December 10, 2020 at 6:12 pm #41adminKeymaster
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lawful elections are the heart of our freedoms. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 10 (1964). Trust in the integrity of that process is the glue that binds our citizenry and the States in this Union.
Elections face the competing goals of maximizing and counting lawful votes but minimizing and excluding unlawful ones. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554-55 (1964); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 103 (2000) (“the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements”) (“Bush II”); compare 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(1)-(2) (2018) with id. § 20501(b)(3)-(4). Moreover, “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555. Reviewing election results requires not only counting lawful votes but also eliminating unlawful ones.
It is an understatement to say that 2020 was not a good year. In addition to a divided and partisan national mood, the country faced the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in
voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4; id. art. II, § 1, cl. 2.
This case presents a question of law:
violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that
remained loyal to the Constitution.
Elections for federal office must comport with
federal constitutional standards, see Bush II, 531 U.S. at 103-05, and executive branch government officials cannot subvert these constitutional requirements, no matter their stated intent. For presidential elections, each State must appoint its Electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the
Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state
law, which, in turn,
Constitution, specifically the Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and the elections upon which such appointment is based.1December 13, 2020 at 2:22 pm #42VyprParticipant
Texas suit was properly decided by SCOTUS.December 13, 2020 at 2:45 pm #43VyprParticipant
Further, no less than THREE of the SCOTUS team are Trump appointees and Alito and Thomas are by no means leftist plants. This was no deep state move. The SCOTUS ruling knocks the wind out of the Trump movement’s attempt to have Trump appointed even after losing the election.
The actions by Trump now are simply to create a post-election status of being the forever-victim. He wants to keep his “base” activated and donating cash. This is the Trump grift.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.