Petition to Department of Justice
Request the Department of Justice Obtain an Injunction Against Electoral College
On December 19, 2016, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots to determine who will become president of the United States. Because there is significant cause (more fully described below*) to suspect this recent presidential election was illegally subverted, either singly or in collusion, by one or more individuals, federal agencies, political parties, candidates, foreign or domestic interests, the petitioners hereby respectfully request an injunction against the Electors of the Electoral College barring them from affirming any presidential candidate until after a full and impartial investigation, conducted in a transparent, non-partisan, professional way, assures the court and the American people that no illegal actions designed to subvert the national election conducted this past November 8th, 2016 succeeded in their intended illegal purpose. Petitioners believe this injunction and subsequent investigation are in the best interests of the nation. They believe such injunction is necessary to preserve the confidence of the American people in the integrity of the American election process, give legitimacy to the next president of the United States (and cast all aspersion or doubt as to that legitimacy), and strengthen the citizens’ faith in the due process of law. Further, petitioners believe this action will demonstrate to our allies and any hostile interests that this nation will not tolerate interference in its democratic processes and will do all in its power to ferret out criminal activity intended to manipulate, intimidate, suborn or in any way fraudulently impact the American electoral process. *Note: This petition is predicated solely on a reasonable examination and belief in the integrity of numerous statements that have been publicly made alleging that it is a very real possibility that the election could have been illegally manipulated by a foreign nation and foreign corporation (Wikileaks) known to be hostile to this nation’s interests. These statements have been publicly reported (after professional, credible internal vetting as to their accuracy) by a significant number of the nation's largest and most credible news sources (in print, online, and on television, cable and radio news), such as, but not limited to: The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek Magazine, Huffington Post, Forbes, Bloomberg, and employees of MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and NPR. Moreover, the candidates themselves and their closest surrogates, as well as currently elected and serving officials, have told the citizens of this country that there is a strong possibility the election was being tampered with by forces hostile to this country. However, all of the above sources notwithstanding, we offer as additional proof of possible foul play, Mr. Trump’s own statements. The Republican candidate repeatedly stated in unequivocal terms to the American people (and world at large) that this election was either going to “be rigged” or in fact was “was rigged” (evidence to this is in the public domain and easily verified). Therefore, the candidate who now appears to hold the most Electoral votes has repeatedly called into question the integrity of his own election and this certainly gives the American voters serious cause to doubt the legitimacy of the election and, therefore, the legitimacy of his presidency unless otherwise thoroughly proven otherwise. This petition has been drafted in her own words by the Rev. Maureen G. Ausbrook. It has been drafted free of outside influence or any coercion. It represents, within the limits of reasonable possibility, what she has personally witnessed throughout the course of the election campaign. Having drafted this document she will put it online and attempt to obtain a minimum of 10,000 signatures from duly registered voters. She respectfully requests the DOJ and any federal court judge to recognize she is not an attorney and she requests that any errors in the drafting of this document be treated fairly with full understanding that she is not an attorney and she begs the DOJ and court to not find any clerical error or lack of legal wording to be cause for dismissal. She submits this document online November 12, 2016, with herself as petitioner and on behalf of all other people who subsequently sign and make themselves additional petitioners. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Rev Maureen G. AusbrookKennebunk, ME
Petition to Electoral College Electors
The Electoral College Must Reject Putin's Pick for President.
Due to recently revealed information that Russia intervened in the U.S. election to help procure the presidency for Donald Trump, members of the Electoral College must not cast their votes for him. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich states, "The framers of the Constitution intended that the Electoral College guard against the possibility that a foreign power influences the outcome of a presidential election. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that a major purpose of the Electoral College was to stop the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” He said that the College would “Guard against all danger of this sort … with the most provident and judicious attention” from the electors.”
Petition to American people with a moral conscience
Declaration repudiating Trump and Trumpism
Declaration repudiating Donald Trump, his words and actions, and asserting his essential and irremediable unfitness to serve as President of the United States of America We strongly and unequivocally believe it to be the responsibility of every citizen in a properly functioning democracy and normal political environment to accept the outcome of an election freely and fairly conducted and to acknowledge, despite differences of opinion with regard to public policy and political-economic philosophy, those declared winners of such an election as the electorate’s legitimate leaders and representatives. When, however, the citizens are asked to choose between doing what is morally right and carrying out what is their customary responsibility in a democratic society to accept an election outcome, an extraordinary situation has arisen. No citizen should feel or be compelled to take a position for the sake of political expedience that is in violation of fundamental and universal moral principles. In such instance, the citizens have a right – and even a responsibility – to take a stand against an immoral outcome which has been deceitfully attained. That right and responsibility may reach so far as to repudiate the declared winner of such election. To recognize as legitimate such a declared winner of an election would be to commit an immoral act, and no political authority or system can rightfully oblige the citizenry to commit a shameful act which is offensive to fundamental and universally recognized morality. Whereas Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, his key staff, and many of his supporters made explicitly clear during the campaign that they would not feel compelled to accept the outcome of the election if they were to lose, Whereas Donald Trump and elements of the Republic Party ran a campaign based and built upon divisiveness, bigotry, racism, incitement to hatred and even violence, hypocrisy, slanderous untruths, and misrepresentation to an extent so extreme as to be inconsistent with fundamental human, American, and democratic values, Whereas Donald Trump, in contrast to all other major party candidates in perhaps the entire history of the United States has uniquely shown himself by his words and actions to be morally and temperamentally unfit to serve as President of the United States of America, Whereas forces within the Federal Bureau of Investigation took blatant steps to influence the election of Donald Trump in the last 11 days of the campaign, doing so with facilitation from, and perhaps the outright complicity of, FBI director James Comey, and whereas forces from outside the United States used stolen and perhaps falsified emails of Democratic Party officials to influence the election in favor of Trump, and whereas the Trump–Pence campaign exploited the FBI’s irresponsible actions and the stolen materials to create, publish and broadcast patently untrue and defamatory advertisements in the traditional media and to circulate similarly untrue and defamatory messages on social media, Whereas Donald Trump, since being declared most probably to have received the majority of the Electoral College votes, albeit while receiving some 2 million fewer of the popular votes than did the candidate who was his nearest rival, has shown every indication by his words and action that he will refuse to be bound by generally and historically accepted standards to avoid conflicts of interest and would indeed endeavor to utilize the office of president to further enrich himself and his family, and Whereas populist, anti-democratic, demagogic, and potentially authoritarian forces and politicians also are gathering strength in other countries beyond the United States, and notably so in numerous European countries, and whereas these forces and politicians are finding inspiration, encouragement, and public support in the successes of Trump and the vile words and deeds of his most abhorrent supporters, and inasmuch as this phenomenon provides comfort to and encourages greater boldness in our nation’s adversaries even as it threatens our democracy, international cooperation and world peace, Therefore, we the undersigned and those who will support our nonpartisan position and efforts resolve and unambiguously declare that we do not and will never accept that Donald Trump can or does legitimately serve as president of our free country with its tradition of equality, toleration and decency, law and order, or that he should be regarded as legitimately so serving. For us to do otherwise would be to commit an egregiously immoral act. We further declare that we will actively and continuously oppose Donald Trump’s illegitimate and wrongfully obtained claim to the office of the President of the United States of America, and we denounce those within his circle and any other political leader, whether or not formerly or currently holding public office, who had supported or condoned his candidacy and his unjust claim to the office of president.
Petition to CT State Candidates
Ask candidates running for office in CT to support the National Popular Vote
Candidates for state office need to hear from voters about what's important to them. This is a great time to ask if candidates will support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if elected. The Compact is a nonpartisan solution to make everyone’s vote for president matter—regardless of whether they live in blue, red or battleground states—and to make the winner the candidate with the most votes, just the way we elect members to the CT General Assembly and statewide offices. So far, 10 states and the District of Columbia, with a total of 165 electoral votes, have joined the Compact (which goes into effect when there are 270 electoral votes represented, the number needed to win the presidency). The measure has been received favorably in the CT General Assembly going back to 2009. With 68 co-sponsors (more than ever before) and an unprecedented grassroots effort in 2017, the NPV bill, H.B. 5434, was just a few votes short of passing. By signing this petition, we can demonstrate to candidates who are exploring or running for office that Connecticut wants to #MakeEveryVoteMatter. The more candidates that pledge to support a National Popular Vote, the closer we'll get to passing the Compact and electing the presidential candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states.
Petition to Congressman John Lewis, Congressman Ted Deutch, Senator Boxer, Senator Leahy
Congress Hold Public Hearing on Trump and Russia
We are asking you to object to the counting of the Electoral College votes in eight states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Summary of Objections:1. Voter suppression2. Foreign intervention and insufficient instruction Why we appeal to you to submit an objection on January 6th, 2017: This election year was volatile and full of underhanded plays by Donald Trump. Our country cannot allow the precedents he has created to stand without objection. We must be firm when the Constitution and law are being violated. We are asking you to stand up for the black and brown vote and for elections that are free from Foreign Intervention. Would you take the lead to help put the American election back into the safety of our laws, by putting forth the objection on January 6th? Please consider the following objections. 1. OBJECTION: VOTER SUPPRESSION. This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the protection of the “Voting Right Act.” Without this law, states enacted new voting restrictions designed to reduce minority votes. Millions of voters, predominantly voters of color, faced widespread voter suppression in the 2016 election. The counting of the Electoral College votes should be denied in the aforementioned states because the Fourteenth Amendment Section Two says that states shall lose congressional representation, in this case, the Electoral College votes, "…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.” Not only is there the Fourteenth Amendments foundation but also, future amendments (14th, 15th & 19th)then further ensured votes shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and it further reduced the age requirement down to eighteen. However, this year there were discriminatory voter ID laws which disenfranchised voters of color across the country and a coordinated strategy in 30 states called Cross-Check which wrongly removed seven million Black and Brown voters from the voter rolls. For example in Wisconsin, Donald Trump carried the state by 27,000 votes. According to a federal court, 300,000 registered voters lacked the required forms of voter ID to place their vote. Further, in this election, there were 868 fewer polling places, primarily in areas where minorities reside, in states with a long history of voter discrimination, like Arizona, Texas, and North Carolina. These and many other discriminatory actions took place in this year’s election. 2. OBJECTION: FOREIGN INTERVENTION AND INSUFFICIENT INSTRUCTION. The counting of the Electoral College votes should be denied because Electors have a Fourteen Amendment duty not to further the hostile designs (aid or comfort) our enemies. Electors should have been made aware of the Fourteen Amendment Section Three that outlines their duty to protect our country from Foreign Intervention. Prior to the Electoral College vote on December 19th, 2016, the New York Times reported that American intelligence agencies concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump to become president of the United States. Prior to December 19th, forty Electors signed an open letter asking James Clapper to release facts on outside interference in U.S. election. Since there was no delay of the Electoral College vote or an additional security briefing to the Electors, the last known intelligence that the Electors were given prior to casting their vote on December 19th, was that Russia was plotting to have Trump elected. The Electors had a constitutional responsibility to cast their vote in a way that would not have aided our enemy. Their duty to preserve the Republic exceeds the will of the population of their state. In the case of Electors, they should be individually instructed, by an independent third party, regardless of party affiliation, as to their Constitutional responsibilities to safeguard the sanctity of our Nation. In this case, states and/or the Electors’ party advised and persuaded them to vote for Trump and Clinton rather than send the decision to the House of Representatives where the Russian influence could have been more greatly scrutinized. If one Senator and one Representative sign the objection, it must be heard and debated on Jan 6th. Please consider this action to stand and act by the law of the land so that the Objection can be heard and voted upon.
Petition to Ken Paxton, Pam Bondi, Xavier Becerra, Mark Brnovich, Chris Carr, Eric T. Schneiderman, Lisa Madigan, Roy Cooper, Bruce Beemer, Mark Herring
Attorneys General: Ask U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Winner Take All for electors
Allocating electoral votes by Winner Take All is unfair and may be unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (one person, one vote). Before the 2020 presidential election, Attorneys General especially of populous states like California and New York should take this to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the Winner Take All system. "Lessig's equal protection argument…[is] on the right side of history and logic."—Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law and cofounder of American Constitution Society (December 5, 2016, on Twitter) Law professor and activist Lawrence Lessig writes (emphasis added), 'Yes, the Constitution creates an inequality because of the way it allocates electoral college votes. A state like Wyoming, for example, gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus…California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes. 'But the real inequality of the electoral college is created by the “winner take all” (WTA) rule for allocating electoral votes. WTA says that the person who wins the popular votes gets all the electoral college votes for that state. Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) allocates its electors based on WTA. But that system for allocating electoral votes is not mandated by the Constitution. It is created by the states. And so that raises what should be an obvious and much more fiercely contested question—why isn’t WTA being challenged by the Democrats in this election? 'The strongest argument about why it isn’t is an argument of reliance (some people gussy this up to a point about “the rule of law” but that’s just confused rhetoric): The election was waged assuming WTA; it’s not fair now, the argument goes, to change the rule for how electors will be counted. 'No doubt, it is unfair to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They spent money in reliance on the existing system. But that’s not the only “unfairness” at stake here: What about the unfairness being felt by the millions of voters whose votes were effectively diluted, or essentially disenfranchised? Why doesn’t their harm also weigh in the balance? 'It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?' Lessig quotes a statement of the argument written by Atlanta lawyer Larry Sims. Salient parts of Sims's argument (emphasis added): 'a winner-take-all system of allocating Electors by the states denies the minority of voters within each state any representation whatsoever within the Electoral College and ultimately in the case of the 2000 and 2016 elections, denies the plurality of voters nationwide their choice for President under circumstances in which the constitutionally established small state advantage made part of the Electoral College would not. This is neither a reasonable nor a rational result in a representative democracy. This result was dictated by the winner-take-all method of allocating Electors used by the states. It is this state law method of allocating Electors that is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and its bedrock principle of one [person] one vote. … The winner-take-all allocation of multiple Electors (ranging from 3 Electors in our smallest states to 55 in our largest) denies any voice whatsoever to each state’s minority voters, no matter how substantial their vote may be. The distortion of presidential election results by the winner-take-all apportionment of a state’s Electors is an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the law.' Donald Trump threatens the U.S. Constitution itself through his aggressive statements against the press (threatening to "open up libel laws"), against free speech (suggesting the government should revoke citizenship as punishment for protest-burning the American flag, which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as protected speech), against religious groups (notably Muslims), promoting cruel and unusual punishment (Trump has spoken multiple times in support of waterboarding, which international and U.S. law have deemed torture, which is illegal), and against other institutions protected by the U.S. Constitution. Not only is Donald Trump apparently ignorant of the Constitution, his attacks make clear that he does not care to understand it or intend to uphold it. Given what is at stake, Attorneys General should take the argument against Winner Take All, which is not in the Constitution, to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo credit: AP/Evan Vucci/Getty/artisteer via Salon.com) Related articles: How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President Five presidential nominees who won popular vote but lost the election Updated 8/29/17 to edit recipients to match the top 10 states (as of 2008) whose voters are most impacted by biased representation due to Winner Take All. I also added links to a few related articles. While Democrats may be most aware of the unfairness of Winner Take All electors after the 2000 and 2016 elections, the 14th amendment of the Constitution is meant to apply to all U.S. citizens regardless of party affiliation, hence this is not a partisan issue. It's time to amend this undemocratic process that has allowed (at last count) five presidential candidates to win the most votes but lose the presidency. Updated 3/4/17 to replace Kamala Harris, now a U.S. Senator, with Xavier Becerra, acting Attorney General for California. Updated 12/14/16 to add emphasis and another example of Trump's attacks on Constitutional institutions. A New York Times op-ed today titled "Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans" by Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen mentioned the Winner Take All unconstitutionality argument (emphasis added): "There’s no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump’s anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party." Updated 12/13/16 to add additional Attorneys General, per commented suggestion.