In Honor
ot
Thaddeus Stevens
&
Ella 
Baker
us-vote_ The Constitutional Franchise for Racial Quotas
The Historical legacy of racial quotas in the Constitutional design for effecting the citizens right to vote
and its Contemporary impact on present day presidential elections

THE MALAPPORTIONMENT PENALTY (MAP) 
CIVIL ACTIONS  IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The Constitution  requires  that unbounded  Southern  States  (States that award their presidential electors on a "winner take all" basis ungrounded in either state or federal statute)  allocate their presidential electors in proportion to the popular vote split or suffer the federal statutory mandate to reduce the states' representatives in Congress.  The "winner take all" allocation of presidential electors triggers the malapportionment penalty of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (Amend.14§2) as implemented by the "Reduction of representation" federal statute Section 6 of title 2 of the United States Code (2USC§6), for an abridgment in the right "to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States." 

MAP CIVIL ACTIONs| HISTORICAL CONTEXTGORDON et.al. vs CLERK HOR   | GORDON vs CHENEY/BIDEN  | PRESS RELEASE  | {  RIGHT TO VOTE ACT REPORT  } 
 Greens launch effort against Electoral College manipulation of presidential elections 

A civil action to protect the voting rights of presidential electors and the voters they represent was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (1:08-cv-01294) on July 28, 2008, by Asa Gordon, chair of the DC Statehood Green Party's Electoral College Task Force and executive director of the Douglass Institute of Government . The Civil Action was filed on July 28th, 2008,  to commemorate the Century and Two Score years anniversary of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the debacle of the 2000 presidential election, the Green Party, in partnership with the Douglass Institute of Government, has led the way in educating the general citizenry of their constitutional "right to vote" under the provisions of the Second Section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

  The civil action seeks relief against the defendant, Vice President Cheney, who will preside over the tabulation of "unbound Southen electoral states"  who by practice, unsupported by state or federal statute, traditionally award Presidential Electors on a "winner-take-all basis". 
  The civil action alternatively seeks the issuance of a court order providing proportional apportionment of unbound presidential electors.


 "Defendant's [Cheney] certain bias presentation for tabulation in the Hall of the House of Representatives, January 6, 2009, of majority polled presidential electors from unbounded southern states ungrounded in either state or federal law , constitutes a discriminatory abridgment of the voting rights of minority polled presidential electors based on race and/or party affiliation in violation of the mal-apportionment penalty clause pursuant to the United States Constitution (Amend. XIV§2) and statutory Code (2U.S.C.§6)." - Gordon vs Cheney

 
 
 
 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - Case 1:08-cv-01294-HHK
(Gordon vs Cheney)
July 28th, 2008
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
July 30th, 2008
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
August 18th, 2008
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S 
TEMPORARY RESTARINING ORDER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
August 21st, 2008
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND
TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
September 18th, 2008
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN OPPOSITION 
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
September 19th, 2008
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PRESENT
ORAL ARGUMENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
October 6th, 2008
DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRESENT 
ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
October 16th, 2008
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF IT'S MOTION TO PRESENT 
ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS.
November 24th, 2008
PLAINTIFF'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DATA EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
January 23rd, 2009
PLAINTIFF'S  AUGMENTED MOTION  FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
March 26th, 2009
COURT-MEMORANDUM OPINION-ORDER


First and foremost it should be noted that the Federal US District Court did not dismiss the "Democratization of the Electoral College" lawsuit for a Failure to state or make a Federal Claim but ruled that on the basis of the Plaintiff's standing he is unable to prosecute the civil action.
April 22nd, 2009
NOTICE OF APPEAL
May 11th, 2009
PLAINTIFF'S   MOTION  FOR  RELIEF OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
May 22nd, 2009
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
June 1st, 2009
COURT ORDER- plaintiff's motion [#25/May 11th, 2009] is DENIED
June2nd, 2009
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
June 11th, 2009
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS - No. 09-5142
 (Gordon vs Biden)
April 24th, 2009
COURT ORDER FOR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
May 14th, 2009
APPELLEE'S CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL AS
 TO PARTIES RULINGS AND RELATED CASES
May 22nd, 2009
APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE RAISED,
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES RULINGS AND RELATED CASES
AND STATEMENT REGARDING DEFERRED APPENDIX
&
SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
June 8th, 2009
APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRIMANCE
June 17th, 2009
APPELLANT'S REPLY TO APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE
AND MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF.
 August 13th, 2009
UNITED  STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ORDER
APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRIMANCE IS DENIED
August 14th, 2009
UNITED  STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ORDER
COURT'S  OWN MOTION SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
September 22nd, 2009
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
October 23rd, 2009
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
November 5th, 2009
COURT ORDER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
November 6th, 2009
APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF
January11th, 20

COURT ORDER
The court concludes, on its own motion, that oral argument will not assist the court in this case. Accordingly, the court will dispose of the appeal without oral argument on the basis of the record and the presentations in the briefs. See Fed. R. App. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j).
January 21th, 2010
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISPOSITION 
WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT.

February January 25th, 2010

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for reconsideration of disposition without oral argument, which contains a transcript of appellant’s supplemental points for oral argument, it is
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s alternative request that the court consider  the transcript of appellant’s supplemental points for oral argument be granted.
February 1st, 2010

JUDGMENT
ORDERED 
and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. 
... The plaintiff is not injured by the operation of the five states’ winner-take-all systems because he does not vote in those states ...  Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing
March 12th, 2010
PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit judgment is in conflict with a plethora of Supreme Court rulings on  standing in minority vote dilution civil actions, and discriminates against the appellant as  a resident of the District of Columbia. The Appellate Panel  decision failed to address the issues of standing that formed the basis for the district court ruling under review while erroneously sustaining the judgment the District Court and  misconstrued the very basis of the cause of controversy as pleaded by the Appellant.  The panel judgment presents a question of exceptional importance by leaving the  congressional representatives of the unbounded states in Constitutional limbo.
April 9th, 2010
COURT ORDER

ORDER : Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for panel rehearing filed on March 12, 2010, it is _ ORDEREDthat the petition be denied.
     That's it. The Appellate Court PANEL has rendered a judgment and now a denial of a panel rehearing without a published opinion, because the Court cannot articulate a credible argument to dispute the arguments by Appellant before the CourtSo the court renders rulings without explanation that are in demonstrable conflict with Supreme Court rulings.Note: Federal Judge Merrick B. Garland - a member of the panel in this action- is on the President's short list for Supreme Court nominees.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - Case 1:11-cv-00003 (HHK)
(Gordon et.al.  vs Clerk HOR)
Jan 3rd, 2011
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF / TRO

The plaintiffs seek this temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction at this time to constrain the Defendant from recognizing and presiding over  the commencement of a Congress in standing violation of the Constitution and predicated on a "Winner Take All" electoral formula ungrounded in either state or federal law that serves no democratic purpose but to maintain racial and  regional party supremacy.
Jan 4th, 2011
COURT ORDER

Proceeding pro se, Asa Gordon and Thelma Thorpe (collectively, "plaintiffs") bring this action against the Honorable Lorraine C. Miller, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, in her official capacity, alleging violations of their constitutional rights resulting from the practice of Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas of allocating their presidential electors on a "winner take all" basis. Before the Court is plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). Based on the reasons stated today in open court, it is this 4th day of January 201 1 hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiffs' application for a TRO is DENIED

February 25th, 2011
MOTION TO INTERVENE
 Pursuant to rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure two  Louisiana  voters filed a motion to intervene in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as co-plaintiffs in support of the civil action Gordon et.al. vs Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.
March 17th, 2011
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant the Honorable Karen L. Haas respectfully moves for an order dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted against her for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed simultaneously herewith. ...
March 22nd, 2011
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
In Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the D.C. Circuit held that a district court must take pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion.

April 18th, 2011
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

Pursuant to Rules 6(b) and 12(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.,  Plaintiffs hereby moves to extend, until April 29th,2011  the date to oppose the Motion of Defendant Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives,  to Dismiss the Complaint, filed on March 17th, 2011

April 19th, 2011
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO RESPOND

April 29th, 2011
PLAINTIFFS'MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

  More specifically, as we now show, the Defendant's MTD should be denied  because (1)  plaintiffs' standing in this action meets, indeed exceeds, the standards for standing established in the classic "minority vote dilution" precedents, (2) The   Speech or Debate Clause does not apply to the ministerial nature of the act of the Clerk in this matter and therefore does not abolish standing; rather it guarantees it.  (3) This is not a "moot" case. This case falls within the classic exception to the "mootness" doctrine, a case that is constantly recurring and yet escaping judicial review. (4)  the Complaint states a claim for relief as a matter of law pursuant to the " Reduction ofrepresentation"  U.S. Code 2USC§6  for  an abridgment of plaintiffs' votes in the 2008 presidential  election  in explicit violation of Amend. XIV§2.

May 11th, 2011
DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

May 20th, 2011
(PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY)
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE  TO  DEFENDANT’S REPLY (DR) TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
  The defendant is laboring hard, and is desperately trying to misconstrue this action  as an equal protection claim under the "one-person, one-vote" principle directed at the electoral college.  It is not.  Let us be clear, any equal protection claims in this action are derivative claims that  are not directed at the electoral college.  They are directed at a state practice not even grounded in state law. Any derivative injuries to the Fourteenth Amendment's section one equal protection clause raised in this action are a natural by product of  a violation of the malapportionment penalty clause of Amend.14§2. ...

PLAINTIFFS’  TWO PART MOTIONS FOR  SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

(1)     Plaintiffs move the Court for injunction relief, to enjoin the Defendant pursuant to action taken under Rule II of the U.S. House of Representatives from recognizing the full slate of unbounded electoral states' Congressional representatives in the next session of Congress who are subject to the malapportionment penalty clause for minority vote dilution by Race and/or Party Affiliation in the allocation of presidential electors by a general ticket  (winner-take-all) rule ungrounded in a State's election code. Plaintiffs  move the court to apply the sanction in section two of the Fourteenth Amendment as implemented by  2USC§6 which calls for the reduction of the number of  the offending State's representatives in congress in proportion to the  disenfranchised class of U.S. Citizens whose voting rights were denied and/or abridged .

(2)         Plaintiffs move the Court to enter a declaratory judgment that Amend. XIV§2 as implemented by 2USC§6  mandates proportional apportionment of presidential electors based on the popular vote split for the subject states of this civil action that award their Presidential Electors by a Winner-Take-All rule that is not specified in the State's election statutes.

    A brief reflection on our past, in order to illuminate our present, so as to gain informed insight into our future.

The "Negro" Electoral Slush Fund.

    Let us be honest, the purpose of the Electoral College was to create a "Negro" Electoral Slush Fund to establish and sustain white supremacy, and a great deal of our jurisprudence in this matter is in denial of this historical truth. That is one other reason why this is a case of first impression, it does not shy away from this historical legacy of infamy.
  The existence of the Electoral College's Negro Electoral Slush Fund (unwarranted political power) is a documented historical fact.1  The Negro Electoral Slush Fund was eight electoral votes in 1800 when Jefferson won the Presidential Election over John Adams by eight electoral votes.   It grew  ...

July 26th, 2011

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE
PROCEEDINGS ON CO-PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

August 11, 2011
Attorney's amicus letter brief for Plaintiff to Hon.  Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., United States District Judge

Dear Sir:
... To my knowledge, I am the only attorney in the United States actually challenging the constitutionality of the Electoral College in court.  I have participated in over a dozen different lawsuits and appeals against the constitutionality of the Electoral College beginning with Henderson v. Electoral College... Phillips v. Electoral College ....  I have written half a dozen books and many articles on the subject.

August 22, 2011
Plaintiff Response to amicus letter for Plaintiff Amicus Letter for Plaintiff
August 24, 2011
Co-Plaintiffs'  Response to Amicus Letter for Plaintiff.

...  The present Cause of Controversy  is not  directed at the constitutionality of the Electoral College. The Court is advised that the plaintiffs' and co-plaintiffs'  pleadings before the court  in this matter are for redress for injuries arising from an unconstitutional mal-apportionment in their  "right to vote" for presidential electors. This injury to the value of their vote derives from a "winner-take-all" state practice  ungrounded in state law. This civil  action, in fact, pleads for a remedy grounded in the Constitution  that in effect Democratizes the Electoral College for plaintiffs casting a vote as  racial and/or political minorities. ...
[Plaintiffs' and co-Plaintiffs' fully concur and welcome the "amicus letter for Plaintiff" representation to the court that ]:
"[T]he silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment."
 "This was the common law of England before the separation from the Mother Country."

Nov. 22, 2011
CASE REASSIGNED

US District Court District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing_The following transaction was entered on 1122/2011 at 7:52 AM EDT and filed on 11/22/2011
Case Name:GORDON et al v. MILLER Case Number: 1:11-cv-00003-RCL _ Document Number: 25
Case directly reassigned to Chief Judge Royce C Lamberth Judge Henry H. Kennedy has retired and is no longer assigned to the case (gt,)




 
 

VIDEOs:


The National Archives and Records Administration - A More Perfect Union? The Constitutional Franchise for Racial Quotas. Taped at the National Archives at College Park. Maryland. April 2008.

RT AMERICA _ MAP CIVIL ACTIONS

   RT America broadcasts from studios in Washington, DC. We report on the other side of the story, not making any conclusions, but raising the unanswered questions. 
  Tune in to watch news reports, features and talk shows with a totally different perspective from mainstream American television. 

  As the UK looks toward changing their voting system, will America follow suit by abolishing the Electoral College? Former Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney thinks that the current system set up in America needs to be abolished, as its brimming with obstacles that create problems for those looking beyond a two-party system. According to McKinney, the current system in place does not allow voters who want peace, justice and change proper representation.

 

Maj. Dumas on the Legacy of the Black Vote

District of Columbia
Emancipation Day Celebration
Celebrating the Triumphant Struiggle for
Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Liberty
African-American Civil War Memorial
Vermont Avenue and U Street, N.W.
Friday, April 15, 2011
12 Noon-1:00pm



Civil War to Civil Rights_ Tribute to USCT
 Keynote Address 
by Asa Gordon,
Secretary General Sons & Daughters United States Colored Troops.
 

 
  






 
 
 
 
 
 

THE MAP CIVIL ACTIONS IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Ella Baker  (Godmother of the Civil Rights Movement) an unsung heroine of the twentieth-century American Civil Rights movement was a central force in several major civil rights organizations: NAACP, SCLC & SNCC.

Malappotionment  Penalty (MAP) Civil Actions to effect  the "Reconstruction" of our 
"right to vote" .
 

In 1964 Baker helped organize the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) as an alternative to the all-white Mississippi Democratic Party. She worked as coordinator of the Washington office of the MFDP and accompanied a delegation of the MFDP to the National Democratic Party convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey in 1964. The group challenged the national party to affirm the rights of African Americans to participate in party elections in the South. In this audio of  Ella Baker's 1964 Keynote speech (she invented the 60's people movements)  she makes an implicit reference to the malapportionment penalty (MAP) of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment ...
"despite the depredation in the right to vote ... at no point, at no point were the southern states denied their representation ..."

Gordon_Jamison v. Gore (2000){CRS-46,47} ; Gordon v. Cheney/Biden (2008-2010)AND NOW Gordon&Tharpe v Clerk HOR (2011)are civil actions to  redress  the ritual unconstitutional  malapportionment  of Southern electors to the Electoral College  and Southern Representatives to Congress  in the wake of  Presidential elections. The MAP civil actions  honor the  1860s legacy of abolitionist Thaddeus StevensGodfather of our Constitutional rights, and the 1960s spirit of the Godmother of  our Civil RightsElla Baker .
See: APPELLANT'S FINAL BRIEF.

 
 

The ELECTORAL MAP in BLACK & WHITE :
 CNN: ElectionCenter Data_Nov. 06th, 2008


   Obama's election is both an historic realization of our egalitarian ideals and an ironic testament to our enduring undemocratic legacy. The wide disparity between Obama's popular vote majority and the percentage gap in his lead in the electoral college highlights the undemocratic bias inherent in the nation's "Winner-Take-All" allocation of presidential electors. Obama leads McCain by 53% to 47% in the popular vote, but under "Winner-Take-All" rules, this  6% margin of victory translates into an exaggerated allocation of 364 to 174 electors, with a distorted 35% majority of electors awarded to Obama in the electoral college. A table of votes cast by states reveals a striking comparison between the "Winner-Take -All" method and the proportional apportionment of presidential electors predicated on the popular vote split. This more democratic method would result in an electoral count of 286 to 252, with a percentage electoral advantage of 53% to 47% that matches Obama's popular vote majority.
Table: Apportionment of Presidential Electors
The Electoral Map - White Voters Only
   Despite the effusive and delusional musings of  mainstream media political pundits, Barack Obama's victory does not represent an historic enlightened realignment of white voters with regard to racial politics. Obama's organization beat the Republican party organization in energizing, registering and turning out its base, the African-American voter. Obama's share of the White vote represented only a marginal improvement over John Kerry from 41% to 43% over the 2004 Presidential election. However, Obama's improvement over Kerry among African Americans was from 88% to 95%, with an increase from 11% to 13% among the total voter population, along with a corresponding drop of White voters from 77% to 74%. There was a potential realignment among Latino's from 53% to 67%. The  media's delusional bias is revealed in its general failure to report on real voter suppression techniques employed during this election, techniques that target minorities, contrasted with its emphasis on potential voter fraud  arising from improper voter registrations prior to the election..
The Electoral Map -White Male Voters Only

However, Obama's election presents historic trends and definitive signs of significant inroads in this demographic voter's siblings.
A change we can believe in.



Selected Source Data: 
CNN ElectionCenter-2008
CNN ElectionCenter-2004

Democratizing the Electoral College

 Tables of Winner Take All vs Proportional Allocation of Presidential Electors for "Unbounded Electoral States" Nationally and the "Unbounded Southern States" that are the subjects of litigation in GORDONvsCHENEY
racial gap
The CNN Wire Latest updates on top stories :April 30th, 2009 
Black, white voting rates matched in 2008, study finds
Posted: 03:22 PM ET 
(CNN) — Last year, for the first time in U.S. history, blacks and whites voted at roughly the same rates, a new study shows. 

The overall turnout rate barely budged, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center — and turnout among white voters actually declined slightly — but, in another first, participation by African-American women was the highest of any gender or race. Nearly 69 percent of black women voted in November.

2008 voting rate down
as older whites stayed home

Posted: July 20, 2009 01:34 PM EDT 
Updated: July 22, 2009 01:54 PM EDT 

WASHINGTON (AP) — For all the attention generated by last year's presidential race, census figures show the share of eligible voters who actually went to the polls in November declined from 2004.
   Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of eligible voters, or 131.1 million people, cast ballots last November. Although that represented an increase of 5 million voters, the turnout was a decrease when taking into account population growth. In 2004, the voting rate was 63.8 percent.
  According to the data, more older whites opted to stay home compared with 2004, citing little interest in supporting either Barack Obama or John McCain.

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU NEWS : FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009

Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election,
U.S. Census Bureau Reports
Data Show Significant Increases Among Hispanic, Black and Young Voters

      About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian voters,while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically unchanged. ... 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 




The GOP’s Neo-Redemptionist Electoral College
Electoral Quotas for a White Majority
November 11. 2011

Green civil action challenges the legitimacy of
 US Representatives from southern states
['Winner take all' apportionment of presidential electors in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas is not grounded in law and violates the 14th Amendment.]
Oral arguments for Green leader's Electoral College Mal-Apportionment civil action (Gordon v. Biden),
 earlier set for Jan. 14, have been canceled.

Press Release Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Oral arguments for Green leader's Electoral College Mal-Apportionment civil action (Gordon v. Biden)
 to be heard in court on Jan. 14, 2010
 

Press Release Monday, December 21, 2009
District Court rules on Green's constitutional challenge 
to the manipulation of presidential elections

  Press Release April 10, 2009
Greens launch effort against Electoral College manipulation of presidential elections
Press Release August 5, 2008
GREENS CALL FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
14th AMENDMENT'S 'RIGHT TO VOTE' PROVISION

Press Release October 18, 2004
U.S. CONSTITUTION MANDATES PENALTIES 
FOR STATES WHERE VOTES ARE OBSTRUCTED

Press Release December 16, 2004
GREENS PUSH FOR REAL REFORMS AT
CARTER-BAKER HEARINGS, JUNE 30.
Press Release June 27, 2005
SPECIAL REPORT ON THE ELECTION OF 2008 :prepared for No More Stolen Elections! by John Nichols


Published: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:04 PM EST
Democratize The Electoral College
GUEST COMMENTARY:By ASA GORDON
NO MORE STOLEN ELECTIONS DEMOCRACY SQUARE
Green Party Member Asa Gordon Files Suit Against U.S. Reps
2 * Atlanta Daily World Thursday - Wednesday May 5 - 11, 2011



CAUSES ON FACEBOOK
Democratizing the Electoral College
A civil action to protect the voting rights of presidential electors

A Proclamation of the DC Statehood Green Party
"Democratize the Electoral College"
February 2nd, 2012

A PROCLAMATION OF THE DC STATEHOOD GREEN PARTY TO REDRESS NATIONAL STATE INITIATIVES TO INSTITUTIONALIZE "MINORITY VOTE DILUTION" WHETHER RACIAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, OR BY THIRD PARTY AFFILIATIONS, BY THE ENACTMENT OF VOTER ID LAWS AND "WINNER-TAKE-ALL" POLITICS.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Questions For A Neo-Confederate Justice   |GREEN PAPERS  :  ARTICLE
An Exposé of Legal Darwinism and Neo-Redemptionist Federalism
by Asa Gordon
"Is there some way to be a conservative without being a Confederate?" ... Justice Clarence Thom

The WORLD&I
CURRENT ISSUES
COMMENTARY
  A Color-blind Supreme Court?
by Asa Gordon
In Gutter v Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled to approve the University of Michigan law school's affirmative action approach to enrolling a "critical mass" of blacks, Latinos,and Native Americans. Could Associate Justice Clarence Thomas learn something from abolitionist Frederick Douglass?
[ Sotomayor Owes No Apology ] : ADW
THE PEOPLES V OICE
No regrets for a "choice of words"
Published: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:04 PM EST
Democratize The Electoral College
GUEST COMMENTARY
By ASA GORDON
 

 
 


On Friday July 26th, 2013, Asa Gordon, Chair of the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force and Secretary General of the Sons & Daughters United States Colored Troops, presented a  special version of the signature African American Civil War Memorial  "Historical Voting Rights" Civil War Sesquicentennial Lecture: The USCT Legacy of National Redemption and Democracy ( How Black Civil War Veterans Reconstructed the Union and Established Democracy in America)  during the party's 2013 Annual Meeting in Iowa City, Iowa  at the Iowa Memorial Union, University of Iowa.

In the aftermath of America's Civil War it was accepted that the union had  been saved, but "The reinauguration of the national authority-reconstruction"  (A. Lincoln) and the establishment of full participatory democracy was still very  much in doubt. The lecture presents ignored historical facts, and reveals the  hidden Civil Rights legacy of how Black Civil War veterans reconstituted the  nation in alignment with the DECLARATION and established the foundation of  citizens' voting rights in the United States of America.

The lecture was adapted  for the 2013_GPUSANM to provide explicit historical progressive  reconstruction era constitutional context for  the "Democratize the Electoral College Civil Action" Gordon et.al. vs Clerk of HOR now pending  in Federal Court. The  lecture demonstrates how voter suppression tactics, "Winner-take-all",  and "Gerrymandered Districts" in national presidential elections violates the electoral mandate of the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution  adopted during Reconstruction. The presentation  also exposes that the misguided National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative is grounded in a reactionary redemption era Supreme Court ruling that overturned Reconstruction to reestablish white supremacy, and furthermore explicitly violates the malapportionment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Green Pages has published a full online article based on this lecture that details the contemporary context of the Federal Civil Action.

Web References:
http://db.tt/RSM9HGnE
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/
http://www.gp.org/speakers/detail-speakers.php?ID=29
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/MAP_DCSGP_X-neoCONFEDERATE.html
http://asagordon.byethost10.com/MAP_HISTORICAL_PERSPECTIVE.html
http://www.electors.us/



The Malapportionment Penalty Initiative
 (to democratize the Electoral College)
 vs
The National Popular Vote / Instant Runoff Voting Initiatives
(to circumvent the Electoral College)
(MAP vs NPV/IRV)
Asa Gordon, Exe.Dir.DIG_Chair DCSGP-ECTF_http://asagordon.byethost10.com/
2012 Green Party Annual National Meeting and Presidential Nominating Convention
University of Baltimore, Maryland_July 12-15
 The  Malapportionment Penalty MAP  initiative is to "Democratize the Electoral College" by enforcement of  "the right to vote"  Reconstruction amendment (Amend. XIV§2 ) that mandates a state's proportional allocation of presidential  electors based on the popular vote split or suffer a "Reduction of Representation" in the electoral college / members to congress (2USC§6) . _   See: http://www.electors.us
The Green MAP initiative to "Democratize the Electoral College" honors the legacy of "Democracy Reborn" and the "more perfect union" of the abolitionist founders of the reconstructed constitution of 1868. THE NPV and IRV initiatives unwittingly honors the legacy of the founding fathers white supremacist electoral racial quotas compromise of the nations founding  DECLARATION in the flawed constitution of 1787. MAP is constitutional, NPV/IRV for electoral college reform is not.

DATE: Friday, July 13, 2012
TIME: 2pm-3:30pm
PLACE: Workshop Block 5_John and Frances Angelos Law Center-Second Floor
University of Baltimore, Maryland (across the street from Penn Station).
http://www.gpconvention2012.com/p/scheduling.html
Tues., Jan. 31st, 2012 _ 7 - 9pm
The USCT Legacy of National Redemption and Democracy
( How Black Civil War Veterans Reconstructed the Union and Established Democracy in America)
Special AACWMFF_Historical Voting Rights_Civil War Sesquicentennial Lecture
African American Civil War Memorial and Museum
1925 Vermont Avenue, NW : Washington, DC 20001 : (202) 667-2667

 The Malapportionment Penalty Initiative
 (to democratize the electoral college)
 vs
 The National Popular Vote Initiative
(to circumvent the electoral College)
(MAP vs NPV)
Asa Gordon
     The  Malapportionment Penalty MAP  initiative is to "Democratize the Electoral College" by enforcement of  "the right to vote"  Reconstruction amendment (Amend. XIV§2 ) that mandates a state's proportional allocation of presidential  electors based on the popular vote split or suffer a "Reduction of Representation" in the electoral college / members to congress (2USC§6) .
   See: http://www.electors.us
  Under a National Popular Vote NPV bill, all of a state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
     See: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
     This presentation will explain why the Greenparty's initiative to Democratize the Electoral College by enforcement of the malapportionment penalty MAP clause of the constitution is the correct progressive choice  for the popular election of the president, and why the National Popular Vote NPV initiative is not. The MAP initiative is grounded in the abolitionist  post civil war reconstruction amendments to reconstitute the constitution with the DECLARATION, whereas the NPV initiative is grounded in the Constitution's original franchise by  racial quotas and the Redemption era politics that overturned reconstruction to reestablish white supremacy. The MAP is Constitutional, the NPV is not.
   
DATE: Sat., Aug. 6
   
TIME: 2:45 - 3:45 pm
   
PLACE: Alfred University [Seidlin], Alfred, NY
    New York Green Fest/Green Party US Annual National Meeting (ANM)_
http://nygreenfest.org/2011schedule.html




"A Civil Action to Democratize the Electoral College"
ACLU Club at UDC Law
Mon. Oct. 19th, 2009  |  12:15pm
Bldg. 39, Rm. 204


A Civil Action to Democratize the Electoral College" 
 Sat. Aug. 15th, 2009  |    2 - 4pm
Oak Bluffs Public Library
56R School St. Oak Bluffs, MA 02557
Phone#: (508)-693-9433



2009 Green Party Annual National Meeting 
Hosted by the North Carolina Green Party
Durham, NC 
July 23-July 26, 2009 
North Carolina Central University campus in downtown Durham
2009 National Annual Meeting Workshops
July 24th, 2009
Block III (Fri 9:00am-10:30am)
Issues (Room 104)
 Democratizing the Electoral College Civil Action
Asa Gordon



The Social Action & Leadership School for Activists (SALSA) of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) offers affordable evening classes in Washington, DC, to make you and your organization more effective.
Democratizing The Electoral College
Thu, July 16, 2009 -- 6:45-8:45pm

Instructor: Asa Gordon
SALSA Calenda


       When we vote for the President of the United States, we are actually voting for a slate of our state's presidential electors that have pledged to cast their votes for a Presidential Candidate. Each state's presidential electors are equal to the number of representatives it is entitled to in Congress. All but two states, award all of their presidential electors to the party candidate who receives a majority of the votes cast in the state on a "winner take all" basis. This means, unless a vote is for the candidate receiving the most votes within a state, that vote is effectively disregarded as null and void and does not help the candidate for whom it was cast in a national tally. "Winner take All" is not required by the constitution, and in nearly half of the states where it is applied, it is not even based on state law. This lecture will provide a historical context and report on recent developments in a Civil Action to reform and "Democratize the Electoral College". The Civil Action seeks a Federal court order for proportional allocation of a state's presidential electors to reflect the popular vote split for presidential candidates in states without a "Winner take all" provision in the state's election law.