George Caleb Bingham, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Virtually all measures tried to date to restore faith in our election process and thus the election results at all levels have been turned aside procedurally by our self-interested institutions. However two new cases at the federal level deserve watching on the radar of our representative democracy.
The first has leapfrogged immediately into the Supreme Court docket, asserting that our national governmental officials have been derelict in their duty and violated their oaths of office by using procedure to avoid investigating the soundness of the 2020 national election. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al., places four brothers against our President, Vice President, former Vice President Pence as an officer of the Senate, and members of Congress. After the 2020 election, 100 members of Congress claimed that various particulars of that election should be investigated for error and/or fraud. The majority of Congress voted down their motion. Brunson’s allegation is that, in refusing to actually investigate a possible threat to the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic, Congress was derelict in its duty under the Constitution and those members voting down the investigation violated their oath of office in so doing. The reasonable possibility of error in outcome (affirmed by 100 members of Congress) must be investigated according to their duties and oaths and cannot be turned aside. That investigation may well have exonerated all of any significant errors or wrongdoing that would result in changing the Presidency or in re-doing the election, but the Congress bore a Constitutional duty to assure that precise and transparent outcome, not unlike the election of 1876 whose questionable outcome was settled by the House of Representatives (albeit with certain terrible legislative trade-offs). The Brunsons found a procedural method that allowed them to take their action directly to the Supreme Court, who now face a truly historic dilemma. The relief sought from that court is the removal of the defendants from office, and preclusion from holding public office again in the future. With no fanfare or mainstream media coverage the nation is presented with the ultimate contest between our founding principles and political practicality. Were their straightforward arguments accepted as sufficient, the heads of our Executive Branch and most of our Legislative Branch would be summarily ejected from government by the Judicial Branch. Further lawsuits would flower forever. Despite our history and ideals, a peaceful transition to a newer government under these circumstances is profoundly illusory. How the Supreme Court will manage to wiggle out of their obvious duty, a decision clearly for one side or the other, will be interesting. For further details see https://ralandbrunson.com/. Do not expect to hear of this in mainstream legacy media.
The second federal lawsuit sneaking unseen through the airwaves of that media is Election Integrity Project of California v. various California state officials and counties. This non-profit public service organization, through many hundreds of hours of direct observation by volunteers of how California elections actually occur and how the rules and laws have changed and been disregarded, received standing to sue from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case now goes before federal court for the discovery phase. This lawsuit is on behalf of recent and all future candidates for office irrespective of political party. Alleged is a gradual evolution of election laws and practices that are in toto unconstitutional in that they diminish the value of lawfully passed ballots. These allegations are based in many hundreds of sworn citizen affidavits of observed irregularities in election practices, as well as statewide procedures that are neither uniform nor secure in vote casting and counting, leaving ample opportunity for error and malfeasance directly affecting election outcomes. The outcome of this lawsuit is nationwide, since California’s nation-state progressivism in voting methods is being copied in many other states. Underneath the maelstrom of contradictory procedures and actions by California’s election officials is the basic incompetence of California’s maintenance of voting rolls, and ongoing recruitment of unqualified and ineligible persons to those rolls. The desired outcome of the lawsuit is abrogation of all California law and regulation beyond a confirmed eligible voter filling out a paper ballot which is then physically counted in an immediate and secure manner without connection outside that procedure or violation of a very short chain of custody, with all counties using the exact same procedures. Since this is the first time any entity has been granted standing in this type of action, many legal pitfalls stand between the case and a possible ultimate hearing by the Supreme Court perhaps years hence.
In the best traditions of our democratic republic, both actions have been taken by private citizens and citizen groups. They both seek decisions based on clear Constitutional principles, but face a storm of legal resistance and legislative self-preservation, both bent on sustaining the devolution of our peoples’ government in favor of institutionalism. A keen and quick eye by all truly dedicated citizens will be needed to follow their progress, and the consequences of their outcomes.
© Nik Bednarski, M.D. 2022
