Tag Archives: State Laws

2008 Electoral College votes, Certification of Voters, State laws, US Constitution, Electors signed Certification, Certifications invalid, Obama ineligible, Violators should be prosecuted, Constitution violated

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

2008 election, Obama not eligible, States have power to challenge, US Constitution, US Supreme Court, Federal Election Law, State laws, Secretary of State, Election Boards, Congress, Electoral College, Berg Donofrio Wrotnowski lawsuits, Hold accountable

The founding fathers set up guidelines for presidential elections and laid out the rules in the US
Constitution and subsequently Federal Election laws. There are two aspects that stand out about the
rules. First, the eligibility requirement for president is defined. But even more clear than
presidential eligibility, the powers given to the states are clearly defined. The states are given
control of the election process through the vote by the Electoral College Electors. The state
election laws vary widely and regardless of how explicit and detailed they are written, they all
fall under the guidelines and rules of the US Constitution. The ultimate objective is to elect a
qualified president. All laws and procedures must work to that end. The Electoral College Electors
are bound to uphold the US Constitution and therefore must only vote for a constitutionally
qualified candidate.

State laws have evolved out of tradition and indeed tradition drives many procedures and opinions
about allowing candidates on ballots and proceeding through the election process to being chosen
by Electoral College Electors. Allowing candidates to appear on ballots from instructions by major
political parties has evolved into many variations by state. The political parties are given no
special powers in the US Constitution. It is clear that each state has the full power and obligation
to ensure that a candidate running for president is qualified to hold office. To do otherwise
threatens to disenfranchise a myriad of voters. The citizens of each state expect state officers and
election officials to protect them and their votes.

It is clear that the states have been given the power to control the election process through the
Electors vote. Some states have recognized their power to challenge eligibility in state laws. It is also
clear in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the Bill of
Rights, that any powers not reserved for the federal government or the states, are reserved for the
people. Any state taking the position, incorrectly, that they have no power to challenge the
credentials of a presidential candidate have relinquished that power to their citizens.

One thing is clear from the research I have done. There is much confusion and misunderstanding about
the election process and responsibilities. As stated above, tradition is a huge driving force. I have
reviewed the US Constitution, Federal Election law and many state election statutes. I have also read
legal opinions and writings from constitutional experts. Below are federal and state laws and the major
players who have responsibilities in governing elections, state officers and election officials, judges
and congressmen.

Read about the US Constitution, Federal Law and Electors

Laws applicable in NC

Examples of state laws that address the issue of challenging eligibility

North Carolina

NC Statute § 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

“If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of national executive
committee of political party in which vacancy occurs”

Georgia

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
“(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.”

Florida

102.168  Contest of election.–

“(1)  Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.”

Examples of ignorance, bias and tradition in positions of responsibility:

Connecticut Secretary of State
Susan Bysiewicz

“The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated that there is no doubt that the Democratic
presidential candidate was born there and that the state’s health department posseses Senator Obama’s
original birth certificate. This is now a matter of public record.”

What the Hawaii Health Officials said

Judge Surrick ruling on Philip J Berg case
Constitutional expert Ellis Washington responds:

“Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.”

Read more

Senator Mel Martinez of Florida

The following is from a response from Senator Mel Martinez of Florida. Mr. Martinez clearly has no
understanding of the US Constitution  or election laws. The scary part is that Congress is part of the
last checks and balances during the election. Congress has the power to sertify the Electoral College
votes and challenge them.

“Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.

Article II of the Constitution provides that “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.”

I contacted Senator Martinez’ office this morning and no one has responded. If Senator Martinez would like
to respond, we welcome that. If you are a citizen of the state of Florida you may want to contact Senator
Martinez and voice your concerns over his lack of knowledge. I am certain he is not the only member of
Congress to be informed.
What we have here is a failure to communicate and a real mess.

What can we do?

Continue to inform all of those involved in the election process of their legal duties and demand that
Barack Obama prove legally that he is eligible.

For those state officers, election officials, Electors, judges and congressmen that fail to do their
job and uphold the US Constitution, hold them accountable. State laws vary but their are usually remedies
available such as recall, impeachment and dismissal. Don’t forget, you have more power than is normally
recognized. The Tenth Amendment gives us plenty of power. Also, make sure you share information with
others and ask them to do the same.

God help us if the US Supreme Court fails us

Electoral College facts, Obama not eligible, Electors must vote per US Constitution, Faithless Electors, Federal Election Laws, State Laws, Elector pledges, States and Electors must uphold US Constitution

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

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

Electoral College must be maintained

We must adhere to spirit and intent of law

The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two primary goals.

  • To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from being dominated by a few larger states with
    higher population densities.
  • To prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed populace.

I have been wading through the quagmire of the election process and in particular, the Electoral College
vote and state laws that control the election process through the Electors voting. Some aspects are
crystal clear. The US Constitution reveals the eligibility requirements for president, the responsibility
of the federal and state governments and how the electors must vote. The individual states have the
power of controlling general election ballots and orchestrating the selection, meeting and votes of the
Electoral College Electors. There is much confusion however, regarding the duties and powers of state
election officials to ensure the qualifications of candidates and in states’ power to control the way
Electors vote.

Here are the laws and facts regarding the pivotal point in the election process, the Vote by the Electoral College Electors:

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal 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.”

From US National Archives

“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.”

List of Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges, as of November 2000
Source:  Congressional Research Service

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA – 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE – 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA – 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO – 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS – 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA – 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA – 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY – 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA – 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA – 10 Electoral Votes
 MISSOURI – 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE – 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY – 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK – 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA – 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND – 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE – 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS – 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH – 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA – 5 Electoral Votes
 
Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – 9 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – 3 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – 55 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 6906
COLORADO – 9 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – 7 Electoral Votes
State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – 3 Electoral Votes
DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA – 27 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS – 12 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – 17 Electoral Votes
State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI – 6 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §13-25-104
NEBRASKA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 32-714
NEVADA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 298.050
NEW MEXICO – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – 15 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – 20 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – 8 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – 13 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – 11 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

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.”

Source:

http://votenovember2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-electoral-college-works.html

 

So, we have a situation where electors are referred to as “faithless” for not following the party line
or state mandate. However, the state mandates are unconstitutional. There is no such mandate from the
US Constitution or Federal Election Law. On the contrary, Electors are bound to vote in the manner defined
in the US Constitution. Following a political party or state mandate when confronted by serious concerns
regarding a presidential candidate’s eligibility, clearly violates the spirit of the law. The individual
states have the power over candidates being placed on and remaining on ballots. If they are to dictate
the manner in which Electors vote, they must exercise their powers and demand proof of eligibility
to prevent violations of constitutional law and potential voter disenfranchisement.

Let’s consider a comment from an Indiana Elector and Indiana law.

“Good Morning CW, I sent an email to all of the Electorals in Indiana asking them to support the Constitution requirements for President. This is what I received back, “Brenda I don’t represent you. I do however represent the people who voted for President Elect Barack Obama in the state of Indiana. Anthe the State did go from Red to Blue, did it not? Any think you have to further communicate with me is of no interest. Please refrain.” Cordelia Lewis-Burks. Then the next e-mail sent a picture of all the Presidents of the United States with the caption, One thing has changed” because it had Obama’s picture added. How do you get people like this to even question his qualifications? They do not care. All they care about is the fact that he is part black. By the way, this lady is black. I also have a question–why doesn’t she represent me? She is just an electoral, and I am a citizen of Indiana and the United States. Any suggestions ? Thanks. Brenda”

Electors pledge to a political party to vote for parties candidate. This is another example of party over country. The DNC did not vet Obama and now expect Electors to blindly follow.

The Indiana Elector in the above comment has pledged to the Democrat Party to vote for their candidate. I wonder if the Elector is aware of their duty to vote in the manner directed by the US Constitution. The Elector has been made aware of the eligibility issue with Barack Obama. Ignorance is not bliss. If the electors in Indiana are not made aware of their responsibilities and Obama being ineligible, then their Electoral votes must be challenged in Congress. 

Indiana Law from the Secretary of State

“After election day, each county sends its presidential vote totals to the Secretary of State in Indianapolis. It can take several weeks after the election for the final version of all these county returns to arrive. When all the county votes have been received (and any errors or omissions corrected), the Secretary of State certifies to the Governor the final, official returns for the presidential elector candidates.

The Governor then signs a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” This document officially appoints the winning presidential electors to serve as Indiana’s members of the Electoral College. Three copies of this document are immediately sent to the National Archives in Washington.”
“After an invocation and any welcoming remarks by state officials, the Certificate of Ascertainment and the roll call of the electors are read. The electors who are present then take their oath of office.”

“The presidential electors then vote for President on a paper ballot. The ballots are tabulated and the results announced. The electors then cast a separate paper ballot for Vice-President, and the result of this voting is announced. The electors then sign a Certificate that sets forth the votes each Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate received, and a transmittal cover sheet.”
INDIANA ELECTORAL COLLEGE FACTS

“Indiana has never had a “faithless” elector. Each individual has voted for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to whom they were pledged.”

Source:

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/voters/electors_new.html

It is obvious that we must do the following:

  • Inform Electoral College Electors, State Election Officials and congressmen of the Obama ineligibility
    issues and their duty to uphold the law and serve the citizens.
  • Educate Electors on their constitutional duty and priorities.
  • Demand that State election officials require proof of eligibility of Barack Obama and any other presidential candidates.
  • Hold all accountable.
  • However, even though some Electors have been complicit with the DNC in not vetting Obama, not all are guilty of dubious actions and all should be addressed with the proper respect.