Category Archives: Electoral College

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

“”My good friend Ann here actually got some sort of irritant in one of the letter. My son had his car vandalized,” said Mike Delk, President of the NC Electoral College. “Other people have received threats, attempted bribes.”

But the electors say they are not swayed by these actions. All 15 said they will cast their votes for Trump which will go toward the 270 elector votes required. Trump’s nationwide total is 306.

The members said they have a message for those protesting the results.

“It really shows a lack of understanding of our democracy,” said Dr. Glenn Pinckney, Secretary of the NC Electoral College. “It shows an honest lack and disrespect.””…WTVD

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

From the US Electoral College.

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

“December 19, 2016

The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.

The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:

  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.

December 28, 2016

Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.

If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.

On or Before January 3, 2017

The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Advertisements

To Donald Trump from Citizen Wells, Do not be tricked into conceding election if it appears that you lost, Election is over January 6, 2017 after congress certifies Electoral College votes, Lots of time left for Clintons to be investigated and prosecuted

To Donald Trump from Citizen Wells, Do not be tricked into conceding election if it appears that you lost, Election is over January 6, 2017 after congress certifies Electoral College votes, Lots of time left for Clintons to be investigated and prosecute

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

I do not yet know who is going to “win” the general election.

What I do know is that the election is not over until January 6, 2017 when congress certifies the Electoral College votes.

Even then, a congressman by law can object.

Multiple investigations are ongoing that involve Hillary and the Clintons.

And even with the corrupt Obama Justice Dept., it is possible that unhappy FBI or NYPD may leak damaging information such as pedophilia involving the Clintons.

From Citizen Wells October 31, 2016.

Another Democrat running for the office of the Presidency and more controversy regarding their eligibility.

In 2008 it was Obama and his natural born citizen status.

Despite the lies from the mainstream media, that issue has not been resolved.

Now with Hillary Clinton, if she garners enough votes, will she survive the election process of Electoral College votes being counted and certified and inauguration without being disqualified due to arrest and or indictment?

Here is a good description of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Sadly, most Americans are uninformed on the US President election process.

The Democrats appear to like it that way.

If you don’t believe that, check out Wikileaks.

Below is some important information on how this works.

From the US Electoral College.

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

“November 8, 2016—Election Day

Registered voters cast their votes for President and Vice President. By doing so, they also help choose the electors who will represent their state in the Electoral College.

Mid-November through December 19, 2016

After the presidential election, the governor of your state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment. “As soon as practicable,” after the election results in your state are certified, the governor sends one of the Certificates of Ascertainment to the Archivist.

Certificates of Ascertainment should be sent to the Archivist no later than the meeting of the electors in December. However, federal law sets no penalty for missing the deadline.

The remaining six Certificates of Ascertainment are held for use at the meeting of the Electors in December.

December 13, 2016

States must make final decisions in any controversies over the appointment of their electors at least six days before the meeting of the Electors. This is so their electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress.

Decisions by states’ courts are conclusive, if decided under laws enacted before Election Day.

December 19, 2016

The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.

The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:

  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.

December 28, 2016

Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.

If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.

On or Before January 3, 2017

The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

AMENDMENT XX

“Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.”

From Citizen Wells December 13, 2008.

“ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”

“§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.”

2008 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Democratic Disaster, Questions and answers

Should Hillary Clinton “win” the general election, it does not guarantee that she will be sworn in.

https://citizenwells.com/2016/10/31/hillary-removal-from-election-and-inauguration-us-election-checkpoints-and-rules-general-election-through-electoral-college-certification-and-finally-swearing-in-hillary-can-be-removed-before-becom/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Hillary removal from election and inauguration, US election checkpoints and rules, General election through Electoral College certification and finally swearing in, Hillary can be removed before becoming president, High crimes and misdemeanors explained

Hillary removal from election and inauguration, US election checkpoints and rules, General election through Electoral College certification and finally swearing in, Hillary can be removed before becoming president, High crimes and misdemeanors explained

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

Another Democrat running for the office of the Presidency and more controversy regarding their eligibility.

In 2008 it was Obama and his natural born citizen status.

Despite the lies from the mainstream media, that issue has not been resolved.

Now with Hillary Clinton, if she garners enough votes, will she survive the election process of Electoral College votes being counted and certified and inauguration without being disqualified due to arrest and or indictment?

Here is a good description of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Sadly, most Americans are uninformed on the US President election process.

The Democrats appear to like it that way.

If you don’t believe that, check out Wikileaks.

Below is some important information on how this works.

From the US Electoral College.

The 2016 Presidential Election

“November 8, 2016—Election Day

Registered voters cast their votes for President and Vice President. By doing so, they also help choose the electors who will represent their state in the Electoral College.

Mid-November through December 19, 2016

After the presidential election, the governor of your state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment. “As soon as practicable,” after the election results in your state are certified, the governor sends one of the Certificates of Ascertainment to the Archivist.

Certificates of Ascertainment should be sent to the Archivist no later than the meeting of the electors in December. However, federal law sets no penalty for missing the deadline.

The remaining six Certificates of Ascertainment are held for use at the meeting of the Electors in December.

December 13, 2016

States must make final decisions in any controversies over the appointment of their electors at least six days before the meeting of the Electors. This is so their electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress.

Decisions by states’ courts are conclusive, if decided under laws enacted before Election Day.

December 19, 2016

The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.

The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:

  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.

December 28, 2016

Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.

If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.

On or Before January 3, 2017

The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

AMENDMENT XX

“Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.”

From Citizen Wells December 13, 2008.

“ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”

“§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.”

https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/13/2008-us-presidential-election-electoral-college-electors-us-constitution-federal-election-law-state-election-laws-state-officers-state-election-officials-judges-us-supreme-court-justices-dem/

Should Hillary Clinton “win” the general election, it does not guarantee that she will be sworn in.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From The Legal Intelligencer March 21, 2016.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set a quick timetable in the appeal of a ruling allowing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to remain on the state’s presidential primary ballot.

The court said Monday that challenger Carmon Elliott had until 4 p.m. Tuesday to submit his brief in Elliott v. Cruz. Presidential hopeful Cruz then has until 4 p.m. Wednesday to file his response. There was no indication of whether or when oral arguments would be scheduled in the case. Pennsylvania’s primary is scheduled for April 26. The court did say in its order that the parties could submit the same briefs they submitted to the Commonwealth Court.

Elliott, who represented himself before the lower court, is now being represented by Norristown attorney David J. Farrell, who had initially submitted his own challenge to Cruz’s ballott eligibility but withdrew it in advance of the Commonwealth Court hearing.

Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini rejected earlier this month Elliott’s claim that Cruz was not a “natural-born citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution because he was born in Canada to a mother who was a citizen of the United States.

Pellegrini spent half of his decision determining whether the judiciary had jurisdiction over questions of eligibility to run for president. Cruz argued it was a question only for the Electoral College or Congress to determine, and that the court should be barred from hearing it under the political-question doctrine. But Pellegrini rejected that contention, finding there was no support for it under various sections of the U.S. Constitution, nor under the 12th Amendment. In doing so, he became what appears to be the first judge in the country hearing Cruz ballot challenges to address the merits of the issue.

The dispute as to whether Cruz was a ­citizen eligible for the presidency came down to the interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “‘no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.'”

Pellegrini said the term “natural-born ­citizen” was not defined and the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed its meaning within the context of the eligibility of a candidate.

Elliott is a registered Republican voter in Pennsylvania. He argued “natural-born citizen” required a candidate to be born within the geographical boundaries of the United States to be eligible. Cruz, on the other hand, argued he was a natural-born citizen regardless of where he was born because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born and Cruz was therefore a U.S. citizen from the time of his birth, Pellegrini said.”

Read more:

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202752679252/Appeal-of-Cruzs-Ballot-Eligibility-FastTracked#ixzz4478Divhp

From the Indiana Law Review:

“D. Whether a State May Refuse To Put a Presidential Candidate on the Ballot Because It Concludes the Candidate Is Not Qualified ”

” If a state chooses to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, there is no inherent power of Congress standing in its way,”

“Just as there was historical precedent for states including unqualified candidates on the presidential ballot, so, too, is there precedent for states excluding unqualified candidates from the ballot. In fact, there has been a trend of state regulation increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications of presidential candidates, even apart from pending legislation in the “birther” context.”

“They arguably have the power to add qualifications to candidates seeking the office of President.359 The less intrusive step of examining existing constitutional qualifications is likely within the purview of state control.”

“The 20th Amendment does not prevent a state from excluding a presidential or a vice presidential candidate who is not qualified to hold the office.”

“A state inquiry into qualifications could take one of several forms.377 It might be simply ministerial, requiring candidates to verify that they are qualified. It could include a certification, such as a signature under penalty of perjury affirming that one meets the qualifications. It may require a low level of verification, such as an attachment of copies of documentary support for proof of residence and citizenship. Or it may require a high level of verification, such as original source documents (like a “long-form birth certificate”). The inquiry might be required as a disclosure when a candidate seeks to file for office, or as one that an election official is authorized to make under certain circumstances. Such state regulations would be permissible as long as they simultaneously existed within other constitutional boundaries.”

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11145&context=ilj

Hat tip to CDR Charles Kerchner.

 

Illinois Cruz Rubio ballot challenge update, February 1, 2016, Bill Graham confronts IL Board of Elections, Sworn oath to support the Constitution, Indiana Law Review state may exclude presidential candidate if not qualified

Illinois Cruz Rubio ballot challenge update, February 1, 2016, Bill Graham confronts IL Board of Elections, Sworn oath to support the Constitution, Indiana Law Review state may exclude presidential candidate if not qualified

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

Bill Graham has challenged Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility to be on the Illinois ballot as natural born citizens.

Here are more updates from Mr. Graham:

January 30, 2016 10:51 pm.

“Monday 10:30 I present to the IL Board of Elections that Rubio and Cruz lied in their Statement of Candidacy that they are NBC and qualified to serve as POTUS. The is fraud against the State. Hearing officer recommended Board deny my objections; legal counsel to Board concurred. I will make a brief statement that members would abandon their sworn oath to support the Constitution if they do not honor the Founders intent and Supreme Court rulings defining that NBC means born here to citizen parents. I regret that I may not be able to prevail, but pray the effort will get enough attention of the voters to make a difference in how they vote. Would be nice to have some patriots join me and Mr Joyce, who also raised an objection. State of Illinois building on Randolph, floor 14, suite 1400-100. Security check at ground level can take up to 30 minutes. Let’s keep up the fight to defend the Constitution!”
January 31, 2016 4:19 pm.

“IL Board Hearing officer said there are no particular restrictions in addressing the Board on Monday. I crafted two statements each ~1400 words. Cruz statement is focused on founders intent and responsibilities of the oath of Board Members to support constitution; Rubio is on these plus Wong Kim Ark and 14th Amendment. I claim a Board determination of NBC for either candidate is unlawful.”

From the Indiana Law Review:

“D. Whether a State May Refuse To Put a Presidential Candidate on the Ballot Because It Concludes the Candidate Is Not Qualified ”

” If a state chooses to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, there is no inherent power of Congress standing in its way,”

“Just as there was historical precedent for states including unqualified candidates on the presidential ballot, so, too, is there precedent for states excluding unqualified candidates from the ballot. In fact, there has been a trend of state regulation increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications of presidential candidates, even apart from pending legislation in the “birther” context.”

“They arguably have the power to add qualifications to candidates seeking the office of President.359 The less intrusive step of examining existing constitutional qualifications is likely within the purview of state control.”

“The 20th Amendment does not prevent a state from excluding a presidential or a vice presidential candidate who is not qualified to hold the office.”

“A state inquiry into qualifications could take one of several forms.377 It might be simply ministerial, requiring candidates to verify that they are qualified. It could include a certification, such as a signature under penalty of perjury affirming that one meets the qualifications. It may require a low level of verification, such as an attachment of copies of documentary support for proof of residence and citizenship. Or it may require a high level of verification, such as original source documents (like a “long-form birth certificate”). The inquiry might be required as a disclosure when a candidate seeks to file for office, or as one that an election official is authorized to make under certain circumstances. Such state regulations would be permissible as long as they simultaneously existed within other constitutional boundaries.”

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11145&context=ilj

 

Graham v Cruz Graham v Rubio Illinois ballot challenge update January 21, 2016, Trump Carson and other challengers, IL stringent ballot access requirements, Will natural born citizen status matter?

Graham v Cruz Graham v Rubio Illinois ballot challenge update January 21, 2016, Trump Carson and other challengers, IL stringent ballot access requirements, Will natural born citizen status matter?

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From Bill Graham,today January 22, 2016,  who has Challenged Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio being on the Illinois presidential ballot.

“Submitting Friday to IL State Board of Elections motions to reject motions to dismiss my objections to Rubio and Cruz Statements of Candidacy for IL General Primary 3/15. Each has certified they are legally qualified to serve as POTUS. Have low expectations but feel such efforts by citizens are necessary to preserve the Constitution.”

January 16, 2016.

“Objections to Rubio and Cruz Illinois filings posted at link. Objection was a letter attaching M Apuzzo opinion dated November 29, 2015 from his blog.

I received by US mail a notification these objections will be heard January 20 at 10:30 am, at SBE office in Springfield. I plan to call SBE Tuesday to confirm and inquire of procedures. Appeals of a decision must be filed within 5 days.

Given the corruption in IL, I expect them to be summarily dismissed. Probably could use some help with appeals.”

https://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/LatestObjections.aspx?id=50

From BallotPedia:

“In order to get on the ballot in Illinois, a candidate for state or federal office must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses and the general election.”

“Party candidates and independents

Established party candidates, new party candidates and independent candidates must file nomination papers with the Illinois State Board of Elections in order to qualify for the ballot. These nomination papers must be filed during the designated filing period. The filing period for established party candidates begins 106 days before the primary election and ends 113 days before the primary election. New party and independent candidates have a separate filing period. Their filing period begins 134 days before the general election and ends 141 days before the general election.[3][1]

Nomination papers include the following:[1]

  1. The Statement of Candidacy must contain the address, office sought and political party designation (if applicable) of the candidate; this form also includes a statement affirming that the candidate is qualified for the office sought, which must be signed by the candidate and notarized.[4]
  2. The original Receipt of Statement of Economic Interests must be filed with the Illinois Secretary of State, which will then issue the Receipt of the Statement of Economic Interests for the candidate to file with the Illinois State Board of Elections. This form is not required from candidates seeking federal office. It is suggested this form be filed at the same time as all other nomination papers, but it may be filed after the other papers as long as it is filed within the candidate filing period.[1]
  3. The loyalty oath form is optional. If a candidate chooses to sign it, he or she must affirm that he or she is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any organization that seeks to overthrow the government of the United States or the state of Illinois.[1][5]
  4. A petition containing the signatures of qualified electors. A candidate can begin circulating petitions 90 days before the last day of the filing period. Signature requirements for petitions vary according to the candidate’s political party affiliation and the office sought. Examples for signature requirements for new party candidate petitions can be found above under “Process to establish a political party.” Examples for signature requirements for established party candidates and independent candidates can be found in the tables below

Read more:

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Illinois

From Politico January 12, 2016:

“John Kasich has hit a bit of a snag in preparing for Illinois’s Republican primary.

The Ohio governor and establishment Republican presidential candidate is in danger of not having the minimum number of signatures in six congressional districts, meaning he would lose out on picking up delegates in those districts.

Last week was the deadline for submitting signatures for the March 15 primary. And Wednesday is the final day to file petition objections, with a 5 p.m. deadline.

Republicans often run up against difficulties in Illinois, where some congressional districts are heavily Democratic and ballot access is particularly complicated. But a longstanding “gentlemen’s agreement” meant Republicans didn’t contest one another’s petitions in the state. That could change in this cycle.

There’s nothing compelling the state to verify signatures unless there is a challenge.:

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/john-kasich-illinois-ballot-217648#ixzz3y091Vw75

From The Guardian January 16, 2016.

“Donald Trump’s campaign tried to get his rival Republicans kicked off the ballot in Illinois – but the attempt failed when his state chair failed to bring duplicate copies of the required forms.

The Guardian has learned that on Wednesday, the last day for candidates to object to signatures submitted by rival campaigns to get on the ballot, chair Kent Gray showed up at the Illinois board of elections a few minutes before it closed. Illinois has some of the toughest ballot access laws in the country, and qualifying for the ballot requires gathering a different number of signatures in each of the state’s 18 congressional districts. Candidates often stumble trying to fulfill the state’s requirements; conservative challenger Rick Santorum faced major obstacles in 2012.

Approached by the Guardian, Gray referred all questions to campaign spokesman Hope Hicks, who said he “was not available” to the press. Hicks did not respond to follow-up questions from the Guardian.

State politicians have long had a “gentleman’s agreement” that candidates would not attempt to contest each other’s signatures and throw each other off the ballot. But challenging petition signatures as a form of political chicanery in the Land of Lincoln has a long history. Barack Obama first won election to the state senate in 1996 by successfully challenging the signatures of his incumbent opponent and getting her removed from the ballot.
It had been widely reported that the campaign of Governor John Kasich of Ohio, a vocal Trump critic, had problems gathering signatures in Illinois, and representatives of Kasich, along with the campaigns of Florida senator Marco Rubio and neurosurgeon Ben Carson, were monitoring for any objections from rival camps. It seemed that they had dodged a bullet until Gray walked in attempting to object to a number of candidates on the grounds that some of their signatures were invalid, although exactly who he focused on is unclear.”

Read more:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/14/trump-campaign-illinois-primary-attempt-kick-rivals-off-ballot

 

 

 

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Superior Court Judge Timothy Tomasi granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. The State filed an opposition brief limited to the issue of the Motion for a TRO, they have yet to Answer the Verified Complaint and have
been given until January 26 to answer or be found in default. Plaintiff
filed his amended brief naming Cruz and Rubio as indispensable parties
since their Petitions and Consent Forms were confirmed by the Secretary of
State. ”

“Wednesday the Judge scheduled a hearing on the TRO for Friday the 15th. On Friday the Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant’s Opposition Brief and the Hearing was attended by Plaintiff and State Defendants who had summoned the Director of Elections to testify. Substantive evidence was provided by the Plaintiff and confirmed under oath by the Director of Elections under cross-examination revealing numerous defects and errors in the process and procedures including counting signatures of many individuals who were not registered. In dozens of instances were not even residents (or inhabitants) of Vermont including the citizens of  CT, NY, NJ, MA and even FL who because the
Petitions were not labeled as for the Vermont Primary did not required the
signatories to certify that they were in fact registered Vermont voters.
Incredibly the Director of Elections testified that his office did not
believe they were required to confirm that the petition signatories were
on the voters rolls in Vermont, rather that they were only required to
determine that the signatures were legible and nothing more. Welcome to
Vermont’s Wild West of Elections where few care about the integrity of the
election process, in fact most probably do not even understand the
concept. In the end the Judge did not grant the TRO citing that the
public interest and concerns over voter disenfranchisement outweighed the
injury to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will receive the Return of Service and
the executed Summonses on Tuesday for the new Defendants and will file
them with the Court that day, starting the 20 day clock for the new
Defendants to answer or otherwise file a response with the Court.”

Mr. Paige hired Baker Investigations and Process Servers to serve
the Summons and Amended Complaint on the out-of-state Defendants Cruz and
Rubio during their visit to Charleston SC in advance of their appearances
on the Fox Business News Republican Debate. Owner Elizabeth Baker
personally served both Cruz and Rubio on Wednesday January 13, as they
arrived in Charleston.

Photos courtesy of Baker Investigations and Process Servers.

PaigeSummonsCruz

PaigeSummonsRubio

According to Mr. Paige, Elizabeth Baker described the Rubio campaign folks as very accommodating and congenial while the Cruz folks were willing to
cooperate although they seemed less cordial and Boston lawyers contacted
the Plaintiff attempting to substitute “electronic service” for personal
service required by the Court.

Original complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/