https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_A_Ux7O3YJosqEH_sBfSteWh-z05QpkR/view?usp=sharing
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., Petitioner
v.
Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , et al., Respondents.
On Petition for Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Article II of the Constitution provides that “Each 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 in the furtherance of that constitutionally-assigned duty may not be ignored by state election officials or changed by state courts. Bush v. Gore (“Bush II”), 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000).
Yet, during the 2020 presidential election, that is what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did in four cases – three at issue in this Petition, and one already before the Court. Statutory requirements were eliminated regarding signature verification, the right of campaigns to challenge invalid mail ballots, mandates that mail voters fill in, date, and sign mail ballot declarations, and even the right of campaigns to observe the mail ballot canvassing process in a meaningful way.
Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature. According to public reports, without these protections, the resulting disqualification rate of invalid ballots was anemic—meaning over 110,000 invalid ballots were illegally counted—more than enough to have affected the outcome of the election, where the margin between the two principal candidates for President currently stands at 80,558. The questions presented are therefore:
1. Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s alteration or suspension of state election law through its three decisions before and after the November 2020 general election usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing electors for President and Vice-President, in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution?
2. Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s three decisions usurping the Pennsylvania Legislature’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing presidential electors, by changing the law, including eviscerating protections against mail ballot fraud, violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, and whether Pennsylvania applying the new rules promulgated by the Court during the election in only select counties where mail ballots
heavily favored one candidate over the other violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution?
3. Whether this Court has the power to provide a meaningful remedy to Petitioner in advance of the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress, at which electoral votes will be opened and counted, or before the January 20, 2021 inauguration date specified by the Constitution?
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
I. By Eviscerating Election Law Enacted By the Pennsylvania Legislature Pursuant to Authority Derived from Article II of the Federal Constitution, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Has Decided an Important Federal Question in a Way that Conflicts with Decisions of this Court
A. The Three Decisions Violated Article II By Changing the Law During the Election.
B. This Court Should Independently Examine Pennsylvania’s Election Laws, Which The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Erroneously and Dramatically Changed During the Presidential Election
II. This Court Should Re-Affirm That Federal Courts Have The Power To Remedy Violations of Article II.
III. The Pennsylvania Court Decisions Create a Mail Ballot Statutory Scheme That Is So Porous That It Gave Rise To Due Process and Equal Protection Violations That Should Be Reviewed by this Court.
A. Due Process Was Violated By The Three Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decisions
B. The Equal Protection Clause Was Violated By Different Voting Standards Being Used In Different Counties
IV. The Court’s Intercession Is Necessary To Uphold The Rule of Law And To Put the Country at Ease, To The Extent Possible in these Tumultuous Times
V. The Issues Addressed by this Petition Are Not Moot
CONCLUSION
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.
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
December 20, 2020
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF ТНЕ PETITION FOR А WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND EXPEDITED MERITS BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT IN ТНЕ EVENT ТНАТ ТНЕ COURT GRANTS ТНЕ PETITION
Petitioner Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the re-election campaign for President Trump, respectfully requests, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21, that this Court expedite its consideration of the petition for а writ of certiorari filed today. Petitioner further requests, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25.4, that if the petition is granted, the Court expedite the schedule for briefing and oral argument, if the Court deems such helpful. Such expedited review would allow an orderly and timely resolution of the important questions presented under the U.S. Constitution and federal law. It is in the best interests of the parties, as well as the Nation, that this Court have as much time as possible to consider the relative merits of the parties’ positions and to issue its decision sufficiently in advance of impending deadlines.
REFERENCE:
December 20, 2020
President Trump’s campaign today issued the following statement:
“Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., President Trump’s campaign committee, today filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the US. Supreme Court to reverse a trio of Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases which illegally changed Pennsylvania’s mail balloting law immediately before and after the 2020 presidential election in violation of Article II of the United States Constitution and Bush v. Gore. This represents the Campaign’s first independent U.S. Supreme Court filing and seeks relief based on the same Constitutional arguments successfully raised in Bush v. Gore.
“This petition follows a related Pennsylvania case where Justice Alito and two other justices observed ‘the constitutionality of the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court’s decision [extending the statutory deadline for receipt of mail ballots from 8 pm on election day to 5 pm three days later] … has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.’
“The Campaign’s petition seeks to reverse three decisions which eviscerated the Pennsylvania Legislature’s protections against mail ballot fraud, including (a) prohibiting election officials checking whether signatures on mail ballots are genuine during canvassing on Election Day, (b) eliminating the right of campaigns to challenge mail ballots during canvassing for forged signatures and other irregularities, (c) holding that the rights of campaigns to observe the canvassing of mail ballots only meant that they only were allowed to be ‘in the room’ - in this case, the Philadelphia Convention Center – the size of several football fields, and (d) eliminating the statutory requirements that voters properly sign, address, and date mail ballots.
“The petition seeks all appropriate remedies, including vacating the appointment of electors committed to Joseph Biden and allowing the Pennsylvania General Assembly to select their replacements. The Campaign also moved for expedited consideration, asking the Supreme Court to order responses by December 23 and a reply by December 24 to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before Congress meets on January 6 to consider the votes of the electoral college.”
- Rudy Giuliani, attorney for President Trump
This was not just an attempt to correct the election. It's a shot across the bow as well as a pathway through which future rulings can decide the election properly.
by JD Rucker December 20, 2020
NOQ Report
No comments:
Post a Comment