Can it be said there is No Election Fraud?

The State of Texas filed with the Supreme Court a 39-page complaint alleging substantial Constitutional wrong-doing within four states in the 2020 Presidential election and these deeds prevent knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election.  The accused states are GA, MI, WI and the Commonwealth of PA (the “Defendant States”).  The Complaint is Texas v. Pennsylvania.  The law in support of the complaint is the following:

  1.The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  (Article VI, Clause 2).

2.    The U.S. Constitution provides that each state’s legislature shall appoint the manner for the state’s selection of presidential electors.  (“The Elector Clause,” Article II, Section 1, Clause 2). 

3.    In the case of McPherson v. Blacker (1892) the Supreme Court affirmed the meaning of “The Elector Clause.” Each state’s legislature may vest itself to choose presidential electors, or may grant that authority to “the people” in accordance with such rules as it shall define to choose electors on behalf of the respective state.  The Court described the power of state legislatures as “plenary”, meaning that it was not limited even by a state’s constitution because the U.S. Constitution gave power directly to the state legislature, not the State.

4.    The right of the legislature …can neither be taken away nor abdicated.”  Kirby, James C. Limitations on the Power of State Legislatures over Presidential elections.”  In other words, the state legislature may even appoint itself to replace the popular vote, even after it has been cast, for any reason, or no reason.  That in fact did happen in some states for the first three elections.    

5.    Why would the Founders have acted this way?  According to Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers #68 states, “the mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate (the President) is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped severe censure.  The most plausible [of the Constitution’s critics] has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.”  The caution of the Founders was based on fear of “cabal, intrigue and corruption.” Every “practicable obstacle” should be used to prevent these…”deadly adversaries of republican government.”  

At issue in all the Defendant States are that consequential and unconstitutional changes to election procedures were carried out by election officials, and these unofficial  procedures all were unapproved by the respective legislatures; and were thus illegally carried out by state officials.  Furthermore, in some states the illegal procedures were implemented only in selected districts, chosen for their having high ratios of Democrat voters so as to give President Biden a greater advantage!  

The Defendant States each made illegal changes to statutory procedures by the following means.  Not every means was used in all states, but every state used two or more of these means.  There were also other means, of smaller consequence, not enumerate in the following. 

1.    Created mail-in ballot drop-off stations in Philadelphia and Alleghany County in violation of statutory requirements to use only USPS mail or to hand-deliver to the Election Office at the address pre-printed on the return-mail envelope provided.

2.    Established drop-boxes for mail-in ballots; such are specifically prohibited by Wisconsin statute.  The five largest cities in WI used 500 unmanned, illegal, drop boxes. 

3.    Mailed ballots to all registered voters in the State of Michigan: 7.7 million ballots.  5.4 million ballots were cast.  Leaving 2.3 million ballots available for fraud or unaccounted. It would be beyond belief to think some of the excess ballots found their way into ballot boxes.

4.    Abrogated without legislative approval 100% signature verification on mail-in ballots.  

5.    Illegally extended the time and date for receipt of mail-in ballots on Election Day. 

6.    Violated the statutory requirement that first-look at mail-in ballots is no earlier than Poll opening on Election Day.  

7.    Prior to Election Day sent emails to local election officials urging them to provide opportunities for various persons – including political parties – to contact voters by telephone to “cure” defective mail-in ballots in violation of state law.  

8.    Prohibiting Republican Poll watchers and inspectors from access to vote counting and canvasing; contrary to State requirements

One or more of the illegal actions performed may be indicted among the following charges:

1.    Violation of the Elector Clause.  This Clause countenances absolutely no excuses.  Verbal instructions contrary to the statutory requirements are as essentially illegal as if written.  The Electors Clause may be violated by video training as effectively as if written or adopted.  In consequence, Electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Elector Clause cannot cast Constitutional votes for the office of president.  

2.    The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution prohibits differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a State.  Bush II, 531 U.S. at 107.

3.    The one-person, one-vote principle requires counting all valid votes and not counting any invalid votes.  Violation takes away rights to the principle, and constitutes a civil liberties violation.  Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 554-55; Bush II, 531 U.S. at 103

4.    The Due Process Clause is violated when election practices reach “the point” of patent and fundamental unfairness.”  Failure to protect the integrity of the election itself violates substantive due process. Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065, 1077 (1st Cir. 1978).  All four Defendant States violated the Due Process Clause, even if only by precedents on procedural due process, not only intentional failure to follow election law as enacted by a state’s legislature.  In many instances these actions occurred in areas having a history of election fraud.  

The Supreme Court dismissed Texas v. Pennsylvania on the day after it was filed.  I agree the Supreme Court made the proper decision because delaying or voiding the election would be accompanied by perhaps never-to-be-forgiven animosity and hostility toward the federal government.

Notwithstanding violation of the Elector Clause by various state actors – Secretary of State, Election Commissions, Attorneys General, et al is a federal offense — I believe proper action needs to be taken by each of the Defendant States.  All Defendant States have an impeachment clause it may use against the applicable State Actors.  My most fond wish is that each of the Four Defendant States bring Impeachment proceedings against their chargeable personnel,  and if such persons resign to avoid impeachment, to bring civil suits as appropriate for violation of civil liberties of the people.                                                                                 December 16, 2020