Secretaries Of State Won’t Explain ‘Coordinated’ Effort To Fight ‘Common Adversary’ In 2024
Several secretaries of state in key battlegrounds will not disclose what their apparent plans for a “coordinated” effort to fight a “common adversary” entail ahead of the 2024 election, despite repeated inquiries from The Federalist.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently revealed what she described as a mass collaboration between six battleground states.
“One of the things we saw in 2020 was that particularly in battleground states, we were all battling a common adversary: a really nationally coordinated effort to undermine the will of the people both before, during, and after Election Day,” Benson said during an interview with Meidas Touch.
“And we learned to semi-coordinate with each other in ’20. Katie Hobbs and I, she was secretary of Arizona at the time, she and I were friends and we would talk regularly. But there was really no way for us to consistently as a team, the six of us in those six battleground states — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and Georgia — to constantly both compare notes and also say, OK, how we are going to respond to this nationally coordinated effort with a coordinated response,” Benson said. “So now we have that. We actually spent 2022 working to build that team in these six states.”
Benson then reiterated the claim that “democracy” is at stake before saying the states “talk to each other” to “develop common strategies and be much more powerful and united as a team.”
The Federalist inquired with all six battleground states about these efforts over the course of 7 business days.
The offices of the Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin secretaries of state have yet to provide a response about this “coordinated” effort. The office of Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said Benson “mentions Governor Hobbs, former Secretary of State in her speech.”
“Secretary [Adrian] Fontes does not share a similar relationship. Our office follows a ‘bottom-up’ approach when providing coordinated support to Arizona’s 15 counties,” the office told The Federalist. “We have excellent relationships with our elections directors and county recorders.”
Benson did note her collaboration with Hobbs but also claimed the battleground states “now have” a coordinated response that has been built since Hobbs oversaw the 2020 election in Arizona. After being pressed as to whether his response meant Arizona is no longer part of the collaboration Benson described, Fontes’ office told The Federalist:
Not beyond cordial collaborations at conferences, like the National Association of Secretaries of State. Perhaps they may have participated on a panel. Would you agree that awareness of what’s happening in another state is not coordination? I say that is the extent.
[READ NEXT: What The MSM Won’t Tell You About Democrats’ Voter Suppression In The Wisconsin Election]
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office told The Federalist questions about “clarification” should be directed to Benson’s office.
“Secretary Raffensperger remains focused on Georgia’s elections being the most secure, accurate, and accessible in the nation,” the office said in an email to The Federalist. “For the 2024 election, he’s brought a new voter registration system (GARViS) online, supported legislation ending foreign influence in Georgia elections, and focused on making a ban on noncitizen voting permanent via constitutional amendment.”
The Federalist further inquired whether Georgia agreed to partner with Michigan and four other battleground states in the “coordinated response” Benson describes and, if so, what that partnership looks like for Georgia, but did not receive a response by press time.
The office of Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar has ignored three follow-up comment requests after confirming they received The Federalist’s initial inquiry.
Voters deserve to know who Benson — and supposedly other secretaries of state — consider to be part of the “common adversary” and what they mean by a “nationally coordinated effort to undermine the will of the people both before, during, and after Election Day.”
But in the meantime, it’s obvious Benson doesn’t see left-wing activist organizations funneling billions of private dollars into election operations as a “common adversary” that undermines “the will of the people.”
Benson was called out in a lawsuit for allowing a private funding operation to dismantle election processes in Michigan ahead of the presidential election.
The Thomas More Society filed the suit on behalf of Michigan voters arguing Benson was responsible for allowing private grants to flood the state in the months leading up to the general election. The left-wing Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL) distributed “135 grants above the $5,000 minimum” that was allegedly used to “influence the election results and den[y] Michigan voters’ right of equal access to the ballot,” the suit alleges. The funds were unevenly distributed to areas won by Democrats, the suit alleges.
The Federalist also obtained exclusive documents showing Benson worked with National Vote at Home Institute (NVAHI) CEO Amber McReynolds to change election laws. NVAHI was, similar to CTCL, funded by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and pushed states to adopt mass mail-in balloting. McReynolds encouraged Benson via email to use her office to change election laws, suggesting Benson had “rule-making authority.”
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.