In a final push against the Presidency of Donald J. Trump, three mere citizens, Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman, are seeking to change the course of history by bringing an action to the last branch of government in hopes they may answer their concerns about the election, Donald Trump, and Russian Hacking. Currently, the case is in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hands, pending her recommendation for the full court to hear the case. Ginsburg has been the most vocal opposition against president-elect Trump, has called him a faker, and has publicly stated:
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — with Donald Trump as our president… for the country it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
If the Court were to refuse to even consider the case, it will have failed to protect us from the most fundamental threat to our democracy: to hold free and fair elections. Whether you agree with the premise that Russia hacked the election system or not, the fact remains that we must answer for and address the terrible deficiencies of our voting machines — machines which have already been confirmed to delete ballots on the basis of signatures, which can be easily hacked at the voting site and remotely compromised. In a previous article, I detailed the reasons why it was important to address these particular issues during Jill Stein’s request for recounts; it being about election integrity.
Many people doubt the urgency of the situation — stating that the election is over and others need to move on. But it is impossible to proceed in a democracy when the mechanism for ensuring the integrity of our systems has been confirmed to have been compromised by 17 intelligence agencies and even the president-elect himself has stated that Russians probably interfered in the election.
Specifically, the filed documents (see below for the documents) claim that Russia, or Putin specifically, was behind the hacking of the presidential election and that it would be impossible to determine the effect of the effort and, therefore, a halt of the inauguration process as well as a new election should be ordered. The plaintiffs have been brought together through a collective effort by Kirsten Elaine Martin, Dr. Kelly Sennholz, and Jerroll Sanders who did not wish to become plaintiffs but made a pact to “pick up the torch” when one of them became exhausted from the process. They have worked day and night for the past month as mere citizens to help make a difference in our country’s electoral process. The trio met with one another in December, having been disturbed by the evidence pointing to Russian interference, settled on a group of plaintiffs which are named above, and formulated a plan to file simultaneous suits in Massachusetts, Colorado, and California. Sennholz and Sanders became plaintiffs in the Colorado action.
Sanders crafted the original legal strategy as a plaintiff in a movement which subsequently made its way to the Supreme Court. She explains that the argument to the Court is based upon the Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” which claims that the United States failed to protect the States from a cyber-invasion. Sanders further states that the politicians themselves, who had sworn an oath to protect the Constitution failed in their duty — this serves as the basis of their argument.
Martin says: “Connect the dots!” She suspects that Paul Manafort worked with Putin to help rig the Ukraine election in 2004 and was paid over $12 million in undisclosed payments that were earmarked in a secret ledger. She believes that people have been too distracted by Trump’s tweets and other sensational stories to see the real connection, which she believes the case brings to light. Undoubtedly, the power of a few people to connect the dots is absolutely stunning.
It is important to note that the progressive and other anti-establishment movements have complained that they do not see a difference between Hillary or Trump. They do not care to have the election results changed or redone because they see both people as equally bad. But I submit to you – is this not a multifaceted problem? Is it not problematic that corporations own the election software? Brent Turner from the California Association of Voting Officials, whose organization is named in the brief, explains that “The corporate software has been determined insecure by government study and the solution to this crisis is publicly owned open source software which has been developed and is ready for deployment.” These problems arose both in the primary and general elections.
This begs the question that if the DNC was hacked, should the DNC candidates be entitled to a new primary election? The RNC had reportedly been hacked. What about them? Certainly, this will be a topic of hot discussion.
While many questions remain, if this case is denied a hearing, the people will have their voice denied. We are doing a disservice to future generations not to address this issue now. We will never be able to have any of these questions answered. Therefore, it is for the sake of the future of this country that we need a revote for the election of 2016.
Editor’s Note: The PDF files have been edited to have sensitive information redacted. You can find updated information on the Supreme Court case here.