You're listening to the Judicial Watch Weekly Update with Tom Fitton.

Hey everyone, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update here on social media.

Thank you as always for joining us during a very busy season for Judicial Watch, especially in the area of election law. In case you missed our

update last week, it's worth repeating. We've had two tremendous historic successes in the area.

First, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Judicial Watch's client,

Congressman Boston, Illinois, and two presidential electors

affirming the right of candidates to challenge count practices. In Illinois, they count ballots

that arrive for up to seven days after election day, sometimes even without a postmark.

The rules even allow that exception.

And rather than let us litigate on that very issue because federal law sets election day,

the lower court said, no, he doesn't even have standing.

He doesn't have the right to challenge this.

And the Supreme Court seven to two said, yes, he does.

And five of the justices said it for one reason, two of the justices said it for another reason,

and combined it with seven, we're in court.

And on top of that, we received word from Oregon that after a judicial watch lawsuit was filed to clean up the rolls in Oregon,

they removed 800,000 names, or about to remove 800,000 names.

At least 160,000 will be removed immediately with the rest to be removed at a future time.

And all of this resulted obviously from our federal lawsuit to clean up the rolls.

So that means our prior litigation and legal actions that cause the removal of 5 million names,

dirty names from the rolls, is now nearly, those numbers are now up to nearly six million names from the rolls, 5.8 million

to be specific. And we had a video created to explain the issues we're talking about, and I'll

...