{"id":1548181,"date":"2022-07-11T07:50:28","date_gmt":"2022-07-11T11:50:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1548181"},"modified":"2022-07-11T07:50:36","modified_gmt":"2022-07-11T11:50:36","slug":"dissent-in-wi-ballot-drop-box-victory-highlights-much-bigger-issue-our-top-jurists-dont-care-about-election-integrity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/dissent-in-wi-ballot-drop-box-victory-highlights-much-bigger-issue-our-top-jurists-dont-care-about-election-integrity\/","title":{"rendered":"Dissent In WI Ballot Drop Box Victory Highlights Much Bigger Issue: Our Top Jurists Don\u2019t Care About Election Integrity"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">38<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fdissent-in-wi-ballot-drop-box-victory-highlights-much-bigger-issue-our-top-jurists-dont-care-about-election-integrity%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1548181&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/31409335423_0901ff4d44_k.jpg\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" alt=\"image\" \/><\/div>\n<p>The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wicourts.gov\/sc\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&#038;seqNo=542617\">held<\/a> that state election officials\u2019 use of some 500-plus drop boxes during the 2020 general election violated Wisconsin law. <\/p>\n<p>While the court\u2019s decision represents a (partial, as we will soon see) victory for election integrity, the split 4-3 decision and the substance of the dissent reveal that having a fair electoral process no longer \u201ctranscends any individual partisan interest\u201d \u2014 something less than two decades ago Jimmy Carter touted as a universal truth in the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform report \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/projects\/pdf\/election_reform_report.pdf\">Building Confidence in U.S. Elections<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission<\/em>, the court declared that the Wisconsin Elections Commission, or \u201cWEC,\u201d had illegally authorized election officials to use ballot drop boxes. The high court further held the WEC exceeded its statutory authority when it declared that voters could hand off their ballots to third parties rather than personally deliver their own ballots to election officials. The WEC had authorized ballot drop boxes and third-party ballot delivery in two documents issued in 2020, one in the spring before the primary election and the second before the November 2020 general election.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In the first memo, the WEC stated, \u201c[Ballot] drop boxes can be used for voters to return ballots but clerks should ensure they are secure, can be monitored for security purposes, and should be regularly emptied.\u201d That memo also noted that \u201c[a] family member or another person may \u2026 return the [absentee] ballot on behalf of a voter.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>Several months later, in the summer of 2020, the WEC issued a second document that encouraged \u201ccreative solutions\u201d to allow for the use of ballot drop boxes. The second memo expressly provided that municipal clerks could allow drop boxes to remain \u201cunstaffed,\u201d and indicated that \u201c[a]t a minimum, you should have a drop box at your primary municipal building, such as the village hall.\u201d Based on the WEC\u2019s guidance, election officials used some 528 drop boxes during the fall 2020 election. By the spring of 2021, some 570 drop boxes dotted the midwestern state.<\/p>\n<p>Two voters filed suit challenging the WEC\u2019s guidance, arguing the rules violated the Wisconsin election code. The voters prevailed at the trial court level and the WEC appealed, with the voters asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case immediately, bypassing the intermediate appellate court. The high court agreed and heard oral arguments in April 2022 and affirmed the lower court\u2019s decision in favor of the voters on Friday.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The Wisconsin Supreme Court\u2019s opinion methodically marched through the various legal issues, beginning with the question of whether the voters had standing to sue to challenge the WEC\u2019s guidance. The court in <em>Teigen <\/em>concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because they sufficiently alleged they had \u201csuffered an injury in fact to their right to vote.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In reaching this conclusion, the high court highlighted several points that large swaths of the country appear to have forgotten, writing: \u201cVoters[] are entitled to have the elections in which they participate administered properly under the law.\u201d It added that \u201callowing WEC to administer the 2022 elections in a manner other than that required by law causes doubts about the fairness of the elections and erodes voter confidence in the electoral process.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>Likewise, the court stressed, \u201cElections are one of the most important features of our Republic, and upholding the rules and procedures prescribed for elections, according to the laws enacted by the Legislature, reinforces the sanctity of the rule of law and reassures all Americans of the integrity of our elections.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf the right to vote is to have any meaning at all, elections must be conducted according to law,\u201d the Wisconsin high court continued. In fact, \u201cthe right to vote presupposes the rule of law governs elections,\u201d and \u201cif elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful and their results are illegitimate.\u201d And because \u201cthe Wisconsin voters, and all lawful voters, are injured when the institution charged with administering Wisconsin elections does not follow the law, leaving the results in question,\u201d the Supreme Court concluded the voters had suffered an injury.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The injury exists, moreover, the court explained, whether the illegal votes were cast in equal number for Trump or Biden, as \u201c[e]lectoral outcomes obtained by unlawful procedures corrupt the institution of voting, degrading the very foundation of free government. Unlawful votes do not dilute lawful votes so much as they pollute them, which in turn pollutes the integrity of the results.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>After concluding the voters had standing to challenge the WEC\u2019s guidance, the Wisconsin Supreme Court analyzed the relevant portions of the election code. Section 6.87(4)(b)1 provided that absentee ballots \u201cshall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots. The <em>Teigen <\/em>court noted that \u201cthe prepositional phrase \u2018to the municipal clerk\u2019 is key and must be given effect,\u201d and that placing a ballot in a drop box is not delivering the ballot to a clerk, as a clerk is a person, and a drop box is an inanimate object.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The court also concluded that Section 6.855 of the election code confirmed the illegality of ballot drop boxes. That section establishes requirements for \u201calternative absentee ballot sites\u201d \u2014 requirements that the ballot drop boxes failed to satisfy. And because the Wisconsin election code fails to otherwise authorize the use of ballot boxes, the court concluded they were illegal. The use of such illegal drop boxes, the court stressed, \u201cweakens the people\u2019s faith that the election produced an outcome reflective of their will.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Teigen <\/em>court further held that because Section 6.87(4)(b)1 requires absentee ballots to \u201cbe mailed by the elector, or delivered in person,\u201d it is illegal for \u201c[a] family member or another person\u201d to return the absentee ballot, as the WEC advised in the guidance it issued before the 2020 election.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>Steps Forward <\/h2>\n<p>In its Friday\u2019s decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took two steps forward in addressing some of the significant defects in the state\u2019s electoral system seen in the 2020 election. Declaring illegal the state-wide use of drop boxes and ruling it illegal for third parties to return the ballots of voters ensures that future elections in the battleground state will not be scarred with the same violations of election law. <\/p>\n<p>The Teigen decision further advanced the important principle that it is the legislature charged with establishing the rules that govern elections, and \u201conly the legislature may permit absentee voting via ballot drop boxes. WEC cannot.\u201d That second point proves equally significant given the widespread disregard for the rules established by legislative bodies throughout the country in the 2020 election.<\/p>\n<p>The steps forward, however, were but half-steps, as Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wicourts.gov\/sc\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&#038;seqNo=542617\">concurrence<\/a>, which Justices Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Patience Drake Roggensack joined, showed. The three-justice concurrence authored by Grassl Bradley chastised the court for its 2020 ruling in <em>Trump v. Biden <\/em>that the WEC\u2019s \u201cadvice\u201d held the force of law and that \u201cthis \u2018advice\u2019 is \u2018the rulebook\u2019 for elections \u2014 nevermind what the statutes enacted by the legislature say.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Trump v. Biden<\/em>, Trump had sought to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election based on four violations of state election law. Specifically, Trump challenged the Wisconsin election tally, claiming that \u201cclerks improperly completed missing information on absentee ballot envelopes related to witness addresses;\u201d \u201cin-person absentee voters did not submit written applications for an absentee ballot;\u201d and \u201cvoters who were not indefinitely confined claimed \u2018indefinitely confined\u2019 status for the purposes of obtaining an absentee ballot without having to show a photo identification.\u201d Trump also challenged the collection of some 17,271 absentee ballots at events held throughout Madison called \u201cDemocracy in the Park,\u201d in violation of Section 6.87(4)(b)1\u2019s mandate that the ballots \u201cbe mailed by the elector, or delivered in person.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Although the Trump<em> <\/em>campaign brought these election challenges soon after the November 2020 election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court at first refused to consider the case without proceedings <a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/trump-v-evers\">below<\/a>, and then on December 14, 2020, ruled that \u201claches\u201d precluded Trump from litigating the violations of election law. \u201cLaches,\u201d as the court in <em>Trump v. Biden<\/em> wrote, \u201cis founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant, and not those who sleep on their rights to the detriment of the opposing party.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Grassl Bradley, Ziegler, and Roggensack dissented from the majority\u2019s refusal in that case to address the legal issues by hiding behind the doctrine of \u201claches.\u201d In her dissent, which the other two justices joined, Grassl Bradley wrote:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>\u201cWhether election officials complied with Wisconsin law in administering the November 3, 2020 election is of fundamental importance to the voters, who should be able to rely on the advice they are given when casting their ballots. Rather than fulfilling its duty to say what the law is, a majority of this court unconstitutionally converts the Wisconsin Elections Commission\u2019s mere advice into governing \u2018law,\u2019 thereby supplanting the actual election laws enacted by the people\u2019s elected representatives in the legislature and defying the will of Wisconsin\u2019s citizens. When the state\u2019s highest court refuses to uphold the law, and stands by while an unelected body of six commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government is subverted.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>While Friday\u2019s decision in <em>Teigen <\/em>seemed to reclaim for the legislative branch the authority to regulate elections, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to overrule <em>Trump v. Biden, <\/em>leaving it controlling precedent for future elections. Grassl Bradley called out her fellow justices in a concurrence in <em>Teigen <\/em>for both the court\u2019s original decision in <em>Trump v. Biden <\/em>and its failure to overturn that bad precedent.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>And Steps Back<\/h2>\n<p>Grassl Bradley\u2019s concurrence confirms that while <em>Teigen <\/em>represents a victory for election integrity, it is but a partial victory, because the WEC need only issue new and different guidance for future elections which, even if in clear violation of the Wisconsin election code, will control in an election dispute \u2014 potentially even determining the outcome of the election.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The Wisconsin Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to overturn <em>Trump v. Biden<\/em>, however, is nowhere near as devastating to the future of election integrity as is the fact that three of the state\u2019s high court justices don\u2019t give a whit about the integrity of the vote.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>As I <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2022\/05\/12\/if-you-dont-care-about-election-integrity-youre-a-bad-american\/\">wrote<\/a> a few months past, \u201c[L]ess than two decades ago Americans so universally believed that election integrity mattered that when the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform issued its 100-plus page report, \u2018Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,\u2019 the twin goals of election integrity and voting access received equal treatment. While Co-Chairs Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Jim Baker explained that not all members of the Commission \u2018necessarily support every word or recommendation,\u2019 all members, they stressed, \u2018endorsed the judgments and general policy thrust of the report in its entirety.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Yet now, not even 20 years later, three justices of a state\u2019s highest court can issue a dissent that not once gives even lip service to the goal of election integrity. Rather, the dissent blindly focuses solely on what it perceives as the only good: \u201cincreased voting.\u201d Justice Ann Walsh Bradley\u2019s dissent is emblematic of this distorted view of our \u201csacred right to vote.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The majority opinion \u201cerects yet another barrier for voters to exercise this \u2018sacred right,\u2019\u201d with its holding having \u201cthe practical effect of making it more difficult to exercise it,\u201d Walsh Bradley wrote, further claiming that the majority seeks to \u201cmake it harder to vote\u201d \u201cwhenever it has been presented with the opportunity.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In Walsh Bradley\u2019s view, \u201ca ballot drop box is a simple and perfectly legal solution to make voting easier.\u201d Besides begging the question of the legality of a \u201cballot drop box,\u201d its \u201csimplicity\u201d in \u201cmaking voting easier,\u201d ignores that \u201cmaking voting easier\u201d is not a societal good if it comes at the cost of secure elections the citizenry can trust. The country as a whole used to understand that, as evidenced by the Carter Commission\u2019s report. Electoral systems must \u201caim both to increase voter participation and to assure the integrity of the electoral system,\u201d the report stressed. And the formula recommended by the bipartisan committee would \u201cresult in both more integrity and more access.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Among other issues discussed in the Carter Commission\u2019s 100-plus page election-confidence report was the use of absentee ballots. Initially, the Carter Commission questioned whether mail-in voting would even increase access, writing, \u201cthere is no evidence that it significantly expands participation in federal elections.\u201d However, even assuming mail-in ballots increased access, the bipartisan group warned that vote-by-mail is \u201clikely to increase the risks of fraud,\u201d with absentee balloting \u201cvulnerable to abuse in several ways,\u201d such as when \u201cblank ballots [are] mailed to the wrong address or to large residential buildings,\u201d as they \u201cmight get intercepted.\u201d In fact, the committee noted that \u201cabsentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud,\u201d pointing to a \u201cnotorious\u201d case involving Miami\u2019s mayoral election.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cVote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail,\u201d the Carter Commission stressed, adding: \u201cStates therefore should reduce the risks of fraud and abuse in absentee voting by prohibiting \u2018third-party\u2019 organizations, candidates, and political party activists from handling absentee ballots. States also should make sure that absentee ballots received by election officials before Election Day are kept secure until they are opened and counted.\u201d The Carter Commission likewise recommended states \u201cdo more to prevent\u201d \u201cabsentee ballot fraud\u201d and enact \u201cbetter precautions\u201d \u201cto ensure that the return of ballots is not intercepted.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The Wisconsin Legislature recognized that same reality when, after clarifying that while \u201cvoting is a constitutional right, the vigorous exercise of which should be strongly encouraged,\u201d \u201cvoting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>The state legislature, in adopting rules to govern absentee voting, further stressed \u201cthat the privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election; to prevent undue influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a candidate or to cast a particular vote in a referendum; or other similar abuses.\u201d Wisconsin lawmakers then declared that \u201cballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be counted,\u201d and that \u201cballots counted in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>A Growing Distrust<\/h2>\n<p>The WEC\u2019s approval of drop boxes not only ignored the legislatively mandated rules for absentee voting but exponentially increased the risk of voter fraud that exists when absentee ballots are returned by the U.S. Postal Service or personally delivered to an election clerk. Whereas an individual returning numerous absentee ballots to a clerk or mailing them together in one lot would raise suspicions, and be susceptible to discovery, with unmanned drop boxes, there is no similar check on the behavior. Further, drop boxes provide a perfect target for those who may wish to intercept votes, with the contents entirely consisting of ballots.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Yet three Wisconsin Supreme Court justices ignored not merely the state\u2019s legislative mandate and the increased risk of fraud, but also discarded any concern for election integrity. The dissents in <em>Teigen <\/em>likewise ignore another fundamental that underlies free and fair elections also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/projects\/pdf\/election_reform_report.pdf\">highlighted<\/a> by the Carter Commission: the necessity that the right to vote be \u201cprivately exercised.\u201d Allowing third parties to collect and return ballots violates the ideal of the private ballot. <\/p>\n<p>Further, the expansive use of absentee voting, as the WEC illegally authorized by declaring that under Covid all citizens were \u201cindefinitely confined\u201d under state law, \u201craises concerns about privacy,\u201d the Carter Commission stressed. \u201cCitizens voting at home may come under pressure to vote for certain candidates,\u201d and voting outside of polling places renders voters \u201cmore susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation,\u201d according to the Carter Commission.<\/p>\n<p>The dissent in <em>Teigen <\/em>also condemned a third premise underlying the Carter Commission\u2019s bipartisan report, further revealing the dangerous divide our country now faces. In \u201cBuilding Confidence in U.S. Elections,\u201d Democrats and Republicans both unanimously endorsed two related fundamental principles: \u201cFirst, \u2018elections are the heart of democracy\u2019 and \u2018if elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.\u2019 Second, and a corollary to the first: confidence in elections matters equally, and in fact \u2018is central to our nation\u2019s democracy.\u2019\u201d <\/p>\n<p>On this second point, the commission expanded: \u201cDemocracy is endangered when people believe that their votes do not matter or are not counted correctly,\u201d and, \u201cLittle can undermine democracy more than a widespread belief among the people that elections are neither fair nor legitimate.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The three dissenting Supreme Court justices in <em>Teigen<\/em>, however, condemned the majority for, what it claimed was, their \u201cblithely and erroneously seek[ing] to sow distrust in the administration of our elections\u2026\u201d However, as the Carter Commission made clear in its report, it is the lack of adequate safeguards that breeds distrust. And at the time the Carter Commission released its report nearly 20 years ago, a majority of Americans already held some doubts that their votes were actually counted.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The growing distrust in elections made \u201celection reform\u201d urgent, according to the Carter Commission. Yet, \u201cthe 2005 report <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2022\/05\/12\/if-you-dont-care-about-election-integrity-youre-a-bad-american\/\">reveals<\/a> that every concern the commission identified as threatening the legitimacy of elections played out in November 2020,\u201d with the decision in <em>Teigen <\/em>exposing the massive problems with absentee voting that occurred in the last presidential contest.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Teigen <\/em>decision, however, exposed a more dire problem for our country and her future: that many of the top jurists in our country care no more about election integrity than the Democrat politicians trying to sell the myth of the 2020 election as spectacularly safe and error-free.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>\n  Margot Cleveland is The Federalist&#8217;s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. <\/p>\n<p>Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. <\/p>\n<p>As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday held that state election officials\u2019 use of some 500-plus drop boxes during the 2020 general election violated Wisconsin law. While the court\u2019s decision<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1548181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1548181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1548181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1548181\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1548181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1548181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1548181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}