1. US judge who doesn’t understand Constitution or Electoral College. Case should have summary judgment 4 plaintiff. All state laws and statutes that try to bind electors are unenforceable because they’re unconstitutional:

2. Yet another machination so that the rotted E.C. must be ABOLISHED.

   P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

3. This Judge doesn’t want to rule. Mediation sets no precedence. Take the case to a three-judge Circuit panel.

4. D. Frank Robinson,

   I agree that is what the judge is doing. Tomorrow the American Independent Party of California is
   Filing its own lawsuit in California over the fraudulent election for POTUS/VPOTUS election on
   November 8th period in Sacramento.

5. It is not clear to whom Baca made her pledge to support Clinton and Kaine. If it was to the Colorado Democratic Party, the party should be a defendant, and perhaps Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Baca may have committed fraud in order to secure her state office.

   I don’t see anything in Colorado statute that permits the Secretary of State to preside over the meeting of the electors. His duties extend to determining who Colorado appointed, notifying the electors of their appointment, arranging the meeting place, and likely swearing in the electors.

   The US Constitution provides that the electors shall meet. It doesn’t provide for participation of anyone else in the meeting, other than a witnessing role.

   The other electors could determine that Baca had vacated her position. But she should also sue them.

   Point 24 in the lawsuit is patently false.

6. Jim Riley,

   Is the state office of a Elector in Colorado an office of profit like has been in California since the 1850’s?

   I recall the first Colorado meeting of the Electoral College
   was three and they did not get elected by the voters as required under Article XIV, Section 2 of the Constitution
   of the United States. That was in 1876.
   Jim Riley

   What was point 24 of the lawsuit about?

   I will be filing today a lawsuit in Sacramento, CA over Election Fraud related to Electors in California in the
   November 8, 2016 election. As it stands now the pick of
   the 55 electors in California is not settle because of
   an August 26, 2016 CC/ROV.

7. The 14th Amendment, Section 2 does not require popular election of presidential electors. It simply provides that if a state chooses to have popular elections for presidential electors that it can not abridge the right to vote without being penalized in its apportionment. By your interpretation, state judges would have to be elected. Note there is no apportionment penalty for abridging the right to vote for senator.

   The Colorado Constitution provided that the electors in 1876 would be appointed by the legislature. The first election for state officers, the legislature, and US Representative was in October 1876. There were dual elections for US Representative, one for the partial term (October 1876-March 1877) and one for the full term (March 1877-March 1879). There had been a proclamation by the Territorial Secretary that there would be an election in November for the full term, in accord with federal statute, but that was called off. There was apparently a desultory election in November, which was never canvassed. But Congress eventually seated the winner of that election.

   Point 24 claimed that for the first 100 years that presidential electors in most states were appointed by the state.

   Electors receive $5 per day, plus $0.15 per mile travel. I don’t know why the meeting might last more than one day.

8. Mark Seidenberg, I am delighted to hear that AIP is taking Padilla to court.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.