To: Kamala D. Harris, California Attorney General
CA Attorney General: Challenge the 2016 Election in the Supreme Court for Clinton Victory
Urge the California Attorney General to bring a suit before the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutionality of the “winner-take-all-by-state” practice of allocating electors so Clinton is named the winner of the 2016 presidential election.
Why is this important?
NOTE: Please sign this petition below instead. It is essentially the same but has more signatures and we need to consolidate our efforts:
https://www.change.org/p/california-attorney-general-kamala-harris-urge-ca-attorney-general-to-bring-a-case-to-the-us-supreme-court-for-a-clinton-victory?recruiter=437185650&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election by more than 2.5 million votes despite Russian interference, collusion by government officials, and voter suppression. Yet she was not declared the winner due to a “winner-take-all-by-state” practice that is NOT described in the Constitution. In fact, Attorney Jerry L. Sims points out that this absurdly unfair convention could mathematically allow a candidate to win with only 22.6% of the national vote.
Attorney Sims says that the “winner-take-all-by-state” practice of allocating electors is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and argues that electors should be allocated proportionally by state vote OR winner-take-all according to the results of the national vote. Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig agrees that there is substantial argument for such a case. We would argue that the former method would be preferable since it still gives less densely populated states a proportionally stronger voice, due to the weighted bias of determining numbers of electors per state, without completely silencing the voices of such a disproportionate number of voters. It also makes more practical the possibility of electors overturning the apparent outcome of a close election if they deemed it necessary. This is because fewer electors would need to vote against their party affiliation in a close election in order to discharge their duty of protecting the country in a rare situation where they would consider it necessary to prevent a candidate from taking power who is unfit, unqualified, has many potential conflicts of interest, and who has a questionable relationship with a foreign government that does not have the best interests of the country at heart.
Although it could be argued that the candidates might have campaigned differently were it recognized beforehand that the “winner-take-all-by-state” practice was unconstitutional, there is also strong argument that people in “blue” states would have voted in much greater numbers had this been the case. There are also substantial grounds for a case to be brought that the election should be nullified because of the unprecedented interference in the election by a foreign government (namely Russia), Hatch Act violations and collusion by government officials, and blatant suppression of voters of color in “swing states.” This decision would result in the spirit of the Constitution being carried out in the most efficient and timely manner.
On behalf of California voters, we urge Attorney General Kamala D. Harris to challenge the apparent outcome of the election in the United States Supreme Court. We ask the Supreme Court to consider the potential damage done to disenfranchised voters in this democratic country if their Constitutional right to equal protection is denied. We ask Attorney General Harris to demand that the “winner-take-all-by-state” allocation of electors be struck down as unconstitutional and that electors be allocated proportionally by state vote OR winner-take-all according to the national vote in this election.
The arguments of attorneys Sims and Lessig can be found in these essays:
https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.ll25892nd
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitution-lets-the-electoral-college-choose-the-winner-they-should-choose-clinton/2016/11/24/0f431828-b0f7-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.e82e0385ab77
https://www.change.org/p/california-attorney-general-kamala-harris-urge-ca-attorney-general-to-bring-a-case-to-the-us-supreme-court-for-a-clinton-victory?recruiter=437185650&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election by more than 2.5 million votes despite Russian interference, collusion by government officials, and voter suppression. Yet she was not declared the winner due to a “winner-take-all-by-state” practice that is NOT described in the Constitution. In fact, Attorney Jerry L. Sims points out that this absurdly unfair convention could mathematically allow a candidate to win with only 22.6% of the national vote.
Attorney Sims says that the “winner-take-all-by-state” practice of allocating electors is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and argues that electors should be allocated proportionally by state vote OR winner-take-all according to the results of the national vote. Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig agrees that there is substantial argument for such a case. We would argue that the former method would be preferable since it still gives less densely populated states a proportionally stronger voice, due to the weighted bias of determining numbers of electors per state, without completely silencing the voices of such a disproportionate number of voters. It also makes more practical the possibility of electors overturning the apparent outcome of a close election if they deemed it necessary. This is because fewer electors would need to vote against their party affiliation in a close election in order to discharge their duty of protecting the country in a rare situation where they would consider it necessary to prevent a candidate from taking power who is unfit, unqualified, has many potential conflicts of interest, and who has a questionable relationship with a foreign government that does not have the best interests of the country at heart.
Although it could be argued that the candidates might have campaigned differently were it recognized beforehand that the “winner-take-all-by-state” practice was unconstitutional, there is also strong argument that people in “blue” states would have voted in much greater numbers had this been the case. There are also substantial grounds for a case to be brought that the election should be nullified because of the unprecedented interference in the election by a foreign government (namely Russia), Hatch Act violations and collusion by government officials, and blatant suppression of voters of color in “swing states.” This decision would result in the spirit of the Constitution being carried out in the most efficient and timely manner.
On behalf of California voters, we urge Attorney General Kamala D. Harris to challenge the apparent outcome of the election in the United States Supreme Court. We ask the Supreme Court to consider the potential damage done to disenfranchised voters in this democratic country if their Constitutional right to equal protection is denied. We ask Attorney General Harris to demand that the “winner-take-all-by-state” allocation of electors be struck down as unconstitutional and that electors be allocated proportionally by state vote OR winner-take-all according to the national vote in this election.
The arguments of attorneys Sims and Lessig can be found in these essays:
https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.ll25892nd
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitution-lets-the-electoral-college-choose-the-winner-they-should-choose-clinton/2016/11/24/0f431828-b0f7-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.e82e0385ab77