“The lack of integrity in our elections strikes at the heart of our republic,” said Joshua Kroot of Primary Law Group, one of the teams working on the case on behalf of the Election Integrity Project. “The failure to correct this problem immediately will do irreparable injury to our nation and devastate the credibility of all elections into the distant future.”
While more than 60 lawsuits have been filed following the Nov. 3 general election on behalf of President Trump, the complaint goes further, challenging the entire election procedure in California. It also is significant because it requires the decertification of California’s November election results, a move that by itself, could deprive Joe Biden of the presidency.
Biden is expected to get 306 Electoral College votes of 270 needed to win. But California’s lode is 55 votes.
Primary Law Group and another organization working on the case said the balloting in November was contaminated by “the expansion of vote-by-mail ballots and the changes in the law to send vote-by-mail ballots to all registered voters.”
Those actions, the organizations charge, “created a process where known ineligible voters (including deceased persons, non-citizens, and non-residents) were sent live ballots. As pas[t] elections have shown, deceased persons, non-citizens, and non-residents are often recorded as having voted in elections. That same election fraud occurred in the November 2020 election impacting the plaintiffs and all of the citizens in each of the congressional districts at issue.”
Linda Paine, president of EIPC, stated: “We have been investigating serious problems with California’s election process for 10 years. With over 700 affidavits signed under the penalty of perjury evidencing election code violations, obstruction of our volunteer observers, failure to verify vote-by-mail signatures, irregularities and fraud in the November 3, 2020 election, we have no choice but to bring this federal lawsuit in order an attempt to restore integrity to the election process.”
The complaint warns that elections that are scheduled as soon as March will be affected similarly.
The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the central district of the state on behalf of the EIP and 10 congressional candidates: James P. Bradley, Aja Smith, Eric Early, Alison Hayden, Jeffrey Gorman, Mark Reed, Buzz Patterson, Mike Cargile, Kevin Cookingham and Greg Raths.
Defendants in the case charging violations of the Elections Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution are Secretary of State Alex Padilla, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Gov. Gavin Newsom and voter registrars in several counties.
“The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of every eligible citizen to cast an equal vote to determine who will represent him or her in government through the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and, in the case of Federal congressional elections, through the Elections Clause (Art. I, § 4, cl. 1),” the legal teams explained. “Practices that promote the casting of illegal or unreliable ballots fail to contain basic minimum guarantees against such conduct are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by leading to the diminution in value of validly cast ballots.”
The conduct of the 2020 election “eviscerated citizen oversight, caused mass irregularities and opportunities for fraud, and violated the rights of lawful voters, citizen observers, and candidates,” the case charges.
Robert Tyler of Tyler & Bursch LLP added, “COVID-19 has ushered in an unprecedented era of tyranny in state government, and fraud in our elections. Any unbiased observer can recognize that we have a serious problem in California when at least one million more persons are registered to vote than the total number of Californian’s who are actually eligible to vote.”
The filing charges the state of California “intentionally eroded” the rights of citizens to have fair elections through “unconstitutional statutes, regulations and executive orders, which, taken together, are designed to create an environment in which elections could be manipulated and eligible voters disenfranchised.”
The results have come through “massively expanded vote-by-mail” schemes, unrestrained and unrestricted ballot harvesting, removing protections on in-person voting, laws that automatically add non-citizens to voter rolls and failing to comply with federal laws regarding accurate voter rolls, the filing charges.
In addition, counties “prevented” observers from watching the vote processing, keeping them back up to 50 feet.
“The potential for result-changing fraud and irregularities became actuality in November 2020. Plaintiffs have gathered evidence establishing that citizen observers were denied access to ballot processing facilities and barred from observing the remaking of military, damaged or defective ballots, and that validation of signatures on … ballots was either not done or done so quickly that it could not have been effective. They also show votes being changed, ballots being left unsecured, and in at least one instance, unsealed boxes of ballots being loaded into an election official’s car,” the filing states.
“In Contra Costa County, poll data tapes from Dominion machines show inconsistencies between votes as recorded by the machines, and later tabulation of those votes in the vote for president. In multiple cases, votes were added to the tally for Biden but not for Trump. Only an audit can show whether the same is true for other counties and other candidates,” it said.
The plaintiffs have “hundreds” of sworn affidavits, the “tip of the iceberg” in the case, the filing said. It calls for the decertification of the election results, pending an audit of the ballots. And it asks for an order protecting evidence since “state and county officials are moving quickly to deny access to or wipe stored information from these machines, software and materials so that no such audit can be carried out.”
The complaint also asks for a determination that various state actions creating open elections circumstances are unconstitutional. “Plaintiffs have suffered damage by reason of the diminishment of the value of their votes and the votes of their supporters by reason of defendants’ violation of the Guarantee Clause,” it explained. ✪