Posted on 12/17/2020 12:11:36 PM PST by rxsid
This challenge concerns a very nebulous statement by the United States Supreme Court, as to whether “voter registration” is a “qualification” to vote for federal Senate seats. The Supreme Court specifically dodged this issue in 2013, and it’s time a Georgia litigant brought it back to them, and fast. If a federal court were to hold that “voter registration” is a “qualification” to vote, then, according to Georgia law, only voters who were registered to vote in the general election this past November could vote in the runoffs.
The Seventeenth Amendment changed the way the States elect Senators. Previous to ratification in 1913, Senators were chosen by the Legislatures of each State. The Seventeenth Amendment changed such selection to a popular vote by citizens:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. (Emphasis added.)
The Amendment is unambiguous as to the “qualifications” necessary to vote for a Senator. “Electors” in the Amendment are simply voters. In order to be an elector, a voter, for a Congressional Senate seat, in Georgia, you must meet the same qualifications to vote as Georgia requires for persons to vote for members of their House of Representatives, which is the most numerous branch of its Legislature. Regardless, the qualifications to be a voter for a Georgia State House seat, or State Senate seat, are the same, and are specifically provided for by the Constitution of Georgia, and its statutes.
Article II, § 1, ¶ 2, of the Georgia Constitution states:
“Every person who is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia as defined by law, who is at least 18 years of age and not disenfranchised by this article, and who meets minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the registration of electors.“ (Emphasis added.)
Not every State of the Union requires voter registration. North Dakota doesn’t require it. In Georgia, on the other hand, its statutes not only require voter registration, but the Constitution specifically provides that its General Assembly “shall provide by law for the registration of electors.” Voter registration is, therefore, a “qualification” to vote in the State of Georgia.
Furthermore, the Constitution of Georgia, at Art. II, § 2, ¶ 2, provides further for the qualifications of voters in runoff elections:
“A run-off election shall be a continuation of the general election and only persons who were entitled to vote in the general election shall be entitled to vote therein; and only those votes cast for the persons designated for the runoff shall be counted in the tabulation and canvass of the votes cast.” (Emphasis added.)
That would appear to prevent any person, who wasn’t previously registered to vote in the general election, from voting in the runoff. Now let’s look at the statutes enacted by the Georgia Legislature which were enacted to govern which electors in Georgia shall have the proper qualifications to vote. § 21-2-501(a)(1) states:
“(a) No person shall vote in any primary or election held in this state unless such person shall be:
(1) Registered as an elector in the manner prescribed by law;“
Here we see an enactment, specifically required to be enacted by the Georgia Constitution, requiring voter registration. § 21-2-224(a) lists the time before an election one must register to be able to vote:
“(a) If any person whose name is not on the list of registered electors maintained by the Secretary of State under this article desires to vote at any general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary, such person shall make application as provided in this article by the close of business on the fifth Monday or, if such Monday is a legal holiday, by the close of business on the following business day prior to the date of such general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary.”
So, in order to have been eligible to vote in the general election, according to the laws of Georgia, a Georgia citizen must have made an application to register five Mondays before November 3rd.
Now let’s examine the specific statute in Georgia that governs voter registration in runoff races, § 21-2-501:
“(10) The run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff shall be a continuation of the primary, special primary, election, or special election for the particular office concerned. Only the electors who were duly registered to vote and not subsequently deemed disqualified to vote in the primary, special primary, election, or special election for candidates for that particular office shall be entitled to vote therein…”
Therefore, based on all of the above, it’s very clear that under Georgia law, nobody should be voting in the Senate runoffs who wasn’t previously registered to vote in the general election. So why has Georgia been signing up new voters for the runoffs? The reason is a federal statute, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires that people be allowed to register to vote within thirty days of a federal election.
In 2017, Governor Kemp signed a consent decree, following a law suit, which lets voters bypass Georgia’s more stringent voter registration laws, by agreeing to the lesser thirty day window enacted in the NVRA. Similar law suits concerning voter registration requirements have been brought under the NVRA in other States.
The most important case decided by the United States Supreme Court which reviewed the constitutionality of the NVRA was Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 U.S. 1, 133 S.Ct. 2247, 186 L.Ed.2d 239 (2013). In that case, but not in the original brief, the State of Arizona asked the Court to hold that voter registration was a qualification to vote, and therefore, since qualifications to vote are specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being under the plenary authority of the States, the NVRA was therefore preempted by the United States Constitution, as to voter registration requirements.
Unfortunately, Arizona only raised the issue in their reply brief, and Justice Scalia pointed this out in the majority opinion, which allowed the Court to avoid that specific issue. Here is what the majority opinion said:
“Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.9“ Arizona v Inter Tribal, 133 S.Ct. at 2258-2259.
Now we have to skip to Footnote 9, wherein Justice Scalia found an out to avoid determining the “serious constitutional doubts” raised by this issue:
“9. In their reply brief, petitioners suggest for the first time that ‘registration is itself a qualification to vote.‘ Reply Brief for State Petitioners 24 (emphasis deleted); see also post, at 2261-2262, 2269-2270 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); cf. Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson,60 F.3d 1411, 1413, and n. 1 (C.A.9 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1093, 116 S.Ct. 815, 133 L.Ed.2d 759 (1996); Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar,56 F.3d 791, 793 (C.A.7 1995). We resolve this case on the theory on which it has hitherto been litigated: that citizenship (not registration) is the voter qualification Arizona seeks to enforce. See Brief for State Petitioners 50.” (Emphasis added.)
The case was not decided on the issue of whether voter registration is a qualification requiring serious constitutional review. The Court went out of its way to punt on that issue, by clearly stating that it was deciding the case on the issue of citizenship information required to register, and not on whether voter registration is a qualification to vote. This means that the issue is still ripe, has not been decided, and if a litigant from Georgia were to act fast now, the Supreme Court might be willing to take this issue on.
Everyone should read the wonderfully detailed analysis of this issue in the dissent by Justice Thomas, but here’s the exact moment where Justice Thomas states that voter registration is a qualification to vote, and that Congress cannot dictate to the States as to it:
“Both text and history confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. The United States nevertheless argues that Congress has the authority under Article I, § 4, ‘to set the rules for voter registration in federal elections.’ Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (hereafter Brief for United States). Neither the text nor the original understanding of Article I, § 4, supports that position.” Arizona v. Inter Tribal, 133 S.Ct. at 2265. (Emphasis added.)
Justice Thomas also addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in Smiley v. Holm:
“Respondents and the United States point out that Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 S.Ct. 795 (1932), mentioned ‘registration’ in a list of voting-related subjects it believed Congress could regulate under Article I, § 4. Id., at 366, 52 S.Ct. 397 (listing ‘notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns’ (emphasis added))…But that statement was dicta because Smiley involved congressional redistricting, not voter registration. 285 U.S., at 361-362, 52 S.Ct. 397. Cases since Smiley have similarly not addressed the issue of voter qualifications but merely repeated the word ‘registration’ without further analysis. See Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 523, 121 S.Ct. 1029, 149 L.Ed.2d 44 (2001); Roudebush v. Hartke,405 U.S. 15, 24, 92 S.Ct. 804, 31 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972).”
The previous quote from Justice Thomas stated his opinion that voter registration is a qualification, while this quote makes clear that the issue has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. And the final parting statement by Justice Thomas sums it up:
“I would not require Arizona to seek approval for its registration requirements from the Federal Government, for, as I have shown, the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to withhold such approval. Accordingly, it does not have the authority to command States to seek it. As a result, the majority’s proposed solution does little to avoid the serious constitutional problems created by its interpretation.” Arizona v. Inter Tribal, 133 S.Ct. at 2270.
With all that has happened in the 2020 federal elections, and all that is on the line, it would appear that now is the perfect time to put this “serious constitutional problem” before the nation’s highest judicial tribunal.
Furthermore, if the Legislature in Georgia, and the Legislatures in other States, would only seek to enforce their prior enactments regarding voter registration, and other laws concerning the choosing of presidential electors, it’s clear that Justice Thomas would agree, as can be the only conclusion from reading Footnote 2 of his Dissenting Opinion in the Arizona case:
“2. This Court has recognized, however, that ‘the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself.’ Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000) (per curiam) (citing U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, and McPherson v. Blacker,146 U.S. 1, 35, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 S.Ct. 869 (1892)). As late as 1824, six State Legislatures chose electoral college delegates, and South Carolina continued to follow this model through the 1860 election. 1 Guide to U.S. Elections 821 (6th ed. 2010). Legislatures in Florida in 1868 and Colorado in 1876 chose delegates, id., at 822, and in recent memory, the Florida Legislature in 2000 convened a special session to consider how to allocate its 25 electoral votes if the winner of the popular vote was not determined in time for delegates to participate in the electoral college, see James, Election 2000: Florida Legislature Faces Own Disputes over Electors, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 11, 2000, p. A16, though it ultimately took no action. See Florida’s Senate Adjourns Without Naming Electors, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2000, p. A6. Constitutional avoidance is especially appropriate in this area because the NVRA purports to regulate presidential elections, an area over which the Constitution gives Congress no authority whatsoever.” (Emphasis added.) Arizona v. Inter Tribal, Footnote 2, J. Thomas, Dissent.
And you don’t need the Supreme Court yet. All you need to stop the influx of new voters from voting in the Georgia State runoffs is a federal court injunction. If you get that at the District Court, or Circuit Court level, the other side will be forced to petition SCOTUS. Time is an issue. This needs to be filed immediately.
Sounds nuts? Yup. And so too does allowing socialist/communist/globalist systemic in your face vote fraud to determine federal elections, and all the resulting consequences of such a power grab, in the United States of America.
Think they won't do it? I implore you to revisit what they did to Trump over the last 4 years using the power of the federal government, and...if further convincing is needed, go back another 8 years...just 7 years removed from 9/11...when the corrupt system promoted/allowed a no name junior senator called Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro, aka Soebarkah), from IL with an unknown/highly questionable background to openly usurp the Presidency of the United States.
Don't think China has plans to take over America? They do. And not just take over our manufacturing or our businesses. They consider the very land in the U.S. to be rightfully theirs. That's right. The land that makes up the United States of America is not ours, it belongs to the Chinese and their reasoning may surprise many. Read this speech given by China's former Minister of Defense Chi Haotian to high-level Communist Party Cadres sometime before his retirement in 2003. The whole thing is very enlightening to the way they think. If you don't want to read the whole thing, search for the term "colonization" and read that, and the following paragraph.
The above used to be stuff of wild conspiracy theory. Not anymore. The (D)'s aren't even hiding much, if any, of that agenda (minus what China would control). This is what they want. This is what they are after....and there would be nobody left politically/judicially to stop them from doing any of it.
That is, except for CWII.
However...just how likely would that be though? This isn't the 1800's. There is no structure, or infrastructure, in place for such a thing. One seemingly trivial example, uniforms. Aside from your immediate neighbors/family/friends, how would anyone know who is on what side, if any? What would be the command and control structure? Etc, etc. etc.
And lets face it, a majority of American's (including (R)'s) are willfully allowing their state and/OR local governments to restrict their ability to work, to go out to eat wherever they'd like and so on. They are willfully agreeing to keep themselves inside, and when they do go out briefly, to "socially distance" and to wear a piece of cloth over their nose and mouth.
And all this not because of a return of the Spanish flu, or the middle ages plague. They give up their freedoms, their liberties, lives and livelihoods for a virus that is, yes...serious, but now we know is about as deadly as the influenza virus during a moderate flu season primarily to those who would be similarly affected by influenza (over 70, pre-existing serious health conditions, etc). Remember...15 days to "slow the spread" became 30 days to "slow the spread" and that was ~9 months ago.
No, we haven't hit "rock bottom" enough for something like CWII....yet. A significant percentage of (R)'s will simply "tune out" after this fraud. A smaller percentage of conservatives and (R)'s will be the only one's left steaming mad. However, Shooting Civil or Revolutionary wars just don't happen in very wealthy, high standard of living countries like ours. Perhaps after 4 years of the afformentioned. Perhaps.
The irony of ironies here is that, realistically, the only thing that could stop the above domestic points from happening is the (D)'s themselves since they will be the ones in full control.
And, about the only thing that could stop the above international (i.e. China) points from happening, is Russia. Sure, Russia would love to see the U.S. no longer be the worlds only superpower....but there is no way they would be OK with allowing America to become so weak and for China to become so powerful as to be able to absorb the U.S. as a satellite state.
Raise your hand if you think (A) the rats lead by harris will put the brakes on ANY of that aforementioned...or that (B) the Chinese would NOT take advantage of a severely weakened/globalist first America?
A Republic...if you can keep it isn't just a throw away phrase. It has real meaning.
Interesting
Thanks
This explains the "missing" authority for ignoring GA's runoff voter registration legislation: it was a 2017 consent decree based on a what appears to be a defective interpretation of the National Voting Rights Act.
Lengthy but important read.
"This challenge concerns a very nebulous statement by the United States Supreme Court, as to whether “voter registration” is a “qualification” to vote for federal Senate seats."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
If institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices would start reading Free Republic, then they would be aware of major constitutional problems with states that allow non-citizens to vote.
More specifically, the congressional record shows that post-Civil War era federal lawmakers recognized that renegade states who allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections effectively nullify the Constitution’s “Establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause (1.8.4)."
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
" If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but" * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
" Whatever difference there may be as to what other right appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government, from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)
Regarding activist states that let non-citizens vote for federal senators, it's not surprising that the ill-conceived 17th Amendment didn't included a provision like Section 2 of the 14th Amendment that punished states that disenfranchised citizens in any way.
H O W E V E R…
It can be argued that Section 2's "in any way abridged" clause can be applied when a state rigs the votes of Senate candidates.
”14th Amendment, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
Note that voting rights amendments ratified after 14A was ratified may change how the number of House seats that a state loses as punishment is calculated.
Finally when Lincoln was reelected in 1864, any electoral votes of the Confederate States were ignored.
"As the Civil War was still raging, no electoral votes were counted from any of the eleven southern states that had joined the Confederate States of America." —1864 United States presidential election.
So if Trump can still win election if the electoral votes of the Democratic-controlled swing states are thrown out, then let’s do that.
Insights welcome.
reside -> rxsid (autocorrect)
You wasted a lot of ink and failed to mention there is no path to the presidency, for both sides, without going through the 12th amendment.
Trump is your next president. Period.
Excellent post, I agree 100%. Don’t forget gun control, within the first 100 days.
They have also lists, already, of Trump supporters/donors and what they plan to do with us - from blacklisting to violence.
There are major plans for redistricting of states, not sure that will even matter though if they have the systems to choose the “winner”.
The states choose those “systems,” so it’s up to the states with Republican majority legislatures and executives.
.
Well, GA majority Republican legislature can’t even call a special session to address the massive fraud here, so I don’t put too much faith in their willingness to block anything the democrats want to do here.
You failed to realize, this post isn't about the presidential election steal.
Since you didn't read the article, I'll provide a condensed cliff's notes version....this article is about the upcoming Georgia Senate runoff elections.
They have also lists, already, of Trump supporters/donors and what they plan to do with us - from blacklisting to violence."
Great points, unfortunately. I'll add them to the next iteration of the growing list. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.