A New Win in the War against Zuckerbucks

Note: This article may contain commentary or the author's opinion.

Two red states recently won a major battle in the fight against voter fraud by standing up to Zuckerberg’s attempts to influence elections via spending prodigious sums funding the vote counters.

Now, another red state victory against Zuckerbucks was won, this time in Louisiania, where a Louisiana appellate court reinstated Attorney General Jeff Landry’s anti-Zuckerbucks lawsuit.

Originally, Landry had attempted to stop Zuckerbucks from influencing Lousiania’s elections by preventing the vote counters from accepting that money, viewing the donations as inappropriate. He was stopped when a lower court ruled that the vote counters could accept Zuckerberg’s donations, a determination that stopped his lawsuit against the parishes that accepted Zuckerbucks during the 2020 race.

Well, though that state trial court dismissed his lawsuit, now Landry is back because an appellate court reinstated the lawsuit, ruling that the lower court has mishandled the lawsuit and that Landry’s characteristicization of the groups involved was more accurate than the trial court’s determination of what they were.

That’s important because it’s Landry’s key to reigning in those groups attempting to accept Zuckerbucks. The trial court’s ruling wouldn’t have allowed them to do so; the appellate court will.

Describing why that’s the case and the difference that was at issue here, the Federalist also reported that:

In reversing the trial court and reinstating Landry’s lawsuit against the Center for Tech and Civic Life and the other defendant organizations that assisted in distributing the Zuckbucks, the Louisiana appellate court analyzed controlling precedent to determine whether the clerks of court and the registrar of voters are “political subdivisions” within the meaning of art. 6 § 23 of the Louisiana constitution.

They are not, the appellate court concluded. “Rather it is clear that they are constitutional officers created by the State pursuant to our constitution,” the appellate court continued, “and both officers have only the powers, duties, and responsibilities as granted to them by law.”

Because the clerks of court and registrar of voters to whom the Zuckbucks were to be distributed “are not creatures of local government,” they may not “acquire property” by “donation” under art. 6, § 23 of the state constitution

So, because of their roles, they can’t receive the Zuckerbucks. That’s a major win, even if confined to Louisiana, and should help Attorney General Landry wrangle those vote counters attempting to accept Zuckerbucks back under control.

Further, it’s important because it provides a template for other states: lawfare is not only effective, but a path the right needs to take if it’s going to win. Fighting is great, but fighting with the courts on one’s side is far, far better. And by sticking to the fight and not giving up because of one loss, we can keep winning and keep rolling back the left’s influence over our elections.

The appellate court didn’t rule that the Zuckerbucks were illegal. But it did give Landry an opportunity to do so, something he seems poised to capitalize on and use as a way to keep Louisiana’s elections honest.

By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of GenZConservative.com. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.

Now that Trump has announced his run in 2024, are you excited to vote for him?(Required)
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.