constitutional rights

90 petitions

This petition won 3 weeks ago

Petition to United States Supreme Court

Keep Roe v. Wade, and Strike Alabama, Ohio, and other Anti-Abortion Laws!

Preventing a woman's right to chose not only deprives her of the freedom granted to her by the United States Constitution (read through either strict or loose interpretation), but it creates a subservient class of Americans. A woman has the right and the freedom to decide what she wants to do with her body, and if she wants to be pregnant. The Supreme Court has already ruled on two landmark cases, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania State law imposed an "undue burden" on women, defining an "undue burden" as a "substantial ostacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." This case set forth a test to determine the women's right to choose as well as the states interest in placing restrictions on abortions. In this case, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions, which have been used to review state laws to this day. The new laws put in place by the governments of Alabama, Ohio, and many others are a true punishment to a woman purely based on their sex and their ability to have a child. This places women into a subservient class, and deprives them of "equal protection under the law." These new laws are driven by politicians who neither have the ability to solve relevant world issues nor can separate church and state. **DISCLAIMER** - This petition does not detract from those who choose to be "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice", and is not an argument in favor of either view point. It is simply a petition to show that women should have the right to pick which view point they believe in, and for women to be permitted to make their own autonomous decisions. Please join us by signing this petition to show the world a man should never chose what a woman can and should do with her own body.

Alanna McGovern
1,431 supporters
Started 1 month ago

Petition to Ohio State Senate, Ohio State House, Ohio Governor, Ohio Democratic Party, Lorain Democratic Party

Citizens For A Special Election In Lorain, Ohio

Because of a so called "obscure" law, the citizens of Lorain, Ohio who vote as Democrats have been denied their right to vote for who they want their candidate to be in the November 2019 general election for the Office of Mayor of Lorain, Ohio, for the term beginning January 1, 2020.  This voting rights denial is in violation of the intent and spirit of the laws of the State of Ohio and is not what the legislature intended to happen as vacancies occur when candidates resign so soon after primary elections are held. The Ohio Legislature, Ohio Attorney General and Ohio Secretary of State all have the duty and the power to call for a special election to be held in Lorain, Ohio in order to restore the voting rights of its citizens who vote as Democrats.  Rights they have currently been denied. Lorain County Democratic Party Chairman Anthony Giardini stated publicly that the law as written is a bad law and should be changed.  We the undersigned call on Mr. Giardini and all Democrats to support a change in the law or in the way it is being applied and as a remedy call for a special election to be held in August, 2019 open to all interested Democratic candidates. Every Ohioan should support this call for a special election in Lorain, Ohio because of the circumstances involved and to prevent similar situations from happening in their community at some future date.  ________________________________________________BACKGROUND:The City of Lorain Mayor Chase Ritenauer resigned from his position two days after the May 2019 primary.  Ritenauer was also the only Democrat who filed to run for the full mayoral term that will begin on January 1, 2020.  Because the mayor's resignation left a vacancy in that office, Paul Adams, the Lorain Democratic Party Chairman, who also serves as Director of the Lorain County Board of Elections called for a meeting of the party's Central Committee and he was quoted as stating the party would take two votes, one to finish the Ritenauer term and another to replace him on the party’s ballot in the November election but he was also quoted as saying that typically the same person receives both votes.  Six Lorain citizens announced their intentions to fill the vacancy, five of whom were successful candidates on the May Democratic Party primary ballot for positions other than mayor.  They included all three Council At Large winners and the unopposed City Auditor and Council President.A few days before the Democratic Central Committee meeting to fill the vacancy it was announced that the five successful candidates in offices other than mayor were ineligible to be the party's mayoral candidate in the November 2019 general election.In the local newspaper Lorain County Democratic Party Chair Anthony Giardini was quoted as saying that he and Lorain City Democratic Party Chair Paul Adams "stumbled" upon the law within the last couple days.  Giardini said he and Adams began looking into the law pertaining to filling a vacancy on the ballot if an at-large Council candidate was named to replace Ritenauer when they found the statute.  According to news reports Adams then asked Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis Will’s office for a legal opinion on the matter.  In a letter to Adams Assistant County Prosecutor Gerald Innes explained his "opinion" of the law, in which he wrote that “It is the conclusion and opinion of this office that candidates who filed declaration of candidacy or declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate in the primary are not permitted to appear on the November ballot as a candidate for the office other than the one for which they may have been the successful nominee.  Excluding five qualified citizens interested in filling the vacancy for the office of mayor because they won a race for a lower position is on its face blatantly wrong.  The law being applied as preventing their candidacy has been dubbed "the sore loser law" and none of the excluded interested, qualified candidates were "losers". Surely it was not the legislative intent to exclude these persons from moving up on the ballot just because they won their respective races for lower positions.  As noted previously above, even Lorain County Democratic Chairman Anthony Giardini stated that it was  a "bad law".  Paraphrasing a quote of his, he said the law eliminates the democrats from naming one of their "A Team" to fill the vacancy. Looking at this situation in its totality any reasonable person can conclude that in order to restore confidence in the electoral process the best remedy at the very least is to declare any and all interested Lorain Democrats eligible to fill the vacant spot on the ballot.  Furthermore, having a special election to fill the vacant spot on the ballot would allow the citizens of Lorain who vote as Democrats to choose who they want that candidate to be.  Anything less is truly undemocratic.  

John Gallo
159 supporters
Update posted 1 month ago

Petition to U.S. CONGRESS

Take our demands and make them law. FIX DEMOCRACY

Whereas we the people are created equal, and whereas we the people are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and whereas we the people instituted a government to secure these rights, and whereas we the people lay the foundation on such principles, and organize its power in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect the above objective, do require the following Bill of Rights for Voting Equality. 1. Each citizen of the United States at or exceeding the age of majority has the right to vote in any public election in the jurisdiction where he or she resides. That right shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, agreement, person, or entity. After incarceration all rights shall resume. REASONING: No More Stolen Election says: Most Americans believe that the "legal right to vote" in our democracy is explicit, not just implicit, in our federal Constitution. In fact, the federal Constitution recognizes each state’s guarantee of voting rights, and furthermore, guarantees equal protection of those rights. Additionally, the federal Constitution provides for elections for the U.S. House and Senate, and repeated amendments to the Constitution have affirmed that the right to vote belongs to all citizens regardless of race (15th Amendment) or sex (19th Amendment), and to all citizens over the age of eighteen (26th). Despite two centuries in which the right to vote has been affirmed and expanded as a constitutional right, the U.S. system of elections still does not adequately protect voting rights. Indeed, Justice Scalia in Bush v. Gore claimed that, "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)). Because the Supreme Court, election administrators, and elected officials have, for the most part, proven themselves unable or unwilling to implement the reforms required to protect American voting rights, we must work to adopt a federal constitutional amendment confirming every citizen's right to vote. 2. a) All citizens of the United States, residing in all states, shall have equal access, (the same requirements), to creating a political party and achieving a ballot line. b) All candidates and parties shall have equal time constraints to qualify for ballot access. c) All proofs will be received by a multi-partisan regulatory board, such as the Board of Elections. d) All citizens that desire to be candidates, shall register at their local Board of Elections. e) The Board of Elections shall divide equally, the campaign tools for election purposes. All tools must be properly labeled as having been provided by the revenue stream and not a direct private donation. f) Corporations are NOT people and Money is NOT speech. Elections shall be publicly funded. No private money may be used for a public office, or seat in the government. No ads may be purchased for the purpose of an election. No candidates may appear in an ad for an election for themselves or others. The citizen must have full confidence that no bribery or appearance of bribery is taking place. REASONING: Equal Access Amendment says: a & b) The 14th amendment provides for equal treatment under the law, but since currently every state has it's own rules for gaining ballot access, that effect is made moot. In addition a party that has current standing does not have to repeat the qualifications but instead rides through on past performance. For this reason we submit that every citizen should have equal access (rules) to forming a party and achieving a ballot line. And we advocate that this requirement be met by all, each election. No More Stolen Elections says: c) It is time to overhaul our federal, state, and local election agencies to guarantee fair elections. We must replace the current system of partisan election administration, in which partisan secretaries of state, county clerks, election commissioners, and other partisan officials are able to issue rulings that favor their own political parties and themselves, with a non-partisan, independent system of running elections. We must end the practice of contracting out fundamental election functions, such as the maintenance of voter lists, to private corporations. We must also insure that independent international and domestic election observers are given full access to monitor our elections. d) e) It is time to overhaul our federal, state, and local election agencies to guarantee fair elections. We must replace the current system of partisan election administration, in which partisan secretaries of state, county clerks, election commissioners, and other partisan officials are able to issue rulings that favor their own political parties and themselves, with a non-partisan, independent system of running elections. We must end the practice of contracting out fundamental election functions, such as the maintenance of voter lists, to private corporations. We must also insure that independent international and domestic election observers are given full access to monitor our elections. Equal Access Amendment says: f) The United States, must have integrity in its elections. It can not be tempted with money or power, to deviate from true equality, from the poorest of its citizens to the richest. Any donation to a campaign is in essence a bribe to ask a candidate to do what the donater wants. Elections must be decided based on the veracity of the candidates' words. 3. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall elect Senators and Representatives in the Congress in such number and such manner as it would be entitled if it were a State. DC Vote says: An amendment to the Constitution needs to be passed to give DC voting rights. Congress has passed laws to modify the DC government structure in the past. In 1961, the 23rd Constitutional amendment granted DC residents the right to vote in Presidential elections. In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act giving DC the right to a local government (mayor and city council). For decades DC residents have written letters, protested, and filed lawsuits striving to change the city’s voting status. Unfortunately, to date they have been unsuccessful. While DC residents have an elected mayor and city council, all locally passed laws must be reviewed by Congress and the local budget must be sent to Congress for affirmative approval. In many cases, Congress has attempted to include noxious riders on the budget that overrule decisions of the local government. DC Vote is working to end this injustice and to protect DC's local democracy. Americans living in our nation's capital pay full federal taxes, fight and die in wars and serve on juries, but are denied voting representation in the House and the Senate. 4. All citizens must be able to verify that the vote has been counted accurately. All ballots must be ABLE to be counted by hand. All counting must be supervised by multi-partisan personnel and recorded. Currently supporting the Dechert Method                                                                                      REASONING: Black Box Voting says:: These indicators must be present to insure fair voting. 1. Who can vote (the voters list) 2. Who voted (the polling place sign in book) 3. Whether ballots counted are same ones as were cast (chain of custody) 4. Whether the count was accurate (public count) No More Stolen Elections says: Every voting system in the United States must be equipped to facilitate a permanent, visible record of every vote cast, and to honor the right of the voter to mark their own ballot themselves. The public is the only realistic check on vote counts, because elections determine the composition of government itself; those in power cannot be trusted to count or process -- unsupervised -- the very ballots by which they came to office. The acid test for a free people is the guaranteed right to remove incumbents at will, especially criminal incumbents, from office. Any system that allows secret and therefore unaccountable vote counting is unacceptable because it denies the right to vote and to “kick the bums out” at precisely the moment when that right is needed the most. Voters must know that their vote will count and make a difference. Election officials must ensure that every voting precinct and wards is adequately staffed with sufficiently trained personnel and professional supervision; that absentee ballots are mailed with a sufficient time for delivery; that every ballot, including provisional ballots, are counted; and that provisional ballots count for statewide and federal contests regardless of where the vote is cast. Election officials should wait until after any recounts have been completed to provide final certification of election results. 5. a) The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every Thirty Thousand, per state.b) Each state shall divide its population by 30,000 to determine its number of representatives. c) Each Representative shall have the voting power equal to the number of citizens that voted for them.                                                   Congress shall be unicameral, and the Senate shall be dissolved. REASONING: says: a) The intended purpose of the very first amendment proposed in the original Bill of Rights was to ultimately limit the maximum size of congressional districts in order to complement the minimum size already established by the Constitution. However, though affirmed by many states, “Article the first” was never ratified due to an inexplicable defect in its language. b) Several empirical studies show that there is a clear relationship between the population size of legislative districts and the size of government; specifically, government spending increases as the population size of electoral districts increases. c) With respect to how a representative assembly should be constituted,   John Adams stated: “It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the     people at large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them.” It is no longer necessary, or even advantageous, to require all federal Representatives to commute weekly to a single distant location. Current technology makes available other means – which would have been unimaginable at the time of the drafting of the Constitution – for virtually assembling and voting on bills. Choice of Representation says:   c) The justification espoused by plurality voting is that the most popular candidate is capable of and concerned with adequately representing people who voted against him or her even if it conflicts with interests of the people who elected the representative. This premise is obviously false, especially in this day of huge special interest investments in campaigns and the molding of messages, NOT on what the candidate believes, but on what the consultants believe will attract enough votes for their candidate to win. When the representatives we vote for are denied office (RDO’s = Representatives Denied Office), and are barred from participating in the legislative process, the citizen is being denied full participation in our government. The present system is partial or exclusionary representation. What we need and deserve is full inclusionary representation. A Choice of Representation System treats a vote as a durable proxy of voting power that the representative carries to the governmental body in which he or she serves. When they vote, they do not have one vote equal to all of the other representatives, they have a vote that has a weight equal to the number of people who voted for him or her. Under Choice of Representation, there are no wasted votes, every vote marginally increases the power of the person receiving it, a person obtaining the representation of his/her choice does not reprieve another person of the representation of his/her choice. No More Stolen Elections says: We must adopt Proportional Representation (PR) for legislative elections to ensure the fair representation of all voters. Millions of Democrats in Republican areas and Republicans in Democratic areas are unrepresented in our system, and the majority of Greens, Libertarians, and other independents are unrepresented at all levels of government. The right of representation belongs to all citizens. NOTE: The concept of a single-seat office as different from a multi-seat office, needs a larger audience. Multi-seat offices such as LEGISLATIVE branches, must hold votes to make decisions. The single-seat office decides on it's own. Even a change of one representative to 300,000 citizens would be an improvement. WE NEED MORE REPRESENTATIVES. WE NEED THE RIGHT TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR CHOICE.Wikipedia says: d) The principal advantage of a unicameral system is more efficient lawmaking, as the legislative process is much simpler and there is no possibility of legislative deadlock. Proponents of unicameralism have also argued that it reduces costs, as even if the number of legislators is the same as it would be in a multicameral system, there are fewer institutions to maintain and support. Legal Information Institue says: Not until 1842 did Congress undertake to exercise the power to regulate the ''times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.'' In that year, it passed a law requiring the election of Representatives by districts. A number of state legislatures, following the Revolution, were created unicameral, and the Continental Congress, limited in power as it was, consisted of one house. 6. All citizens shall have equal early voting hours in which to cast their vote. sufficient voting places, materials, and personnel shall be provided to reduce the voting time to within an hour. No More Stolen Elections says: Many citizens are discouraged from voting by unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and restrictions. We must simplify and rationalize voter registration so that no one is again disenfranchised for failing to check a superfluous box, as occurred this year in Florida, or for not using heavy enough paper, as nearly occurred in Ohio. We must require voter registrars to sign affidavits promising to submit any registrations in their possession in a timely manner. We must eliminate police intimidation, language, physical disability, extra-legal requirements of personal identification, and other barriers to voting. To ensure that all qualified voters are able to vote, we must follow the lead of states like Minnesota and Wisconsin by replacing restrictive voter residency requirements with same-day voter registration, allowing qualified voters to register at the polls on Election Day itself. Our current system forces millions of voters to wait up to ten hours to vote. This is unacceptable, and it disenfranchises those who cannot afford to wait. To increase access to the polls, all states must provide sufficient funding for enough early voting and election-day polling places to guarantee smooth and speedy voting. To ensure equal access and minimize the wait at the polls, election authorities must allocate resources based upon the number of potential voters per precinct. We must put an end to the government-backed practice of allowing partisan activists to challenge the voting rights of individual voters at the polls. Instead, the government must invest in campaigns designed to educate voters about how they can exercise and protect their right to vote. 7. The Presidential/Vice-Presidential election shall be counted by (score or approval) counting.                                                                                                      No More Stolen Elections says: We must replace our current "first-past-the-post" system. Our winner-take-all elections award representation to the largest factions and leave everyone else, often the majority, unrepresented. The winner-take-call system unnecessarily restricts choice, polarizes politics and limits political discourse.  It is time to end the safe state/battleground state dichotomy and make all votes equal, no matter the state of the voter. We must amend the Federal Constitution to replace election of the President by the Electoral College with direct election by the voters. The Center For Election Sciences says: The concept of a single-seat office as different from a multi-seat office, needs a larger audience. Multi-seat offices such as LEGISLATIVE branches, must hold votes to make decisions. The single-seat  office decides on it's own.  Approval voting is the simplest and fairest way to vote in a single-seat election.     _______________________________________________________________ Bills must be addressed in numerical order. Bills must have a time limit such as 30 days for research, and 30 days for dissemination of said research, and  2 minute comment, at the end of which time a vote on the bill must occur. Thus eliminating the control of Majority or Minority party. Supreme Court Justices and Federal Justices will be determined as a jury pool. Judges will submit their names for consideration.  A review period will be established, to where these judges can be asked questions.  ALL POLITICAL PARTIES recognized by the Federal Election Commission shall have an equal amount of exemptions. In addition, ANY Elected Representative WITHOUT a party shall have the same number of exemptions.  Once all exemptions have been exhausted, the President may select from the remaining body.  Judgeships shall not be vacant for more than 60 days.

Marcia Everett
764 supporters
Update posted 1 month ago

Petition to AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Michigan State House, Michigan State Senate, Gretchen Whitmer

Family Court Orders Unreasonable Search & Seizure of Mother's Confidential Communications

Tania* is a Protective Mother who has been ordered by the Family Court in Ottawa County to surrender her personal and work-related cellphone to her opposing party and his attorney for forensic investigation.  Tania has been seeking to keep her children safe for more than 3 years, and in trial for 5 days between December 2018-March 6, 2019.  The judge has rendered his decision in favor of the father, despite the fact that the child remaining in her father’s care has reported being assaulted by him since the last court date.  The father, contrary to any child’s best interests to maintain a connection with their primary attachment parent, has been given full custody of the youngest teen--and she is to have no contact with the mother, her brothers, grandparents, extended family, friends, or anyone else in her life.  The father has already removed her from the extra-curricular activities that she once enjoyed.  This has happened under the color of “parental alienation,” as accused by him, his attorney, the "counselors" and the judge. This alarming and recent turn of events will put the child at great risk for suicide attempts, severe depression and forms of self-harm. Parental alienation is a bogus theory that a protective parent somehow manipulates a child to dislike their abusive parent because the child could not possibly have other reasons to be resistant to that “alienated” parent (ie—the child has witnessed or has been a direct victim of the abusive parent’s abuse).  Parental alienation IS NOT recognized in the DSM-V by psychologists, psychiatrists or other mental health providers, primarily because it is junk science (a “syndrome” proffered by a quack who refused to have his work peer reviewed, advanced the cause of pedophiles, and committed suicide by stabbing himself to death).  But it is widely used in family courts to take away abused children from protective mothers and given to abusive fathers, stripping the children and protective parent of their basic human rights. Tania left the home in August of 2010 due to abuse, and soon thereafter filed for a PPO (which was granted, giving her the use of the marital home) and divorce.  The initial divorce process lasted almost 3 years before the final judgment came out in May of 2012, granting Tania full legal and physical custody of her then 15, 12, and 9-year-old children.  A parenting plan that involved a counselor and supervised parenting time for the children's father was ordered, but before the judgment came out, the counselor quit, leaving him with no parenting time, other than the children’s sporting and school events.   Then in January of 2016, Tania’s former husband retained new counsel, who accused Tania of “parental alienation” and the court ordered a “Friend of the Court” investigation.  This investigator recommended “reunification counseling” for the mother and children. The judge still did not grant the father any parenting time, despite his  multiple motions asking for immediate relief, until October 5, 2017, when the mother was ordered to “show cause” for not giving her ex-spouse parenting time--even though the court had not seen fit to order it, and despite recommendations that counseling should continue between the kids and the counselor without the father present. (Note:  Reunification therapy is rejected by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Bar Association, among others, because it is traumatic to force abused children into therapeutic intervention with an abusive parent.) Tania would later discover through the children’s counseling notes that a full change in custody was being discussed among the court’s ordered therapeutic “professionals” in collusion with the father before the "reunification counseling” had even begun. But on October 5, 2017, the judge issued a 30-page decision ripping the children out of their home and away from their supports, giving the father full custody.  Not only was she denied contact with her children, she was sentenced to 45 days in jail for her efforts to keep her children safe.  She served four days, with the remaining 41 days continuously hanging over her head to force her submission to orders that continue to violate her and her children’s basic human and constitutional rights. Additionally, the judge and counselors held that jail time over her children’s heads as a means to force their “compliance” into "loving" their abusive father—or be forced into reprogramming camps. After the father was given custody of the children, he forced the middle son out of his home (the oldest had, by this time, escaped the jurisdiction of the court).  In June of 2018, the mother was strong-armed into a stipulated order that her ex would get most of the parenting time with the then-15-year-old daughter, and that the 17-year-old son (his sister’s only comfort and emotional support) was not allowed on his father’s property without permission. The children were devastated; the daughter was terrified of living there without her brother.  Tania was told that the agreement would be, in a year, the parenting time would “flip flop” and she would have reciprocal time with the children—all in an effort to force the kids into an “improved” relationship with their father.   To this day, both brothers choose to have no contact with their father, and are concerned for the safety and well-being of their sister while in their father's care. A month ago, after an emergency hearing to address the father’s assault on his daughter, the judge told the parties that he was “26 pages” into writing the decision and it would be out sometime in the future. The judge said that he was NOT taking any new information for the record because the trial had just finished.  Almost immediately after the parties left the court room that day, the judge signed a show cause for Tania to surrender her phone to her ex and his attorney for forensic testing.   This is a violation of any American’s civil rights--an unconstitutional search and seizure, and a violation of Tania’s rights to privacy. It is also a violation of her right to confidential communications between her and her attorney—supposedly protected by law.  Tania potentially faces jail time if she refuses to cooperate. This is an egregious overreach of the family courts, a blatant violation of the public's (and by extension, mothers' and children's) rights to an impartial and unbiased judiciary, and erodes the public's trust in the nation's family courts. As expected, the ACLU continues to ignore the cause of protective mothers in family court and has declined to assist this mother, in particular, to protect her civil rights. Please stand against the corruption and injustice in Ottawa County Family Courts.  Send the message that there is no excuse for violating this mother’s and child’s constitutional and civil rights, and that a violation of their rights is a violation of EVERYONE’s rights.  TELL THE ACLU THAT FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF PROTECTIVE PARENTS IS IMPORTANT TO FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF VULNERABLE PERSONS OPPRESSED AND TRAFFICKED BY THE INHUMANITIES AND INJUSTICES OF OUR FAMILY COURTS. *BREAKING NEWS: even as this petition was being written, news came in that the female child in question has been ordered into the sole physical and legal custody of her father, with time granted to the mother only through therapeutic setting.  The mother’s and child’s “electronic devices shall be subject to monitoring and analysis as necessary to assure compliance with the above requirements [that mother is prohibited…from communicating (either directly or indirectly, through third parties) with the minor child unless expressly authorized and appropriately limited by the therapist].”  There is no indication of WHO is responsible for monitoring or analysis. *Names have been changed to prevent judicial retaliation.

Justice Coming
465 supporters