OPINION: How the 2020 U.S. Election Was Unconstitutional and Democracy was Subverted by Partisan Groups. Part One.
With an Introduction About the Liberal International Order. How to Address Critics When Challenged. The Monumental Kari v. Hobbs Case History, before March 23, 2023, is covered. Audio Included.
Photo: President Donald J. Trump at a 2018 Rally. Credit to Wikimedia.
Photo: Page One of The US Constitution from the National Archives and Records Administration.
Photo: Trump Supporters Marching on the US Capitol, January 6th 2021. Credit to Wikimedia.
Preview of Full Audio. Readers can click on the bold italicized hot links, for citations.
Everybody who is honest, and understands American government well, knows that the neoliberal and neoconservative elites illegally and undemocratically weaponized our institutions, inside and outside of the government. Their corrupt actions were motivated by neoliberal and neoconservative ideals or universal values, taught by political science, and these ideals are part of US national security interests, that must be upheld on this earth, under what is called the liberal international order. Yet, through their zeal, their actions were largely attributed to their egos, and a lust for power, money, and status, that would not allow them to lose face due to a challenge to their power, the likes we have not seen in world history.
Globalist policies, by the same elite playbook turns to hell on earth most of the time. Look abroad, to austerity loans administered by previous globalist government administrations that subsidize fraud for both sides of the transaction, and notice how they have worked out. These were Washington Consensus policies that used the IMF and World Bank pushed by our government, to finance stimulus projects that are ripe for corruption, fees for financiers and that often defaulted or created strife for the greater populous. A grift for the globalist elites. The elites do not know how to manage resources as good as they devise and market ideas, but don’t know how to execute, because by and large they have no real management capability, which takes talent and hands on work. Just look at the private equity industy, which is comprised of technocrats that want to be statesmen, who cycle in and out of government positions, simply to acquire more power, status and wealth. Yet, as Tucker Carlson described, we do not have a worthy elite. They are the roccoco of the art world, except in this case the elites really are ostentatious and lazy.
The liberal international order requires that all nations within the sphere of influence, uphold acceptable forms of modern liberalism and conservatism in their democracies and ultimately the US’ entire raison d'etre according to its interpretation of neoliberalism, aims to eradicate from this earth any strong or emerging forms of nationalism and excessive executive power (technically called authoritarianism) wherever possible. Nationalism they concluded many years ago, creates wars so they think we can’t have America First national pride anymore, only globalism. The late Samuel P. Huntington warned us in 1993 about the effects of international values and globalism, and noted that clashes of civilizations will occur in the future between nationalism and globalism, among civilizations that rally around “their villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups” which share a broader “common [culture], and “ objective elements such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and a subjective self-identification of people”. Countries with strict immigration control and protectionism policies away from globalism and the open dialogue on cosmopolitan treaties and international agreements and so on are frowned upon and are considered undemocratic states. Totally acceptable policies by the way, which are gaslighted. President Trump has made clear his America First agenda, and has been fair with all people from different backgrounds. When a powerful new government emerges with these policies in their platform then national security interests become a factor for the US, with various degrees of urgency and response measures.
Why would any one or more of these policies when they become a powerful force in the US government not be crushed by the elite regime, to uphold the liberal international order to protect their interests? Certainly all of these hot button issues are part of the America First agenda, so they turned inward on us. The state has a monopoly on violence. Rule of law does not apply to them when they go to war or into covert operations. Just imagine when they go rogue and ignore, defy and second guess the head of state, as they did to President Donald J. Trump. For the globalists to save their power and do it at all costs, rogue actors within the state, private corporations, civil society and the media subverted our democracy under the historic anti-globalist Trump Administration, by doing everything in their enormous power to unlawfully contain and thwart perfectly legitimate and politically scientific, constitutional and lawful America First policies. And nothing has changed in 2023.
In fact it is a lie that they are saving democracy when many laws were broken and elites oppose enforcement mechanisms to hold people, systems and processes accountable with transparency for a strong rule of law in many places that matter. Such as immigration that is used to power the elite’s labor force and tax base, despite knowing that people are dying from increased crime caused by racial division further stoked by the woke rhetoric and policies taught by the elites. Do not forget our voting and election regulations. Lets go to the 2020-2022 elections, which have been used to persecute and outcast individuals that oppose or question the regime’s election narrative.
As just mentioned, this article is about the unlawful election system that we have today in the United States, illegally exploited by partisans within the general public and by our state, local and federal governments in the 2020 and 2022 election.
Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the appropriate representative to address our concerns at this time about election regulations which have caused disunion in America due to the ununiform manner of the voting and election laws within and across the states. The disenfranchisement of voters gave an unfair advantage to partisans, most obvious of which were the Democrats and some rogue state conservative actors. The House Judiciary Committee is best equipped to investigate matters that impact our national elections and in addition, the committee can recommend reforms through new bills as well as highlight election regulation issues for the US Supreme Court, in terms of public mood to persuade the judicial branch to act. The judiciary does become swayed by public opinion.
We can look to High Court rulings of the past to see the evidence. In a journal article titled: The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences, McGuire and Stimson noted how a liberal court in the 1960s overturned a high number of prior court decisions as shown in Figure 1. The chart also shows how by 1969, Republicans ushered in conservatives Chief Justice Warren Burger followed by Willian Rehnquist, which slowed the progressivism. Courts “are indeed affected by public opinion, but to a degree far greater than previously documented” (1026).
Full Audio.
Prime examples of public influence on the courts in the 1960s, was the highly publicized civil rights movement that led to reversal decisions by the High Court such as Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Morgan v. Virginia and Harper v. Board of Elections. It helps to have a liberal court majority that shares your overarching ideological preferences when influence by the public is mobilized, as was the case for progressives in the civil rights era. The progressives influenced court precedent and that is what the disenfranchised of today need to do. Need I say that the mostly White Republican party and conservatives from all backgrounds are the new minority? The disenfranchised Republican voters have a conservative court that can now be responsive.
A majority of government officials have been unwilling so far to uphold the social contract of the people to legitimately elect their representatives. The paralysis in the name of states’ rights, localism and judicial restraint for election regulations amounts to a tacit approval of tyranny and corruption, which is unconstitutional and demands a new government if conditions do not drastically improve.
I believe we have witnessed for far too long the unconstitutional manner as to how some key election laws are instituted and the partisanship nature that election regulations are enacted which in effect undermines and weakens the legitimacy of our national elections and the federal government. As described in the U.S. Constitution, it is in Congress’ power to regulate election laws under Article I Section 4, Clause 1 and “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of ch[oo]sing Senators”. As Alexander Hamilton emphasized in the Federalist Papers the “Times, Places and Manner…were to be taken literally” in terms of how our elections are conducted by the states (The Heritage). Fast forward to modern day America, and with the claims of voting and election fraud, that have arisen due to universal vote by mail, the counting of votes beyond election day and the disenfranchisement of voters on election day, there should be investigations by Congress to provide sun light over concerns of violations of the due process of Americans and reforms need to be made, to legitimize the voting and election process to restore faith in our institutions and this attention must be brought to the judiciary branch in order to prompt the US Supreme Court’s action by use of the courts highest power, which is judicial review, to strike down unconstitutional election and voting laws once and for all.
Portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1806. Credit to Wikimedia.
To highlight the partisan issue of universal mail in voting, one can look at the State of Pennsylvania. As the Federalist describes, in January of 2022 a lower state court in Pennsylvania struck down universal mail in voting for its citizens. The law was declared unconstitutional due to a two time precedent of attempts at mail in voting in PA, which were overturned. The constitution of Pennsylvania clearly states that mail in voting is not allowed. An amendment can only be made after a vote by referendum by the people of Pennsylvania. Courts have interpreted the reason voters shall present themselves in person is in the event any challenge arises from someone over another person’s vote being casted, so the accused can remedy such doubt by being present on election day before their community to bear witness (Margot). The fact that a law was passed by the legislature demonstrates the disregard for precedent and for holding a public vote, which is a disenfranchisement of voters. Pennsylvania’s voting regulations in 2019 were unprecedented and sweeping, by going into how the votes are counted as well.
On the subject of Pennsylvania and the counting of votes, radical changes contrary to traditional voting norms were instituted. The Associated Press reported less than two months before the 2020 election, that Pennsylvania Democrats were granted the right to count votes casted by election day, beyond the customary Nov 3rd deadlines and expand their use of drop boxes in the state, under the premise that the pandemic’s emergency powers allowed for such measures, although such an Act to do so was vague, which heightened party tensions in the state and across the nation (Levy). Pennsylvania was and still is further permitted to count undated, unfilled, and unsigned “ballot envelope[s]”, which is part of new election regulation tied to universal mail in voting that was held up by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2022, after being challenged by disenfranchised voters (Caruso and Couloumbis). The concern of voters being disenfranchised, which calls for action is that state officials’ handling of elections is a source of division and partisanship since contentious issues such as voting by mail disrupt social order and election regulations need to be handled in a way that protects the sanctity of the vote for all citizens. Many voters know their rights were infringed upon due to a longstanding tradition and laws of in person voting being illegally and radically interpreted, changed and implemented with too much political bias in order to give an advantage to partisan groups.
Photo: Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Credit to Wikimedia.
Pennsylvania’s recent voting laws have created division within the state and a shadow on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court itself. A legal scholar in Pennsylvania wrote recently about how Harrisburg has “a reputation for political bias”. Two of the dissenting judges made statements such as the court’s majority of democrat justices whom upheld the mail by vote law, cited no clear legal reason for their ruling and “overruled 160 years of this Court’s precedent” (DeVito). The new law known as “ACT-77- VOTE-by-Mail (PA), was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a hearing of the case was denied in 2023 by the justices (Mclinko v. Pennsylvania). The events which have unfolded demonstrate how the system is broken when it comes to how our elections are conducted and overseen and the federal government must step in since the outcomes of national elections decided by highly partisan states rise up to weaken the US government’s legitimacy, after public outrage and tensions is sharpened. When elections are perceived as run incompetently, ununiformly and or corruptly and if the US Supreme Court appears that it is not willing to hear election regulation cases in response to mail in voting, and time, manner and place, it is up to Congress to make reforms and at the same time set the tone for the federal judiciary to become more responsive to the public’s interests.
Photo: Surrender of the British in the Siege of Yorktown by American Patriots. George Washington Receives General Cornwallis. Credit to Wikimedia.
When it comes to our national elections to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States, the effect of partisan state elections is dangerous. The Texas Tribune reported on how the State of Texas lawsuit against key states in the 2020 election which included Pennsylvania, was tossed out by the US Supreme Court for no standing. Particularly because the US constitution allows for each state to run their own elections without the meddling of other states. With the Texas case not going forward, President Donald J. Trump appeared to also have no other way to challenge the results of the 2020 election in the court system (Platoff). Despite the case not being heard for lack of standing, the suit underscores how the ununiform nature of our elections are managed which prevents redress of grievances for the violation of due process of Americans regardless of their state residence that are affected in a national election for President. And how federalism when it comes to elections is creating disunion nationally. Article I Section 4, Clause 1 has remedies for the “Times Places and Manner” for how federal elections are handled to legitimize the vote and prevent partisanship.
President Donald J. Trump had notably weighed in with his own 2020 election lawsuit. The Associated Press further reported that the US Supreme Court also rejected in a conflict-ridden manner, to hear Trump’s election case, which referenced Pennsylvania, among other battleground states. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the election case. Thomas strongly asserted that mail in votes are prone to more fraud and the matter concerning legislative and judicial powers in terms who is who on the hierarchical scale for the final say in making voting laws, which impacts our federal elections, must be reviewed by the High Court. Alito was in favor of hearing the cases and stated, “the cases ‘call out for [judicial] review’” (Gresko). There is undoubtedly motivation still, by three justices and possibly more over the rumblings from Pennsylvania, and now in Arizona with Kari v. Hobbs, and other states’ conduct as to how election regulations were handled which is a serious problem that must be resolved. Otherwise partisanship will continue to divide our nation’s highest court and the entire country, rendering our system indefinitely illegitimate and ripe for more lawlessness.
Photo: Thomas Jefferson Campaign Banner in the Partisan Election of 1800. One of the Nation’s most Contentious Elections. From the National Museum of American History.
Arizona’s mail in voting system can give us clues about the sensitivity of the need for a proper vote count in elections. As described by the Arizona Capitol Times, In 2021, investigators were allowed to audit the 2020 general election which found 52,316 “mail in ballots” of concern. Findings that were turned over to the Arizona Attorney General for further review. Election officials strongly rebutted most but not all of the accusations with statements on Twitter and derided the competence of the audit team in understanding complex election regulations (Haas, Kyra, et al.). The AZ 2020 presidential vote was decided by 10,457 votes in favor of President Joe Biden (Arizona). With 52,316 ballots possibly containing enough illegitimate votes to flip the results, Arizona officials did nothing to validate the claims like conduct a forensic audit of the votes and their attitudes appeared to show complacency, pride fullness and some showed fear of public opinion one way or the other, depending on their politics. An election that was decided by less than a one percent margin, using mail in voting must have publicly transparent auditable voting methods.
Arizona does allow ballot harvesting, limited to family members, care takers and persons living in the same household who can collect a ballot, but is still a standard that treats the vote as any other piece of mail, for elections with huge consequences in a partisan system. Congress and or the High Court should revisit the effects of ballot harvesting in any form, while addressing mass mail in voting. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, took the issue of ballot harvesting with restrictions to the US Supreme Court in 2021, since Katie Hobbs, the then Arizona Secretary of State, wanted unrestricted ballot harvesting, which essentially means letting political operatives collect votes.
The conservative US Supreme Court ruled on Arizona’s restricted ballot harvesting and said this:
"One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud. Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight. Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome. Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence, is also a valid and important state interest" (Justices).
We need to push harder on Congress and the High Court to move even further. The court was presented with two choices and chose one bad election regulation over a worse alternative. The language above by the High Court can apply to mass mail in voting as well. Congress can ban mass mail voting, the High Court needs to uphold it. Elections that have mail in voting statutes come under tighter scrutiny by competing candidates and the public when elections are won or lost in close races usually conducted with concerning errors, which raises the level of divisiveness between those that are principally opposed to or in favor of mass mail in voting. Disadvantages can be perceived and when the vote margins are close, doubts are raised to the legitimacy of the process, without fair election processes that leave no doubt in the public’s mind that votes are counted without partisanship and conducted with accuracy and transparency.
In the sunshine state, election integrity concerns persisted well after the 2020 election at the state level for the Governorship. In the 2022 midterm election, Gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake lost the Arizona election by a narrow margin of 17,117 votes (less than 1%), to Governor Katie Hobbs, (Arizona Election) which has since been contested in the courts. Conservative Brief wrote that Kari Lake filed a motion for a hearing before the Arizona Supreme Court which was approved to be heard in March of 2023. Kari has cited issues with tabulation machines which malfunctioned and violations of due process and equal protection under the law. The lower courts dismissed Kari Lake’s suits specifically on the grounds that the malfunction of voting machines were a violation of due process and equal protection, where no evidence could be provided (Dougherty). Alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution are believed to have occurred in the midterm election within the state of Arizona above and beyond malfunctioning machines that disenfranchised voters. In Kari Lake’s December 2022 complaint, there was no chain of custody for “300,000 ballots” that were accepted and “tens of thousands” of signed ballots that did not match the original signature verification on file (Kari Lake v.). Therein lies the problem with mass mail in voting, when combined with drop boxes without a postage date, malfunctioning machines resulting in long lines, preventing some people to vote, no chain of custody for some ballots webbed in what becomes an overly complex system, that puts votes and elections at risk. Even if the state of Arizona matches up votes with DMV records, it is not enough to prevent fraud. You need audits, in person voting and traditional absentee voting only to erase all doubt.
To describe some of the examples of legal remedies we have in state and federal law respectively, as quoted in “Kari Lake v. Katie Hobbs case number CV 2 0 2 2 ·- 0 9 5 4 0 3”:
“In Findley v. Sorenson, the Arizona Supreme Court held that mistakes, omissions, and irregularities in the conduct of an election may void it if they "affect the result, or at least render it uncertain."
Or federal law: “Wesberry, v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." “States may not, by arbitrary action or other unreasonable impairment, burden a citizen's right to vote. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208 ( 1962)” (Kari Lake v.).
In order to improve the election process to avoid the continuation of division being stoked by the way of voting statutes that are implemented unfairly, a uniform voting policy must be administered, since the same procedures used in the AZ Gubernatorial election which have recently been challenged citing clear legal precedent, will be used again for national elections and such methods have become more popular in several states throughout the union. Much to the demoralization of conservative populist voting blocks that no longer trust our institutions and elected officials.
Photo: America Guided by Wisdom, Depicting Their Independence and Prosperity. From the Library of Congress.
The matter of election bias that finds its way into our election regulations and voting laws is not a new phenomenon and the fact that it exists in our election process has been a subject of research projects for some of the leading political scientists, which includes a colleague of Francis Fukuyama. A well regarded scholar in his own right, Edward B. Foley, published an article in the University of Chicago Law Review titled Due Process, Fair Play, and Excessive Partisanship: A New Principle for Judicial Review of Election Laws explains that:
A partisan election is where a competitive group takes control over the machinery of an election process and that “[t]his unfair advantage is a subversion of democracy because it interferes with the authentic electoral college choice that voters otherwise would make”. There is also no explicit solutions to address partisanship within our US Constitution, because a partisan system was never intended for our government. To address the problem of unequal voting rights for citizens is to use the due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the equal protection clause. And, for the judiciary make to reforms to the laws to allow “fair play”, effectively, the enablement of the equalization of an election process to “block a party’s ability to control elections”(656).
When it comes to how votes were cast in our most recent national and midterm elections we could feel the fiery insanity of partisanship, especially against the populist party faction led by president Trump. A unconscious and conscious for some collaboration of never Trump people that flocked together from across party lines to stop Trump. A problem our populist movement was unable to control, when up against a partisan monopoly within our system of federalism. It all came to a head at the ballot and drop boxes in 2020 and 2022, with the populist right Americans still hopeful that the power to legitimately influence the outcome of an election by voting would work.
Photo: The Federal Pillars Erected by the Hand of God. Several states were very reluctant to give up the state rights enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation which was to be replaced with sweeping federal powers in the US Constitution. From the Library of Congress, 1788.
To emphasize the partisan nature of how voting is conducted in America which is important to point out, FiveThirtyEight an affiliate of ABC news noted that in the 2020 general election:
“46% of Americans voted my mail, 26% voted early in person and 28% voted on election day” and “how blue absentee votes were and how red Election Day votes were” and mail in voting was “encouraged by most election officials”. President Trump advocated for in person voting which resulted in the partisan gap between absentee voting and the traditional voting method (Rakich and Mithani).
The system in America is constantly being cited for having highly partisan elections and issues surrounding mail in voting causing frustration along party lines. Especially with the consolidation of power in the bureaucracies, media, and woke corporations that is censoring and isolating voters in more and more ways. Basically, the liberal international order. The time has come to structure fair play for a system that has had a longer tradition of casting votes in person. Partisanship is undoubtedly giving the advantage to certain groups and preferences over others along with the infringement of their civil rights and liberties. There are groups within the continuum of the two party spectrum, that fall either in favor of or opposed to mail in voting, irrespective of their party affiliation. Many who are opposed to populism on the right. Such as moderate Republicans and Democrats that share more of the same vision of or would rather capitulate to the ideals globalism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Due process for all voters must be upheld with delineated rules that provide no favor to any group or preference. America First voters must be protected.
Photo: Secret Meeting by the New England Federalist Party to Reduce Powers of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists Were Accused of Wanting to Re-Join England and Serve the King as Depicted Above. Credit to Wikimedia.
Conclusions
I believe there are remedies that the US House of Representatives has in its power, to take on the split divide in confidence there is as to how our voting is being conducted. The “Time, Places and Manner” is clear that Congress can act. Let alone the Federal Supremacy Clause. We must begin with fixing the concerns over the sanctity of our national elections, which have a trickle-down effect on our state and local elections and we must ensure uniformity and legitimacy for all groups irrespective of election outcomes in the future.
We must not allow partisan groups control the system that determines the outcome of an individual vote in any state. Corporations and non-profits should not have unfair influence on the power of how individuals vote either. We need voter ID and robust auditing practices and for the federal government to weigh in on how we are going to handle mail in voting and the other associated items, which has occurred for quite some time in some states but not others.
Pennsylvania enacted fledgling mail in voting laws in 2019 and quickly instituted last minute changes and had to defend their unconstitutional acts to address disenfranchised republican voters that were introduced to a new system without a referendum. Partisan courts and divided courts, let corrupt practices stand. Voters were quickly rushed into an unprecedented new norm with COVID-19 as the excuse, were told they must accept the consequences of an election that was the most secure in U.S. History, so says partisan bureaucracies. All the while, partisan groups were motivated behind the scenes, which tilted the 2020 election by the use of the mail in voting scheme, media framing, censorship, and government interference against the populism of the right and the president of the United States. The states, the president and the citizens that were affected could not do anything about it, as partisanship flourished and democracy was corrupted.
State elections moved into a new cycle in 2022 and the mail in voting laws of Arizona caused groups of Republicans that are morally opposed to lengthy voting periods, drops boxes, to aggressively fight with urgency in order to scrutinize, count, and contest every vote they could, in an election which they emphatically believed they rightfully won. Only to be discriminated against by bureaucrats, government officials and elites by disparaging and criminalizing a powerful constituency of Americans.
Fairness is about informing and getting consent from the public and preparing them in advance of instituting laws, so that our nation leaves no excuses or doubt that our election process will not be corrupted beyond repair and forever divided as it is now. The 2020 election was stolen and so was our country. Now we must take it back.
Works Cited
“Arizona Election Results 2020.” NBC News, Decision 2020, 3 Nov. 2020, Arizona Election Results 2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/arizona-results
“America Decides, Campaign ’22”. CBS News, 23 Nov. 2023, www.cbsnews.com/midterms/2022/governor/
Caruso, Stephen and Angela Couloumbis”. PA. Supreme Court Upholds No-Excuse Mail Voting Ahead of Midterms". Spotlight PA, 02 Aug. 2022, https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2022/08/pa-mail-voting-law-uphelp-state-supreme-court/
Cohen, Marshall. “Republicans place their bets on strong Election Day turnout as Democrats bank millions of mail-in votes”. CNN, 26 Oct 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/10/26/politics/republicans-democrats-early-voting/index.html
DeVito, Frank. “Bad Omens for Election Law in Pennsylvania”. The American Conservative, 30 Aug. 2022, www.theamericanconservative.com/bad-omens-for-election-law-in-pennsylvania/
Dougherty, Jon. “Ariz. Supreme Court Agrees to Expedite Kari Lake’s Election Lawsuit”. Conservative Brief, 04 Mar. 2023, www.conservativebrief.com/ariz-supreme-2-71319/
Foley, Edward B. “Due Process, Fair Play, and Excessive Partisanship: A New Principle for Judicial Review of Election Laws.” The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 84, no. 2, 2017, pp. 655–756. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44288159. Accessed 7 Mar. 2023.
Gresko, Jessica. “Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases”. Associated Press, 22 Feb. 2021, apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-us-supreme-court-5cc6aee8c328c7bb1d423244b979bcec
Haas, Kyra, et al. Arizona Capitol Times, Ninja Report Insinuates Wrongdoing, Fann Calls for Probe, 24 Sep 2021, https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/09/24/ninja-report-insinuates-wrongdoing-fann-calls-for-probe/
Huntington, Samuel. “Clash of Civilizations?”, Foreign Affairs, 72:3 (Summer 1993), pp. 22-49, https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Politics/Huntington-Clash.htm
“Kari Lake v. Katie Hobbs”. case number CV 2 0 2 2 ·- 0 9 5 4 0 3, Complaint - Maricopa County Clerk of Superior Court, 10 Dec. 2023, PDF, File www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4151
“Justices rule Arizona’s laws are consistent with Voting Rights Act”. Attorney General State of Arizona, 1 Jul. 2021, https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mark-brnovich-successfully-defends-arizonas-election-laws-us-supreme
Levy, Marc. “Pennsylvania Democrats Notch Key Election-Related Court wins”. Associated Press, 17 Sep 2020, www.apnews.com/article/election-2020-pennsylvania-lawsuits-elections-philadelphia-0f0e6f48361df96d2d74d68ac6838709
Margot Cleveland. Pennsylvania Court Strikes Down Main-In Voting Law As Unconstitutional, The Federalist, A division of FDRLST Media, 05 Mar 2023, www.thefederalist.com/2022/01/31/pennsylvania-court-strikes-down-mail-in-voting-law-as-unconstitutional/
McGuire, Kevin T., and James A. Stimson. “The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 66, no. 4, 2004, pp. 1026–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00288.x. Accessed 11 Mar. 2023.
“McLinko v. Pennsylvania – Act 77- Vote-by-Mail (PA).” United States Democracy Center, 10 Mar. 2022, www.statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/doug-mclinko-et-al-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-et-al-act-77-vote-by-mail/
Babb, Sarah and Alexander Kentikelenis. “People Have Long Predicted the Collapse of the Washington Consensus. It Keeps Reappearing Under New Guises”, The Washington Post, 26 Apr. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/16/people-have-long-predicted-collapse-washington-consensus-it-keeps-reappearing-under-new-guises/
Platoff, Emma. “U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states.” The Texas Tribune, 11 Dec. 2020, www.texastribune.org/2020/12/11/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-election-results/
Rakich, Nathaniel and Jasmine Mithani . “What Absentee Voting Looked Like In All 50 States It was historically popular — and historically Democratic.” FiveThirtyEight, ABC News, 09. Feb 2021, www://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-absentee-voting-looked-like-in-all-50-states/
The Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition of the US Electorate, Pew Research Center, 23. Sep 2020, www.pewresearch.org/2020/09/23/the-changing-racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-u-s-electorate/
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution-Election Regulations.” Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/19/election-regulation, Accessed 07 Mar. 2023
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol XVIII – Arrest of Opponents (Trump)
CRIMINALS WITH US WILL BE ARRESTED AT THE FIRST, more or less, well-grounded SUSPICION: it cannot be allowed that out of fear of a possible mistake an opportunity should be given of escape to persons suspected of a political lapse of crime, for in these matters we shall be literally merciless.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-xviii-arrest-of-opponents