No. 20-
I
N
THE
Supreme Court of the United States
O
N
P
ETITION
FOR
W
RITS
OF
C
ERTIORARI
TO
THE
S
UPREME
C
OURT
OF
P
ENNSYLVANIA
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.,
Petitioner,v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
et al
.,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
J
OHN
C. E
ASTMAN
, E
SQ
.
Counsel of Record
174 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite 620 Anaheim, CA 92805(909) 257-3869 jeastman562@gmail.com
B
RUCE
S. M
ARKS
, E
SQ
.M
ARKS
& S
OKOLOV
, LLC
1835 Market Street, Suite 1717Philadelphia, PA 19103(215) 569-8901
Counsel for Petitioners
A
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
300748
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Article II of the Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint [electors
for President and Vice President]
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). That power is “plenary,” and
the statutory provisions enacted by the legislature in the furtherance of that constitutionally-assigned duty may not be ignored by state election officials or changed by state courts.
Bush v. Gore
(“
Bush II
”),
531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000). Yet, during the 2020 presidential election, that is what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did in four cases
–
three at issue in this Petition, and one already before the Court. Statutory requirements were eliminated regarding signature verification, the right of campaigns to challenge invalid mail ballots, mandates that mail voters fill in, date, and sign mail ballot declarations, and even the right of campaigns to observe the mail ballot canvassing process in a meaningful way. Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature. According to public reports, without these protections, the resulting disqualification rate of invalid ballots was anemic
—
meaning over 110,000 invalid ballots were illegally counted
—
more than enough to have affected the outcome of the election, where the margin between the two principal candidates for President currently stands at 80,558. The questions presented are therefore: 1.
Whether th
e Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
alteration or suspension of state
ii election law through its three decisions before and after the November 2020
general election usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing e
lectors for President and Vice-President, in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution? 2.
Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s three decisions usurping the Pennsylvania Legislature’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner”
for appointing presidential electors, by changing the law, including eviscerating protections against mail ballot fraud, violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, and whether Pennsylvania applying the new rules promulgated by the Court during the election in only select counties where mail ballots heavily favored one candidate over the other violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution? 3.
Whether this Court has the power to provide a meaningful remedy to Petitioner in advance of the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress, at which electoral votes will be opened and counted, or before the January 20, 2021 inauguration date specified by the Constitution?