UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se Case Number 1:16-CV-02528
9466 Georgia Ave. #61
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Judge Walton, Reggie B.
Phone 312 647 9497
Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Majority Leader of United States Senate;
Vice President Joseph Biden
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
The President of U.S. Senate;
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
President Pro Tempore of U.S. Senate;
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Minority Leader Of U.S. Senate;
1233 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Speaker of United States House of Representatives;
233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Minority Leader of United States House of Representatives;
1st Amended Civil Complaint
A Voting Rights Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 Action; Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
As a Prevailing Party under 42 U.S.C. 1988
A Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 Request for Attorneys Fees
as Prevailing Party Under Declaratory Relief or Such
Provision of Law that this Court Deems Just to
Award Attorneys Fees;
19th, 15th, 13th, 1st Amendments of U.S. Constitution
Render Original 1787 Electoral College Method of
Electing / Selecting Electors to cast Electoral Votes,
Which Electoral Votes then elect the joint ticket of
President and Vice President of the United States Unconstitutional, and Mandate Switching to the
Popular Vote Method of Electing the President
And Vice President of the United States as
Contained in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of
December 6, 1977.
Plaintiff Alleges that Donald Trump President elect
And Mike Pence Vice President Elect received less
Than the 270 majority of valid electoral votes
Under Electoral college system. Plaintiff Alleges
Donald Trump and Mike Pence received 256
Electoral votes. Fifty  of 306 Electoral votes received by Trump and Pence were void, ab initio,
And were cast in states by Electoral College
Electors, who were not qualified electors, due to violations of state election law, prohibiting dual emoluments from government employment, meaning electors are prohibited from having
part time or full time government employment.
Requiring valid voting registration within the Congressional District which
each elector in the Electoral College represents.
Some Electoral College electors were elected as electors, who were not registered to vote at all, and or who were not qualified to register to vote, Thus the voter registration of the elector was void as a matter of law, so the Elector’s electoral vote cast was null and void, ab initio as a matter of law.
Plaintiff asks this court to invalidate and decertify these 50 null and void electoral votes that were counted by U.S. Senate as valid, by a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ directed at U.S. Senate to do so. Plaintiff asks this Court to order President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence removed from office, and in accordance with Title 3 U.S.C.A. Section 19 ( c ) (1), replaced by Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, as President Pro Tempore of the United States. Plaintiff asks this Court to hold an evidence hearing at which Plaintiff will present evidence
As adequate legal proof, that such 50 electoral votes are null and void. Plaintiff will ask this court to hold such hearing by an appropriate motion.
Plaintiff asks this Court to order a new presidential primary election and a new presidential general election to be quickly held to allow voters to vote
To fill the vacant offices of president and vice president, because the U.S. Constitution and Title 3 Section 1-21 provide no remedy where no ticket for president and vice president has received a sufficient number of electoral votes. All tickets for president and vice president of the United States received less than the minimum 270 votes needed,
When the U.S. Senate counted Electoral votes on
January 6, 2017, or Plaintiff requests that this court in the alternative find the electoral college method of electing the president unconstitutional, and switch to the national popular vote plurality total, method, of electing the president as specified in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977.
In the event that this court decides that the Electoral College is unconstitutional under the 13th, 15th,19th, and 1st Amendments to U.S. Constitution, then his court must issue a writ of mandamus, ordering the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, in accordance with switching to the popular vote method of electing the president and vice president of the United States, to obtain certified totals for each candidate for President and Vice President from each of the Chief Executives of Elections in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives must be ordered to total, nationally, all votes cast for each ticket of candidates for president and vice president. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives then
Must, upon calculating the totals of popular votes, received by all candidates, certify such totals and declare and certify who the winners are of the plurality of the national vote total for the ticket of president and vice president.
This court must issue a writ of mandamus to order the chief election official of each state and the District of Columbia to forward certified totals of popular votes, received by each candidate. for president and vice president, in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and to forward two sets of such documents one to the National Archives and one to the President of the United States Senate as currently is required in Title 3 U.S.C.A. Sections 1-21 with respect to sending the state and District of Columbia totals of electoral votes.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
19TH, 15TH, 13TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MUST BE USED AND APPLIED BY THIS COURT TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT DUE TO VARIATIONS IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF CITIZEN’S VOTES IN ALL 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. BY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY THE MATHEMATICAL VALUES VARY IN SUCH A WAY AS TO FAVOR CONSERVATIVE POLITIVAL IDEOLOGY OF CONSERVATIVE VOTERS AND DISFAVOR LIBERAL/MODERATE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS page 17
TABLE #4 COMPARATIVE VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES IN TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN THE 50 STATES AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 2010 ELECTORAL VOTES USED IN THE 2016 ELECTION DIVIDED BY 2010 U.S. CENSUS POPULATION. page 25
TABLE #5 STATES WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WON THE PLURALITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE AND VALUE OF POPULAR VOTE IN TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN EACH OF THESE STATES.
TABLE #6 STATES WHERE DONALD TRUMP WON THE PLURALITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE
AND VALUE OF POPULAR VOTE IN TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN EACH OF THESE STATES
MATHEMATICAL ADVANTAGE OF GREATER VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES IN VALUES OF ELECTORAL VOTES GIVEN TO SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE STATES AND FARM/GREAT PLAINS CONSERVATIVE STATE COMPARED TO LOWER VALUE OF NORTHERN AND WESTERN LIBERAL/MODERATE STATES page 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 13TH AND 15TH SEPARATELY OR COMBINED GIVE THIS COURT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO END SLAVERY, THE 15TH AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO GIVE FORMER SLAVES, THEN CALLED FREEDMEN, THE RIGHT TO VOTE. ONCE
SLAVES WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IN 15TH AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS ABOLISHED. AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED
19TH AMENDMENT WOMENS RIGHT TO VOTE IS A POWERFUL BASIS ON WHICH THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT IS ABLE TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ENTIRELY, AND SWITCH TO THE POPULAR VOTE PLURALITY METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH WAS PROPOSED IN SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 OF DECEMBER 6, 1977 page 41
PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AND CLAIMS THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT VIOLATES PLAINTIFF’S 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION. VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES FROM STATE TO STATE CAUSED BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORMULA CAUSES HARMFUL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN VOTERS WHO ARE NON RELIGIOUS OR BELONG TO LIBERAL RELIGIONS COMPARED TO VOTERS WHO ARE RELIGIOUSLY FUNDAMENTALIST AND STRICT OBSERVANT OF THEIR RELIGION. THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION page 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RELIGIONS THAT ARE FAVORED MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE OVER OTHER RELIGIONS THAT ARE DISRAVORED MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE IN THE ELCTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM. page 50
RELIEF AND REMEDIES PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT page 50
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION page 54
STATUTORY JURISDICTION BY ACT OF CONGRESS, JUSTICIABILITY UNDER U.S. CONSTITUTION
IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS: ALL SENATORS AND OFFICERS IN US SENATE INCLUDING U.S. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL MAJORITY LEADER OF U.S. SENATE AND VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AND ALL REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICERS IN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDING SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PAUL RYAN
STANDING OF PLAINTIFF, UNDER BAKER V. CARR 269 U.S. 186, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABOINGTON TOWNSHIP PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP 374 page 55
PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING TO MAKE AND MUST BE GIVEN STANDING TO REPRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF IMPORTANT 3RD PARTIES WHO ARE SUBGROUPS OF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE GROUP OF ALL LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS IN UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS UNDER BARROWS V. JACKSON 346 U.S. 249 page 58
FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL
HOW ELECTORS CHOSEN IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM ALMOSTS NEVER PERFORM IN THE MANNER ANTICIPATED BY AUTHORS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS DEBATED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND AS WRITTEN IN FEDERALIST PAPER NUMBER 68. ELECTORS IN ANY STATE DO NOT ACT INDEPENDENTLY AND CAST ELECTORAL VOTES FOR DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL/VICE PRESIDENTIAL PAIRS OF CANDIDATES THAN THOSE CANDIDATES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PLEDGED TO ON THE POPULAR VOTE BALLOT BY VOTERS. Page 62
FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL
HOW THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY AS A LEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICE OF OPERATING PLANTATIONS AND FARMS CREATED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM OF CHOOSING ELECTORS FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AS A COMPROMISE MEASURE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1789 IN PHILADELPHIA, PA PAGE 62
FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL
MATHEMATICALLY OUT OF PROPORTION, OVERREPRESENTATION AS GRANTED TO SMALL POPULATION STATES AND MEDIUM POPULATION STATES, IN THE ACTUAL COMPARATIVE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES IN THOSE STATES COMPARED TO LARGE POPULATION STATE UNDER THE UNITED STATES CENSUS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO VOTE
GUARANTEE OF THE IN THE 15TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Page 66
FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL
ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF CHOOSING ELECTORS FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FAVORS CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY OVER LIBERAL IDEOLOGY IN VOIOLATION OF THE 13TH, 15TH, AND 19TH AMENDMENTS OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AND CONSEQUENTLY UNFAIRLY FAVORS REPUBLICAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES OVER DEMOCRAT AND 3RD PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES IN VIOLATION OF THE 13TH, 15TH, AND 19TH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Page 67
PLAINTIFF ALLEGES PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD TRUMP AND VICE PRESIDENT ELECT MIKE PENCE DID NOT RECEIVE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF MAJORITY OF VALID LEGAL ELECTORAL VOTES 270 MINIMUM ELECTORAL VOTES AND THUS HAVE NOT BEEN LEGALLY ELECTED AS PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT DONALD TRUMP AND MIKE PENCE RECEIVED 256 ELECTORAL VOTES EACH FOR THE OFFICES OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT RESPECTIVELY. PLAINTIFF SEEKS DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CONSISTENT WITH
THESE FACTS, THAT PLAINTIFF ALLEGES, THAT DONALD TRUMP AND MIKE PENCE BE HELD TO NOT BE THE WINNERS OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYSTEM. PLAINTIFF SEEKS THAT THE POPULAR VOTE BE USED TO DETERMINE THE WINNER OF THE PRESIDENCY AS CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFFS DEMANDS FOR RELIEF IN THIS COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFF SEEKS IN INTERIM THAT UNDER TITLE 3 U.S.C.A. 19 (c) (1) THAT SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE PAUL RYAN BE ORDERED TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT PRO TEM OF THE UNITED STATES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THIS COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ISSUE FINAL RULINGS ON MERITS OF PLAINTIFFS CASE, INCLUDING DETERMINING WHO THE LEGAL WINNER OF THE 1016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS. Page 68
14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY STATE ELECTORS AND AND STATE ELECTION, [SECRETARIES OF STATE OR EQUIVALENT] AUTHORITIES AND BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE INVALID FALSE CERTIFICATION OF NULL AND VOID ELECTORAL VOTES page 78
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A PREVAILING PARTY UNDER TITLE 42 U.S.C.A. 1988
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BY PLAINTIFF AS A PREVAILING PARTY, UNDER DECLARATORY RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1988.
RIPENESS page 101
TABLE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES page 102
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BEGINNING OF TEXT OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
19TH, 15TH, AND 13TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MUST BE USED TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT DUE TO VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF CITIZENS VOTES IN ALL 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MATHEMATICAL VALLUES OF POPULAR VOTES VARY IN SUCH A WAY AS TO FAVOR CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF CONSERVATIVE VOTERS AND DISFAVOR LIBERAL/MODERATE IDEOLOGY OF LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS. THE ONLY WAY TO ELIMANATE THIS IDEOLOGICAL FAVORITISM/ IDEOLOGICAL DISCRIMINATION IS TO SWITCH TO THE POPULAR VOTE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT AS CONTAINED IN SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 OF DECEMBER 6, 1977. THE MATHEMATICAL VARIATION IN THE VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES COMBINED WITH WASTE OF EXCESS POPULAR VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL VOTE WINNER TAKE ALL SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE RIGHT TO VOTE GUARANTEES OF BOTH THE 15TH AMENDMENT AND 19TH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTION
Plaintiff is a United States citizen, a registered voter in the state of Illinois, a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff claims that his vote should be counted with equal value to every other popular vote of every citizen in every state and the District of Columbia. Plaintiff claims that under the United States Constitution and the 13th Amendment, 15th Amendment, the 19TH Amendment and the 1st Amendment thereof, each popular vote of every voter in all 50 states and the District of Columbia must be valued at 1 unit vote per person. Plaintiff claims that the national popular vote plurality winner, that is the candidate who wins the highest total number of popular votes is the only legal constitutional winner of the presidential election. Plaintiff claims that the value of his vote cast for Hillary Rodham Clinton and the value of all votes cast for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the November 8, 2016 presidential election have been illegally devalued by the Electoral College system in violation of the 15th Amendment U.S.C.A., the 19th Amendment U.S.C.A. and the 1st Amendment U.S.C.A. Plaintiff claims that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the legal winner of the 2016 Presidential election. Plaintiff claims that Donald John Trump and Mike Pence are the legal losers of the 2016 Presidential election. Plaintiff asks this U.S. District Court to make findings of law consistent with plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff asks this court for declaratory relief herein asked for in this complaint and plaintiff asks for injunctive permanent relief and orders as well, to implement plaintiff’s claims at law, should plaintiff be the prevailing party in this lawsuit, and should the court agree with claims made by plaintiff and adopt and order implemented the remedies plaintiff asks for.
Plaintiff did apply for a preliminary injunction to be issued by this court to maintain the status quo which was denied by this court. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief consistent with plaintiff’s claims in this complaint. Plaintiff realistically expects that this case will be heard on appeal by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and ultimately that the United States Supreme Court will accept the case on certiorari and rule on the issues of this case on the merits.
Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff’s vote is unconstitutionally reduced in mathematical value to .78 or 78% of the average value of votes of qualified voters who reside in fourteen Southern states. Southern voters living in thirteen Southern states Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, and Texas, have a vote which is worth on the average 1.27 times greater than an Illinois voter’s vote in terms of mathematical value. An Illinois voter’s vote is worth 1.8 X 10 to minus 6 electoral votes. An average Southern voters vote is worth 2.3 X 10 to minus 6 electoral votes. 1.8 X 10 -6 electoral votes divided by 2.3 X 10-6 electoral votes equals .78 or 78%. So an Illinois voters vote is worth .78 or 78% of a Southern state voter’s vote. To fully understand the mathematical comparisons that the plaintiff is making here, the reader must understand that our mathematical notation in powers of 10 to the minus 6 is expressed in terms of electoral votes. What the plaintiff is doing here is converting popular votes into an electoral vote value for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia by dividing the number of electoral votes each state is assigned in a given election year and then dividing that number of electoral votes by the population census number for that state. For example, Ohio in 2000 U.S. Census was given 21 electoral votes. We divide the 21 electoral votes in Ohio for that year by the Ohio population in the 2000 U.S. Census, which is 11,353,000 which gives us a value of each Ohio voter’s vote in terms of electoral votes. The numerical results give a solution of approximately 1.6 X 10 to the minus 6 power electoral votes, which in decimals is .0000016. On the table 1, the plaintiff show the value of popular votes expressed in terms of electoral votes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for the 1990 census, the 2000 census, and the 2010 census.
Since presidential elections occur every 4 years, each population census figures are usually used for 2 elections based on the fact that House of Representative districts are redistricted every 10 years after a new census has been taken.
Note that the 2000 election was an election in which the winner of the popular vote plurality total in the entire United States, Al Gore, did not win the electoral vote majority of 270 electoral votes. Al Gore won the national popular vote plurality total by over 500,000 popular votes. George W. Bush Jr. won the majority of electoral votes because the United States Supreme Court interfered with the Florida Supreme Court’s orders for County Boards of Elections to do recounts, if they wished to do so. The actual real totals for Al Gore Jr. and George W. Bush Jr. were never found out. This was because the United States Supreme Court ordered an end to the recounts in Florida and picked George W. Bush as the winner of the presidential election.
Table #4 gives the value of popular votes in terms of electoral votes based on the 2010 census figures and the 2010 numbers of electoral votes given to each state. The 2010 census figures were used to calculate the number of electoral votes in 2012 and 2016 presidential election. Table #5 shows the value of popular votes in terms of electoral votes that Hillary Clinton won and that Donald Trump won for each state in which each candidate won the popular vote plurality. In the 2016 election Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote plurality total with a total of 65,432,202 popular votes. In the 2016 election Donald Trump lost the national popular vote plurality total when Trump won 62,793,872. Donald Trump came in second in the total number of popular votes received for president. In the 2016 presidential election Donald Trump won 303 electoral votes, far more than the 270 electoral vote minimum constituting a majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. So Donald Trump came in second in the number of popular votes won, but won the presidency by winning more than a majority of electoral votes. Trump won exactly 303 electoral votes. A minimum of 270 electoral votes constitutes the majority number of electoral votes required to win the presidency.
Plaintiff claims that a wide variation in mathematical values exists from the value of popular votes in Northern liberal/moderate states to Midwestern farming/ great plains states. Such wide variation in mathematical value of votes runs from. 1.8 X10-6 in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois to 2.2 X 10-6 in Kansas, 2.9 x 10-6 in Nebraska, 6.0 X 10-6 in Wyoming, 3.0 X 10-6 in Idaho and 3.3 X 10-6 in Montana. Easily we can see here that a conservative vote in farming/great plains states on the average is worth 1.27 times the value of a vote in the liberal/moderate states block. That is, a conservative vote in the following states Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota is worth mathematically on the average 1.27 times more than the average value of a liberal/moderate vote in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. In terms of our Constitution, looking at the content and legislative intent of the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, something is very wrong with the Electoral College method of electing a president of the U.S. Something is very wrong with this system that assigns a wide range of different mathematical values to popular votes of people who live in different states and have different ideologies. Prior to 1829 state legislatures decided for whom they wished to cast electoral votes for president. By 1836 every state gave the right to vote for electors in the electoral college to qualified voters, who at that time were only white males. Examining the value of votes in states where the majority of voters have conservative ideology, and seeing that the value of votes in conservative states equals 1.27 times the value of a liberal vote in liberal/moderate states, a shrewd observer sees that the Electoral College system give a distinct mathematical advantage to the middle population Southern states and the low population farm/great plains states in terms of mathematical values of votes. Voters of conservative ideology have a substantial built in advantage of winning elections for the conservative republican candidates for whom they usually vote. Plaintiff voter claims that this major mathematical inequality that gives conservative voters in middle population and low population states, such substantial mathematical advantage in choosing a president is a major violation of the guarantees of the 19th Amendment, 15th Amendment and 13th Amendment and 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
A close examination of the 2016 Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump and the 2000 George W. Bush v. Al Gore Jr. gives us the mathematical data to clearly see how, when the Southern conservative states vote with the farm/great plains conservative states, the increased mathematical values of popular votes, converted to electoral votes, which are cast for conservative presidential candidates, who consistently are Republicans, clearly destroy, diminish, and violate the 19th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment voting rights of liberal/moderate black and liberal moderate white voters in the high population liberal/moderate Northern states and Western states. That is the Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, Washington, Virginia, and the District of Columbia which is the block of liberal/moderate states.
There are swing states. Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina
There are two basic voting blocks of states and a third group of swing states
1. The Northern Liberal/Moderate block of states votes primarily for liberal democratic presidential candidates. This block consists of the following states: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, Michigan, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Virginia, and Hawaii.
2. The Conservative block of states, usually vote for the Republican Conservative candidate for president. This block consists of two groups of states. The Southern block consisting of West Virginia, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, New Hampshire, and Alaska. The Great Plains block of Conservative state consist of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona.
3. The following states can go either way, Democratic or Republican, in presidential races: Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida [2000 election was deliberately stolen in Florida by improper counting, refusal to count ballots clearly marked in which the intent of the voter to vote for a particular candidate, Al Gore, Jr. was very clear, Deliberate ballot destruction and fraudulent marking of ballots was committed by insider clerks working for the Republican Party and the Bush campaign. Duval County had 22,000 ballots, most of which were double punched and ruined deliberately by insider clerks at the Board of Elections in Jacksonville who were working for the Bush campaign and the Republican Party of Florida, plaintiff alleges. In multiple counties of Florida there were approximately 15,000 ballots marked for Gore and had Al Gore’s name written in on the write in space additionally. Because the name of Al Gore was written in on the write in space, provided for a write in candidate to be written in by voters who wished to vote for any write candidate, in addition to the space for Al Gore being punched or marked, these ballots were never counted for Al Gore]. In clear violation of case law from the Florida Supreme Court these ballots marked 2 times for Al Gore, Jr. once with the round circle marked with a pen for Al Gore Jr., and then these ballots had the name Al Gore written in in ink on the line that said write in name of candidate, which was actually supposed to be only for write in candidates. These ballots were set aside as over votes and these ballots were never counted for Al Gore, Jr. These so called over votes, were ignored. The intent of the voters who cast these ballots were never determined by visual inspection, which is what Florida law commanded clerks at the Boards of Election to do, and Al Gore wrongly was deprived of about 15,000 votes and lost the election.
TABLE #4 COMPARATIVE VALUE 2010 CENSUS OF POPULAR VOTES IN TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN THE 50 STATES AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ELECTORAL VOTES ARE DIVIDED BY 2010 U.S. CENSUS POPULATION IN EACH STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
These 2010 Census population vote values were used in the 2016 Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump election. This chart shows variation in value of popular votes in all states and D.C.
State Number of Electoral Votes 2010 Census Population Value of Popular Vote
In terms of Electoral Votes
Alabama 9 divided by 4,779,736 =.00000188
Alaska 3 divided by 710,231 =.00000422
Arizona 8 divided by 6,392,017 =.00000172
Arkansas 6 divided by 2,915,918 =.00000205
California 55 divided by 37,253,956 =.00000147
Colorado 9 divided by 5,029,196 =.00000178
Connecticut 7 divided by 3,574,097 =.00000195
Delaware 3 divided by 897,934 =.00000334
District of Columbia 3 divided by 601,723 =.00000498
Florida(Swing State) 29 divided by 18,801,310 =.00000154
Georgia 13 divided by 9,687,653 =.00000165
STATE Number Of Electoral Votes 2010 Census Population Value of Popular Votes
In Terms of Electoral Votes
Hawaii 4 divided by 1,360,301 =.00000294
Idaho 4 divided by 1,567,582 =.00000255
Illinois 20 divided by 12,830,632 =.00000155
Indiana 11 divided by 6,483,802 =.00000169
Iowa [swing state] 6 divided by 3,046,355 =.00000196
Kansas 6 divided by 2,853,118 =.00000210
Kentucky 8 divided by 4,339,367 =.00000176
Louisiana 8 divided by 4,533,372 =.00000176
Maine 4 divided by 1,328,361 =.00000301
Maryland 11 divided by 5,773,552 =.00000190
Massachusetts 11 divided by 6,547,629 =.00000167
Michigan 16 divided by 9,883,640 =.00000161
Minnesota 10 divided by 5,303,925 =.00000188
Mississippi 6 divided by 2,967,297 =.00000202
Missouri 10 divided by 5,988,927 =.00000166
Montana 3 divided by 989,415 =.00000303
Nebraska 5 divided by 1,826,341 =.00000273
State Number of Electoral Votes 2010 census Population Value of popular Votes in
Terms of Electoral Votes
Nevada 6 divided by 2,700,551 =.00000221
New Hampshire 4 divided by 1,316,470 =.00000303
New Jersey 14 divided by 8,791894 =.00000159
New Mexico 5 divided by 2,059,179 =.00000242
New York 29 divided by 19,378,102 =.00000149
North Carolina 15 divided by 9,535,483 =.00000157
North Dakota 3 divided by 672,591 =.00000446
Ohio [Swing State] 18 divided by 11,536,504 =.00000156
Oklahoma 7 divided by 3,751,351 =.00000186
Oregon 7 divided by 3,831074 =.00000182
Pennsylvania 20 divided by 12,702,379 =.00000157
Rhode Island 4 divided by 1,052,567 =.00000380
South Carolina 9 divided by 4,625,364 =.00000194
South Dakota 3 divided by 814,180 =.00000368
Tennessee 11 divided by 6,346,105 =.00000173
Texas 38 divided by 25,145,561 =.00000151
Utah 6 divided by 2,763,885 =.00000217
States Number of Electoral Votes 2010 Census Population Value of Popular Votes in
Terms of Electoral Votes
Vermont 3 divided by 625,741 =.00000479
Virginia [swing state]13 divided by 8,001,024 =.00000162
Washington 12 divided by 6,724,540 =.00000178
West Virginia 5 divided by 1,852,994 =.00000269
Wisconsin 11 divided by 5,686,986 =.00000175
Wyoming 3 divided by 563,626 =.00000532
TABLE #5 STATES WON BY HILLARY CLINTON WHERE CLINTON WON A PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES. Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,432,202 popular votes in all 50 states and District of Columbia listed below here
STATES VALUE OF POPULAR VOTE
IN ELECTORAL VOTES
BASED ON 2010 CENSUS
District of Columbia .00000498
Maine awards electoral votes by Congressional District Clinton won 1 Congressional Districts
New Hampshire .00000303
New Jersey .00000159
New Mexico 00000242
STATES VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES
IN ELECTORAL VOTES
BASED ON 2010 CENSUS
New York 00000149
Rhode Island .00000380
TABLE #6 STATES WON BY DONALD TRUMP WHERE TRUMP WON A PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES. Donald Trump won a total of 62,793,872 popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia
STATES VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES
IN ELECTORAL VOTES
BASED ON 2010 CENSUS
Florida [swing state] .00000154
Iowa [swing state] .00000196
Maine Maine awards electoral votes by Congressional District
Trump won 3 electoral votes in 3 congressional districts .00000300
TABLE #6 STATES WON BY DONALD TRUMP WHERE TRUMP WON A PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES
STATES VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES
IN ELECTORAL VOTES
BASED ON 2010 CENSUS
Nebraska awards electoral votes by Congressional District and Trump won all of those
North Carolina .00000157
North Dakota .00000446
Ohio [Swing State] .00000156
South Carolina .00000194
South Dakota .00000368
West Virginia .000002
TABLE#6 STATES WON BY DONALD TRUMP WHERE TRUMP WON A PLURALITY OF POPULAR VOTES
STATES VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES IN
IN ELECTORAL VOTES
BASED ON 2010 CENSUS
MATHEMATICAL ADVANTAGE OF GREATER VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES IN VALUES OF ELECTORAL VOTES GIVEN TO SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE STATES AND FARMS/GREAT PLAINS CONSERVATIVE STATES COMPADRED TO LOWER VALUE OF NORTHERN WESTERN LIBERAL/MODERATE STATES
The mathematical advantage of the ratio of Southern conservative votes value 2.0 X 10 -6 electoral votes to North/Western liberal/moderate states vote value 1.7 X 10 -6 electoral votes gives on the average to Southern conservative voters a leveraged advantage of mathematical value of 1.17 to 1.
2.0 X 10 -6 electoral votes Divided by 1.7 X 10 -6 electoral votes=1.17
The mathematical advantage of the ratio of the Farm/Great Plains states 2.4 X 10 -6 to Northern Western liberal/moderate states vote value 1.7 X 10 -6 gives on the average to Farm/Great Plains conservative states voters a leveraged advantage of 1.41 to 1.
2.4 X 10 -6 divided by 1.7 X 10 -6 =1.41
Voters in Southern states and Great Plains States are primarily conservative in political ideology and those voters are now solidly registered as Republican majorities in 14 Southern states and all the Great Plains states and the combination of these two voting blocks are given an extraordinary mathematical leveraged advantage of a factor of approximately 1.29 to 1. over the liberal/moderate voters in the Northern Western liberal/moderate block of states. Voter citizens of liberal/moderate political ideology in Northern Western liberal/moderate states are predominantly registered Democrats and the total population in those states in 2000 was 146,961,000.
This built in mathematical advantage in the Electoral College system gives Southern states voters plus Great Plains states voters the ability to control who is elected president even though they are less voters in numbers, in the 2000 census exactly 131,094,000 voters, than Northern Western liberal/moderate voters 146,961,000 total in numbers. This is how, of course, a popular candidate like Al Gore could win the popular vote, receiving 49,500,000 votes to George W. Bush Jr., who received 49,000,000 votes, but Al Gore Jr. lost the Electoral College majority and George W. Bush Jr. won the Electoral College majority. The Electoral College system gives the Southern states block combined with the Farm/Great Plains state block control over the political system of the United States by controlling the choice of president, vice president, and the choice of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, U.S. Judges of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and Judges of the U.S. District Courts. In violation of the 13th Amendment U.S.C.A., 15th Amendment U.S.C.A., and 19th Amendment U.S.C.A., all liberal/moderate block voters’ votes whether black, or white are counted as substantially less mathematically, than conservative voters’ votes in the Electoral College system of vote tabulation. To review how this Electoral College system works, each state under the Electoral College system gets one electoral vote for each Representative in Congress and one electoral vote for each Senator in the U.S. Senate. The total number of U.S. Senators plus the total number of U.S. Representatives gives the number of electoral votes each state is allotted under the Electoral College system. Each state is guaranteed at least one Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives regardless of population. The fact that each state no matter how small the population in numbers of voters gets 2 electoral votes for each of the 2 U.S. Senators disproportionately give medium population and small population state a much greater mathematical value to each individual voter’s popular vote. See Table #4. The 2000 census figures were used for the 2004 election John Kerry v. George W. Bush Jr. and the 2008 election Barack Obama v. John McCain.
The Electoral College system was deliberately and purposefully designed in 1787 by the Committee of Eleven, at the Constitutional Convention to give Southern states absolute control over the picking of the President and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, referred to in the U.S. Constitution. merely as “Judges of the U.S. Supreme Court” in the U.S. Constitution., who would protect the legality of slavery both in the U.S. Constitution and in statutes passed by Congress in the United States Code from the time of the ratification of the new U.S. Constitution in 1789. The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Committee of Eleven, who created the idea of the Electoral college system of electors, did so as a method of accommodating or giving in to Southern delegates at that constitutional convention in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, so that those Southern delegates would be persuaded that slavery would be protected as a legal institution by frequently choosing Southern born and South bred Presidents. Such Southern born and Southern bred presidents would insure that slavery would be a protected legal institution that would provide almost all of the farm labor of Southern plantations and farms, both under the U.S. Constitution and the statutory Law in the United States Code. Thus southern presidents were elected to serve 50 out of 80 years of presidential terms from 1787 at the beginning of the new nation, and the first 80 years onward.
Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 realized that they got quite a bargain in terms of leveraging control of future presidential elections and future appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Clearly Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the notorious Dred Scott decision, was one of a number of pro slavery, pro southern Justices, who fulfilled this prophecy. Taney ruled that slave were not humans with human rights and legal rights, but rather slaves who were the property of their slave owners, to be bought and sold and returned across state lines, should the slaves run away and escape from their owners. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 40% or .40 of the population of the Southern states were black slaves owned by Plantation and farm owners.
The Southern states had a much lower population of white men and white women than did the northern states.
As an example of the absurd unfairness of the Electoral College assignment of values of popular votes, let us imagine a World Series Championship baseball game, between two separate baseball leagues. The Northern baseball league consists of the liberal baseball players, whose home runs and base runs count mathematically as 1.0 points for each run. The Southern baseball league consists of conservative players, who home runs and base runs count mathematically as 1.5 points for each run. Clearly, in order for the Northern baseball league to win the World Series against the Southern baseball league, the Northern baseball league is going to have to make up greater than 1.5 times the number of runs that the Southern baseball league scores. And, in fact, in order for the Northern baseball league to win the World Series against the Southern baseball league, the Northern baseball league is going to have to score about 1.6 times the number of total runs that the Southern baseball league scores. Every baseball fan would realize this is an absurd, unfair, idiotic scoring system. Yet this is exactly how we elect the President of the United States. Would the Baseball Commission of the Northern liberal team allow such an unfair tabulating system of computing baseball scores on the playing field? Obviously this is fundamentally unfair. The only solution is for the governing body of baseball to change the scoring rules, so that each team’s homeruns or runs generate an equal number of point as 1 unit run mathematically for both the Northern and Southern league baseball teams.
This Court has the power, under the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, to implement the one unit vote per person nation popular vote formula, as presented in Senate Joint Resolution 1 [Exhibit 1] to elect the president of the United States.
Plaintiff voter claims the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments U.S.C.A. mandate the use of the 1 unit vote per qualified voter, nationally, in the presidential general election and the presidential run off election. [Note: see Exhibit 1 Senate Joint Resolution 1] The 1 unit vote per person presidential election formula abolishes the following sections of the original Constitution of 1787 article II Section 1 Clauses 2,3,4.
1.Electoral vote tie, instance where there is an exact tie of electoral votes between the two presidential candidates, the election goes to the U.S. House of Representatives where each state has a delegation which in the entirety is worth 1 vote. Each state delegation can cast 1 unite vote for president.
2.No electoral College vote majority received by any presidential general election candidate. In such occurrence the election goes to the U.S. House of Representatives to decide. Each state delegation in the House of Representatives gets 1 vote, regardless of population.
Certainly using the national popular vote majority or plurality totals will render moot situations 1. And 2. above. There has never been an election in which the popular vote was a ties, that is an exact mathematical tie. In case Number 2, Senate Joint Resolution 1 mandates that any presidential general election candidate, who wins the national plurality total of votes, who receives at least 40% of or .40 of the general election popular vote or the general election runoff popular vote, is elected the President of the United States. This, situation 2 above is rendered moot, when this District Court rules in Plaintiff’s favor, that the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments of the United States Constitution mandate a switch to the Popular Vote method of choosing a president, as contained in the Amendment written in Senate Joint Resolution 1, at pp. 1 and 2, Exhibit 1. Therefore, the U.S. Senate will never be needed to choose a vice president either, since the president and vice president are elected as a team. See Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 1,2,3, and 4.
Title 3 U.S.C.A. Sections 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,4,15,16,17,18, 20,21 are rendered moot when this District court grants Plaintiff’s demands to switch to the National Popular Vote Method of choosing the President.
Title 3, U.S.C.A., Section 2, set a safe harbor date, by which electoral votes are to be submitted from each of the 50 states’ Chief Election Officials, or Chief Legislative Officials. A switch to the national popular vote total moots the electoral vote safe harbor date. When the Court institutes Plaintiff’s request to switch to the National Popular vote Method of electing the President, section 2 is moot, and this court will temporarily set a date by which the Chief state Elections Officials shall send certified statewide Popular Vote totals to the President of the U.S. Senate.
Title 3, U.S.C.A. Section 5 describes the procedures for accepting electoral votes as regularly given, or rejecting electoral votes as not regularly given, by the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. When the Court institutes Plaintiff’s request to switch to the National Popular Vote Method of electing the President, Section 5 is moot.
Title 3, U.S.C.A. Section 15 gives the procedure for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to meet in closed session to determine whether electoral votes are accepted as “regularly given” or rejected as “not regularly given”. Section 15 mandates that only Senators can initiate the rejection of electoral votes. Then representatives may second such motion of rejection of electoral votes and attempt to get a majority of representatives in the U.S. House, to vote to reject such electoral votes. Senators voicing objections by motion to reject electoral votes, attempt in closed session, or in open session to get a majority of Senate votes, to reject electoral votes on their motion, as “not regularly given”. When the Court grants Plaintiff’s request to institute the Popular vote Method of selecting the President, Section 15 is moot as well, because there will be no electors and no electoral votes for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives to count.
Plaintiff requests that that this Honorable Judge will issue an appropriate schedule under the application of provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977 [Exhibit 1 herein] for Secretaries of States or the Chief Elections Official in the 50 states and the District of Columbia to send certified popular vote totals of all presidential candidates on the ballot in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, to the President of the U.S. Senate, Vice President Joseph Biden. The President of the Senate shall then in a joint session of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives add up all the popular vote totals of all candidates on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia and announce the totals. Then the Vice President, who is the presiding officer of the Senate, announces the nationwide totals received by each candidate for president in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The candidate with the highest plurality vote total of the popular vote, that receives at least 40% of the popular vote shall be announced to be the winner of the presidential election. In the event that no candidate for president of the United states receives the 40% minimum plurality total nationally of the popular vote, then the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States shall declare that there will be a runoff election in 30 days, on the first Tuesday after 30 days in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
THE 15TH AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION SEPARATELY GIVES THIS COURT THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED, BECAUSE THE 15TH AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO GIVE FORMER SLAVES, THEN CALLED FREEDMEN, THE RIGHT TO VOTE. SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED BY THE 13TH AMENDMENT. ONCE SLAVES WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IN THE 15TH AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS ABOLISHED. AT THAT POINT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED.
THE 19TH AMENDMENT WHICH GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS A POWERFUL BASIS ON WHICH THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT IS ABLE TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. ENTIRELY, AND SWITCHING TO THE POPULAR VOTE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 OF DECEMBER 6, 1977.
The 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a complete basis for this Court to abolish the Electoral College method of the choosing U.S. President and switching to the popular vote method of one unit vote per person to elect the President of the United States as detailed in Senate Joint Resolution 1, Proposed Constitutional Amendment pp. 1,2. Reasons for this are that women in Northern Liberal/Moderate block of states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii vote approximately as follows: 60% for a Democratic Presidential candidate to 40% for a Republican Presidential candidate. A Liberal/Moderate woman’s vote is reduced in value by the Electoral College to .78 or 78% of the value of a Southern and Farm/Great Plains conservative woman’s vote. A woman’s vote in the Northern liberal/moderate block of states is worth .78 of the average value of a woman’s vote in the Southern and Farm/Great Plains conservative vote.
Value of Southern women’s conservative Popular Vote=1.8 X 10 -6 Electoral Votes
Value of Farm/Great Plains women’s conservative Popular Vote=1.97 X 10 -6 Electoral Votes
Average Mathematical Value of Conservative Women’s Vote +1.88 X 10 -6 Electoral Votes
Compare to Average mathematical Value of Liberal Women’s Vote = 1.70 X 10 -6
We can see here that the mathematical value of a conservative woman’s vote at 1.88 X 10 -6 is substantially greater than the value of a liberal woman’s vote at 1.70 X 10 -6
The difference in value between the two is 1.88-1.70=0000018.
The average value of a conservative woman’s vote is 1.27 times greater than a liberal/moderate woman’s vote. The purpose of the 19th Amendment was to give women the right to vote so that women could and would exercise political self determinism. The mathematical presentation above proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Electoral College method of electing the president interferes with women’s participation in the voting system by lowering the value of the votes of liberal/moderate women and increasing the values of the votes of conservative women. This is a really insidious effect. Women have unique rights that they need to protect in the legal system. Women possess unique biological, physiological, emotional characteristics. Plaintiff claims that women are guaranteed by the 19th Amendment U.S.C.A. to have a vote which is equal in value to the votes of all other voter citizens, male or female in every state in the United States AND THE District of Columbia. In order for women to be able to exercise their own self determinism, all votes of all United States citizens, male or female most be valued at one unit vote per person. Each vote of every voter in every state must have the same mathematical value as the vote of every other voter. Plaintiff claims that on the basis of the 19th Amendment right of women to vote, and for women to be able to exercise self-determinism through the vote, that this Court abolish the Electoral College method of electing the president and replace the Electoral College with the national popular vote plan specified in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977. The 19th Amendment U.S.C.A. was ratified in 1920 some 130 years after the original constitution was ratified and 55 years after slavery was abolished in 1865 through ratification of the 13th Amendment U.S.C.A.
Plaintiff points out that black women only got the right to vote in 1920 55 years after slavery was abolished in 1865. This was a 3rd step for the United States government to expand voting rights which gave female black citizens the rights of free citizens to vote.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AND CLAIMS THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT VIOLATES PLAINTIFF’S 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION. VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES FROM STATE TO STATE CAUSED BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORMULA CAUSES HARMFUL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN VOTERS WHO ARE NON RELIGIOUS, OR BELONG TO LIBERAL RELIGIONS, OR WHO ARE ATHEISTS, OR WHO ARE AGNOSTICS COMPARED TO VOTERS WHO ARE RELIGIOUSLY FUNDAMENTALIST AND STRICTLY OBSERVANT OF THEIR RELIGION. SUCH VARIATION IN MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM CREATES ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE CHURCH OR A GROUP OF STATE CHURCHES, THAT IS RELIGIONS OR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS THAT ARE FAVORED WITH VOTES OF GREATER MATHEMATICAL VALUE OVER OTHER CHURCHES, JEWISH TEMPLES, ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, BUDDHISTS AND HINDUS. EXAMINATION OF THE RELIGIONS AND RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS PREDOMINANT IN THE SOUTHERN STATES AND PREDOMINANT IN THE NORTHERN STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND COMPARISON OF THE MATHEMATICAL VALUES QUANTITATIVELY OF THEIR VOTES IN TERMS OF ELECTORAL VOTES.
Plaintiff alleges that the electoral college gives greater mathematical value to popular votes of voters who have very fundamentalist Christian religious views. The Southern states and the Farm/Great Plains states referred to above in this complaint have a much greater concentration of fundamentalist Catholics, fundamentalist Southern Baptists, fundamentalist Methodists, fundamentalist Assembly of God, fundamentalist Presbyterian, fundamentalist non denominational [including those who call themselves born again Christians] Christians, Conservative Protestants than the Northern and Western Liberal/Moderate states. The Northern/Western Liberal/Moderate states have the highest concentration of liberal Catholics, liberal Episcopalians, liberal Protestants including several sects of Protestantism , liberal Unitarians, liberal Jews, liberal agnostics, liberal atheists. The average value of a popular vote in the Southern and Great Plains states, see discussion page 28 above, averaging
2.0 X 10 -6 Southern states vote value and the 2.4 X 10 -6 Farm/Great Plains states vote value equals 2.2 X 10 -6 vote value for a conservative vote nationwide in all conservative states. The average value of a conservative vote is 2.2 X 10 -6 electoral votes. The Southern states plus the Farm/Great Plains states constitute the conservative states. The Northern/Western states constitute the liberal/moderate states. The average value of a Northern/Western liberal/moderate states vote is 1.7 X 10 -6
2.2 X 10 -6 electoral votes value of conservative popular vote divided by 1.7 X 10 -6 electoral votes value of liberal/moderate popular vote equals 1.29
The average value of a conservative vote 2.2 X 10 -6 is 1.29 times greater under the electoral college system than the average value of a liberal/moderate vote worth 1.7 X 10 -6 under the electoral college system in terms of popular votes. 1.29 times greater is a large amount of difference quantitatively in the value of a popular vote.
We can clearly see here how Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton even though Hillary Clinton received 2,700,000 more popular votes than Donald Trump. We can see clearly how Al Gore, Jr in 2000 received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush Jr. did in the 2000 presidential election and Gore still lost the electoral vote majority and George W. Bush Jr. won the electoral vote majority.
What we can see, that is even more shocking, is how the Southern/Farms, Great Plains states voters contain a large number, the highest concentration of what the plaintiff calls fundamentalist Christians, who often call themselves evangelical Christians, born again Christians. Evangelicals constitute a large percentage of the electorate in the Southern/Farms, Great Plains states. The percentage that they constitute of the total voting age population is so large that pollsters who take political polls during the primary election and a general election period actually list these Evangelicals as a category for political polling questions. The part of the United States that contains the largest concentration of these fundamentalism Christians, who call themselves Evangelicals are the Southern/Great Plains states. Now the Southern/Great Plains states just happen to be the parts of the United States that have popular votes with an average value of 2.2 X 10-6 that on the average are worth 1.29 times the value of the popular votes in the Northern/Liberal states which are worth 1.7 X 10 -6. This of course is because the Southern and Great Plains states are mostly medium population and low population states.
The part of the United States which constitute the largest numbers of Conservative voters also contain the largest percentage of voters in the class of all registered voters who call themselves Evangelical Christians, whom plaintiff Sablosky calls fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians and Evangelical Christians are for the purposes of plaintiff’s discussion and plaintiff’s claims in this civil complaint the same group of fundamentalist religious people. The electoral college gives a much higher mathematical value quantitatively to these fundamentalist Christians, a vote worth 2.2 X 10-6 electoral votes which is much higher quantitatively in value than the value of the vote worth 1.7 X 10 -6 of voters with liberal religious views, agnostic views, atheist views in the Northern/Western Liberal/Moderate states.
The significant difference in the mathematical value of votes between the 2.2 X 10 -6 and the 1.7 X 10-6 is so great that this difference quantitatively when combined with the winner take all provision of assigning electoral votes from individual electors, causes invidious religious discrimination against the group of voters with liberal religious views, agnostic views, atheist views. What we actually have here plaintiff Sablosky alleges is invidious, harmful, religious discrimination in violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. The invidious religious discrimination which Sablosky complains of was not of course deliberately intended, the pattern which evolved of what religions came to predominate in certain regions of the United States came about by accident. However the effect is real, causes injury to the plaintiff Sablosky, violates Sablosky’s rights of religious freedom, has the effect of establishing a state church, which is of course forbidden by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, see Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, infra. The clear difference in mathematical value quantitatively of a vote from the Northern/Western Liberal/Moderate states compared to the mathematical value quantitatively from the Southern/Farm, Great Plains states clearly violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the 1st Amendment. Conservative voters with fundamentalist religious ideology are clearly not entitled to have popular votes worth 1.29 times more than the values of Liberal/Moderate voters who possess liberal religious views, agnostic views, atheist views. This is clearly a violation of plaintiff Sablosky’s constitutional guarantee of religious freedom of the most serious level. The harm and the injury are severe, in that the lower value of the popular vote which Sablosky cast, results in those with fundamentalist religious viewpoint being able to out vote Sablosky and those who voted for the candidates he voted for, Hillary Clinton, even though the total number of votes cast by the conservative voters in the conservative states, which included the highest concentration of fundamentalism Christians, also called Evangelical Christians are 2.7 million less, than those votes cast for the Liberal/Moderate candidate Hillary Clinton. In the 2000 election Al Gore, Jr. won 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush, but Al Gore lost the electoral vote majority and George W. Bush Jr. won the electoral vote majority of 270 electoral votes, after a legal battle that went all the way from the Florida Circuit Courts, in multiple Florida counties, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The fact is that the invidious pattern of the reduction of value of citizens’ votes was not intentional, but the invidious discrimination has occurred through the accident of the growth of certain Evangelical religious denominations in certain states and certain geographic regions of the United States. The fact that such invidious discrimination occurs through the mathematical variation in the value of votes in the electoral college system makes such religious discrimination just as bad as if the discrimination was done intentionally to discriminate against certain voters of certain liberal religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all, atheists and agnostics.
Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1  at page 15 says
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…………………………………
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State. Reynolds v. United States, supra. At 98 U.S. 164.
Plaintiff suffers the harm that President Trump has declared himself to establish a United States government that favors the religious doctrine of Evangelical Christians through rulings on the U.S. Supreme Court on all types of civil statutes and criminal statutes both in state and United States law in violation of the 1st Amendment rights of Sablosky. President Trump has already nominated a Supreme Court appointee who has pledged to Trump to apply Evangelical Christian doctrines when he writes opinions of law in cases determining what Constitutional rights citizens of the U.S. are guaranteed including eliminating abortion rights under Roe v. Wade., birth control rights under Baird v. Belloti, privacy rights and right of private sexual behavior.
The Electoral College, when first implemented in 1791, did not establish a federal official church. Now the Electoral College VIOLATES the prohibited establishment of a state church. A state church of the U.S. government favoring some religions over other religions, secular people, and atheists and agnostics. A state church has been created in this scheme of the Electoral College which constitutes all the Evangelical Christian religions, which are also called fundamentalist Christian religions. Under the electoral college, these Evangelicals or Fundamentalists have much higher valued popular votes than people who constitute the non evangelical or non fundamentalist Christian religions along with Jews, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and Hindus. The Electoral College gives great aid to promoting Evangelical or fundamentalist Christian religions in the Southern and Great Plains/Farm states over non Evangelical religions, the Jewish religion, secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and Hindus who are in great numbers in the Northern and Western Liberal/Moderate states.
The Electoral College has now created a state church in violation of Everson v. Board of Education, supra. The Electoral College has now favored some religions, some religious Christian denominations, over other Christian denomination, Jewish denominations, atheists, and agnostics all in violation of Everson, supra.
THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RELIGIONS THAT ARE FAVORED MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE OVER OTHER RELIGIONS THAT ARE DISFAVORED MATHEMATICALLY IN VOTE VALUE IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM.
Evangelical Christians, also called Fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal reading of the text and stories in the New Testament. Liberal Christians do not believe in a literal reading of the text and stories of the New Testament. That is the primary difference between the two groups of Christian religions. Jewish people only believe in the Old Testament and Jewish people do not believe in the New Testament. Atheists and agnostics do not believe in either the Old Testament or the New Testament or in a supreme being. Buddhists believe in their own holy books. Hindus believe in the Mahabarata, the Hindu story of creation.
RELIEF AND REMEDIES PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THIS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT
Plaintiff requests this U.S. District Court to order the Electoral College abolished completely, as contained in the Constitutional Amendment in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977, see Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2, beginning with the word
“Joint Resolution, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States.”
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House Concurring therein), That the following article is proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by Congress:”
“Section 1. The people of the several states and the district constituting the seat of government of the United States shall elect the President and Vice-President. Each elector shall cast a single vote for two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President. No candidate shall consent to the joinder of his name with that of more than one other person.”
“Sec. 2. The electors of Presidents and Vice Presidents in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, except that for electors of President and Vice Presidents, the Legislature of any State may prescribe less restrictive residence qualifications and for electors of President and Vice President, the Congress may establish uniform residence qualifications.”
“Sec. 3. The person joined as candidates for President and Vice President having the greatest number of votes shall be elected “President and Vice President”, if such number be at least 40 per centum of the whole number of votes cast.”
“If, after any such election, none of the persons joined as candidates for President and Vice President, is elected pursuant to the preceding paragraph, a runoff election shall be held in which the choice of President and Vice President shall be made from the two pairs of person joined as candidates for President and Vice President who received the highest numbers of votes cast in the election. The pair of persons joined as candidates for President and Vice President receiving the greatest number of votes in such runoff election shall be elected President and Vice President.:
“Sec. 4. The times, places, and manner of holding such elections and entitlement to inclusion on the ballot shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. The days for such elections shall be determined by Congress and shall be uniform throughout the United States. The Congress shall prescribe by law the times, places, and manner in which the results of such elections shall be ascertained and declared. No such election, other than a runoff election shall be held later than the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and the results thereof shall be declared no later than the thirtieth day after the date on which the election occurs.”
“Sec. 5. The Congress may be law provide for the case of the death, inability, or withdrawal of any candidate for President or Vice President, before a President and Vice President have been elected, and for the case of the death of both the President-elect and Vice President-elect.”
“Sec. 6. Sections 1 through 4 of this article shall take effect one year after the ratification of this article.”
“Sec. 7. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
END TEXT OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Plaintiff requests that consistent with the abolition of the Electoral College the election position of Presidential electors shall be abolished in all the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The practice of electors in the Electoral College casting electoral votes in the States capital or designated state location pursuant to state law under Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 1,2,3,4 shall be abolished. Instead the head of the Department of Elections in each state shall be ordered to send the certified totals of the popular vote for each presidential candidate and running mate for vice president, who was on the ballot in their respective state, by certified mail to the Vice President of the United States, who is the presiding officer in the United States Senate. Logically this Court must strike down as unconstitutional Title 3 U.S.C.A. Sections 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20, 21 in their entirety. The President of the United States Senate, who is the Vice President of the United States, shall announce who the elected winners of the Presidency and Vice Presidency are, based on the certified National Popular Vote totals, submitted by the Chief Election Officials of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This U.S. District Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. This case is a case or controversy involving provisions of the United States Constitution and various sections of Title 3 of the United States Code, the statutory law, according to Marbury v. Madison
STATUTORY JURISDICTION BY ACT OF CONGRESS, JUSTICIABILITY UNDER U.S. CONSTITUITON
This United States District Court has jurisdiction by statute of Congress Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1343 to decide matters of controversy involving the U.S. Constitution and Federal Law.
The issues presented in this case are issues that are justiciable, that is these issues can be decided by this Court.
IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS: ALL SENATORs AND OFFICERS IN UNITED STATES SENATE INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN, NOW MIKE PENCE AND MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONELL, ALL REPRESENTATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDING SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PAUL RYAN, MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI
This United States District Court has in personam jurisdiction over defendants United States Senate, all Senators, and officers of the United States Senate including President of the Senate [was Joseph Biden] now Mike Pence, Majority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell, defendants United States House of Representative, all Representatives and their officers including Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, and minority leader of the House Representative, Nancy Pelosi. This U.S. District Court has in personam jurisdiction over official acts and conduct of these defendants. This is a matter of protection of Plaintiff’s voting rights, under U.S. Constitution 13th,15th, and 19th and 1st Amendments. There are no issues of property rights in this case.
STANDING OF PLAINTIFF UNDER BAKER V. CARR 269 U.S. 186, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203
Plaintiff has standing as a United States citizen, a resident of Cook County, Illinois who voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election on November 8, 2016.
Hillary Clinton won the plurality of the popular vote, the nationwide total of popular votes in the November 8, 2000 presidential election.
Plaintiff Sablosky has 1st party standing and 3rd party standing as well under Baker v. Carr 269 U.S. 186  and Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1 [1964 ]
In Baker v. Carr, supra, 4 voters who were residents of Fulton County Georgia sued who made allegations of the same injury-in-fact. There were about 400,000 voters who were residents of Fulton County, Georgia who shared the exact same injury-in-fact, which was that their rights of representation in the Georgia state Senate were diluted to 1/6 of the amount of representation that they should have received from Senators in the Georgia Senate based on the population of Fulton County compared to the amount of representation given to rural farm counties in the state of Georgia in the Georgia Senate. The only voters who sued were the 4 voters who filed the lawsuit alleging violations of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court granted them standing and reversed both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court in Georgia which had wrongfully denied the plaintiff voters who were U.S. citizens standing. Sharing the same injury-in-fact according to the U.S. Supreme Court is not a reason to deny plaintiff, Sablosky, standing in a voting rights matter. There were Hundreds of thousands of voters in Georgia and another state all shared the same injury complained of by plaintiff voters in both Baker v. Carr and Wesberry v. Sanders. These cases made claims under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff makes no 14th Amendment claims in his complaints. However, the nature of plaintiff Sablosky’s standing is similar in relation to other citizen voter victims of the alleged unconstitutional provisions of Article II, Sec. 1 U.S. Constitution.
In School District of Abington Township Pennsylvania v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, the children of the Schempp family suffered an injury-in-fact that was the same injury that was shared with a 100,000 students who were Christian and Jewish who did not want to hear bible reading in the public schools of Pennsylvania throughout the entire state of Pennsylvania, because they preferred to practice religion under the sponsorship of their family or members of the clergy of their own churches or synagogue. Did the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grant them standing. Yes, the Schempp family was granted standing for their alleged constitutional injury-in-fact even though their were probably 100,000 other students who themselves and or their family disagreed with having compulsory bible reading in public school from both the Old Testament and the New Testament from the King James version of the bible. Plaintiff Sablosky makes claims of violation of his 1st Amendment rights by the Electoral College method of electing the president and vice president of the United States and the injury-in-fact, which he alleges is also shared by 65,432,000 other voter citizens who did not sue. Plaintiff Sablosky is currently the only voter suing alleging the Electoral College to be unconstitutional via the severe injury that Plaintiff suffered by having his vote valued mathematically at .78 or 78% of them votes of conservative voters in medium population to low population states and a consequence having the wrong persons Donald Trump chosen to be President of the United States and the wrong person Mike Pence chosen to be Vice President by the U.S. Senate and sworn in to be president.
Standing Exists for Plaintiffs Even when the Injury-in-fact is Shared with Many People
First of all the fact that many people have suffered the same injury-in-fact does not prevent people from having standing to sue. In jet airplane crashes where 100 to 200 or more passengers were killed in the impact and or destruction of the jet plane in the crash that occurred, the relatives and spouses of persons who died in the crash have never had their cases dismissed on standing and have never been denied standing to sue for the wrongful death tort claims against the airline corporation for the loss of life of their loved ones. The fact of a common injury-in-fact that occurs to many persons is not a ground to deny standing.
Plaintiff is very specific about the exact and severe injury in fact that occurred.
Plaintiff mathematically calculates the dilution or devaluation of the quantitative value of his popular vote caused by the Electoral College formula. The specificity of plaintiff’s claim make plaintiff’s claim worthy of granting standing to such allegation.
Plaintiff has third party standing as follows:
PLAINTIFF MUST BE GIVEN STANDING TO REPRESENT IMPORTANT THIRD PARTIES, WHO ARE SUBGROUPS OF THE GROUP OF ALL LIBERAL/MODERATE VOTERS IN UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. These subgroups include white women liberal/moderate voters black women liberal/moderate voters, black me liberal/moderate voters, and white men liberal/moderate voters of which the plaintiff is one.
The Plaintiff will explain valid theories of why he should be granted standing on cases that grant him standing to litigate voting rights and represent voting rights for these, above, third parties. The third parties include black male voters, black female voters, white female voters, and white male voters.
Barrows v. Jackson 346 U.S. 249, 73 S. Ct. 1031, and Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 give Plaintiff the right to act to protect the rights of third party black voters, both male and female, under the 15th Amendment U.S.C.A. black male voters, under the 19th Amendment U.S.C.A. black women voters and white women voters and white male voters.
The case most similar to Plaintiff’s 13th Amendment, 15th Amendment, and 19th Amendment claims on behalf of black male liberal/moderate voters, and black female liberal/moderate voters is Barrows v. Jackson, infra, where a white woman was sued for violating a racially restrictive covenant that prohibited sale of her home property to black persons. The white woman was sued by a white person that previously owned the property and had sold the property to her. The white woman in her own defense invoked the 14th Amendment right of Negroes, to purchase residential property.
See Barrows v. Jackson at pages 257, 259 pages 1035-1036.
“Other unique situations which have arisen in the past, broad policy has led the U.S. Supreme Court to proceed without regard to its usual rule. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268U.S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, a state statute required all parent to send their children to public schools. A private and a parochial school brought suit to enjoin enforcement of an act on the grounds that the act violated the constitutional rights of parents and guardians. No parent or guardian to whom the act applied was a part or before the court. The court held the act was unconstitutional, because the act ‘unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under parents and guardians control’. Pierce, supra 268 U.S. at pp 534-535, 45 S. Ct. at page 573. In short, schools were permitted to assert in defense of school property rights and constitutional right of parents and guardians.
See Barrows v. Jackson at page 259, page 1036
“Consistency in application of rules of practice in this court does not require us in this unique set of circumstances to put the state, [California], in such an equivocal position simply because the person against whom injury is directed is not before the court to speak for himself. The law will permit respondent to resist any effort to compel her to observe such a covenant, so widely condemned by courts since she is the one in whose charge and keeping reposes the Power to continue to use her property to discriminate or to discontinue such use. The relation between coercion exerted and respondent and her possible pecuniary loss thereby is so close to the purpose of the restrictive convenant, to violate the constitutional rights of those discriminate against, that respondent is the only effective adversary of the unworthy covenant in its last stand. She will be permitted to defend herself and by so doing, close the gap to the use of this covenant so universally condemned by these courts.”
See Barrows v. Jackson at page 259, page 1035
“Petitioners argue that the right to equal protection of the laws is a personal right, guaranteed to individuals rather than to groups or classes. For instance, discriminatory denial of sleeping and ding car facilities to an individual Negro cannot be justified on the bound that there is little demand for facilities by Negroes as a group.” McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co. 234 U.S. 151, 161-162, 35 S. Ct. 69, 71
This description of the right as ‘personal’, when considered in the context in which it has been used, obviously has no bearing on the question of standing, nor do we violate this principle by protecting rights of person not identified in this record. For instance, in the Pierce case, persons whose rights invoked were identified only as
Present’ and ‘prospective’ patrons of 2 schools. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, 268 U.S. at page 535, 45 S. Ct. at page 573. In the present case it is not non Caucasians as a group whose rights are asserted by respondent but the rights of particular non Caucasians would be users of restricted land”
What plaintiff has in common with all members of the group of all liberal/ moderate voters is liberal /moderate political ideology and liberal/moderate humanitarian philosophy. The fact is, that all members of the group of all liberal/moderate voters want liberal or moderate presidential candidates that they cast their votes for, to win the presidential election.
Justice Brennan in U.S. v. Raines, 362 U.S. 117, 22 (1960) explains that:
“Where as a result of the very litigation in question, the constitutional rights of one not a party would be impaired, and where he has no effective way to preserve them himself, the Court may consider those rights as before the Court.” So too, Justice Harlan in N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama 357 U.S. 49 (1958):
“To limit the breath of issues which must be dealt with in particular litigation this Court has generally insisted that parties rely only on constitutional rights which are personal to themselves. The principle is not disrespected. Their constitutional rights of the person who are not immediately before the Court could not be effectively vindicated except through an appropriate representative before the Court.
Plaintiff asserts that there is a significant link between the black liberal/moderate male voters, whose constitutional right to vote is damaged and interfered with by the electoral college method of electing the President of the United States and the white liberal moderate male voters whose constitutional right to vote is damaged and interfered with by the electoral college. Plaintiff alleges that the Electoral College method of electing the President should have been abolished as of the time that when slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment U.S.Constitution, and the time that black males were given the right to vote under the power of the 15th Amendment U.S. Constitution.
Plaintiff on the basis of 3rd party standing stated above citing Barrows v. Jackson, supra, claims that he has standing to represent black women voters who received their guarantee of the right to vote through the 19th Amendment and he has standing to represent all women voters including white women voters on the basis of the voting rights granted them under the 19th Amendment. Under U.S. v. Raines, supra, plaintiff can appropriately represent the interests of all women voters under the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL
HOW THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY AS A LEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICE OF OPERATING PLANTATIONS AND FARMS CREATED THE ELCTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM OF CHOOSING ELECTORS FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AS A COMPROMISE MEASURE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1789 IN PHILADELPHIA, PA.
The basic purpose of the electoral College method of creating electors to choose the president and vice president, was the preservation of slavery as a legal institution and a method of keeping slave labor as a legal business practice on plantations or farms in the southern farming economy. The method of doing this was to create overrepresentation in electors to choose Southern born presidents who were to be pro slavery to maintain the legality of slavery in the federal system of government as a matter of being constitutionally sustainable within the United States government legal system. The United States legal system was based on strong states’ rights in which every state would create their own system of laws independent of the national or federal government. States’ rights was part of the doctrine of federalism. The best method of preserving slavery, was to create overrepresentation in the U.S. House of Representatives by allowing representation for slaves owned by slave owners, who owned the plantations and farms that constituted the major industry of the Southern states, farming. The entire southern economy was an economy based on farming. Southern delegate to the constitutional convention in 1787 also created overrepresentation in the House of Representative though counting slaves as 3/5 [three fifths of a person] for purposes of enumeration of population conducted every 10 years in every state in the United States to determine the amount of representation that each state would receive in the U.S. House of Representatives. This enumeration is what we call the United States Census today. Originally delegates from slave owning southern states wanted slaves counted as 1 whole person so that slave owners, the wealthy people of the south could exercise the power of their vote, many times magnified, by the number of slaves that these wealthy slave owners owned. Southern delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 wanted to maintain their economic plantation system of farms based on slavery in the about to be formed nation, to be called the United States, being established through a new constitution, with a strong federal government. Southern delegates decided that the only logical way to insure the survival of slavery as a legally protected institution was to get representation for each slave in the United States House of Representatives as extra overrepresentation for slave owners, to over represent the legal rights and political viewpoints of slave owners. This was a demand at the constitutional convention by delegates to the constitutional convention who represented the southern states to multiply slave owners vote strength in the U.S. House of Representatives by 1 X the number of slaves owned by the slave owners in the entire state, added to the population of the slave owners. A slave owner’s vote strength was multiplied times the number of slaves that that slave owner owned on his plantations, plus the numbers of himself and his own family. Each slave owner ultimately received 3/5 [three/fifths] of a person in the census enumeration and ultimate representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for each slave owned by that slave owner in a compromise reached between northern delegates and southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Approximately .40 or 40% of the human population of the Southern states, were slaves at the time of the constitutional convention in 1787. Southern slave owners gained an 40% extra representation they normally would have had, had slaves, who were not citizens, not been counted in the census enumeration for purposes of legal representation in the U.S. House of Representatives Remember, that at this time, slaves were not citizens, could not vote, could not own property, and were mostly illiterate. Slave owner’ votes were mathematically increased in value by multiplying the number of slaves owned times 3/5 in the U.S. House of Representatives. The number of slaves times 3/5 equaled the increased numbers by which slave owners were represented by extra representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This was done deliberately by the slave owners so that Southern states could dominate legally in Representatives’ votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and keep slavery legal as a business practice in the foreseeable future to sustain slave owners’ multibillion dollar farming industry. It was difficult to see any way that the Northern states would be able to outlaw slavery with the Southern slave states maintaining all this extra over representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Since the scheme of the Electoral College of using electors from each state being equal in number to the number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representative plus the 2 U.S. Senators, slave owners achieved a very large bonus in terms of representation that slave owners should not have been entitled to. Why should slaves who were not citizens, who were illiterate and could not vote, have their votes to choose the president and vice president cast for them by their owners? The current absurd, archaic, unreasonable, stupid electoral college system, of a separate layer of presidential electors, is the direct product of the creation of a system that southerners saw as an out proportion system of over representation for slave owners who could perpetuate their control of the presidency by electing southern born, southern bred presidents, who would do their best to keep slavery a legally protected business practice, to maintain the Southern economic way of life . In 1787 the tractor, internal combustion engines, modern farm machinery, cotton picking machines, ever the cotton gin did not exist. The path to wealth in the south was to be a plantation owner with plenty of slaves to perform the labor of growing and harvesting agricultural crops. If Northerners could win the presidency frequently, the possibility existed that slavery could be outlawed by Congress and a northern anti-slavery president. The creation of the electoral College was a direct result of efforts of Constitutional Convention delegates from southern states to protect the billion dollar Southern economic way of life with billion dollar amount of slave labor. Southern delegates knew exactly what they were negotiating for in terms of economic strength. The southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention knew that they were creating the very protection of the survival of slavery under federal law . There were Northern delegates at the time who did not want slavery to be allowed as a legal institution in the in the new nation in the process of being created which would be called the United States, but they were not able to outlaw slavery as an institution at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because they did not have the delegate votes and the southern states would never have ratified the original constitution of 1787. Southern delegate knew that many northerners did not want to allow slavery to be a legal practice of exploitation protected under the Constitution of the United states. Southern delegates were smart enough to engineer a scheme of over representation called the Electoral College method of electing the president and vice president, that was clearly based on the idea of over representation of southern white slave owners in the U.S. House of Representatives, that southern delegate felt was a plan, that would insure that slavery would be protected as a legal business practice, from being outlawed by the northern antislavery states in future years
MATHEMATICALLY OUT OF PROPORTION, OVERREPRESENTATION AS GRANTED TO SMALL POPULATION STATES AND MEDIUM POPULATION STATES, IN THE ACTUAL COMPARATIVE MATHEMATICAL VALUE OF POPULAR VOTES AS COMPARED TO LARGE POPULATION STATES UNDER THE UNITED STATES CENSUS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO VOTE GUARANTEES OF THE 15TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Plaintiff will prove that the wide range of values of popular votes expressed exactly in terms of electoral vote values, violate the principle of the guaranteed right to vote in the U.S. Constitution 15th and 19th amendment. The range of mathematical values of popular votes per state individual voter from the small population states to the large population states run from high as 4.0 X 10 -6 electoral votes [4.0 X 10 to the minus 6th power] in Montana, the nation’s least populous state to as low as 1.5 X 10 -6 [1.5 X 10 to the minus 6th power] in California, the nation’s most populous state. This irregularity in value of popular votes occurs because under the Electoral College system each state gets 2 electoral votes for the state’s 2 Senators and one electoral vote for each Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives.
FACTS PLAINTIFF WILL PROVE AT TRIAL
ELECTORAL COLLEGE METHOD OF CHOOSING ELECTORS FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FAVORS CANDIDATES OF CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY OVER LIBERAL/MODERATE IDEOLOGY IN VIOLATION OF THE 15TH AND 19TH AMENDMENTS THAT GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THE UNFAIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCE OF THIS IS THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FAVORS CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES OVER LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DUE TO THE FACTS THAT VOTERS IN CONSERVATIVE STATES HAVE POPULAR VOTES THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER VALUE THAN VOTERS IN LIBERAL STATES.
The unfair consequence is that the Electoral College gives an unfair mathematical advantage to Republican Presidential candidates who are all conservative in philosophy over Democratic Presidential candidates who are all liberal in philosophy, due to the fact, that voters in conservative states have popular votes that have a significantly higher mathematical value than voters in liberal states. In addition to this the winner of the popular vote plurality or majority under “the winner take all” method of giving all electoral votes to the plurality winner results in giving Conservative candidates who are Republicans an unfair advantage in winning presidential elections. Hillary Clinton received huge 2-1 margin of votes in California over Donald Trump, yet the 2.5 million extra votes given to Hillary Clinton were wasted because the popular vote totals of all popular votes in the 50 states and the District of Columbia do not count in national popular vote totals in determining who the winner of the election is. In a system based on the popular vote, as specified in Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977, popular vote totals carry across state borders and contribute to the national popular vote total for each president.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD TRUMP AND VICE PRESIDENT ELECT MIKE PENCE AB INITIO RECEIVED LESS THAN THE MINIMUM 270 ELECTORAL VOTES REQUIRED TO BE ELECTED PRESIDENT UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MIKE PENCE HAVE ONLY RECEIVED 256 ELECTORAL VOTES EACH FOR PREESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THIS COURT TO INVALIDATE, DECERTIFY THE ELECTORAL VOTES SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED TO BE VOID AND FRAUDULENT AB INITIO AT THE TIME OF THEIR CASTING IN SPECIFIED STATES BY SPECIFIED UNQUALIFIED ELECTORS. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES BELOW THE SPECIFIC ELECTORS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES WHOSE ELECTORAL VOTES CAST WERE VOID AND FRAUDULENT. SUCH VOTES PLAINTIFF ALLEGES WERE CAST IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, AND OR FEDERAL LAW, AND OR REPUBLICAN PARTY RULES AND REGULATIONS.
Plaintiff alleges that Presidential elect Donald Trump and Vice President elect Mike Pence ab initio received less than the minimum 270 Electoral votes each from qualified Electors selected by voters as electors in the electoral college. Plaintiff alleges that presidential candidate Donald Trump and Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence have only received 256 electoral votes each for president and vice president. Plaintiff alleges 50 of Donald Trump’s electoral college electors and 50 of Mike Pence’s electoral college electors under either federal law and or state law and or Republican Party Rules were unqualified under such law and Rules to cast electoral votes for the office of President and Vice President. Plaintiff alleges said electors’ electoral votes were void ab initio and of no force and effect. Plaintiff asks this court for declaratory and injunctive relief to void and decertify such invalid electoral votes, and hold that Donald Trump and Mike Pence were not elected President and Vice President of the United States. Plaintiff, Sablosky, asks that this court order Donald Trump and Mike Pence removed from the offices of president and vice president and replaced under authority of 3 U.S.C.A. 19 ( c ) (1) , where no candidate has qualified for the office of President of the United States, after this court holds a hearing on that subject to examine the evidence presented by plaintiff on the subject. Plaintiff asks that this court in compliance with 3 U.S.C.A. 19 ( c ) ( 1 ) order that Representative Paul Ryan be ordered to take the position of President Pro Tempore of the United States, temporarily until such ,time as this court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the United States Supreme Court decide the issues on the merits of plaintiff’s case, including deciding how the winner of this election of November 8, 2016, should be legally chosen, under the provisions of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff asks that this court resolve that question, on the relief that plaintiff requested herein, that the winning ticket of president and vice president of the national popular vote plurality total be held to be the legally elected president and vice president of the United States and that the U.S. Senate conduct a special session to determine and certify the national vote totals for each candidate for president to determine who the winner of the national vote popular vote plurality was and that the U.S. Senate certify such winner in accordance with an order from this court or the appellate courts on review.
Plaintiff starting on page 74 through page 92 presents his specific allegations naming the unqualified electors in many states who cast null and void electoral votes for Presidential Candidate Donald Trump and vice presidential candidate Mike Pence. Each unqualified elector is named and identified by state and or congressional district therein, or by an at large designation, and the reason or reasons for that elector’s disqualifications are made known. The reasons that the alleged electors who are named are unqualified and the reasons the electoral votes cast by such electors are unqualified are the following:
1. Certain of these electors were put on the ballot by the Republican Party and or themselves in a Congressional District other than the Congressional District in which they were lawfully registered to vote and in which they were a resident.
2. Certain of these electors were employed as state elected officials, as state employees or as an employee of a government body that was a subdivision of the state.
3. Certain of these electors were not legally registered voters in the state in which they ran as an elector in the electoral college.
4. Certain of these electors were fraudulently registered in the state where they ran as an elector and were not residents or domiciliary of that state and the Congressional District in which they ran as an elector.
5. Any combination of the above factual conditions which would cause any elector in the Electoral College to be in violation of the qualifications set by state Constitutions, state statutory law, the U.S. Constitution or U.S. statutory law.
Certain of these electors were in violation of one or more of the above conditions.
In the alternative, if this Court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court decide that the Electoral College is constitutional facially and as applied, then Plaintiff Sablosky asks that this Court order a new presidential primary election and new presidential general election to be held, at such dates as soon as possible by giving court orders with such specific content to give the dates of such new primary election and general election or under the doctrine of separation of powers by issuing a writ of mandamus or other extraordinary writ that, the Congress pass emergency legislation to schedule such new presidential primary election and presidential general election as quickly as possible within the next 6 months to fill and serve in the remainder of the vacant unfinished term of Donald Trump and Mike Pence. In order to fulfill the need of a new primary election and new general election, to be conducted on an accelerated time schedule, the court order would need to offer the political parties the option of choosing candidates under their party rules without political conventions and finding the quickest way for the parties within their own party rules, to choose the candidates for president and vice president. Sablosky makes that demand for a new primary and new general election for the office of president and vice president of the United States on the basis that neither the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, nor does Title 3 Sections 1-21 make any provision for the remedy and procedure to hold a new election, when an election was conducted defectively, including the counting of electoral votes by the U.S. Senate, where the quantity of electoral votes counted turned out to be in error, and such quantity of electoral votes was deficient, totaling less than the required number of 270 electoral votes, to constitute a majority of electoral votes. In the situation alleged by plaintiff Sablosky, which he believes to be true, candidates Donald Trump and Mike Pence received 256 electoral votes, which is 14 votes short of a majority, of electoral votes. Article II, Sections 1 does not provide for any remedy where no ticket of president and vice president has qualified for the office, the word “qualified” meaning having received the required minimum of at least 270 electoral votes, after the final electoral vote totals have been counted and tabulated, on January 6, of the January immediately following the November election. Article II, Section 1 does not provide any procedure where some time, a relatively short time, after the Senate has certified a ticket of presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate, as the winners of the 270 electoral vote majority, that new facts are revealed, that show, that in fact, a number of the electoral votes cast for the candidates, who were certified to be the winning team were fraudulent, void electoral votes, ab initio, which were cast by unqualified electors who were unqualified either under state constitutions, the state law, or the U.S. Constitution or any combination of the three. Sablosky claims that the procedures for counting electoral votes as regularly given under Title 3 Sections 1-21 are not written to apply to a situation where once the electoral votes are counted by the U.S. Senate, the electoral votes turn out to be null and void, within a few months of the election, based on proof presented to a trial judge in a state court and or in a federal court, as plaintiff intends to present in this civil case, in this U.S. District Court. Title 3 Sections 1-21 are the procedures mandated by statutory law, for Congress to count electoral votes. Once those procedures are followed, on or about January 6, and are completed, the Senate and House have chosen a President elect and a Vice President elect, who will be sworn in on January 20 of that same month of January. Now Sablosky has found out that, and alleges in good faith that Donald Trump and Mike Pence did not receive the required 270, minimum number, of electoral votes to be elected President and Vice President. The procedures in Title 3 Sections 1-21 do not apply to a situation where the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in error, through negligence, or failure to do their appointed work thoroughly, certified null and void electoral votes, that were cast by unqualified electors, that should not have been counted. Plaintiff, Sablosky, claims that had the Senate on the day of debate, January 6, 2017 realized that 50 electoral votes or some number of electoral votes were null and void cast by unqualified electors, and that as a consequence, that the total number of valid electoral votes received by Trump and Pence were less than a majority of 270 needed to win election, then the Senate would have followed the required procedure dictated by the Constitution, to allow the House of Representatives to decide who the next winning team of president and vice president would be, see U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1. The House of Representatives would choose president and vice president from one of the candidate teams who received the 3 highest numbers of electoral votes. Members of U.S. Senate never became aware of the alleged fact that 50 Trump/Pence electors were unqualified and cast null and void electoral votes.
Now Sablosky brings such matter before the jurisdiction of this Article 3 Court which is a controversy of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which provide for the election of the president and vice president of the United States. This court has authority under Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 to decide the constitutional issues presented by Sablosky in his complaint. Sablosky claims that this court can decertify electoral votes counted by the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives in their legislative capacity as the legislative branch, by issuing final judgment and an order after holding a hearing and examining the evidence in camera, before the court presented in a court hearing. If this court finds that the ticket of Donald Trump and Mike Pence received an insufficient number of valid electoral votes, Sablosky claims, then such finding would, at this point in time, necessitate a new primary election and a new general election to be scheduled as quickly as possible on an accelerated schedule to fill the vacancy caused by the court ordered removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Sablosky claims then that this court would have the power and must upon such finding, that Donald Trump and Mike Pence received a number of electoral votes less than the minimum of 270 needed, order that Donald Trump and Mike Pence vacate their offices as President and Vice President, and that in accordance with Title 3 U.S.C.A. Section 19 ( c ) (1) they must be replaced temporarily with the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. This court has the authority, power, and jurisdiction over constitutional controversy presented, such that the court can order such new primary presidential election and such new general presidential election as a remedy to fill the remainder of the presidential term started by Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Due to separation of powers doctrine, the Court would probably have to order that the U.S. Congress would schedule the new special presidential and vice presidential elections by statute, as soon as possible, by passing special legislation scheduling such elections allowing 3 months for a primary election, and then a general election 2 months after that primary election, since the scheduling of elections is usually a legislative function. The terms of office of the replacement president and vice president would end in January 20, 2021. The next presidential general election would be held on schedule in November 2020 as set by U.S. Constitution.
BUSH V. GORE 531 U.S. 98 (2000), GIVES THIS COURT, THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THIS CASE AND ORDER APPROPRIATE REMEDIES REQUESTED BY SABLOSKY
In Bush v. Gore, supra, for the first time in history, U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue of a presidential election, that clearly decided deliberately, ahead of the time, when unknown real results would have been determined by full statewide recounts in all counties of Florida, who the winner of the presidential election was. Bush v. Gore gives federal courts complete authority to decide any and all issues of the conduct of a presidential election by state officials as well as by federal officials, including overseeing legislative functions performed by those legislators in the legislative branch of the state or U.S. Government, and whether those legislative functions are performed constitutionally and properly, within the range of legislative authority under powers granted by the U.S. Constitution to resolve controversies, under the U.S. Constitution. Recount authority is an executive function performed by county and municipal [town and city] boards of election and the secretary of state or such other delegated election authority of the states, such as is specifically allowed or required by state statutes passed by the legislature of each state. In Bush v. Gore, supra in Florida, the question of law was the recount authority, that was authorized and controlled by statutes, passed by the Florida legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly usurped the authority of the Florida legislature and the Florida Supreme Court interpreting statutes passed by the Florida legislature, to determine under what circumstances and how the Florida Constitution Right to Vote guarantee, Article VI Sections 1-7 and the Florida Election Code applied in the presidential election, statewide in the state of Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court, ignoring and bypassing 100 years of federal rulings, that clearly mandated that a state’s highest appellate court make the final interpretation of a state’s election code, and provisions of that state’s state constitution, in this case the Florida Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the U. S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment eviscerated and superceded the entire Election Code of Florida, the Right to Vote Article in the Florida Constitution, and the relevant Florida Supreme Court case law and remedies applying clearly to corrupted, defectively conducted elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court completely ignored established, clearly applicable Florida case law, written by Florida Supreme Court, which was based on Florida Constitution Right to Vote, Article VI Sections 1-7, and the Florida Election Code. The U.S. Supreme Court substituted the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution instead, with no prior case law. In this instant case, Sablosky claims that 50 Electoral Votes were null and void and cast by unqualified fraudulent electors and were wrongly credited to Trump and Pence by the U.S. Senate in January 6, 2017. See pages 74-91 in this complaint. The legislative function of counting electoral votes was defectively conducted by the U.S. Senate. This federal court has authority to correct the electoral vote count by decertifying and subtracting the null and void electoral votes cast by unqualified electors from the total number of electoral votes counted and totaled for Trump and Pence, just as the U.S. Supreme Court usurped and preempted the Florida Supreme Court rulings in Bush v. Gore, supra, as to how the Florida Constitution and Florida legislative statutes controlling procedures for recounts were to be interpreted. In Bush v. Gore, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited any recounts authorized under the authority of the state legislature, authorized and or required by the state statutes, in the Florida Election Code. The function of vote counting was done by individual Boards of Elections in each county. The Florida Supreme Court ordered recounting by hand, using visual examination of paper ballots individually, which included optical scan paper ballots and punch hole paper ballots.
Under Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Senate performs the work of counting electoral votes. In Bush v. Gore, supra, the work of counting popular votes in order to determine what slate of electors would be chosen to cast electoral votes to choose the President and Vice President was performed by the County Board of Elections in each individual county of Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court could and did in fact control the entire vote counting process of counting popular votes, in order to decide what slate of electors, in that case the George W. Bush electors, would be legally chosen. The U.S. Supreme Court did that in order that the result would absolutely choose one candidate, George W. Bush Jr., in December 2000. This means clearly that the federal courts have final authority to control the vote counting process engaged in, by the U.S. Senate, which is the legislative branch of the U.S. government, as a controversy under the U.S. Constitution. The county boards of election in Florida are part of the executive branch of government of the counties, which are subdivisions of the Florida state government. The election code of the state of Florida controlled and directed how the county boards of elections count votes, in federal elections for president and vice president. Title 3 U.S.C.A Sections 1-21 statutorily controls how the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives count electoral votes under the authority of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The U. S. Supreme Court and inferior federal courts clearly can modify, suspend, interpret, and or eviscerate, the statutory procedures for counting electoral votes in those courts interpretation of applicable provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including but not limited to Article II Section 1 paragraph 2 and Amendment XII, Amendment XIII, Amendment XV, Amendment XIX, and Amendment I. Decertifying or finding that certain quantities of electoral votes cast by specifically named electors in specific states were/are null and void ab initio at the time initially counted, in the individual states cast, is easily within the power, jurisdiction, and authority of this court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. This court can find that Donald Trump and Mike Pence did not receive the required majority of 270 electoral votes and were never elected legally to the offices of president and vice president, that is Trump and Pence were never “qualified” for those offices. The U.S. Senate acted illegally in violation of the U.S. Constitution to certify that Trump and Pence had the required totals needed for each of their offices to be chosen as President and Vice President. This court has the authority and jurisdiction both in personam and subject matter jurisdiction to correct the illegal wrongful actions of the U.S. Senate and determine the exact number of valid electoral votes were received by Trump and Pence. If this court finds that the number of electoral votes received by Trump and Pence is less than 270 and that Trump and Pence, as a consequence, are not “qualified”, then this court has the power to order proper Constitutional remedies to protect the rights of plaintiff as a U.S. citizen voter in the election process.
14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY STATE AUTHORITIES AND BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE FALSE CERTIFICATION OF NULL AND VOID ELECTORAL VOTES
The casting and counting of electoral votes that were ab initio, null and void, before ever being cast or counted, were serious violations of the STATE CONSTITUTIONS’ REQUIREMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO BE AN ELECTOR IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, of the due process clauses of the state constitutions and state statutory requirements of law, on the qualifications of electors in the electoral college. When the United States Senate counted electoral votes, that were ab initio null and void, because those electoral votes were cast by unqualified electors, the United States Senate violated the Due Process clause of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was incorporated against the legal process and legal requirements of the state’s own constitutions and state’s won statutory law, which law was applicable to qualifications of electors in the electoral college. The process that was due and required by state Constitutions and state law was never obeyed, as a consequence such violation of state Constitutional requirements and state statutory law, is also a violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. This violation of 14th Amendment Due Process clause gives full jurisdiction to the federal courts to take corrective action and order remedies appropriate to protect the rights of voters who voted in the election for president and vice president on November 8, 2016
According to U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 2 “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:……”
On the following 18 pages from page 80 onward through page 97 is a summary of the allegations against 50 of the electors who plaintiff alleges were unqualified as electors to cast electoral votes and whose electoral votes were null and void ab initio. Each of the electors listed, who were unqualified electors, cast electoral votes for Donald J. Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A PREVAILING PARTY
UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1988
Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se notices this court of motion for attorney’s fees and moves this court for attorney’s fees under provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1988 in the event that plaintiff is the prevailing party in this civil lawsuit. In support of this motion plaintiff incorporate’s Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint, and any other requests for declaratory or injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff in the instant case.
Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se
PLAINTIFF REQUESTS ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 AS PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS CASE
Plaintiff requests that this court grant attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C.A. 1988 as a prevailing party in this civil lawsuit, or under any other provision of law that this court considers just, to provide attorney’s fees to plaintiff as a prevailing party.
Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se Date , 2017
RIPENESS OF ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY IN THE INSTANT CASE
In order for the controversy which is the subject of this complaint to be ripe, the controversy had to occur. This is only the 3rd time in the history of the United States since 1787 that the winner of the popular vote was the loser of the electoral college majority [now greater than 270 electoral votes] and the winner of the electoral college majority of greater than 270 votes is the loser of the popular vote. These circumstances have only occurred in the Presidential election of 1888, Grover Cleveland v. Harrison, the Presidential election of 2000, Albert Gore, Jr. v. George W Bush, Jr. and the current Presidential election of 2016, Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Donald J. Trump. The shortness of time normally between the date of the election November 8, 2016, and the date Presidential electors cast their votes in the electoral college in the state capitals, December 19, 2016, and the date that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives meet to count electoral votes on January 6, 2017 is a very short amount of time, not enough time for trials challenging the constitutionality of the electoral college. The reality now is that the controversy under the U.S. Constitution now exists and the controversy is ripe for trial.
TABLE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
QUOTATIONS FROM BOOKS
This Great Scourge by Professor James M. Mc Pherson, PH.D., Copyright 2000 Published by Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 pp 1-19
The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States by Professor Alexander Keyssar, PH.D., copyright 2000 Published by Basic Books, 387 Park Ave. South, New York, NY 10016 pp.104-116
Federalist Paper Number 68 contained in The Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, Copyright 2004, Simon and Shuster, Inc. New York, NY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES
United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clauses 1,2,3,4 [Choosing Electors] pp.48, 56, 73
United States Constitution Amendment 1 pp38, 43
United States Constitution Amendment 10
United States Constitution Amendment 12, [President and Vice President run in pairs]
United States Constitution Amendment 13 Abolition of Slavery 29, 32, 53
United States Constitution Amendment 14
United States Constitution Amendment 15 Section 1,2 29.32. 53
United States Constitution Amendment 19 pp.29, 32 , 53
TABLE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Title 3 U.S.C.A. Sections 2,3,5,6,7.8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21 pp.33,48,62,63,66,67,68,71
Title 42 U.S.C. 1988
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 187 pp.48, 67
Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 pp.49, 50
Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1 p.50
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203
Barrows v. Jackson 346 U.S. 249 pp.52, 53, 54
Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 pp. 68, 70
Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 pp.41, 42
U.S. v. Raines 362 U.S. 117  pp. 54, 55
Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393  p.30
Senate Joint Resolution 1 of December 6, 1977 A Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to switch to the popular vote method to elect the president and vice president of the United States pp.31,34,44
__________________________________________at Washington, D.C.
Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se Date
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Undersigned in Pro Se hereby certifies that on this day of February _____ 2017
Plaintiff’s 1st Amended Complaint was served upon Defendants attorneys by mailing it postage prepaid to the following address
Department of Justice
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th St. NW 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20001
Acting Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Bret Sablosky, Plaintiff in Pro Se