OPINION

The United States of America – The framers of our Constitution weren’t building a pure democracy; they were building a balancing act. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

The original Constitution divided political power among different interests. The People elected the House of Representatives. State legislatures selected Senators. The Executive branch was headed by a President chosen through the Electoral College. Everybody had skin in the game. Everybody had a seat at the table. And nobody got all the power.

That arrangement wasn’t some accident buried in old parchment. It was deliberate.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution plainly stated that senators would be “chosen by the Legislature” of each state. According to James Madison in Federalist No. 62, appointment by state legislatures was designed to create a direct connection between the states and the federal government. He wrote that this method would “form a convenient link between the two systems.” The Senate was never intended to represent the passions of the public. The House already did that. The Senate represented the states themselves.

And that’s because the United States was formed by sovereign states entering into a union, not by Washington handing power down from on high.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates spent weeks fighting over representation. Large states wanted population-based representation. Smaller states feared being steamrolled. The eventual Connecticut Compromise created two chambers, one representing the People and one representing the States. It was a compromise that helped save the convention from collapse. Benjamin Franklin himself urged concessions to preserve the union.

Madison argued repeatedly that the Senate’s structure would act as a stabilizing force. The upper chamber would provide experience and continuity while insulating the country from sudden swings in public opinion. The U.S. Senate’s own historical records note that senators were intentionally made older and selected by state legislatures to provide stability and restraint.

Then came 1913.

The Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally changed the arrangement by transferring the election of senators from state legislatures to popular vote. Supporters argued it would reduce corruption and legislative deadlocks. It certainly changed things, but it also removed the states themselves from direct representation in Washington. The National Constitution Center describes the amendment as the only major constitutional change affecting the structure of Congress since the Bill of Rights.

Since then, senators have become national politicians rather than ambassadors of their state governments. Their incentives changed. Governors and legislatures may protest federal mandates, but their senators often answer first to national donors, party leadership and television cameras.

That’s a very different system than the one the founders designed.

State governments today have no institutional voice inside Congress. They sue Washington. They lobby Washington. They beg Washington. But they no longer possess representation within Washington itself, which is exactly what the original Senate provided.

Supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment point to corruption scandals that occurred before 1913. Those problems were real. But replacing one flaw with another doesn’t necessarily count as progress, history is full of reforms that created new problems while solving old ones.

The Constitution was built on competing interests checking one another. The House represented the people. The Senate represented the states. The president represented the nation as a whole. It wasn’t complicated.

We’ve drifted far from that arrangement.

Today Washington treats states less like partners and more like administrative districts. Federal agencies dictate policy, Congress spends borrowed money with abandon, and senators spend more time chasing campaign cash than defending state sovereignty.

Maybe the old system wasn’t perfect. Nothing designed by human beings ever is. But the framers understood something modern politicians often forget… Power needs rivals.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment wouldn’t weaken democracy. It would restore federalism. It would give state governments a genuine stake in the game again and force Washington to remember that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.

We shouldn’t expect the people who benefit from the current arrangement to voluntarily surrender power. Congress is not likely to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, and senators certainly aren’t inclined to vote themselves out of their present status. The framers anticipated moments like this.

That’s why Article V of the Constitution gives the states another path, a convention for proposing amendments called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. If Americans truly want to restore federalism and return the states to their rightful place in the constitutional order, the answer probably won’t come from Washington. It’ll have to come from the states themselves, from the People. The people created the states, the states created the federal government, and sometimes it’s necessary to remind Washington who’s really supposed to be in charge.

For those who believe the time has come to restore the constitutional balance our founders envisioned, organizations like Convention of States Action are already leading the fight. Visit https://conventionofstates.com/, get informed, and get involved, because Washington isn’t going to limit itself unless the states and the people demand it.

Sources: Article I of the Constitution, James Madison’s Federalist No. 62, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, and historical material from the U.S. Senate and Library of Congress.

OPINION

California – Don’t expect a dramatic press conference from the Trump administration declaring California’s elections clean. More likely, the investigations will quietly fade into the background and eventually disappear from the headlines without any grand conclusion.

In my view, that outcome is almost inevitable. The reason is simple. California’s election laws have been written in such a way that many practices critics consider vulnerable to abuse are perfectly legal. If the conduct itself is authorized by law, federal investigators are unlikely to ever establish the kind of “widespread fraud” that many Americans are expecting them to uncover.

President Donald Trump recently accused Democrats of cheating in California’s primary election, prompting First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli to announce that his office and the FBI have multiple election fraud investigations underway in Los Angeles. Essayli’s office also confirmed that Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Renner visited a Los Angeles County ballot processing center to observe the vote counting process. Reports described the visit as routine and similar to those available to members of the public.

Those comments may sound encouraging to voters concerned about election integrity. But they are likely to produce exactly what previous investigations have produced … years of unanswered questions … followed by silence.

California Elections Code Section 3017 allows a voter who is unable to return a ballot to designate another person to do so. The designated person may hand deliver the ballot or place it in the mail. Criminal penalties exist for bribery, intimidation, tampering, and fraud, but the collection and delivery of ballots by third parties is itself legal.

Supporters argue the practice improves access for elderly and disabled voters. Critics call it legalized ballot harvesting.

Under California law, political organizations, activists, churches, unions, or nonprofit groups may legally collect ballots from voters. If investigators discovered nonprofit groups organizing ballot collection efforts among homeless populations, it would not automatically constitute criminal conduct. Unless prosecutors could prove bribery, coercion, or tampering, much of the activity critics complain about would be perfectly lawful.

Fox 11 recently reported that Essayli referenced a case involving a Marina del Rey woman accused of paying individuals, including homeless people on Skid Row, to register to vote. Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, also known as “Anika,” pleaded guilty to one federal count of paying another person to register to vote. She faces up to five years in prison when she is sentenced Aug. 31.

Authorities have not alleged that the conduct affected statewide races. Nevertheless, the case highlights concerns long raised by election integrity advocates.

Even if investigators were to uncover isolated examples involving ballots cast in the names of deceased individuals or by noncitizens, history suggests such cases would be treated as individual violations rather than evidence of a larger conspiracy. Officials and media outlets would almost certainly characterize them as statistically insignificant and insufficient to alter election outcomes.

Likewise, even if prosecutors managed to bring a handful of cases involving illegal voting, supporters of the system would likely point to those prosecutions as evidence that the safeguards are working. Critics, meanwhile, would argue that the cases merely expose vulnerabilities that are impossible to quantify.

That is because proving widespread election fraud requires more than finding isolated violations. Prosecutors would have to establish a coordinated effort on a massive scale. Such a burden is extraordinarily difficult to satisfy, especially after ballots have been separated from identifying information and mixed with millions of legitimate votes.

Critics need look no further than the Los Angeles mayoral race to understand why public confidence has eroded. Councilmember Nithya Raman climbed into second place on June 7, overtaking Spencer Pratt as post Election Day ballots continued to be counted. To skeptics, the distribution of those later ballots appeared anomalous, with Raman benefiting disproportionately while neither Karen Bass nor Pratt experienced comparable gains.

Some election integrity advocates view such swings as evidence that California’s system invites speculation that ballots collected through organized harvesting operations could be strategically submitted over time. There is no publicly available evidence demonstrating that such conduct occurred in this race… but the inability to either prove or definitively disprove those suspicions is itself part of the criticism leveled against California’s election laws.

The real debate, in my view, is not whether California elections are run according to the law. They are. The debate is whether the law itself creates conditions that make abuses difficult to detect and nearly impossible to prove after the fact.

That is why Bill Essayli’s statements strike me as little more than empty words. Announcing investigations sounds impressive, but prosecutors cannot prosecute conduct that lawmakers have already legalized. They cannot declare ballot harvesting fraudulent when California law expressly permits third party ballot collection.

Reuters and other news organizations have noted that election officials insist there is no evidence supporting claims of widespread fraud in the governor’s race or the Los Angeles mayor’s race. They may very well be correct according to the legal standards that currently exist. But that misses the point entirely.

Critics are not necessarily claiming that large numbers of people are breaking California law. They are arguing that California lawmakers have constructed a system that places convenience ahead of transparency and verification.

And if the rules themselves permit the conduct, federal investigators should not expect to uncover some giant criminal enterprise hiding in plain sight.

The most likely outcome is not a bombshell report. It is a slow fade. The investigations will drift out of public view, the headlines will move on, and Californians will continue voting under the same rules that produced the controversy in the first place.

Whether those rules deserve the public’s trust is another matter altogether.

Sources: California Elections Code §3017; Los Angeles Times; ABC7 Los Angeles; Fox 11 Los Angeles; Reuters.

Fate, TX – A bitter political battle that has divided residents and fueled an effort to remove the Mayor of Fate and three sitting council members has taken an unexpected turn after court records revealed that one of the recall movement’s principal organizers, Christopher Allen Rains, previously pleaded guilty in a felony fraud case, a fact that appears to have been largely unknown to many local voters.

Court records reviewed by Pipkins Reports show that Rains entered a guilty plea in 2016 to a charge of Fraudulent Use or Possession of Identifying Information, a state jail felony under Texas law. Arrest records reviewed by Pipkins Reports show Rains was also arrested on charges of Tampering with a Government Record. However, the tampering allegation does not appear among the final court dispositions reviewed by Pipkins Reports.

[Images of Arrest, Mugshots, and Court Records of Christopher Allen Rains]

The revelation has drawn attention because the recall campaign has frequently centered on issues of ethics, accountability, transparency, and public trust in government. Critics of the current council have argued that elected officials should be held to a high standard of conduct, while supporters of the council have questioned the motives of those seeking their removal.

According to records from the 416th District Court in Collin County, Rains was indicted in 2014 and later pleaded guilty on Sept. 29, 2016, to Fraudulent Use or Possession of Identifying Information involving fewer than five items. The court placed him on deferred adjudication probation for five years and ordered 100 hours of community service.

Court documents state that the judge found sufficient evidence to support the charge but withheld a formal conviction under the terms of deferred adjudication. Records further show that Rains successfully completed probation requirements and was granted an early release from supervision in 2019.

The issue carries public interest not only because Rains helped organize the recall effort, but because his wife, Ashley Rains, currently serves on the Fate City Council and was politically involved in the recall movement while seeking elected office. Christopher Rains stated to Pipkins Reports that he did not form a relationship with his wife until after he had turned his life around, in 2020.

When contacted by Pipkins Reports, Rains did not dispute the court records or his guilty plea. Instead, he cooperated fully with our questions and described the events as occurring during a difficult period of substance abuse and personal struggles.

“In 2013-2014, I was making IDs, checks, and credit cards. I was sentenced to 10 years of probation and 8 months of state jail. I was discharged 5 years early off probation“, Rains told Pipkins Reports.

Rains goes on to illustrate how he wasn’t in a good place in his life following that discharge and that his conduct during that period was connected to addiction, and does not reflect who he is today.

“It’s nuanced, I was medically discharged from the military.” Referring to events just prior to his arrest.

“My actions in active addiction aren’t who I am,” Rains told Pipkins Reports. “I own and run multiple businesses, write uncle Sam checks for six figures every single year. My two years of being an absolute dirt bag doesn’t define me in any way.“

Rains further stated that he expected the issue would eventually become public and said he was not attempting to hide his past.

“I absolutely knew it would come up,” he said. “I’m not afraid of anything anybody can say about me.“

Rather than deny responsibility, Rains characterized the criminal case as part of a chapter of his life that he has worked to overcome.

“I can not change the past,” Rains said. “I can not control who does what to me. I can only control how I respond. I am in no way the same person I was in 2014.“

His comments are likely to resonate with residents who believe people deserve an opportunity to rebuild their lives after making serious mistakes.

At the same time, the newly disclosed records raise legitimate questions about transparency and public scrutiny. Rains did not publicly disclose his criminal history while gathering signatures for the recall effort. A recall movement that focused attention on the character, ethics, and judgment of elected officials. Voters may reasonably conclude that similar scrutiny should apply to the individuals leading those efforts.

Whether residents view the criminal case as disqualifying, irrelevant, or evidence of personal redemption will ultimately be a matter of individual judgment.

What is not in dispute is that court records show Rains pleaded guilty to a felony fraud charge, received deferred adjudication probation, completed the court’s requirements, and later obtained an early release from supervision. Those facts, now become part of the public record surrounding one of the most visible organizers in Fate’s ongoing political conflict.

Sources: Collin County District Court Case No. 416-82092-2014; Register of Actions; publicly available arrest records; Pipkins Reports interview with Christopher Rains;