter rolls against their wishes. This was 20% of the total removed from the voter rolls in Washington - when the national average for voter requests was only 2.6% of those removed from the voter rolls. In plain English, the Washington voter requests should not have exceeded 9,000 and thus were too high by 64,000.

Subtracting 63,000 from 363,792 leaves about 300,000 removed from the Washington voter rolls for reasons other than voter requests. This is 6 percent of the registered voters removed from the voter rolls. The National average is about 9% which would be 450,0000. So about 150,000 were improperly left on the voter rolls.

The next greatest variance from the national average is voters removed for having moved out of the jurisdiction. The national average in 2024 was 31%. 31% of 450,000 is 139,500. This is the expected number of voters who should have been removed from the voter rolls if one assumes that voters in Washington move at about the same rate as the national average voters. Here is a graph of actual voters removed due to moving versus the national average for 2022 and 2024:

Instead of 139,500 Washington voters removed from the rolls after moving, only 35,506 voters were removed from the voter rolls in Washington due to moving in 2024. This is over 100,000 less than expected. Note that the failure to monitor voters who moved was much worse in 2024 than 2022.

Also note that two factors - the failure to remove voters who moved from the voter rolls combined with the huge number of voters who requested to be removed from the voter rolls - accounts for nearly the entire difference between the Washington state distribution and the National average distribution of voters removed from the voter rolls.

Thus, the two primary steps needed to clean up the voter rolls in Washington state are to first stop illegally registering hundreds of thousands of non-citizens and second, to make a greater effort to remove voters who have move from the voter rolls.

 

Which Washington state counties had the least accurate voter rolls?

To see whether these problems are limited to certain counties in Washington state, we need to download the Excel Spreadsheet. To download the 2024 spreadsheet, go to this link:

https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports

Then click on 2024 plus sign and download the EAVS excel spreadsheet released on June 30, 2025. To understand the columns, you will also need to download the EAVS Data Codebook. To simplify matters, copy and paste only the Washington 39 counties into a new spreadsheet and then relabel the table columns to plain English using the Data Codebook. Then highlight King County and Pierce County. You will see that while King County had 78,080 DMV new registrations, King County also had a huge number of DMV Duplicate voter registrations - 56,377 to be exact. Pierce County DMV also has a problem with 25,978 Duplicate voter registrations.

King County removed 89,796 voters with only 6001 removed due to having moved. This is ridiculous. The national average is about 30% moved – so King County should have had about 30,000 moved – not just 6000. The actual rate in King County was only one fifth what it should have been.

Pierce County removed 45,851 voters with only 4704 having moved – this is also ridiculous but not as ridiculous as King County. Pierce County should have had about 15,000 moved not 4704. The actual rate in Pierce County was only one third of what it should have been.

King County Voter Request removals were 25,278 (34% of the total Voter Request removals despite King County having only 28.6% of the states 5 million registered voters). Pierce County Voter Request removals were 7,666 (10% of the voter request removals which matched the fact that Pierce County has 10% of the states registered voters). These were both about ten times what they should have been had voter request removals been at the national 2024 rate of 2.6%.

While there are also significant problems with several other counties, the spreadsheet confirms that the biggest inaccuracies are in King County and to a lesser extent in Pierce County. This indicates that the primary source of the inaccurate voter roll problems in Washington state are the King County Department of Licensing and to a lesser extent, the Pierce County Department of Licensing.

US Census Data confirms we have a growing problem with non-citizen voters
One weakness of both the study provided by Glen Morgan and my statistical analysis is that neither study can be connected directly to non-citizens being registered. These unexplained voters could also be due to “ghost” voters or voters who do not actually exist but are inserted into the voter rolls by people interested in using these non-existent voters to artificially rig elections.

To correct for this problem, I published a study of non-citizens living here in Washington state according to the US Census Bureau. Here is a link to this report: https://washingtonfamilyrightscoalition.org/lessons-from-past-failed-initiatives/problems-with-the-washington-voter-id-initiative

Scroll down to Problem #8 to read this study. Here are quotes from this study: “According to the US Census, about 600,000 people living in Washington state are foreign born and not US citizens. Next, we need to estimate the percent of non-citizens registered to vote in our state. This unfortunately is going to be a very high figure since our Department of Licensing is registering voters automatically when they get a drivers license.”

“A detailed study published in 2024 estimated that 10% to 27% of illegal aliens are registered to vote in the US. While others have criticized this study and claimed that the actual number is 1% to 10% of illegal aliens registering to vote, I have reviewed the 2024 study and concluded it was accurately done. Given how bad things are here in Washington, with the Washington Department of Licensing automatically registering non-residents, I estimate that 20% of non-residents are being registered to vote here in Washington. This would put the number of non-resident registered voters in our state at 120,000.”

However, it could be as high as 600,000 to one million, given that there are huge numbers of illegal aliens in our state not in the US Census data.

Understanding the Source or Cause of the problem
Glen Morgan correctly identified the cause of the problem as the Washington State Department of Licensing. Here is his cartoon about what happens there:

Compare Glen’s cartoon to my cartoon about the Washington State Department of Licensing:

Additional evidence of non-citizens registered to vote at the Washington Department of Licensing

Glen Morgan also stated during his YouTube report that he has spoken with foreign exchange students who have automatically been registered to vote in our state. Several comments displayed during his video confirmed that this problem is widespread in Washington state.

Jury rejection letters:

On August 11, a viewer of We the Governed posted the following comment:

“I had jury duty, when they announced that Non Citizens could not server on a jury, 30 people out of 100 had to leave. These pools are filled from the voter rolls.”

Another viewer posted the following comment: “I house foreign college students. My Chinese student has been gone almost 3 years and I just received a Jury duty summons for her in my mailbox. You have to be registered to vote to get Jury duty!”

Another viewer named Rob Wastman posted the following comment:

“We get a ballot every election for a Chinese National student who lived with us for awhile. They registered him when he got his Washington ID. Although this ballot is never used, how many of them are out there? Enough to sway an election?”

There is an annual contest on social media in Washington state to see who can get the most ballots sent to them. The current record is a woman from Bellevue Washington who received 16 ballots addressed to her apartment number with different names on them.

Automatic Voter Registration Law provides no penalty for registering Non-citizens
Section 203 (2) of the 2018 Washington Automatic Voter Registration law states in part: “a person who is ineligible to vote and becomes registered to vote under section 102 or 201 of this act, and subsequently votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, is not guilty of violating RCW 29A.84.130, and shall be deemed to have performed an authorized act…”

Thus, the Automatic Voter Registration Act clearly violates federal laws by allowing non-citizens to vote without any penalties.

Federal laws violated by Washington State
On June 6, 2025, the US Department of Justice filed a 14 page Amicus brief in the US District Court, District of Oregon, Eugene Division, in a similar case called Judicial Watch v Tobias Read (current Oregon Secretary of State). Because Oregon Automatic Voter Registration problems are similar to the Washington Automatic Voter Registration problems, we will review this Oregon complaint. The case was previously called Judicial Watch, Inc. et al v. Griffin-Valade (previous Oregon Secretary of State). Here is a link to the US Department of Justice June 6 2025 brief: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1402891/dl?inline

Here are quotes from this brief:

“This case presents important questions regarding enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501-11 (the “NVRA”). Congress has vested the Attorney General with authority to enforce the NVRA on behalf of the United States. See 52 U.S.C. § 20510(a). Accordingly, the United States has a substantial interest in ensuring proper interpretation of the NVRA. The United States submits this Statement of Interest for the limited purpose of addressing the requirements under the NVRA for states to maintain and make available for public inspection certain records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, id. § 20507(i). “

“On October 23, 2024, Plaintiffs, Judicial Watch, Inc., the Constitution Party of Oregon, Suni Danforth, and Hannah Shipman (“Plaintiffs”), sued then-Secretary of State of Oregon, Lavonne Griffin-Valade… Tobias Read was sworn in as Oregon’s Secretary of State on January 6, 2025 and, as the current Oregon Secretary of State, takes the place of Secretary Griffin-Valade as a Defendant in this civil action.”

“The complaint alleged that the Oregon Secretary of State and State of Oregon failed to comply with the state’s obligations under the NVRA: i) to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of” the death or a change in residence of registrants, under 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4) (“Section 8(a)(4)”), and ii) to “maintain for at least 2 years” and “make available for public inspection . . . all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, . . . [,]” under id. § 20507(i) (“Section 8(i)”).”

“On January 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 12, which is the subject of the pending motion to dismiss. The FAC alleges the same claims under Sections 8(a)(4) and 8(i) of the NVRA as the original complaint, with some additional and revised factual allegations.”

FAC first amended complaint

“Section 8 of the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20507, establishes requirements for the administration of voter registration for elections for federal office in covered states, including Oregon. Section 8(a)(4) requires each state to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of” the death of the registrant or “a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d)[.]” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4)(A)-(B). Subsections (b), (c), and (d) set forth procedures and requirements governing the removal of ineligible voters from official lists of voters as part of a state’s “program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office[,]” id. § 20507(b). “

“Section 8(i) of the NVRA specifically provides that: Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered.” Id. § 20507(i)(1).

“Section 8(i)(2) further specifies: The records maintained pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices described in subsection (d)(2) are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice as of the date that inspection of the records is made. Id. § 20507(i)(2).”

“Section 10 requires each state to “designate a State officer or employee as the chief State election official to be responsible for coordination of State responsibilities” under the NVRA. Id. § 20509. States are responsible for Section 8(i)’s requirements for maintaining and making available records.”

“By its plain terms, the NVRA identifies one entity, the state, that is required to carry out obligations for voter registration administration, id. §§ 20507, 20509, and, specifically under Section 8(i), to perform two actions: (1) “maintain” for at least two years records related to activities conducted to ensure the accuracy of eligible voter lists, and (2) “make available” those records to the public, id. § 20507(i)(1). “

“To the extent Oregon state laws or practices delegate the state’s Section 8(i) responsibilities to subdivisions or local authorities, they are inconsistent with Congress’ enactment of specific state obligations under the Elections Clause.”

On August 8, 2025, the federal District Court issued a 23 page ruling which can be read at this link: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/6:2024cv01783/182713/34/0.pdf?ts=1754485064

Here are quotes from this ruling:

“Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that the State of Oregon and its chief elections officer, the Secretary of State, failed to comply with two obligations under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”). Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ECF No. 12 (“FAC”).2 Specifically, in Count I they claim that Oregon failed to conduct a general program to remove ineligible voters from voter registration rolls pursuant to § 8(a)(4), 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4). In Count II they claim that Oregon failed to make available all records concerning the implementation of such a program pursuant to § 8(i), 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i).”

“Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act in 1993, articulating in its opening lines the following purpose:
(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;
(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this chapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;
(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained. 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(1)–(4).”

“Section 8 of the NVRA establishes the requirements that states must follow in the administration of voter registration for federal elections. Generally, Section 8 prohibits states from removing registered voters from official voter lists unless the registrant requests it, state law compels it, or Section 8(a)(4) necessitates it. § 20507(a)(3). Under Section 8(a)(4), states are to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove . . . from the official lists of eligible voters” the names of voters who have become ineligible by reason of death or change in residence. § 20507(a)(4). “

“Section 8(i) further directs each state’s official to “maintain for at least 2 years” and “make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.” § 20507(i). Those records must “include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom [Confirmation Notices] are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice.” § 20507(i)(2).’

“In the event a person “is aggrieved by a violation of” the NVRA, the Act provides a private right of action. § 20510(b). To exercise that right, the aggrieved person must first, in most circumstances, provide written notice of the violation to the chief election official of the state involved prior to commencing a lawsuit.”

“In June 2023, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) published is biennial report to Congress as required by law. 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(3); States are mandated by federal regulation to provide election data to the EAC for use in this report, which covers state voter registration practices. See 11 C.F.R. § 9428.7(b). Plaintiffs reviewed the EAC Report cataloging data for Oregon for the year 2022 and concluded the following: First, “the largest number of removals under the NVRA are usually made pursuant to Section 8(d)(1)(B), for failing to respond to a Confirmation Notice and failing to vote in two consecutive general federal elections.”

“Second, Oregon’s self-reported data showed “that 19 counties removed zero voter registrations from November 2020 to November 2022 pursuant to Section 8(d)(1)(B). And only “10 other counties removed 11 or fewer voter registrations from November 2020 to November 2022 pursuant to Section 8(d)(1)(B).”

“Plaintiffs contrasted these findings with data from the U.S. Census Bureau which found that 14.5% of Oregon residents moved addresses over a one-year period and approximately 289,132 residents left the state in 2022 and 2023. From this data, Plaintiffs concluded that “there is no possible way Oregon’s counties can be conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence while removing so few registrations under Section 8(d)(1)(B).”

“Plaintiffs also “compared the total number of registrants, active and inactive, on Oregon’s voter rolls with the most recent five-year American Community Survey estimates from the Census Bureau of the citizen voting-age populations of Oregon’s counties. It “indicated that 35 of Oregon’s 36 counties had more voter registrations than citizens over the age of 18.”

“Excluding inactive registrations, “the same study showed that 10 of Oregon’s 36 counties had more active registrations than citizens over the age of 18.” These high registration rates, according to Plaintiffs, evidence “a statewide failure to conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations” of ineligible voters.”

“Finally, Plaintiffs calculated Oregon’s percentage rate for inactive registrations and compared it to the national inactive registration rate of 11%. “Oregon’s inactive registration rate is about 20%. . . . Oregon’s median county inactive registration rate is about 18%, and its largest county, Multnomah, has an inactive registration rate of about 27%.” Oregon’s voter rolls also contain high counts of inactive registrations that show no voter activity for up to five consecutive general federal elections. Plaintiffs believe this too indicates a statewide failure to conduct a “program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible under the NVRA.”

“On August 4, 2023, Judicial Watch wrote a letter to the Secretary regarding several NVRA-related subjects, including the Oregon’s low number of Section 8(d)(1)(B) removals. The letter also requested the production of seven categories of public records pursuant to Section 8(i) of the NVRA.”

“Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting an order that compels Defendants to develop and implement a program to remove ineligible registrants from voters rolls and that enjoins Defendants from refusing to allow Plaintiffs to inspect and copy records at a reasonable cost. Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ failure to comply with the NVRA’s voter list maintenance obligations has injured them in the following ways: increased concern that “the integrity of elections” is impaired by “the opportunity for ineligible voters to receive and cast ballots”; undermined “confidence in the integrity of the electoral process”; discouraged “participation in the democratic process”; and “fear that their legitimate votes will be nullified or diluted by unlawful ones.”

“Plaintiffs allege that they are “concerned” that Oregon’s practices have impaired the integrity of Oregon’s elections by “increasing the opportunity for ineligible voters to receive and cast ballots….”

“In King, the court likewise accepted an undermined confidence theory, explaining that “there can be no question that a plaintiff who alleges that his right to vote has been burdened by state action has standing to bring suit to redress that injury.” King, 993 F. Supp. 2d at 924; see also Green v. Bell, 2023 WL 2572210, *4 (W.D.N.C. 2023) (accepting both theories). For the reasons already explained, this Court does not find the reasoning of Griswold or King compelling… this Court is guided by the Ninth Circuit’s decisions. “

“Unlike associational standing, organizational standing arises where an organization has standing to sue on its own behalf for injuries the organization has sustained… the Constitution Party “purchases and relies on Oregon’s voter rolls to identify in-state voters and to contact them and encourage them to assist the candidates it supports.” These voter-contact and election-related activities are core activities of the Constitution Party,” as they are “of any political party.” The Constitution Party’s ability to contact eligible voters is impeded “because Defendants’ failure to conduct list maintenance required by the NVRA causes Oregon’s voter rolls to have many more outdated and ineligible registrations—both on its active and inactive voter lists—than they otherwise would.”

“As a result, the Constitution Party “wastes significant time, effort, and money trying to contact voters... who are listed on the rolls but who no longer live at the registered address or who are deceased…The voter rolls also allow the Constitution Party to keep track of its own members whose registrations have become inactive… If Constitution Party cannot monitor its members, it is plausible that it could lose its status as a minor party and no longer be entitled to limited liability or to nominate candidates.”

“Here, the explicit purpose of the NVRA is to establish procedures that increase the number of eligible, registered citizens; to enhance the participation of eligible citizens in elections; and to protect the integrity of the electoral process and accuracy of voter rolls. § 20510(b)(1). Like the APA, Congress provided in the NVRA a private right of action broadly to any “person who is aggrieved by a violation of this chapter,” limited specifically by the plaintiff’s compliance with the NVRA’s notice requirements. § 20510(b).”

“Plaintiffs failed to provide adequate notice before commencing a lawsuit on the public records claim… the NVRA’s private right of action imposes a mandatory notice requirement. To bring a civil action, the aggrieved party must first “provide written notice of the violation to the chief election official of the State involved.” § 20510(b)(1). Once the notice is received, a party must generally wait 90 days before filing suit in order to allow the official an opportunity to correct the identified violation. § 20510(b)(2)… “

“Plaintiffs alleged that “widespread ongoing noncompliance” and “systemic violations . . . caused by flawed practices and policies insufficient oversight and inadequate enforcement” were occurring and would continue.”

“The issue came down to a central premise on which the Ninth Circuit disagreed: that there was no reason to believe the violations identified in the field investigations were still occurring when plaintiffs sent their letter and filed their complaint. By the Ninth Circuit’s measure, it was “impossible” to read those allegations and conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that at least some of the violations were continuing as of the dates of the notice and complaint. The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that “[a] plaintiff can satisfy the NVRA’s notice provision by plausibly alleging that an ongoing, systematic violation is occurring at the time the notice is sent or, if no notice is sent, when the complaint is filed within 30 days of a federal election… Plaintiffs point solely to their FAC, which fails to allege an “ongoing, systematic” NVRA violation… the present matter is more aptly categorized as a discrete violation than an ongoing one.”

“Notice is sufficient “when it (1) sets forth the reasons that a defendant purportedly failed to comply with the NVRA, and (2) clearly communicates that a person is asserting a violation of the NVRA and intends to commence litigation if the violation is not timely addressed.” Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 524 F. Supp. 3d 399, 409 (M.D. Pa. 2021) “

Other States being investigated by the US Department of Justice
Other States recently began to receive letters on the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (HAVA) from the U.S. Department of Justice. Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights division at DOJ, said at a congressional hearing in July 2025 that the department is aggressively enforcing list maintenance requirements in federal law.

“We are active, we are opening investigations, we are seeking information from states,” said Dhillon, adding that various states have received requests for information about their “list maintenance requirements and failure thereof, [and] their noncompliance with the [NVRA].”

On May 27, 2025, the DOJ sued North Carolina

On May 27, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the new Board of Elections. The North Carolina lawsuit argues that some voter registrations, possibly hundreds of thousands, don’t comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002. These registrations do not include the last four digits of an identifying number, such as a driver’s license or social security number. The DOJ wants the board to demand that these voters supply the information within 30 days. If they don’t provide the numbers in this time frame, their voter registrations could be canceled. The case is called United States of America v North Carolina State Board of Elections. Here is a link to the DOJ complaint:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/1-2025-05-27-Complaint.pdf

Here are quotes from the complaint:

“The Attorney General of the United States hereby files this action on behalf of the United States of America to enforce the requirements of Section 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), with respect to the conduct of elections for Federal office in the State of North Carolina. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)… Defendants have failed to maintain accurate lists in North Carolina’s computerized statewide voter registration in violation of Section 303(a)(5) of HAVA.”

“Under Section 303(a) of HAVA, a voter registration application for an election for federal office may not be accepted or processed by the State unless it includes a driver’s license number from the applicant, or if the applicant does not have a driver’s license, the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number. If an applicant has not been issued a current and valid driver’s license or social security number, the State must assign a special identifying number for voter registration. See 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a).”

“Section 303(a)’s requirement that States utilize a unique identifying number to voters who indicate they have neither a driver’s license nor a social security number is an integral part of the minimum Federal standards. As the House Report explained, “It is likely that states will find it necessary to create a unique identifier to distinguish registered voters who happen to have the same name and/or birth date. The unique identifier so created will be used to assure that list maintenance functions are attributable to the correct voter; so as to avoid removing registrants who happen to have the same name and birth date as a felon, for example.”

“In violation of HAVA’s mandate and clear Congressional intent, the State of North Carolina used a state voter registration form that did not explicitly require a voter to provide a driver’s license or the last four digits of a social security number.”

“Upon information and belief there currently are a significant number of voters that do not have a driver’s license number, last four digits of a social security number, or any other identifying number, as required by Section 303 of HAVA, listed in North Carolina’s state voter registration file. Those violations will continue absent relief from this Court.”

“Among the requirements of Section 303(a) of HAVA for the statewide voter registration list are the following:

(a) The list shall serve as the single system for storing and managing the official list of registered voters throughout the State, 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(1)(A)(i);

(b) The list must contain the name and registration information of, and must assign a unique identifier to, each legally registered voter in the State, 52 U.S.C. §§ 21083(a)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii).”

Proposed Remedy to the Washington State Inaccurate Voter Roll problem

The Washington government agency most directly involved in implementing the "Automatic Voter Registration" state law is the Washington State Department of Licensing. Governor Bob Ferguson appoints, with minimal legislative involvement or oversight, the Director and other senior management of the Department of Licensing. We have provided evidence from several sources that the Washington State Department of Licensing is registering huge numbers of non-citizens – in clear violation of federal election law – and also in violation of existing Washington state election laws.

The NVRA requires states to review their voter registration rolls periodically and to remove the records of individuals who no longer meet eligibility requirements. We have provide evidence from the federal Election Assistance Commission that Washington state likely has the least accurate voter rolls in the entire nation.

The US Department of Justice is required to enforce federal election laws. We therefore ask the US Department of Justice to open an investigation into Washington state “Automatic Voter Registration” practices and take whatever steps are needed to force Bob Ferguson and his Department of Licensing to comply with federal election laws and to take steps needed to clean up the voter rolls – especially in King and Pierce counties.

In addition, we ask the Department of Justice to seek a Consent Decree with the state of Washington to take more meaningful steps to remove voters who have moved from the voter rolls. All states are require to remove voters who have moved to a new address outside the previous jurisdiction. We believe that the 2018 Kentucky Consent Decree can act as a framework for a similar consent decree with Washington state.

In 2018, an election watchdog group called Judicial Watch noticed that Kentucky was failing to remove voters who had moved from their voter rolls. Judicial Watch filed a complaint in federal court to force Kentucky to clean up their voter rolls. The Trump Department of Justice followed with their own complaint against Kentucky on this same issue – to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA. The case was called United States v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (E.D. Ky. 2018)

On July 3, 2018, the court entered an agreement that remedies violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) alleged in the US Department of Justice’s complaint-in-intervention, filed on June 21, 2018. That complaint alleged that the Kentucky violated Section 8 of the NVRA. Under the agreement, Kentucky agreed to develop a general program of statewide voter list maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove registrants who have become ineligible due to a change in residence, in accord with the procedures and protections provided by the NVRA. Here is a link to this 17 page PDF CONSENT JUDGMENT

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/1083361/dl?inline=

Here are quotes from the Kentucky Consent Decree
“Section 8 also requires states to conduct a general voter registration list maintenance program that makes a reasonable effort to remove persons from the voter list who have become ineligible by reason of death or a change in residence outside of the jurisdiction, in accordance with procedures set forth in the NVRA. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4).”

“Section 8 requires states to... systematically remove the names of ineligible registrants from the official list of eligible voters, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary election or general election for federal office. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A).”

“Kentucky does not comply with the NVRA’s requirement that states conduct a voter registration list maintenance program that makes a reasonable effort to remove ineligible persons from the voter rolls due to a change in residence. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4)(B).”

“The Kentucky State Board of Elections shall develop and implement a general program of statewide voter list maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove from the statewide voter registration list the names of registrants who have become ineligible due to a change in residence in accord with section 8 of the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20507. “

“The Comprehensive Plan shall include a detailed description of all procedures to be followed by the Kentucky State Board of Elections for maintaining an accurate statewide voter registration list, including procedures to identify registrants who have become ineligible due to change in residence. The descriptions shall include a step-by-step account of all actions to be undertaken and the expected time frame and frequency of such action.”

For more information, please contact me via email. Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

Director, Washington Parents Network

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

425-876-9149

6183 Evergreen Way

Ferndale, WA 98248