Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Mitch McConnell
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Majority Leader of United States Senate;
Orrin Hatch
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
President Pro Tempore of U.S. Senate;
Charles Schumer
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Minority Leader Of U.S. Senate;
Paul Ryan
1233 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Speaker of United States House of Representatives;
Nancy Pelosi,
233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Minority Leader of
United States House of Representatives;
Attorneys Fees
1988
Attorneys Fees
256
College
employment.
District which
represents.
appropriate motion.
Table of Contents
Questions 5
Introduction 6
Standing 8
Jurisdiction 12
6
Questions
1. Are the Federal courts empowered to, in response to a complaint make
judgements on the legal execution of state and federal laws and processes,
and overrule the actions of other branches, even in elections?
2. Are legal elections of paramount importance to the proper functioning of the
American government?
3. What is the minimum acceptable standard for counting votes in a national
election?
4. Does the right to vote imply a right to have the vote secure, counted, and
placed into an easily auditable system? If the system is not secured, was
there an election?
5. Do rules, a method for enforcing those rules, and a regular process of
externally auditing the enforcement as well as the rules themselves,
contribute significantly to the security of valuables (money, votes)?
6. At what point does a cross state, policy program with at a minimum of 8
court decisions against, in 2 years, become an 18 USC 241, 242 criminal
conspiracy to deny votes?
7
Introduction
Over the course of recent Constitutional amendment history from the Civil
War, until today, the vast majority are either voting ( 12th,14th ,15th , 17th,
19th, 23rd , 24th and 26th) or Presidential terms (20th, 22nd, and 25th )and
succession in a consistent path; thus, highest priority of our laws must be
said to be held by:
1. Elections, and broadening the electorate
2. Making sure that there is the right person in the office of the President at all
times.
The current of the Constitutional doctrines must be seen as flowing toward a
broadening of the electorate, to be ever more inclusive, ever less tolerant of
attempts to prevent or restrict voting, and ever more careful that the White
House occupant has achieved that lofty position through a legitimate, tried
and tested methodology. Elections themselves must be kept as sacrosanct as
possible, since to maintain separation of powers as well as good governance,
most relief should, in ideal circumstances be addressed through the workings
of Congress
Given the magnitude of these doctrines, it would seem to be self evident,
that any and all measures that would normally be considered extraordinary,
must be considered.
routine in terms of assuring the maximal efficacy of the process.
The precedent of Bush v Gore, clearly demonstrates the role of the Courts in
Presidential elections, as indeed, supreme. The management of the election
processes, and any issues arising, especially of a racial nature must be
examined at great length by the court system. In this case, the courts owe
special responsibility in the wake of the surprising decision to gut the Voting
8
Rights Shelby vs Holder to manage and monitor the results of their action.
to an intent to suppress the vote, and in certain cases, specifically, the black
vote. This is in no way meant to be a partisan attack- this is expressly about
troublesome violations of the law in fact. Was Debbie Wasserman Schultz
violating emoluments by being both a Congress woman and the head of the
DNC? While the plaintiffs bubble is clearly Democratic, no evidence that
there has been discriminatory intent to suppress votes has emerged.
The simple fact though, is that a very public, and very illegal campaign has
been waged against the right to vote, and if there were a minimum of 8
actions stopped in federal civil court, there are, under the surface far more.
Post or pre election judicial relief should not be the responsibility of the
people to assert and check, changes to systems of public interest should be
made only with well defined standards of public notice, and open to public
scrutiny on short notice request. This extraordinary, and disgraceful period
since the VRA dismantling has conclusively shown, and there is no reason, to
limit it to the states with a history of racial discrimination.
Plaintiff asserts:
that according US federal and State laws, there was no winner in the 2016
presidential election, because 49 Presidential electors were unqualified by
US federal and state laws to decide the Presidency, as double office holders,
or out of district electors.
This reduces the total number of electoral votes won by any candidate to
under the Constitutionally mandated 270.
Plaintiff asks for a Preliminary injunction from any further actions by the
unelected Presidential candidate, and that all actions taken, including
nominations, etc. be nullified.
Plaintiff asserts, and can, and will prove at trial, with the help of expert
witnesses that on several counts, factors that must be considered to assure
that the election system itself, requires a level of precision the system is
unable to currently provide.
10
Plaintiff asserts, and will, with the help of court aided Discovery, demonstrate
that the election voter rolls were purged, in a manner that consistently
demonstrates clear ethnic biases, and in a manner that muddies any
elections results from it.
Standing
That a citizen, whose Supreme Law, begins with the phrase, We the People,
one whose beginnings come from throwing off tyrannical government, should
be told, the integrity election processes which control trillions of dollars, the
legislative direction of the country, is not their business is more reminiscent
of
Than-
It is as essential to the successful working of this government that the great organisms of its
executive and legislative branches should be the free choice of the people as that the original
form of it should be so. In absolute governments, where the monarch is the source of all power, it
is still held to be important that the exercise of that power shall be free from the influence of
extraneous violence and internal corruption.
In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the
entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to
control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger.
Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours has been comparatively free from
both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger
from both sources.
illegally suppress the vote across multiple states in America. This pattern,
which also, due to lack of apportionment adjustments, continued voter fraud,
voter suppression, leads to a watering down of my vote, and a lower
representation of a sub set of people to which I belong.
In Baker v. Carr there were 4 plaintiffs in a voting rights action filed under the
14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court granted
the 4 plaintiffs standing and reversed the U.S. District Court and the U.S.
13
Court of Appeals and ordered the case remanded for trial according to
instructions. The 4 plaintiffs who were voters had suffered the same injury-in-
fact that more than 400,000 other voters in Fulton County, Georgia had
suffered, the diluting of the value of their popular votes for candidates to
represent them in the Georgia Senate compared to voters in rural farm
counties in Georgia who on a population basis had 6 times the
representation in the Georgia Senate . Clearly in the eyes of the U.S.
Supreme Court, the fact that the injury-in-fact that the 4 voters, who were
plaintiffs suffered, was shared with 400,000 other voters in Fulton County,
Georgia, did not invalidate the standing of the 4 voters who did file a lawsuit
against the state of Georgia. Only 4 voters sued as plaintiffs, the other
400,000 voters who suffered the same injury-in-fact did not sue.
School district of Abington v Shemp, was a case out of the Eastern District
Court of PA, in which one family successfully sued for changes to mandatory
religious readings in school, in a case which no more benefited their specific
situation than thousands, and perhaps millions of Pennsylvania school
children. However, the merits of the case- the separation of church and
state, were the basis for the case, as was freedom of religion.
Preemption doctrine trumps standing in this case; the specific harms are not
specifically mentioned in Article III, therefore it is court doctrine and cannot
stop the enforcement of Constitutional doctrines.
The standard applied here is from In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624
(1982)the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it
actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means that a
State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the
following two conditions (or both) exist:[8]
Proposed test:
In effect, this means that a court rules at any level will be found to violate
the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both)
exist:
[8]
Jurisdiction
This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution. It is
authorized
by Article III, Section 2, which extends the federal judicial power to all cases
arising in equity under the Constitution. The identification and protection of
fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the
Constitution. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____, slip.
op. at 10 (2015). That grant of equitable jurisdiction requires Article III courts
to apply the underlying principles of the Constitution to new circumstances
unforeseen by the framers, such as an election in which due diligence was
not completed, and the duties of the Office of President were being executed
by a person who was placed into office as a result of fraud.
An actual controversy has arisen and exists between Plaintiffs and
Defendants because Defendants have through failure to address their duties-
16
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State
with themselves.
In most states, it is illegal to hold the office of Elector while holding another
state office- nearly all require Electors to be inhabitants of the state, and
most require that Electors reside in the district they represent.
Thus, these were literally illegal votes, in what is the most simple, open and
shut disqualification of a legal process that can be imagined. The alternative
is to effectively set a precedent that fraud, violations of legal processes
17
Please see Exhibit A, as all names, and state statutes violated are present.
S
Ohio MICHAEL A WILLIAM
S
It was the view of the district court that the remedy of voiding an election was appropriate
regardless of the good faith intentions of the election officials once discrimination in fact was
proven in the administration of the election process. The election was thereupon voided
A test for the legality, below, from Richardson v Ramirez, and Justice Marshall, only, Crosscheck
centers around no specific statute, and instead of convicted felon who has served their time,
instead, the qualification, is having a similar name to someone in a different state, and potentially
being double registered, with then the potential for double voting, is the person being purged
from the rolls.
balance. The State has the heavy burden of showing, first, that the
challenged disenfranchisement is necessary to a legitimate and substantial
state interest; second, that the classification is drawn with precisionthat it
does not exclude too many people who should not and need not be
excluded; and, third, that there are no other reasonable ways to achieve the
State's goal with a lesser burden on the constitutionally protected interest. E.
g., Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, at 343, 360; Kramer v. Union Free School
District, 395 U. S. 621, 632 (1969); see Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752,
770 (1973) (POWELL, J., dissenting); cf. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
County, 415 U. S. 250 (1974); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963);
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960).
I think it clear that the State has not met its burden of justifying the blanket
disenfranchisement of former felons presented by this case. There is
certainly no basis for asserting that ex-felons have any less interest in the
democratic process than any other citizen. Like everyone else, their daily
lives are deeply affected and changed by the decisions of government.
Now, the Warren Court era case used to justify this continued
disenfranchisement, more than a 100 years after the Amendment became
part of the Constitution is Richardson vs Ramirez(1974).
That this is the bellwether case on a subject matter as important as voter
disenfranchisement is telling; on its face, this case is outside the bounds of
the text Article III, Section 2 far more clearly than any injury-in-fact
boilerplate dismissal, and indeed; approximately 50% of the text of the
21
majority and the 2 dissents were spent attempting to explain the grant of
writ of certiorari, after the State Supreme Court had ruled for no relief
granted to the plaintiffs. Where then, is the case or Controversy? This is a
purely advisory opinion of the sort expressly forbidden by centuries of case
law, and one with a dubious and frankly dangerous to civil rights; and the
Courts should welcome the opportunity to reclaim high ground, consistent
rulings, and relegate this case to the dustbins and to the footnotes, of
history, as the Plaintiff here, pulls the footnotes and the dissent to its proper
place as the face of 14A section 2, the words of the Honorable Thurgood
Marshall (Richardson v Ramirez):
emerged with "or other crime" inexplicably tacked on.[16] In its exhaustive
review of the lengthy legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Court has come upon only one explanatory reference for the "other crimes"
provisiona reference which is unilluminating at best.
The historical purpose for 2 itself is, however, relatively clear and in my
view, dispositive of this case. The Republicans who controlled the 39th
Congress were concerned that the additional congressional representation of
the Southern States which would result from the abolition of slavery might
weaken their own political dominance.[18] There were two alternatives
availableeither to limit southern representation, which was unacceptable
on a long-term basis,[19] or to insure that southern Negroes, sympathetic to
the Republican cause, would be enfranchised; but an explicit grant of
suffrage to Negroes was thought politically unpalatable at the time.[20]
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment was the resultant compromise.
74*74 It put Southern States to a choiceenfranchise Negro voters or lose
congressional representation.
Given that in Florida, felon disenfranchisement renders 25% of the African
American voters ineligible, it would seem to be an unfortunate form of voter
suppression via race.
Plaintiff would take this one step further, and say that the meaning of the
passage to be a modifier probably best expressed as rebellion or other such
crime would have been a less ambiguous way of stating the meaning,
meant to encompass other, similar treasonous acts for which participation in
democratic society would be dangerous, and likely to be manipulated to the
detriment of the people of the state/country. Given the time period, it seems
inconceivable that the framers of the 14th Amendment were unaware that
rebellion is in fact a crime,1and thus would have said, simply, crime, were
that the true intent.
1 somewhat arguably in a nation whose initial legal document defines the
case for which revolution is a responsibility, beyond its status as a right.
Though of course the irony of claiming a document proclaiming all men to be
created equal and any government impinging upon a persons liberty or
pursuit of happiness was inherently invalid was the legal foundation for
forming a government based upon the inequality of man, and the ability to
literally bind humans in chain was lost on the Confederacy.
23
The intent to avoid have large groups disenfranchised from voting, while
others in the same jurisdiction, have their votes magnified in national and
state wide representation,(hence more powerful in maintaining the legal
conditions that spawn the disenfranchisement of the vote)without even a
semblance of an adjustment, is a straight line of progress from the infamous
3/5ths compromise through to 14A section 2.
It is clear here, from excluding Indians not taxed and 3/5ths of all other
persons, that a status of not taxed is the only place where enumeration
should not be applied
At the time of this decision, 1974, the total number of disenfranchised was
still large for a society of this size- a million plus would be one of the largest
prison countries on the planet even today; but today that number has
reached 6 million or 2% of the US population; in Florida, that number reaches
24
10%. (see Exhibit B) 10% of the population that is also subject to taxation
without representation.
Justice Marshall:
By 2010 the number of people who lost the vote due to a felony conviction
had grown to 5,852,180.
This graph was taken from The Sentencing Project's July 2012 report "State-
Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010"
(452KB) .
28
You would think that making it easier for citizens to vote would be something for everyone in a
democracy to celebrate. But the shocking remarks by these six government officials some of
whom will be on the November ballot tell a different story.
Gov. Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a Trick and GOP Needs to Win
Gubernatorial Races So They Control Voting Mechanisms
Gov. Chris Christie during a campaign stop in Connecticut for Republican gubernatorial
candidate Tom Foley. (AP)
Earlier this week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie spoke at a US Chamber of Commerce
gathering in Washington, DC. In his comments, The Record reports that Christie pushed further
into the contentious debate over voting rights than ever before, saying Tuesday that Republicans
need to win gubernatorial races this year so that theyre the ones controlling voting
mechanisms going into the next presidential election.
This isnt the first time Christies come clean about GOP intentions at the ballot box. In August,
while campaigning in Chicago for Bruce Rauner, the GOP candidate challenging Gov. Pat
Quinn, Christie complained that Illinois would become the 11th state to permit same-day voter
registration this November a move supporters say will increase turnout and improve access.
Christie didnt see it that way, calling it an underhanded Democratic get-out-the-vote tactic.
Christie said of Quinn: I see the stuff thats going on. Same-day registration all of a sudden this
year comes to Illinois. Shocking, he added sarcastically. Im sure it was all based upon public
policy, good public policy to get same-day registration here in Illinois just this year, when the
governor is in the toilet and needs as much help as he can get. He added that the voter
registration program is designed to be a major obstacle for Republican gubernatorial
candidates.
Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for
Black Voters
Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldnt Accommodate the Urban Read
African-American Voter-Turnout Machine
In 2012, Republican officials in Ohio were limiting early voting hours in Democratic-majority
counties, while expanding them on nights and weekends in Republican counties. In response to
public outcry, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted mandated the same early voting hours in all 88
Ohio counties. He kept early voting hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays from Oct. 2 to 19
and broadened hours from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. from Oct. 22 to Nov. 2. But he refused to expand
voting hours beyond 7 p.m. during the week, on weekends or three days prior to the election
which is when voting is most convenient for many working-class Ohioans. Heres what the
Franklin Party (Columbus) Ohio GOP chair, Doug Preis, and close adviser to Ohio Gov. John
Kasich, said about limiting early voting. I guess I really actually feel we shouldnt contort the
voting process to accommodate the urban read African-American voter-turnout machine.
(And yes, he actually said read African-American, that wasnt inserted.)
Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are
Incidental Effects on Minority Voters
The 2010 Census results showed that 89 percent of the population growth in Texas came from
minorities, but when it came to fitting those new seats in the map, Republican lawmakers made
sure three of them favored Republicans, who tend to be white, according to the Associated
Press. The Justice Department claims that Texas lawmakers intentionally redrew the states
congressional districts in order to dilute the Hispanic vote. Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is
running for governor of Texas, wrote the following in a letter to the Department of Justice
defending the states voting maps:
DOJs accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas
Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were
designed to increase the Republican Partys electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats.
It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting
decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic
candidates.
Ted Yoho: Only Property Owners Should Vote
Don Yelton: North Carolina GOP Precinct Chair: Voter-ID Law Will Kick Democrats in
the Butt and Hurt Lazy Blacks
In an interview last year with The Daily Show, Don Yelton, a GOP precinct chair in Buncombe
County, North Carolina, defended the states new voter-ID law, saying so many offensive things,
he was asked to resign the day after it aired. Yelton admits at the start of the segment that the
number of Buncombe County residents who commit voter fraud is one or two out of 60,000 a
year. The interview correspondent, Aasif Mandvi, replies that those numbers show theres
enough voter fraud to sway zero elections, and then Yelton replies, Mmmmthats not the
point. He goes on to say that if it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give
them everything, so be it. and then adds, The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.
After the segment aired, the Buncombe County GOP Chair issued a statement on Yeltons
comments, calling them offensive, uniformed and unacceptable of any member within the
Republican Party and called for Yeltons resignation. He obliged.
The Fixhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/
Voter ID laws have swept across the United States in recent years, following big GOP gains in
the 2010 and 2014 elections. With Republicans now more powerful in the states than they've
been since the Great Depression, it has been a priority for them from coast to coast.
The stated purpose of these laws, of course, has always been that they prevent voter fraud; you
need to have ID to verify your identity for other things, after all, so why not voting? And polls
generally show a strong majority of Americans agree.
But as any voter ID opponent will tell you, there are so few cases of documented voter fraud that
it's not clear there's actually an ill that's being cured. Instead, Democrats allege that these laws
are clearly aimed at disenfranchising minority voters, in particular, because they are less likely to
have the proper IDs. And minority voters, of course, heavily favor the Democratic Party.
Assisting Democrats in this argument that it's all a partisan power grab? A handful of unhelpful
Republicans who have suggested in recent years that voter ID does indeed help the GOP
perhaps so much that it would put them over the top in blue-leaning swing states like Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania.
33
Freshman Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) became the latest to stumble into this territory this
week, including voter ID as part of his case for why Republicans could win Wisconsin in the
general election for the first time since 1984.
"I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up,"
Grothman said, before volunteering the following: "And now we have photo ID, and I think
photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well."
It wasn't the first time, though, that Grothman has suggested as much. Back in 2012, when he
was a state senator, he also predicted voter ID could have helped Mitt Romney win his state.
Asked if it could make the difference in a close race, Grothman agreed that it could.
"Yes, right," he said, according to clip posted by the liberal ThinkProgress. "I think we believe
that, insofar as there are inappropriate things, people who vote inappropriately are more likely to
vote Democrat."
Perhaps the most well-publicized example of this belongs to then-Pennsylvania state House
Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R), who said even more clearly in a 2012 speech that voter ID
would help Romney carry his state.
"Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done,"
Turzai said while listing his legislature's accomplishments.
It didn't help when, after the 2012 election, Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Robert Gleason agreed
with the statement that the attention drawn to voter ID probably helped Republicans. (Voter ID
hadn't actually been implemented yet, but we'll get to that.)
"Yeah, I think a little bit," Gleason said. "We probably had a better election. Think about this: We
cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. A lot of people lost sight of that. He beat McCain by 10
percent; he only beat Romney by 5 percent. And I think that probably photo ID helped a bit in
that."
And then there's that infamous 2013 "Daily Show" interview of a local North Carolina GOP
precinct chairman who said he was okay with it if voter ID prevented "lazy blacks" from voting.
"The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt," Don Yelton added. He was later asked to
resign over his racist comments.
Each time a GOP official says something like this, Democrats get understandably excited. Aha!
they say, here's proof that the laws are actually aimed at disenfranchising minority and/or
Democratic voters and helping Republicans!
Apart from the last case, though, that's drawing an extra line or two between what these
Republicans are saying about voter ID and its impacts. As noted above, Pennsylvania didn't even
wind up having voter ID in the 2012 election, because it got hung up in court, and Gleason was
merely talking about the debate over it helping Republicans. Given that polls show it's popular,
there's a case to be made that's true.
34
When it comes to the other examples, a more charitable read is basically what Grothman said in
2012: Republicans believe voter ID combats voter fraud, and voter fraud is more likely to be
perpetrated by Democrats.
That, of course, is highly debatable. And what's more, saying that voter ID would do enough to
actually help Republicans win states they otherwise wouldn't would require it to stop a
significant amount of voter fraud which, again, has never been documented.
All of which is to say that Grothman and other Republicans can probably defend their comments
accordingly. But they're doing so on awfully shaky ground. And any time you hail the passage of
a law as potentially helping your side win elections, you're basically begging to be accused of
passing it for the wrong reasons. Which is a really unhelpful thing for Republicans.