I write this paper as a United States citizen that is very disturbed by the numerous reports of voter fraud occurring in the recent presidential election. I have never seen the likes of this in America. There appears to me to be volumes of allegations, suggesting that a prima facie case exists of so many errors or so much skullduggery afoot that the Supreme Court, of necessity, must weigh in with all its power and see to it that this election is done right.
Now that does not mean one candidate or another must come out the winner; no, it means we must find a way to make sure the man that got the most LEGAL votes is the winner. Any serious questions about the outcome must be addressed by the highest court in our land for democracy to endure, for peace to finally settle on our so divided nation.
My suggestion is that either candidate or the American people as in a class action should find a way to petition the Supreme Court of the United States with a presentation of all the facts so that we, the citizenry, can feel confident that the right man will be sitting in the Oval Office when all is said and done.
America demands it, a restless, anxious citizenry demands it, our children and grandchildren demand it, and our true destiny as a nation wrapped in our noble history demands it.
Now, we get down into the weeds:
Our U.S. Constitution (Article 3, Section 2, clause 1) gave, basically created, Federal Judicial Power in “all cases in Law and in Equity, arising under this Constitution, … [and] the Laws of the United States which shall be made under its authority.”
Early in our judicial history, we had two separate court systems, one in law and one in equity. A “law court” based its decisions on statutes, common law, and precedent. An Equity Court, well, let’s have none other than Alexander Hamilton explain it, the Federalist, no. 80:
“There is hardly a subject of litigation between individuals, which may not involve those ingredients of fraud, accident, trust or hardship which would render the matter an object of equitable rather than of legal jurisdiction.” On to Federalist no. 83, he added, “The great and PRIMARY use of a court of equity is to give relief in EXTRAORDINARY cases which are exceptions to general rules.”
A traditional limit on this equity power was that federal courts had this power only when sufficient remedy was not otherwise available at law.
The Judicial Center went on to point out Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story writing that “cases must occur to which the antecedent rules cannot be applied without injustice, or to which they cannot be applied to all.”
In modern times, when one seeks relief from the equity side of the court no jury is involved, the judges are the trier of facts. Another distinction is the decrees the petitioner in an equity court can seek, injunctions, or decrees directing someone to do or not do certain things. The equity judge, in other words, looks to make things right and equitable when, at law, on the other hand, it is usually about money.
What all of this legal jargon means is that in cases where unfair results or unjust results come about when common law or statutory law is applied then, and only then, the EQUITY side of the court can and must step up when presented with a petition so as to assure that a just and equitable solution is found for whatever situation is presented to it.
In this, the year 2020, it means that our Supreme Court must, upon petition, step in, look over the facts presented, and issue, if the facts so demand, whatever decree it takes with a view toward assuring all of America that the results of this recent election are fairly and equitably concluded. The court, in equity session, has the power to say state law is not working in such a way as to bring about a fair and equitable conclusion and therefore we, the court, will issue necessary decrees to make fair and equitable happen.
Our court systems allow great latitude to the court of equity in regard to decrees. They could, for example, conclude that the smell of this election in some states is such that only certain absentee ballots can be counted, or none at all. They could decree that such states must hold new elections within a certain period of time and be specific as to how and when the results can be tallied. They could decree that any changes made by the states in their election process that occurred AFTER this political cycle commenced, as well as votes resulting from such changes, all be set aside.
The detail of whatever they decree is wide and varied and would require great wisdom on the part of the court. The decree or degrees can be tailored to fit each state.
It is clear to me, on the political side, that a well-researched and factually based petition must be presented to the court and presented soon, well prior to the vote of the Electoral College. It appears to me that if we are to have a peaceful and lawful resolution to these great issues that confront our nation, the highest court in the land must weigh-in, and do so soon.
I am sure the Supreme Court of the United States would love to avoid this task; I know I would, but now is the time, now is the hour, for all good men and women in power to step up and to DO YOUR JOB.
Attorney Herb Roberts