.
Excerpts from the actual civil suit at the readmore…
Asa Gordon is Chair of the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force and Executive Director of Douglass Institute for Government. Gordon’s civil suit concerning reform of the Electoral College will have oral arguments in the United States Court of Appeals on January 14, 2010.
The lawsuit, Gordon v. Biden, pleas for a Declaratory Judgment by the U.S. court for a proportional allocation of presidential electors in states where there is no “Winner-take-all” rule in the laws of that state. (Ie: some states use a “Winner-take-all rule in giving out their electoral votes, when there is no law or reason for them to do so.) Gordon believes that the federal government should make the Declaratory Judgment in order to comply with the mal-apportionment penalty of the Constitution.
______________________________________
The full text below was sent out as an e-mail alert/press release by Asa Gordon:
By order of the United States Court of Appeals : Gordon (Plaintiff/Appellant) v Biden (Defendant/Appellee) is now SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON JANUARY 14th, 2010 before the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
FINAL BRIEF”S filed in Gordon v Biden (Green’s Democratizing the Electoral College Civil Action) . Reference the WEB site:
(2) APPELLANT’S FINAL BRIEF (pdf file at http://www.electors.us) filed Nov. 27th, 2009.
Once again I defy anyone (attorney or not) to read Appellant’s Final Brief and not conclude that this case should be won on the “legal” merits for the plaintiff. Defendant relies on the Court not having the will to rule for a pro-se litigant over the Attorney General regardless of the merit of Plaintiff’s arguments. The Plaintiff is well aware that his exposure of the historical fraud by the Attorney General and the disturbing corrective historical context presented by the Plaintiff may prejudice the court from a professional ruling based on merit. If that should be the case, I apologize to my supporters. Let us hope the Appellant Court is more professional then an embarrassed legal community ( with a singular exception) in the consideration of this Civil Action to “Democratize the Electoral College”.
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT…………………………………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………… 1
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS………………………………………………………………… 2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………………………………………………………… 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………. 4
The Plaintiff asserts that for the reasons set forth in the APPELLANT’S BRIEF and APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF, The Plaintiff has sufficiently established his case by legal precedents, and as a matter of law. Accordingly this Appellant court should rule in favor of the Plaintiff and vacate the ruling of the District Court. Furthermore this court should remand with a summary declaratory relief for proportional apportionment of Presidential electors for the unbounded states that are the subject of this civil action.
ARGUMENT (intro)…………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
The Plaintiff asserts that the APPELLANT’S BRIEF and APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF have sufficiently established his case by legal precedents and as a matter of law. The Attorney General’s BRIEF FOR APPELLEE presents arguments that misconstrue the nature of this case of controversy, are unpersuasive and presents arguments that in fact support the plaintiff’s complaint. The Attorney General’s FINAL BRIEF FOR APPELLEE merely reiterates the arguments presented in the BRIEF FOR APPELLEE near verbatim, thus demonstrating that the Attorney General simply has no answer for the rebuttal arguments raised in the APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF. It appears at this point the Attorney General is just “mailing it in.” APPELLANT’S FINAL BRIEF presents arguments herein that provide a historical context for this civil action that should inform the Court in its resolution of this case.
DENIED EQUAL REPRESENTATION TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS
AND DISTORTED EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR WHITES. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ARGUES FOR THIS LEGACY TO CONTINUE
UNDER THE RULE OF “WINNER TAKE ALL”. ……………………………………………… 8
UNDER THE ORIGINAL ELECTORS CLAUSE DENIES EQUAL
REPRESENTATION TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND DISTORTS
EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR WHITES.. …………………………………………………15
THE ELECTORS CLAUSE AFFIRMATIVELY ENCOURAGES
APPORTIONMENT OF ELECTORS NECESSARY TO AVOID A
DENIAL OR ABRIDGMENT IN THE CITIZEN ‘S “RIGHT TO VOTE”……………………..19
V. THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL
FRANCHISE FOUNDED ON RACIAL QUOTAS AND
RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS GROUNDED
IN THE INTENT OF THE DECLARATION SHOULD INFORM
THE COURT IN ITS RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE. ………………………………………..22
BY RACIAL QUOTAS. …………………………………………………………………………. 23
AMENDMENTS DECLARATION INTENT FOR
THE FRANCHISE. ………………………………………………………………………………….33
ERA VOTING RIGHTS PRECEDENTS THAT REESTABLISHED
RACIAL SUPREMACY AND ENDED RECONSTRUCTION. ………………………………39
THEORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATS AND THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA. ……………………………………………………..45
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..48
_______________________________
Asa Gordon,
Exe. Dir. Douglass Institute of Government
Chair, DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force.
Sec.Gen. Sons & Daughters United States Colored Troops
Filed under: 3rd party, activism, elections, grassroots democracy, green, Green Party, News, politics, presidential, presidential race, progressive politics, third party, US Politics Tagged: | Asa Gordon, Constitutional Law, dc statehood green party, electoral college, Gordon v. Biden, Green Party, law, mal-apportionment, mal-apportionment penalty, Proportional Representation, United States Court of Appeals
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state’s bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.