Prescott, AZ – It is time to assess where we are as a nation of voters with diverse interests. The premises is that rights are accompanied by corresponding responsibilities. The right to vote reigns supreme, and the responsibility is that every legally registered voter cast only one ballot. Seems simple enough, but the election fraud gangsters seek power at any cost, and that means the theft of the electoral franchise from others. When the theft of the franchise is organized and overwhelms the legal vote, we have by definition a dictatorship.
Thomas Paine
The man was considered a pain to many around him in his day, but he was a wise man. He wrote, “The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.” But what happens when we see the collective rights of individuals who vote, usurped by the likes of Boss Tweed and put our communities in the class of Tammany Hall corruption?
The battle over civil rights has raged for centuries, since long before the Magna Carta; and so it seems rages on even today in Maricopa County Arizona. We are engaged in a fight for our survival as a nation of free men and women, in a time where power brokers usurp the will of the people under color of authority. Frankly, our nation resembles a distorted and perhaps macabre pseudo-democracy, which is in reality a dictatorship in place by way of a simulation that only resembles a democratically elected government.
The matter of protection of civil rights is memorialized in most state constitutions, and indeed here in Arizona in both the constitution and statutes. In the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 puts all on notice that, “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”¹
To that end, the public officer’s Oath of Office. The Arizona public officer oath upon entering service to the People reads, “I _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of…”²
Abraham Lincoln
Our 16th President famously said, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.”³ Lincoln is also speaking to the power [not authority mind you] over freedom, to interfere with it. Mr. Lincoln is also credited with another great statement….
The people are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow those who would pervert it.
It seems that President Lincoln was an early “truth to power” activist, although most not consider him such.
Hugo Black, SCOTUS Justice
“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”⁴
Clearly, across time many leaders have acknowledged the critical role of legitimate elections. But what legitimizes an election? The laws that bind them and the men and women who are charged with the responsibility to follow the law. The law equalizes the concentration of power allegedly protecting the weak from the strong.
The path to taking back our elections: Know the laws that govern them…
How serious is the Constitution about suffrage, the franchise of each legal citizen of the United States? About as serious as it can be.
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;” It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.⁵
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Fourteenth Amendment Section 2, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
There is a sever consequence if the state where a legal citizen is registered to vote, abridges the citizen(s) most precious right. But who will asses the penalty? Recently we have seen the federal courts dismiss case after case, asserting that the citizens don’t have standing. Is that really the case?
52 USC Subtitle 1: Voting Rights §10101(a)(1): “All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
National Voter Registration Act, 1993, 52 USC Ch. 205: National Voter Registration § 20501. Findings and purposes
(a) Findings: The Congress finds that— (1) the right of citizens of the zUnited States to vote is a fundamental right; (2) it is the duty of the Federal, State and local governments to promote the exercise of that right
(b) Purposes: The purposes of this chapter are— (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
Help America Vote Act, 2002, 52 USC Ch. 209: Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements § 21083. Implementation
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), each State, acting through the chief State election official, shall implement, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and administered at the State level that contains the name and registration information of every legally registered voter in the State and assigns a unique identifier to each legally registered voter in the State (in this subsection referred to as the “computerized list”), and includes the following:
(i) The computerized list shall serve as the single system for storing and managing the official list of registered voters throughout the State.
(ii) The computerized list contains the name and registration information of every legally registered voter in the State.
(iii) Under the computerized list, a unique identifier is assigned to each legally registered voter in the State.
(iv) The computerized list shall be coordinated with other agency databases within the State.
(v) Any election official in the State, including any local election official, may obtain immediate electronic access to the information contained in the computerized list.
(vi) All voter registration information obtained by any local election official in the State shall be electronically entered into the computerized list on an expedited basis at the time the information is provided to the local official.
(vii) The chief State election official shall provide such support as may be required so that local election officials are able to enter information as described in clause (vi).
(viii) The computerized list shall serve as the official voter registration list for the conduct of all elections for Federal office in the State.
NOTE: As you can see so far, there are significant duties that the States and their political subdivisions are required to execute on. But are they? NO, and that is the crux of the mater.
Federal Enforcement of Election Law…
Published by the U.S. Department of Justice, “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eight Edition, December 2017” details “Types of Election Crimes”
Election Fraud— Election fraud usually involves corruption of one of three processes: the obtaining and marking of ballots, the counting and certification of election results, or the registration of voters.
Conduct that Constitutes Federal Election Fraud— Voting in federal elections for individuals who do not personally participate in, and assent to, the voting act attributed to them, or impersonating voters, or casting ballots in the names of voters who do not vote in federal elections (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c), 10307(e), 20511(2)).
Malfeasance by election officials acting “under color of law” by performing such acts as diluting valid ballots with invalid ones (ballot box stuffing), rendering false tabulations of votes, or preventing valid voter registrations or votes from being given effect in any election in which federal candidates are on the ballot (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c),10307(e), 20511(2)). These are conspiracy against rights.
Submitting fictitious names to election officers for inclusion on voter registration rolls, thereby qualifying the ostensible voters to vote in federal elections (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c), 20511(2)).
Knowingly procuring eligibility to vote for federal office by persons who are not entitled to vote under applicable state law, notably persons who have committed serious crimes (approximately 40 states) (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c), 20511(2)), and persons who are not United States citizens (currently all states) (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c), 20511(2)); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1015(f), (611).
Help America Vote Act, 2002, 52 USC Ch. 209: Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements § 21081. Voting Systems Standards
(a)RequirementsEach voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet the following requirements:
(5) Error rates— The error rate of the voting system in counting ballots (determined by taking into account only those errors which are attributable to the voting system and not attributable to an act of the voter) shall comply with the error rate standards established under section 3.2.1 of the voting systems standards issued by the Federal Election Commission which are in effect on October 29, 2002.
Voting System Standards Volume I: Performance Standards. April 2002, published by the Federal Election Commission
3.2.1 Accuracy Requirements— “For a voting system, accuracy is defined as the ability of the system to capture, record, store, consolidate and report the specific selections and absence of selections, made by the voter for each ballot position without error. Required accuracy is defined in terms of an error rate that for testing purposes represents the maximum number of errors allowed while processing a specified volume of data. This rate is set at a sufficiently stringent level such that the likelihood of voting system errors affecting the outcome of an election is exceptionally remote even in the closest of elections.”⁶
Voting system errors must be no more than 1 in 125,000 ballots in error.
What can be done?
Under 52 U.S.C. §§10101(c), “Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) or (b), the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.”
Engagement matters…
Your engagement matters. While we have police on the streets, we still lock our doors to protect our persons and property. Every voter must be vigilant to protect their own unalienable right to vote, to exercise their consent to be governed. If you leave that up to someone else, your voice will be silenced.
I urge you to take 27 minutes and watch the full presentation on election law, and how the People hold leaders accountable for their performance. Great credit to Marly Hornik, a homeschool mom who got engaged and created an opportunity for everyone to learn about the mechanisms to push back against bureaucratic tyranny. See the presentation at Election Validity Law.
Again in the prosecutors handbook, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eight Edition, December 2017, “Congress has enacted new criminal laws with broad jurisdictional bases to combat false voter registrations, vote-buying, multiple-voting, and fraudulent voting in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot.” The People must know the law to hold officials accountable for failures to act, and to report violations of the laws to the authorities for prosecution.
Election law is one thing, but how did the Feds take down Al Capone?
Tax evasion is what took ole “scar face” down, that’s right. It was not murder, racketeering,or bootlegging that got the gangster, it was tax evasion. So consider this, if an individual is registered to vote in more than one state, and then casts a ballot in the state where he or she does not live, might they be making a declaration of residency by virtue of casting their ballot? Indeed, for we assume they are legally registered to vote. So if that be the case, have they paid their income tax in that state? do they have an income tax liability? While multi-state voting is not the biggest pot of election fraud, it is a problem when many elections are decidedly as few as one hundred votes or less.
And then there is racketeering, the organized crime of election manipulation through all of the various means noted above. Will anyone in the Department of Justice find their soul and do more than watch the house burn down?
1
https://www.azleg.gov/const/2/
2
A.R.S. § 38-231, Sec. E.
3
Abraham Lincoln, letter to H.L. Pierce, April 6, 1859. From the series Great Ideas of Western Man.
4
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964)
5
https://www.law.cornell.edu/
6
https://www.eac.gov/sites/
https://markfinchem.substack.com/publish/posts
Leave a Comment