|
For Immediate Release: 7/26/2023
EIPCa Intro:
For those of you who have waited for an update on our federal lawsuit, here it is. Below is the press release from our attorney, Mariah Gondeiro, attorney with Advocates for Faith and Freedom. EIPCa will send additional information next week.
Press Release
California federal judge dismisses election lawsuit despite Ninth Circuit ordering the case to move forward.
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: A d v o c a t e s f o r F a i t h a n d F r e e d o m a t
951-304-7583 or media@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM
For Immediate Release 7/26/2023, Santa Clarita, California – Last week, California Judge André Birotte Jr. dismissed the election lawsuit filed by the Election Integrity Project of California (“EIPCa”) even though the Ninth Circuit held the Plaintiffs had standing and ordered the case to move forward last winter.
Since the 2020 election, EIPCa has collected thousands of incident reports from citizens in California reporting election workers not vetting signatures and, in some cases, counting ballots without signatures. Plaintiffs allege these irregularities are the result of California’s laws and regulations that massively expanded universal vote-by-mail and gutted signature verification requirements.
Judge Birotte dismissed the lawsuit, claiming the allegations amounted to garden-variety election irregularities, and Plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting viable claims.
“The allegations do not amount to garden-variety election irregularities but represent systemic issues with California’s election process that disproportionately harm valid in-person voters,” says Mariah Gondeiro, attorney for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “At the pleading stage, courts must accept all allegations as true, and the federal court improperly dismissed Plaintiffs’ allegations while giving greater weight to Defendants’ unsupported arguments.”
“We look forward to winning again at the Ninth Circuit and setting precedent that will have a broader impact,” says Robert Tyler, President for Advocates for Faith and Freedom.
“Over 20,000 CA citizens have taken EIPCa’s observer training and documented serious election irregularities in 43 out of 58 counties since 2012,” says Linda Paine, President of EIPCa. “We have earned the right to start Discovery!"
About Advocates for Faith & Freedom (www.faith-freedom.com): Advocates for Faith & Freedom safeguards the constitutional liberties that define the United States as a beacon of freedom and prosperity, including religious freedom, free speech, election integrity, parental rights, and the rights of children, both born and unborn.
About Election Integrity Project®California, Inc. (EIPCa) (www.eip-ca.com):
Election Integrity Project®California, Inc. is a California non-profit public benefit corporation committed to defending, through education, research, and advocacy the civil rights of U.S. citizens to fully participate in the election process under Federal and state law.
###
pdf of article
|
Election Integrity Project®California Files Second Amended Complaint
Challenging California’s Unconstitutional Election Process
Santa Clarita, California - Election Integrity Project®California (EIPCa) filed a Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief as a result of California’s unconstitutional Election Laws and Emergency Regulations. Over 12 years of EIPCa research indicates that California’s election laws, regulations, policies and procedures have weakened or removed integrity from the election process.
On November 21, 2022 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Election Integrity Project®California established standing to pursue its lawsuit. That decision remanded the lawsuit back to the lower federal court for discovery, which is the next phase of the litigation.
The amended Complaint now includes two additional defendants: Kern County Registrar of Voters and San Luis Obispo County Registrar of Voters. The Complaint replaced 13 Congressional Candidate plaintiffs with four citizen plaintiffs.
The Constitution gives authority to state legislators to pass laws to manage elections and process ballots. These laws must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment and the Elections Clause in order to ensure the integrity of that aspect of our Republic through which citizens exercise our most fundamental right ~ the right to choose our representatives by fair, honest and transparent elections.
[paragraph 1 of complaint]
“Our Constitutional Republic is founded on the sacred right of all eligible citizens to cast an equal vote to determine who will represent them in government. The Constitution of the United States guarantees this right through the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and, in the case of Federal congressional elections, through the Elections Clause (Art. I, § 4, cl. 1). No right is more sacred than the right to vote, as it involves “matters close to the core of our constitutional system.” Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 96 (1965).”
The Two Causes of Action Are:
First Cause of Action: Denial of Equal Protection: 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution 42 USC 1983
“[California’s laws, regulations, and guidelines have allowed counties to treat VBM [vote by mail] and in-person voters differently, resulting in disproportionate harm to in-person voters.” [#3-C, page 3 of complaint]
“Defendants have violated the Equal Protection Clause by implementing laws, regulations, and procedures that diminish the value of in-person voters.” [par. 151, page 36 of complaint]
“Defendants have further violated the Equal Protection Clause by applying nonuniform laws, regulations, and procedures that treat voters…differently than voters in other counties.” [par. 152, page 36 of complaint]
Second Cause of Action: Denial of Due Process: 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution 42 USC 1983
“Defendants have violated the Due Process Clause by implementing laws, regulations, and procedures that diminish the value of in-person voters.” [par. 163, page 38 of complaint]
“Defendants have further violated the Due Process Clause by applying nonuniform laws, regulations, and procedures that treat voters, including Plaintiffs and EIPCa’s observers, differently than voters in other counties, including counties not listed in this lawsuit.” [par. 164, page 38 of complaint].” [par. 164, page 38 of complaint]
EIPCa et al v Weber et al - Second Amended Complaint
##
download pdf of article
|
|
