EXPIRED: How To Secure Presidential Elections Post-2020

Click here to view possible topics for future meetings. Participants of each monthly meeting vote for the topic of the next monthly meeting.

If you would like to suggest a topic, it is requested as a courtesy that your suggestion be posted here at least 24 hours in advance so that others will have time to give it proper consideration.

EXPIRATION. We have always had a rule that a Possible Topic remains active so long as it receives at least one vote every six meetings. However, if a possible-topic proposal contains a wealth of information that is worth preserving but has not received a vote for six consecutive meetings, it is retained but listed as “Expired."



Occasionally, a Proposed Topic for Future Meetings has a SHORT-TIME FUSE because a governmental unit is soliciting PUBLIC COMMENTS for a limited time period with a SPECIFIED DEADLINE.

Exhibit A would be the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic entitled “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.”

We had already focused on this topic for our 4/9/2008 meeting more than 8 years ago when the PBS Newshour interviewed a Yale U. Biology Professor who had already created a “Chimaera” with 25% Human DNA and 75% Chimp DNA (Chimps are the animals that share the most DNA with humans).

The Yale U. Biology Professor stated that he was then (2008) in the process of creating a “Chimaera” with 50% Human DNA and 50% Chimp DNA, and that he planned to create in the near future (2008 et seq.) a “Chimaera” with 75% Human DNA and 25% Chimp DNA.

As our 4/9/2008 meeting materials posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org disclose, Gwen Ifill who conducted the interview, was oblivious to the issue of the Nazi’s definition of a Jew based on the percentage of Jewish heritage and the Ante-Bellum American South’s definition of African-American based on the percentage of Sub-Saharan-African heritage.

But, even more appallingly, Gwen Ifill failed to ask the obvious question = What happens if the 50%-50% “Chimaera” then already being created happens to exhibit as DOMINANT TRAITS 100% Human DNA and as RECESSIVE TRAITS 100% Chimp DNA!!! Which, of course, would mean that Yale U. was treating as a lab rat a “Chimaera” that is 100% Human!!!

Unfortunately, the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic was prompted by a Proposal from the National Institute of Health (NIH) which appeared in The Federal Register of 8/5/2016 and which had a 9/6/2016 deadline for public comments!!!

So our 9/14/2016 meeting, which was the first for which our focus had not already been determined as of 8/5/2016 under our normal rules, was too late.

So the reason for inaugurating this Short-Fuse Notice Section is to provide a Special Heads Up that a Proposed Topic has a Public-Comment Deadline that will occur before the first regular meeting date at which the topic can be discussed -- so that any of our readers who want to comply with the Public-Comment Deadline can contact the Proposer of the Topic in order to confer with anyone else who may be considering comments by the deadline.


1. Re “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.” (proposed 8/5/2016), although the 9/6/2016 public-comment deadline of the National Institute of Health (NIH) has passed, this Topic Proposal is still active. PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED TO THIS PROPOSAL THE 1/29/2017 UPDATE ENTITLED0 “HUMAN-PIG CHIMERAS -- DECENT BEHAVIOR DESPITE OPEN BARN DOOR.”

2. Re “Destroying Great Salt Lake To Grow Low-Profit Hay For China” (proposed 9/27/2016), there is a 10/24/2016 public-comment deadline that will occur before our first possible regular meeting (11/16/2016) at which this Proposed Topic could be considered.
Post Reply
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

EXPIRED: How To Secure Presidential Elections Post-2020

Post by johnkarls »

Ex Post Facto Editorial Note –

Although this topic proposal expired after six consecutive meetings without garnering a vote, the same subject matter was covered in our 2/16/2022 meeting which focused on --

Harvard Club of NYC book promotion “Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote” by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky (Encounter Books 11/2/2021).

The materials for our 2/16/2022 meeting incorporate and cross-reference much of the materials created/assembled for this expired topic proposal.

The materials for our 2/16/2022 meeting can be accessed by scrolling past the first 8 sections of this website which are numbered – whereupon there is a cluster of 4-6 unnumbered sections relating to each meeting in reverse chronological order.


I propose that we focus on “How To Secure and Strengthen American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election” – which next Tues (Dec. 22) will be the subject of a NYC Harvard Club Webinar with NYU Law Prof. Richard H. Pildes who graduated from Harvard Law in 1983.

And that the selection of a focus book, etc., await the conclusion of the NYC Harvard Club webinar.

Accordingly, the following e-mail is being sent out today (Wed Dec 16) to afford each of our 191 members the opportunity to participate in the NYC Harvard Club webinar.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: How To Secure and Strengthen American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election – NYC Harvard Club Zoom Webinar with Law Prof. Richard H. Pildes – Tues Dec 22 @ 10 am MST
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, December 16, 2020
To: To Each of Our 191 Members One-By-One

To Each of Our 191 Members One-By-One – for reasons explained in the 4 postings in Sec. 2 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org

Dear Friends,

Please forgive an extra e-mail in addition to our regular weekly e-mails that go out pre-dawn on Saturdays.

The reason for this extra e-mail is to provide each of you an opportunity to participate in a NYC Harvard Club Zoom Webinar this coming Tues Dec 22 with one of the nation’s foremost experts on Election Law on the topic of “How To Secure and Strengthen American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election.”

[Yours Truly participates 3-4 times/week in NYC Harvard Club Zoom Webinars and this one was obviously cobbled together “on the fly” in order to be announced by e-mail from the NYC Harvard Club this morning.]

FYI, I am simultaneously posting this e-mail in Sec. 3 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org which is labelled “Possible Topic for Future Meetings” (though, of course, its selection would have to be voted upon by the attendees of one of our regular meetings).

The NYC Harvard Club E-mail Notice of Earlier Today (Wed Dec 16) --

How to Strengthen and Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election, with Professor Richard H. Pildes, New York University School of Law

Tuesday, December 22 @ 12:00 pm – 01:00 pm (Reading Liberally Editorial Note – 12:00 Noon EST = 10 am MST)

The 2020 election has been one of the most extraordinary in American history. Conducted during a pandemic, it led to dramatic changes in the way Americans voted, along with unprecedented courtroom battles before the election over those changes. The aftermath of the election has been even more exceptional. Nearly sixty court cases across the country have challenged the legitimacy of the outcome, with calls for state legislatures to intervene and battles still looming when Congress convenes on Jan. 6th to count the electoral votes from the states. Professor Pildes will discuss the policy and legal challenges surrounding this election, as well as what the continuing battles over its legitimacy mean for the future of American democracy.

Richard H. Pildes is Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law, an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Law Institute, and a Guggenheim and Carnegie fellow. He is a leading expert in the United States on legal issues concerning democracy and the structure of democratic governments, including voting rights, elections, redistricting, the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance, as well as comparative analysis of democratic issues in international courts and other countries. He is co-author of two casebooks, THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY, and WHEN ELECTIONS GO BAD, that created this area as a field of study in law schools, as well as an editor of the book. A law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall at the United States Supreme Court, Professor Pildes also has successfully argued voting-rights cases before the Court and his work is frequently cited there. As a public commentator, he was the legal analyst for the NBC team nominated for an Emmy Award for outstanding coverage of the 2000 Presidential election litigation. He is also CNN’s voting expert for the 2020 election. Some of his major recent academic articles include Populism and Institutional Design: Methods of Selecting Candidates for Chief Executive; Romanticizing Democracy, Political Fragmentation, and the Decline of American Government; Law and the President; Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America; Is the Supreme Court a “Majoritarian” Institution; The Constitutionalization of Democratic Politics; and Separation of Parties, Not Powers.

The webinar will be live on Zoom. A link will be sent out on the day of the event.

Please visit this page within a day to view the recording that will be available for 48 hours.

Janet Mindes, Program Committee

Please RSVP by hitting your Reply Button and typing “Webinar” if you would like to participate and I will try to register you as one of my guests.

The webinars fill up very fast, so please let me know as soon as possible!!!

If you are too late, I will arrange for you to be able to view the recording which will be available for 48 hours following the webinar.

THE REASON FOR PARTICIPATING LIVE IN THE SEMINAR is so that you can pose questions during the second half of the webinar.

We also look forward to seeing/hearing each of you for our next regular monthly meeting on Wed Jan 13 on “Civilization: The West and the Rest” by Prof. Niall Ferguson!!!

Please be well!!!

Your friend,

John K.

PS -- To un-subscribe, please press "reply" and type "deletion requested."

Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court’s “How To Steal An Election” Manual

Post by johnkarls »


Reading Liberally - Salt Lake is a non-partisan public-policy study-action group.

Accordingly, RL-SL views “How To Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election” (the topic of Prof. Pildes’ webinar) solely from a public-policy perspective.

Any conclusions reached by RL-SL should be sound public policy that will be appropriate for future elections regardless of “whether the shoe is on the other foot” or “whose ox is being gored”!!!


Our 12/22/2020 e-mail posted above provided our 191 members with notice of Prof. Pildes’ webinar and offered to try to register as my guest anyone who wanted to participate. It also said that if registration became limited to “members only” I would make arrangements for anyone who had wanted to participate, to view the webinar recording which would be available for 48 hours after the event.

[The only advantage of participating live in the webinar itself is to pose questions during the last half of the webinar.]

There was such a large number of registrations during the first 24 hours that “going forward” the NYC Harvard Club limited registrations to “members only.”

A considerable number of our Reading Liberally members responded, but none of them were quick enough to be registered as guests for the live event.

Our responding members came from four states, two of which states had a considerable number of interested members.

For the two states that had a large number of interested members, I provided extensive comments before viewing the recording with each of them – the extensive comments based on the live webinar which had already occurred.

My Question for Prof. Pildes Re His OpEd in the NY Times of Dec 10

My question was –

“Why did your OpEd in the New York Times on Dec 10 entitled ‘There’s a Loaded Weapon Lying Around in Our Election System’ focus solely on the STATUTORY authority for -- QUOTE the prospect of legislatures directly appointing a state’s electors and overriding the vote of the people in that state END QUOTE -- when you knew that such authority is embedded in Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court the day after your OpEd article in the Texas vs. Pennsylvania et al. case which the Supreme Court dismissed FOR LACK OF STANDING AND NOT, REPEAT NOT, FOR ANY LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER BY STATE LEGISLATURES TO CHOOSE ELECTORS IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT? In other words, isn’t an amendment to Article II of the Constitution required to accomplish your objective of prohibiting state legislatures from ignoring state election results in selecting Presidential Electors?”

Prof. Pildes’ OpEd is available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opin ... sults.html.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states –

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Prof. Pildes responded by claiming that each state legislature only “gets one bite at the apple” and once it decides to hold an election for Presidential Electors, it has no further voice in the matter!!! And that, by implication, even if the specifications that the legislature has prescribed for such an election are violated, the legislature has no recourse whatsoever!!!

FIRST, Prof. Pildes’ claim has no support in case law interpreting Article II Sec 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution. [Indeed, none of the four defendants (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin or Georgia) made such a claim in their Briefs opposing Texas that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Dec 11 referenced in my question.]

ACCORDINGLY, Prof. Pildes’ claim would merely be his argument when the issue finally reaches the U.S. Supreme Court again, if it ever does – and he is representing the defendants.

SECOND, Prof. Pildes’ claim should fall apart under questioning from the U.S. Supreme Court justices – for example,

“Suppose Prof. Pildes, that a state legislature has decided to hold elections for Presidential Electors vis-à-vis which the legislature has prescribed, inter alia, that there should be at least one “drop-off box” in each precinct AND THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE THEN DECREES AS A PARTICULAR ELECTION GETS UNDERWAY THAT THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE “DROP-OFF BOX” FOR THE ENTIRE STATE AND IT WILL BE LOCATED AT THE TOP OF A 12,000-FOOT MOUNTAIN PEAK ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY WELL-CONDITIONED HIKERS?” [Please pardon the all-caps emphasis which was provided in the materials for our members.]

NB: Law School 101 teaches that any claim MUST BE TESTED with hypothetical questions THAT TAKE THE CLAIMED PRINCIPLE TO ITS EXTREME to test its validity.

THIRD, I make no claim regarding how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue if the Court ever permits it to come to the court.

BECAUSE, the answer will depend on the composition at that time of the Court with regard to “strict constructionists” vs. disciples of RBG who (RGB is the antecedent about whom we are now talking), in public talks, exhorted law students, in the event they became judges, to “legislate from the bench” if the judge believes that the public will accept the ruling.

Other Notes For Our Members Re Prof. Pildes’ Presentation

First, Prof. Pildes stated several times that the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Dec. 11 was unanimous.

The decision, which was 7-2 rather than unanimous, is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_p860.pdf.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, Prof. Pildes constantly claimed that the failure of all the litigation contesting the election results “proved” that there had been no fraud, or at least insufficient fraud to overturn the result.

HOWEVER, the complaint and brief by the State of Texas in the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the Dec 11 decision, alleged illegalities in each of the four defendant states and alleged that the number of votes affected by the illegalities in the case of each of the defendant states was more than sufficient to have produced the wrong result.

ACCORDINGLY, by dismissing Texas’ lawsuit for lack of standing (claiming that Texas had no right to complain even if all the allegations were true), the U.S. Supreme Court never reached the issue of whether there had been fraud and whether any such fraud had been sufficient to overturn the overall election result.

Even if Prof. Pildes was referring to the 60 or so state-court cases brought by a variety of plaintiffs, most (if not virtually all) of the cases were decided on procedural grounds such as being brought too early (“not ripe” in legalese), being brought too late (“laches” in legalese), being moot (the alleged improprieties in the particular lawsuit not being sufficient to overturn the entire national election), or lack of standing (no right for the particular plaintiff to complain).

In essence, Prof. Pildes argues that since it has not been proved in any court that wide-spread fraud occurred OR, using his words, the election “was stolen,” then there was no wide-spread fraud and the election was not “stolen.”

Why is this misleading???

Even if a handful of the 60 or so lawsuits reached the merits and found that the fraud alleged in that handful did not occur???

Re the latter question, a finding that the particular fraud alleged in a particular lawsuit did not occur does NOT prove that no fraud of any kind occurred anywhere. Whether any fraud of any kind occurred anywhere was NOT the issue being addressed in any of those cases.

Re the former question, the claim that there has been no widespread fraud and the election was not stolen depends on a logical fallacy – A FAILURE/INABILITY TO PROVE SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS UNTRUE!!!

The issue is most clearly dramatized in the context of criminal law where “guilt” must be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt”!!!

Does an acquittal mean the defendant was innocent???

Absolutely not!!!

An acquittal ONLY means guilt could not be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt”!!!

And taking the issue back to the case(s) at hand and examining the PROOF from a NON-PARTISAN PUBLIC-POLICY perspective, who knows what happened in inner-city precincts after the legally-required-by-the-legislature partisan observers were ejected before all the ballots were counted???

Just to take one example of how rules established by legislatures were intentionally violated!!!

NB that if “the burden of proof” were shifted to the state officials certifying the election results to demonstrate (even if only “by a preponderance of the evidence”) that FRAUD did NOT occur under such circumstances OR THAT SUCH POSSIBLE FRAUD was not sufficiently large to alter the outcome, we would be faced with a “much different kettle of fish.”


By hiding behind the issue of whether The State of Texas had “standing,” the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider whether the 2020 election was stolen through fraud.

As the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE (“last clear chance” in legalese), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear to everyone that “ANYTHING GOES”!!!

So once more, let’s take that principle to an extreme to test its validity!!!

Consider the following Law School 101 hypothetical which I could easily have posed while teaching for NYU School of Law if my topic had been election law rather than international tax law –

(1) Right-wing groups had been appearing for a year prior to the election in several so-called “swing states.”

(2) The right-wing groups created “autonomous zones” in those “swing states” and were able to intimidate the Mayors and Governors of those “swing states” to take no action.

(3) The right-wing groups caused extensive property damage in those “autonomous zones.”

(4) The right-wing groups also caused a considerable loss of liberty (including some loss of life) for residents who lived in, or owned businesses located in, the “autonomous zones.”

(5) The members of the right-wing groups proudly wore “brown shirts” and relished greeting each other by clicking their heels together while standing tall and raising their right hands while exclaiming to each other either “Sieg Heil” or “Hail Victory.”

(6) The right-wing groups stole a considerable quantity of “mail-in ballots” in each of the “swing states” (and I’d be delighted to make alternative assumptions on whether the ballots were stolen from the manufacturer, from the election officials, etc., and whether the thefts were “inside jobs”).

(7) Since the ballot counting cannot be completed in the “swing states” on election night because “mail in” ballots will be accepted for another few days, all of the precincts close down for the first night.

(8) With a “good fix” from election-night returns re how many fraudulent ballots will be needed to swing the election in each swing state (with a safety margin) and what the voter turnout was in each precinct (providing a “good fix” on how many fraudulent ballots can be added in particular precincts to “steal” the election), the right-wing groups enter enough precinct counting facilities and process enough fraudulent ballots to swing the election in each swing state.

(9) I’d be delighted to make alternative assumptions for this Law School 101 hypothetical example regarding whether the entry of the right-wing groups was “an inside job.”

(10) In this regard, please remember that in 2020 there were numerous reports, including affidavits and video evidence, of election observers being ejected and windows being papered to prevent observation – by election officials!!!

(11) And LO AND BEHOLD!!! In my hypothetical election that takes place in the future and features these facts, THE RIGHT-WING CANDIDATE IS ELECTED PRESIDENT!!!

If you think my hypothetical is far-fetched, please explain in your Law School 101 Final Exam Answer why you think that now that all the “players” know “anything goes,” nobody will take advantage of the situation.


In the wake of the 2000 election litigation involving THREE U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the voting for President in Florida, the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election reform featured among its 21 members such luminaries as Lee Hamilton (Co-Chair of The 9/11 Commission) and former Senate-Democrat Leader Tom Daschle.

The Commission issued a report with 87 recommendations.

The report was approved by a vote of 20-1.

The sole dissenter was a George Washington U. Law Professor whose views were eventually embodied in a “Response to the Report of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform” authored by three “Associate Counsel” at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and by the George Washington U. Law Professor himself.

The “Response to the Report” focused primarily on “Photo ID’s” which the Commission had recommended be provided FREE for non-drivers.

Needless to say, nothing was done about Federal Election Reform.


My original topic proposal posted above on Dec. 16 had said that a recommendation concerning reading materials would await the conclusion of Prof. Pildes webinar.

It is respectfully suggested that the following materials be required reading --

Saboteurs deleted the foregoing document on 2/18/2022 - Here is a restoration -
(8.08 MiB) Downloaded 1357 times
Saboteurs deleted the foregoing document on 2/18/2022 - Here is a restoration -
(311.1 KiB) Downloaded 1172 times
Saboteurs deleted the foregoing document on 2/18/2022 - Here is a restoration -

Since these documents total only 248 pages (2 pages, 113 and 33, respectively), which is a bit light by our regular standards, the following are recommended for “extra credit” from the U.S. Supreme Court’s official “library” of 38 documents filed in Texas vs. Pennsylvania et al. available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2o155.html --

NB: The first 37 were filed by the parties or “friends of the court” and the 38th was the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision which is available, as previously noted, at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_p860.pdf and which reads, in toto as –

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

“Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

The recommended salient filings among the 37 available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2o155.html --

(1) The Texas filings

(2) The Pennsylvania Response

(3) The Georgia Response

(5) The Michigan Response

(6) The Wisconsin Response

(7) The Seventeen-State Amicus Brief Supporting Texas

(8) The President Trump filing

Yours Truly will, of course, be prepared to discuss, in addition to the required reading, these “salient filings” at our meeting if this topic is, following our normal procedure, selected by the attendees of the previous meeting (with Yours Truly, as always, not voting except to break ties).

Respectfully submitted,

John Karls
JD, Harvard Law School, 1967
Who’s Who in American Law, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in America, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in the World, 1994-2003

Site Admin
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Establishing a Working Group for Election Reform?

Post by solutions »

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Establishing a Working Group for “How To Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election”?
From: Solutions
Date: Sun, December 27, 2020 11:12 pm PST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com

Dear John,

I have just finished reading your supplementary information posted this afternoon as a so-called “reply” to your proposed topic posted in Sec. 3 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org -- “How To Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election.”

Would this topic qualify for establishing one of our Working Groups as described in Sec. 8 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org?

Your friend,


PS – Have you been skiing yet this season?

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Establishing a Working Group for “How To Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election”?
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Mon, December 28, 2020 9:37 pm MST
To: Solutions

Dear Solutions,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

Reur Q, Sec. 8 says our criteria for establishing a Working Group are a particular policy issue (1) that may require immediate action on the spur of the moment (rendering addressing it at the next regular monthly meeting impractical), and/or (2) that may require long-term attention.

It does not appear, at least at this point, that “long-term attention” is needed.

It also does not appear that “immediate action” is needed.

After all, the votes of the Electors in the Electoral College have been certified and transmitted as required to the President of the Senate who will open them on January 6 in a joint session of Congress.

[NB: The President of the Senate is the Vice President of the U.S. who will still be Michael Pence since Inauguration Day is not until January 20. However, the joint session will be the NEW Congress whose term begins January 3.]

Accordingly, the only remaining action to be taken is for the President of the Senate to read the Elector votes state-by-state.

Each state’s votes will be accepted immediately unless at least one Senator and at least one Representative object.

In such a case, each chamber immediately meets separately and, after an opportunity for discussion/debate, votes on whether to accept or reject that state’s Elector votes.

The state’s Elector votes will be accepted unless BOTH chambers of Congress vote to reject them.

Since the Democrats control the House of Representatives again in the new Congress, there is NO CHANCE as a practical matter that the 306-232 vote of the Electors which has already taken place will be changed.

If anyone had proposed “How To Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election” before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dec 11 decision in Texas vs. Pennsylvania et al. that Texas did not have standing, a Working Group might have been appropriate under the “immediate action” criterion.

The “Prayers for Relief” sought by the State of Texas included U.S. Supreme Court declarations that the Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin 2020 presidential elections violated the Constitution, that their use of the unconstitutional elections cannot be used for appointing Electors, and that each of the four states is authorized to conduct remedial elections.

Pennsylvania is entitled to 20 Electors, Georgia to 16, Michigan to 16 and Wisconsin to 10.

And with the impending 306-232 vote, a switch of 37 votes would have changed the outcome in President Trump’s favor.

Accordingly, if the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered remedial elections in all 4 states, President Trump would only have needed to win 3.

Nevertheless, we are a non-partisan public-policy study-action group and so even if a proposal had been made to focus on election reform before the Supreme Court ruling on December 11, we would have refrained from becoming involved in a political imbroglio such as the 2020 election itself, but would only attempt to ensure the implementation of policies for future elections such as those recommended by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform.

Thank you again for your e-mail.

Your friend,

John K.

PS – Reur Q in your PS about whether I have been skiing yet this season –

The short answer is no.

But I’m guessing that you are more interested in whether I am still skiing more than 100 days/year.

Last year was the first time in more decades than I would care to admit that fewer than 100 days were skied. [And full disclosure, these days a “ski day” is usually only about 5 hours.]

When President Trump imposed the China travel ban on 1/31/2020, it occurred that ski resorts would be the HOTTEST of “hot spots” for Covid-19 because so many skiers with whom you are riding the lifts have traveled more than 15 hours on crowed airplanes and spent untold hours in crowded airports to get to the resorts. And sure enough, when Utah began releasing Covid stats for its 29 counties, virtually all cases were in Salt Lake County (the frontside resorts) and Summit County (the backside resorts). In May, the national news reported the newest “hot spot” was Blaine County ID. My immediate reaction was that Blaine County had to be Sun Valley Ski Resort and, sure enough, it was.

So I was only able to get in about 75 ski days Nov-Jan last season.

Since early Feb, Faux Fox (my rescue dog) and I have been “sheltering in place” – sallying forth only (1) once/week for groceries, (2) once/month for dog food, and (3) once/day to walk Faux Fox 1.5 miles around the neighborhood passing other dog walkers on opposite sides of the street but stopping to chat/joke across the gulf with everyone who came along.

Only so much time is consumed with 3-4 Zoom webinars per week with the NYC Harvard Club like the one with Prof. Pildes that started this string of postings, a weekly Zoom gabfest with my law school classmates, a weekly multi-hour gabfest with a former NYC partner which gabfests have been happening for 34 years, lots of “odds and ends” communications with our Reading Liberally members, and reading 2 books/month -- so one could “go stir crazy” without skiing during the winter and sailing during the summer.

So I will probably resume skiing right after New Year’s Day. And should be able to get in 100 days before the slopes close, which for Alta/Snowbird is usually sometime in May.

Yes, I would love to have a Covid vaccination before resuming skiing. But even though I will be 79 in Feb and have Stage 3 kidney disease, I’m not eligible until the fourth of four tranches March-July.

Nevertheless, anyone whose mother grew up on a farm knows that there are a zillion germs around you at all times BUT YOU WILL NOT GET SICK if you eat right and get plenty of exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and sleep.

And that if you fail in any of those five categories, you will immediately fall ill.

So I am ready to take my chances, now that Remdesivir is universally available and enables old people my age (e.g. President Trump and Rudy Giuliani) to recover after 2-3 days with no apparent side effects.

Besides, I have to die sometime and I have had a good life.

BTW, at my annual physical on Dec 15, my doctor said she had been skiing already and urged me to resume doing so also – though it wasn’t clear to me whether she thought the risk was now acceptably-low enough with Remdesivir or whether she thought I had been putting on too much weight recently which out-weighed (please forgive the pun – I couldn’t resist) the risk.

Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

The Juvenile Reaction of Congress!!!

Post by johnkarls »

Please permit me to be blunt. [Though doing so will require some background.]

First, many of you have heard more times than you would care to remember how I was 60 seconds away from being assassinated while serving as a member of the first U.S. governmental task force during the summer of 1966 to eliminate the de jure dual-school systems of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy and the 6 Slave States that did NOT join the Confederacy because of President Lincoln’s constant claim that the raison d’être of the Civil War was to “preserve the union” and DEFINITELY NOT to abolish slavery.

Though based in old CCC barracks on the Washington DC Mall (the only office space available on short notice and long since razed), our group was divided among those 17 states and we made frequent field trips.

Yours Truly was assigned to North Carolina and my partner (per policy, we had integrated teams) during a trip to Bertie County NC suggested one evening after he swam his laps in the motel pool (which always caused an evacuation by the other guests – after all, the motel and its pool had been “White Only” a mere two years earlier) that we visit the Tastee Freez across the highway.

The Tastee Freez also functioned as a “drive in” with the result that more than a dozen angry men piled into the Tastee Freez behind us from their cars in which they had been eating.

We therefore decided to leave. I fell in behind my partner so that he would have the best chance of escaping. All of the angry men begin sticking out their feet in an attempt to trip us (presumably so that they could claim that if we had stumbled into one of them, we had been guilty of assault).

The last person just before the door looked about my size (5’ 11” & 180 pounds) so I purposely tripped over his foot, spilling my milkshake all over him. I smiled apologetically while saying “I’m sorry, I tripped” and was out the door before he could react.

We ran across the highway where we were greeted by several State Trooper Squad Cars with sirens blaring and lights flashing.

The State Troopers had been called by the proprietor of the Tastee Freez who had feared that his premises would be destroyed while we were assassinated.

The State Troopers were disgusted over saving us as a by-product of protecting the Tastee Freez.

My partner and I knew that we risked our lives by entering the formerly “All White” Tastee Freez, just like we risked our lives by staying in the formerly “All White” motel and swimming in its pool. And if we had been assassinated, we knew full well the reason – that we were using public facilities that had been “All White” a mere two years earlier.

After all, even though 1966 was 3 years BEFORE the assassinations of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, 1966 was 2 years AFTER the assassinations in Mississippi of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner who had been working on the “Freedom Summer” campaign of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to register African-Americans to vote.

My partner and I had agreed at the beginning of the summer that being assassinated, if that should be our fate, would crown “lives well lived”!!!

Second, many of you are aware that I served 1967-1970 as a U.S. Navy Unrestricted-Line Officer (Ensign > Lieutenant (j.g.) > Lieutenant).

I could have been killed for my country “in the line of duty” at any time during those three years.

Third, many are the times too numerous to catalogue when I could have been killed as a result of --

(1) My activities as the co-founder of the first homeless shelter in Fairfield County CT in 1976.

(2) My activities as the sponsor and chief benefactor of the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation of Stamford CT which was patterned on self-made multi-billionaire Eugene Lang’s promise in 1981 to the graduating sixth graders of Harlem PS 121 that if they stayed in school, he would guarantee their college tuition and he backed that up by providing each of them with tutoring and mentoring until they graduated from high school.

[My own IHAD-Stamford program served 200 inner-city children in three public-housing projects with tutors/mentors from third grade through H.S. graduation and the college-tuition guarantee.]

(3) My activities as the volunteer national treasurer in the 1990’s of Gene Lang’s national “I Have A Dream”® Foundation which oversaw 178 programs in 51 American cities.

(4) My lawsuits 2006-2011 against 15 of the world’s largest financial institutions for the $85 billion that they owed me and that had long-since been pledged in legally-binding fashion to provide IHAD or IHAD-style programs for 10 million inner-city children.

Re the lawsuits, Sections 4 and 5 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Inner-City Holocaust and America’s Apartheid ‘Justice’ System” provide reams of documents concerning those lawsuits.

Including how 21 top governmental officials starting with President Obama and including my own Congressperson, Nancy Pelosi, refused to support the litigation with Amicus Curiae briefs.

And including how 43 of the nation’s top news-media superstars refused to “shine a light” on “what was going down” even though every one of them knew that any one of them “lifting a single finger” might have been sufficient to prevent 10 million inner-city children from being condemned to “a fate worse than death.”

The “question presented for review” in our final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was –

“Can state court judges order their decisions which they know are diametrically-opposed to well-settled law, not to be published or cited (a strategy labeled ‘the segregated toilet’ in correspondence with 51 inner-city clergy who represent the 10 million inner-city children who have been disclosed from the outset as the ‘real parties at interest’ in this law suit) in order to flush away the rights of the 10 million inner-city children without disturbing the rights of first-class American citizens -- without violating the ‘Equal Protection of the Law’ requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear our appeal.

Our final report to the 51 inner-city clergy supporting the litigation --

(A) informed them that the US Supreme Court on 10/4/2011 refused to hear our appeal,

(B) thanked them for their efforts with the solace that each of us would be able to say at The Pearly Gates with St. Paul (II Timothy 4:7): “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” and

(C) request them and their congregants to pray for the 43 news-media superstars, the 21 governmental officials, the California judges and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, that MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON THEIR SOULS!!!

Why Assassination Was A Legitimate Fear During The 2006-2011 Litigation

Even though you are supported by 51 inner-city clergy, nobody can possibly conceive how alone you feel when you are suing 15 of the world’s largest financial institutions – many of whom I had represented during my career 1967-2003!!!

Especially when 21 of the top governmental officials and 43 of the nation’s top news-media superstars have turned their backs on you!!!

Yes, I prepared all my briefs and other legal documents on a separate computer that had no connection to the internet – a standard precaution in both the legal and investment-banking professions under such circumstances to prevent the other side from monitoring every one of your key strokes.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, who would have noticed if I had been killed under circumstances that looked like an accident???

AND EVEN IF A SEEMINGLY-ACCIDENTAL DEATH WERE NOTICED BY A FEW INDIVIDUALS, what do you think would happen if 21 of the nation’s top governmental officials and 43 of the nation’s top news-media superstars have turned their backs on you???

The 2006-2011 experience CONSTANTLY REMINDED ME of my summer-1966 experience when my U.S. governmental African-American partner and I agreed that being assassinated while “doing what’s right” would “crown a life well lived”!!!

So How Does All This Relate To The Juvenile Reaction of Congress The Last Few Days???

They were simply being asked to follow the precedent in the wake of the election of 1876 to form a Commission to examine whether a Presidential Election had been stolen.

On 1/29/1877, Congress established such a commission comprising 5 Supreme Court Justices, 5 Senatorial/Congressional Democrats and 5 Senatorial/Congressional Republicans.

What could be more reasonable???

After all, as set forth above, the U.S. Supreme Court had refused to consider whether the 2020 Presidential Election had been stolen!!!

So did our Senators and Congresspersons “put their lives on the line” in the “line of duty” like I did so often as a U.S. governmental civilian employee, as a U.S. Naval Officer, and as a citizen???


When I was a U.S. Naval Officer, the term for such wimps was “candy asses”!!!

Site Admin
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: The Juvenile Reaction of Congress!!!

Post by solutions »

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: The Juvenile Reaction of Congress!!!
From: John Karls
Date: Fri, January 8, 2021 3:52 pm MST
To: Solutions

Dear Solutions,

Thank you for your seemingly-panicky phone call of a few moments ago re my posting on www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org of a few moments earlier.

You queried whether I was condoning the rioters who attacked The Capitol on Wednesday.

Of course not.

My comments were confined to the reaction of Congress to the rioters.

When I was a U.S. Naval Officer 1967-1970, I and everyone else in the military had been taught in basic training that during most of our nation’s history, showing cowardice “in the face of the enemy” would result in being SUMMARILY SHOT!!!

And that yes, by 1967-1970, we could expect to be granted a Court Martial for showing cowardice “in the face of the enemy,” but WE WOULD NOT HAVE COUNTED ON ESCAPING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE!!!

Enough already on Congressional cowardice as an excuse for failing to do their duty!!!

Your friend,

John K.

PS - The Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted by Congress!!! Isn't it ironic that Congress demands of others what they wouldn't dream of doing themselves???!!!

Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Ariz Atty Gen & Ariz Republican Party in US Supreme Court

Post by johnkarls »

Today (3/2/2021), oral argument is scheduled in the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases involving Arizona election law –

Brnovich [The Arizona Attorney General], et al. vs. Democratic National Committee, et al. – Docket No. 1257 available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1257.html, and

Arizona Republican Party, et al. vs. Democrat National Committee, et al. – Docket No. 1258 available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1258.html.

The “Question Presented For Review” in Brnovich vs. DNC

Per the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (request for the Supreme Court to take the case) in Brnovich vs. DNC (the entire Cert Petition is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tition.pdf), the “Questions Presented For Review” are –

“Arizona, like every other State, has adopted rules to promote the order and integrity of its elections. At issue are two such provisions: an “out-of-precinct policy,” which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, and a “ballot-collection law,” known as H.B. 2023, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and election officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. A majority of States require in-precinct voting, and about twenty States limit ballot collection.

“After a ten-day trial, the district court upheld these provisions against claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. At the en banc stage, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed – against the urging of the United States and over two vigorous dissents joined by four judges.

“The questions presented are:

1. Does Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

2. Does Arizona’s ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?

The “Question Presented For Review” in Arizona Republican Party vs. DNC

Per the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (request for the Supreme Court to take the case) in Arizona Republican Party vs. DNC (the entire Cert Petition is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tition.pdf), the “Questions Presented For Review” are –

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that “result [ ] in denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen… to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Such a discriminatory “result” occurs if an election is not “equally open to participation” by racial minorities, giving them “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Id. § 10301(b).

“Arizona gives all citizens an opportunity to vote in person or by mail, and authorizes ballots to be turned in by a family member, household member, or caregiver. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona violated § 2 by (1) requiring in-person voters to cast ballots in their assigned precincts; and (2) prohibiting “ballot harvesting,” i.e., third-party collection and return of ballots. The court held that because racial minorities disproportionately vote out-of-precinct and use ballot-harvesting, the Act compels the State to allow those practices.

“The questions presented are:

1. Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that Arizona’s ballot-harvesting prohibition was tainted by discriminatory intent even though the legislators were admittedly driven by partisan interests and by supposedly “unfounded” concerns about voter fraud.

Caveats and Observations

FIRST, the appellees might NOT agree with “the questions presented for review” by the appellants – as distinguished from their opposing arguments regarding why, in the opposing opinions of the opposing parties, those “questions presented for review” should be decided differently.

However, (1) disagreement over what the issues are (vs. how they should be decided) is highly unlikely, and (2) ascertaining whether there are any disagreements regarding the issues (vs. how they should be decided) would require a close inspection of the zillions of briefs submitted by the zillions of parties and amici (i.e., non-parties can file “amicus curiae” or “friend of the court” briefs).

But if anyone wants to “chase that rabbit,” please have at it – the dockets (lists of the zillions of documents filed available for download) are set forth for the two cases in paragraphs 2 & 3 above.

SECOND, neither of these cases TECHNICALLY has anything to do with this bulletin-board posting entitled “How To Secure Presidential Elections Post-2020” to which this is the FIFTH so-called “reply.”

As set forth in the FIRST so-called “reply” to that posting entitled “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘How To Steal An Election’ Manual,” Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states –

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

The question of whether the 2020 Presidential Election was “stolen” is determined, according to the U.S. Constitution, by whether each State followed the rules specified by that State’s Legislature.

[Though, of course, if a State’s Legislature prescribed rules that violated the U.S. Constitution by, for example, selecting Electoral College Electors by popular election in which African-American citizens were barred from voting, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions of a Legislature would be invalid.]

Accordingly, for PRESIDENTIAL elections, any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in either Brnovich or Arizona Republican Party ARE IRRELEVANT except (according to the “Questions Presented” in their respective Cert Petitions) vis-à-vis a particular point in an opinion that turned on the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, if the Arizona Legislature had specified an election rule that violated ONLY the Voting Rights Act BUT NOT the Constitution, that rule would be valid for Presidential elections.

This distinction may seem ephemeral because the reader may find it difficult to imagine an election provision that violated the Voting Rights Act without violating the Fifteenth Amendment (“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”).

So a couple of examples –

1. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution does NOT require a State Legislature to even hold an election to select that State’s Electoral College Electors.

2. Note that the Fifteenth Amendment is limited by its terms to “the right of CITIZENS” (emphasis added) and various state-court and lower-federal-court decisions have permitted NON-CITIZENS to vote in certain elections. Accordingly (NB: this is the kind of hypothetical issue that is utilized to get law students TO THINK), suppose a State Legislature did decide to hold elections to select that State’s Electoral College Electors and, IN ADDITION, specified that SOME BUT NOT ALL non-citizens could participate with the NON-CITIZEN criteria based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”!!! Technically, the Fifteenth Amendment does NOT apply!!!

THIRD, The Supreme Court CAN DUCK AGAIN!!!

Even though addressing the “questions presented” according to the two Cert Petitions MIGHT help to resolve SOME of the issues regarding whether future Presidential elections can be “stolen,” the U.S. Supreme Court CAN EVEN AVOID ANY RESPONSIBILITUY FOR SHEDDING ANY LIGHT WHATSOEVER!!!


The U.S. District Court Judge decided that neither provision violated either Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

It is a time-honored RULE OF LAW that the trial court (whether the judge or a jury) MAKES ALL DETERMINATIONS OF FACT – unless, as usually formulated, there is not “one scintilla of evidence” to support a particular finding of fact.

And appellate courts (whether the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court) only decide issues of what the law means and whether the law was correctly applied to the facts – with no review of whether the facts were correctly determined (absent the “one scintilla” rule).

Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court could simply decide that the Ninth Circuit “erred” by reversing the “facts” found by the U.S. District Court – with no showing by the Ninth Circuit that the “facts” determined by the U.S. District Court were NOT supported by “one scintilla of evidence.”

That way, the U.S. Supreme Court would NOT have to say anything about “voting out of precinct” or “ballot harvesting”!!!

So what to look for???

The FOUR “liberal” Supreme Court Justices (John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – NB: I have classified John Roberts as a “liberal” for, in my opinion, well-deserved reasons) –

to try to persuade one of the FIVE “conservative” Supreme Court Justices (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) to join the FOUR “liberals” in disposing of these cases on the procedural grounds that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to overturn the “facts” determined by the trial court – WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING ON THE MERITS regarding “voting out of precinct” or “ballot harvesting.”

This result is much more likely than you might think because Law School 101 teaches that court decisions should be based on the narrowest possible grounds.

[So if they aren’t forced to say anything on the merits, then they shouldn’t.]

FOURTH, When To Expect The Supreme Court’s Decision

Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court has one “term” called the “October Term” because it commences at the beginning of October and terminates at the end of June. [Though individual Justices are, of course, active July through September with both official duties (e.g., supervising lower courts assigned to that Justice, including blocking decisions of those courts until the Supreme Court is once again in session) and unofficial duties.]

TRADITIONALLY, the most contentious cases are left, for practical reasons, until the last week of June for their opinions (incl. concurrences and dissents) to be issued.

ACCORDINGLY, the closer we get to the end of June, the more likely it is that the FOUR “liberals” were NOT able to persuade any of the FIVE “conservatives” to dispose of these two cases on the procedural grounds, rather than grappling with “out of precinct voting” and “ballot harvesting.”

Post Reply

Return to “Section 3 – Possible Topics for Future Meetings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest