Lara Trump Makes Blockbuster 2024 Election Announcement

Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump mentioned in an interview earlier this week that her organization is gearing up for the upcoming election cycle. They plan to closely monitor key polling centers, starting with early voting across the country and maintaining vigilance through the November election.

During a conversation with Newsmax TV host Eric Bolling on Tuesday, the former president’s daughter-in-law asserted: “We all know 2020 wasn’t on the up and up.” She didn’t provide specific details, but issues were reported during the 2020 election, such as workers blocking windows at a Detroit facility.

However, courts determined that none of the numerous post-2020 election allegations and legal challenges were valid.

Lara Trump emphasized that the RNC aims to be as prepared as the Democratic National Committee by ensuring they have sufficient poll watchers and attorneys in case of any issues. She also informed Bolling that the RNC had recently won a key election integrity case in Pennsylvania and is involved in similar actions across the country.

She mentioned that the RNC has 100,000 poll workers ready to “count how many ballots come in and how many ballots come out of every single polling location.” She also stated that the organization is prepared to legally confront anyone suspected of “cheating.”

“We need to make clear: if we catch you cheating — and we’re looking for you out there to cheat — we will prosecute you to the full extent of the law,” she added. “We need to ensure that people understand the severity of this, and they are not even tempted by the other side to do something nefarious.”

WATCH:

Earlier this month, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals made a ruling that could significantly impact election outcomes in Pennsylvania, a key swing state, as well as other battleground states. This decision marks a notable win for Republicans advocating for voter integrity measures.

The court overturned a federal district court’s order and ruled in favor of the RNC regarding signature verification for mail-in voting in the “crucial” state.

According to NPR, the case addressed whether mail-in ballots with an incorrect or missing date under the voter’s signature should be counted.

Democrats argued that the Materiality Provision, as stated in Section (a)(2)(B) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, should apply, thus asserting that these ballots should be counted.

The Materiality Provision prevents the denial of the right to vote due to an “error or omission” on paperwork “related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting,” if the mistake is “not material in determining whether [an] individual is qualified” to vote.

The RNC countered by arguing that enforcing the date requirement on ballots “does not impinge on the right to vote” because the Materiality Provision “only prohibits immaterial requirements affecting the qualification and registration of a voter,” not other, more specific requirements for casting a ballot, The Daily Wire reported.

All three of the appeals court judges were appointed by Democrats; two of the three sided with Republicans, writing, in part:

States have separate bodies of rules for separate stages of the voting process. One stage, voter qualification, deals with who votes. To register and thus be authorized to vote, applicants must follow prescribed steps and meet certain requirements. It’s like obtaining a license to drive. Another stage deals with how ballots are cast by those previously authorized to vote, which is governed by a different set of rules. To cast a ballot that is valid and will be counted, all qualified voters must abide by certain requirements, just like those authorized to drive must obey the State’s traffic laws like everyone else.

The Materiality Provision is an important federal overlay on state election requirements during the “who” stage: voter qualification. It prohibits States from denying an applicant the right to vote based on an error or omission in paperwork involving his application if that mistake is immaterial in determining whether he is qualified to vote. That is, it is triggered when conduct or laws restrict who may vote. But it leaves it to the States to decide how qualified voters must cast a valid ballot. Pennsylvania has made one such rule—the date requirement—mandatory. The federal Materiality Provision, in our view, does not interfere.