President Donald J. Trump filed a Motion to Intervene, on Wednesday, in the following Supreme Court Case:
STATE OF TEXAS,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Filed by John C. Eastman.
Trump Campaign Statement.
According to the Federalist Society:
“Dr. John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1999, specializing in Constitutional Law, Legal History, and Property. He also leads the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute that he founded in 1999. He has a Ph.D. in Government from the Claremont Graduate School and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School, and a B.A. in Politics and Economics from the University of Dallas. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage and is Chairman of the Federalist Society’s Federalism & Separation of Powers practice group.”
THIS IS HIS WORK:
From the filing, “Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, respectfully seeks to leave to intervene in the pending original jurisdiction matter of State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., No. 22O155 (filed Dec. 7, 2020). The plaintiff in Intervention seeks to leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint in Intervention against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (“Defendant States”), challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election.”
Trump calls out COVID measures that went around the US Constitution and changed the voting process.
(Excerpts from the 34 page filing)
“As set forth in the accompanying brief and Complaint in Intervention, election officials in each of the Defendant States altered or otherwise failed to enforce state election laws in the conduct of 2020.”
BILL OF COMPLAINT IN
Our Country is deeply divided in ways that it arguably has not been seen since the election of 1860.
There is a high level of distrust between the opposing sides, compounded by the fact that, in the election just held, election officials in key swing states, for apparently partisan advantage, failed to conduct their state elections in compliance with state election law, in direct, violation of the plenary power that Article II of the U.S. Constitution confers on the Legislatures of the States. Indeed, a recent poll by the reputable Rasmussen polling firm indicates that 47% of all Ameri-
cans (including 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats), believe that it is “likely” or “very likely” the election was stolen from the current incumbent President. !
The fact that nearly half of the country believes the election was stolen should come as no surprise. President Trump prevailed on nearly every historical indicia of success in presidential elections. For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States. And he won these traditional swing states by large margins—Ohio by 8 percentage points and 475,660 votes; Florida by 3.4 percentage points and 371,686 votes. He won 18 of the country’s 19 so-called “bellwether” counties.
This, despite the fact that the nearly 75 million votes he received—a record for any incumbent President—was nearly 12million more than he received in the 2016 election,also a record (Gin contrast to the 2012 election, in which the incumbent received 3 million fewer votes than he had four years earlier but nevertheless prevailed). These things just don’t normally happen, and a large percentage of the American people know that something is deeply amiss.
This Court adjudicates cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, of course. It does not decide elections. That is the role of voters who cast lawful ballots. But the Constitution does contain rules that are obligatory on all agents of the government—including those who conduct elections.
When election officials conduct elections in a manner that contravenes the Constitution of the United States, grave harm is done not just to the candidates on the ballot but to the citizenry’s faith in the election process itself.
In the 2020 election, under the guise of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, election officials in several key states, sometimes on their own and sometimes in connection with court actions brought by par-tisan advocates, made a systematic effort to weaken measures to ensure fair and impartial elections by creating new rules for the conduct of the elections—rules that were never approved by the legislatures of the defendant states as required by Article II of the
United States Constitution. These new rules were aimed at weakening, ignoring, or overriding provisions of state law that are aimed at ensuring the integrity of the voting process.
As more particularly alleged in the Bill of Complaint filed by the State of Texas, for the first time in history, these officials flooded their States with millions of ballots sent through the mail, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody and, at the same time, intentionally weakened or eliminated the few existing security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.
For example, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State issued guidance purporting to suspend the signature verification requirements, in direct violation of state law.
In Michigan, the Secretary of State illegally flooded the state with absentee ballot applications
mailed to every registered voter despite the fact that state law strictly limits the ballot application process.
In Wisconsin, the largest cities all deployed hundreds of unmanned, unsecured absentee ballot drop boxes
that were all invalid means of returning absentee votes under state law. In Georgia, the Secretary of
State instituted a series of unlawful policies, including processing ballots weeks before election day and
destructively revising signature and identity verification procedures.
In all cases, absentee ballots were mailed to people without even a perfunctory attempt to verify the recipient’s identity or eligibility to vote, including residency, citizenship, and criminal records. When re-
turned and counted, the ballots were typically separated from their security envelopes, divorcing them
from any information that could have helped determine whether the votes were legally cast.
The effort to weaken ballot security measures did not merely arise in an atmosphere of the chaos of an elec-
tion arising in a global pandemic. There was a nationwide campaign to weaken ballot security and integrity
through over three hundred lawsuits filed by partisan operatives in the months and weeks prior to the 2020 election.
To the extent these drastic and fraud-inducing changes in state election law were done without the
consent of the state legislature, the federal constitution was violated. Article IT provides that only state
legislatures can make rules for presidential elections. Election officials—either on their own or in cooperation with courts—can not change the rules either weeks in advance or in the midst of the election process,
This is no mere procedural requirement. For without compliance with the rule of law, elections are subject to the very real prospect that fraud could occur in the election.
Leaving ballot boxes in public parking lots invites fraud. And when the traditional rules for validating voter signatures and identity are waived, overruled, or ignored, the opportunity for fraud is greatly increased.
And when the most common method of detecting fraud—comparing signatures of voters with their reg-
istration documents—is ignored, or envelopes are destroyed, proof of the fraud becomes extremely difficult.
The unlawful actions of election officials effectively destroy the evidence by which the fraud may be detected.
On March 6, 2020, in the Democratic Party of Georgia vu. Raffensperger, No. 1:19-cv-5028-WMR (N.D.
Ga.), Georgia’s Secretary of State entered a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release with the
Democratic Party of Georgia (the “Settlement”) to materially alter the statutory requirements for signature verification. O.C.G.A. §21-2-381(b) requires that election officials match the signature and other information on an application for an absentee ballot with the voter registration information on file, and § 21-2-
386(a) likewise requires that the signature on any returned absentee ballot be compared with both the registration signature and the application signature, be-fore that ballot can be counted. Yet pursuant to the
settlement, those standards were changed to allow absentee ballots to be counted if the signature
matched only the signature on the absentee ballot. application without the necessity of also matching the
signature on the voter registration card. Such statutory requirements are designed to minimize the risk
of fraud in the absentee ballot process, yet likely as a result of the Settlement requiring that these statutory
requirements are ignored, the invalidity rate of absentee ballots dropped from the historic average of about
three percent to a minuscule rejection rate of .87%, with the result that approximately 40,000 ballots
were counted that, based on historical rejection rates, should not have been counted.
This unconstitutional change in Georgia law appeared to materially benefit former Vice President
Biden. According to the Secretary of State’s office, former Vice President Biden had almost double the number of absentee votes (849,729) as President Trump
The effect of this unconstitutional change in Georgia election law, which made it more likely that ballots without matching signatures would be counted, had a material impact on the outcome of the election.