IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
In re DANIEL B. JEFFS - PETITIONER
THE UNITED STATES - RESPONDENT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
1. Should nonpartisan voter's taxes pay for political party elections?
2. Does the two-party system abridge free speech?
3. Does the two-party system abridge the right to vote?
4. Should the government of the United States be nonpartisan?
5. Should political parties be prohibited from controlling the United States elections and government processes?
6. Should the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the President of the United States be prohibited from adding requirements to the constitutional qualifications for the offices of Representative, Senator and President, to wit: being a member of the Democratic Party, a member of the Republican Party, or any other party?
7. Should the whole of the United States House of Representatives, the whole of the United States Senate and the President of the United States be prohibited from being identified with any political party while conducting the business of the United States?
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of prohibition issue to prevent the undue influence of political parties upon free speech, the right to vote, elections and United States government.
Petitioner respectfully submits that the urgent and extraordinary circumstances of this petition are such that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. The exceptional circumstances of this petition adversely effects and impacts free speech, the right to vote, elections, the legislative and executive branches of government and the nation, which should only be decided by the United States Supreme Court.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AMENDMENT I, Section 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT XXIV, Section 1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other elections for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 (2) No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3 (3) No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 (5) (Article XIV, Section 1 language on citizenship included) No person except..a citizen of the United States..shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 (1) Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such a manner, and under such penalties as each house may provide.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 (2) Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.
STATEMENT OF CASE
The petitioner is a resident of the State of California, a citizen of the United States, 60 years of age, and a nonpartisan, independent registered voter. The petitioner has voted in nearly every election, in which the petitioner was eligible to vote, since 1960.
It is the petitioner's understanding that, according to commonly accepted dictionaries of the English language, the definition of a republic is a form of government having a president as the head of state, and, in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. The Founders framed the United States Constitution as a republic. It is the petitioner's understanding that, a democracy is defined as government by the people, usually through elected representatives. It is the petitioner's understanding that our form of government is recognized and referred to by the majority of citizens in modern times as a democracy, even though, in fact, it is not a democracy. Our government is a republic. This misunderstanding is significant and common among the people as it was to the petitioner.
The United States Constitution makes no provisions for, nor does it recognize political parties in the election or government process of the United States. The vast majority of citizens, however, believes and understands that political parties are, in fact, an integral part of the election and government process, as did the petitioner. The petitioner and over a third of the electorate are either nonpartisan or small party voters. However, the vast majority of citizens believes and understands that elections and government are controlled by the two-party system comprised of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The petitioner asserts that this inextricable understanding has had an adverse effect upon the election and government process that has served to disenfranchise the petitioner as a citizen of the United States. The petitioner further asserts that these adverse conditions abridge the petitioner's free speech and voting rights. The petitioner therefore asserts that direct political party control, power and influence over the election and government processes are injurious to the petitioner, other nonpartisan or small party voters and the republic, and is therefore unconstitutional, based upon the following:
For nearly 150 years, with the exception of the judicial branch, the legislative and executive branches of the United States government have been dominated by what is commonly known as the "two-party system" of political parties consisting of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, neither of which the petitioner is a member. Moreover, the power of the two-party system has become entrenched in the election process and the business of government, so as to adversely affect the operations of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency to the detriment of the petitioner, who is an unaffiliated, nonpartisan independent voter and citizen of the United States. Therefore, the petitioner is, in effect, disenfranchised and unrepresented in both the legislative and executive branches of government.
As a registered nonpartisan, independent voter in the State of California,
the petitioner was prohibited from voting in the presidential primary
election of 1996. Due to a change in California law, the petitioner was
permitted to vote in the presidential primary election of 2000. The
petitioner voted for a Republican Party presidential candidate, however the
petitioner's vote was denied, with no force or effect, because only
registered Republican votes were counted in determining the Republican
delegates for Republican candidates. Indeed, the same restrictive
circumstances would have existed if the petitioner had voted for a
Democratic Party presidential candidate. The vote is the purest form of
speech, Therefore, the foregoing was in violation of the free speech clause
of AMENDMENT I, SECTION 1, and the right to vote in a primary election for
President, or electors for President clause of AMENDMENT XXIV, SECTION 1.
The above is clear and convincing evidence of the two-party system's power over elections.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1(5) lists the eligibility qualifications for the office of President of the United States. The office of President has been held by either a Democrat or a Republican since 1853. Since the two-party system of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have dominated the presidency and the election thereof, they have, in effect, added an eligibility requirement of party membership to the qualifications to hold the office of President, and therefore in violation of ARTICLE II, SECTION 1(5).
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 (2) lists the qualifications for the office of Representative. In effect, the two-party system of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have added a qualification of being either a Democrat or a Republican to hold the office of Representative. Currently there is only one Representative in the House of Representatives who is not a member of either party.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3 (3) lists the qualifications for the office of Senator. In effect, the two-party system of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have added a qualification of being either a Democrat or a Republican to hold the office of Senator. Currently there is only one Senator in the Senate who is not a member of either party.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 (1) states, "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.." The two houses have abused their constitutional authority by integrating the two-party system into control of the elections and returns process, and by adding qualifications of its own members that, in effect, requires members to be either Democratic or Republican party members, which adds qualifications to and is therefore in violation of ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 2(2) and 3(3).
ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 (2) states, "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, in concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." The rules made by the two houses of Congress have violated the intent of the Constitution by completely integrating Democratic and Republican parties into the decision making process of the Congress. The majority party controls each house and every committee within that house. The laws of the United States are made, not by nonpartisan elected representatives, but by Democrats and Republicans with clearly defined partisan agendas. All votes taken in each house are counted as Democrats and Republicans. Members of both houses are identified as Democrats or Republicans. The majority party is seated on one side of the aisle, and the minority party on the other. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, and second in line of presidential succession, is a member of the majority party, Democrat or Republican. Likewise, the President pro Tempre of the Senate, and third in line of presidential succession, is a member of the majority party, Democrat or Republican. The President, either a Democrat or Republican, submits budgets, issues executive orders and vetoes legislation consistent with party platforms and policies.
The President of the United States is a member of, and, in effect, the leader of the Democratic Party. The petitioner's Representative in the House of Representatives is a member of the Republican Party. The petitioner's two Senators are both members of the Democratic Party. All members of the Senate are either Democrats or Republicans. All members of the House of Representatives, save one Independent, and the only Representative from the State of Vermont, are either Democrats or Republicans. Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republican Party majorities whom control the rules and committees of both houses. Prior to the congressional elections of 1994, both houses were controlled by Democratic Party majorities for over 40 years.
The Democratic Party is considered politically liberal and in favor of large government. The Republican Party is considered politically conservative and in favor of smaller government. The members of both houses of Congress and the President generally adhere to their party platforms and policies when making law and public policy decisions. The two-party system controls all state and federal primary elections and general elections, and they decide who their candidates for President will be at national party conventions. Members of both houses of Congress are elected and they are constantly identified individually and collectively as either Democrats or Republicans in all congressional business and voting. They are also identified in the same manner when making public media appearances. The political party designation of Democrat or Republican has superceded the designation of Representative or Senator. My Representative, for instance, is designated as Jerry Lewis, R-CALIFORNIA (Republican from California). Every member of Congress is designated as such when shown on C-Span, in congressional literature and on both houses' Internet Web sites. When C-Span shows daily congressional sessions on television, voting is designated Republican and Democrat in columns depicted on the television screen, and nearly all voting is done along strict party lines.
The petitioner was a registered Republican for years because I favored more Republican Party policies and ideas than Democratic Party policies and ideas. For many of those years, I was under the impression that a voter must register with one of the parties to be able to vote. During the 1992 presidential elections, I realized that I was not represented in government. It became painfully obvious to me that all elected representatives were loyal and responsible to their respective political party power and campaign funding interests, first and foremost, over and above the sovereign power of the people. As a result, I re-registered as a nonpartisan independent voter. I also realized that there were millions of nonpartisan and small party voters suffering from similar circumstances, including millions of citizens registered as Democrats and Republicans.
Since the 1992 elections, contentious party politics and political rancor have consumed the functions of the presidency and both house of Congress. The party politics of "must win at any cost," usually at the expense of the petitioner and other tax paying citizens, has been pervasive throughout the 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000 elections.
The most glaring example of damage inflicted upon the petitioner and the American people is the investigation, impeachment and trial of the President of the United States, Democrat, William Jefferson Clinton. The entire process is the product of what can only be described as two-party political party terrorism. The investigation, impeachment and trial of the President was accomplished along strict party lines. The Republicans indicted and prosecuted the President and the Democrats defended the President to the end, unanimously, in the Senate trial and acquittal. The obvious conclusion to this constitutional crisis was not because the President was guilty or innocent of the charges against him. Rather, it was because the President is a Democrat and leader of the Democratic Party. The glaring conclusion is the fact that the petitioner and other citizens of the United States were completely disenfranchised in the process. The petitioner now understands the meaning of, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." The petitioner also understands that, because our nation's house is divided, the Constitution is in crisis.
No assertion is made that political parties should not be allowed to exist. To the contrary, they have every right to freely exist, and their members have every right express their views and interests under the Constitution and protection of the First Amendment. However, political parties controlling the government process do not have the right, adverse to the rights of other citizens, to overwhelm and restrict unaffiliated nonpartisan citizens from representation, expressing their views and interests in the right to vote, in violation of the 1st and 24th Amendments. The Democratic and Republican Parties dominate the election process and representative government, adverse to the rights of other citizens, and the permanent and aggregate interests of the United States and the several states. Government has become highly consolidated in Washington. The very stability of the nation is at stake here. Our representatives and houses of government must be neutrally unfettered by responsibility and loyalty to anything or anyone other than to the Constitution and to the people. Furthermore, the petitioner and other Nonpartisan voter's tax dollars are used in conducting Democratic Party and Republican Party primary elections, which is in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The original intent of the framers of the Constitution was, not only to establish a republican form of government, but that ratification of the Constitution was substantially based upon a republican form of government, in which a scheme of representation takes place, controlling the effects of faction. It is well known that James Madison thoroughly and successfully argued this proposition in Federalist No. 10. Though Madison was arguing the merits of a republic over a pure democracy, those merits were based upon controlling factions, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Therefore, the petitioner asserts that political parties, namely the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans, have become overwhelming factions, as described above by Madison, which have long been adverse to the rights of the citizens of other parties and millions of unaffiliated nonpartisan citizens, including the petitioner.
The Democratic and Republican Parties have become so entrenched in the election process that they have unlawfully added a requirement to the listed eligibility qualifications for the offices of President, Senators and Representatives, such requirement being either a registered Democrat or Republican, in violation of Article II, Section 1(5), Article I, Section 2(2) and Section 3(3) of the United States Constitution.
Therefore, if the petitioner wanted to become a candidate for Representative, Senator or President, the petitioner would, in effect, be required to be a registered Democrat or Republican, in addition to the constitutional eligibility requirements, or have virtually no chance at being elected to any of the three offices. Historically, independent or third party candidates have been unable to even challenge the domination of the two-party system with any hope of success. Billionaire Ross Perot made the attempt as an independent in 1992, exciting the hopes of millions of voters to spontaneous volunteer campaigning, then Perot ran again in 1996 after forming the Reform Party. Both attempts failed without a chance. History has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the two-party system will go on, unabated, without extraordinary relief.
Further, the two-party domination of the election process severely limits the petitioner to voting for either a Democratic candidate or a Republican candidate, each committed to a party platform of political ideology, neither of which I substantially agree with. However, I literally have no choice. One of them will be elected to represent me. Such limitations are not unlike denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote because of race, sex or failure to pay a poll tax in violation of the 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution. Further, the petitioner's 24th Amendment right to vote in primary elections for President was denied, specifically in the 1996 and 2000 presidential primary elections. Indeed, the petitioner's 1st Amendment rights to free speech in terms of voting have been denied, specifically in the 1996 and 2000 presidential primary elections.
The petitioner asserts that, because of above, the two-party political environment in the Congress and the Presidency excludes the petitioner and other nonpartisan or small party citizens speech and right to vote, and that the two-party system has escalated to hostile levels, dangerous to the survival of our Constitution, our government and the republic itself. Society has been assaulted by selfish interests and battered by the failures of good intentions. The two-party system has alienated the people from their government and caused the people to become cynical and apathetic. Under these adverse conditions, representative government has failed the petitioner and millions of citizens like the petitioner. It should be noted that all state governments have followed the lead of the United States in that they are also dominated and controlled by the two-party system with similar adverse effects upon their people. Most local government throughout the states, however, is nonpartisan by law, as it should be.
As a deeply concerned citizen of the United States, I have the responsibility to do something about this serious problem. This petition for a writ of prohibition is the best, most reasonable and only way for me to do it. Time is of the essence in this matter of vital national importance. The petitioner respectfully prays that this urgent request be granted prior the inevitable political rancor and confusion of the November 2000 presidential elections.
The petition for a writ of prohibition should be granted.
Daniel B. Jeffs
Date: April 25, 2000
[USE BROWSER BACK BUTTON TO EXIT]