|
Copyright Terms
A project of the People's legal Front
Plaintiff:
Marc Perkel
San Francisco, Ca.
Email: marc@perkel.com
In the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California
|
Plaintiff,
Vs
United States of America,
Defendant |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No: C004288-SI |
Marc Perkel – Pro Se - Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a voter.
Defendant – United States of America
Jurisdiction of this action is based upon federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Sections 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), and 2201 and the Due Process Clause of Art. IV of the United States Constitution. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's common law claims, infra, and venue is proper pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1391. The issue before this court is the violation of the Plaintiff's civil rights, under the 1st and 14th Amendments, pursuant to Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and raises federal questions and constitutional issues.
The Plaintiff comes to challenge the constitutionality of the electoral system and the 12th Amendment to the Constitution on the basis that the 12th Amendment of the Constitution conflicts with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Plaintiff asks this court to make findings of fact and law and issue declaratory decision(s), and as a result of those decisions, issue declaratory and injunctive relief in order to fashion a remedy based upon the courts findings of fact and law. Additionally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to make findings of fact and law that the balloting systems used in various counties are sufficiently diverse and imprecise; so as to introduce an unacceptably high rate of error and are insufficiently secure and are sufficiently arbitrary so as to undermine the “one man one vote” doctrine of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Plaintiff contends that we have the technology to do better and therefore we must.
The Plaintiff recognizes that his case is unique and that he is unaware if the Constitution have ever been challenged on the basis that it conflicts with itself. However, if such a conflict exists, then it is logical to assume that it is the federal courts who should properly determine this and would be compelled to remedy the conflict in the interest of resolving for the People what the Constitution really means.
The Plaintiff brings this action, in part, to resolve what may be a constitutional crisis in that the electoral system in this presidential election may fail to produce a result for which the voter can rely upon as being the will of the People, and that if the electoral system is declared unconstitutional, that the will of the people would be more accurately reflected by the popular vote. However, the Plaintiff is not specifically asking for this remedy and is not directly challenging here this specific election. The Plaintiff does recognize however, that the results of this action might result in an affect and therefore leaves the remedy open for the wisdom of this court to determine.
Briefly, the Plaintiff contends that it is well established in law that the 14th Amendment supports the “one man one vote” doctrine, and that under that doctrine that every persons vote is to be as equal as possible to every other persons vote, and that election systems which dilute the will of voters or which have inconsistent rules for similarly situated voters in the same election have been ruled unconstitutional. The Plaintiff contends that the 12th Amendment and other Articles of the Constitution violate the “one man one vote” doctrine established by the 14th Amendment and that in fact the 14th Amendment supercedes the Electoral College system, and that the Electoral College system should be declared void.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff contends that the 12th Amendment and the 14th Amendment might not have originally been in conflict in the past, but that the 12th Amendment and various other articles of the Constitution were, in fact, the best way of implementing a method to determine the Will of the People based upon 18th century technology. However, in the 21st century that the method has become so obsolete as to produce a result that is in conflict with the Will of the People, especially as evidenced in the current election where the Electoral College has failed, or will likely fail, to produce a result which reflects the Intent of the Voters.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that the 14th Amendment, under the equal protection clause, establishes a principle, that every person is entitled to a vote, and that the votes are counted as equally and consistently as practical. The Plaintiff argues that the 12th Amendment merely establishes a method for implementing the principle, and that the principle of “one man one vote” is superior to the method implemented 200 years ago and based upon 18th century technology. And that this is especially true in light of the fact that the Plaintiff believes that it is likely that the Electoral College will fail to produce a result, or to produce a result that conflicts with the Will of the People, or a result that can not be relied upon as accurately reflecting the Will of the People.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff points out to the Court that the Electoral College represents a national security risk in that if one party wins by a single electoral vote, as what might happen this year, that if merely two electors are bribed or threatened that the outcome of the election could be changed.
In support of the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff states the following facts:
That the number of electors from the various states are determined by the sum of the number of congressional districts plus two (one for each senator) and that because of this, the vote of an individual from the least populous state carries more weight (by a factor of 3.8) than the vote of an individual from the most populous state.
That the states of Maine and Nebraska select their electors proportionally to the vote, where the other 48 states are “winner take all” state, and that these two different methods create an inconsistency between these states resulting in an inequality.
That under the Constitution the electors can use their individual judgement and are not legally bound to vote in a manner for which they were elected.
That in a close race where the vote of one or two electors determines the outcome, that a bribe or threat against one or two people out of 538 electors could change the outcome as to whom becomes president.
That the electors of some states are required to take an oath as to who they will vote for, and that other states require no oath, and that these oaths are not consistent.
That the various states and various counties have a wide variety of rules and procedures which have a wide degree of clarity and precision and protections against fraud and mischief.
That the rules for elections vary from state to state and that the methods of voting and the ballot technology vary, not only for state to state, but from county to county, and as a result the votes of the citizens in one state carry a different weight than that of other states.
That since the 12th Amendment was passed, that the world now has new technologies that didn’t exist at the time and could not be foreseen. These new technologies include the telephone, facsimile, the telegraph, the automobile, trucks, computers, voting machines, the Internet, radio, television, communication satellites, and airplanes. And that 18th century technology included some trains, the post office, horseback, and stagecoaches.
We have before us an example of electoral failure in the current presidential election where it appears that the election will be determined by several judges operating under a variety of laws and rules, many of which are local rules, which will determine the outcome of a national election.
New technology exists that can significantly improve the accuracy of determining the will of the people.
In support of his standing to bring this action, the Plaintiff states:
The Plaintiff is currently a resident of San Francisco California. The Plaintiff has rented an apartment, opened checking accounts with a local address, and has paid taxes in San Francisco to establish a fictitious business name to do business in San Francisco.
Plaintiff was a resident of Springfield Missouri on October 17th 2000 where he voted by absentee ballot in the Missouri election.
The Plaintiff voted for Al Gore for the office of President of the United States.
The majority of votes in the State of Missouri went to George Bush and thus all of the electors of Missouri are representing the Republican Party and are pledges to vote for George Bush.
Thus this process has nullified the effect of the Plaintiff’s vote and given the choice for president to Bush voters. If not for the Electoral College, and if there were a popular vote, the Plaintiff’s ballot would carry the same weight as that of every other person in Missouri as well as the rest of the United States. In fact, due to the Electoral College system, this election will be determined by the courts, rules, customs, and time limitations of a few counties in the Sate of Florida. This gives tremendous voting powers to a very few people to determine the outcome of this election and that voting errors in Florida have more weight than voting errors in all of the other states.
In a popular vote system, the voting irregularities of all areas would have the same effect as any one area. But for the Electoral College, we would not be looking to only Florida and perhaps a single county judge in Palm Beach Florida to determine who will win a national election for President of the United States. These votes have 100% of the weight and the Plaintiff’s vote has none.
On that basis, the Plaintiff was harmed and is right to vote was debased and he therefore has standing to bring this challenge. In the case of Bush, Governor Of Texas, v. Vera et al. 1996.SCT.111 the Supreme Court ruled wit relation to standing to challenge a similar election procedure stated:
Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy, concluded:
1. Plaintiff Chen, who resides in District 25 and has not alleged any specific facts showing that he personally has been subjected to any racial classification, lacks standing under United States v. Hays, 515 U. S. ___, ___. But Plaintiffs Blum and Powers, who reside in District 18, Plaintiffs Thomas and Vera, who reside in District 29, and Plaintiff Orcutt, who resides in District 30, have standing to challenge Districts 18, 29, and 30. See, e.g., id., at ___. Pp. 2-3.
The Plaintiff as a voter whose vote was debased by the system would therefore have standing to bring this action. The Plaintiff also stands to be harmed if the State fails to implement procedures to ensure that it can determine the Will of the People.
Additionally the Plaintiff has been harmed buy the possibility that the outcome of the presidential election may not reflect the Will of the People, and/or that even if it does that the public confidence in the outcome will cripple or interfere with his exercise of power, thus debasing the Plaintiff of his right to have a process that can accurately determine the Will of the People and produce as a result. The Plaintiff is also harmed in that the current system fails to provide preferential voting forcing the Plaintiff to against the person he fears most at the expense of being able to vote for choices he feels are more qualified. The Plaintiff is further harmed by a system that is technically archaic and technologically inferior and is open to fraud and abuse and the subjective whims of partisan who would usurp the outcome of the process.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff is harmed by other issues relating to election law as referenced in his brief either directly or indirectly. And for all these reasons, the Plaintiff has standing to bring this action.
This action is directed at challenging the system itself and not the election directly. However, the Plaintiff realizes in his opened prayer for relief that this Court might in its judgement decide to make rulings that affect the rights of other interested parties who would be properly joined to this action. Thus the Plaintiff will email this pleading and brief to Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush.
Because the Plaintiff is pro se, the Court has a higher standard when faced with a motion to dismiss. White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 makes this point clear and states:
A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)).
Thus, if this court were to entertain any motion to dismiss this court would have to apply the standards of White v. Bloom. Thus if there is any possible theory that would entitle the Plaintiff to relief, even one that the Plaintiff hasn't thought of, the court can not dismiss this case.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marc Perkel asks that this court find that he has standing to bring this action and that this court has jurisdiction to hear this action and grant the relief sought. The Plaintiff prays for the court to grant the following declaratory and injunctive relief:
That the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution established the “one man one vote” doctrine, and that all similarly situated voters should have the same voting powers.
The Plaintiff asks that this count make a finding that the number of electors that represent the smaller state give a stronger voice to it’s voters than that of the larger states.
That the differences in the oaths required of some electors in some states as compared to other states creates a significant inconsistency so as to violate the “one man one vote” principle.
That the inconsistencies in local voting rules and customs are significantly different so as to violate the “one man one vote” principle.
That the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment establishes that the People have a right to have, and the United States, as well as the various States and Counties, have a duty to provide, the best balloting technology that can reasonably be had to insure both uniformity, security, choice (including preferential voting), and precision in determining the Will of the People.
To declare that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution is in direct conflict with the Electoral College method.
That the principle of “one man one vote” established by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should take precedent over the Electoral College method established by various articles of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment.
To declare that the Electoral College provision(s) of the Constitution are void.
To declare the fact that as few as two electors need to be bribed or threatened to change who becomes the president represents a national security issue.
That technology exists that would greatly enhance the accuracy, choices, and security of the balloting systems, and that the People have a right to have that technology implemented.
That the voters have a right to a balloting system that supports preferential voting.
The Plaintiff asks for declaratory relief for any other issue raised directly or indirectly in his attached brief.
To make whatever other findings and declarations the court sees fit and proper.
Based upon the findings of law and fact and upon the declarations made by this court, the Plaintiff prays for the appropriate injunctive relief that would be consistent with these findings and declarations. Due to the weight and complexity of these issues, the Plaintiff leaves the remedy to the Court to determine.
If this court were to make findings and issue injunctive relief that would affect the outcome of this election, then it would be appropriate for this court to expedite this matter due to its national importance.
________________________________
Marc Perkel - Plaintiff - 11-16-00
Brief Attached
Note to Court and Parties:
Plaintiff prefers to be notified and be served and to serve by email.
marc@perkel.com
Plaintiff:
Marc Perkel
San Francisco, Ca.
Email: marc@perkel.com
In the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California
|
Marc Perkel, Plaintiff,
Vs
United States of America,
Defendant |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No: C004288-SI |
The right to vote is a “fundamental political right” Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 370 (1886). This right is “denied by debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533 554 (1964). The Supreme Court noted, “The conception of political equality … can only mean one thing - one person one vote. The idea that every voter is equal to ever other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.” Id. At 557-58 (Citations Omitted). This right is established by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and is contradictory to the 12th Amendment and because of this contradiction the Plaintiff challenges the Electoral system as unconstitutional and that other parts of the Constitution carry more weight.
According to the census web site at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/st-99-1.txt, the Population of Wyoming is 479,602. It has 3 electors with a ratio of 159,867 voters per elector. In contrast, California has a population of 33,145,121 with 54 electors and a ratio of 613,799 voters per elector. Thus a Wyoming voter has 3.8 times the voting power of a California voter. The Plaintiff contends that this is prima fascia evidence of a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that this ration is significant and that the Electoral College is therefore unconstitutional. Missouri has a population of 5,468,338 with 11 electors and 497,122 voters per elector. The question the Plaintiff poses to this Court is; Did the framers intend to give the voters of Wyoming 3.8 times as much voting power as California, or is that merely the result of an imperfect method base upon 18th century technology and circumstances?
This is not the first time that articles of the Constitution became obsolete or were ignored due to changes in society and other amendments being passed. For example, Article I Section II Clause III of the constitution specifies a method of counting the census. This count is based on the number of “free persons” and three fifths of other persons. In the mid 1800s the 13th and 15th Amendments were ratified, but they did not specifically overrule or repeal the provisions for taking the census. However, we now count blacks and women in the census. This is because we used common sense to infer that these changes directly affected the method of taking the census and that the principle that blacks and slaves were people and could vote inferred that the method of counting no longer served the principle.
The Plaintiff contends here that the Electoral College method is superceded by the principle of “one man one vote” established in law by the 14th Amendment. The Plaintiff contends it is only distinguished in that over the years the Electoral College has generally produced the same result as the popular vote and has therefore not created a need to be examined, until now. Because this conflict had produced an approximate result, the issue has been ignored. But we are now faced with an election for president where the Electoral system will fail to produce a result that the voters can rely upon, or maybe fail to produce a result at all. That would then raise the issue as to what to do and what the Plaintiff’s rights are to have a president whose election represents the Will of the People.
The Electoral System is not a stable institution that has existed unchanged for 200 years. It is, in fact, a moving target. The procedures for selecting electors has changed greatly since our first presidential elections. In the beginning, many states didn’t even have a popular vote for president. The electors were chose by the House and Senate of the various states. Each State had it’s own rules and those rules have changed so dramatically as to have fundamentally changed the process without amending the Constitution itself. Today the process continues to change on a State by State basis. In this shift the State are moving towards more uniformity and the use of greater technology. But more fundamentally, the shift is moving towards reflecting the popular vote of the people. The Plaintiff therefore contends that this Court should decide this issue from a forward-looking perspective rather than historical precedent.
Suppose, for example, that every state changed their rules for choosing electors and that every state decided that all of their electors are chosen based upon who wins the national popular vote. Such a decision would be permissible under the Constitution and would have the effect of establishing a popular vote for president while remaining within the method established by the 12th Amendment. This would raise the question is States can be REQUIRED under Constitutional principles to select their electors based upon a national popular vote. The Plaintiff contends the answer is Yes, based upon the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the “one man one vote” doctrine.
When it comes to state elections, the courts have consistently held in favor of state sovereignty. In the case of Citizens for Legislative Choice v. Miller 144 F.3d 916, 1998.C06.155 the Supreme Court ruled that:
The Supreme Court of West Virginia upheld the term limits. Maloney, 223 S.E.2d at 612-13. It found that West Virginia's interests outweighed any incidental burden on the franchise. Id. The governor then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In a one-sentence opinion, the Court held that "[t]he appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." Moore, 425 U.S. at 946. The Moore Court dismissed the appeal "on the ground that limits on the terms of state officeholders do not even raise a substantial federal question under the First and Fourteenth Amendments." U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 925 (1995) (Thomas, J., joined by three other Justices, dissenting on another issue).
However, in the case of federal elections, the court ruled quite differently. The Supreme Court ruled that the State of Arkansas could not impose Term Limits on it’s U.S. Congressmen because, among other things, would create an imbalance in representation between the various states. In the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 925 (1995) the Court held:
State imposition of term limits for congressional service would effect such a fundamental change in the constitutional framework that it must come through a constitutional amendment properly passed under the procedures set forth in Article V. Absent such an amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a ``more perfect Union.''
Thus, in the case of a federal office, the rules must be consistent nationally, where a state office the rules can be set by local state standards. The federal government only steps into state elections if they find that there is a violation of the “one man one vote” principle within the state itself. In the case of Bush, Governor of Texas, v. Vera et al. 1996.SCT.111, the Supreme Court stepped in to rule that Texas could not draw congressional districts based upon the race of the residents.
Historically however, we have elections for both state and federal elections on the same day and on the same ballot. Because the ballot contains both kinds of elections, two conflicting sets of rules seem to apply. Historically the courts have deferred to the authority of the state, but the reason as to why that is relates more to practical methods that principles of law. Each district has to print it’s own ballots which vary from district to district because each district has local candidates and issues that apply to a limited geographical area. Because of this, the Plaintiff contends, that the federal election issue is ignored. There are more state candidates and if you have to choose one set of rules, it is logical to defer to the states.
However, this need to pick state rules over federal rules is based on the idea that you can’t have both. But computer technology changes all that. Using computer technology, the federal government can control the rules of voting for the federal candidates while allowing the states to simultaneously control the balloting for state officials and allowing counties to control the balloting for county officials.
The Plaintiff therefore contends that this Court could rule that the states can be required, based upon the 14th Amendment “one man one vote” principle, to select electors based upon who wins the national popular vote.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff contends that the 14th Amendment requires states to implement computerized voting systems that can implement federal requirement for federal offices as well as state requirements for state offices simultaneously.
In this election in particular, the winner is likely to be determined by the vote of a single elector. There are a total of 538 electors that can vote any way they choose to. The electors may decide to override the Will of the People, and in a close race could easily justify changing their expected vote in either direction reversing the expected outcome. It also raises security issues in that either party, or foreign influences, including the enemies of America can bribe any two electors and change the outcome of who becomes president of the United States. The Plaintiff contends that a national security issue therefore exists and that this Court has a duty to address that issue.
It has been pointed out that in our past there have been a number of elections where the president failed to win the popular vote. An opposing argument might be, “We elected Rutherford B. Hays and the country survived it.” Rutherford was referred to as Rutherfraud at that time because the People were dissatisfied that the vote was fair. Looking back to history there have been a number of decisions in all states that accept a reasonable amount of fraud and mistake to occur in elections, and if “the system” picks a person that does not reflect the Will of the People, that we must preserve “the system”. The Plaintiff, presuming to speak in behalf of the People of the 21st century, state to this Court that the standards in the election of Rutherford B. Hays are no longer acceptable and asks the Court to find as such.
The Plaintiff points out that over time that the People now tolerate less and less public corruption than they used to and that the evolution of case law is toward raising the standards of government. In fact, due to new technologies like Radio, Television, and the Internet, the People are different than the People were 200 years ago. We are more literate, educated, and informed than we were then. Many of the methods of voting 200 years ago were designed to protect the people from graft and corruption based upon the technologies at the time. The Plaintiff contends that the spirit of the Constitution has not changed, nor should it. The government exists for the sole purpose of serving the people. However, we should distinguish the principles of the Constitution from the methods of implementing those principles and examine if the methods still serve to accomplish the principles.
In the current election we are still using punch cards that have an impermissibly high error rate due to paper chads and counting machines that are not sufficiently accurate to count these ballots. In the counties where, due to the Electoral College, will determine who will become president, there lacks a set of consistent rules to determine how to fix the inaccurate methods, leaving the decision as to who wins to the courts. It is not a national embarrassment that America had a close race. It is a national embarrassment however that we are not capable of counting our votes. It is an embarrassment that ballot boxes are lost and then found. It is an embarrassment that tens of thousands of votes are “damaged” and that these unknown voters have been debased of their right to vote. In the Florida election, for example, it appears to the People and to the World that we really don’t know who won that election and that the winner will be determined by either a partisan Republican Secretary of State or a Florida Supreme Court who were appointed by Democrats.
The Plaintiff contends that Television has made a difference in the expectations of the People. 200 years ago, if ballots in Florida were being counted improperly, the People would never know about it. However, due to Television, we can now see the votes being counted live and because of this the People expect higher standards.
The Plaintiff contends that this is unacceptable to the People and that the voters of the 21st century will no longer accept this level of imprecision. We live in an age where we have computer systems that are secure enough to do billions of business transaction a day with an extremely low rate of error. Our computer systems are so sophisticated that much of our money itself does not exist in any physical for, but merely as data on computers. I therefore ask this Court, if we have computers that can handle our money in a manner that is safe, secure, and accurate, then doesn’t the Government have a duty to use that technology for our elections? The Plaintiff contends it does and asks the Court to find that such a duty exists.
Preferential voting is a method that allows the voter to register a second choice in an election of more that two candidates. The idea being that if no candidate wins more than 50% of the votes, that the candidate with the least votes is dropped and the second choice is substituted for all of those votes and the totals are recalculated to produce a winner. In this presidential election, for example, a Ralph Nader voter could vote for Nader and have Gore as a second choice. Likewise a Buchannan voter could vote Bush as a second choice. As the Nader and Buchannan votes are dropped, they would turn into Gore and Bush votes. This system would allow voters to vote both their hopes and fears and without having runoff elections. The Plaintiff contends that in this election that if preferential voting existed, that the election would have produced a clear winner.
This is a system that is best implemented by computer in that a computer could count the votes, make the changes, and recount the votes in a fraction of a second. Computers also eliminate other problems such as “pregnant chads” and voting for more than one candidate. A computer can also rotate the order of the candidates for every voter allowing each candidate to be on top an equal number of times and thus eliminating any advantages based upon ballot placement.
The Plaintiff contends that because the technology exists to do this, that the State has a duty to use this technology and that the People have a fundamental right to have this technology, and that this Court should make a finding that this is so.
In the case of Ray v. Blair 1952.SCT.432, 343 U.S. 214, 72 S. Ct. 654, 96 L. Ed. 894 Justices Douglas and Jackson wrote of the Electoral system:
“The demise of the whole electoral system would not impress me as a disaster. At its best it is a mystifying and distorting factor in presidential elections which may resolve a popular defeat into an electoral victory. At its worst it is open to local corruption and manipulation, once so flagrant as to threaten the stability of the country. To abolish it and substitute direct election of the President, so that every vote wherever cast would have equal weight in calculating the result, would seem to me a gain for simplicity and integrity of our governmental processes.”
The Plaintiff agrees with these justices.
It takes a two-thirds vote of Congress and three-fourths of the states have to agree. In this case with the smaller states having an unfair voting advantage, it is unlikely they would want to give up their unfair advantage, which would cement the unfair process forever as a thorn in the side of our Constitutional process. One could argue this is a flaw in the Constitution itself, but that argument will wait for another day. The Plaintiff contends however that parts of the Constitution can be declared null and void if they conflict with other parts of the Constitution that would carry more weight.
The Plaintiff asks, in the 21st century, why are we still voting by punching holes in paper? We are throwing out ballots where a voter voted for two people because we have ballots that allow voters to punch two holes. If the voting were done by computer, the voter wouldn’t be able to vote for two people in the first place. We wouldn’t have lost ballots that someone forgot to count. The Plaintiff contends that we have the technology to eliminate the existence of “damaged ballots” entirely, and that the 14th Amendment establishes a duty of the Government to use this technology to return election results that more accurately reflect the Will of the People.
The American people deserve better than this. Because of the Electoral System, a single state controls the outcome of this election, and the election is so close that the number of damaged votes and questionable votes is more that 100 times greater than the vote gap between the candidates. The results of this election will be determined by legal battles between political partisans in courts where judges have the burden of being labeled as partisan spoilers based upon who appointed them or what party the represent. The Plaintiff contends that the People of America would consider a coin flip more accurate that the result we are likely to get through due process of law. Because of the imprecision in the system, the Florida election is really a tie. This is not good enough and this Court has a duty to fix it.
________________________________
Marc Perkel - Plaintiff - 11-16-00
|