Busted! Independent Media Does Job Wray and Barr Refuse to Do: Woman ID’ed in Shocking Video of GA Ballot Stuffers

Busted! Independent Media Does Job Wray and Barr Refuse to Do: Woman ID’ed in Shocking Video of GA Ballot Stuffers

Shocking video of what appears to be large scale fraud with illegal ballots in the state of Georgia, that could overturn the State’s certification if investigated, was played by the legal team of President Donald J. Trump on Wednesday morning in front of a State House hearing.

A woman testified that the video showed a group of ballot counters being told to go home because of a leak in the building, and then a group of 4 people who remained pulled out suitcases of ballots from under tables and entered them into tabulation machines. It appeared to be suspicious enough to warrant an investigation.

The Attorney General William Barr was quoted as saying, on Tuesday, that the FBI had not seen enough fraud to overturn the election, so they weren’t looking at any fraud.

Independent media has identified someone who appears to be one of the four people on the video who counted what appears to be illegal ballots and asked if the FBI or DOJ or any law enforcement could question the woman about what happened on video.

A woman in the purple shirt is clearly seen on video.

By Wednesday night, Gateway Pundit had identified and reported on the identity of the woman in the purple shirt, who allegedly appears on the video as one of the workers who pull ballots from under the table to tabulate.

According to his article, What’s Up, Ruby?… BREAKING: Crooked Operative Filmed Pulling Out Suitcases of Ballots in Georgia IS IDENTIFIED , Jim Hoft wrote:

We now have identified one of these criminals who were caught on video counting illegal ballots from a suitcase stashed under a table!

As you can see from the video one woman in a purple top was filmed helping pull out the ballots and then sitting down to count the ballots.

That woman has now been identified.

Local 11 News covered the story from the State Farm Arena that a pipe had allegedly burst. But there was no evidence of no such incident. As it turns out, this is why they did it.

Hoft Identified her from the following video:

Please Visit Gateway Pundit for the full article.

Estimates of the ballots that were potentially “stuffed” are more than the margin that currently separated Democrat Joe Biden and President Donald J. Trump, in what the state is calling the final vote tabulation.

There is trouble brewing over politicians who are insisting that Biden won, and they are ready to move along without any further investigation of numerous election integrity issues.

The Daily Beast, a far-left publication, reported on their her, “Gabriel Sterling—the de facto face of Georgia’s election system—was catching up on his emails when one message caught his eye. He did not recognize the sender, but their message was clear: his home address, followed by a winking face.

For weeks, Sterling, the voting systems implementation manager for Georgia’s government, has come before the cameras daily to affirm the integrity of the state’s election in the face of attacks from President Trump and his supporters, who are outraged that President-elect Joe Biden won the state.”

As mentioned above,

Sterling does not agree with members of Georgia’s state government who attended the hearing, who want an audit and would like the FBI and DOJ to investigate.

It is unknown if Sterling has seen the video, which reportedly was only viewed by people outside of the legal team, for the first time, within hours of hearing.

And now they have had heads up on where to find at least one of the women. Let’s see if they can ask her some questions.

Gen. Flynn First Televised Interview Since he was Named to Trump Administration

Gen. Flynn First Televised Interview Since he was Named to Trump Administration

Decorated three General Mike Flynn joined Lou Dobbs for his first interview, on Wednesday, to talk about a variety of issues including the 2020 Presidential election , and four years of political persecution due to the actions of former President Barack Obama.

“You inspire deep fear in the Deep State and the Obama administrations,” Dobbs said to Flynn.

Here is partial transcript of the interview:

“Something is clear that the prosecution of Genera Flynn is a reminder of something is clear that the outgoing team worked to under the the peaceful transfer of power and attacked the incoming team, including Flynn.

Flynn called in and said Dobbs had been relentless in the pursuit of truth, my faith of God is that he is an amazing strength and light. Since we were 13 years old, I have long time friends and the outreach by Americans gives me the relsilane to fight truth this and I appreciate the that the President gave me a pardon of innocence, because that is what it is. We prayed over it and came to the conclusion that taking the pardon would be the right thing to do because the judicial system would not work properly and thank you to President trump for coming through. This was a political prosecution of the higher order and no American should have to go through it.

At the end of the day people want me to say if I am upset with the white house of Trump, this was a set up and with the former administration, it was a set up by them, everyone knows that. It has come out great warrior fighting spirit of Sidney powell. The country should never be usurped by law enforcement ever again, the country has been damaged by this [corrupt actions] and we are feeling the pain in this election.

They did not want me standing next to Donald Trump in the early days of his adminsitraitons, I know how things work in the Nations Securoty systems, the transition Dear Lear Kim Jun un, and Mike Flynn it is laughable but also serious, and I would ask him if I ever see him: Why? He said I was public enermy one and more will come out about that, it is a part of history and part of my story.

I have a great network around the country of friends who are around the country and we are trying to figure out what happened, whe ave a crisis of confidence and people gave up their lives for one person one vote, nin 200 we are worried with country and now we have problems in hundreds of counties. In 6-8 states, I am watching the hearings, and remember that igeriosu corrupt and criminal behavior, Americans are giving great testimony at these hearings with Giuliani. The American public has close to zero confidence, they have lost fant in the Justice system now, and we can not have that. People are witness are in ICU, house broken into, car broken into and threats. Had to move and change her phone number, and these people are being brave. People we know reported things to the FBI and ver heard back from them.

Elections should not be decided in the courts. At the end of the day, they need to be decided by the people. The Governors of the states are going to have to have the guts to say they will have a fair election process of they are not. We are a Constitutional Republic.”

US Reps Demand: ‘This is the Hill to Die On, We Want Barr to Do a Forensic Audit of the Election’

US Reps Demand: ‘This is the Hill to Die On, We Want Barr to Do a Forensic Audit of the Election’

Reps Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jody Hice (R-GA), & other members of House Freedom Caucus called on AG Barr to release the findings of investigations into allegations of 2020 election fraud, in an impassioned plea for him to do his job and investigate their claims, which began before the election.

“Barr says there isn’t enough evidence to turn over the election. We don’t let people off for only trying to murder someone,” Rep. Louie Gohmert said.

“It’s time for accountability and justice for those who attempted to subvert our Constitution and the rule of law. We have been waiting patiently for the Durham findings, but we must have answers, transparency, and a day of reckoning,” Rep. Andy Biggs said.

“This is not a hill to die on, this is THE hill to die on,” Rep. Jody Hice said.

“We have been asking for the Attorney General to do something about protecting the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election, and now there is a fraud because people have not done their jobs. The rise and fall of the United States will fall on Barr and Druahm and save this little experience in self-government, and that is our message to the guys at the top, do your job!” Rep. Louie Gohmert from Texas said.

“The only way we will know is if they have federal investigators in now and do an audit. Votes were counted in secret, and we want to know why; we implore you, Barr, to work on this. American is the longest-serving democracy in the world, and it is the gold standard in the world; if we can not do it here, how can we help the world. The evidence of the fard that went on is glaring. We have had 45 Presidents with a peaceful transfer of power. China is offering a different kind of government to people around the world, and we do want that. We called on William Barr before the election, and a month ago. We asked him so that we can rely on the integrity of the election. They are created by people who have the ultimate power. Our authority comes from the people. We call on the Department of Justice to do something, and we are running out of time. We need Mr. Barr and the DOJ, FBI, and Christopher Wray to investigate,” Rep Andy Barr said.

“If they won’t, then I am afraid for the future of America,” Biggs said.

“Barr is capable and qualified, and he has what he needs to do the job, but he is missing in action,” Biggs said. “There are seven states that are battlegrounds with lawsuits, but we need the DOJ,” he said. “Each state has a different method for solving the problems. Count every legal ballot. The GOP and the Media and Cable networks won’t do their jobs either,” several representatives said.

Barr had made a statement earlier in the week that the FBI did not have any evidence of enough fraud to overturn the election.

Trump’s legal team says he is not looking at the fraud they are presenting.

President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr had a “contentious,” lengthy meeting inside the West Wing this week after Barr told The Associated Press in an interview that the Justice Department had uncovered no evidence of fraud that would change the election outcome, one person familiar with the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity told CNN.

It is unclear what Barr’s response wil be.

America Gaslighted: Excercise Designed to Take the 2020 Election Exposed as Battle Plan and Deconstructed

America Gaslighted: Excercise Designed to Take the 2020 Election Exposed as Battle Plan and Deconstructed

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal published a document that looks a lot like a manual on how to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election, and it has been published to the Internet so the plan was right out in plain sight, for anyone who knew where it was to read.

The document is titled, ” Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management, written by Edward B. Foley. following the author’s work and recent posts online feel as if we are watching someone playing a live action role-playing games- except this is a game that changes the direction of our lives, impacts our children’s futures and shapes the potential of an entire nation.

According to the Washington Post:

“Edward B. Foley of Columbus, Ohio is Contributing columnist focused on election law and administration education: Yale College, BA; Columbia University School of Law, JDEdward B. Foley, a Washington Post contributing columnist, writes on matters relating to election law and administration. Foley holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at Ohio State University, where he heads the university’s election law program. He also serves as an NBC News election law analyst. In 2016, his book “Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States” was named a finalist for the David J. Langum Sr. Prize in American Legal History; his most recent book, “Presidential Elections and Majority Rule,” explores the conception and evolution of the electoral college, while making the case for reform. Foley clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987-1988 and Chief Judge Patricia M. Wald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1986-1987. He has also served as state solicitor in the office of Ohio’s attorney general.”

According to Foley’s 54 page document:

This article considers the possibility that a major dispute over the outcome of the 2020 presidential election could arise, even without foreign interference or some other extraordinary event, but rather just form the ordinary process of counting ballots. Building upon previous research on the “blue shift” phenomenon, whereby adjustments in vote tallies during the canvassing of returns tends to advantage Democratic candidates, it is easy to imagine a dispute arising if this kind of “blue shift” were consequential in the presidential race. Using examples from both Pennsylvania and Arizona, two states susceptible to significant “blue shifts” in previous elections, the article shows how the dispute could reach Congress, where it potentially might metastasize into a full-fledged constitutional crisis. The most frightening scenario is where the dispute remains unresolved on January 20, 2021, the date for the inauguration of the new presidential term, and the military is uncertain as to who is entitled to receive the nuclear codes as commander-in-chief. In order to avoid this risk, Congress should amend the relevant statute, 3 U.S.C. § 15.”

The Document was brought to light by a poster who referred it to another poster on Twitter:

The Introduction to Foley’s exercise looks very familiar to anyone following current events:

“It is Election Night 2020. This time it is all eyes on Pennsylvania, as whoever wins the Keystone State will win an Electoral College majority. Trump is ahead in the state by 20,000 votes, and he is tweeting “The race is over. Another four years to keep Making America Great Again.”

The Associated Press (AP) and the networks have not yet declared Trump winner. Although 20,000 is a sizable lead, they have learned in recent years that numbers can shift before final, official certification of election results. They are afraid of “calling” the election for Trump, only to find themselves needing to retract the call—as they embarrassingly did twenty years earlier, in 2000. Trump’s Democratic opponent, _
(fill in the blank with whichever candidate you prefer; I will pick Elizabeth Warren since at the moment she is the front-runner according to prediction markets),1 is not conceding, claiming the race still too close to call. Both candidates end the night without going in front of the cameras. In the morning, new numbers show Trump’s lead starting to slip, and by noon it is below 20,000.”

Following a link to a Twitter account from the Washington Post leads to a Twitter account that seems to be mocking supporters of President Trump, and taunting readers to watch events unfold as if they were some sort of game:

As a former Community Organizer I often read the left’s organizing manuals and deconstruct them. This one feels coldly distant, with a strong hint of sadist pleasure the author, Foley, is “predicting” events – when in fact what he is really doing is signaling that he was a part of the plan to overthrow our election, and there is nothing we can do but watch.

The Document is similar to many weaknesses the left has, that being they love to brag about what they are doing to America and what they are doing with the trust that was placed with them, with the power and authority they have. The issues are control and dominance.

Foley’s greatest taunt and sadist games is on the final page of his document:

But what if there is a debate on whether or not the situation exists where “a President shall not have been chosen”? Suppose the House of Representatives thinks the electoral count remains incomplete because of an intractable dispute, and thus in its view the situation calls for an acting president until the dispute is resolved, whereas the outgoing vice president (before noon on January 20) believes that the electoral count has been brought to a conclusion despite the House’s objection, and thus the declared president-elect is entitled to all the powers of the office starting at the beginning of the new term. Does the Constitution, properly interpreted, provide an answer on whether the situation is one involving an acting president, as the House contends, or a president-elect, as the outgoing vice president contends? Related, if there were to exist the situation at noon on January 20 of two simultaneous claims to the status of commander-in-chief—one from previously incumbent president claiming to have been declared re-elected by the outgoing vice president, and the other from the Speaker of the
House claiming to assume the status of acting president given the House’s declaration that there is no president-elect because the electoral count remains disputed and incomplete—do military officials, including those
responsible for the control of nuclear weapons, wishing to obey the lawful commander-in-chief know how to decide who is the lawful commander in-chief?”

And if after that you feel as if you, as an American citizen have gas gaslighted, Congratulations, that means you are mentally independent and healthy.

Report: Over 1,000 Chinese Communist Military-Linked Researchers Have Self Deported from USA Because of Trump

Report: Over 1,000 Chinese Communist Military-Linked Researchers Have Self Deported from USA Because of Trump

There is some good news on the national horizon according to a report in the Epoch Times who has an extensive understanding of the Chinese Communist Party’s involvement in the United States, including how the US Department of Justice has brought Justice, numerous Chinese spies, over the last 4 years.

In a recent article, Over 1,000 Chinese Military-Linked Researchers Have Left US Since Federal Crackdown: DOJ Official ,Cathy He wrote:

More than 1,000 Chinese military-linked researchers have left the United States since authorities arrested several suspected undercover Chinese military officers over the summer, according to a senior Justice Department official.

Earlier this year, at least four Chinese researchers were arrested and charged with visa fraud for allegedly lying on their applications about their status as members of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the official name of the Chinese military. One of those researchers was harbored by the Chinese consulate in San Francisco for weeks before he was eventually arrested in late July.

A Chinese visiting student also was indicted on similar charges in January.

John C. Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, said those arrests “were just the tip of the iceberg,” leading to an investigation that uncovered a vast network of suspected undercover PLA researchers across the country.

“Between those … arrests, between the dozens of interviews that the bureau [FBI] did with other individuals who were here in similar circumstances, and then, ultimately, the closure of the Houston consulate to disrupt both foreign influence activity and economic espionage activity, more than 1,000 PLA-affiliated Chinese researchers left the country,” Demers said during a virtual discussion at the Aspen Cyber Summit on Dec. 2.

“They were part of a Chinese government effort to send these individuals here, and to send them here without disclosing their identity.”

Please visit The Epoch Times for the full article.

The news of the self department comes at the same time

The Trump administration unveiled an executive order on November 12, prohibiting U.S. investments in Chinese firms that Washington says are owned or controlled by the Chinese military.

The order could impact some of China’s biggest companies. It is designed to deter U.S. investment firms, pension funds, and others from buying and selling shares of 31 Chinese companies designated by the Defense Department as backed by the Chinese military earlier this year.

Below is a small part of a list of those companies based on Department of Defense data found here here and here here. Most of them have subsidiaries listed in mainland China and/or Hong Kong.

Aviation Industry Corporation of China

China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp

China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp

China Electronics Technology Group Corp

China South Industries Group Corp

China State Shipbuilding Corp

China North Industries Group Corp (Norinco Group)

Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology 002415.SZ

Huawei Technologies

Inspur Group

Aero Engine Corporation of China

China Railway Construction Corp 601186.SS1186.HK

CRRC Corp 601766.SS1766.HK

Panda Electronics Group

From the executive order, Trump is untangling the United States from China. That could be a be a big part of the agenda to keep him out of power.


I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is increasingly exploiting United States capital to resource and to  enable the development and modernization of its military, intelligence, and other security apparatuses, which continues to  allow the PRC to directly threaten the United States homeland and United States forces overseas, including by developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction, advanced conventional weapons, and malicious cyber-enabled actions against the United  States and its people.

Key to the development of the PRC’s military, intelligence, and other security apparatuses is the country’s large, ostensibly private economy.  Through the national strategy of Military-Civil Fusion, the PRC increases the size of the country’s military-industrial complex by compelling civilian Chinese companies to support its military and intelligence activities.  Those companies, though remaining ostensibly private and civilian, directly support the PRC’s military, intelligence, and security apparatuses and aid in their development and modernization.

At the same time, those companies raise capital by selling securities to United States investors that trade on public exchanges both here and abroad, lobbying United States index providers and funds to include these securities in market offerings, and engaging in other acts to ensure access to  United  States capital.  In that way, the PRC exploits United  States investors to finance the development and modernization of its military.

I therefore further find that the PRC’s military-industrial complex, by directly supporting the efforts of the PRC’s military, intelligence, and other security apparatuses, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its  source in substantial part outside the United States, to the  national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United  States.   To protect the United States homeland and the American people, I hereby declare a national emergency concerning this threat.

America Likely to have More Guns than People, 434 Million is Reported Number of Guns, Is it the Biden Agenda?

America Likely to have More Guns than People, 434 Million is Reported Number of Guns, Is it the Biden Agenda?

The left’s obsessive focus on gun owners may have had the opposite effect than they intended. They have pushed people to purchase more guns than ever before. SO, Americans really like guns, Gun sports are growing in popularity and people are worried about defending themselves, their families and their property.

America is now at the point that we have more guns than we have people, and that is not slowing down.

Some people think that as Democrat Joe Biden has appeared to increase in popularity, claiming he will take away guns, so has the pursuit of guns.

Guns.com reported:

“The trade association for the U.S. firearm industry crunched the numbers and came up with one solid fact: Americans really like guns.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation used data from the ATF, information from the Congressional Research Service, and reports from the U.S. International Trade Commission to get a snapshot of roughly how many guns are in current circulation in the country. 

This includes an estimated 434 million firearms in civilian possession, with about half, 214 million, of those entering the market since 1991. Of those, “America’s Rifle,” the AR-15 and similar semi-automatics dubbed Modern Sporting Rifles by the NSSF, account for an estimated 19.8 million, lending concrete numbers to the argument that such guns are in common use. 

The NSSF has argued that semi-auto firearms intended for the commercial market– which made up 70 percent of firearm production in recent years– are far from being “weapons of war,” as described by gun prohibitionists. “

Please visit Guns.com for their full article

Is it a reaction of Biden and the left? Recall-Biden is infamous for his comments on “double barreled shot guns” for women to shoot a warning shot to fend off attackers.

The Washington Examiner reported:

America’s recent election and the COVID-19 pandemic fueled a gun-buying binge that continued in November, making 2020 into the top year ever for firearms sales — by a country mile.

The FBI reported today that it recorded a 42% surge in background checks for firearms in November. Last month, it conducted 3.6 million. In November 2019, it was 2.5 million.

And already this year, the FBI has recorded 35.7 million background checks. In all of record-setting 2019, there were 28.3 million checks.

That means 2020 background checks for guns are already 25% over last year, and there is still a month to go. What’s more, December have historically been the biggest month for firearms sales.

Gun industry officials said this December will be even better for sales due to concerns that Democrat Joe Biden will attempt to impose drastic gun control measures and empower the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to begin shutting down gun assembly lines.

In several states this year, gun advocates have staged rallies to protect their Second Amendment rights, raising the issue to such a height that several gun dealers have told Secrets that they have been flooded with first-time buyers, including minorities and liberals.

Please visit Washington Examiner for the full article.

If Biden is seated as President of the United States, what will that do to the increase in gun sales? That might be motivation to tax gun owners to death.

America’s independence is at a crossroads, and we all feel it.

Leftist Tactics: Republicans Find Filled Body Bags and Anti-Trump Messages on Their Doorsteps

Leftist Tactics: Republicans Find Filled Body Bags and Anti-Trump Messages on Their Doorsteps

With so many politicians and their media allies accepting funding and promotion from foreign Governments and businesses that push back against the American Republic, to see body bags show up on Republican lawmaker’s doorsteps is a dangerous optic for people who are paying attention.

At a time when the country is deeply divided over the Presidential election, and over what are the acceptable powers of elected civil servants to shut down our economy and public institutions, to have their political opponents out using brute force to shut down the election process, and to taunt concerned Americans is a dangerous recipe.

This story shows the lengths to which the left will go to demand their way, to frighten people, and to destroy what civility may be left, as they attempt to win, “by any means necessary,” something the right is not equipped or able to comprehend.

After months of riots, crime sprees, abuse and even murder of Trump supporters, filled body bags is not a simple message.

The Western Journal recently reported:

“Republican senators who have rejected COVID relief packages that are the brainchild of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were targeted in a protest Tuesday in which body bags were left at their doors.

Senate Majority Mitch McConnell and Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were the focus of the protest.

At each senator’s Washington, D.C.-area residence, protesters dragged body bags from a truck and dumped them out front.”

Is it funny and just cute political theater, or is this a tactic designed to damage the peace of our society, to scare people, to push an agenda of fear? Knowing how the left works as a former Community Organizer, I will tell you, it is designed to paralyze the right because that is the intent of almost everything the left does.

This is not a simple “prank”. This is meant to hurt and scare the mind, and it is an enjoyable pursuit to the left:

The purpose of the left is to push boundaries, erode acceptable civility, and shock people with fear because then people are easier to beat. Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do to reason with the left because they are steadfast in beating the Republic.

The are not interested in debate or compromise.

Nothing had been done to control or stop the left in at least 30 years before President Donald J. Trump made some attempts, and many people are not assisting him at his level. It is unclear what steps he can take now to stop them from having their ultimate glory of boldly stealing a US Presidential election and shoving the celebration in our faces.

As time goes by, it seems we are losing more than we are gaining to the delight of the left, who apparently find zero value in their own loss of freedom and liberty. We have been invaded from within, and they are in full-blown revolt against us, while we are constrained with praying that the law will kick in at some point and protect our businesses and our families and futures.

Of course this is just putting words to what I hear so many concerned Americans saying.

Having Americans out in the streets with body bags to taunt our few guardians of the law is dispiriting, to say the least, and we are being assaulted with the political theater to hurt us. It is like living in a house with violent addicts.

And no, it is not normal.

Immigrants Decry Loss of America’s Election Integrity, Turn Into Witnesses At Michigan Senate Hearing with Giuliani

Immigrants Decry Loss of America’s Election Integrity, Turn Into Witnesses At Michigan Senate Hearing with Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani, the Attorney for President Donald J. Trump, presented several witnesses for the first time before a bipartisan legislative committee in Michigan to discuss alleged election irregularities and fraud during the presidential election, in front of a hostile group with Democrats acting boldly to discredit the witnesses. Noteworthy was that three people who are immigrants from India to America and felt great pain about the loss of Election Integrity they witnessed, and they faced a female Black Democrat representative who freaked out continuously, had tantrums, and was out of control and rude many times. It was apparent that she was baffled about the process. All witnesses were sworn under oath by avadavats and offered to be sworn in, Giuliani repeated numerous times. Early drama when a Democrat attempted to push a political agenda to stop the hearing. Jenna Ellis explained that the participants should rise above politics and do their jobs. A woman named Jessy Jacobs, a city of Detroit employee as a Head Engineer. Worked 9-4 opening mail and sorting ballots. On Sept 22nd she had ballot packages with 50 ballot in the packages. She testified that she worked at Election Department to backdate ballots starting around September 16, all with different dates. About 80 workers worked to falsify ballots. “What I was taught it was not good, there were 20 25 people Sept 30 to Oct. 1, and I tried to log into the laptops they were not working. I was told by the instructor that I didn’t need a laptop. I needed to record the lecture. I got permission. It doesn’t matter if the address is wrong or if signatures are different; no application should be rejected. You have to do everything that the voter gets a ballot to vote, sometimes. If voters walk in, they have house number and street name, they wanted us to find everything, and if we can’t, then we should set aside and let Election Headquarters deal with it, then I don’t know what happened. You have to do everything to match the signatures. No ballots were rejected; if I rejected them, they were accepted by someone else. I worked there for a month. I remember that I rejected 2 or 3 ballots, and they got furious, and I would ask the supervisor,” Jacob said. “Did you see supervisors show people how to vote for Biden,” Giuliani said, and there was a pause…. Jacobs sighed, and paused, and deflated said, “Yes.” Jacobs said she saw a man intimidate voters, and “I knew it was wrong I didn’t say anything. I saw three men with Black Lives Matter shirts, one with a flag came in to drop off absentee ballots, one was cheering was taking photos. I knew it was wrong, but I was sitting there at my desk doing my processing jobs. I was told to stop asking for a driver’s license. I was not comfortable, and I would say in a low voice to as for their license, to make myself comfortable. For my own peace of mind, I asked for a driver’s license to verify the signature you are supposed to ask for before you start processing the ballot. I remember that I questioned someone and said that he said that the signature is from 10 years ago. He walked out,” Jacob said. She went on to say that about 100 ballots were spoiled and for all the sites 25,000-30,000 ballots. “Those are illegal ballots,” Giulani said. A Democrat participant started yelling and had to be told to be quiet. I don’t know what happened if they were shredded or not,” Jacobs said. There was a dispute over an absentee ballot. There was an issue because it was after the deadline, and her supervisor wanted it backdated; the issue was that the voter was registered in 2010. You are not supposed to give an absentee ballot, at that point, to an already registered voter. I wrote on a sticky note that the ballot was not valid. And I heard the supervisors talking about my note, and one said- She is right, but why should we punish voters for a processor’s mistake?” Jacobs said. “And they counted it.” The supervisor kept telling me to go more quickly, not to check signatures, not to write out notes. And the head supervisor told me not to worry about signatures that didn’t match. They humiliated me, treated me like a criminal, it was so bad. I am truthfully and sincerely working with the city for 34 years and very proud, and I never expected this treatment. “She said, almost crying. “They told me to get out, and one supervisor threw her badge at me. I couldn’t believe it. Then they refused to give me work,” she said. I am thankful for this country because I am who I am because of this country- I had high hopes to help. I am a Catholic and for my children. Thank you, Jesus. I like my supervisors in the engineering department, and I like all of my people. FACT CHECK ON HER TESTIMONY: One of the Democrats who berated Jacobs told her she was confused over laws, she wasn’t.
Jacobs got upset and said, “I worked for two months at the Election, but to the city I am thankful to the city Ms. Johnson,” she said. Democrats freaked out, yelled and threw a fit to intimidate Jacob. A woman named Melissa Carrone a Dominion Voting System was next. She also testified in front of the Senate Tuesday, who talked about the ballots and batches of ballots that were counted repeatedly. “They were counting the same ballots 9-10 times each. There were 20 to 24 machines. I observed this happening a thousand times. I saw a few Republicans. I know they were cheating,” Carrone said. “More people don’t come forward because Democrats like to ruin your life; we had 120% turn out. Why don’t people know this? I had to swear that my story was truthful, did you?” Carrone said. A Democrat representative, Cynthia Johnson, interrupted, screaming and yelling for the fourth or fifth time and being very rude, insisting Carrone be put under oath, and Carrone said she was under oath by an affidavit. Cynthia Johnson was yelling and screaming again, numerous times interrupting the chair many times. Two more witnesses talked about watching tabulations on the Dominion machines. One woman, named Hema, said that because of jams, there were over counts; she could not say how many or if it was done on purpose, but that people were counting ballots over and over. “The people didn’t get enough training. I am an immigrant; this country gave me a platform. I love this country. I have a lot of respect for this country; coming here where we have no one, we have courage, it is scary. I am very private, but I know what is at stake. I am saying this needs to be fixed; I am not saying who is right or wrong. How is our vote being duplicated, and seeing the fraud was heartbreak? The Democrat’s poll watchers were there to intimidate us and get us out. I had a Democrat telling me of getting these MFers, and then the poll workers were focused on White males for having a mask slip, which left us there with few numbers s. The GOP workers were treated differently than anyone else,” she said. Hema said that she witnessed racism: that white Republicans were mistreated and escorted out because of their skin color. It was heartbreaking to watch Americans being mistreated, treated like criminals, and escorted out to cheering mobs, and that was what made me decide to do this and talk. A man testified, “Employees were stealing boxes of duplicate ballots and take them around to different tables, around 4 AM we had a news shipmen of ballots, I saw Mr. Baxter bringing in boxes, each one about 600 ballots, put on 10 tables, I approximate about 50,000 ballots on the table. This was the second round of ballots. So with the shift change, people were tired. At 5 am, most people left. At 6 AM, Mr. Baxter said this is what Democracy looks like, and the workers cheered. There was an imbalance of poll workers. With the duplicate ballots, none were for Trump. Poll workers changed mixed ballots for straight ballots for Democrats; I saw them filling them out. Duplicates of ballots,” he said.
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.