Garden State Times

Noted Trump supporter Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) is being targeted by Democratic opponents for his support of the Trump campaign’s continued challenges to the election. 

“[]hat you would literally disenfranchise my voters in my district. [It] is an absurd notion,” Van Drew told Fox & Friends. 

Van Drew said his opponents across the aisle were trying to remove him from the body due to his continued support for Trump. 

“Here's the important part here, regardless of the issue with the president, we need to ensure that we have the highest level of integrity in our elections and quite frankly we haven't and we've been retrogressing. Years ago we were actually doing better with elections than we are now,” he said.

He said while efforts have been unsuccessful thus far, he expects more to come. 

“I'm sure that they will try, but again we are a nation — I hope — of the rule of law both with our elections and also with this. We've got to start literally believing in the rule of law and doing things the right way,” Van Drew said. 

Van Drew noted the challenge by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week was needed. 

“States changed their election laws, changed the way they went about voting, in a very serious and significant way without the legislature meeting and the legislature voting on it,” he said. “That's unconstitutional it's not legal. I believe in the rule of law. (They) should have had a meeting of those folks obviously better than the legislature and that's what this suit is all about and that's what the concern is about.” 

His comments changing election laws echoes testimony in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing today from Trump Attorney Jesse Binall on a Nevada law that allowed for irregularities. 

“The vulnerabilities of this statute were obvious: it provided for universal mail voting without sufficient safeguards to authenticate voters or ensure the fundamental requirement that only one ballot was sent to each legally qualified voter,” Binnall said in regards to Nevada’s AB 4. 

Van Drew said he felt the U.S. Supreme Court should have heard Texas’ case, but he felt it had been handled well. 

“[T]he Supreme Court's decision not to take it up, however, it was done appropriately,” he said.