Republicans Strategizing How To Overturn Election Can Use Ideas Democrats Came Up With After 2016

Last Updated on July 17, 2021

Republican state senators are developing strategies to overturn the 2020 presidential election after massive fraud was uncovered in Arizona and Georgia and elsewhere. Republicans hoping to get President Donald Trump back in office can look to left-wingers for advice. That’s right. After the 2016 election, liberals tried to overturn Trump’s victory and laid out numerous strategies for doing so. (Arizona Audit Shows Un-Registered Voters And Evidence-Free Paper Ballots Were Both WAY More Than Biden’s Lead).

Arizona state Senator Wendy Rogers stated: “I have heard enough. With the tens of thousands of ballots mailed without being requested, the over ten thousand people who voted after registering after November 3rd, the failure of Maricopa to turn over the 40% machines, the passwords that Dominion still refuses to turn over, & tens of thousands of unauthorized queries demonstrating how insecure the election was, I call for the Biden electors to be recalled to Arizona & a new election must be conducted. Arizona’s electors must not be awarded fraudulently & we need to get this right.”

President Donald Trump stated: “Arizona Senate hearings on the Maricopa County Election audit is devastating news to the Radical Left Democrats and the Biden Administration. While this, according to the Senate, is preliminary, with results being announced at a later date, it seems that 74,243 Mail-In Ballots were counted with “no clear record of them being sent.” There were 18,000 voters who were scrubbed from the voter rolls after the election. They also revealed that the voting system was breached or hacked (by who?) Very big printer and ballot problems with different paper used, etc., and MUCH MORE. The irregularities revealed at the hearing today amount to hundreds of thousands of votes or, many times what is necessary for us to have won. Despite these massive numbers, this is the State that Fox News called early for a Biden victory. There was no victory here, or in any other of the Swing States either.”

“Maricopa County refuses to work together with the Senate and others who are merely looking for honesty, integrity, and transparency. Why do the Commissioners not want to look into this corrupted election? What are they trying to hide? The highly respected State Senator Wendy Rogers said in a tweet the hearing today means we must decertify the election. In any event, the Senate Patriots are moving forward with final results to be announced in the not-too-distant future, but based on today’s hearing, why even wait?” stated Republican President Trump, who served honorably in the Oval Office from 2017 until his ouster by the Deep State in January 2021. (READ: BOMBSHELL: Over 74,000 Mail-In Ballots Counted With No Record Of Being Sent Out, Verification Process Degraded To Nothing)

Georgia State Senator Brandon Beach said, “We can ask for our 16 Electoral College votes back, and park them here. And just say, we don’t want those as part of the vote.” Beach explained, “Decertify our 16 electoral votes. Park them here. Bring them back, and park them in Georgia. And then if Arizona did that, if a couple other states did that, and it got below 270, then the Twelfth Amendment would kick in, and Congress would have to act.” So would Republicans put Decertificaton of the 2020 election on the ballot for the 2022 midterms, or can Wendy Rogers’ strategy prove effective and can we get a re-vote of the entire election? Arguments can certainly be made for an Election “Re-Do.”

The Left Tried To Overturn The 2016 Election After Trump Won, Demanding A Revote And Petitioning Attorneys General

Jan 6er Locked Up Again on Sealed Charges

U.S. Navy Gives Scientologist Tom Cruise Award for Pretending to Be In The U.S. Navy

ROCK BOTTOM: Biden’s Economy, Approval Sinks To Carter Administration Lows In Final Days

The left-wing VoicesofMillionsCoalition drafted a Change.org petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to force a “Revote of the 2016 Elections (Primary and General).” The group’s petition stated: “The people of Austria and Ukraine prompted their Supreme Court to overturn their elections following widespread election hacking. We must do the same. Jerroll M. Sanders—legal strategist for a far-reaching citizen revote effort—looked at U.S. law through a new lens and drafted a writ of mandamus that amounts to a solid challenge to the 2016 elections. Citizens across the nation walked into courts and filed the documents drafted by Sanders to safeguard our right to vote. One of the writs filed jointly by three citizen petitioners now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court. The writ asks the Court to declare the 2016 elections (primary and general) unconstitutional because the U.S. Government failed to protect States’ against cyber invasions during the 2016 elections as required by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. www.revote.org.”

On November 21, 2017, VoicesofMillionsCoalition posted that “Revote Coalition Launches Promising Strategy to Obtain Revote of 2016 Federal Elections” and stated, “Revote Coalition (www.revote.info) has sent requests to several State Attorneys General (AGs) asking them to file a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case seeking a revote of the 2016 federal elections. AGs are considering the group’s request.” Of course, in the 2020 election, the Coalition encouraged its anti-Trump supporters to vote with paper ballots.

State Supreme Courts have ordered re-votes of contested elections

This time four years ago, in July 2017, the liberal website FiveThirtyEight ran an article headlined “What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say?,” which delved into the strategies Democrats could try to use to overturn the election if “Russian interference” was found to have helped Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, liberals were very much open to the idea of overturning the election results using legislative process. FiveThirtyEight even linked to some examples of cases that could be used to support a re-do of the 2016 presidential election, the way the 1974 Senate election in New Hampshire sparked a re-vote the following year.

In July 2002, the Chicago Tribune ran a headline entitled “Supreme Court doesn’t bar revote in primary” in which staff reporter Christi Parsons reported: “Clearing the way for a new election to correct a faulty Illinois House primary, the state Supreme Court on Friday declined to step in and avert plans to hold the unprecedented revote this fall. As a result, election officials are on course to hold a do-over election Sept. 10 for the West Side Chicago and west suburb House seat. In the initial election, some ballots were not counted, some were lost before an official recount and others were mistakenly cast by voters who didn’t live in the district. A Cook County judge last month ordered a new primary election in the race between Democrats Dorothy Reid and Deborah Graham. On Friday, justices declined to take up a direct appeal of that ruling, leaving an appeals court to hear complaints from Reid. She had been declared the winner after a coin flip to break a tie between her and Graham, opening the door to a court challenge soon after the March primary.”

In 2004, WTHR 13 in Indianapolis reported on the Indiana Supreme Court ordering a new East Chicago mayoral election as a result of fraud. WTHR reported: “The Indiana Supreme Court says supporters of long-time East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick bought absentee votes to get him re-elected last year. The state’s highest court Friday ordered a new election because of pervasive corruption in the Democratic primary in which Pastrick defeated George Pabey by 123 votes.”

The Supreme Court of Connecticut in 2006 upheld a lower court’s ruling that an election must be re-done for Middletown city council. The Supreme Court of Connecticut wrote in its decision on Bauer vs. Souto: “This appeal concerns a contested municipal election for the common council of the city of Middletown (council) that was held on November 8, 2005…Following the filing of simultaneous briefs and oral argument before this court, we announced the decision of this court from the bench on December 21, 2005, affirming the trial court’s judgment ordering a new election to be held on January 24, 2006, but reversing the judgment as to the scope of that election. Specifically, we ordered the new election to be citywide, and not limited to district eleven, the district in which the contest arose, as ordered by the trial court…The defendants’ suggestion, made at oral argument in this court, that the new election be limited to those voters who actually voted in the first election in district eleven, is patently unreasonable. There is nothing in our law or in our democratic traditions to suggest that, if a voter does not vote in an election, he or she waives his right to do so when the results of that election prove unreliable and a court orders a new election.”

Legal experts

Back when liberals thought they could overturn the 2016 election, FiveThirtyEight reported (emphasis added): “Others (legal scholars) suggest that there is legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the “butterfly ballot” from the 2000 election, which may have caused some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore in Palm Beach County, Florida…At least one federal court has suggested that the courts could order a new election. In 1976, a District Court in New York heard a case alleging voter fraud in several urban locations. The court’s opinion maintained that federal courts had a role to play in ensuring free and fair presidential elections, arguing: “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.” This assertion challenged the idea that presidential elections occupy a special category beyond such court remedies.” (FiveThirtyEight passage ends)

Ohio State University law professor Steven Huefner wrote a paper in the Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 44, 2007, entitled Remedying Election Wrongs which argued for the constitutionality of “empowering” what he called “legislative tribunals” to “settle some election contests.” Here is a passage from Huefner’s abstract (emphasis added): “The article next discusses the primary values that should be protected in remedying an unsettled election. With these values in mind, the article then urges states to reconstitute their remedial processes for failed elections. First, it recommends much greater specificity in defining the remedies available for particular types of election failure. It then identifies several additional issues that a state’s election contest statute should address with clarity, such as who can contest an election, what evidentiary showings to require, and the time within which a contest should be resolved. It also recommends empowering non-judicial forums, such as administrative or legislative tribunals, to settle some election contests, and encouraging citizens to adjust their expectations about our election processes – and about the appropriate remedies for failures in these processes – in recognition of the practical impossibility of developing a flawless election system.”

Though Huefner was indecisive on what could happen in a contested presidential election and felt that Congress should have jurisdiction over federal elections he wrote: “The easiest case for adjusting election results is when the specific tainted votes, not just the total number of affected votes, can be identified. If the invalid votes are known, then the court can subtract those votes from the official tally, and declare whichever candidate has the most remaining votes to be the winner. For instance, in a recent judicial election in Arkansas, the outcome was reversed when 518 invalid absentee ballots were specifically identified and removed from the official count because the ballots were not obtained or submitted in compliance with absentee balloting requirements...Nonetheless, most courts also have a comparatively easy time resolving the case when the ostensible victor of the election is proven to have participated in vote fraud. When the number of tainted votes exceeds the margin of victory, courts will usually presume that all of those illegal votes favored the candidate behind the fraud and deduct those votes from the official tally, thereby reversing the outcome…The remaining alternative for remedying an unreliable election outcome, whether it occurs as a result of fraud or mistake, is to invalidate the election and call for a new one. This has happened in a variety of circumstances, and many courts have wrestled with whether and when they have authority to order a new election. Although dramatic examples of ordering a new election at the federal level are rare,68 we can find a number of instances in local elections. For instance, in an Alabama mayoral race in 1984, one of four voting machines was conclusively shown to have failed to register any votes cast for one of the four candidates. The state supreme court ordered the entire election rerun, overruling the trial court’s remedy of ordering new balloting only for the voters who had voted on the defective machine…Consider, for instance, a system in which all U.S. citizens received a voter identification card upon reaching voting age, linked to a national computerized database of voters.162 Election eligibility could then be easily confirmed at polling places nationwide. Voters who had voted by absentee ballots also could be systematically identified. Imagine the impact that such a national voter identification card could have not only on facilitating greater voter participation, but also reducing voter and administrative errors (including those associated with the casting of provisional ballots), discouraging (and identifying) vote fraud, and reducing costs.”