October 22, 2026
Paris Is Burning, and Brussels Is Still Writing Regulations
“Committed to a better future”
| DR. ROBERT W. MALONE OCT 21 |  |
Political commentary / By: Dr.s Jill Glasspool Malone and Robert W. Malone
Europe’s political class promised prosperity through bigger government, mass immigration, and endless regulation. The results haven’t lived up to the promise of socialism. They never do.
Rome is burning, and Europe’s political class is still arguing over how many regulations, subsidies, and government programs it will take to put out the fire.
For decades, Europe’s “progressive” establishment has promoted an increasingly expensive social contract: more government services, generous benefits, shorter working hours, greater regulation, and the promise that someone else will pay for it all. Meanwhile, businesses are expected to absorb the costs, entrepreneurs are buried in paperwork, and governments increasingly look to imported labor to compensate for aging populations and persistent labor shortages.
But importing workers is not the same as creating prosperity. Immigration can strengthen an economy when newcomers possess needed skills, find productive employment, and contribute more than they consume in public resources. When immigration outpaces job creation, housing construction, education, and integration, the costs do not disappear. They are transferred to taxpayers, communities, and already strained public services.
Now look at Poland, France, and Belgium.
In 2024, Belgium recorded approximately 116 robberies per 100,000 residents, France approximately 83, and Poland just 12. Meanwhile, the reported foreign-born shares of their populations in January 2025 were roughly 20 percent, 14 percent, and 2.6 percent, respectively. These statistics certainly justify asking harder questions about immigration policy, integration, policing, and public safety.
Meanwhile, Europe’s political establishment has developed another troubling habit: using the machinery of government against politicians who challenge its policies. In France, Marine Le Pen was initially barred from seeking office following an embezzlement conviction, although an appeals court subsequently restored her eligibility.
In Romania, authorities annulled a presidential election after nationalist candidate Călin Georgescu won the first round, then barred him from the rerun, citing electoral irregularities and foreign interference. None of which was proven.
In Germany, domestic intelligence authorities classified the opposition AfD as extremist, only to have a court suspend that designation.
Italy prosecuted Matteo Salvini over his decision to prevent a migrant rescue vessel from disembarking, before the courts ultimately acquitted him.
These cases have different legal circumstances, but collectively raise serious questions about political pluralism and the treatment of dissent. Meanwhile, European governments face real problems involving criminal gangs, failed integration, and Islamist extremism. Consider Brussels, the administrative capital of the European Union, where drug-related shootings have become a major public-safety problem, and authorities have had to increase security around railway stations. The British government specifically warns travelers about robbery and theft around Brussels-Midi and Brussels-North. There is something profoundly wrong when European governments appear more comfortable policing political dissent than ensuring that ordinary citizens can safely walk through their own cities.
France’s problems run deeper than immigration. A political culture increasingly organized around grievances, entitlements, and demands for government intervention has made reform extraordinarily difficult. Every benefit becomes permanent, every proposed reduction becomes an injustice, and every attempt to restore economic competitiveness encounters another constituency demanding protection from change.
And then there is Europe’s climate agenda. Brussels has imposed an increasingly complicated system of emissions targets, carbon pricing, energy regulations, and industrial mandates, all supposedly compatible with economic growth and prosperity. Yet these policies can make energy, transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture more expensive, particularly when affordable alternatives are not readily available. Industries facing higher costs must either raise prices, reduce investment, relocate production, or close. None of those outcomes improves the standard of living of ordinary Europeans.
There is a particularly perverse contradiction here. When climate policies make necessities more expensive, governments respond with additional subsidies and assistance programs to help citizens afford what government policy has helped make more costly. The EU’s new Social Climate Fund is designed to distribute billions to households and businesses affected by the costs of its expanding carbon-pricing system. More government intervention creates demands for more government assistance, while the productive economy is expected to finance both.
Better yet, climate change provides governments with a marvelous opportunity to rebrand the consequences of their failed economic policies as environmental victories. Can’t afford a car? Wonderful! You’re saving the planet. Airfare and vacations becoming unaffordable? Think of your carbon footprint! Can’t afford new clothes? Congratulations, you’re a sustainability champion. Less meat, smaller homes, fewer possessions, and fewer opportunities to travel can all be repackaged as acts of environmental virtue. The possibilities are endless. Who needs prosperity when you can have the moral satisfaction of doing without? Apparently, the secret to saving the planet is making everyone poorer and convincing them to feel virtuous about it.
And when economic growth slows, consumption falls, and ordinary families can no longer afford the lifestyles their parents enjoyed, environmental advocates can point to reduced resource consumption as a benefit for the planet. But declining prosperity should not be confused with environmental progress. A smaller economy, fewer opportunities, and a lower standard of living are not achievements simply because they may reduce emissions.
A prosperous society cannot be built by promising everyone more while making it progressively harder to produce anything. Wealth must be created before it can be redistributed. Businesses need incentives to invest, entrepreneurs need room to take risks, and workers need opportunities that offer more than dependence on government.
Even German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged at Davos that Europe had become a world champion of overregulation. Yet Brussels continues to produce rules while European political movements increasingly demand the return of national sovereignty.
The question is no longer whether Europe has problems. Its own leaders acknowledge them. The question is whether its governments are willing to confront the economic and political choices that helped create them.
Rome did not become prosperous by redistributing wealth it had stopped creating. Neither will modern Europe.
As for the USA, there but for the grace of God, we go. Those who do not understand what “Democratic Socialism” leads to will end up recapitulating the downward social and economic spiral of today’s EU. Eventually, one runs out of other people’s money to tax and spend.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
If you enjoy Malone News, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.
Website Peddles Falsehoods to Protect a New Income Tax
Vote Yes: Repeal the Income Tax and Preserve the Tax Cuts
| NANCY D CHURCHILL OCT 21 |  |
Ballots are in the mail across Washington. Voters face Initiative 645. A Yes vote repeals a new 9.9 percent tax on income over one million dollars. The tax starts in 2028. It is the first personal income tax in state history.
Opponents run a slick website at No645.com. That site claims the initiative raises taxes on working families and cuts school funding. Those claims do not match the official record.
The No campaign wants you to believe a Yes vote hurts ordinary people. It says the measure increases taxes on diapers, over-the-counter medicine, and hygiene products. It says the measure limits the Working Families Tax Credit. It says the measure raises the business and occupation tax on most small businesses.
None of that is true.
Remove the Prize while leaving the Sweetener
The 2026 law that created the income tax also created tax relief. That relief includes sales tax exemptions for diapers, over-the-counter drugs, and personal care items. It expands the Working Families Tax Credit. It provides relief on the business and occupation tax for small businesses. Initiative 645repeals only the income tax itself. It leaves the rest of the law alone.
The Attorney General’s explanatory statement confirms this. The non-income tax credits, exemptions, and deductions stay in place. A Yes vote does not raise the sales tax on diapers or medicine. It does not shrink the Working Families Tax Credit. It does not increase the business and occupation tax on small businesses. The No site says the opposite. That is false.
Why does the No side ignore the plain text? The income tax is the prize. The tax relief was the sweetener. Repealing only the tax removes the prize while leaving the sweetener. That is not what the No campaign wants voters to understand.
Projected Revenue Is Not Money Already Spent
The No site says Initiative 645 cuts 13 billion dollars from schools, health care, and child care. It warns of larger classes, higher health costs, and lost free school meals. This is a wild exaggeration.
The official fiscal impact statement puts the number at 11.4 billion dollarsover five fiscal years. That is the revenue the new tax is projected to raise once collections begin in 2029. The tax has raised zero dollars so far. No current program runs on that money.
You cannot cut funding that does not exist. Lawmakers may have counted the future revenue in their plans. That is their choice.
Voters can still say no to the tax. The Public Investment Impact Disclosure on the ballot uses the phrase “decrease funding.” That is required statutory language for measures that affect general fund revenue. It does not mean the initiative forces specific cuts to classrooms or clinics.
Free school meals are another example. Legislative intent mentioned them. An amendment to dedicate a fixed share of the tax was defeated. The initiative does not eliminate free meals. The “No” site treats a forecast and an intent statement as locked-in current spending. That framing misleads.
What the Initiative Actually Does: Repeal and Prohibit
Initiative 645 does two clear things. It repeals the 9.9 percent tax on individual income over one million dollars before the tax ever takes effect. It also prohibits the state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income, or taxes measured by individual income, in the future. The definition of income covers gains from capital, labor, property, or other sources.
Roughly twenty-five thousand households would pay the tax as it is currently written. That is about one half of one percent of Washington households. Everyone else pays nothing under the tax. The relief for diapers, medicine, the Working Families Tax Credit, and small business stays.
The governor has said he would veto any attempt to lower the one million dollar threshold. His words are pie crust promises: easily made and easily broken. A future legislature or a future governor can set the current limit aside when the budget pressure rises.
Washington voters have already rejected broader income taxes many times. This initiative also adds a statutory ban so future legislatures cannot simply reopen the door.
Washington has no income tax for a reason. The legislature passed this version with an emergency clause that blocked a referendum. Opponents still gathered more than half a million signatures to put the question on the ballot. That is the process the constitution provides.
The No site treats the repeal as an attack on services. The real choice is whether to let a new income tax begin, or to stop it and keep the tax relief already in the 2026 law.
Vote Yes to Repeal the Income Tax
A Yes vote on Initiative 645 stops the income tax before it begins. It preserves the sales tax exemptions on diapers, over-the-counter medicine, and hygiene products. It keeps the expanded Working Families Tax Credit. It retains the small-business relief on the business and occupation tax. It bars state and local governments from taxing individual income going forward. Your paycheck and your income remain yours.
The alternative is to let the tax take effect in 2028. Collections start in 2029. Once the mechanism exists, the pressure to lower the threshold or broaden the base will grow. One Democrat lawmaker has already floated the idea of lowering the exemption to two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
The No campaign’s website does not highlight that risk. It focuses on claims the official record does not support. A future legislature or a future governor can set them aside when the budget pressure rises.
Washington voters now have a chance to decide. The initiative does not cut a single current dollar from schools or clinics. It simply refuses to create a new stream of revenue that the state has never collected. It keeps the tax cuts that were packaged with the income tax. That is the straightforward result of a Yes vote.
Mark your ballot Yes on Initiative 645. Repeal the income tax. Keep the relief for families and small businesses. Close the door on future income taxes. The choice is clear once the false claims are set aside.
Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack, X, and occasionally Rumble.
SOURCES:
1) No on Initiative 645 website, homepage claims, https://bit.ly/4zLsLF3
2) Washington State Standard, “Initiative 645 | Voter Guide: 2026 Washington state general election,” and related reporting on the Attorney General’s explanatory statement and retained tax provisions, https://bit.ly/4skpJVO
3) Office of Financial Management, Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 645, https://bit.ly/4yS4zAJ
4) Let’s Go Washington, The Initiatives 2026, I-645 section, https://bit.ly/4Bwmxuv
(5) BOMBSHELL: Ryu wants an income tax on households making $250,000, Salomon says Ryu is ‘out of touch’, Lynnwood Times, October 5, 2026, https://bit.ly/4yRKevf
We can change the Supreme Court… but you must VOTE!
Dangerous Rhetoric is supported by readers and influencers like you! If you’d like to help us continue to bring you this great information please consider making a donation.
We’re grateful for your support!
Thank you for reading Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. This post is public so feel free to share it.
Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
You’re currently a free subscriber to Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
October 20, 2026
The Roundup for Tue Oct 20, 2026
The best of Washington State on X: Daycare names hidden, You moved, your ballot didn’t, More money, worse results
| NANCY D CHURCHILL OCT 20 | |
Story One: Fraud Worries Grow, and the State Hides Daycare Names
Synopsis: Who is getting the daycare money?
Future 42 says DCYF has started hiding the names of daycares that get taxpayer money, after reports of fraud in Minnesota and California. The Center Square reports a Sept. 21 state release listed 42 grant winners, but three home daycares in Benton City, Kent and Renton were named only by town.
Sen. Leonard Christian (R-Spokane Valley) calls it “unbelievable” and warns that if the media doesn’t press DCYF, the agency will think it can get away with anything. DCYF says Initiative 1501 requires it to keep home daycare names private.
Washington State Facts shares a video titled “FBI to Investigate WA State Daycares for Fraud.” The FBI won’t confirm any case, but the federal health department’s inspector general says it is working with the FBI on child care fraud claims in Washington. No charges have been reported.
Saturday’s Roundup covered the State Auditor’s estimate of $37 million in questionable child care payments. Critics say taxpayers deserve to know who gets paid.
From the Bookmarks:
- Future 42: “DCYF has decided to start hiding the names of daycares receiving taxpayer benefits.”
Future 42@future42orgFollowing a massive exposure of daycare fraud in Minnesota and California, and a recent email revealing that lawmakers are aware of daycare fraud in our state, and revelations that some home daycares in WA are receiving hundreds of thousands a year in taxpayer funds; DCYF has …
1:00 AM · Oct 20, 2026 · 1.77K Views8 Replies · 39 Reposts · 90 Likes- Washington State Facts: “FBI to Investigate WA State Daycares for Fraud.”
🇺🇸Washington State Facts ➕🇺🇸@TurnSeattleRedFBI to Investigate WA State Daycares for Fraud youtu.be/9NANh9iVPfI?is… via @YouTubeyoutu.beFBI to Investigate WA State Daycares for Fraud
7:08 PM · Oct 19, 2026 · 6.43K Views49 Replies · 188 Reposts · 562 LikesLeave a comment on Story One:
Fraud Worries Grow, and the State Hides Daycare Names
Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. If you find The Roundup helpful and want to and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Story Two: You Moved, Your Ballot Didn’t
Synopsis: Why do ballots follow people out of state?
Ari Hoffman says he is “getting inundated” with people who left Washington but still get ballots in their new states. Most tell him they did tell elections they moved. “Why are they still on the voter rolls?” he asks.
Shiloh Marx shares a chart of 12 states with more registered voters than voting-age citizens, based on federal 2024 election and census data. Washington is not one of them. The chart notes that the totals include inactive voters, which federal law makes states keep on the rolls for two federal elections before removing them.
Rep. Jim Walsh says if you haven’t gotten your general election ballot, call your County Auditor, or King County Elections if you live in King County. Critics say the rolls need a real cleanup. Vote your ballot before Nov. 3.
From the Bookmarks:
- Ari Hoffman: “I always ask if they told elections they moved, and the majority say ‘yes.’”
Ari Hoffman@thehoffatherI am getting inundated with people who moved out of Washington state telling me they are still getting ballots in other states. I always ask if they told elections they moved, and the majority say “yes.” Why are they still on the voter rolls?
6:21 PM · Oct 19, 2026 · 9.44K Views101 Replies · 237 Reposts · 820 Likes- Shiloh Marx: “12 states had more registered voters than eligible citizen voting-age population.”
Shiloh Marx@Shilohmarx24 Senators representing 12 states had more registered voters than eligible citizen voting-age population.
10:46 PM · Oct 19, 2026 · 34.8K Views196 Replies · 1.92K Reposts · 3.3K Likes- Jim Walsh: “If you haven’t received your General Election ballot, contact your County Auditor’s office.”
Jim Walsh@JimWalshLD19So, this is…bad. If you haven’t received your General Election ballot, contact your County Auditor’s office. (Unless you’re in King County. If you are, contact King County Elections–which is a separate office from the Auditor.)seattlered.comBallots found dumped in Burien: How to replace yours in WA
1:28 AM · Oct 20, 2026 · 2.6K Views19 Replies · 81 Reposts · 212 LikesLeave a comment on Story Two: You Moved, Your Ballot Didn’t
Story Three: More Money, Worse Results
Synopsis: Are we getting our money’s worth from Olympia?
Former Gov. Gary Locke, a Democrat, told KNKX that if lawmakers keep raising taxes without checking what works, voters will say, “The promises are not being kept, and we’re just being taxed like crazy”. Locke also says lawmakers promised the carbon tax would go only to climate uses, then “raided that money for general government.”
Todd Myers says that shows the Climate Commitment Act is “dishonest.” Viet Nguyen claims the state budget is $21 billion bigger than population growth and inflation would explain, and the middle class will pay for it.
Income tax backer Sandeep Kaushik admitted on a panel that school scores and homelessness got worse despite the spending.
In King County, Councilmember Rod Dembowski says the homelessness authority overspent $14 million on administration plus $2.7 million in interest. The authority’s outside review puts the overspending lower, but it still shows a $16.7 million hole.
Democratic leaders point to federal cuts and say voters approved big new programs. Supporters of common sense say the state has a spending problem.
From the Bookmarks:
- Jason Mercier: Former Gov. Locke: “The promises are not being kept, and we’re just being taxed like crazy.”
Jason Mercier@MercierOnPolicyFormer Gov. Locke: “. . . pretty soon the voters are going to say, ‘The promises are not being kept, and we’re just being taxed like crazy.'” knkx.org/politics/2026-… #walegknkx.orgFormer Gov. Locke says WA Democrats risk losing voters’ trust
8:22 PM · Oct 19, 2026 · 7.77K Views50 Reposts · 261 Likes- Todd Myers: Locke: “They raided that money for general government.”
Todd Myers 🐟🌲🐝@WAPolicyGreen“We had the carbon tax…And the legislators and the governor said, ‘No, it’s only going to be used for climate-related.’ Well, what did Olympia recently do? They raided that money for general government…” – Former Gov Gary Locke As I’ve said, the CCA is dishonest. 1/2 #waleg10:02 PM · Oct 19, 2026 · 2.24K Views2 Replies · 22 Reposts · 97 Likes- Viet Q Nguyen: “The burden of this growth will fall upon you, the middle class.”
Viet Q Nguyen@VietQNguyenThis is the size of the Washington State biennial budget compared to the size of what it would be if it was simply keeping pace with population growth and inflation. The difference is $21B for this budget alone. If you think this rate of spending growth is sustainable, even with …
1:37 AM · Oct 20, 2026 · 1.31K Views6 Replies · 49 Reposts · 121 Likes- Ari Hoffman: Kaushik: “So are we really getting value for these investments?”
5:17 AM · Oct 19, 2026 · 3.29K Views4 Replies · 21 Reposts · 64 Likes- Change Washington: Dembowski says the agency “is broken beyond repair and must be shut down.”
Change Washington@ChangeWash”Today’s shocking revelation that the Regional Homelessness Authority overspent $14 million on administration and incurred an additional $2.7 million in interest — more than double the previous estimate of $8 million for unaccounted funds — further confirms that this agency is…12:30 PM · Oct 19, 2026 · 2.41K Views7 Replies · 41 Reposts · 120 LikesLeave a comment on Story Three:
More Money, Worse Results
Thanks for reading The Roundup!
Please like, comment or share to help this newsletter reach a wider audience!
If you’ve already voted, call five friends and make sure they vote, too!
Dangerous Rhetoric is supported by readers and influencers like you! If you’d like to help us continue to bring you this great information please consider making a donation.
We’re grateful for your support!
Thank you for reading Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. This post is public so feel free to share it.
Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
You’re currently a free subscriber to Dangerous Rhetoric 🔥. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
October 19, 2026
Legalizing Infanticide
Ancient history, modern medicine, and the constitutional question facing Virginia voters
| DR. ROBERT W. MALONE OCT 19 | |
Audio Version
%26strokeWidth%3D3.6){kind=small}
LISTEN NOW · 28:19Drs. Robert Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone
Investigational Commentary / Washington, DC · October 19, 2026
The Babies in the Drain
In 1988, archaeologists made a horrifying discovery beneath an ancient Roman bathhouse in Ashkelon, a coastal city in what is now Israel. Buried in a sewer drain were the bones of nearly 100 newborn babies. The remains dated to the fourth century AD, and researchers suspected that the infants had been discarded shortly after birth.
Years later, DNA testing identified fourteen boys and five girls among nineteen infants whose sex could be determined. Why so many boys? Nobody knows. Some researchers suggested the building had operated as a brothel, but that interpretation is disputed. There is no reliable evidence establishing why the infants ended up in the drain, who was responsible, or whether they were deliberately killed.
Infanticide was not unique to Ashkelon. Historical records from Greece, Rome, and other civilizations describe newborns being killed or abandoned, sometimes with the approval of prevailing laws and customs. Poverty, disability, inheritance, family circumstances, and cultural beliefs all played a role. The spread of Judaism and later Christianity helped change these attitudes by emphasizing the sanctity of human life and the obligation to protect even the most vulnerable children.
Which brings us to Virginia in 2026.
On November 3, Virginia voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to establish a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including abortion. Virginia already permits third-trimester abortions when continuing the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the mother’s life or health. What the amendment would change is the legal standard. Instead of requiring three physicians to certify a substantial and irremediable threat to health, the amendment would protect abortions that a single physician considers medically indicated to protect physical or mental health, without defining a minimum level of impairment. It would also place these protections in the Virginia Constitution, making them much harder for future lawmakers to change.
Jill and I live in Madison County, Virginia, and we will be voting in this election. As we examined the amendment, we found ourselves returning to a question societies have struggled with for centuries: At what point does the life of a child deserve legal protection, independent of the wishes of the adults making decisions about that child?
When Does a Child Become a Person?
Infanticide is generally defined as the killing of a child after birth. Killing a child before birth is classified as abortion or feticide, even when the pregnancy has progressed far enough that the baby could survive outside the womb. Under this terminology, an abortion at 34 weeks is not infanticide.
But where did that distinction come from?
Much of it can be traced to English common law. Centuries ago, courts struggled to establish whether a fetus had been alive when injured or whether an injury caused its death. Without ultrasound, fetal monitoring, or modern obstetrics, proving those facts was difficult. The law eventually adopted what became known as the born-alive rule, distinguishing between a child who died before birth and one who was born alive and subsequently died from injuries suffered in the womb.
This was partly a practical legal distinction shaped by the limits of medical knowledge. It was never evidence that a child suddenly became biologically human at birth. Yet centuries later, the law still relies heavily on that distinction when determining what protections apply to a child before and after birth.
Today, physicians routinely monitor fetal heartbeats, observe fetal development through ultrasound, and successfully care for babies born months prematurely. Yet the terminology separating abortion from infanticide continues to depend largely on whether the child has been delivered. Modern medicine has made enormous advances, while the ethical debate over ending a viable pregnancy remains unresolved.
There is another complication. Some modern philosophers have questioned whether birth itself should confer the moral rights associated with personhood.
In 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics published a paper titled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” Its authors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, argued that newborn infants do not possess the same moral status as persons and that killing a newborn should be permissible in circumstances where abortion would be permitted.
Philosopher Peter Singer advanced related arguments decades earlier. Singer distinguishes between being biologically human and being a person in the philosophical sense. In his view, personhood involves rationality, self-awareness, and the ability to understand one’s existence over time. Because newborn infants have not developed these abilities, he argues that they do not have the same inherent claim to continued life as self-aware individuals.
The disturbing implication is that infanticide becomes not an absolute moral wrong, but an ethically defensible choice.
Nor is the debate confined entirely to philosophy. In the Netherlands, physicians may deliberately end the lives of newborns suffering from certain severe medical conditions under strict requirements developed from the Groningen Protocol. A separate Dutch procedure also covers some children between the ages of one and twelve who experience unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement. These are narrowly defined medical circumstances, not permission to kill healthy newborns, but they demonstrate that the deliberate ending of an infant’s life has become a legally regulated practice in at least one modern country.
The distinction between abortion and infanticide is largely a legal one, not a biological one. A viable child does not suddenly become more human simply by being delivered. Modern medicine can keep some babies born at 22 or 23 weeks alive, and their chances of survival increase dramatically with each additional week of pregnancy. A baby at 34 weeks is the same developing human being moments before and after delivery. Yet the law can treat the deliberate ending of that child’s life very differently depending on which side of birth it occurs.
Why should the deliberate ending of a viable child’s life be judged so differently depending on whether that child has been born?
Virginia’s Constitutional Amendment: What Would Actually Change?
On November 3, Virginia voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to establish a fundamental right to what the amendment calls “reproductive freedom.” The language covers contraception, prenatal care, childbirth, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care. But one of its most consequential provisions concerns abortion in the third trimester, when a developing child may already be capable of surviving outside the womb.
The first thing to understand is that this is not an ordinary law. It is a proposed constitutional amendment. If approved, it would become part of Virginia’s Bill of Rights. A future governor or General Assembly could not simply repeal it. Changing it would require another constitutional amendment, approved by two separately elected General Assemblies and then by Virginia voters. Any existing law that conflicts with the new constitutional language could be challenged in court.
Virginia already permits third-trimester abortions under specific medical circumstances. The proposed amendment would change the legal standard governing those procedures.
Under current law, a third-trimester abortion generally must be performed in a licensed hospital. The attending physician and two consulting physicians must certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the woman’s death or substantially and irremediably impair her physical or mental health. The law also requires life-support measures to be available and used when there is clearly visible evidence of viability.
The proposed amendment replaces that demanding medical threshold with a much broader standard. It would prohibit the Commonwealth from banning a third-trimester abortion when a physician determines that the procedure is medically indicated to protect the woman’s life or physical or mental health.
Three physicians become one. A requirement for substantial and irremediable impairment becomes a physician’s judgment that an abortion is medically indicated to protect health. No specific degree of mental-health impairment is defined.
Consider what this means at 34 weeks of pregnancy. At that stage, a baby is ordinarily capable of surviving outside the womb. Delivery does not suddenly make that child biologically human. The child was already a living human organism before birth. Yet the legal treatment of ending that life can change dramatically depending on whether delivery has occurred.
There is another provision that deserves close attention. The amendment expressly prohibits Virginia from prosecuting, penalizing, or otherwise taking adverse action against “any individual” who assists another person in exercising the constitutional right to reproductive freedom, provided that person voluntarily consents. Notice what is missing. The language does not say “licensed physician,” “nurse,” or even “medical professional.” It says “any individual.” Nor does this protection expressly require medical training or compliance with existing licensing requirements. This amendment allows someone performing an abortion without a medical license to claim constitutional protection.
And unlike an ordinary statute, the resulting constitutional standard would not be something the General Assembly could simply rewrite if serious problems emerged.
That is the significance of what Virginia voters are being asked to put into their constitution.
Mental Health: Where Is the Line?
The phrase mental health deserves particular attention.
The amendment does not require a specific psychiatric diagnosis, establish a minimum degree of psychological impairment, or mandate an independent mental-health evaluation. It leaves the medical determination to a physician’s professional judgment.
Mental health covers a broad range of conditions. There is an enormous difference between a woman experiencing anxiety about an unexpected pregnancy and one suffering from a severe psychiatric illness that places her life in danger. Yet the amendment does not expressly establish where the threshold lies.
The amendment leaves the determination of medical necessity to a single physician. It does not require a diagnosed psychiatric disorder, an independent psychiatric evaluation, or evidence that continuing the pregnancy would cause substantial and irreversible psychological harm. Anxiety, depression, financial stress, and fear of being unable to care for another child all affect mental health. The physician must still exercise professional medical judgment. The practical question is how broadly that judgment could be exercised under the new constitutional standard, particularly by clinics willing to interpret its protections expansively. The third trimester of pregnancy begins at 28 weeks, almost all fetus are viable outside the womb at that age.
There is also the question of physicians who refuse.
Virginia currently protects healthcare professionals who decline to participate in abortions on personal, ethical, moral, or religious grounds, subject to the law’s written-objection requirements. The proposed amendment neither expressly repeals nor reaffirms those protections.
A constitutional right to obtain an abortion does not automatically create a right to force a particular physician to perform one. Nevertheless, future courts could be asked to resolve conflicts between reproductive freedom and existing conscience protections.
Who Decides Which Restrictions Are Allowed?
The amendment also places significant limits on Virginia’s ability to regulate abortion. It requires the state to justify restrictions as necessary to protect the health of the person seeking care, while respecting that person’s medical decisions. But it does not separately recognize the life of a viable unborn child as a reason for restricting abortion. That distinction matters because a child at 34 weeks is ordinarily capable of surviving outside the womb.
Federal courts have already addressed the government’s authority to protect unborn life and thrown the question back onto the states. In its 2022 Dobbsdecision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned authority over abortion regulation to the states and their elected representatives. Virginia voters are now being asked whether to allow the killing of viable babies inserted into its own state constitution.
The proposed amendment would not recognize protecting the life of a viable unborn child as a compelling state interest.
The amendment also prohibits the Commonwealth from penalizing or prosecuting individuals for exercising the protected right or assisting another person in exercising it with voluntary consent.
The amendment does not expressly exempt unlicensed practitioners from existing medical laws. Nor does it expressly repeal protections for infants born alive. Claims that it automatically does either are not established by the text.
That is a consequential amount of uncertainty to place into a state constitution.
The Legislature Had a Chance to Clarify the Language
Virginia lawmakers considered the amendment over two legislative sessions, as required for a constitutional change.
During the 2026 Senate debate, proposed amendments addressing care for infants born alive and parental consent were rejected. The General Assembly ultimately sent the constitutional language to voters without adding those provisions.
Those votes do not prove that lawmakers intended to eliminate existing protections. But they do establish that legislators had opportunities to address the concerns directly and chose not to change the text.
Two lawsuits have also challenged the amendment process and ballot language. One raised questions about whether required legislative procedures were followed. Another, brought by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and other plaintiffs, argues that the ballot description does not adequately convey the amendment’s possible legal consequences.
The courts have been asked to address those challenges, but the underlying questions about how the amendment would operate remain important regardless of the litigation.
What the Ballot Doesn’t Tell Voters
There is another serious problem. The Democratic-controlled General Assembly approved ballot language that conceals some of the most consequential provisions of the amendment.
The ballot says nothing about replacing the current three-physician requirement with the judgment of a single physician, or removing the existing requirement for substantial and irremediable harm to the mother’s health. Nor does it even mention allowing for third-trimester abortions to protect the mental health of the mother.
Voters are also told it will protect “doctors, nurses, and patients,” while the actual constitutional text protects “any individual” who assists someone exercising reproductive freedom with voluntary consent.
These are fundamental changes, not minor omissions. The wording is already being challenged in court as misleading, with plaintiffs arguing that voters are being denied an accurate description of what they are being asked to put into Virginia’s Constitution. These omissions appear deliberately intended to conceal these changes, as their effect leaves voters without important information about the amendment’s reach.
What Do We Know About Later Abortions?
One difficulty in evaluating the debate is the limited information available about abortions performed late in pregnancy.
Federal abortion surveillance commonly groups procedures at 21 weeks or later together. That category includes pregnancies at very different stages of development and does not consistently explain why the procedures occurred. Reporting is also incomplete because not every state supplies comparable data.
Research suggests that women seek abortions later in pregnancy for a range of reasons. Some involve serious fetal abnormalities or threats to maternal health. Others involve discovering the pregnancy late, difficulties obtaining an earlier abortion, financial barriers, or changing personal circumstances. Of course, those later reasons could all be categorized under “mental health” issues.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco interviewed women obtaining abortions at or after 20 weeks and documented obstacles such as difficulty locating providers and raising money for care. Other interview research involving abortions between 24 and 35 weeks found complicated circumstances, including newly discovered medical information and delays in accessing services.
These studies are informative, but they do not establish what percentage of all third-trimester abortions occur for each reason.
The distinction matters. A pregnancy terminated at 21 weeks is not medically equivalent to one terminated at 35 weeks. Yet public debate often treats them as though they belong to one category.
The fact that state and federal governments have not collected this data again speaks of obfuscation. It appears that those states that allow third trimester abortions don’t want the public to know those answers.
The Fetal Tissue Question
There is another issue that sometimes enters this debate: the use of fetal tissue in medical research.
Some commentators have suggested that expanding access to later abortions is intended to increase the supply of fetal organs and tissue for research or commercial purposes. We found no evidence connecting fetal tissue purchasers to the campaigns supporting Virginia’s amendment. There is, however, a real history of controversy surrounding fetal tissue procurement.
Federal law prohibits the sale of fetal tissue and organs but permits reasonable payments for expenses such as processing, preservation, storage, and transportation. Companies involved in procurement have operated within that framework, although questions about whether particular payments crossed legal boundaries have prompted congressional investigations.
In 2016, a House investigative panel examined relationships between abortion providers and tissue procurement companies. Its Republican majority alleged improper practices.
The international market for human biological materials raises another question. Organ trafficking is already a documented criminal industry, with estimates placing its annual value in the hundreds of millions to more than a billion dollars. Meanwhile, commercial clinics are marketing stem cells, exosomes, and growth-factor treatments for anti-aging and regenerative medicine.
Fetal tissue is scientifically valuable because developing cells produce biological signals involved in growth and tissue formation. Whether those properties have created a significant illegal market for fetal-derived products remains unknown. Researchers studying human tissue trafficking have warned that the trade in cells and tissues receives far less scrutiny than organ trafficking. Without reliable information about sourcing, payments, and international distribution, the size of any illicit fetal-tissue market is impossible to establish.
The commercial market for human biological materials may extend well beyond conventional medical research. Experiments involving young and old mice helped fuel interest in blood-borne factors that might influence aging. By 2016, companies were selling young-donor plasma transfusions to customers seeking rejuvenation, despite the lack of proven clinical benefit. The FDA warned against these treatments in 2019 and again in 2024. Meanwhile, an international market for experimental stem-cell and regenerative therapies continues to operate, sometimes beyond effective regulatory oversight. Whether fetal-derived cells or growth factors have entered an illicit anti-aging market remains unknown. But the financial incentives, the scientific interest in developmental biology, and the difficulty of tracing some human biological materials make this a legitimate question for further investigation.
The University of Pittsburgh also attracted scrutiny over its fetal tissue research. Records discussed by investigators referred to collecting certain tissue samples across a broad range of gestational ages, prompting questions from members of Congress about tissue sources and collection procedures. The university commissioned an outside legal review, which found its activities compliant with applicable law. But legal compliance and ethical acceptability are not necessarily the same thing. Federal law establishes certain safeguards, while states impose additional requirements that vary considerably. A finding that researchers followed the rules does not, by itself, answer whether those rules adequately protect human life or prevent financial incentives from influencing tissue procurement.
In January 2026, under President Trump, the National Institutes of Health announced that it would end funding for research using human fetal tissue from elective abortions. That policy applies to NIH-supported research, not every privately funded or state-funded project.
Those questions deserve scrutiny. But the available evidence does not establish that fetal tissue procurement is driving Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment.
Back to Ashkelon
Nearly seventeen centuries ago, the bodies of almost 100 newborn infants ended up in a drain beneath a Roman bathhouse. We may never know how they died or who was responsible. But their remains are a disturbing reminder of a time when some societies accepted the killing or abandonment of unwanted children. It took centuries of religious, moral, and legal change to establish the protections newborns enjoy today.
Modern medicine has eliminated much of the uncertainty that once surrounded life in the womb. We can observe a developing child’s heartbeat, monitor its growth, and save premature babies who would have had little chance of survival just a few generations ago. A viable child does not suddenly become biologically human at delivery. That child was already human, already alive, and already capable of surviving outside the womb.
Yet our laws continue to draw a sharp distinction between ending that life before birth and ending it afterward. That distinction is legal, not a sudden change in biological identity.
Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment would not explicitly legalize killing a child after birth. But it would replace the existing third-trimester medical standard with a broader constitutional protection based on a single physician’s judgment about physical or mental health. It would also raise questions about existing safeguards for viable unborn children, medical licensing requirements, and physician conscience protections.
Worse, the ballot language omits some of these consequential changes. Voters are told the amendment protects “doctors, nurses, and patients,” while the constitutional text protects “any individual” assisting another person with voluntary consent. The ballot also fails to explain the change from three physicians to one or the removal of the existing requirement for substantial and irremediable harm. These omissions are already being challenged in court as misleading.
The history of fetal tissue procurement and experimental regenerative medicine raises additional questions about financial incentives and the importance of clear ethical safeguards.
Once adopted, these constitutional protections could not simply be repealed by a future legislature. Changing them would require another constitutional amendment.
The question is whether the law should treat a viable child’s life differently simply because that child has not yet been born.
That is a question worth answering before changing Virginia’s Constitution.
End.
Independent Medical Journalism Needs Your Support
Investigating the intersection of medicine, ethics, law, and government policy is not easy work. It takes time, research, and a willingness to ask uncomfortable questions, particularly when those questions challenge powerful institutions, entrenched interests, or political allies.
At Malone News, we do not believe medical ethics should change according to political convenience, financial incentives, or the demands of special interests. Nor do we believe that difficult questions about human life, medical freedom, and informed consent should be swept aside because they make people uncomfortable.
This is why independent journalism matters. We answer to our readers, not pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, political parties, or corporate advertisers. And we intend to keep it that way.
But independence comes at a price. Researching, documenting, and publishing this work requires considerable time and resources. Our paid subscribers make it possible to continue investigating stories that others would rather ignore.
If you value serious, independent reporting on medicine, medical ethics, and public policy, please become a paid subscriber today. Your support helps keep Malone News independent, our investigations moving forward, and our reporting available to the public.
Thank you for standing with us.
Robert and Jill
References
Virginia Constitutional Amendment and Legal Sources
- Virginia Department of Elections. (2026). Explanation for Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Be Voted On at the November 3, 2026, Election: Question 1. Commonwealth of Virginia.
- Virginia General Assembly. (2026). House Bill 781: Ballot Question for the Proposed Right to Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment. Approved February 6, 2026.
- Virginia General Assembly. (2026). Proposed Amendment to Article I of the Constitution of Virginia, Relating to the Fundamental Right to Reproductive Freedom. House Joint Resolution 1.
- Code of Virginia. § 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.
- Code of Virginia. § 18.2-75. Conscience protections concerning participation in abortion procedures.
- Code of Virginia. § 18.2-371.1. Abuse and neglect of children; safe-haven provisions.
- Association of American Physicians and Surgeons et al. v. Virginia State Board of Elections et al. (2026). Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, Virginia.
- Virginia Mercury. (2026, January 19). Virginia lawmakers send reproductive rights amendment toward November vote.
- Virginia Mercury. (2026, August 28). If Va.’s reproductive rights amendment passes, challengers say they’ll fight to overturn it in court.
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
- Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. 1 U.S.C. § 8.
- Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. 18 U.S.C. § 1531.
History of Infanticide and Medical Ethics
- Stager, Lawrence E. (1991). Eroticism and Infanticide at Ashkelon. Biblical Archaeology Review, 17(4).
- Faerman, Marina, et al. (1998). Determining the Sex of Infanticide Victims from the Late Roman Era through Ancient DNA Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25(9), 861–865.
- Archaeology. (1997). Ashkelon. Archaeology, 50(2).
- Harris, William V. (1994). Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Studies, 84, 1–22.
- Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. (1999). Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. Pantheon Books.
- Giubilini, Alberto, and Francesca Minerva. (2013). After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(5), 261–263. Published online in 2012.
- Singer, Peter. (1979). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
- Verhagen, Eduard, and Pieter J. J. Sauer. (2005). The Groningen Protocol: Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(10), 959–962.
- Didache, Chapter 2, Verse 2. Early Christian teaching prohibiting abortion and infanticide.
- Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion, Book II, Section 202.
- Philo of Alexandria. Special Laws, Book III, Sections 110–119.
- Plutarch. Life of Lycurgus, Chapter 16.
Later Abortions and Medical Research
- Foster, Diana Greene, and Katrina Kimport. (2013). Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45(4), 210–218.
- Foster, Diana Greene. (2016). Responses to Questions for the Record.U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, March 15.
- Diedrich, Justin, et al. (2024). Induction of Fetal Asystole Before Abortion. Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation. Contraception, 139, 110551.
Fetal Tissue Procurement, Research, and Commercial Interests
- U.S. House of Representatives, Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives. (2016). Final Report. Committee on Energy and Commerce, December 30.
- Washington Examiner. (2016, December 22). House Panel on Fetal Tissue Makes 15 Referrals for Prosecution.
- National Institutes of Health. (2026, January 22). NIH Announces Major Policy Shift to End Use of Human Fetal Tissue in NIH-Supported Research.
- University of Pittsburgh. (2022). University of Pittsburgh Releases Results of External Review of Fetal Tissue Research.
- Lankford, James, et al. (2021). Congressional Letter Requesting Investigation of University of Pittsburgh Fetal Tissue Research.
- Fox News. (2021, August 4). Report on the University of Pittsburgh Fetal Tissue Project.
- 42 U.S.C. § 289g-1. Research on Transplantation of Fetal Tissue.
- 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2. *Prohibitions Regarding Human
You’re currently a free subscriber to Malone News. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Kittitas County, WA Election Officials Identify Three Voter Fraud Cases from 2024 Election
More Examples of how a Universal Vote-by-Mail State Allows for Voter Fraud
| BILL BRUCH OCT 19 |  |
Kittitas County, WA, election officials have recently identified three separate voter fraud cases tied to the November 2024 general election.
On October 8, 2026, Edward Thomas Pattee of South Cle Elum, who was charged with submitting and voting his deceased mother’s ballot, pleaded guilty to voter fraud. Pattee accepted a plea deal and pleaded guilty to a felony voter fraud charge in Kittitas County Superior Court. The court sentenced him to 10 days of home detention with electronic monitoring.
Pattee admitted filling out his mother’s ballot for the 2024 General Election after she died and mailing it in to be counted. In his statement of guilt, Pattee said he was the caregiver for his mother, Erma Turner. After she died Oct. 14, 2024, Pattee admitted that he “filled out her ballot, signed her name to it, and mailed it in along with my own ballot.”
The case was triggered by a signature mismatch identified during review of the ballot declaration. The Kittitas County Sheriff’s Office began its investigation after elections officials alerted them in December 2025 that an apparently fraudulent ballot had been submitted on Oct. 25, 2024.
The signature on the returned ballot did not match the voter’s signatures on her ballots from 2003, 2008, and 2009, and the 2024 ballot also included the woman’s middle initial, which officials noticed she had never used in her earlier signatures.
A review of signatures from others in the woman’s household found one from the woman’s son, which had “striking similarity” to the signature found on the 2024 ballot, according to court documents.
Deputy Prosecutor Hunter Slezak said the crime was not malicious and stressed that Pattee had no criminal record. “However, this is an important case nonetheless, as the court well knows, the importance of voting, protecting our voting systems in the Constitution, is paramount. Even so, the system worked; it was caught. flagged, and it was discovered,” Slezak said.
In another case, in June 2026, prosecutors charged a former South Cle Elum woman with voter fraud for casting ballots in two different states during the 2024 General Election. When questioned by the Kittitas County Sheriff’s Office, Rachelle Yvonne Ellis admitted she voted ballots in both states because of “issues in Colorado she wanted to be heard on,” and claimed she only voted on state/local races in Colorado (not federal ones) and “did not attempt to double vote on national issues twice.”
Authorities say Ellis knew that voting in both states was against the law and has since expressed her regrets and apologies for doing so.
At her June 18 arraignment in Kittitas County Superior Court, conducted online via video, Ellis pleaded not guilty to the felony voter fraud charge. Judge James Kirkham ordered her to appear in person for her next hearing on August 27, when she would be formally arrested, booked into jail, and released on her own recognizance. No public resolution of the case has been reported, though plea bargains and negotiations are believed to be ongoing.
In another case, one month later, prosecutors allege that a Cle Elum woman Jeannie L. Wailes, signed and submitted a ballot belonging to a former resident of her household during the November 2024 general election.
The prosecutor’s office was alerted to the bogus ballot after it was informed a Cle Elum resident had voted in the 2024 General Election in Kittitas County but also a few days later in Alaska.
Investigators were tipped off after the registered voter was recorded as voting in Kittitas County with a ballot in a drop box on Nov. 1, 2024, and then registered and voted in Juneau, Alaska, on Nov. 4, 2024.
Investigators determined the signature on the ballot that was cast in Kittitas County did not match the woman’s signature from her earlier voting registration in Kittitas County or her new paperwork in Alaska.
When contacted by a Kittitas County deputy in January, the voter said she did not sign a ballot for Kittitas County in 2024, and believed her voter registration was canceled.
Police later spoke with Wailes at the former residence, where she acknowledged that ballots for the prior occupant were still arriving at the house. She told a deputy she had no “active memory” of the November 2024 ballot and offered no explanation for why the signature on it resembled her own.
Wailes, pleaded not guilty to a felony voter fraud charge at her July 23, 2026 arraignment in Kittitas County Superior Court. Judge Chris Herion set her trial for October 5, 2026. However, as in the Ellis case, no public resolution has been reported, and the case appears stalled amid plea negotiations…
Also, last year a Franklin County, WA, Pasco woman was arrested for Multiple Counts of Election Fraud and ID theft- and faced 12 felonies. For the 2024 Nov. general election, mail-in ballots were sent to several former tenants who had vacated an apartment building in Pasco. Esperanza Contreras, the apartment manager, intercepted four of the ballots (intended for people no longer living there), filled them out, forged the voters’ signatures on the return envelopes, and submitted them to the Auditor’s Office.
- Three of the four ballots were accepted and counted.
- The fourth was rejected due to a signature mismatch.
Franklin County sheriff’s detectives began investigating when a Hermiston, Ore., woman reported that she had tried to vote in the 2024 election and discovered her ballot already had been cast, court documents said.
Her sister, who lived in Lewis County, Wash., also discovered that her ballot was returned to county election officials. They soon learned their former landlord, Contreras, had voted for them. Detectives also discovered two other former tenants who had their votes cast for them. Investigators compared the signatures on the ballots to the victims and found they were not the same.
Contreras admitted to the actions during an interview with detectives and was placed under arrest and booked into Franklin County Jail for 12 felony charges related to Illegal Voting / Voter Fraud and Identity Theft.
By mid-January 2026, prosecutors had reduced the charges down to four felony counts of voter registration/voter violation. Contreras then pleaded guilty to the four felony counts in late August 2026; Judge Jackie Stam sentenced her to three months of work release (served from the Benton County jail, because Franklin County does not have a work-release program). It was reported that prosecutors and the defense recommended that term (the charges carried up to a year). Victim impact statements described confusion, fear, and distress (including one former tenant who thought she herself might be arrested).
She was given until Oct. 8, 2026, to report to jail and is believed to have begun serving the three-month sentence.
REMINDER: The Kittitas Ellis case will be particularly interesting to track against the backdrop of Washington’s evolving interpretation of double-voting statutes, following the 2026 appellate ruling in WA State v. Padrta.
In that case, after admitting to voting in two states in the Nov. 2022 general election and being found guilty in Lewis County Superior Court, James Padrta appealed the ruling in June, 2024. In Dec. 2025, the Court of Appeals heard the case, and on Jan. 6, 2026, the 3 judge panel (all Inslee appointee justices) issued its curious 2-1 split decision, ruling that the law did not prohibit voting in Washington and another state in the same election cycle; saying that Padrta did not vote in the same “election” and therefore did not violate RCW 29A.84.650(1).
The court majority found: The Washington and Oregon November 2022 general elections were not the same election because they had a different slate of candidates. And Padrta was not guilty because he only voted once in each of two separate elections.
The ruling created ambiguity by narrowly defining “election.” In response, the Legislature passed SB 6084: Clarifying the prohibition on voting more than once in an election (a Democrat sponsored bill signed into law in March 2026), amending 29A.84.650(1), which clarifies that a person may not vote in Washington and another state IF THE ELECTION DATE IS THE SAME FOR BOTH STATES, regardless of the candidates, offices, issues, or measures on the ballot.
SB 6084 is a narrow fix that clarifies same-day protections but does not address multi-state voting across staggered election dates or the underlying challenges posed by mobile populations and universal mail ballots.
However, the Democrats’ (aka “The Anyone From Anywhere Can Vote Party”) new law also codifies the appellate court’s ruling, potentially now allowing dual voting by the same voter in multiple jurisdictions/states as long as the election is not held on “the same day.”
Many counties in WA State and other states hold 3, 4, 5, or even 6 elections per year, each on a different date. About 45 States hold their respective primary elections on different dates – only WA, MI, KS, MO, and VA held their Aug 4, 2026 primary elections on the same date…
Different election-date scenarios across states are harder to police and may require interstate data sharing. So now, if the “election” isn’t on the same date across different states, someone could possibly vote multiple ballots in as many “elections” as possible, wherever “voters” receive ballots, potentially with no consequences…
Cases like these highlight the obvious vulnerabilities in universal mail-in systems. It is fraught with peril, including an easy-to-manipulate signature verification forgery system, a USPS mail delivery system that sends ballots to the wrong voters and vacant/wrong addresses, and the exploitation of a widely flawed system of ongoing, proven, outdated/inaccurate voter rolls in many WA state counties.
Universal mail-in system jurisdictions are incredibly problematic because the county automatically mails a ballot to every active registered voter for each election, without requiring the voter to request an absentee or mail ballot first.
Ballots are mailed to all active registered voters several weeks before Election Day. In the current WA State Dec. 3, 2026 general election, many counties mailed ballots on October 9; I received mine in Skagit County on October 10. Often, ballots are counted up to a day or two before election certification, Nov. 24, 2026, in WA State.
During the many weeks of election season, mail-in voting can make certain forms of voter fraud easier because ballots leave the controlled environment of a polling place and can be obtained, filled out, or returned by someone other than the registered voter, including ballot harvesters.
Because the ballots are handled outside of in-person observation, the primary safeguard becomes signature verification, which is not foolproof and depends on the quality of the comparison and the availability of a clear reference signature.
While election officials caught several of these cases through signature checks and cross-state notifications, the physical separation of the ballot from the voter creates opportunities for someone with access to another person’s mail or registration information to cast a ballot without that person’s knowledge.
Big thanks to the Kittitas and Franklin County auditors, elections staff, and county prosecutors for identifying voting irregularities early and pursuing charges when evidence supports it. The auditor’s office and prosecutor’s office play vital roles in serving the community and maintaining public confidence and peace of mind that only eligible voters’ ballots are counted.
Bill Bruch
Bill Bruch is the WA State GOP Election Integrity Committee Chairman (6th year), WAGOP Executive Board Member (6th year), Skagit County GOP Chairman (10th year), RNC Election Integrity Committee WA State Chairman, Citizen Journalist, Business Owner, 2020 WA State House Representative Candidate, Former Council Member, and WA State 2016 and 2024 RNC National Convention Delegate
You’re currently a free subscriber to All Things Politics. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
October 16, 2026
Friday Funnies: MARS-X
Cause who doesn’t want to live on MARS?
| DR. ROBERT W. MALONE OCT 16 | |
Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it via social media, crossposting, or email.
True story:
Sea otters have figured out how to always have the right tool handy. These clever little creatures have loose folds of skin beneath their forearms that function as pockets, where they stash rocks and shellfish.
Why rocks? Because cracking open clams and mussels is considerably easier with a hammer, and sea otters aren’t about to let the lack of opposable thumbs stand between them and dinner.
Some even hang on to a particularly good rock for repeated use. So, while humans invented toolboxes, handbags, and cargo pants, sea otters simply came equipped with built-in pockets.
Take control of your food, your health, and your future. Homesteading for Health shows you how, with practical wisdom from four decades of farm life.
As independent analysts and writers, our job at Malone News is not to pick sides when we investigate stories. This makes us perpetual outsiders, belonging to no particular tribe. It certainly doesn’t get us invited to the DC galas!
So no, we are not picking on any one person. And no, when we write on HHS, it is not “sour grapes.” Writing for Malone News has given us a voice that allows us to educate and inform. We are following stories that are newsworthy. And the stories we report on most are those we know the most about and are most passionate about.
In fact, we don’t particularly enjoy reporting bad things about the people and organizations with whom we are most closely aligned. But to avoid doing so would be to pull our punches, and that is not how we roll. Journalistic integrity means being willing to ask hard questions, even when the answers make our own side uncomfortable.
So, if you appreciate that we are willing to go where other conservative media won’t, and report stories others would rather leave alone, please support our independent journalism with a paid subscription.
I leave you with the following video – an alternate vision of our future.
Have a great day folks!
JGM
You’re currently a free subscriber to Malone News. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
