Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT for Overturning the Election.... lawyers? (II)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 12:38 AM
Original message
EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT for Overturning the Election.... lawyers? (II)
Edited on Wed Dec-01-04 01:26 AM by geo
Hi all

I have no idea if I am doing this right. :) I took some of the discussion and tried to smack together a complaint. Someone will likely have to at least add class action language. I will also link some useful data related to the adverse impact the practices and policies of Ohio had on it's black and low income voters.

Here is the original "Equal Protection argument" thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652

PLEASE, critique away! Keep up the good dicussion! :)

:) -G
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

1. Plaintiffs are individuals of majority, residents of the State of Ohio, and meet all legal requirements to cast a vote in the November 2, 2004, General Election.

2. Defendant State of Ohio is the governmental entity responsible for governance, policy and operations of the November 2, 2004, General Election.

3. Defendant Kenneth Blackwell is Ohio’s Secretary of State and has served as the honorary chairman of the Bush/Cheney campaign; positions with conflicting interests.

4. DOES 1-100 are responsible in some manner for the wrongdoing alleged herein. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of said Defendants, and will seek leave to allege same when known.

5. Each Defendant was acting as the agent or employee of the other Defendants in committing the wrongdoing alleged herein.

6. On or about November 2, 2004, Plaintiffs attempted to participate in the November 2, 2004 General Election.

7. On or about November 2, 2004, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs equal opportunity to participate in said election through uneven allocation of voting machines in heavily black precincts and lower income communities, which had an adverse impact on members of this class as fewer were able to cast a vote.

8. This wrongdoing was committed intentionally, maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with aims at suppressing voters of a protected class.

9. Since November 2, 2004,a series of informal hearings has taken place, under oath, documenting the numerous cases of voter suppression in minority precincts.

10. However, the Secretary of State has failed to remedy the systematic disenfranchisement of black and lower-income citizens.

11. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm, unless and until an injunction is issued as prayed for herein.

12. Plaintiff has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

13. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-12 above.

14. The wrongdoing alleged herein has interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to participate in the Statewide election process and denied Plaintiffs’ civil rights in violation of the State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

15. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-14 above.

16. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongdoing as alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered painful mental and emotional distress.

17. This wrongdoing was undertaken negligently, without due care for the rights and feelings of Plaintiffs, who consequently are entitled to damages according to proof at trial, in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

18. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraph 1-17 above.

19. This wrongdoing was undertaken intentionally, willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with wanton and reckless disregard for the rights and feelings of Plaintiffs.

20. This wrongdoing is heinous and shocking to the conscience of the community, entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and deter future misconduct (except as to Defendant State of Ohio).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
1. For an order preventing Defendants from certifying its electors, or otherwise acting on the results of the November 2, 2004 election, without allowing disenfranchised residents to cast a vote in the Statewide election process;

2. For an order to compell the State of Ohio to hold a new General Election in affected precincts, with an adequate number of working election machines that can be audited for accuracy.

3. For an order removing Secretary of State Blackwell from the remainder of the General Election process;

4. For general damages according to proof;

5. For special damages according to proof;

6. For punitive damages according to proof (4th Cause of Action only);

7. For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and

8. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: December 1, 2004... or as close as we can get. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. DISCLAIMER: Please read.
For the sake of keeping discussion candid from our friends in the legal profession, it shall be understood that nothing written herein is or should be construed by anyone as legal advice on the subject.

This thread is intended for academic discussion of the issues surrounding the 2004 election as it relates to particular areas of the law. If you need genuine legal advice regarding a 14th Amendment issue then you should seek the advice of a competent Civil Rights attorney.

End of Disclaimer. Now post away! -G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowboy Joe2k Donating Member (279 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. The Burth of a real civelization? Can we have that?
Kick this to everyone. you human, this is the one nice person who managed to get to the other side of it.

Kick this. This is all we hoped for this is what the world needs tied up in a bow. For the holiday this is what the world needs now. entire world Peace. Kick this if you ever thought you were free. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=79652

Kick this every chance you get least you wined up kicking the damn thing for ever. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=79652

Kick this. this is the one little bit of information that can save the world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=79652

I may have bargained a solid argument to avoid getting stuck in this damn contraption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. The evidence: some related threads and reads:
Edited on Wed Dec-01-04 01:14 AM by geo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Notable comments from the last "Equal Protection Argument" thread...
Edited on Wed Dec-01-04 01:25 AM by geo
1. (Spoogly) U.S. Supreme Court ordered the State of Alabama to re-conduct an election because of racial discrimination: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#79766

2. (Spoogly) A racial impact would need to be shown...although I think there are cases out there that say that there can be other impacts as well...i.e. impacts on poor white voters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#79847

3. (Spoogly) I think it would have to be shown that the activities in question would possibly change the election results. You would also be in a position of asking for a new election in the impacted counties in a Presidential race: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#79884

4. (lawladyprof) SCOTUS has been taking foreign law into account lately (Ukraine ct. decision not to certify until hearings), and I have had a strong sense that at least one Justice has had buyer's remorse re: George: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#81186

5. (Pat_k) The problems of Election 2004 must be remedied IN Election 2004. Failure to remedy problems must have consequences: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#80001

6. (MarcusQ) Lots of angle: state constitutions, long lines as a poll tax...: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#82612

7. (Truman01) It is also true that each state has a layout of how those electors are chosen by popular vote. So, if that layout is not followed then there is an example of a violation of Equal Protection: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#80693

8. (Truman01) VAPOR VOTES: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#80902

9. (Truman01) Burden of Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#81723

10. (lawladyprof) That's why I've been harping on the discriminatory mis-allocation of voting machines. I believe we are trying to train our guns on too many targets (some of which are hard to prove and/or would take too long to prove and others of which are too hard to remedy in a way that will turn this election). The race-based adverse impact of mis-allocated machines equals an Equal Protection Clause violation leading to voter suppression and the remedy is clear. Give the disenfranchised voters an opportunity to vote (requires proof that your precinct had too few machines allocated to it and an affidavit stating you attempted to vote but were unable to do so because of the mis-allocation). http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#88151 (sums up the thread nicely)

11. (Spoogly) You would end up using all approaches. Poll tax analogy, 14th, 15th Amendment, Voting Rights Act of 1965, etc: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#80136

12. (Spoogly) HUNTER v. UNDERWOOD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#80162

13. (lawladyprof) the impact on race is not nullified simply because there is an adverse impact on other classes i.e. poor white voters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#80307

14. (Truman01) EP law does not need to be about race to be valid. Individual rights espectially state statutory rights like those of election laws create an actionable climate to trigger equal protection violation (more discussion on topic just down-thread): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#80725

15. (Laelth) Initial thoughts ...: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#81921

16. (lawladyprof) would go for an equitable (non-monetary) remedy, a la Brown v. Board of Education (and that would hinge on the disenfranchisement being massive). I'd ask for reapportionment of the state's electors to reflect the percentage voting for each candidate. I know state law gives all electors to the winner (both Florida and Ohio), but here state law would fall to the violation of the federal Constitution: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#82415

17. (Laelth) O'Connor might be willing to vote against Bush this time: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#82585

18. (Laelth) There are two established ways to challenge state laws or actions that infringe upon the rights of certain persons to vote. The first way is to show that the right to vote has been denied for an impermissable reason. If the plaintiff can show that his or her right to vote has been denied for an impermissable(unconstitutional) reason, then the court will protect that right at strict scrutiny: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#82756

19. (lawladyprof) I agree but would go after the adverse impact route: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#82828

20. (Laelth) Of course, the Constitution does not grant any one the right to a hand recount ... but you're right to suggest that in a state like North Carolina, which uses mixed technology, there may be an equal protection issue for the statewide races in which some people could get a hand recount while others could not (because no paper trail exists to do the recount): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x79652#82608

THESE WERE THE HIGHLIGHTS... FOR MORE, PLEASE REFER TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD. :) -G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. OK... finally got the new thread put together... any thoughts? :)
Hi all,

This is a continuation of the first equal protection thread I posted. I thought it might be interesting to throw up a sample complaint and let people pick on it; something to inspire thought and conversation.

From the last thread I saw two concepts I really liked. One was that Ohio could be overturned, possibly, with the help of a discrimination suit (which I took my best stab at above... remember, I am still pre-lsat not post-law school).

The other angle which I hope to get some better discussion on is how we could possibly use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to rid ourselves of the machines. Laelth and a few others weighed in on this during the discussion on the last thread, and it became obvious that if one person has the right and ability to audit their vote, then so should everyone else in the state. This means that with mixed technology you might have an argument, but what about this: even if machines were used across the board, absentee ballots and provisionals are still auditable and maintain that right. Could the equal protection argument hinge from there and take out inauditable machines?

Wiegh in folks! :)

Warmly,

George
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
witchhazl Donating Member (126 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I've got nothing meaningful to add to this very erudite discussion. . .
except I LIKE IT. It sounds great! Keep going! When are we going to file?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. apparently, the thread this is spun from has been sent to...
numerous attorneys and law professors for review. I'm just trying to kick the conversation up a notch. :) It would be nice to hear that action has been taken. The arguments make sense; just need someone to pick up and follow through. :) :) - G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Hi cowboy!
I love you enthusiasm! What are your thoughts on what I said a little up-thread about using the equal protection clause to get rid of inauditable machines? :) -G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-04 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Bye Cowboy!
I guess he got caught wrangling the wrong herd or something. ;) -G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
10. More Franklin County stuff
Edited on Wed Dec-01-04 09:34 AM by lawladyprof
http://freepress.org/eforum/viewtopic.php?p=13#13

"The Free Press reported that Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately withheld voting machines from predominantly black Democratic wards in Columbus, and dispersed some of the machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.

Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the Franklin County Republican Party. Sources close to the Board of Elections told the Free Press that Damschroder and Ohio’’s Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell met with President George W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day.

Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting machines from predominantly Democratic wards in the City of Columbus cost John Kerry upwards of 17,000 votes. A more detailed calculation could be done on a precinct by precinct basis, but that is not necessary here. The purpose is to illustrate the magnitude of the conspiracy.

Matt Damschroder did not act alone. There are 74 wards and 472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio. It is not possible for one person to have delivered all the voting machines, and it is unlikely that nobody else was involved in planning where to deliver them. Anyone who associated with Mr. Damschroder on or shortly before Election Day should be investigated for possible complicity.

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
4 Fisher Street
Canton, New York 13617
(315) 379-0820
richardhayesphillips@yahoo.com "

And see the real fraud was voter suppression

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x95767
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. more to back the claim... very nice. :)
Thanks lawladyprof! :) -G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. But watch out for Bush met Blackwell on 11/02. KB categorically denied
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
11. Slight edit
For an order to compell the State of Ohio to hold a new General Election in affected precincts, with an adequate number of working election machines that can be audited for accuracy or in the alternative permit voters in affected precincts the right to vote on or about _________ ___, _________ if they state under oath that they attempted to vote on November, 2, 2004 but were unable to do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I shall edit it in! :)
I'm going to take a second stab at this later tonight, and will post sometime after that. :) -G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. And compel not compell-eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. lol... need to start watching my spelling... ;)
:) -G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-04 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
19. Kick
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-04 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
20. Let's see how the pros do it! Check out this link/thread....
Hi all,

We might want to shift the legal discussion once we see the challenge Cliff Arnebeck's crew will file tomorrow in Ohio. This thread is one of a couple I have seen on the topic. I would strongly recommend going straight to CSAPN's site and watch the interview for yourself. It's about half an hour including the comment and answer session (I noticed how many people prefer C & A over Q & A).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x104274

Maybe one of us can start a new thread once the content of the challenge is revealed. Cliff Arnebeck says they'll use discovery to uncover more than they already have. This could be quite enlightening. :) :)

Warmly,

George
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-04 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
21. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-04 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. Seems somehow more important to me than
the squabble.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC