Petition for Rehearing of order
writ of prohibition:

I received the following letter from the Supreme Court dated June 26, 2000

Re: In Re Daniel B. Jeffs

Dear Mr. Jeffs:

The Court today entered the following order in the above entitled case: The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.


William K Suter, Clerk

On July 10, 2000, I submitted the following petition for rehearing of order denying my writ of prohibition:

No. 99-9563














The petitioner respectfully submits, on substantial grounds not previously presented, that the Supreme Court should exercise the judicial courage to review the unconstitutional combination and monopoly effects of the two-party system of political party factions, to prohibit the two-party system's overt control of elections and government, and to declare elections and government nonpartisan.

The petitioner further submits that the presidency and the Congress should be nonpartisan because, since the Republican Party gained majority power in 1994, after 40 years of a Democratic Party rule, a state of inescapable, contentious and rancorous political war has existed resulting in reckless legislation and excessive law which is detrimental to the welfare of the petitioner and people. Indeed, the two parties are not unlike a married couple with children locked in a bitter divorce and custody dispute without end. And, of course, the children are the ones who really suffer from the senseless ordeal, especially when the presidency is not unlike an aggravating, partisan relative to one of the parties.

Since the two-party system has increased its power and influence over elections and government, voter participation has decreased to disturbing levels. The reasons are obvious and the results are even more disturbing. Less than half of registered voters bother to vote in most elections, which means that most representatives are elected by only 15 to 25 percent of registered voters. Over 100 million eligible voters do not vote in the United States, mostly because they believe their vote simply does not matter. Though the petitioner votes, the petitioner knows that the vote does not matter.

The petitioner asserts that the dominant two-party system of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and their iron grip on elections and government, is not unlike dominant religions, and their respective grip on religion in America. It is historically well known and understood that debates over partisan politics and religion cannot be settled because of their inherent, winless, similarities. Therefore, society is replete with disenfranchised smaller religions and non-believers, as it is with disenfranchised nonpartisan independents and small party voters. The adverse effects of these conditions have resulted in highly disturbing and destructive incivility within society and government.

Indeed, the definition of religion can easily be extended to politics and political party beliefs as evidenced by Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary: religion // something which has a powerful hold on a person's way of thinking, interests, etc., and The American Heritage Dictionary: religion 3. An objective pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The petitioner further asserts that the Court has wrongly viewed the Founder 's constitutional intent regarding political parties (factions) and religion. Madison's Federalist 10 described the dilemma. "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." As Madison concluded, "Justice ought to hold the balance between them."


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. or abridging the freedom of speech. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly extended the religion clause of the First Amendment to exclude even the scent of government's connection to religion. Conversely, but commensurately, the Court has extended the free speech clause to anything remotely associated with political parties and speech including campaign contributions, while at the same time, avoiding a clash with the two-party system.

The Founder's religion clause of the First Amendment was written first because one of the main reasons America separated from England was because of the Crown's history as the head of the Church of England. The Court has vigorously distanced church from state; however, the Court has done little or nothing to ensure Madison and the other Founder's constitutional intent to control the effects of faction. Instead, the Court has wrongly embraced the formation of political parties as concurrent with the formation of the republic even though any reference to political parties was purposely absent from the Constitution because of the Founder's expressed intent to control the effects of faction.

The petitioner's assertions are further evidence by the fact that the two-party system's evolving factional power has left historical federalist and anti-federalist constitutional arguments unsettled. Therefore, the two-party system must now be identified as the federalist Democratic Party and the anti-federalist Republican Party, which locks government and the citizens of the United States into a state of constitutional limbo.

Coincidentally, on June 26, 2000, the same day the petitioners petition for a writ of prohibition was denied, the Court decided Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe, wherein student-led prayer at school football games violates the separation of church and state, and California Democratic Party vs. Bill Jones (No. 99-401), wherein the Court decided that a blanket primary violated political parties' freedom of association, not to associate, and to choose their own candidate. Nothing in this petition proposes otherwise.

Still, Congress opens its daily business with religious prayer, yet the unconstitutional two-party system goes on, unabated by reason and common sense. The Federal Elections Commission established by government consists of 6 members (3 Democrats and 3 Republicans). Is that constitutionally protected freedom of association or is it party controlled elections and government? Indeed, the 2000 presidential debates are considered a major deciding factor in the election. However, the debates are controlled by the Presidential Debates Commission, which consists of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans and, for all intents and purposes, limited to Democrat and Republican candidates.

Lastly, the bulk of millions of dollars in federal matching funds of all taxpayer's money are given to the Democrat and Republican candidates in the presidential election. Coupled with independent voter's tax dollars used to finance state-run federal elections, the political playing field is wrongly and unfairly limited to two teams with a fifty-fifty chance of winning and no outside competition.

If a petitioner can succeed in constitutionally prohibiting student-led prayer at football games and other school-sponsored events because they must be non-religious, then a petitioner certainly ought to succeed in constitutionally prohibiting the two-party system's factional effects on elections and government, which must be nonpartisan.


Certainly, members of political parties should be able to freely associate and choose their candidates without government interference. However, the petitioner and other independent nonpartisan voters should enjoy the equal right of nonpartisan representation and non-association, and as citizens of the United States should not be governed by a two-party combination resulting in a political monopoly.

The petitioner appeals to the Court to reconsider the petition, to exercise the judicial courage to take on the political establishment and to free elections and government from the adverse effects of dominant factions by granting the writ of prohibition.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel B. Jeffs
July 10, 2000


Constitution of the United States, Amendment I, Section 1, Clause 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

The United States two-party system of party politics are, in fact, religions, albeit political religions, but nevertheless religions by definition, as stated in the petition for rehearing, which have been inextricably woven into the fabric of the presidency and the Congress by all the presidents and all the members of Congress for over 150 years.

Congress (and the presidency) have continuously violated the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment by establishing the majority party, Democrat or Republican, to rule Congress; and to make laws respecting the majority party beliefs and ideology, and they have done so, the vast majority of the time, strictly along party lines.

Democrats and Republicans preach, demagogue and pass laws according to their respective party beliefs. Therefore, the Congress has made nearly all laws respecting the establishment of the ruling party's religion of the left, if Democrat, or the right, if Republican, which have been inflicted upon the petitioner and all citizens of the United States regardless of party or non-affiliation.

Moreover, the First and Fourteenth Amendments should afford the petitioner and all non-affiliated voters protection from the religious two-party system 's rule and legislation of state legislatures and tax funded state party primary elections and general elections designating any candidate's party affiliation.

The petitioner asserts that the Court has no constitutional alternative but to declare the two-party system's religious rule, religious lawmaking and religious elections to be unconstitutional and nonpartisan.

Indeed, the petitioner's foregoing amendment to the petition for rehearing could stand alone, as substantial grounds not previously stated, to grant the petition.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel B. Jeffs, petitioner pro se
August 1, 2000

Note: On August 7, 2000 the Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing.