WhatFinger


“Our oath to uphold the Constitution is tested by hard times, not easy ones.”

SCOTUS needs to hear two petitions regarding the 2020 elections



SCOTUS needs to hear two petitions regarding the 2020 electionsCrunch time for the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) comes on February 19, 2021 when its nine Judges will determine whether to hear two Petitions challenging the election results in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The first Petition--relating to voting in Pennsylvania - claims:
“In October 2019, the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania allowed for no-excuse mail voting for every eligible voter in the state, but it kept in place long-standing validation and observer requirements to protect against fraud in the casting and canvassing of mail ballots, which are “the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Carter-Baker Report, supra. Pennsylvania election officials, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, altered or dispensed with those significant “meaningful safeguards” in the recent General Election. Because that election included the choice of presidential electors, the alterations to statutory requirements contravened Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which assesses plenary power to the Legislature to determine the manner of choosing electors. The effect of these illegal and unconstitutional changes to state election law affected enough ballots to alter the results of the election. Certiorari is warranted so that this Court can reaffirm its prior Article II holdings that only the Legislature of a state can alter election laws utilized in the choice of presidential electors, and to provide redress for the breaches of that constitutional requirement that occurred in these cases.”
The second Petition--relating to voting in Wisconsin - claims:
Article II of the Constitution provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint” electors for President and Vice President “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). That power is “plenary,” and the statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature of a State, in the furtherance of that constitutionally delegated duty, may not be ignored by state election officials or changed by state courts. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000). Yet during the 2020 presidential election, officials in Wisconsin, wrongly backed by four of the seven Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, ignored statutory provisions which tightly regulate absentee balloting — identified by the Legislature as “mandatory,” such that ballots in violation of them “may not be counted.” They require that absentee ballots be delivered only by mail or by hand delivery to the clerk, photo i.d. must be supplied to obtain ballots (with limited, inapplicable exceptions), and absentee ballots missing the required witness address may be “cured” only by the voter, and not by the clerk.”

Support Canada Free Press


The first Petition makes the following submission:
“Even the swearing in of the next President on January 20, 2021, will not moot this case because review could outlast the selection of the next President under “the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ doctrine,” which applies “in the context of election cases … when there are ‘as applied’ challenges as well as in the more typical case involving only facial attacks.” FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 463 (2007) (internal quotations omitted); accord Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 287- 88 (1992). The legal issues presented by this petition, namely, whether the alteration of state election laws by non-legislative officials in the states is unconstitutional, will likely recur in future elections—including in the presidential election in 2024, in which Petitioner is constitutionally eligible to run. Mootness is therefore not, and will not become, an issue.”
Refusing to hear these two Petitions is the easy way out for SCOTUS. However Justice Gorsuch has stated: “Our oath to uphold the Constitution is tested by hard times, not easy ones.” These are indeed hard times.


View Comments

David Singer -- Bio and Archives

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer, a Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International—an organization calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine. Previous articles written by him can be found at: jordanispalestine.blogspot.com


Sponsored