Guest blogged by Emily Levy
Today on RawStory.com, Miriam Raftery interviews Paul Lehto: Court rules against voter-supervised elections, attorney tells Raw
Lehto ties together recent court cases in California and Nevada, and makes some hypotheses about the future.
First: Judge Yuri Hofmann in San Diego dismissed the CA-50 (Busby/Bilbray race) election challenge a week ago, after receiving a letter [PDF] from Paul Vinovich, counsel to the Committee on House Administration, claiming that only Congress had jurisdiction over California’s election. The letter cited Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members….†Never mind that when Brian Bilbray became a “member,†the election wasn’t yet certified and thousands of votes remained uncounted.
Then: Three days after dismissal of the San Diego case, a judge in Nevada’s District 2 dismissed a challenge to the Republican primary there on the same constitutional grounds. John Gideon’s excellent piece, Opinion: Is The Constitution Going To Be Used Against Democrats In November?, which appeared on The BRAD BLOG over the weekend, ties the two cases together. If you haven’t read it, please do.
There’s more: As previously reported on these pages, Vinovich’s letter came after Congress received by fax the preliminary results of the CA-50 race. That fax was sent by Susan Lapsley, Assistant California Secretary of State for Elections. She hasn’t worked for CA SoS Bruce McPherson for very long. What was her previous job? Assistant Secretary of State in Nevada, where her boss was Dean Heller. SoS Heller is running for Congress, and is the candidate who claims to have won the contested race in Nevada. More on Lapsley here.
Connect the Dots: Is Texas Next?
In an interview with Miriam Raftery of Raw Story, attorney Paul Lehto — lead attorney in the election contest in San Diego — outlines concerns I brought to his attention last week. In District 22, as Lehto explains,
On Monday, August 28, the judge put on the Internet his tentative decision and there was even an Internet press report. On Tuesday [August 29] the same day as the formalization of Judge Hofmann’s decision to dismiss, the Governor of Texas suddenly announced a special election would take place in Texas to happen as the same day as the general election.
Q: How might Article 1, section 5 arguments be used in that race?
A: There’s one main Republican candidate way ahead of others, the favored candidate the Republicans would be running as a write-in against Lampson, the Democrat running for the full term. So there are two elections, one for a two-month term, one for a two-year term, and Lampson is unopposed for the two-year term except for write-in candidates… This detail is interesting. Initially Lampson was quoted as saying he’s running for the special election too, but then a couple of days later, he changed his mind and said he would not run in the special. But I think strategically, that is a much better decision because if he runs in the special there is a head to head race for Congress and if a Republican wins, they could argue that but for a technicality she would have won the general election too, and they could just choose to swear in the Republican for the short term, but also continue to keep her in office.
Q: How does that tie-in to what happened in the CA-50 case?
A: The tie-in is the way that they keep her is through article I, section 5, the power of the House to say that we have the sole power to judge our elections and we think she was elected… If they have [absolute] power over their members, they could do that.
Now that Lampson has decided not to run in the special election, a Republican will win for sure. There will not be a head to head race. But Republicans could still decide if a Republican gets more votes in special than Lampson does in general, they would still have that argument, a little bit weaker, and they could still do it.
Take this seriously. The GOP is clearly working on a strategy now to keep control of Congress regardless of the outcome of November’s elections.
What can we do about it?
If Lehto’s clients in San Diego decide to appeal Judge Hofmann’s decision, support them with your dollars and your voice. An announcement about whether or not an appeal will be made should come within 48 hours. You’ll hear about it on The BRAD BLOG. Donate at Velvet Revolution.
By the time the polls close, available strategies will disappear. Barriers to contests and recounts have increased around the country. There is no need to wait to see if an election is stolen. We already know that the conditions of U.S. elections guarantee inconclusive outcomes. While we’ve been expected to get used to this idea gradually, it is an outrage! Support challenges to insecure voting systems, such as those launched by VoterAction. Help Project Vote and other groups in their efforts to stop voter disenfranchisement. Research the possibilities for injunctions and other forms of resistance in your state or county. Become a poll-worker and a poll-watcher with Mainstreet Moms.
And if you have other ideas, post them here. Nonviolent ideas only, please!
As many as they need to to stay in power…and avoid investigations.
That’s the one thing these folks can’t stand, the light of day, real investigations. The opportunity to get the truth out and settle some scores must have some Democrats really excited, like all of them. That’s what the Speaker’s eminent domain policies on elections are all about: stopping whistle blowers, stopping investigations, stoping indictments.
As many as it takes to stay in power.
crowd chant:
bush-it!
bush-it!
bush-it!
We need effective advertisements to support this issue. The ads on the Velvet Revolution website will, to most Americans, come across as the rants of angry, extremist liberals and won’t be given any credence. The facts in this issue, in my opinion, are enough to gather mainstream support; the propaganda isn’t necessary. Television ads would be great, if possible, but those get quite spendy.
So not only do our votes not count, Congress can swear somebody in before our votes are even counted.
Dennis Hastert can just get a bunch of Republicans in Congress together and say, “We judge that the Republicans won all the state elections,” swear their candidates in as Congresscritters before the votes are even counted, and claim that no court has the power to do anything about it?
Uh-uh. Nope. This has to be stopped now. We can’t wait until November because then it will be too late. I’m donating every dime I can scrape up to Velvet Revolution to fund this appeal, and I’m calling people I haven’t even spoken to in years to ask them to do the same.
No more stolen elections. Congress may claim to be the sole judge of elections, but we are the sole judge of whether in bypassing the State election processes, Congress is acting without the consent of the governed, has become destructive of our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and must be abolished. If our votes don’t count, we have no voice in government at all, and those Congresscritters are representing themselves instead of representing us.
What would happen if they stopped a horse race and said that they “judged” that their horse had won, so there was no need to finish the race? Would anyone ever bet on a horse again? There’s no point supporting Democratic candidates if Congress can simply install Republicans without bothering to wait until the votes are counted.
If you have a candidate you’ve been supporting, explain to them what has happened and what is likely to happen again in every state in November unless we stop it now. Tell them that you’re not donating any more money to them until you’re certain that Congress will have to wait until the States certify an election before they swear somebody in. And hit them up for a contribution to Velvet Revolution. If they’re serious about running for office, they’ll donate. If they won’t donate, they’re not serious and have probably already prepared their gracious concession speech for when Congress declares their Republican opponent the winner of an election where the votes were never even counted.
And all it took to strip away the veneer of America’s Liberty and Justice for all was a punch in the face from 19 Saudis ( y un PNAC?). Since then, we’ve hopped on the express headed anywhere, as long as it’s far away from Democracy….
Seriously. We are SO far away from this bullshit picture of the Original Patriots we hear about. Shit. Even one of these stolen elections back then, and they would be doing wild shit. No way would they have stood for it.
Now? We blog. Woo hoo! Making big change, baby. Big change.
Emily & Paul Leto You are both very brave putting your real names out there and are doing a wonderful job.
Getting the message out is incredibly difficult because of the MSM. The idea that Americans will not come out and protest I think is incorrect. They need a strong political leader like Obrador and the message needs to get to them.
1000000 men and women marched for women’s reproductive rights because these rights protect them and their families from poverty and it hardly rated a mention in the MSM.
There are many large groups out there e.g. Unions etc. You could approach and spend time educating the organizers of these groups and alert them to the urgency of the situation. They might thus allow you to email or speak to their members about what is happening giving you a much bigger audience than otherwise possible in the current media situation.
There are many women’s groups out there that organized the march. I am not suggesting you endorse their cause but if you gain access to their members then you can reach a lot more people. Most of those women have families and husbands who they can educate about what is happening. So the unions are a less controversial and probably a bigger group. My suggestion is that you do not endorse any cause or group but state that all the diverse groups have a major stake in democracy to remain fully functional. Reaching out to Americans through the groups they already belong to is simply a way to inform people in the current media blackout.
Sally,
I agree with you except for one part: that those of us who are already working on these issues should do more. We’re already doing what we can. Yes, it would be great if people would take the actions you suggest. Who will step (or roll) forward?
9/11 was their Reichstag Fire.
The Patriot Acts were their enabling laws.
These decisions are their Nuremberg Laws.
If you don’t know your history, it’s time to brush up. We are on the brink of having our second Hitler in less than 100 years.
Those of us who do not fight this Republican Government now with every tool at our disposal are the “Good but Quiet Germans” of our generation.
Emily
I addressed you and Paul as a thankyou for what you are doing. The rest of the post was intended to just be there for everyone to read and someone would think OK I could do this. Should have included this in my post. Apologies as it would have been appropriate for the open thread.
I was concerned to read Paul Leto’s expenses had not been fully met. He is taking money out of his own pocket I imagine. Paul and yourself Emily are giving your all and others need to assist and support you fully.
Hopefully the idea I put will be molled over and someone will give it a try if it is practical.
You probably know I am not American so can only suggest ideas which I am not certain of because I am not part of the culture.
Suggestion: A campaign by the readers of the blog to contact by phone and inform first the heirachy of Large Groups about the state of play with major emphasis on the media blackout and a need to access their members to get the word out about the urgency of the situation that the media are not reporting.
Also informing these groups of milestone events which clearly show that our group are not wearing tinfoil hats. E.g. The Busby/Bilbray race the undemocratic swearing in, court decision etc.
Compiling information packs either printed or in email attachemnts from this blog and other sources to send out to these groups following phone contact could be helpful. Arranging for speakers to address large memberships at known large events.
I guess a lot more could be done with proper funding and more participation. This is what Brad and others have been trying to secure by enlisting the Democrats who have not come to the party. Maybe the readers can not only donate but also raise money to expand the capabilites of this critical cause.
Peace Light and Victory to you Emily
I’m with THE UNAPOLOGETIC MEXICAN.
Grizz #2 – Nice one! I ran it through a few times and almost Borked!
What about Article I, Section 4?
It would seem to me that the “Manner” of the election is the jurisdiction of the state. And that implies that the election must be approved by the state before Section 5’s veto like power can be applied.
But what do I know, I’m just a citizen that was brought up thinking the governement was…
Call me Crazy, CrazyIvan, but we argued Art. I sec. 4 in front of the court as well. Before the election, we’d expect the state/count to do the count and the recount. Therefore, AFTER the election the rules can change via a premature swearing in? That’s one of the things the Republicans were claiming in 2000 with Bush v. Gore, though the claim had less merit then than it does now…