Whether Georgia's Secretary of State unlawfully abrogated the Georgia legislature's statutory mail-in absentee ballot signature verification procedure or prohibition on opening absentee ballots before Election Day. Plaintiffs also argue Defendants unlawfully installed unauthorized ballot drop boxes not permitted under the legislature's election law framework, and used unreliable and compromised Dominion Voting Systems software. Complaint is raised under Equal Protection and Due Process of the 14th Amendment, and the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief halting Georgia's senatorial runoff election because Defendants are conducting it in a manner that differs from the state legislature's election scheme.
Whether the defendants, in the running of Arizona's election, violated the Elections and Electors Clauses, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, in addition to state election law; Allegations include fraud in the counting and fabrication of hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots, including fraud related to the use of Dominion Election Systems' hardware and software in Maricopa County; The complaint includes a request to decertify Arizona's Presidential election results.
Whether Wisconsin election officials unlawfully departed from the state legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors; Allegations include (1) ignoring or compromising state law limits on the availability of mail-in ballots, (2) proliferating unmanned mail-in ballot drop boxes, (3) processing and counting vast numbers of mail-in ballots outside the visibility of poll watchers, (4) reducing or eliminating mandatory voter certifications for mail-in ballots, and (5) permitting "ballot tampering"; The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the defendants violated the Electors Clause as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and for the court to remand the case to the Wisconsin legislature for the purpose of determining a remedy according to its authority under the Electors Clause
Whether the defendants violated the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 by contravening requirements in the Wisconsin Statutes such as a provision stating that absentee ballots should not be counted when their certificates are missing a witness address; whether the defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution in their disparate treatment of absentee vs. mail-in voters; whether the defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by providing guidance in violation of the Wisconsin Statutes and by counting allegedly fraudulent and illegal votes; and whether the defendants' alleged conduct should require the decertification of Wisconsin's Presidential election results
Whether the defendants violated various state and federal laws by such alleged conduct as permitting early processing of absentee ballots without legislative authorization, allowing voting by individuals no longer residing in the state, failing to develop auditable procedures for the processing of absentee ballots, failing to provide meaningful access for party representatives to observe and monitor the electoral process, treating absentee voters in some counties differently than absentee voters in other counties, and employing tools such as Dominion Democracy Suite software and devices that allegedly led to statewide ballot fraud; Whether the defendants' alleged conduct should result in the decertification of the Presidential election results in Georgia
Whether the defendants violated various state and federal laws by such alleged conduct as denying meaningful access for party representatives to observe the counting of votes, treating one class of Michigan voters (in person voters) differently than another class of Michigan voters (absentee/mail-in voters), and permitting widespread voter fraud due to the use of Dominion voting machines and software; Whether the defendants' alleged conduct should result in the decertification of the Presidential election results in Michigan
Whether Arizona election officials failed to allow observation of signature verification as required by Arizona law; whether plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable inspection (sampling) of signatures as well as "duplicated" ballots so she can compare them to originals; and whether the alleged illegal conduct requires the court to annul the state's election and declare that the state's certification of Biden electors is of no further legal effect
Whether the 2019 Act of the Pennsylvania legislature establishing mail-in voting procedures is unconstitutional and whether the court should issue an injunction prohibiting the state from certifying the results of the November election
Whether Georgia's Secretary of State altered the process established by the Georgia legislature for handling defective absentee ballots, in violation of federal constitutional law and federal and Georgia statutory law, when he entered into a March 2020 settlement agreement to resolve a court case brought by the Democratic Party of Georgia and others
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
