Article IV Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution

(from Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition)

 

. . .

 

It is upon this that i focus my Contitutional argument against voting machines, (of any kind), which record the vote in a manner invisible/intactile to the voter, for counting in a manner invisible to the public .

{

This would also include lever-machines, though i feel that the danger of wide-spread fraud had been far lower with these than with computerized systems ; as i believe that each mechanical machine would have had to have been rigged individually, by hand, and that such rigging would likely be visible to an inspector's eye . The acute danger, (in my opinion), of computerized voting systems is that insiders, (or any sufficiently malicious, equipped and skillfull people who gained private access to the equipment), could, (invisibly), rig such machines en masse by inserting malicious code and/or vulnerabilities into their distributed software packages and/or updates ; and/or, they could target the code of specific classes of machines further up the heirarachy, such as polling-place accumulators and central tabulators .

}

 

. . . .

 

Looking first at the leading phrase :

 

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

 

I quote from Black's Law Dictionary, (eighth edition), the definition of republic, (noun) ; and republican, (adjective) :

 

"A form of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who exercise that power."

 

It seems obvious to me that this guarantee cannot be made firm if the vote is recorded in a manner invisible to the sighted voter, (and intactile to the blind one), for counting in a manner invisible to the public . Is there not a Constitutional imperative, therefore, upon (and within) the United States to be certain that conditions are such that fraud in the recording, counting and reporting of the vote cannot widely exist ?

 

I look now at that dictionary's definition of the word-pair, sovereign power, as this appears in its definition of the words republic and republican :

 

"The power to make and enforce laws."

 

It seems to me that the elected "representatives who exercise" the people's "sovereign power" would be Contitutionally prohibited from doing, (or agreeing to), anything which might undermine, (or place in jeapardy), the people's sovereign power at the ballot box --- where such power is Constitutionally intended to be applied --- and to which all organs and holders of governmental power within the republic are Constitutionally intended to be answerable .

 

Certainly, in my opinion, elected representatives who grant legal monopolies within their state's or county's polling places to corporations providing computer systems running trade-secret software on trade-secret hardware, which propose to record the vote in a manner both invisible and intangible to the voter for counting in a manner invisible to the public, have transgressed against such a Constitutional prohibition ; and against Madisonian common sense . There exists, (in my opinion), the possibility that the corporations involved --- or others able to privately access the computers and/or their code distributions, (and having the necessary skills and tools) --- might cheat ; intelligently, invisibly, repeatedly, broadly and successfully . And by such cheating diminish or defy the sovereign power of the people .

 

Those finding the above suggestion libelous are invited to read James Madison Jr.'s letter to Thomas Jefferson of 17 October 1788 ; along with, please, my thoughts regarding it and this situation .

 

. . . .

 

Looking at the second phrase of Article IV Section 4 :

 

"and shall protect each of them against Invasion;"

 

Regarding the word invasion as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note, first, definition 1 :

 

"A hostile or forcible incursion on the rights of another."

 

Here it might be useful to look at the Dictionary's definition of State, which is spread over several columns on more than one page ; [i have modified their format slightly] :

 

1. The political system of a body of people who are politically organized ; the system of rules by which jurisdiction and authority are exercised over such a body of people .

 

. . . 1b. [A quotation on this matter by J. L. Brierly ; included beneath definition 1] .

 

2. An institution of self-government within a larger political entity ; especially one of the constituent parts of a nation having a federal government [the 50 states] .

 

3. (Often capitalized) The people of a state, collectively considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed ; (especially) the prosecution as the representative of the people [the State rests its case] .

 

I note that the emphasis is not on the geographical boundaries of the States, (though in the second sense of the word invasion, this would be the principal matter) . The Dictionary's emphasis is, first, upon the State's political system ; second, upon its self-government as part of a larger whole ; and third, upon its people .

 

In light of the above definitions,

 

I ask : In the Republican Form of government as intended to be guaranteed by Article IV Section 4 --- where the people hold sovereign power, and by their/our voting majorities and/or pluralities determine the political officers and character, (within Constitutional limits), of each State of our Union --- would not broad incursions on the right of the people of a State to participate in self-government constitute an invasion of that State ? And if so, would it not be unconstitutional for the elected and/or appointed office-holders of a State to allow a situation to develop wherein such incursions are more and/or unnecessarily likely to take place ?

 

Which leads to the question : Does not the right to cast a vote, (as a citizen of a republic), also and inseparably imply the right to the honest recording of that vote ? And would not the most effective means of achieving this be for the voter, (nondelegably except in case of personal disability), to record their/our ballot directly, in permanent ink, upon a fixed, persistent medium, (such as acid-free, embossed, counterfeit-resistant paper) ; a medium which is simultaneously visible to the sighted voter and tangible to the blind one ? Further, to protect against an invisible encroachment upon this presumed right, (the right to vote is also the right to have that vote honestly recorded), such as might occur within a computerized voting machine or system, would not the most effective measure to be to disallow the use of such machines ?

 

Pursuing this i ask now : Does not the above also and inseparably imply the right to an honest counting of the vote ? And would not the most effective means of achieving this be for the vote to be counted : by hand, by jury, on camera and in public ?

{

I feel that wherever and however people count votes --- either by hand or by computerized program --- there will exist the risk of partisan cheating and intimidation . This can, i hope, be minimized by convening the counting-juries from the same ward and district as the votes to be counted ; and by mandating that their racial and declared party-affiliation composition be within 10% of that of the ward and district whose vote is to be counted . It also seems useful to consider an interpretation of a ballot upon which a 2/3 majority of the jury agrees to be legally sufficient, while allowing any juror to flag a ballot for further consideration without removing it from the count .

}

 

To solidify this i ask also : Do not the above presumed rights also and inseparably imply the right to an honest keeping of the vote ?

{

I feel it best for the jury to count the vote as quickly as possible following the close of the election . While waiting for the count, i feel the ballot box should be sealed with multiple, high-quality locks, (of the choosing of those parties who each keep an individual lock's key or keys) ; whose keys are, (individually), kept by the two major parties and that third party which polls the highest . And while awaiting the count, the ballot box should be watched at all times by a guard including members of the military and of both major parties, along with that third party which polls highest ; and at no time be off-camera, (which would live-feed to the internet) .

}

 

Let me now address the matter of States' Rights, a claim based upon Amendment X to the Constitution .

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor probibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people .

 

I note that the last phrase of this Amendment, "or to the people", was not to my knowledge intended to be the least in all circumstances . Had the framers of the Constitution so intended, they could have included language to explicitly make a State's claim to a right superior to those of its people . And of couse, a degree of superior State claim to rights is a necessary and understandable part of instituting a State government ; but the exercise of caution is essential here, as claims to States' Rights could, potentially, be used as tools to undermine the establishment, and the persistence, of a Republican Form of Government ... which would have set this Amendment in opposition to Article IV Section 4, as well as to the rest of the Bill of Rights . Such caution seems underscored by adding the last phrase, "or to the people" . No legitimate interpretation of this amendment, (in my opinion), would allow the office-holders of a State, (whom are, both by the democratic process and by human mortality, only conditionally and temporarily in possession of the powers they wield), to claim the right to trespass upon the sovereign power of the people at the ballot box ; or to allow a situation where others would be well positioned to do so in a broad, invisible and persistent manner .

 

I see very little room within the Constitution, as i understand it, for intermediaries within the voting process : the votes' casting, safe-keeping, and counting . As the vote is where popular sovereignty is expressed, its recording, safe-keeping and counting should be regarded as a secular sacred . Only in regard to specific instances of voter disability, (such as a quadriplegic voter being assisted by a polling place worker), is the, (voter supervised), presence and action of a polling-place intermediary between the voter and the recording of his or her ballot acceptable ; from my point of view . And i see no acceptable intermediaries between the public and the counting of the ballot --- save those necessary to preserve order ; and to remove from the counting-juries those whom photographic records show, (upon the summoning of attention to them by the public witnesses to the count), to be repeatedly or persistently lying .

 

Returning to the definition of the word invasion, and looking deeper into the law, i regard the word hostile as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note definition 1 :

 

Adverse

 

I now regard the word adverse as defined in Black's Law Dictionary ; noting definitions 2 and 3 :

 

2: Having an opposing or contrary interest, concern or position.

3: Contrary (to) or in opposition (to).

 

Would there not be sufficient concern within our republic --- where the people hold sovereign power, and thus the power to remove government officers and to, (indirectly), regulate corporations --- that government officers who grant a corporation legal monopoly to serve as an intermediary in the process of recording and counting the vote have allowed an entity potentially having an opposing or contrary interest, concern or position into the process, and have thus acted unconstitutionally ? Would this not also suggest that either the government officers are also of opposing or contrary interest, or that they have been careless in their discharge of duty ? Does the Constitution not imply that in the process of voting itself, all office holders and all corporations are, (at least potentially), contrary to or in opposition to the will of the people, whom assemble to decide whether they will remain in office, and whether, (through their choice of office holders), corporate regulation needs to be made more strict ? Would not Madisonian logic require that one does not, Constitutionally, wait for evidence of wrongdoing to appear, (and be tried in court and upheld), before excluding those, unnecessary to the safe and orderly conduct of the process, whom might hold an actionable interest hostile to the will of the electorate ? Should the participation of corporations providing vote recording, accumulating and counting equipment not, thus, be disallowed ; the more so when such equipment is computerized and thus, (in my opinion), more potentially dangerous to the will of the electorate ?

 

. . .

. . .

 

What follows is what i consider to be a fallback argument against the trade-secrecy protection of computerized voting systems' software and hardware . Given computers' many potential points of vulnerability, (in my opinion), and the invisibility, (again in my opinion), with which insiders or those with comparable access, skills, tools and knowledge of the systems could, (in my opinion), commit broad, deep, and persistent election fraud, i feel that the revelation of the system's software(s) and hardware(s) would not be sufficient to protect representative democracy without constant and intrusive verification that the systems provided held only the declared software, (provided that the declared software was good), and that they harbored no vulnerabilities . It would be far simpler and more reliable, (in my opinion), to banish these devices in favor of an all-human conduct of the election process as described above .

 

This argument's basic approach is that each candidate's, (and public question response's), total should be considered as a separate trust within the overall trust of the assembled ballots . As it is the expression of the relative strengths of these trusts that determines office-holders and the answers to public questions going forward, (and thus the character of the State), they should be considered an integral part of that State . Thus in my opinion, to protect each and every State from Invasion, (under Article IV Section 4), would also be to protect each and every individual ballot trust from invasion by the trustees --- the person or persons, (natural or corporate), charged with the recording, assembling, counting and reporting of other people's votes .

 

It is my opinion that the insiders of voting machine companies offering computerized systems running trade-secret software on trade-secret hardware for the expressed purpose of conducting elections are in an unconstitutionally advantageous position with respect to their abilities to invade such trusts, (whether they do so or not) . It is also my opinion that this advantage cannot, (over the long term), be reduced to be within Constitutionally allowable, (and Madisonially prudent), levels .

 

Regarding the word invasion as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note, now, definition 3 :

 

"Trusts. A withdrawal from principal. [bullet point] In [this] sense, the term is used as a metaphor."

 

Regarding trusts, above, i note definition 2 :

 

A fiduciary relationship regarding property and charging the person with title to the property with equitable duties to deal with it for another's benefit ; the confidence placed in a trustee, together with the trustee's obligations toward the property and the beneficiary . A trust arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it .

 

and definition 3 :

 

The property so held ; Corpus (1)

 

Looking now at Black's definition for Corpus, i cite definition 1 :

 

"The property for which a trustee is responsible ; the trust principal."

 

I think it is worth looking at the election process as beginning with an incorporeal property, (please see definition 2 : "A legal right in property having no physical existance."), which is held by many people individually . The incorporeal property in this example would be our personal share as a citizen of the popular sovereignty of our nation . The ballot is then created by the voter as a legal instrument, backed by his or her share of the popular sovereignty, for the conveyance of a measure of authorization to wield power, on the citizen's behalf, to the trusts of those candidates and ballot options the voter selects . To these candidates and ballot options, the voter's ballot becomes a form of indispensible instrument in determining which candidate or ballot option will have a majority, (or, where applicable, plurality), of the vote and thus receive the full authorization of the sovereign public for the term or option stated .

 

I quote Black's definition of an indispensible instrument

{

"The formal written evidence of an interest in intangibles, so necessary to represent the intangible that the enjoyment, transfer or enforcement of the intangible depends on possession of the instrument."

}

I note here that, (as the ballot itself is or should be a public record), "possession" of the instrument can be considered as possessing the vote, the expressed intent, of the voter casting the ballot . Here i note also that an electronically recorded ballot is neither as formal, as tangible nor as immutable as i feel one should be, though it is independently readable with the necessary equipment ; (and that the ballot records of mechanical lever machines were also, in my view, insufficiently formal and immutable) .

 

As i see the ballot is an instrument of the popular sovereignty, not as an embodiment of the sovereignty itself, i feel that voters retain an interest and standing with regard to our cast ballots . Thus i feel that, as trustees within an election process --- where corporations and their equipment are involved in the recording, counting and/or reporting of votes --- such companies are, at most, only authorized to facilitate the creation of the ballot, (a legal instrument), by the voter ; and subsequently, to effect the transfer of the ballots from the individual voters to the collective trusts of candidate and issue-response totals . Any ability which may exist for trustees, (within this process), to invade or otherwise manipulate the individual candidates' and issues' trusts, (or the assembled overall trust), either during the creation of the ballots or afterward, to the advantage of one trust or the disadvanage of another, is unwarranted by their role ; and, in my opinion, would be unconstitutional under Article IV Section 4 .

Done