Judge Rules Against Los Angeles DA in Case Brought Against Him By His Own Deputies

Judge Rules Against Los Angeles DA in Case Brought Against Him By His Own Deputies

On Monday, a California judge has ruled partially against the Soros-funded Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón‘s radical criminal justice “reform” package, ruling that some of his directives are in violation of California law and would have placed his deputy district attorneys in legal and ethical jeopardy.  Believe it or not, lawyers are held to a standard of ethics, and they get in trouble when they break them.

Superior Court Judge James Chalfant, originally appointed to the Los Angeles Municipal Court by former Governor Pete Wilson in 1996, then elevated to Superior Court in 1998 by Governor Wilson, issued his ruling in response to a lawsuit that was filed by Gascón’s own deputy district attorneys, who argued in the suit that Gascón’s policies, which barred them from being able to apply sentencing enhancements long considered mandatory under California law, would have required them to break California law and their own required ethical obligations.  They argued that certain policies are unlawful that require them to not seek sentencing enhancements mandated by California law.

For cases that have already been filed, Judge Chalfant agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction preventing Gascón’s policies from being enforced.  It’s important to note that under California law, district attorneys who wish to drop sentencing enhancements have to make representations to a court arguing that certain circumstances exist that call for it, and Judge Chalfant ruled that Gascón’s policy would have forced his district attorneys to lie to the court.

Why is it so difficult for Democrats to follow the law, even when they disagree with it?  The law is the law and a District Attorney is of the Executive Branch, which means he/she must “execute” the law the way it is written and only use discretion when it’s allowed in the law.  The Executive branch cannot create or change laws.  Only the Legislature can do that.  Society breaks down when people see elected officials defying the law, making them feel that the law no longer matters.  Government officials must get back to setting a better example and stop trying to change laws while executing their duties and responsibilities because of their ideology.

Judge Chalfant also didn’t like that Gascón’s policies don’t account for the effect they would have on the victims of crimes, which is required under California law.  Again, why do Democrats always champion the wrong team, in this case, Gascón is fighting for the criminals and forgetting about the damage done to their victims?  The judge cited, “There is not a single reference to a concern for victims in the sentencing process” in Gascón’s policies.

Noting that prosecutors normally have wide discretion when doing their job, Chalfant declined to admonish Gascón from enforcing his policies in cases brought in the future.  Chalfont didn’t buy into the arguments made by the deputy district attorneys that California law clearly states that prosecutors “shall” seek sentencing requirements in certain cases, that “shall” is not always considered mandatory in legislative statutes and therefore that language is incapable of constraining discretion built into prosecutorial functions.  It’s gobbledygook explanations like this that make you scratch your head and wonder how the smartest person in the courtroom is able to read the minds of the legislators who wrote the laws.  What a gift, right?

Chalfont also ruled that Gascón’s policies shouldn’t have come as a surprise to the deputy district attorneys since he explicitly ran for office on implementing them.  So, if a person runs for District Attorney on the promise to never charge a person accused of murder again, should we just slightly shake our heads and reminisce over how he’s only doing what he campaigned to do?  This judge needs to explain to the people of Los Angeles how Gascón’s election victory allows for a legal interpretation of the simple, plain text of California’s laws.

Gascón, who had over $2 million of George Soros’ money to help him get elected, has vowed to appeal the ruling and also promised to adhere to the injunction, for now, until the appeal is decided upon.  On top of getting rid of sentencing enhancements, Gascón ran on getting rid of cash bail and reducing the prison population in Los Angeles.  How is any of that helping the good people of Los Angeles?

Leftist, Progressive Policies Spell Death for a Nation

Leftist, Progressive Policies Spell Death for a Nation

UAF Contributor: Jane Darcy

One needn’t look far to find evidence that leftist, progressive policies lead to the downfall of a civilization. What better example than California? If California were a nation, it would currently rank as the fifth largest economy in the world(2), just behind Germany(3). This is by far, no small feat. How does a seemingly booming state become the pariah of a nation?

Over the past 30 years, California has increasingly elected leftist progressive politicians to its state government. In the 1993/1994 legislative session under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, the State Assembly was 45% Republican, 50% Democrat, and 5% Independent while the State Senate was 41% Republican and 59% Democrat. This is a fairly even split, forcing government to enact policies that appealed to both parties. Fast forward to the 2019/2020 legislative session under Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom. The State Assembly is currently made up of 28% Republicans and 72% Democrats, while the State Assembly is 23% Republican, 76% Democrat, and 1% vacant. This allows one party rule in a state dominated by the two metropolitan areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

In a Fox News article, “San Francisco homeless stats soar: city blames big business, residents blame officials,” the woeful and outright disgusting conditions of a once beautiful city are outlined(1). Numerous concerned citizens shared stories of being harassed, threatened, and assaulted by the ever increasing homeless population. The article states, “Last week, Austin Vincent, a homeless man, was caught on camera attacking a 26-year-old woman outside her condo complex. As he threw Paneez Kosarian on the ground, he allegedly talked about saving her from robots and offered to kill another woman nearby so he could earn her trust.” Mr. Vincent was released by Jerry Brown appointed Superior Court Judge Christine Van Aken. He was arrested again for an assault against a female involving a knife following his release.

In the city of San Francisco, an adult can no longer use a vape device, however public nudity and using heroin in the streets are allowed.

The deplorable conditions are not isolated to San Francisco. This week Sacramento small business owner Elizabeth Novak called out Governor Gavin Newsom for deplorable conditions there(5). She is being forced to close her hair salon that has been in operation for 15 years because she has to clean human waste and syringes off of her doorstep when she opens every morning. She has to ask the homeless individuals camped on her doorstep to move their tents. She has been forced to fight drug addicted individuals who come into her shop threatening violence because they are still on the streets. When she speaks to police, they explain how their hands are tied because of current progressive laws enacted by the Governor and state legislature. She pleads with Mr. Newsom about what he is going to do for the hardworking taxpayer in the state of California(5). I’m sure her pleas will fall on deaf ears.

In a state with the 11th highest tax burden (4) on its residents in the nation, one would think social services would be abundant. Think again. Public education funds are perpetually missing, the state’s crumbling infrastructure leads many to ask where the astronomically high fuel taxes are going, and the state employee retirement system is woefully underfunded. Add to all this the increased burden of being a “sanctuary state.” The County of Los Angeles alone spent over $680 million in one year funding programs for illegal immigrants.


The burden of leftist, progressive policies is ever increasing on the hardworking middle class of California and the number of taxpayers to share that burden is decreasing. The OC Register reported that 142,932 more individuals left the state of California in 2016 than moved there. This is the second largest outflow from state behind New York, an 11% increase over 2015. The state’s outmigration has continued to increase over the past 2 decades, even while the state’s total population is increasing. How can this occur? One word: immigration(6). Immigrants are attracted to a state that welcomes them with open arms and open pocketbooks.

This is just a short list of the problems progressives have caused California. We haven’t touched on the healthcare for all illegals initiative, the high speed rail to nowhere, and the environmental regulations the kill industries such as agriculture and trucking. Anna Suarez put it best when speaking of San Francisco, “The city is running out of strategies. I’m moving to Austin.” We can only hope the progressive ideology stays behind

Source: San Francisco homeless stats soar: city blames big business, residents blame officials







Trump Lawyers Say State Legislatures are Last Guardians of the Republic with their Absolute Power-So Take it Back

Trump Lawyers Say State Legislatures are Last Guardians of the Republic with their Absolute Power-So Take it Back

The purpose of the hearings with testimonies in front of state legislatures is to get a number of them to reclaim their Constitutional powers to set the electors and the timing of the certification of elections, according to attorney Jena Ellis, who has numerous times given statements at Voter Integrity hearings,to encourage state legislative bodies to have special sessions and take back their power.

Ellis said that reporters and citizens should be familiar with the case she cited, and how legislative bodies should take back their power and investigate the evidence of fraud from their own states, and also other states before they allow their states to certify the election results.


“Federalist papers say that the state bodies closest to the people should protect the elections,” said attorney Rudy Giuliani told the Michigan state House of Representatives.

“This is your duty to watch over elections, “Jena Ellis said. ‘These are citizens who are bringing concerns to you, this is your mandated duty.”

“Supreme Court made clear more than a century ago there is “no doubt of the right of the [state] legislature to resume the power [of choosing electors] at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892),” Attorney Robert Barnes posted on Twitter about the matter.

There are two significant cases related to the Electoral College not including the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, which was more about the process of counting presidential ballots in Florida than the legitimate function of the Electoral College.

In particular, a scathing dissent by a legendary Justice from the early 1950s, Robert H. Jackson, contains the most words about the Electoral College’s legitimacy in a court opinion. But as a whole, the constitutional propriety of the Electoral College hasn’t been debated as an issue at the Court.

In 1892, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of the Court in McPherson v. Blacker. The case came to the Court as a dispute between the Michigan legislature and Congress about which body named the date that the Electoral College met in Michigan.

Fuller’s per-curium opinion, which he only signed for the majority, ruled for Congress, and it contained some background information about how the Court viewed the Electoral College. McPherson v. Blacker also found that states determined how electors were apportioned within each state and how they were chosen – a point later reaffirmed in Bush v. Gore.

United States Supreme Court


No. 50

Argued: Decided: October 17, 1892

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER: [146 U.S. 1, 2]   William McPherson, Jr., Jay A. Hubbell, J. Henry Carstens, Charles E. Hiscock, Otto Ihling, Philip T. Colgrove, Conrad G. Swensburg, Henry A. Haigh, James H. White, Fred. Slocum, Justus S. Stearns, John Millen, Julius T. Hannah, and J. H. Comstock filed their petition and affidavits in the supreme court of the state of Michigan on May 2, 1892, as nominees for presidential electors, against Robert R. Blacker, secretary of state of Michigan, praying that the court declare the act of the legislature, approved May 1, 1891, (Act No. 50, Pub. Acts Mich. 1891,) entitled ‘An act to provide for the election of electors of president and vice president of the United States, and to repeal all other acts and parts of acts in confiict herewith,’ void and of no effect, and that a writ of mandamus be directed to be issued to the said secretary of state, commanding him to cause to be delivered to the sheriff of each county in the state, between the 1st of July and the 1st of September, 1892, ‘a notice in writing that at the next general election in this state, to be held on Tuesday, the 8th day of November, 1892, there will be chosen (among other officers to be named in said notice) as many electors of president and vice president of the United States as this state may be entitled to elect senators and representatives in the congress.’

The statute of Michigan (1 How. Ann. St. Mich. 147, c. 9, p. 133) provided: ‘The secretary of the state shall, between the 1st day of July and the 1st day of September preceding a general election, direct and cause to be delivered to the sheriff of each county in this state a notice in writing that, at the next general election, there will be chosen as many of the following officers as are to be elected at such general election, viz.: A governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor general, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of state land office, members of the state board of education, electors of president and vice president of the United States, and a representative in congress for the district to which each of such counties shall belong.’

A rule to show cause having been issued, the respondent, as [146 U.S. 1, 3]   secretary of state, answered the petition, and denied that he had refused to give the notice thus required, but he said ‘that it has always been the custom in the office of the secretary of state, in giving notices under said section 147, to state in the notice the number of electors that should be printed on the ticket in each voting precinct in each county in this state, and following such custom with reference to such notice, it is the intention of this respondent in giving notice under section 147 to state in said notice that there will be elected one presidential elector at large and one district presidential elector and two alternate presidential electors, one for the elector at large and one for the district presidential elector, in each voting precinct, so that the election may be held under and in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of the state of Michigan of 1891.’

By an amended answer the respondent claimed the same benefit as if he had demurred.

Relators relied in their petition upon various grounds as invalidating Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1891, and, among them, that the act was void because in conflict with clause 2 of section 1 of article 2 of the constitution of the United States, and with the fourteenth amendment to that instrument, and also in some of its provisions in conflict with the act of congress of February 3, 1887, entitled ‘An act to fix the day for the meeting of the electors of president and vice president, and to provide for and regulate the counting of the votes for president and vice president, and the decision of questions arising thereon.’ The supreme court of Michigan unanimously held that none of the objections urged against the validity of the act were tenable; that it did not conflict with clause 2, 1, art. 2, of the constitution, or with the fourteenth amendment thereof; and that the law was only inoperative so far as in conflict with the law of congress in a matter in reference to which congress had the right to legislate. The opinion of the court will be found reported, in advance of the official series, in 52 N. W. Rep. 469.

Judgment was given, June 17, 1892, denying the writ of [146 U.S. 1, 4]   mandamus, whereupon a writ of error was allowed to this court.

The October term, 1892, commenced on Monday, October 10th, and on Tuesday, October 11th, the first day upon which the application could be made, a motion to advance the case was submitted by counsel, granted at once in view of the exigency disclosed upon the face of the papers, and the cause heard that day. The attention of the court having been called to other provisions of the election laws of Michigan than those supposed to be immediately involved, (Act No. 190, Pub. Acts Mich. 1891, pp. 258, 263,) the chief justice, on Monday, October 17th, announced the conclusions of the court, and directed the entry of judgment affirming the judgment of the supreme court of Michigan, and ordering the mandate to issue at once, it being stated that this was done because immediate action under the state statutes was apparently required and might be affected by delay, but it was added that the court would thereafter file an opinion stating fully the grounds of the decision.

Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of 1891 of Michigan is as follow

Section 211 of Howell’s Annotated Statutes of Michigan (volume 1, c. 9, p. 145) reads:

Section 240 of Howell’s Statutes, in force prior to May 1, 1891, provided: ‘At the general election next preceding the choice of president and vice president of the United States, there shall be elected by general ticket as many electors of president and vice president as this state may be entitled to elect of senators and representatives in congress.’

The following are sections of article 8 of the constitution of Michigan:

Reference was also made in argument to the act of congress of February 3, 1887, to fix the day for the meeting of the electors of president and vice president, and to provide for and regulate and counting of the votes. 24 St. p. 373.

Henry M. Duffield, W. H. H. Miller, and Fred A. Baker, for plaintiff in error.

[146 U.S. 1, 19]   Otto Kirchner, A. A. Ellis, and John W. Champlin, for defendant in error.

[146 U.S. 1, 22]  

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court. [146 U.S. 1, 23]   The supreme court of Michigan held, in effect, that if the act in question were invalid, the proper remedy had been sought. In other words, if the court had been of opinion that the act was void, the writ of mandamus would have been awarded.

And having ruled all objections to the validity of the act urged as arising under the state constitution and laws adversely to the plaintiffs in error, the court was compelled to, and did, consider and dispose of the contention that the act was invalid because repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.

We are not authorized to revise the conclusions of the state court on these matters of local law, and, those conclusions being accepted, it follows that the decision of the federal questions is to be regarded as necessary to the determination of the cause. De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U.S. 216 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1053.

Inasmuch as, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, we have jurisdiction by writ of error to re-examine and reverse or affirm the final judgment in any suit in the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had, where the validity of a statute of the state is drawn in question on the ground that it is repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity, we perceive no reason for holding that this writ was improvidently brought.

It is argued that the subject-matter of the controversy is not of judicial cognizance, because it is said that all questions connected with the election of a presidential elector are political in their nature; that the court has no power finally to dispose of them; and that its deeision would be subject to review by political officers and agencies, as the state board of canvassers, the legislature in joint convention, and the governor, or, finally, the congress.

But the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases in law or equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and this is a case so arising, since the validity of the state law was drawn in question as repugnant to such constitution and laws, and its validity was sustained. [146 U.S. 1, 24]   Boyd v. State, 143 U.S. 135 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375. And it matters not that the judgment to be reviewed may be rendered in a proceeding for mandamus. Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U.S. 672 .

As we concur with the state court, its judgment has been affirmed; if we had not, its judgment would have been reversed. In either event, the questions submitted are finally and definitely disposed of by the judgment which we pronounce, and that judgment is carried into effect by the transmission of our mandate to the state court.

The question of the validity of this act, as presented to us by this record, is a judicial question, and we cannot decline the exercise of our jurisdiction upon the inadmissible suggestion that action might be taken by political agencies in disregard of the judgment of the highest tribunal of the state, as revised by our own.

On behalf of plaintiffs in error it is contended that the act is void because in conflict with (1) clause 2, 1, art. 2, of the constitution of the United States; (2) the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution; and (3) the act of congress, of February 3, 1887.

The second clause of section 1 of article 2 of the constitution is in these words: ‘Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress; but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.’

The manner of the appointment of electors directed by the act of Michigan is the election of an elector and an alternate elector in each of the twelve congressional districts into which the state of Michigan is divided, and of an elector and an alternate elector at large in each of two districts defined by the act. It is insisted that it was not competent for the legislature to direct this manner of appointment, because the state is to appoint as a body politic and corporate, and so must act as a unit, and cannot delegate the authority to subdivisions created for the purpose; and it is argued that the appoint- [146 U.S. 1, 25]   ment of electors by districts is not an appointment by the state, because all its citizens otherwise qualified are not permitted to vote for all the presidential electors.

If the legislature possesses plenary authority to direct the manner of appointment, and might itself exercise the appointing power by joint ballot or concurrence of the two houses, or according to such mode as designated, it is difficult to perceive why, if the legislature prescribes as a method of appointment choice by vote, it must necessarily be by general ticket, and not by districts. In other words, the act of appointment is none the less the act of the state in its entirety because ar- [146 U.S. 1, 26]   rived at by districts, for the act is the act of political agencies duly authorized to speak for the state, and the combined result is the expression of the voice of the state, a result reached by direction of the legislature, to whom the whole subject is committed.

By the first paragraph of section 2, art. 1, it is provided: ‘The house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature;’ and by the third paragraph, ‘when vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.’ Section 4 reads: ‘The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.’

Although it is thus declared that the people of the several states shall choose the members of congress, (language which induced the state of New York to insert a salvo as to the power to divide into districts, in its resolutions of ratification,) the state legislatures, prior to 1842, in prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections for representatives, had usually apportioned the state into districts, and assigned to each a representative; and by act of congress of June 25, 1842 , (carried forward as section 23 of the Revised Statutes,) it was provided that, where a state was entitled to more than one representative, the election should be by districts. It has never been doubted that representatives in congress thus chosen represented the entire people of the state acting in their sovereign capacity.

By original clause 3, 1, art. 2, and by the twelfth amendment, which superseded that clause in case of a failure in the election of president by the people the house of representatives is to choose the president; and ‘the vote shall be taken by states, the representation from [146 U.S. 1, 27]   each state having one vote.’ The state acts as a unit, and its vote is given as a unit, but that vote is arrived at through the votes of its representatives in congress elected by districts.

The state also acts individually through its electoral college, although, by reason of the power of its legislature over the manner of appointment, the vote of its electors may be divided.

The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. It recognizes that the people act through their representatives in the legislature, and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object.

The framers of the constitution employed words in their natural sense; and, where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary, and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text; but where there is ambiguity or doubt, or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction is entitled to the greatest weight. Certainly, plaintiffs in error cannot reasonably assert that the clause of the constitution under consideration so plainly sustains their position as to entitle them to object that contemporaneous history and practical construction are not to be allowed their legitimate force, and, conceding that their argument inspires a doubt sufficient to justify resort to the aids of interpretation thus afforded, we are of opinion that such doubt is thereby resolved against them, the contemporaneous practical exposition of the constitution being too strong and obstinate to be shaken or controlled. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299, 309.

It has been said that the word ‘appoint’ is not the most appropriate word to describe the result of a popular election. Perhaps not; but it is sufficiently comprehensive to cover that mode, and was manifestly used as conveying the broadest power of determination. It was used in article 5 of the articles of confederation, which provided that ‘delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature [146 U.S. 1, 28]   of each state shall direct;’ and in the resolution of congress of February 21, 1787, which declared it expedient that ‘a convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states’ should be held. The appointment of delegates was, in fact, made by the legislatures directly, but that involved no denial of authority to direct some other mode. The constitutional convention, by resolution of September 17, 1787, expressed the opinion that the congress should fix a day ‘on which electors should be appointed by the states which shall have ratified the same,’ etc., and that, ‘after such publication, the electors should be appointed, and the senators and representatives elected.’

The journal of the convention discloses that propositions that the president should be elected by ‘the citizens of the United States,’ or by the ‘people,’ or ‘by electors to be chosen by the people of the several states,’ instead of by the congress, were voted down, (Jour. Conv. 286, 288; 1 Elliot, Deb. 208, 262,) as was the proposition that the president should be ‘chosen by electors appointed for that purpose by the legislatures of the states,’ though at one time adopted, (Jour. Con v. 190; 1 Elliot, Deb. 208, 211, 217;) and a motion to postpone the consideration of the choice ‘by the national legislature,’ in order to take up a resolution providing for electors to be elected by the qualified voters in districts, was negatived in committee of the whole, (Jour. Conv. 92; 1 Elliot, Deb. 156.) Gerry proposed that the choice should be made by the state executives; Hamilton, that the election be by electors chosen by electors chosen by the people; James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris were strongly in favor of popular vote; Ellsworth and Luther Martin preferred the choice by electors elected by the legislatures; and Roger Sherman, appointment by congress. The final result seems to have reconciled contrariety of views by leaving it to the state legislatures to appoint directly by joint ballot or concurrent separate action, or through popular election by districts or by general ticket, or as otherwise might be directed.

Therefore, on reference to contemporaneous and subsequent action under the clause, we should expect to find, as we do, [146 U.S. 1, 29]   that various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting indistricts and partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways, as, notably, by North Carolina in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. No question was raised as to the power of the state to appoint in any mode its legislature saw fit to adopt, and none that a single method, applicable without exception, must be pursued in the absence of an amendment to the constitution. The district system was largely considered the most equitable, and Madison wrote that it was that system which was contemplated by the framers of the constitution, although it was soon seen that its adoption by some states might place them at a disadvantage by a division of their strength, and that a uniform rule was preferable.

At the first presidential election, the appointment of electors was made by the legislatures of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Pennsylvania, by act of October 4, 1788, (Acts Pa. 1787-88, p. 513,) provided for the election of electors on a general ticket. Virginia, by act of November 17, 1788, was divided into 12 separate districts, and an elector elected in each district, while for the election of congressmen the state was divided into 10 other districts. Laws Va. Oct. Sess. 1788, pp. 1, 2. In Massachusetts, the general court, by resolve of November 17, 1788, divided the state into districts for the election of representatives in congress, and provided for their election, December 18, 1788, and that at the same time the qualified inhabitants of each district should give their votes for two persons as candidates for an elector of president and vice president of the United States, and, from the two persons in each district having the greatest number of votes, the two houses of the general court by joint ballot should elect one as elector, and in the same way should elect two electors at large. Mass. Resolves 1788, p. 53. In Maryland, [146 U.S. 1, 30]   under elected on general ticket, five being residents elected on general ticker, five being residents of the Western Shore, and three of the Eastern Shore. Laws Md. 1788, c. 10. In New Hampshire an act was passed November 12, 1788, (Laws N. H. 1789, p. 169,) providing for the election of five electors by majority popular vote, and in case of no choice that the legislature should appoint out of so many of the candidates as equaled double the number of electors elected. There being no choice, the appointment was made by the legislature. The senate would not agree to a joint ballot, and the house was compelled, that the vote of the state might not be lost, to concur in the electors chosen by the senate. The state of New York lost its vote through a similar contest. The assembly was willing to elect by joint ballot of the two branches or to divide the electors with the senate, but the senate would assent to nothing short of a complete negative upon the action of the assembly, and the time for election passed without an appointment. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not then ratified the constitution.

Fifteen states participated in the second presidential election, in nine of which electors were chosen by the legislatures. Maryland, Laws Md. 1790, c. 16; Laws 1791, c. 62,) New Hampshire, (Laws N. H. 1792, pp. 398, 401,) and Pennsylvania, (Laws Pa. 1792, p. 240,) elected their electors on a general ticket, and Virginia by districts, (Laws Va. 1792, p. 87.) In Massachusetts the general court, by resolution of June 30, 1792, divided the state into four districts, in each of two of which five electors were elected, and in each of the other two three electors. Mass. Resolves, June, 1792, p. 25. Under the apportionment of April 13, 1792, North Carolina was entitled to ten members of the house of representatives. The legislature was not in session, and did not meet until November 15th, while under the act of congress of March 1, 1792, (1 St. p. 239,) the electors were to assemble on December 5th. The legislature passed an act dividing the state into four districts, and directing the members of the legislature residing in each district to meet on the 25th of November, and choose three electors. 2 Ired. N. C. [146 U.S. 1, 31]   Laws, 1715-1800, c. 15 of 1792. At the same session an act was passed dividing the state into districts for the election of electors in 1796, and every four years thereafter. Id. c. 16.

Sixteen states took part in the third presidential election, Tennessee having been admitted June 1, 1796. In nine states the electors were appointed by the legislatures, and in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire by popular vote for a general ticket. Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland elected by districts. The Maryland law of December 24, 1795, was entitled ‘An act to alter the mode of electing electors,’ and provided for dividing the state into ten districts, each of which districts should ‘elect and appoint one person, being a resident of the said district, as an elector.’ Laws Md. 1795, c. 73. Massachusetts adhered to the district system, electing one elector in each congressional district by a majority vote. It was provided that, if no one had a majority, the legislature should make the appointment on joint ballot, and the legislature also appointed two electors at large in the same manner. Mass. Resolves, June, 1796, p. 12. In Tennessee an act was passed August 8, 1796, which provided for the election of three electors, ‘one in the district of Washington, one in the district of Hamilton, and one in the district of Mero,’ and, ‘that the said electors may be elected with as little trouble to the citizens as possible,’ certain persons of the counties of Washington, Sullivan, Green, and Hawkins were named in the act and and appointed electors to elect an elector for the district of Washington; certain other persons of the counties of Knox, Jefferson, Sevier, and Blount were by name appointed to elect an elector for the district of Hamilton; and certain others of the counties of Davidson, Sumner, and Tennessee to elect an elector for the district of Mero. Laws Tenn. 1794, 1803, p. 209; Acts 2d Sess. 1st Gen. Assem. Tenn. c. 4. Electors were chosen by the persons thus designated.

In the fourth presidential election, Virginia, under the advice of Mr. Jefferson, adopted the general ticket, at least ‘until some uniform mode of choosing a president and vice president of the United States shall be prescribed by an amend- [146 U.S. 1, 32]   ment to the constitution.’ Laws Va. 1799-1800, p. 3. Massachusetts passed a resolution providing that the electors of that state should be appointed by joint ballot of the senate and house. Mass. Resolves, June, 1800, p. 13. Pennsylvania appointed by the legislature, and, upon a contest between the senate and house, the latter was forced to yield to the senate in agreeing to an arrangement which resulted in dividing the vote of the electors. 26 Niles’ Reg. 17. Six states, however, chose electors by popular vote, Rhode Island supplying the place of Pennsylvania, which had theretofore followed that course. Tennessee, by act October 26, 1799, designated persons by name to choose its three electors, as under the act of 1796. Laws Tenn, 1794-1803, p. 211; Acts 2d Sess. 2d Gen. Assem, Tenn. c. 46.

Without pursuing the subject further, it is sufficient to observe that, while most of the states adopted the general ticket system, the district method obtained in Kentucky until 1824; in Tennessee and Maryland until 1832; in Indiana in 1824 and 1828; in Illinois in 1820 and 1824; and in Maine in 1820, 1824, and 1828. Massachusetts used the general ticket system in 1804, (Mass. Resolves, June, 1804, p. 19;) chose electors by joint ballot of the legislature in 1808 and in 1816, (Mass. Resolves 1808, pp. 205, 207, 209; Mass. Resolves 1816, p. 233;) used the district system again in 1812 and 1820, (Mass. Resolves 1812, p. 94; Mass. Resolves 1820, p. 245;) and returned to the general ticket system in 1824, (Mass. Resolves 1824, p. 40.) In New York the electors were elected in 1828 by districts, the district electors choosing the electors at large. Rev. St. N. Y. 1827, tit. 6, p. 24. The appointment of electors by the legislature, instead of by popular vote, was made use of by North Carolina, Vermont, and New Jersey in 1812.

In 1824 the electors were chosen by popular vote, by districts, and by general ticket, in all the states excepting Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont, where they were still chosen by the legislature. After 1832 electors were chosen by general ticket in all the states excepting South Carolina, where the legislature chose them up to and including 1860. Journals 1860, Senate, pp. 12, 13; House, 11, [146 U.S. 1, 33]   15, 17. And this was the mode adopted by Florida in 1868, (Laws 1868, p. 166,) and by Colorado in 1876, as prescribed by section 19 of the schedule to the constitution of the state, which was admitted into the Union, August 1, 1876, (Gen. Laws Colo. 1877, pp. 79, 990.)1

Mr. Justice Story, in considering the subject in his Commentaries on the Constitution, and writing nearly 50 years after the adoption of that instrument, after stating that ‘in some states the legislatures have directly chosen the electors by themselves; in others, they have been chosen by the people by a general ticket throughout the whole state; and in others, by the people by electoral districts, fixed by the legislature, a certain number of electors being apportioned to each district,’-adds: ‘No question has ever arisen as to the constitutionality of either mode, except that by a direct choice by the legislature. But this, though often doubted by able and ingenious minds, (3 Elliot, Deb. 100, 101,) has been firmly established in practice ever since the adoption of the constitution, and does not now seem to admit of controversy, even if a suitable tribunal existed to adjudicate upon it.’ And he remarks that ‘it has been thought desirable by many statesmen to have the constitution amended so as to provide for a uniform mode of choice by the people.’ Story, Const. (1st Ed .) 1466.

Such an amendment was urged at the time of the adoption of the twelfth amendument, the suggestion being that all electors should be chosen by popular vote, the states to be divided for that purpose into districts. It was brought up again in congress in December, 1813, but the resolution for submitting the amendment failed to be carried. The amendment was renewed in the house of representatives in Decem- [146 U.S. 1, 34]   ber, 1816, and a provision for the division of the states into single districts for the choice of electors received a majority vote, but not two thirds. Like amendments were offered in the senate by Messrs. Sanford of New York, Dickerson of New Jersey, and Macon of North Carolina. December 11, 1823, Senator Benton introduced an amendment providing that each legislature should divide its state into electoral districts, and that the voters of each district ‘should vote, in their own proper persons,’ for president and vice president, but it was not acted upon. December 16 and December 24, 1823, amendments were introduced in the senate by Messrs. Dickerson, of New Jersey, and Van Buren, of New York, requiring the choice of electors to be by districts; but these and others failed of adoption, although there was favorable action in that direction by the senate in 1818, 1819, and 1822. December 22, 1823, an amendment was introduced in the house by Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, providing that electors should be chosen by districts assigned by the legislatures, but action was not taken. The subject was again brought forward in 1835, 1844, and subsequently, but need not be further dwelt upon, except that it may be added that, on the 28th of May, 1874, a report was made by Senator Morton, chairman of the senate committee on privileges and elections, recommending an amendment dividing the states into electoral districts, and that the majority of the popular vote of each district should give the candidate one presidential vote, but this also failed to obtain action. In this report it was said: ‘The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts, as are members of congress, which was the case formerly in many states; and it is not doubt competent for the legislature to authorize the governor, or the [146 U.S. 1, 35]   supreme court of the state, or any other agent of its will, to appoint these electors. This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions any more than can their power to elect senators of the United States. Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.’ Senate Rep. 1st Sess. 43d Cong. No. 395.

From this review, in which we have been assisted by the laborious research of counsel, and which might have been greatly expanded, it is seen that from the formation of the government until now the practical construction of the clause has conceded plenary power to the state legislatures in the matter of the appointment of electors.

Even in the heated controversy of 1876-77 the electoral vote of Colorado cast by electors chosen by the legislature passed unchallenged, and our attention has not been drawn to any previous attempt to submit to the courts the determination of the constitutionality of state action.

In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States. They are, as remarked by Mr. Justice Gray in Re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 586, ‘no more officers or agents of the United States than are the members of the state legislatures when acting as electors of federal senators, or the people of the states when acting as the electors of representatives in congress.’ Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same day throughout the United States; but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that congressional and federal influence might be excluded.

The question before us is not one of policy. but of power; and, [146 U.S. 1, 36]   while public opinion had gradually brought all the states as matter of fact to the pursuit of a uniform system of popular election by general ticket, that fact does not tend to weaken the force of contemporaneous and long-continued previous practice when and as different views of expediency prevailed. The prescription of the written law cannot be overthrown because the states have laterally exercised, in a particular way, a power which they might have exercised in some other way. The construction to which we have referred has prevailed too long and been too uniform to justify us in interpreting the language of the constitution as conveying any other meaning than that heretofore ascribed, and it must be treated as decisive.

It is argued that the district mode of choosing electors, while not obnoxious to constitutional objection, if the operation of the electoral system had conformed to its original object and purpose, had become so in view of the practical working of that system. Doubtless it was supposed that the electors would exercise a reasonable independence and fair judgment in the selection of the chief executive, but experience soon demonstrated that, whether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, they were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate. In relation, then, to the independence of the electors, the original expectation may be said to have been frustrated. Miller, Const. Law, 149; Rawle, Const. 55; Story, Const. 1473; Federalist, No. 68. But we can perceive no reason for holding that the power confided to the states by the constitution has ceased to exist because the operation of the system has not fully realized the hopes of those by whom it was created. Still less can we recognize the doctrine that because the constitution has been found in the march of time sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to conditions not within the minds of its framers, and not arising in their time, it may therefore be wrenched from the subjects expressly embraced within it, and amended by judicial decision without action by the designated organs in the mode by which alone amendments can be made. [146 U.S. 1, 37]   Nor are we able to discover any conflict between this act and the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution. The fourteenth amendment provides:

The first section of the fifteenth amendment reads: ‘The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, this court held that the first clause of the fourteenth amendment was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race; and, secondly, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the states; and it recognized the distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States by those definitions; that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states embrace generally those fundamental civil rights for the security and establishment of which organ- [146 U.S. 1, 38]   ized society was instituted, and which remain, with certain exceptions mentioned in the federal constitution, under the care of the state governments; while the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, the provisions of its constitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof; and that it is the latter which are placed under the protection of congress by the second clause of the fourteenth amendment.

We decided in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities, but simply furnishes an additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already has; that, at the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the state, nor was it at the time of the adoption of the constitution; and that neither the constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.

The fifteenth amendment exempted citizens of the United States from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The right to vote in the states comes from the states, but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the constitution of the United States, but the last has been. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 ; U. S. v. Reese, Id. 214.

If, because it happened, at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, that those who exercised the elective franchise in the state of Michigan were entitled to vote for all the presidential electors, this right was rendered permanent by that amendment, then the second clause of article 2 has been so amended that the states can no longer appoint in such manner as the legislatures thereof may direct; and yet no such result is indicated by the language used, nor are the amendments necessarily inconsistent with that clause. The first [146 U.S. 1, 39]   section of the fourteenth amendment does not refer to the exercise of the elective franchise, though the second provides that if the right to vote is denied or abridged to any male inhabitant of the state having attained majority, and being a citizen of the United States, then the basis of representation to which each state is entitled in the congress shall be proportionately reduced. Whenever presidential electors are appointed by popular election, then the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged without invoking the penalty; and so of the right to vote for representatives in congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof. The right to vote intended to be protected refers to the right to vote as established by the laws and constitution of the state. There is no color for the contention that under the amendments every male inhabitant of the state, being a citizen of the United States, has from the time of his majority a right to vote for presidential electors.

The object of the fourteenth amendment in respect of citizenship was to preserve equality of rights and to prevent discrimination as between citizens, but not to radically change the whole theory of the relations of the state and federal governments to each other, and of both governments to the people. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 , 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930.

The inhibition that no state shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws was designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile legislation. Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 , 188, Sup. Ct. Rep. 737.

In Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 71 , 7 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 350, Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the court, said: ‘The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. It merely requires that all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges and in the liabilities imposed. As we said in Barbier v. Connolly, speaking of the fourteenth amendment: ‘Class legislation, discriminating against some [146 U.S. 1, 40]   and favoring others, is prohibited; but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.’ 113 U.S. 27, 32 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 357.’

If presidential electors are appointed by the legislatures, no discrimination is made; if they are elected in districts where each citizen has an equal right to vote, the same as any other citizen has, no discrimination is made. Unless the authority vested in the legislatures by the second clause of section 1 of article 2 has been divested, and the state has lost its power of appointment, except in one manner, the position taken on behalf of relators is untenable, and it is apparent that neither of these amendments can be given such effect.

The third clause of section 1 of article 2 of the constitution is: ‘The congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.’

Under the act of congress of March 1, 1792, (1 St. p. 239, c. 8,) it was provided that the electors should meet and give their votes on the first Wednesday in December at such place in each state as should be directed by the legislature thereof, and by act of congress of January 23, 1845, (5 St. p. 721,) that the electors should be appointed in each state on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November in the year in which they were to be appointed: provided, that each state might by law provide for the filling of any vacancies in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote: and provided that when any state shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day, in such manner as the state may by law provide. These provisions were carried forward into sections 131, 133, 134, and 135 of the Revised Statutes, (Rev. St. tit. 3, c. 1, p. 22.)

By the act of congress of February 3, 1887, entitled ‘An act to fix the day for the meeting of the electors of president and vice president,’ etc., (24 St. p. 373.) it was provided that the electors of each state should meet and give their [146 U.S. 1, 41]   votes on the second Monday in January next following their appointment. The state law in question here fixes the first Wednesday of December as the day for the meeting of the electors, as originally designated by congress. In this respect it is in conflict with the act of congress, and must necessarily give way. But this part of the act is not so inseparably connected, in substance, with the other parts as to work the destruction of the whole act. Striking out the day for the meeting, which had already been otherwise determined by the act of congress, the act remains complete in itself, and capable of being carried out in accordance with the legislative intent. The state law yields only to the extent of the collision. Cooley, Const. Lim. *178; Com. v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 359; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 49. The construction to this effect by the state court is of persuasive force, if not of controlling weight.

We do not think this result affected by the provision in Act No. 50 in relation to a tie vote. Under the constitution of the state of Michigan, in case two or more persons have an equal and the highest number of votes for any office, as canvassed by the board of state canvassers, the legislature in joint convention chooses one of these persons to fill the effice. This rule is recognized in this act, which also makes it the duty of the governor in such case to convene the legislature in special session for the purpose of its application, immediately upon the determination by the board of state canvassers.

We entirely agree with the supreme court of Michigan that it cannot be held, as matter of law, that the legislature would not have provided for being convened in special session but for the provision relating to the time of the meeting of the electors contained in the act, and are of opinion that that date may be rejected, and the act be held to remain otherwise complete and valid.

And as the state is fully empowered to fill any vacancy which may occur in its electoral college, when it meets to give its electoral vote, we find nothing in the mode provided for anticipating such an exigency which operates to invalidate the law. [146 U.S. 1, 42]   We repeat that the main question arising for consideration is one of power, and not of policy, and we are unable to arive at any other conclusion than that the act of the legislature of Michigan of May 1, 1891, is not void as in contravention of the constitution of the United States, for want of power in its enactment.

The judgment of the supreme court of Michigan must be affirmed.

Has the Power of Community Organizing Been Gutted? Eric Holder is a Failure, What Happened?

Has the Power of Community Organizing Been Gutted? Eric Holder is a Failure, What Happened?

Former President Barack Obama gave massive power to a fellow Community Organizer, Eric Holder, made him an Attorney General and continued on with his partner after Obama left office giving Holder great prestige in Organizing for America, Obama’s militant Community Organizing platform, to flip statehouses of legislative bodies from Republicans to Democrat.

Holder and Obama both push the narrative that Progressive grassroots are “bad to the bone” and a powerful American movement to bring about the “positive changes” that they want.

Holder and Obama were supposed to be the “golden boys” of political success, and they delivered less than a first-year college Community Organizer could have given the Democrat party, they were deeply involved in The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which according to their site,” is the centralized hub for executing a comprehensive redistricting strategy that shifts the redistricting power, creating fair districts where Democrats can compete.”

So what happened to the two Community Organizers, who enjoyed what appeared to be historic popularity and support from American citizens since Obam’s days as a Senator? Why did their plans fail after so recently enjoying undying support from Americans?

Obama, in campaigning for Biden drew tiny little groups of people. It looked very strange.

The failure of the Community Organizers begs the question, was any of that support really real at all?

In his article, Democrats had a decade to consolidate power. They blew their chance,” Reid Wilson wrote:

“Leading up to Election Day, Democrats touted their chances of winning back key seats in Republican-held state legislatures around the country. Recapturing territory in states such as Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania could help the party lock in political power for a decade. If Democrats achieved this in enough districts, they could have averted their fate after the 2010 tea party wave.”

Yet Eric Holder appears to be unfazed by his total failure. His plans to Gerrymander fell flat, his promises broken. So much for the Community Organizer Kings, Obama and Holder.

But, Holder says, more is coming… perhaps he just needs another chance?

The brazen Eric Holder, former Attorney General and radical far left Community organizer, was on the mind of numerous election watchers:

Thomas Sowell wrote about Holder in his article, Voter Fraud and Voter I.D. :

“One of the biggest voter frauds may be the idea promoted by Attorney General Eric Holder and others that there is no voter fraud, that laws requiring voters to have a photo identification are just attempts to suppress black voting.

Reporter John Fund has written three books on voter fraud and a recent survey by Old Dominion University indicates that there are more than a million registered voters who are not citizens, and who therefore are not legally entitled to vote.

These were illegal votes for Democrats, which may well be why Eric Holder sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.

As for race-based “voter suppression,” amid all the political hysteria, how many hard facts have you heard? Probably none that supports that claim. Widely available free photo identification cards mean that poverty is no barrier to voting.

Holder was an unsuccessful leader who attempted to use racism as a foundation for a popular uprising, and he was a total failure in that.

Political commentator Larry Elder doesn’t like Holder’s tactics of using racism to organize people, which was his MO during the Obama years at Attorney General, and has called him out about numerous times over it:

Holder was a major stakeholder with Obama’s radical ideology for the United States, and he was giving massive resources and access. Yet he failed. Is it time yet for the Democrat party to reevaluate the Community Organizing tactics of the left?

Here is an example of Holder’s radical ideas, dressed up as Community Organizing:

In this video from 2018, Holder clearly identifies himself as a Community organizer as the Democrat national redistricting committee. His purpose was to “uplift black voices” and describes his plans for flipping state houses,beginning in Wisconsin.

“We are filing lawsuits in Wisconsin to empower people,” Holder said, talking his tactics to flip statehouses in a number of battleground areas, claiming he would use the power that was created to do so by the popularity of Obama’s presidency.

Wonder why that didn’t work.


Holder’s organizing attempts were a total failure, will they learn to change their tactics? Are the progressives really the most powerful movement in America? What do the 2020 elections tell you?