AG ABBOTT OPINES, TX PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS not WORTH the PAPER on which THEY’RE WRITTEN

June 25, 2012

UPDATED 06.26.12: See update at bottom of article.

© 2012 jbjd

Disagreeing with me on a point of legal interpretation doesn’t per se mean you don’t know what you are talking about. But when Assistant AG June Harden rejected Kelly Canon’s complaint that the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) had violated the Public Information Act (“PIA” or “the Act”) by refusing to produce certain election-related documents; explaining to Ms. Canon that, political parties are not covered by the Act, well, Ms. Harden had no idea what she was talking about.

For the past 12 years, Harden has been the Senior Managing Attorney for Public Outreach in the Open Records Division of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. Before joining the OAG, she served as Special Counsel to Senator Gregory Luna of Bexar County.  Id. Ms. Harden received her undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and her J.D. from Texas Tech University School of Law. Id. She has been working at the AG since December 1995; her current annual salary is $80,000. http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/state-of-texas/june-b-harden/1114680/

Judging by her bona fides; by now, she should know her job in and out. But she doesn’t. And I can prove it. First, some background information, which has been covered in previous articles.

The legal standard for getting the name of the Presidential candidate from the major political party on the general election ballot in Texas is spelled out in §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.  The first of four prongs to entitlement is, the person must be “federally qualified” for the job. Id. But no law specifically designates whose responsibility it is to determine either in the first instance, whether the candidate is federally qualified; or, at some point after the political party has electronically submitted the name of the candidate to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) and before she certifies the name to the ballot, whether anyone has previously determined s/he is federally qualified for the job. However, we know that the Secretary does not verify Constitutional eligibility; and so, Ms. Canon determined to find out on what documentary basis both the RPT (Republican Party of TX) and TDP had determined their 2012 Presidential candidates’ federal qualifications. The RPT returned their candidate applications which, like those applications designed by the Secretary for Independent and Write-in candidates, contained the Constitutionally qualified self-affirmation. The TDP returned the candidates’ unauthenticated applications. (See BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS.)

But that’s not what Canon asked for; so she filed a complaint with the AG charging the TDP had violated the PIA. Pending receipt of the actual opinion letter; Ms. Harden telephoned her response.

According to Harden, the TDP is not covered by the PIA. Why? Because, as she told Ms. Canon; under Title 5 of 552.003, Definitions, political parties are not identified as government entities. And, technically she’s right. That is, the TDP is not a government entity. But this fact alone does not end the analysis as to whether the documents requested are covered under the Act. For example, had she read section 552.002; she would have seen this.

Sec. 552.002.  DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION; MEDIA CONTAINING PUBLIC INFORMATION.  (a)  In this chapter, “public information” means information that is collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business:

(1)  by a governmental body;  or

(2)  for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.

This means, even granting that sec. 552.003 of the TX Statutes, Government Code, Title 5, Open Government; Ethics, does not explicitly define the TDP as a government entity; one cannot rightly infer that the documents held by the TDP which were the subject of Ms. Canon’s request and subsequent complaint to the AG for non-compliance; are not public documents under other provisions of the Act. Or that, under another legal scheme, either the party or the documents are not covered by the Act. And they are. For example, look at the Elections Code.

Sec. 191.003: NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. The state chair of each political party holding a presidential primary election shall certify the name of each presidential candidate who qualifies for a place on the presidential primary election ballot and deliver the certification to the secretary of state not later than the 57th day before presidential primary election day.

Thus, in TX, the Presidential candidates representing the major political parties do not apply directly to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) to get their names on the ballot. Instead, they must submit their ballot applications to the chair of the party; and s/he must submit the names of these candidates to the SoS. In other words, under Sec. 552.002, the information “collected, assembled, or maintained” with respect to these applications which are made pursuant to Sec. 191.003, requiring the delivery of the certification of qualified candidates to the SoS; is public information.

But just in case the logic of coverage under the PIA is still unclear; there’s this.

Sec. 141.035.  APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  An application for a place on the ballot, including an accompanying petition, is public information immediately on its filing.

Indeed; like they had done to several requestors in 2010; the TDP ignored Canon’s first request for documents in 2012, in which she had failed to specify the applicable public records laws.

View this document on Scribd

No; she only received a response after she revised her letter and filed a second request for documents in which she specifically asserted the laws supporting the request.

And she knew if the TDP had any such documents related to the 2012 ballot; these documents would still be held by the TDP.

Sec. 141.036.  PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION.  The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.

However, the party failed to produce the specific documents she requested related to how it had ascertained the candidates’ federal qualification, which refusal had prompted her present complaint to the AG.

Presumably, before Ms. Harden issued her opinion; she researched past opinions issuing on this subject from the office of the AG. We looked; there are none. This means, this was a case of first impression. But this also means that, subsequent complaints as to the refusal of the parties to produce specific election-related information; will be rejected on the grounds of her opinion.

It would appear that AAG Harden repeated the mistakes others have made when interpreting the coverage of the PIA. That is, she was too narrowly focused on the definitions which ruled out political party chairs as ‘public officials,’ ignoring the fact  the section of the law immediately preceding those definitions makes unambiguously clear that documents held by these party officers may still be classified as public records.  Or the fact that other laws may define records as public, making them also subject to the PIA; and spell out that when party officers carry out traditional state functions associated with elections, covered by another section of the law; then, just like other public officials, they can still be ordered to hand over these public records, under an action in Mandamus initiated either by the aggrieved citizen or by the AG.

To say nothing of the fact that the opening provision of the PIA urges its provisions not to be narrowly construed so as to limit public access to records but, on the contrary; to be “liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.552.htm

But as of now; the erroneous opinion stands.  This means the TDP has the legal obligation to submit the name of a Presidential candidate to the ballot, which name the SoS, who presumes the candidates named by the parties are federally qualified for the job and thus entitled to appear on the ballot; must certify these names to the ballot.  Sec. 192.033. But neither the SoS nor a private citizen has the right of access to the party documents which were the basis for the TDP’s eligibility determination. And the TDP knows this, having been copied on both the complaint and the opinion letter.

Recall that, in the past, the TDP refused to produce documentary evidence of its candidate applications until the requester cited applicable public records and election laws. Until we can reverse Ms. Harden’s patently erroneous legal interpretation of the scope of PIA jurisdiction; how likely do you suppose will be the TDP to voluntarily disclose such eligibility documentation?

And why would the citizens of TX allow to remain intact, a system of elections that presently permits a political party to maintain access to the ballot notwithstanding it cannot produce any documentary evidence to the public or the Secretary, that its candidates satisfy the threshold to entitlement, of being “federally qualified” for the job?

UPDATE 06.26.12: Well, well, well. AAG Harden’s written response arrived; and it’s even ‘better’ in black and white.

View this document on Scribd

See, in addition to memorializing her illogical opinion that, the TDP is not covered under the PIA inasmuch as they are not identified as a “government entity” in the Definitions section of that law; she now preserves for the record her mistaken assertion that the only records covered are those held by entities explicitly defined as ‘government.’ This, of course, leaves out all of those “records” defined in the law as “collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business … for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.” Id.

But there’s more. Ms. Canon pointed out to Ms. Harden over the phone; she had filed a PIA request with the SoS seeking all documents the TDP had submitted to that office with respect to the federal qualification of the Presidential candidates whose names they provided to appear on the ballot. The SoS complied with this request. That is, they returned a printout of the electronic spreadsheet that had been submitted by the party, containing the candidates’ names. Because that’s all they had gotten from the party.  But apparently, Harden somehow got the idea that, Canon was perhaps complaining, the SoS had received from the party, documents of federal qualification; but had refused to forward to her that documentation! Now, writing the obvious, Harden advised that the SoS is a government entity under the PIA, and suggested Canon could file a PIA complaint against them!

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


REMEMBER the ALAMO?

January 26, 2010

CRITICAL UPDATE on FEBRUARY 14, 2010: After you have read REMEMBER the ALAMO, please read the follow-up post at TEXAS TWO-STEP, which contains reports of communications between Requestors (of public records) and the TDP (Texas Democratic Party); and jbjd and the (misnamed) FOIFT (Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas).

**************************************************************************************************

Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party is a lone wolf in the Lone Star State.

In every other state and the District of Columbia, Certifications of Nomination signed by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention, were forwarded to election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the “D” on the 2008 general election ballot.*  But not in TX.  Nope; in TX, only Mr.  Richie signed those Certifications.  And for all of the citizens in those states where only the names of qualified candidates may be printed on the ballot, who filed charges of election fraud with their state A’sG charging members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get them to print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain beforehand whether he is a NBC; the fact that NP did not sign the TX Certification but BR did, makes all the difference in the world.

*In order to get BO’s name printed on SC’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot, the SC D state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley, hand wrote the certification on the memo typed by Carol Fowler, party Chair, assuring the Board of Elections that he was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. “IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

Take a look at my model citizen complaint of election fraud to the TX AG, which is also posted in the sidebar on the front of this blog.  (The description of the Certifications Mr. Richie submitted to TX election officials, with links to the documents, appears on pages 2 & 3.)

View this document on Scribd

Now, read “Purpose of Contact” on pages 1 & 2.  See, before citizens of TX and the 5 (five) other states readers have identified so far, filed these complaints, they attempted to find out what documentation was the basis of those certifications of eligibility submitted by members of the D party to state election officials to get them to print BO’s name on the ballot.  But NP, Alice Germond, and Joseph Sandler, all representing the D Services Corporation, would not answer.  JS specifically explained to those citizens who had framed their request  for documents as covered by the ‘freedom of information’ laws, the D Corporation is not a public agency and so, is not subject to public records disclosure laws.  Of course, he was right.  The D Services Corporation is a private club.  Thus, state and federal public records laws were powerless to compel NP,  AG, and others acting on behalf of the Corporation, to produce the requested documentation.   (Of course, as my 9th graders astutely pointed out, since JS went to the trouble to write the letter explaining that his client, the D Corporation, was exempt from public disclosure laws, it made no sense he just didn’t answer the question.  Unless he had something to hide.  “OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES“)

Citizens of TX also asked BR to identify these documents that were the basis of his eligibility determination.  And he also refused to say.  But turns out, in TX, when it comes to defining the meaning of public documents; and avoiding having to disclose such documents, this same ‘get out of jail free’ card that applied to the DNC Corporation, does not apply to Chairman Richie and the state D party.  On the contrary, under TX law, in certain circumstances, documents in the custody of political parties can be ‘discoverable’ as public records.  (Not only that but, the court can compel officers of these parties to hand over these records under a cause of action called ‘mandamus,’ a process which is usually reserved to get government officials to do their jobs.)

Know what this means?

Regardless of the unwillingness of TX AG Greg Abbott to investigate the hundreds of these complaints of election fraud his office has received since September; the citizens of TX can proceed on their own under TX state law to compel Chairman Richie to provide the documents that lead one step closer to establishing once and for all, for the record, despite all of these Certifications of Nomination, U.S. President Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. “THE END GAME

Look, we already know, no documents exist in the public record that would establish BO is a NBC.  White House Counsel Bob Bauer said so.  “COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT”  And for this reason, and the fact Boyd Richie refused to name any records when asked in the past, we know he committed election fraud in TX.  AG Abbott knows there is a strong circumstantial case for fraud; we laid it all out in those citizen complaints.  And Mr. Richie knows we are on to him, because he was copied on every complaint filed with Mr. Abbott.  (We also sent copies to our U.S. Representatives and Senators.)

It’s long past time our elected officials perform the work that is a function of their public office.  But as long as AG Abbott (and the House of Representatives) refuses to act, we still have to prove our own case.

So, that’s what we’ll do.  And we’ll do it by applying these TX laws.  Thus, instead of just asking Mr. Richie to provide the requested documentation, we will couch such requests in terms of TX election law, and act more entitled.  And if Mr. Richie wants to avoid honoring requests for these public records this time then, according to TX law, he will have to notify AG Abbott of these requests within the 10-day time period allowed for such delay in production, as well as his stated reasons for refusing to produce the requested records.  Then, AG Abbott will have to determine whether citizens of TX are entitled to these records under the law.  AND ALL OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD!

Here are some of the applicable provisions of the TX Election Code.

ELECTION CODE

TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

Chapter 1.  General Provisions

Sec. 1.012. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), an election record that is public information shall be made available to the public during the regular business hours of the record’s custodian.

(b) For the purpose of safeguarding the election records or economizing the custodian’s time, the custodian may adopt reasonable rules limiting public access.

(c) Except as otherwise provided by this code or Chapter 552, Government Code, all election records are public information.

(d) In this code, “election record” includes:

(1) anything distributed or received by government under this code;

(2) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government under this code; or

(3) a certificate, application, notice, report, or other document or paper issued or received by government under this code.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(88), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 393, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

TITLE 9. CANDIDATES

Chapter 141. Candidacy for public office generally

Subchapter B.  Application for place on ballot

Sec. 141.035. APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. An application for a place on the ballot, including an accompanying petition, is public information immediately on its filing.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Sec. 141.036. PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION. The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

TITLE 10.  POLITICAL PARTIES

Chapter 161.  General Provisions

§ 161.004. PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  If a document, record, or other paper is expressly required by this title to be filed, prepared, or preserved, it is public information unless this title provides otherwise.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

§ 161.009. PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS. The performance of a duty placed by this code on an officer of a political party is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Another great source of information for the mechanism for requesting public records in TX is the web site for the TX Office of AG.  http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml Please review this before you send the letter below.  Make sure that whatever mechanism you use to transmit this letter, you retain proof of delivery or receipt so as to mark the tolling of the “reasonable” “prompt[]” time allowed under law for Mr. Richie’s response.  (For example, if you send via fax, keep the transmission confirmation.)  As always, feel free to send copies of your letters to anyone else you want.  Just make sure the letters to Mr. Richie and AG Abbott contain your real names and addresses, in TX.

Yes, my ‘two-stepping’ Texans, thanks to your enactment of special laws which subject Chairman Richie and the TX D state party to the same disclosure standards of public documents that apply to government agencies; you are in a position to pursue, catch, and de-claw this wolf, exercising the same dedication of purpose your forefathers and foremothers, Tejano and American alike, met Santa Anna’s onslaught against the Alamo, more than 150 years ago.**  Only this time, you have the opportunity to re-write the narrative on the 2008 general election. No doubt, you brave patriots, too, will be remembered for generations after the end of this conflagration.

Remember the Alamo!

**Santa Anna advanced into Texas with 4,000 men, headed for the Alamo, where almost 200 American and Tejano volunteers huddled, awaiting an attack. The now-infamous battle that occurred on March 6, 1836, resulted in a Mexican victory and the death of every last Alamo defender. Not left unscathed, the Mexicans lost 600 men.

Six weeks later, after a surprise attack on the Mexican forces near the San Jacinto River, Texan army commander Sam Houston rallied his troops with the cry, “Remember the Alamo!” Although the battle was won within minutes, the vengeful Texan army — including Tejanos — continued fighting for hours, killing any Mexican soldier they found. Santa Anna was captured the following day, effectively ending the war.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/qea2.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/alamo/filmmore/fd.html

View this document on Scribd

NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2)

August 25, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

The title of this post is inspired by a line in the last stanza from one of my favorite poems, Reluctance,  by my favorite poet, Robert Frost.

Ah, when to the heart of man
Was it ever less than a treason
To go with the drift of things,
To yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end
Of a love or a season?

I have always found giving up without a fight to be treasonous, especially when I am certain I am right.  And I am certainly right about Barack Obama.  That is, people within  the DNC selected him to become POTUS notwithstanding the evidence indicates he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a NBC.  Indefatigable, I have assembled this primer which, hopefully, will end the interminable farce over how best to address his Constitutional eligibility.    I name the names of those people responsible for depositing him in the Oval Office, and define the precise scope of their culpability, in anticipation that efforts to rectify this election anomaly will now be focused squarely on them.   Keep in mind that, by identifying the people with direct culpability, I am by definition ruling out everyone else.   For starters, this blameless faction includes Barack Obama.  Because even assuming he is not a NBC, without these others, he could never have gotten the job.

Recognizing the real culprits in this drama requires an understanding of the process for electing the POTUS, as spelled out in the Constitution.   Fortunately, our tax dollars paid for an enterprise that will contribute to such an understanding.  The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress published an excellent report entitled, “The Electoral College: How It Works,” which contains this concise summary on the Presidential election process.  Please, master this passage before you proceed.  (All emphasis to the original is mine.)  (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Subsequent to writing this article, I decided to stop referring to Electors using the word “College,”  as this term does not appear in the Constitution.)

When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (jbjd note:  date omitted). In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December (jbjd note:  date omitted). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Some states have enacted laws that  require Electors to support the nominee of the party; but no faithless Elector has ever been prosecuted for violating this oath, and Congress has never failed to ratify the vote of the Electors even when this includes the votes of these faithless Electors.) Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. (jbjd note:  Congress enacted a law changing this date to January 8 just for the year 2009.)  A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28109.pdf

Thus, on January 8, 2009, Congress finalized the election of BO for POTUS when, exercising a procedure spelled out in the Constitution, they ratified the individual vote tallies from Electoral College votes cast in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, which had been submitted to them via the Constitutionally prescribed process by then Vice President Cheney, the President of the Senate, who had received these totals directly from the individual state Electoral Colleges as required by the Constitution.  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Immediately after this Congressional Ratification, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO is not a NBC, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against everyone in Congress for failing to insist on a Constitutional vetting of the man before voting for Ratification.  These so-called ‘Patriots’ referred to Congresspeople of both parties as “Traitors,” accusing their elected officials of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements for POTUS spelled out in the Constitution, even though, ironically, the Constitution itself  required Ratification once Congress was confident the Electoral College had conducted its vote in accordance with the ‘process’ prescribed by the Constitution.

In other words, Congress is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for Ratifying the results of the voting undertaken by the Electoral College.  This means that they are also not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

This does not mean the Electoral College is directly responsible for making BO POTUS.

Neither the Constitution nor federal law prescribe the manner in which each state appoints its Electors other than directing that they be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  In most States, the Electors are appointed through a state-wide popular election (“general election”).

That is, voters only elect Electors in the state’s general election.

Currently, Electors are nominated to fill these positions by the political parties at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each state. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to the party. Generally, they hold a leadership position in the party. Often, they are major party fundraisers.  They may be state elected officials but, the Constitution prohibits members of Congress from becoming Electors in the Electoral College.

Whether the names of these nominated Electors then appear on the ballot depends on election laws that vary state to state.  In some states, the names of these Electors appear along with the letter “D” or “R,” along with the name of the party nominee.  In other states, only the name of the nominee appears along with the designation of the party.  But regardless of the appearance of the names on the general election ballot, voters in each state only choose the electors on the day of the general election. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Weeks after their ‘appointment’ by means of the general election, these elected state Electors meet in each state – this gathering of Electors is referred to as the Electoral College, although the term Electoral College does not appear in the Constitution – to cast votes for the next POTUS.   The Constitution is silent about the factors that go into their voting decision.  Thus, Electors are Constitutionally free to cast votes for whomever they want.  This means, they may even vote for a person who is not the nominee of their political party or, is not in the same party as the slate of Electors that won the state’s general election.  However, some states have enacted laws that require the slate of Electors receiving the largest popular vote in the state’s general election, must cast their votes for the Presidential nominee from the same political party.  In other words, in these states, if the D’s received more votes than the R’s, then the Electors for the D party must cast their votes for the D party nominee.  And every state except for NE and ME, and the District of Columbia are winner take all, meaning, all of the electoral votes assigned to that state (or the District of Columbia) must be cast by Electors of the winning political party.

Immediately after the vote of the Electoral College, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO was Constitutionally ineligible for the job, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against the Democrats in the Electoral Colleges who cast votes for BO without first vetting him for Constitutional qualifications.  These ‘Patriots’ referred to Electors representing the Democratic Party as “Traitors,” accusing them of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements spelled out in the Constitution.  But remember, the Constitution does not require Electors to vet the party candidate for President as to Constitutional eligibility,  being silent as to the qualification of the person Electors may elect for the job.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

In other words, the Electoral College is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for casting their votes for him in accordance with both the Constitution and state law, as the nominee of the D party when that party was the winner of the state’s general election.  This also means that they are not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

Then, the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found in a process directly related to his nomination.

(TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2 OF 2.)

When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for
presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors,
chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state
a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of
Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from
three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of
Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In
each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is
nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party
convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than
the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election
held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 2, 2004). In most
states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential
and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular
votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine
and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a
statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors
assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December
(December 13, 2004). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the
candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President,
after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral
vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6
of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538)
is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

%d bloggers like this: