Supreme Court Should Strike Down Effort to Steal 2020 Presidential Election

One month after the still-unresolved Nov. 3 presidential election, the proverbial elephant in the living room of ongoing election challenges in six states is the pre-meditated attempt to corrupt the election process through unprecedented, inherently corrupt mail-in ballots.

In Pennsylvania during election week last month, I officially observed manifestations of this deliberate attempt to corrupt the election process, which former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich has declared, "an open invitation to theft."

I also observed widespread election fraud.

In 1964, our Supreme Court ruled that, "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964).

As explained in my last article, the uncontested Electors — contrary to pro-Biden false narratives — are Trump 232, Biden 227, with the following States’ Electors, totaling 79, either judicially contested or subject to recount:

• Arizona (11)
• Georgia (16)
• Michigan (16)
• Nevada (6)
• Pennsylvania (20)
• Wisconsin (10)

To be clear, when I was observing in York County, Pennsylvania, during election week, I was not allowed meaningfully to observe canvassing of mail-in ballots. I did, however, observe canvassing of provisional ballots, which are similar to mail-in ballots, but which have more built-in anti-fraud protections, such as judges and others observing the casting.

Of the first 600 provisional ballots I observed canvassed in York County:

• 67 (11%) were rejected because the voter was not registered;
• 49 (8%) were rejected for missing either signatures or other required information;
• Seven (1%) were rejected because the voter was registered in another county;
• Six (1%) were rejected for security violations, such as mailed in without the required inner envelope, aka "Naked Ballots"; and
• Three (.5%) were rejected because the voter had already voted.

One can safely assume that at least that many mail-in ballots were deficient.

More importantly, all mail-in ballots are, by nature, designed to corrupt the election process: "an open invitation to theft."

So, what is the solution to mail-in ballots, considering that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the State legislatures the manner through which Electors are appointed to selects our President?

What if a State legislature directs that Electors be appointed in a manner that is blatantly unconstitutional, such as based on race or religious qualification?

What if a State legislature directs that Electors be appointed in a less blatantly unconstitutional manner, such as what President Trump’s Nov. 23, 2020, Emergency Motion in Trump v. Boockvar describes as "Pennsylvania’s mail ballot scheme, without the right to meaningfully observe or challenge deficient mail ballots during the canvassing, [that] is so porous that it violates basic due process and the Due Process Clause regarding free and fair elections"?

As explained by William Olson and Patrick McSweeney in their Nov. 22, 2020, article, "The Viral Memo Changing the Trump Legal Strategy," the "People deserve an honest accounting of who won. Many Americans voted via a process  — absentee ballots, including mail in ballots — that the bipartisan Jimmy Carter-James Baker commission identified as 'the largest source of potential voter fraud' in the wake of the contested 2000 election. Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, at 46 (Sept. 2005)."

The U.S. Supreme Court should, in the process of resolving any case making their way up to the high court — including the Nov. 27, 2020, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Trump v. Boockvar, which begins, "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." —acknowledge that the elephant in the living room is the inherently corrupt nature of mail-in ballots.

The direct and circumstantial evidence already presented publicly by the Trump litigation team on Nov. 19, 2020, is enough to rebut any presumption of government regularity.

In this light and considering the inherent nature of mail-in ballots, the U.S. Supreme Court should direct the State legislatures at issue to: (a) disregard all mail-in ballots; or (b) if feasible, hold new elections without mail-in ballots.

If the Supreme Court were to direct Pennsylvania to disregard mail-in ballots, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State website, even considering provisional ballots President Trump would win Pennsylvania by almost a 2:1 ratio, 2,782,104 (64.7 %) to 1,462, 507 (34.0%):

(Screenshot of a Pa. Dept. of State "Election Returns" Website page. Courtesy of the author).  

The U.S. Supreme Court should acknowledge — and strike down — the pre-meditated attempt to corrupt — and to steal — the 2020 presidential election through unprecedented, inherently corrupt mail-in ballots. If it does not, all "Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory."

Joseph E. Schmitz served as a foreign policy and national security adviser to Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. The opinions expressed in this article are his personal opinions. Schmitz served as Inspector General of the Department of Defense from 2002-2005 and is now Chief Legal Officer of Pacem Solutions International. He graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy, earned his J.D. degree from Stanford Law School, and is author of "The Inspector General Handbook: Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Other Constitutional 'Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.'" Read Joseph E. Schmitz's Reports — More Here.