No.

______, Original

In the Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF [INSERT YOUR STATE],

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, VICE- PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES; SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF
THE UNITED STATES SENATE, STATE OF ARIZONA,
STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND STATE OF
WISCONSIN,
Defendants.

BILL OF COMPLAINT

[counsel name, address]

* Counsel of Record
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Exhibits .......................................................... iv
Introduction................................................................... 1
Nature of the Action ..................................................... 4
Jurisdiction and Venue ................................................ 8
Plaintiff State raises an Article III case or
controversy. ...................................................... 9
Sovereign immunity does not bar this action. ... 10
Plaintiff State lacks an alternate remedy for
this action. ...................................................... 11
This action is timely............................................. 11
Parties .......................................................................... 12
Legal Background ....................................................... 12
Facts ............................................................................. 15
The uncontrolled use of mail-in ballots in
2020 made widespread election fraud
inevitable. ....................................................... 16
Electronic voting systems are inherently
vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. ... 18
The State of Arizona’s electoral votes were
unlawfully certified and counted. ................ 23
1. Arizona’s election violated the
Electors’ Clause. ...................................... 23
2. Audits of Maricopa County found
outcome-determinative numbers of
unlawful votes. ........................................ 24
The State of Georgia’s electoral votes were
unlawfully certified and counted. ................ 29
1. The violations of Article II in Georgia
resulted in outcome-determinative
numbers of unlawful votes. .................... 30
 ii
2. Georgia’s use of electronic voting
machines opened the door to
electronic manipulation of the vote. ...... 34
3. The Georgia Senate Election Law
Study Subcommittee found numerous
outcome determinative numbers of
unlawful votes and concluded the
election results “must be viewed as
untrustworthy.” ....................................... 37
The State of Michigan’s electoral votes were
unlawfully certified and counted. ................ 39
1. The violations of Article II in
Michigan resulted in outcome-
determinative numbers of unlawful
votes. ..................................................... 39
2. Election officials’ illegal acts in
Wayne County resulted in outcome
determinative numbers of unlawful
votes. ..................................................... 43
3. A “glitch” in electronic voting
machines in Antrim County wrongly
awarding 6,000 votes to Mr. Biden. ...... 46
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
electoral votes were unlawfully certified
and counted. ................................................... 47
1. Pennsylvania’s voter registration
system can be easily hacked and
manipulated. ........................................... 47
 iii
2. Pennsylvania’s final results show
49,141 more votes than voters and
the Secretary of State unlawfully
certified the Pennsylvania election
results. ..................................................... 49
3. Pennsylvania misled this Court and
continued to illegally count tens of
thousands of ballots received after
November 3, 2020. .................................. 52
4. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State
unconstitutionally threw out state
election integrity laws governing
mail-in ballots. ........................................ 54
The State of Wisconsin’s electoral voters
were unlawfully certified and counted. ....... 57
1. The Wisconsin Election Commission
has obstructed investigations into the
November 2020 election. ........................ 58
2. The Racine County Sheriff found the
WEC committed a felony and three
misdemeanors by encouraging voter
fraud in nursing homes .......................... 60
3. The WEC’s and other officials illegal
use of drop boxes in violation of
Wisconsin law .......................................... 62
4. The WEC encouraged voters to
illegally declare themselves
“indefinitely confined” thereby
avoiding ballot security requirements .. 64
5. The LAB found that 45,665 voters
used identification to register that
did not match the records on file ........... 67
 iv
6. The Office of the Special Counsel’s
findings of illegal votes in its First
Interim Report. ....................................... 67
7. Democrat operatives were given
access to “hidden” networks
connecting “sensitive machines” at
the ballot tabulation center in Green
Bay, WI .................................................... 69
Count I: Electors Clause ............................................ 70
Count II: Due Process ................................................. 71
Count III: Guarantee Clause ..................................... 72
Count IV: Take Care Clause ...................................... 73
Prayer for Relief .......................................................... 73

TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Memo., John Ratcliffe, Director of National
Intelligence, Views on Intelligence Community
Election Security Analysis (Jan. 7, 2021) ............... 1
Letter from Pamela S. Karlan, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division, to Arizona Sen. Karen Fann (May 5,
2021) .......................................................................... 2
Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project,
Summary Report, Election Auditing, Key
Issues and Perspectives (2018)................................ 3
Declaration of Col. John R. Mills (USAR Ret.)
(Nov. 21, 2021) .......................................................... 4
Declaration of J. Alex Halderman (Sept. 21,
2021) .......................................................................... 5
Email, Steven Rosenberg, Fulton County Deputy
County Attorney to Garland Favorito (Sept.
27, 2021) .................................................................... 6
 v
Email, Chris Harvey, Georgia Election Director,
to Larry Sampson, Murray Cty., Georgia (Dec.
2, 2020) ...................................................................... 7
Sen. William Ligon, Chairman, Election Law
Study Subcommittee of the Georgia Standing
Senate Judiciary Committee (Dec. 17, 2020) ......... 8
Letter, Sen. William Ligon, Georgia State
Senate, to Donald J. Trump (Jan. 2, 2021) ............ 9
Genetski v. Benson, Case No. 20-000216-MM,
(Mich. Ct. Claims, March 9, 2021) ........................ 10
Affidavit of Jessy Jacob (Nov. 7, 2020) ..................... 11
Affidavit of William Hartman (Nov. 18, 2020)......... 12
Affidavit of Monica Palmer (Nov. 18, 2020) ............. 13
Affidavit of Lisa Gage (Dec. 10, 2020) ...................... 14
Affidavit of Ben Cotton (Apr. 8, 2021) ...................... 15
Letter, Rep. Francis X. Ryan, Pennsylvania
House of Representatives, to Rep. Scott Perry,
U.S. House of Representatives (Dec. 4, 2020) ...... 16
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Report (Oct.
2021) ........................................................................ 17
Presentation, Sheriff, Racine County, Wisconsin
(Oct. 28, 2021) ......................................................... 18
First Interim Rept., Wisconsin Office of the
Special Counsel (Nov. 10, 2021) ............................ 19
Cyber Ninjas, Maricopa County Forensic
Election Audit, vol. III (Sept. 24, 2021) ................ 20
A. V. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., Pattern
Recognition Classification of Early Voting
Ballot (EVB) Return Envelope Images for
Signature Presence Detection: An Engineering
Systems Approach to Identify Anomalies to
Advance the Integrity of US. Election (Sept.
2124, 2021) .............................................................. 21
 vi
Letter, Eugene A. DePasquale, Pennsylvania
Auditor General, to Tom Wolf, Governor,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Dec. 13,
2019) ........................................................................ 22
Wisconsin Elections Commission Memoranda,
To: All Wisconsin Election Officials 3 (Aug. 19,
2020) ........................................................................ 23
Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020 Submitted to
the Center for Tech & Civic Life, June 15,
2020, by the Mayors of Madison, Milwaukee,
Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay (Jun. 15,
2020) ........................................................................ 24
 1
“You will never know how much it has cost my
generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will
make a good use of it.”
John Adams
INTRODUCTION
We are in unchartered territory as a Nation.
The November 2020 election was stolen. Our Country
is divided in a manner not seen in over a century. Just
last month, 56% of respondents agreed that “it’s likely
that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020
presidential election”—a 5% increase since April
2021.1 The fault for this deepening divide lies directly
with the federal and state public officials who not only
abdicated their sworn duty to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States, but in many cases
actively sought to subvert it. The Justices of this
Court can no longer ignore what the public already
sees—a time in history like that which Churchill once
characterized as the gathering storm.
Revelations of rampant lawlessness by officials
in states like Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona,
and Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”)
involving outcome-changing illegal votes appear
daily. For example, in Pennsylvania, after all counties
had finally uploaded their official November 2020
election results, there were still 49,171 more votes

1 That includes 84% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats, and

54% of Independents. Rasmussen Reports, Vote-By-Mail: Most
Voters Think It Will Cause More Cheating (Oct. 11, 2021),
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene
ral_politics/october_2021/vote_by_mail_most_voters_think_it_w
ill_cause_more_cheating (last visited Nov. 23, 2021).
 2
than voters—just one of many examples of illegal
votes. Under express Pennsylvania law, the election
should not have been certified.
This September, it was revealed that election
officials in Maricopa County, Arizona were caught
red-handed destroying election records from the
November 2020 election—in violation of federal law—
after a court rejected the County’s attempt to thwart
the Arizona Senate’s investigation into the November
2020 election. That investigation also found tens of
thousands of illegal ballots, and that there were
hundreds of thousands of corrupted or missing ballot
images—on which the November 2020 election vote
count is based.
Also in September, a renowned cyber security
expert, University of Michigan Professor J. Alex
Halderman, revealed in a Georgia federal court that
he had conclusively demonstrated that Dominion
Voting Systems machines used in at least sixteen
states can be easily hacked to “steal votes.”
Inexplicably, the district court denied Prof.
Halderman’s request to strategically unseal his
expert report detailing these systemic
vulnerabilities for the limited purpose of
bringing it to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (“CISA”) to attempt to fix these
issues before the next election. Prof. Halderman also
testified that Georgia Secretary of State
Raffensperger, a defendant in that case, refused to
even look at the report or meet with him to go over
these dangerous security vulnerabilities. The district
court’s decision to bury Prof. Halderman’s evidence
 3
and prevent it from being shared with authorities
charged with protecting elections is unfathomable.
This October, the Racine County, Wisconsin,
Sheriff announced the results of a felony criminal
investigation of the Wisconsin Election Commission
(“WEC”) into illegal vote harvesting in nursing homes.
The Sheriff stated that the governing “election statute
was in fact not just broken but shattered” in all 72
counties across Wisconsin and referred the case for
prosecution. The validity of up to 50,000 ballots may
be at issue as a consequence.
Two issues regarding the November 2020
election are not in dispute. First, in the months
leading up to the November 2020 election, a few non-
legislative officials in the Defendant States used the
COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to
unconstitutionally revise or violate their states’
election laws. Their actions had one effect: to
uniformly weaken security measures put in place by
state legislatures to protect the integrity of the vote.
These changes squarely violated the Electors Clause
of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 vesting state
legislatures with plenary authority to make election
law. These government officials then flooded the
Defendant States with millions of illegal ballots to be
sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with
little or no chain of custody as required by law.2

2 See, e.g., Tiffany Morgan, Five Months After 2020 Election,

Georgia Still Has Not Produced Chain of Custody Records for
355,000 Absentee Vote by Mail Ballots Deposited in Drop Boxes,
THE GEORGIA STAR NEWS, Apr. 8, 2021, available at
https://georgiastarnews.com/2021/04/08/five-months-after-2020-
election-georgia-still-has-not-produced-chain-of-custody-
 4
Second, the United States’ failure to challenge
the Defendant States’ violations of Article II,
including at a time when four of eight justices had
evenly split on whether to hear such violations in
October 2020, violated the Take Care Clause and the
Guarantee Clause of the Constitution commanding
that the Executive “shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed” and that “the United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government.” A stolen election, as the
November 2020 election was, neither faithfully
executes the law nor provides a republican form of
government.
Since Marbury v. Madison this Court has, on
significant occasions, had to step into the breach in a
time of tumult, declare what the law is, and right the
ship. This is just such an occasion. In fact, it is
situations precisely like the present—when the
Constitution has been cast aside unchecked—that
leads us to the current precipice. In times such as this,
it is the duty of the Court to be a “faithful guardian[]
of the Constitution.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, at 470
(C. Rossiter, ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).
Against that background, the State of [insert
Your State] (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action based
on the following allegations:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges the Defendant
States’ administration of the 2020 election under the

records-for-355000-absentee-vote-by-mail-ballots-deposited-in-
drop-boxes/ (last visited Nov. 23, 2021).
 5
Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and
the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
and their obstruction of audits and investigations into
their actions in attempt to cover up their participation
in stealing the November 2020 election. which injured
Plaintiff State.
2. Plaintiff State further challenges United
States and five federal officers 3 for violating both the
Guarantee Clause and Take Care Clause of Article IV,
Section 4 and Article II, Section 3 of the United States
Constitution, respectively, by failing to remedy the
Electors Clause violations which destroyed the
integrity of the Peoples’ vote in the November 2020
election.
3. This case presents two core questions of
law:
(i) Did Defendant States violate the
Electors Clause or the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by
taking—or by allowing—non-legislative
actions to change the election rules that
would govern the November 2020
election?
(ii) Did the federal defendants violate the
Guarantee Clause or Take Care Clause
by failing to pursue claims against the
Defendant States for their constitutional

3 The five officers are the President of the United States, Vice-
President of the United States, Attorney General of the United
States, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives,
President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate (collectively,
the “Officer Defendants”).
 6
violations described above or by ignoring
evidence of outcome-changing illegal
votes in the Defendant States and worse
by impeding investigations of illegal or
fraudulent votes in at least one
Defendant State?

4. By purporting to waive or otherwise

modify the existing state law in a manner that was
wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s
legislature, Defendant States violated not only the
Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also
the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that
the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the
Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
5. Plaintiff State alleges that the United
States flagrantly violated the Guarantee Clause and
Take Care Clause permitting the November 2020
stolen election to stand.
6. Each of Defendant States acted in a
common pattern. State officials, sometimes through
pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and
sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced
new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that
were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining
what constitutes a lawful vote—and uniformly made
it easier for illegal or fraudulent mail-in ballots to be
cast.
7. Millions of unconstitutional and illegal
mail-in ballots flooded the election systems across the
Country that resulted in an election in November
2020 that was not “one person one vote” as required
by the Constitution.
 7
8. Further, officials in the Defendant
States have since affirmatively impeded
investigations and audits of the November 2020
election—in some instances in destroying election
records—to conceal evidence demonstrating the
illegal votes and fraud in the November 2020 election.
Similarly, the federal Department of Justice has
attempted to impede efforts to investigate election
fraud, including threatening to investigate the
Arizona State Senate for investigating election
irregularities in Maricopa County. 4
9. In addition, on January 7, 2021, the
Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”) concluded in
an unclassified memorandum that “CIA Management
took actions ‘pressuring [analysts] to withdraw their
support” for findings regarding China’s actions to
“interfere” in the election. Memo., John Ratcliffe,
Director of National Intelligence, Views on
Intelligence Community Election Security Analysis, at
2 (Jan. 7, 2021) (Tab 1). The DNI concluded that the
CIA’s actions violated Intelligence Community
Tradecraft Standards. Id.
10. The unconstitutional acts and proof of a
stolen election through illegal and fraudulent ballots
is also demonstrated by new evidence arising since
December 11, 2020, that the number of ballots cast in
violation of the Electors Clause and Due Process
Clause in Defendant States exceeds the reported

4 See Letter from Pamela S. Karlan, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, to Arizona
Sen. Karen Fann (May 5, 2021) (Tab 2).
 8
margin separating the candidates and thus the
validity of the presidential electors from those States.
11. The number of votes called into question
by these constitutional violations greatly exceeds the
difference between the vote totals of the two
candidates for President of the United States in each
Defendant State.
12. In addition to injunctive relief sought for
the November 2020 election, Plaintiff State seeks
declaratory relief for all federal elections in the future.
This problem is clearly capable of repetition yet
evading review. The integrity of our constitutional
democracy requires that states conduct presidential
elections in accordance with the rule of law and
federal constitutional guarantees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. This action is within this Court’s original
jurisdiction under three distinct bases: (a) as a
“controvers[y] between two or more States” with
respect to Plaintiff State and Defendant States, 28
U.S.C. § 1251(a); U.S. CONST. art III, § 2, (b) as a
“controvers[y] between the United States and a State”
with respect to Plaintiff State and the United States,
28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(2); U.S. CONST. art III, § 2, and
(c) as an “action[] … by a State against the citizens of
another State” with respect to Plaintiff State and the
federal Officer Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(3);
U.S. CONST. art III, § 2; South Carolina v. Katzenbach,
383 U.S. 301, 307 (1966).
 9
Plaintiff State raises an Article III case or
controversy.
14. In a presidential election, “the impact of
the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes
cast for the various candidates in other States.”
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983). The
constitutional failures of the United States and the
Defendant States injured the Plaintiff State by
subverting the electoral process and disillusioning
voters from the inherently dishonest process of federal
elections controlled by non-legislative actors.
15. This Court’s Article III decisions limit
the ability of citizens to press claims under the
Electors Clause. Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442
(2007) (distinguishing citizen plaintiffs from citizen
relators who sued in the name of a state); cf.
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 520 (2007)
(courts owe states “special solicitude in standing
analysis”). The Constitution is a compact among the
States, and the Defendant States’ breach of the terms
of that compact injures the other states.
16. Because the Defendant States represent
a dispositive number of electoral votes, this Court can
redress Plaintiff State’s injuries by vacating the
certification of Defendant States’ presidential electors
and the vote of the Electoral College as certified by the
Joint Session of Congress. Because redressability
likely would undermine a suit against a single state
officer or State because no single State’s electoral
votes would change the election outcome, this action
against the United States and multiple State
defendants is the only action that can redress Plaintiff
State’s injury.
 10
17. Under the circumstances presented,
Plaintiff State has the right under the Twelfth
Amendment to participate in an election of the
President and Vice President in the House and
Senate, respectively, U.S. CONST. art. XII, which the
defendants’ unlawful actions denied Plaintiff State
and which this Court can redress by ordering that
that election take place.
18. The States enjoy a right of suffrage in the
Senate, U.S. CONST. art. V, and Vice-President casts
the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. U.S. CONST. art.
II, § 3, cl. 4. As of the certification of two Georgia run-
off elections in January of 2021, the Senate is evenly
divided, and the election of the Vice-President will
determine which party—that of Plaintiff State’s two
senators or that of the opposition party—will have the
majority in the Senate. The constitutional violations
alleged herein denied Plaintiff State’s senators the
advantage of majority status in the Senate.
Sovereign immunity does not bar this action.
19. Defendant United States has waived its
sovereign immunity for actions against the Attorney
General, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and sovereign immunity does
not protect the Officer Defendants from suits against
unconstitutional action and inaction. Franklin v.
Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01 (1992) (citing
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579
(1952)). “No separate waiver of sovereign immunity is
required to seek a writ of mandamus to compel an
official to perform a duty required in his official
capacity.” Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63, 69 (D.C. Cir.
2005) (Roberts, J.); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
 11
Plaintiff State lacks an alternate remedy for
this action.
20. Individual state courts or U.S. district
courts do not—and under the circumstance of
contested elections in multiple states, cannot—offer
an adequate remedy to resolve election disputes
within the timeframe set by the Constitution to
resolve such disputes and to appoint a President via
the electoral college. No court—other than this
Court—can redress constitutional injuries spanning
multiple States with the sufficient number of states
joined as defendants or respondents to alter the result
in the Electoral College.
21. This Court is the sole judicial forum in
which to exercise the jurisdictional basis for this
action.
22. The political branches do not provide an
adequate forum which to resolve the claims against
the Officer Defendants or the United States because
the Officer Defendants control the executive and
legislative branches of the United States government.
This action is timely.
23. In the absence of a directly applicable
statute of limitations, actions against the United
States must be brought within six years of the action’s
arising, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), and the limitation set by
the equitable doctrine of laches cannot be less than
the statute of limitations. SCA Hygiene Prods.
Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137
S.Ct. 954, 960 (2017). In any event, Plaintiff State has
brought this action promptly after the development of
 12
new evidence that was previously unavailable. For
these reasons, this action is timely.
PARTIES
24. Plaintiff is the State of [insert Your
State], which is a sovereign State of the United States.
25. Defendants are the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the States of Georgia, Michigan,
Arizona, and Wisconsin, which are sovereign States of
the United States.
26. Defendant United States is the federal
sovereign.
27. Defendants President of the United
States, Vice- President of the United States, Attorney
General of the United States, Speaker of the United
States House of Representatives, President Pro
Tempore of the United States Senate (collectively, the
“Officer Defendants”) are officers of the United States
sued in their official capacities and named by the
office they hold. See S. Ct. Rule 35.4. The current
officers—Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Kamala Harris, Nancy
Pelosi, Patrick Leahy, and Merrick Garland—are
citizens of Delaware, California, California, Vermont,
and Maryland, respectively.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
28. Under the Supremacy Clause, the “Con-
stitution, and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the
supreme law of the land.” U.S. CONST. Art. VI, cl. 2.
29. “The individual citizen has no federal
constitutional right to vote for electors for the
President of the United States unless and until the
 13
state legislature chooses a statewide election as the
means to implement its power to appoint members of
the electoral college.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104
(2000) (citing U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1) (“Bush II”).
30. State legislatures have plenary power to
set the process for appointing presidential electors:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Bush II, 531 U.S.
at 104 (“[T]he state legislature’s power to select the
manner for appointing electors is plenary.” (emphasis
added)).
31. At the time of the Founding, most States
did not appoint electors through popular statewide
elections. In the first presidential election, six of the
ten States that appointed electors did so by direct
legislative appointment. McPherson v. Blacker, 146
U.S. 1, 29-30 (1892).
32. In the second presidential election, nine
of the fifteen States that appointed electors did so by
direct legislative appointment. Id. at 30.
33. In the third presidential election, nine of
sixteen States that appointed electors did so by direct
legislative appointment. Id. at 31. This practice
persisted in lesser degrees through the Election of
1860. Id. at 32.
34. Though “[h]istory has now favored the
voter,” Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104, “there is no doubt of
the right of the legislature to resume the power [of
appointing presidential electors] at any time, for it can
neither be taken away nor abdicated.” McPherson, 146
U.S. at 35 (emphasis added); cf. 3 U.S.C. § 2
(“Whenever any State has held an election for the
 14
purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a
choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may
be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner
as the legislature of such State may direct.”).
35. This Court has stated that “[m]ore
recently, the Court has suggested that perhaps not all
claims under the Guarantee Clause present
nonjusticiable political questions.” New York v. United
States, 505 U.S. 144, 185 (1992). The acts of non-
legislative officials in the Defendant States
abrogating state election law indisputably “pose . . .
realistic risk of altering the form or the method of
functioning of [their States’] governments.” Id. at 186.
In fact, the Article II violations go to the very heart of
a Republican form of government.
36. As Justice Thomas stated in his dissent
in United States Term Limits v. Thorton, 514 U.S. 779
(1995):
Our system of government rests on one
overriding principle: All power stems from
the consent of the people. To phrase the
principle in this way, however, is to be
imprecise about something important to the
notion of ‘reserved’ powers. The ultimate
source of the Constitution’s authority is the
consent of the people of each individual
State, not the consent of the
undifferentiated people of the Nation as a
whole.
Id. at 846 (Thomas, J., dissenting, with the Chief
Justice and Justices O’Connor and Scalia joining).
37. The Constitution is a voluntary compact
among the people of the States. When the Defendant
 15
States disregarded the Constitution in a manner as
fundamental to our republican form of government as
is Article II here, the United States is required to
under Article IV to step in and enforce the
Constitution against such unlawful acts.
38. Independently, a government
implemented through a stolen election is not a
republican form of government. The failure of the
United States to prevent the electoral manipulations
by the Defendant States (and other States), also
violated Article IV because that failure “risk[s] . . .
altering the form or the method of functioning of [all
States’] governments.” New York v. United States, 505
U.S. at 185; see also Erwin Chemerinsky, Cases Under
the Guarantee Clause Should Be Justiciable, 65 COLO.
L. REV. 849, 868 (1994) (“[T]he key features of a
republican form of government are a right to vote and
a right of political participation.”).
39. Given the State legislatures’
constitutional primacy in selecting presidential
electors, the ability to set rules governing the casting
of ballots and counting of votes cannot be usurped by
other branches of state government.
40. Defendant States’ applicable laws are set
out under the facts for each Defendant State.
FACTS
41. In December 2018, the Caltech/MIT
Voting Technology Project and MIT Election Data &
Science Lab issued a comprehensive report
 16
addressing election integrity issues. 5 The
fundamental question they sought to address was:
“How do we know that the election outcomes
announced by election officials are correct?”
42. The Caltech/MIT Report concluded:
“Ultimately, the only way to answer a question like
this is to rely on procedures that independently review
the outcomes of elections, to detect and correct
material mistakes that are discovered. In other words,
elections need to be audited.” Id. at iii. The
Caltech/MIT Report then set forth a detailed analysis
of why and how such audits should be done for the
same reasons that exist today—a lack of trust in our
voting systems.
43. The constitutional violations committed
by Defendant States and the federal defendants
directly affected the outcome of the Electoral College
vote. Those violations proximately caused the
appointment of presidential electors for Mr. Biden
and the improper certification of his election.
The uncontrolled use of mail-in ballots in 2020
made widespread election fraud inevitable.
44. The use of absentee and mail-in ballots
skyrocketed in 2020, not only as a purported public-
health response to the COVID-19 pandemic but also
at the urging of mail-in voting’s proponents, and most
especially executive branch officials in Defendant
States. According to the Pew Research Center, in the
2020 general election, a record number of votes—

5 See Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Summary

Report, Election Auditing, Key Issues and Perspectives (2018)
(Tab 3).
 17
about 65 million—were cast via mail compared to 33.5
million mail-in ballots cast in the 2016 general
election—an increase of more than 94 percent.
45. In the wake of the contested 2000
election, the bipartisan Jimmy Carter-James Baker
commission identified absentee ballots as “the largest
source of potential voter fraud.” BUILDING
CONFIDENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS: REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM, at 46
(Sept. 2005).
46. Concern over the use of mail-in ballots is
not novel to the modern era, Dustin Waters, Mail-in
Ballots Were Part of a Plot to Deny Lincoln Reelection
in 1864, WASH. POST (Aug. 22, 2020),6 and it remained
a concern leading up to the November 2020 election.
Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181,
194-96 & n.11 (2008); see also Texas Office of the
Attorney General, AG Paxton Announces Joint
Prosecution of Gregg County Organized Election
Fraud in Mail-In Balloting Scheme (Sept. 24, 2020);
Harriet Alexander & Ariel Zilber, Minneapolis police
opens investigation into reports that Ilhan Omar's
supporters illegally harvested Democrat ballots in
Minnesota, DAILY MAIL, Sept. 28, 2020.
47. Absentee and mail-in voting are the
primary opportunities for unlawful ballots to be cast
in scale. As a result of the explosion in absentee and
mail-in voting in Defendant States, combined with
Defendant States’ unconstitutional modification of

6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/08/22/mail-
in-voting-civil-war-election-conspiracy-lincoln/ (last visited Nov.
23, 2021).
 18
statutory protections designed to ensure election
integrity, Defendant States created a massive
opportunity for fraud. In addition, Defendant States
made it difficult or impossible to separate the
constitutionally tainted mail-in ballots from valid
mail-in ballots.
48. Rather than augment safeguards
against illegal voting in anticipation of the millions of
additional mail-in ballots flooding into their States,
Defendant States all materially weakened, or did
away with, security measures, such as witness or
signature verification procedures, and prohibitions on
unmanned ballot drop boxes, required by their
respective legislatures. Their legislatures established
those commonsense safeguards to prevent—or at least
reduce—fraudulent mail-in ballots.
49. Significantly, in Defendant States,
Democrat voters voted by mail at two to three times
the rate of Republicans. Mr. Biden thus greatly
benefited from this unconstitutional usurpation of
legislative authority, and the weakening of
legislatively mandated ballot security measures.
Electronic voting systems are inherently
vulnerable to hacking and manipulation.
50. In addition to the unconstitutional acts
associated with mail-in and absentee voting, there are
grave issues surrounding the vulnerability of
electronic voting machines—such as the electronic
voting systems provided by Dominion Voting Systems,
Inc. (“Dominion”) and Election Systems & Software
(“ES&S”)—that were in use in all of the Defendant
 19
States (and other states as well) during the November
2020 election.
51. In 2017, the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) designated election
infrastructure as critical infrastructure pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 5195c. See Curling v. Kemp, 334 F. Supp.
3d 1303, 1311 (N.D. Ga. 2018). The United States thus
formally articulated its duty to protect the Nation’s
election systems.
52. On November 12, 2020, after the
November 2020 election, members of Elections
Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council &
The Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating
Executive Committees issued a joint statement
declaring that “[t]he November 3rd election was the
most secure in American history.” The purveyors of
this statement provided no support for this bald-faced
assertion.
53. In an ironic twist, four weeks later, on
December 13, 2020, the U.S. Government announced
the largest cyberattack in the Country’s history
affecting more than 18,000 public and private
organizations—including at least one voting machine
company.
54. As Plaintiff’s expert, Col. John Mills
(USAR Ret.), a former Director of Cybersecurity
Policy, Strategy, and International Affairs, Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Senior Civilian possessing
almost 40 years of experience in the planning and use
of U.S. cybersecurity-related instruments of national
power testifies:
• The United States Government has the
capability to project significant effects toward
 20
critical infrastructure worldwide—including
election systems. This same capability now
exists in other countries, such as China,
Russian, Iran, and Venezuela, and these
foreign powers now use these same, similar,
and improved remote access operation
methodologies at will to assert their own
national agendas.
• These operations have created a growing talent
base of personnel, software, and network-
enabled, remote-access capabilities that are
becoming ubiquitous in the hands of companies
and personnel outside of the U.S. Government.
• Statements that the November 2020 election
was “the most secure in American history”
asserted in a November 12, 2020, posted on the
CISA website, had little, if any, basis in fact.
Declaration of Col. John R. Mills, ¶¶ 9 -14 (USAR Ret.)
(Tab 4).
55. Further highlighting the extreme risk of
manipulation of our electronic voting systems is the
public testimony of renowned cyber security expert,
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman.
On June 21, 2017, he testified to the United States
Senate Intelligence Committee on how easy it is to
hack electronic voting systems to change the outcome
of a national election.
56. The following statement by Professor
Halderman at this hearing is startling:
 21

My conclusion from that work is that our

highly computerized election infrastructure
is vulnerable to sabotage and even to cyber
attacks that could change votes. These
realities risk making our election results
more difficult for the American people to
trust. … I know America's voting machines
are vulnerable because my colleagues and I
have hacked them repeatedly as part of a
decade of research studying the technology
that operates elections and learning how to
make it stronger. We've created attacks
that can spread from machine to machine,
like a computer virus, and silently change
election outcomes. … This puts the entire
Nation at risk. In close elections, an
attacker can probe the most important
swing states or swing counties, find areas
with the weakest protection, and strike
there. In a close election year, changing a
 22
few votes in key localities could be enough
to tip national results.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Elections:
Hearing before the Sen. Select Comm. on Intelligence,
115th Cong.,72 (2017). Professor Halderman’s entire
introductory remarks can be seen at the link in the
footnote below. 7
57. On September 21, 2021 Prof. Halderman
filed a declaration in Curling v. Raffensperger, No.
1:17-cv-2989-AT (N.D. Ga.), requesting that the
district court unseal his July 1, 2021 25,000-word
expert report (the “Report”) stating under the penalty
of perjury, that the hacking/malware threat to
Dominion voting machines used in 16 states is so
“urgent” that his Report must be released to CISA to
try to fix these issues, and that CISA has
acknowledged that it is prepared to do so. 8
58. Prof. Halderman testified that “These
are not general weaknesses or theoretical problems
but rather specific flaws in [Dominion’s] ICX software
and I am prepared to demonstrate proof-of-concept
malware that can exploit them to steal votes.” Id.
59. Prof. Halderman also testified that:
“Informing responsible parties about the [Dominion]
ICX’s vulnerabilities is becoming more urgent by the
day. Foreign or domestic adversaries who are intent

7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmivIHUAy8Q
(opening testimony at 2:15:15 to 2:21:15) (last visited Nov. 23,
2021).
8 See Declaration of J. Alex Halderman (Tab 5). The 16 states
are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois,
Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada New Jersey,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington. Id. at ¶5
 23
on attacking elections certainly could have already
discovered the same problems I did.” Id.
60. Prof. Halderman testified that Georgia
Secretary of State Raffensperger is refusing to
address these issues and, along with the other
defendant Georgia county election officials, has
objected to disclosing his Report just to CISA leaving
Prof. Halderman to state that “continuing to conceal
[these] problems . . . serves no one and only hurts
voters.” Id. (emphasis added).
The State of Arizona’s electoral votes were
unlawfully certified and counted.
61. Arizona has 11 electoral votes, with a
state-wide vote tally 1,661,686 for Mr. Trump and
1,672,143 for Mr. Biden, a margin of 10,457 votes.
62. The number of illegal votes and votes
affected by the various constitutional violations far
exceeds the margin of votes separating the
candidates.
1. Arizona’s election violated the
Electors’ Clause.
63. Since 1990, Arizona law has required
that residents wishing to participate in an election
submit their voter registration materials no later than
29 days prior to election day in order to vote in that
election. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-120(A). For 2020, that
deadline was October 5.
64. Such deadlines are permissible: “State is
certainly justified in imposing some reasonable cutoff
point for registration … which citizens must meet in
 24
order to participate in the next election.” Rosario v.
Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 760 (1973).
65. In Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, 492 F.
Supp. 3d 980 (D. Ariz. 2020), however, a federal
district court violated the Electors Clause and
enjoined that law, extending the registration deadline
to October 23, 2020. The Ninth Circuit stayed that
order on October 13, 2020, with a two-day grace
period, Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, 977 F.3d 948, 955
(9th Cir. 2020).
66. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit did not
apply the stay retroactively because neither the
Arizona Secretary of State nor the Arizona Attorney
General requested retroactive relief. Id. at 954-55. As
a net result, the deadline was unconstitutionally
extended from the statutory deadline of October 5 to
October 15, 2021, thereby allowing more than 52,000
registrations in violation of Arizona law. Brahm
Resnik, Court cuts off extension of Arizona voter
registration on Thursday, 12 NEWS, Oct. 13, 2020.9
2. Audits of Maricopa County found
outcome-determinative numbers of
unlawful votes.
67. In addition the foregoing purely legal
Electors Clause violation, audits of the 2020 election
results in Maricopa County discovered evidence of
outcome-determinative discrepancies and fraud.

9 https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/elections/court-
cuts-off-extension-of-arizona-voter-registration-after-2-more-
days/75-86c59dfb-2950-4fea-89aa-6c38542b10de (last visited
Nov. 23, 2021).
 25
68. On December 15, 2020, the Arizona
State senate served two subpoenas on the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors (the “Maricopa Board”)
to audit scanned ballots, voting machines, and
software based on voting irregularities. The Arizona
Senate Judiciary Chairman stated in a public hearing
earlier that day that “[t]here is evidence of tampering,
there is evidence of fraud” with vote in Maricopa
County.
69. Rather than comply with the subpoenas,
the Maricopa Board fought the subpoenas in state
court, which resulted in the issuance of two new,
superseding subpoenas on January 12, 2021.
Although the Maricopa Board complied in part, it
continued to seek to withhold the balance of the
subpoenaed election materials (e.g., ballots, voting
equipment) needed to audit election results.
70. Although the Arizona Senate prevailed
on the lawfulness of the subpoenas, Maricopa Cty. v.
Fann, No. CV 2020-016840 (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct.
Feb. 25, 2021), the Maricopa Board and other County
officials continued to obstruct the audit and withheld
materials covered by the subpoenas (e.g., splunk logs,
routers, and equipment) that could determine the
extent of internet connectedness or intrusions.
71. After the Maricopa County Superior
Court upheld the issuance of the operative subpoenas,
on March 3, 2021, someone using an administrative
account from a valid local network address accessed
Maricopa County’s Election Management System
(“EMS”) server and executed a script 37,686 times,
with each execution resulting on the overwriting of
one entry in the EMS server’s security log (i.e., the log
 26
has a fixed capacity, and each new entry displaced the
oldest entry), thereby destroying evidence of the
network accesses to the EMS during the 2020 election.
72. The Arizona Senate engaged systems
and cybersecurity firms to audit the election materials
produced by the County using forensic methods that
exceed the type of hand recount typically conducted in
close elections. Unlike a forensic audit, a recount
would not detect fraud in the same way that
recounting the money in a cash register would not
detect whether a business had been passed counterfeit
currency.
73. On September 24, 2021, the forensic
auditors presented their reports to the Arizona State
Senate in both written form and testimony.
74. The forensic auditors found numerous
anomalies and outcome-determinative discrepancies
with the Maricopa County election materials made
available to them, including:
• 255,326 ballots included in the “final voted file”
(the “VM55” file) as having voted early that
were not included in the “early voting returns
file” (the “EV33” file), when the EV33 file
should have an entry for each early vote cast
(whether by mail or in person) with the details
as to when and how that vote was cast;
• 23,344 mail-in ballots cast when the registered
voter had moved and where no one with the
same surname remained at the address;
• 5,295 instances of multiple ballots from the
same person;
 27
• 3,432 more votes in the official results than in
the final-voted (“VM55”) file;
• 2,592 more duplicate ballots than ballots sent
for duplication;
• 1,528 voters who had moved to another state;
• 618 votes by persons not on the official precinct
register 10 days prior to election;
• 397 mail-in ballots returned without any record
of a ballot having been sent to the voter;
• 282 registered voters who died before October
5, 2020, and nonetheless voted;
• 198 votes by persons who registered after the
cut-off date for registering to vote in the 2020
election.
Cyber Ninjas, Maricopa County Forensic Election
Audit, vol. III, at 6, 51, 10, 12-14, 20-21, 25-26, 29-30,
34-36 (Sept. 24, 2021) (Tab 20).
75. Although Maricopa County withholding
the router, Splunk, and NetFlow data prevented an
audit of all internet connections with the Maricopa
County election system, the audit network auditors
did find evidence of internet activity in unallocated
space—i.e., portions of deleted files—on the Maricopa
County election systems dated after the installation of
the Dominion voting software suite on August 6, 2020.
This finding proves that Maricopa County’s claim that
its election systems were not connected to the internet
is false.
76. The forensic auditors were unable to
determine whether votes or results had been
electronically altered from the materials initially
provided because Maricopa County officials withheld
 28
or overwrote equipment and data that would allow
forensic auditors to determine whether intrusions
had—or had not—occurred and, if so, from where
those intrusions came.
77. In addition, A. V. Shiva Ayyadurai,
Ph.D., analyzed signatures from the images of early-
voting ballot envelopes that Maricopa County
provided to the Arizona Senate. His findings included
the following anomalies and outcome-determinative
discrepancies from an analysis of the signature
regions of the 1,929,240 early-voting ballot (“EVB”)
return envelope images provided:
• 17,322 duplicate mail-in voting early ballots by
17,126 voters who voted twice (16,934 voters),
thrice (188 voters), or four times (4 voters);
• 9,589 fewer EVB return envelopes identified as
even having a signature than Maricopa County
submitted for signature verification;
• A 59.7% decrease in the number of EVB return
envelopes rejected as having a signature
mismatch versus the 2016 election,
notwithstanding that the number of EVB
return envelopes increased 52.6% from 2016 to
2020;
• 6,545 fewer EVB return envelope images made
available than reported by Maricopa County’s
canvass report on the 2020 general election;
• 2,580 “scribbles” in the signature region—
which would indicate a “bad signature” if a
review were commissioned to analyze
signatures—when Maricopa County reported
having rejected only 587 “bad signature” EVB
 29
return envelopes in its canvass report on the
2020 general election;
• 464 more "no signature" EVB return
envelopes—a total of 1,919—when Maricopa
County reported having rejected only 1,455 “no
signature” EVB return envelopes in its canvass
report on the 2020 general election.
A. V. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., Pattern Recognition
Classification of Early Voting Ballot (EVB) Return
Envelope Images for Signature Presence Detection:
An Engineering Systems Approach to Identify
Anomalies to Advance the Integrity of US. Election
Processes, at 62, 88-89 (Sept. 24, 2021) (Tab 21).
78. Based on his review of signature region
on the EVB return envelopes, Dr. Shiva concluded
that a full audit (e.g., comparing the signature on EVB
return envelope images with voters’ signatures from
voter registration files) of the Maricopa signature-
verification process is needed.
The State of Georgia’s electoral votes were
unlawfully certified and counted.
79. Georgia has 16 electoral votes, with a
statewide vote tally of 2,461,854 for Mr. Trump and
2,473,633 for Mr. Biden, a margin of approximately
11,779 votes.
80. The number of illegal votes and votes
affected by the various constitutional violations far
exceeds the margin of votes separating the
candidates.
 30
1. The violations of Article II in Georgia
resulted in outcome-determinative
numbers of unlawful votes.
81. In July 2020, Georgia Secretary of State
Raffensperger and the Georgia State Election Board,
without legislative approval as required under
Georgia’s Constitution, authorized the use of 300
absentee ballot drop boxes beginning 49 days before
the November 2020 election. Rule 183-1-14-0.8-.14
Secure Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes.
82. Under this Rule, each of Georgia’s 159
counties is responsible for documenting the transfer
of every batch of absentee ballots picked up at drop
boxes and delivered to the county election offices with
ballot transfer forms. The forms are required to be
signed and dated, with time of pick up by the
collection team upon pick up, and then signed, dated,
with time of delivery by the registrar or designee upon
receipt and accepted.
83. As of April 2021, officials at the state and
county level in Georgia have failed to produce chain of
custody records for more than 355,000 absentee vote
by mail ballots deposited in drop boxes located around
the state for that election.
84. In addition, Georgia’s Secretary of State,
Brad Raffensperger, without legislative approval,
unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statutes governing
the date a ballot may be opened, and the signature
verification process for absentee ballots.
85. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(2) prohibits the
opening of absentee ballots until after the polls open
on Election Day. In April 2020, however, the State
Election Board adopted Secretary of State Rule 183-1-
 31
14-0.9-.15, Processing Ballots Prior to Election Day.
That rule purports to authorize county election
officials to begin processing absentee ballots up to
three weeks before Election Day. Outside parties were
then given early and illegal access to purportedly
defective ballots to “cure” them in violation of
O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-386(a)(1)(C), 21-2-419(c)(2).
86. Specifically, Georgia law authorizes and
requires a single registrar or clerk—after reviewing
the outer envelope—to reject an absentee ballot if: the
voter failed to sign the required oath or to provide the
required information; the signature appears invalid or
the required information does not conform with the
information on file; or if the voter is otherwise found
ineligible to vote. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B)-(C).
87. Georgia law provides absentee voters the
chance to “cure a failure to sign the oath, an invalid
signature, or missing information” on a ballot’s outer
envelope by the deadline for verifying provisional
ballots (i.e., three days after the election). O.C.G.A. §§
21-2-386(a)(1)(C), 21-2-419(c)(2). To facilitate cures,
Georgia law requires the relevant election official to
notify the voter in writing: “The board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk shall promptly notify the elector
of such rejection, a copy of which notification shall be
retained in the files of the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk for at least two years.” O.C.G.A.
§ 21-2-386(a)(1)(B).
88. There were 284,817 early ballots
corrected and accepted in Georgia out of 4,018,064
early ballots used to vote in Georgia. Mr. Biden
received nearly twice the number of mail-in votes as
 32
Mr. Trump and thus materially benefited from this
unconstitutional change in Georgia’s election laws.
89. In addition, on March 6, 2020, in
Democratic Party of Georgia v. Raffensperger, No.
1:19-cv-5028-WMR (N.D. Ga.), Georgia’s Secretary of
State, a non-legislative actor, entered a Compromise
Settlement Agreement and Release with the
Democratic Party of Georgia (the “Settlement”) to
materially change the legislature’s statutory
requirements for reviewing signatures on absentee
ballot envelopes to confirm the voter’s identity by
making it far more difficult to challenge defective
signatures beyond the express mandatory procedures
set forth at GA. CODE § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B).
90. Among other things, before a ballot could
be rejected, the Settlement required a registrar who
found a defective signature to now seek a review by
two other registrars, and only if a majority of the
registrars agreed that the signature was defective
could the ballot be rejected but not before all three
registrars’ names were written on the ballot envelope
along with the reason for the rejection. These
cumbersome procedures are in direct conflict with
Georgia’s statutory requirements, as is the
Settlement’s requirement that notice be provided by
telephone (i.e., not in writing) if a telephone number
is available. Finally, the Settlement purports to
require State election officials to consider issuing
guidance and training materials drafted by an expert
retained by the Democratic Party of Georgia.
91. Georgia’s legislature has not ratified
these material purported changes to statutory law
mandated by the Compromise Settlement Agreement
 33
and Release, including altered signature verification
requirements and early opening of ballots. The
relevant legislation that was violated by the
Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release did
not include a severability clause.
92. This unconstitutional purported change
in Georgia law materially benefitted Mr. Biden.
According to the Georgia Secretary of State’s office,
Mr. Biden had almost double the number of absentee
votes (65.32%) as Mr. Trump (34.68%).
93. The effect of this unconstitutional
change in Georgia election law, which made it more
likely that ballots without matching signatures would
be counted, had a material impact on the outcome of
the election.
94. Specifically, there were 1,305,659
absentee mail-in ballots submitted in Georgia in 2020.
There were 4,786 absentee ballots rejected in 2020.
This is a rejection rate of .37%. In contrast, in 2016,
the 2016 rejection rate was 6.42% with 13,677
absentee mail-in ballots being rejected out of 213,033
submitted, which is more than seventeen times greater
than in 2020.
95. If the rejection rate of mailed-in absentee
ballots remained the same in 2020 as it was in 2016,
there would be 83,517 fewer tabulated ballots in 2020.
The statewide split of absentee ballots was 34.68% for
Trump and 65.2% for Biden. Rejecting at the higher
2016 rate with the 2020 split between Trump and
Biden would decrease Trump votes by 28,965 and
Biden votes by 54,552, which would be a net gain for
Trump of 25,587 votes. This would be more than
needed to overcome the Biden advantage of 11,779
 34
votes. Regardless of the number of ballots affected,
however, the non-legislative changes to the election
rules violated the Electors Clause.
2. Georgia’s use of electronic voting
machines opened the door to
electronic manipulation of the vote.
96. In addition, Georgia uses Dominion’s
electronic voting machines throughout the State. Less
than a month before the election, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
ruled on a motion brought by a citizen advocate group
and others seeking a preliminary injunction to stop
Georgia from using Dominion’s voting systems due to
their known vulnerabilities to hacking and other
irregularities. See Curling v. Raffensperger, 493 F.
Supp. 3d 1264 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (“Curling”).
97. Though the district court found that it
was bound by Eleventh Circuit law to deny plaintiffs’
motion, it issued a prophetic warning stating:
The Court's Order has delved deep into the
true risks posed by the new BMD voting
system as well as its manner of
implementation. These risks are neither
hypothetical nor remote under the current
circumstances. The insularity of the
Defendants’ and Dominion's stance
here in evaluation and management of
the security and vulnerability of the
BMD system does not benefit the public
or citizens' confident exercise of the
franchise. The stealth vote alteration or
operational interference risks posed by
 35
malware that can be effectively invisible to
detection, whether intentionally seeded or
not, are high once implanted, if equipment
and software systems are not properly
protected, implemented, and audited.
493 F. Supp. 3d at 1341 (emphasis added).
98. In a November 4, 2020, video interview,
Fulton County, Georgia Director of Elections, Richard
Barron, stated that the tallied vote of over 93% of
ballots were based on a “review [panel’s]”
determination of the voter’s “intent”—not what the
voter actually voted. Specifically, he stated that “so far
we’ve scanned 113,130 ballots, we’ve adjudicated over
106,000. . . . The only ballots that are adjudicated are
if we have a ballot with a contest on it in which there’s
some question as to how the computer reads it so that
the vote review panel then determines voter intent.” 10
There is no way to know whether that vast number of
ballots were accurately adjudicated in that short
period of time to reflect the true vote.
99. This astounding figure demonstrates
how easy it is for election officials to use electronic
voting systems to modify votes on a massive scale with
no oversight. These figures, in and of themselves in
this one sample, far exceeds the margin of votes
separating the two candidates in Georgia.
100. On November 9, 2021, a voting rights
group, VoterGA, announced that 56 Georgia counties
admitted that most or all of the images created

10 https://www.c-span.org/video/?477819-1/fulton-county-
georgia-election-update (last visited Nov. 23, 2021) (from 0:20
through 1:21).
 36
automatically by the Dominion voting system for
results tabulation have been destroyed, and that a
total of 74 Georgia counties have been unable to
produce all the original ballot images from the
November 2020 election.
101. For example, VoterGA sent an open
records act request to Fulton County for an
“[e]lectronic Copy of all original Election Day ballot
images for the November 3rd, 2020 election.” The
County responded:
I recall our conversation and I appreciate you
emailing me your requests. I can confirm that
the County maintains no records which are
responsive to your request. The answer is the
same for both the request contained in this
email as well as the email you just sent seeking
“Electronic Copy of the approximately 315,000
original In-Person Advance Voting ballot
images for the November 3rd, 2020 election”.
The County maintains nothing responsive. 11
102. Thus, Fulton County apparently
destroyed over 350,000 ballot images—the only
records which can show the authenticity of the ballot
cast such as through the proof of date and time when
cast based on metadata contained on the images.
Paper ballots have no such evidence that proves their
authenticity.
103. The destruction of these election records
violated 52 USC § 20701, which requires a 22-month

11See email from Steven Rosenberg, Fulton County Deputy

County Attorney to Garland Favorito dated September 27, 2021
(Tab 6).
 37
retention period for such records, and O.C.G.A. § 21-
2-73 which requires a 24-month retention period for
such records.
104. In addition, Fulton County is also
missing 17,690 mail-in ballots, which alone far
exceeds Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia.
105. The response to VoterGA’s open records
act request included written confirmation from Chris
Harvey, then-Georgia Election Director, granting
permission to erase in-person ballot images from the
memory cards.12 The destruction of these election
records violated 52 USC § 20701, and O.C.G.A. § 21-
2-73 as described, supra.
3. The Georgia Senate Election Law
Study Subcommittee found
numerous outcome determinative
numbers of unlawful votes and
concluded the election results “must
be viewed as untrustworthy.”
106. On December 17, 2020, Georgia State
Senator William Ligon—the Chairman of the Election
Law Study Subcommittee of the Georgia Standing
Senate Judiciary Committee—issued a detailed
report discussing a myriad of voting irregularities and
potential fraud in the Georgia 2020 general election
(the “Report”) (Tab 8). The Executive Summary states
that “[t]he November 3, 2020 General Election (the
‘Election’) was chaotic and any reported results must
be viewed as untrustworthy”.

12See email from State Election Director Chris Harvey dated

December 2, 2020 (Tab 7).
 38
107. The Subcommittee unanimously
approved the Report in a subsequent hearing on
election fraud held on December 30, 2020. During that
hearing investigating fraud, an expert on Dominion
voting systems, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, demonstrated
in real-time that a Dominion poll pad could be hacked
due to the fact that it was connected to the internet.
108. On January 2, 2021, Sen. Ligon, sent
then-President Trump a letter requesting a forensic
audit of the Dominion voting machines and ballots
under DHS Cyber Hunt and Incident Response Teams
Act of 2019. In his letter, Senator Ligon based his
request in part on the following:
• The Dominion voting machines employed in
Fulton County had an astounding 93.67% error
rate in the scanning of ballots requiring some
unknown “review panel” to “adjudicate” i.e.
”determine” the voter’s intent in over 106,000
ballots out of a total 113,130 ballots.
• Tens of thousands of votes were switched from
Trump to Biden in several Georgia counties in
Georgia. For example, in Bibb County, Trump
had 29,391 votes at 9:11 pm EST while
simultaneously Biden had 17,218 votes.
Minutes later at the next update, these vote
numbers switched and Trump had 17,218 votes
and Biden had 29,391 votes—a switch of 12,173
votes in Biden’s favor.
Letter, Sen. William Ligon, Georgia State Senate, to
Donald J. Trump (Jan. 2, 2021) (Tab 9).
 39
The State of Michigan’s electoral votes were
unlawfully certified and counted.
109. Michigan has 16 electoral votes, with a
statewide vote tally of 2,649,852 for Mr. Trump and
2,804,040 for Mr. Biden, a margin of 154,188 votes.
110. The number of votes affected by the
various constitutional violations exceeds the margin
of votes dividing the candidates.
1. The violations of Article II in
Michigan resulted in outcome-
determinative numbers of unlawful
votes.
111. Michigan’s then-Secretary of State,
Jocelyn Benson, without legislative approval,
unilaterally abrogated Michigan election statutes
related to absentee ballot applications and signature
verification. Michigan’s legislature has not ratified
these changes, and its election laws do not include a
severability clause.
112. As amended in 2018, the Michigan
Constitution provides all registered voters the right to
request and vote by an absentee ballot without giving
a reason. MICH. CONST. art. 2, § 4.
113. On May 19, 2020, however, Secretary
Benson announced that her office would send
unsolicited absentee-voter ballot applications by mail
to all 7.7 million registered Michigan voters prior to
the primary and general elections. Although her office
repeatedly encouraged voters to vote absentee
because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it did not ensure
that Michigan’s election systems and procedures were
adequate to ensure the accuracy and legality of the
 40
historic flood of mail-in votes. In fact, it did the
opposite and did away with protections designed to
deter voter fraud.
114. Secretary Benson’s flooding of Michigan
with millions of absentee ballot applications prior to
the 2020 general election violated M.C.L. § 168.759(3).
That statute limits the procedures for requesting an
absentee ballot to three specified ways:
An application for an absent voter ballot
under this section may be made in any of
the following ways:
(a) By a written request signed by the voter.
(b) On an absent voter ballot application
form provided for that purpose by the clerk
of the city or township.
(c) On a federal postcard application.
M.C.L. § 168.759(3) (emphasis added).
115. The Michigan Legislature thus declined
to include the Secretary of State as a means for
distributing absentee ballot applications. Id. §
168.759(3)(b). Under the statute’s plain language, the
Legislature explicitly gave only local clerks the power
to distribute absentee voter ballot applications. Id.
116. Because the Legislature declined to
explicitly include the Secretary of State as a vehicle
for distributing absentee ballots applications,
Secretary Benson lacked authority to distribute even
a single absentee voter ballot application—much less
the millions of absentee ballot applications Secretary
Benson chose to flood across Michigan.
117. Secretary Benson also violated Michigan
law when she launched a program in June 2020
 41
allowing absentee ballots to be requested online,
without signature verification as expressly required
under Michigan law. The Michigan Legislature did
not approve or authorize Secretary Benson’s
unilateral actions.
118. MCL § 168.759(4) states in relevant part:
“An applicant for an absent voter ballot shall sign the
application. Subject to section 761(2), a clerk or
assistant clerk shall not deliver an absent voter ballot
to an applicant who does not sign the application.”
119. Further, MCL § 168.761(2) states in
relevant part: “The qualified voter file must be used to
determine the genuineness of a signature on an
application for an absent voter ballot”, and if “the
signatures do not agree sufficiently or [if] the
signature is missing” the ballot must be rejected.
120. On October 6, 2020, Secretary Benson
issued “guidance” to local election clerks in the form
of a document entitled “Absent Voter Ballot
Processing: Signature Verification and Voter
Notification Standards.” This document mirrored
guidance Benson had previously issued. The stated
purpose of this document was to “provide[ ] standards”
for reviewing signatures, verifying signatures, and
curing missing or mismatched signatures.
121. Under the heading entitled “Procedures
for Signature Verification,” the document states that
signature review “begins with the presumption that”
the signature on an absent voter ballot application or
envelope is valid. Further, the document instructs
clerks to, if there are “any redeeming qualities in the
[absent voter] application or return envelope
 42
signature as compared to the signature on file, treat
the signature as valid.”
122. The section on signature-verification
procedures repeats the notion that “clerks should
presume that a voter’s [absent voter] application or
envelope signature is his or her genuine signature, as
there are several acceptable reasons that may cause
an apparent mismatch.” Finally, the document
concludes, that clerks “must perform their signature
verification duties with the presumption that the
voter’s [absent voter] application or envelope
signature is his or her genuine signature.”
123. On March 9, 2021, the Michigan Court of
Claims ruled that Benson’s disregard of Michigan’s
statutory signature verifications requirements and
procedures in her instructions to Michigan’s election
clerks were unlawful. Genetski v. Benson, Case No. 20-
000216-MM, slip op. at 14 (Mich. Ct. Claims, March 9, 2021)
(stating “the standards issued by defendant Benson
on October 6, 2020, with respect to signature-
matching requirements amounted to a ‘rule’ [and] is
invalid.”) (Tab 10).
124. Nonetheless, the damage caused by
Benson’s unlawful disregard of Michigan’s statutory
signature verifications requirements and procedures
was done. In 2016 only 587,618 Michigan voters
requested absentee ballots. In stark contrast, in 2020,
3.2 million votes were cast by absentee ballot, about
57% of total votes cast —and more than five times the
number of ballots even requested in 2016.
125. Secretary Benson’s unconstitutional
modifications of Michigan’s election rules resulted in
the distribution of millions of absentee ballot
 43
applications without verifying voter signatures as
required by MCL §§ 168.759(4) and 168.761(2). This
means that millions of absentee ballots were
disseminated in violation of Michigan’s statutory
signature-verification requirements. Democrats in
Michigan voted by mail at a ratio of approximately
two to one compared to Republican voters. Thus, Mr.
Biden materially benefited from these
unconstitutional changes to Michigan’s election law.
126. In sum, the non-legislative modifications
to Michigan’s election statutes, and other
discrepancies, resulted in a number of constitutionally
tainted votes that far exceeds the margin of voters
separating the candidates in Michigan. Regardless of
the number of votes that were affected by the
unconstitutional modification of Michigan’s election
rules, the non-legislative changes to the election rules
violated the Electors Clause
2. Election officials’ illegal acts in
Wayne County resulted in outcome
determinative numbers of unlawful
votes.
127. Michigan also requires that poll
watchers and inspectors have access to vote counting
and canvassing. M.C.L. §§ 168.674-.675.
128. Michigan also has strict signature
verification requirements for absentee ballots,
including that the Elections Department place a
written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope
where the voter signature is placed, indicating that
the voter signature was in fact checked and verified
 44
with the signature on file with the State. See MCL §
168.765a(6).
129. Local election officials in Wayne County
made a conscious and express policy decision not to
follow M.C.L. §§ 168.674-.675 for the opening,
counting, and recording of absentee ballots. Wayne
County made the policy decision to ignore Michigan’s
statutory signature-verification requirements for
absentee ballots. Mr. Biden received approximately
587,074, or 68%, of the votes cast there compared to
Mr. Trump’s receiving approximate 264,149, or
30.59%, of the total vote. Thus, Mr. Biden materially
benefited from these unconstitutional changes to
Michigan’s election law.
130. In addition, numerous poll challengers
and an Election Department employee whistleblower
have testified that the signature verification
requirement was ignored in Wayne County. For
example, Jesse Jacob, a decades-long City of Detroit
employee assigned to work in the Elections
Department for the 2020 election testified that:
Absentee ballots that were received in the
mail would have the voter’s signature on
the envelope. While I was at the TCF
Center, I was instructed not to look at any
of the signatures on the absentee ballots,
and I was instructed not to compare the
signature on the absentee ballot with the
signature on file.
Affidavit of Jessy Jacob, at ¶15 (Tab 11).
131. In fact, a poll challenger, Lisa Gage,
testified that not a single one of the several hundred
to a thousand ballot envelopes she observed had a
 45
written statement or stamp indicating the voter
signature had been verified at the TCF Center in
accordance with MCL § 168.765a(6).13
132. The TCF was the only facility within
Wayne County authorized to count ballots for the City
of Detroit.
133. In addition, a member of the Wayne
County Board of Canvassers (“Canvassers Board”),
William Hartman, determined that 71% of Detroit’s
Absent Voter Counting Boards (“AVCBs”) were
unbalanced—i.e., the number of people who checked
in did not match the number of ballots cast—without
explanation. Affidavit of William Hartman at ¶ 6 (Tab
12).
134. On November 17, 2020, the Canvassers
Board deadlocked 2-2 over whether to certify the
results of the presidential election based on numerous
reports of fraud and unanswered material
discrepancies in the county-wide election results. A
few hours later, the Republican Board members
reversed their decision and voted to certify the results
after severe harassment, including threats of violence.
See Affidavit of William Hartman at ¶¶ 18-19 (Tab
12), and Affidavit of Monica Palmer at ¶¶ 27-28 (Tab
13).
135. The following day, the two Republican
members of the Board rescinded their votes to certify
the vote and signed affidavits alleging they were
bullied and misled into approving election results and
do not believe the votes should be certified until
serious irregularities in Detroit votes are resolved.

13 Affidavit of Lisa Gage ¶ 17 (Tab 14).

 46
136. On February 5, 2021, a news outlet
called The Gateway Pundit revealed video footage
from security cameras at the TCF Center it had
received the prior week in connection with an open
records request.14 That video footage confirmed
witness testimony that there were at least 50 mailbox
bins of ballots unloaded at 3:30 am on November 4,
2020, in the back of the TCF Center, well after the
8:00 pm deadline for ballots cast. There were no poll
watchers present nor was there any formal chain of
custody observed to know when these ballots were
cast or where the ballots came from.
3. A “glitch” in electronic voting
machines in Antrim County wrongly
awarding 6,000 votes to Mr. Biden.
137. Lastly, on November 4, 2020, Michigan
election officials in Antrim County admitted that a
purported “glitch” in Dominion voting machines
caused 6,000 votes for Mr. Trump to be wrongly
switched to Mr. Biden in just one county. Local
officials discovered the so-called “glitch” after
reportedly questioning Mr. Biden’s win in the heavily
Republican area and manually checked the vote
tabulation.

14 Jim Hoft, Exclusive: The TCF Center Election Fraud – Newly

Discovered Video Shows Late Night Deliveries of Tens of
Thousands of Illegal Ballots 8 Hours After Deadline, THE
GATEWAY PUNDIT, Feb. 5, 2021,
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-tcf-
center-election-fraud-newly-recovered-video-shows-late-night-
deliveries-tens-thousands-illegal-ballots-michigan-arena/ (last
visited Nov. 23, 2021).
 47
138. In Bailey v. Antrim County et al., Case
No. 20-9238-CZ, cyber security expert, Benjamin R.
Cotton, submitted an affidavit detailing his
examination of, inter alia, the Dominion ICX system
and the ES&S server used in the November 2020
election. What he found was shocking.
139. Specifically, Mr. Cotton found an IP
address on the Dominion ICX machine that resolved
to an address in Taiwan, and that the system was
actively configured to communicate on a private
network. Cotton concluded that “1) the device has
been actively used for network communications, and
2) that this device has communicated to public IP
addresses not located in the United States.” Affidavit
of Ben Cotton (Tab 15).
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s electoral
votes were unlawfully certified and counted.
140. Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes,
with a statewide vote tally of 3,377,654 for Mr. Trump
and 3,458,229 for Mr. Biden, a margin of 80,575 votes.
141. The number of illegal votes and votes
affected by the various constitutional violations far
exceeds the margin of votes separating the
candidates.
1. Pennsylvania’s voter registration
system can be easily hacked and
manipulated.
142. Pennsylvania is one of a handful of
states that allow third party entities some type of
access to voter registration systems via an application
programming interface (“API”). Most states and most
countries prohibit access to sensitive election data but
 48
in Pennsylvania, third party organizations are not
only given access to the Statewide Uniform Registry
of Electors (“SURE”) system but they also have the
ability to grant access to other “partner
organizations.” The registration system is thus totally
vulnerable to someone adding fake registrations or
illegally modifying registration data.
143. On December 13, 2019, the Pennsylvania
Department of the Auditor General (“DAG”) issued a
detailed report on its performance audit of the SURE
system administered by the Pennsylvania
Department of State (“DOS”). The DAG stated that
the DOS obstructed its audit stating:
DOS’ denial of access to critical documents
and excessive redaction of documentation
resulted in DAG being unable to fully
achieve three of the eight audit objectives. .
. . This sustained refusal to cooperate with
our information requests was done without
DOS providing any plausible justification
for their noncooperation. Accordingly, DAG
was unable to establish with any degree of
reasonable assurance that the SURE
system is secure and that Pennsylvania
voter registration records are complete,
accurate, and in compliance with applicable
laws, regulations, and related guidelines.
Letter, Eugene A. DePasquale, Pennsylvania Auditor
General, to Tom Wolf, Governor, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Dec. 13, 2019) (Tab 22).
144. The DAG’s warnings have proven true.
For example, tens of thousands of voters were
 49
mysteriously added to the SURE system and
backdated shortly before the November 2020 election.
145. Specifically, the SURE system includes a
unique ID number for each registered voter. That
number is proceeded by a hyphenated county code.
The February 1, 2021, voter roll (the “Full Voter
Export” or “FVE”) contains 74,090 voters with the
associated unique ID that have a registration date of
April 6, 2020, or earlier—55,823 of these voters are
recorded as having voted in 2020. However, the FVE
dated April 6, 2020, has no record of these voters—
meaning these purported 74,090 voters were
inexplicably added to the SURE system and increased
the voting population in the months leading up to the
November 2020 election. These are not inactive
voters. Inactive records are in the FVE and would
have shown up in the April 6, 2020, FVE had they
existed.
2. Pennsylvania’s final results show
49,141 more votes than voters and the
Secretary of State unlawfully
certified the Pennsylvania election
results.
146. Secretary Boockvar certified the election
results on November 24, 2020. However, the SURE
system, the official registrar of votes pursuant to 25
PA. STAT. § 1222, reflected that there were a whopping
784,752 more votes than voters.
147. Pennsylvania law expressly prohibits
certifying until after the investigation of an over-vote:
If . . . it shall appear that the total vote
returned for any candidate or candidates for
 50
the same office or nomination . . . exceeds the
total number of persons who voted in said
election district or the total number of
ballots cast therein . . . such excess shall be
deemed a discrepancy and palpable error,
and shall be investigated by the return
board, and no votes shall be recorded from
such district until such investigation shall
be had . . . .
25 PA. STAT. § 3154 (emphasis added).
148. No investigation of the 784,752 votes
before certification, as required under 25 PA. STAT. §
3154, was undertaken.
149. On December 28, 2020, Boockvar tried
to excuse the massive number of extra votes compared
to the number of voters—still over 205,000 as of that
date—by issuing a press release stating “[a]t this
time, there are still a few counties that have not
completed uploading their vote histories to the SURE
system.”
150. However, as of February 1, 2021, all
Pennsylvania counties closed out their elections in the
SURE system—meaning all counties had completed
updating the voter information for the November 2020
election. The SURE system reflects that there are still
49,141 more ballots cast included in the certified vote
tally, than there were voters in the November 2020
election. No explanation for this gross discrepancy has
ever been given by the State.
151. As stated above, Boockvar’s excuse that
not all counties had finished uploading their results to
the SURE system is now moot. That leaves the fact
that there are at least 49,141 more confirmed votes
 51
than voters demonstrating the stark illegality of the
Pennsylvania election.
152. In Philadelphia County alone, 792 out of
1703 precincts (also called “districts”) had more votes
for President than voters who participated in the
election. Those 792 precincts had a total of 346,484
votes for President. In those 792 precincts, Biden
received 286,014 votes and Trump received 57,253
votes, for a net margin of 228,761 votes for Biden.
Under 25 PA. STAT. § 3154, “no votes shall be recorded
from such district until such investigation shall be
had . . . .” No investigation into these discrepancies
has been conducted.
153. Biden’s margin of 228,761 votes in those
762 precincts, none of which should have been
recorded, far exceeds his margin of victory in
Pennsylvania.
154. In Alleghany County, 767 out of 1,323
precincts had more votes for President than voters
who participated in the election. In those 767
precincts, Biden received 246,446 votes and Trump
received 153,060 votes, for a net margin of 93,386
votes for Biden—which alone exceeds Biden’s margin
of victory. Combined with Philadelphia County, Biden
received 322,147 more votes than Trump. 25 PA. STAT.
§ 3154 prohibited from being counted until these
discrepancies were resolved. Boockvar’s certification
of the vote 24, 2020 violated 25 PA. STAT. § 3154, and
is therefore void.
 52
3. Pennsylvania misled this Court and
continued to illegally count tens of
thousands of ballots received after
November 3, 2020.
155. On September 17, 2020, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court voted 4-3 that all mail-
in ballots postmarked by 8:00 on Election Day, and
received by 5:00 p.m. November 6, 2020, even those
lacking a postmark or bearing an illegible postmark,
would be counted. Pennsylvania Democratic Party v.
Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020).
156. On October 19, 2020, this Court split 4-4
on whether to stay that decision by Pennsylvania
Supreme Court leaving that unconstitutional decision
to stand.
157. After Justice Barrett’s confirmation, the
Republican Party sought expedited relief to resolve
this issue before the November 2020 election. On
October 28, 2020, in a classic bait and switch,
Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of
State that Pennsylvania would segregate potentially
unlawful ballots to argue that this Court should not
expedite review. See Republican Party of Pa. v.
Boockvar, 141 S. Ct. 1, 2 (2020) (“we have been
informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that
the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance
today directing county boards of elections to segregate
[late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) The
Court would reasonably rely on such a representation.
158. Before the ink was dry on that decision,
however, Pennsylvania changed that guidance,
breaking the State’s promise to this Court. On
November 6, 2020, Justice Alito ordered all county
 53
boards of election to comply with the guidance “that
all ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on
November 3 be segregated and . . . if counted, be
counted separately.” Republican Party v. Boockvar,
208 L.Ed.2d 293, 294 (U.S. 2020) (“The application
received today also informs the Court that neither the
applicant nor the Secretary has been able to verify
that all boards are complying with the Secretary’s
guidance, which, it is alleged, is not legally binding on
them.”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).
159. Before Justice Alito’s order dated
November 6, 2020, Pennsylvania illegally counted at
least 61,855 illegal ballots which were received after
the statutory 8:00 pm November 3, 2020, deadline by
virtue of the fact that Pennsylvania did not segregate
those ballots. The Department of State’s records
reflect that: 50,285 ballots were received between
November 4 through November 6, 2020; 11,570 ballots
were received between November 7 through
November 11, 2020; and 10,038 were received after
November 11, 2020. Pennsylvania was still counting
ballots after November 17, 2020.15
160. Secretary Boockvar claimed that only
about 10,000 ballots were counted after 8 p.m. on
November 3, thereby admitting ballots were illegally
counted, but she offered no proof that only 10,000
ballots were illegally counted.

15 https://www.media.pa.gov/pages/state-
details.aspx?newsid=434 (last visited Nov. 23, 2021)
 54
4. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State
unconstitutionally threw out state
election integrity laws governing
mail-in ballots.
161. In 2016, Pennsylvania received 266,208
mail-in ballots; 2,534 of them were rejected (.95%).16
However, in 2020, Pennsylvania received 2,623,867
mail-in ballots—nearly 10 times the number of mail-
in ballots compared to 2016. Despite this flood of
ballots, the reported rejection rate was just 1.3% with
just 34,171 ballots rejected.17 As explained below, this
vastly larger volume of mail-in ballots was treated in
an unconstitutionally modified manner that included:
(1) doing away with the Pennsylvania’s signature
verification requirements; and (2) blocking poll
watchers in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in
violation of State law.
162. The blatant disregard of statutory law
renders all mail-in ballots constitutionally tainted
and should not have formed the basis for appointing
or certifying Pennsylvania’s presidential electors to
the Electoral College.
163. Specifically, Pennsylvania’s then-
Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, without
legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated several
Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature
verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.

16 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Report to Congress,

Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive
Report, at 24 (2017).
17 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Report to Congress
Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2020
Comprehensive Report, at 36 (2021).
 55
Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these
changes, and the legislation did not include a
severability clause.
164. On August 7, 2020, the League of Women
Voters of Pennsylvania and others filed a complaint
against Secretary Boockvar and other local election
officials, seeking “a declaratory judgment that
Pennsylvania existing signature verification
procedures for mail-in voting” were unlawful for a
number of reasons. League of Women Voters of
Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 2:20-cv-03850-PBT,
(E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2020).
165. The Pennsylvania Department of State
quickly settled with the plaintiffs, issuing revised
guidance on September 11, 2020, stating in relevant
part: “The Pennsylvania Election Code does not
authorize the county board of elections to set aside
returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on
signature analysis by the county board of elections.”
166. The Pennsylvania Department of State’s
guidance directly contradicted Pennsylvania law.
First, Pennsylvania Election Code mandates that, for
non-disabled and non-military voters, all applications
for an absentee or mail-in ballot “shall be signed by
the applicant.” 25 PA. STAT. §§ 3146.2(d) & 3150.12(c).
Second, Pennsylvania’s voter signature verification
requirements are expressly set forth at 25 PA. STAT.
350(a.3)(1)-(2) and § 3146.8(g)(3)-(7).
167. The Pennsylvania Department of State’s
guidance unconstitutionally did away with
Pennsylvania’s statutory signature verification
requirements. Approximately 70% of the requests for
absentee ballots were from Democrats and 25% from
 56
Republicans. Thus, this unconstitutional abrogation
of state election law greatly inured to Mr. Biden’s
benefit.
168. In addition, in 2019, Pennsylvania’s
legislature enacted bipartisan election reforms, 2019
Pa. Legis. Serv. Act 2019-77, that set inter alia a
deadline of 8:00 p.m. on election day for a county
board of elections to receive a mail-in ballot. 25 PA.
STAT. §§ 3146.6(c), 3150.16(c). Acting under a
generally worded clause that “Elections shall be free
and equal,” PA. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 1, a 4-3 majority
of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in Pa. Democratic
Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020), extended
that deadline to three days after Election Day and
adopted a presumption that even non-postmarked
ballots were presumed timely.
169. Absentee and mail-in ballots in
Pennsylvania were thus evaluated under an illegal
standard regarding signature verification. It is now
impossible to determine which ballots were properly
cast and which ballots were not.
170. In addition, on December 4, 2020, fifteen
members of the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives led by Rep. Francis X. Ryan issued a
report to Congressman Scott Perry (the “Ryan
Report”) (Tab 16) stating that “[t]he general election
of 2020 in Pennsylvania was fraught with
inconsistencies, documented irregularities and
improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-
canvassing, and canvassing that the reliability of the
mail-in votes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
is impossible to rely upon.”
 57
171. The Ryan Report’s findings are startling,
including:
• Ballots with NO MAILED date. That total is
9,005.
• Ballots Returned on or BEFORE the Mailed
Date. That total is 58,221.
• Ballots Returned one day after Mailed Date.
That total is 51,200.
Id. at 5.
172. These nonsensical numbers alone total
118,426 ballots and exceed Mr. Biden’s margin of
80,555 votes over Mr. Trump. But these discrepancies
pale in comparison to the discrepancies in
Pennsylvania’s reported data concerning the number
of mail-in ballots distributed to the populace—now no
longer subject to legislatively mandated signature-
verification requirements.
173. These stunning figures illustrate the
out-of-control nature of Pennsylvania’s mail-in
balloting scheme. Democrats submitted mail-in
ballots at more than two times the rate of
Republicans.
The State of Wisconsin’s electoral voters were
unlawfully certified and counted.
174. Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes. Mr.
Trump received 1,610,184 votes and Mr. Biden
received 1,630,866 votes, a margin of 20,682 votes.
175. The number of illegal votes and votes
affected by the various constitutional violations far
exceeds the margin of votes separating the
candidates.
 58
1. The Wisconsin Election Commission
has obstructed investigations into
the November 2020 election.
176. According to the Wisconsin Legislative
Audit Bureau (“LAB”) Report 21-19 (the “LAB
Report”) (Tab 17), in the 2020 presidential election,
1,963,954 absentee ballots were cast, 59.6 percent of
all ballots cast compared to 819,316 absentee ballots
cast in 2016, or 27.3 percent of all ballots cast. Id. at
38.
177. Wisconsin statutes guard against fraud
in mail-in absentee ballots: “[V]oting by absentee
ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the
traditional safeguards of the polling place. The
legislature finds that the privilege of voting by
absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent
the potential for fraud or abuse[.]” WISC. STAT. §
6.84(1).
178. Leading up to the November 2020
election, in direct contravention of Wisconsin law, the
Wisconsin Elections Commission (“WEC”) and other
local officials unconstitutionally weakened or
completely abrogated Wisconsin election laws—each
time taking steps that did away with established
security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin
legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.
179. The WEC is now attempting to block any
investigations into the widespread voter fraud in
Wisconsin. In March 2021, the Wisconsin legislature
voted to commence an investigation into election
irregularities in the November 2020 election. In July
2021, Wisconsin Speaker of the Assembly Robin Vos
 59
appointed former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Michael Gableman, as special counsel.
180. After former Justice Gableman issued
subpoenas to state and local election officials, the
WEC, represented by the State Attorney General’s
office, sought a temporary restraining order against
Speaker Vos, former Justice Gableman, and others
seeking to block two subpoenas issued to the WEC and
Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe
claiming the subpoenas were part “of an unlawful
investigation focused on debunked theories about the
November 2020 Election.” The WEC spoke too fast.
181. In October 2021, the nonpartisan LAB,
and the Racine County Sheriff, revealed lengthy
investigations that confirmed the WEC’s massive
violations of Wisconsin election law, including at least
one felony and three misdemeanors caused by their
illegal instructions to disregard Wisconsin election
laws designed to ensure that fake ballots did not affect
the integrity of the vote.
182. Indeed, Racine County found that the
WEC knowingly “shattered” at least one statute likely
causing fraudulent votes in nursing homes in all 72
counties across the State of Wisconsin.18
183. The LAB Report detailed the WEC’s and
other elections officials’ lack of cooperation noting that
the City of Madison refused to let the LAB auditors
handle absentee ballots despite their county (Dane
County) having the highest percentage of absentee
ballots in the state at 74.4 percent of ballots. [LAB

18 The PowerPoint presentation used by the Sheriff is attached

at Tab 18.
 60
Report at 6] The LAB also stated that county clerks
for Milwaukee County and the Town of Little Suamic
refused access to their ballots. Combined, these areas
accounted for 623,700 of the 3.3 million ballots cast in
the November 2020 election. (18.9 percent). Lab
Report at 7. The LAB also noted that three WEC
members refused to speak with the auditors (the audit
doesn’t mention which ones, but three are Democrats).
Id. at 5.
184. After the Racine County Sheriff’s Office
released their findings, Wisconsin lawmakers,
including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, called on the
Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe
to resign.
2. The Racine County Sheriff found the
WEC committed a felony and three
misdemeanors by encouraging voter
fraud in nursing homes
185. On October 28, 2021, the Racine County,
Wisconsin Sheriff held a press conference and laid out
the case of the WEC’s criminal election fraud during
the 2020 election related to the abuse of voters
confined to nursing homes and assisted living
facilities.
186. The Sheriff’s investigators discovered
that the WEC expressly discussed that their proposed
conduct for the 2020 election would violate state law,
and yet they decided to do it anyway, and
memorialized their decision in letters disseminated to
every single county clerk’s office in Wisconsin. As
such, the Sheriff concluded members of the WEC
 61
committed at least one felony and three misdemeanor
crimes.
187. Specifically, the Sheriff commenced an
investigation in early 2021, after a complaint by a
nursing home resident’s daughter that her dementia
suffering mother cast a vote that she was entirely
incompetent to make. An eight-month investigation
the Sheriff’s investigation discovered, inter alia, that
the WEC sent nursing homes across the state letters
March 12, 2020, June 24, 2020, and September 25,
2020, stating that “Municipalities shall not use the
Special Voting Deputy process”—a key requirement
under WISC. STAT. § 6.875(4)(a) to ensure that nursing
home residents are not taken advantage to cast false
ballots—and should instead mail the absentee ballots.
188. The investigation discovered that at that
nursing facility about 10 residents would normally
vote in a presidential election cycle but in 2020 42
residents voted. Though the focus of the Sheriff’s
investigation was on the WEC’s clear orders to violate
Wisconsin election law, the Sheriff noted seven other
families also said their family members were not
competent to cast their votes—and that all of these
eight incompetent patients last voted in 2012.
189. The Sheriff stated the “election statute
was in fact not just broken, but shattered” by the WEC
in all 72 counties across the State of Wisconsin. As a
result of WEC’s clear violation of the law, as many as
50,000 fraudulent ballots may have been cast by
incompetent nursing home residents.
 62
3. The WEC’s and other officials illegal
use of drop boxes in violation of
Wisconsin law
190. The WEC undertook a campaign to
position hundreds of drop boxes to collect absentee
ballots—including the use of unmanned drop boxes.
Wisconsin Elections Commission Memoranda, To: All
Wisconsin Election Officials, at 3 (Aug. 19, 2020) (Tab
23).
191. The mayors of Wisconsin’s five largest
cities—Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee,
and Racine, which all have Democrat majorities—
joined in this effort, and together, developed a plan to
use purportedly “secure drop-boxes to facilitate the
return of absentee ballots.” Wisconsin Safe Voting
Plan 2020 Submitted to the Center for Tech & Civic
Life, June 15, 2020, by the Mayors of Madison,
Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay, at 4
(Tab 24).
192. The use of any drop box—whether
manned or unmanned—is directly prohibited by
Wisconsin statute. The Wisconsin legislature
specifically described in the Election Code “Alternate
absentee ballot site[s]” and detailed the procedure by
which the governing body of a municipality may
designate a site or sites for the delivery of absentee
ballots “other than the office of the municipal clerk or
board of election commissioners as the location from
which electors of the municipality may request and
vote absentee ballots and to which voted absentee
ballots shall be returned by electors for any election.”
WIS. STAT. 6.855(1).
 63
193. Any alternate absentee ballot site “shall
be staffed by the municipal clerk or the executive
director of the board of election commissioners, or
employees of the clerk or the board of election
commissioners.” WIS. STAT. 6.855(3). Likewise, WIS.
STAT. 7.15(2m) provides, “[i]n a municipality in which
the governing body has elected to establish an
alternate absentee ballot site under s. 6.855, the
municipal clerk shall operate such site as though it
were his or her office for absentee ballot purposes and
shall ensure that such site is adequately staffed.”
194. Thus, the unmanned absentee ballot
drop-off sites are prohibited by the Wisconsin
Legislature as they do not comply with Wisconsin law
expressly defining “[a]lternate absentee ballot site[s].”
WIS. STAT. 6.855(1), (3).
195. In addition, the use of drop boxes for the
collection of absentee ballots, positioned
predominantly in Wisconsin’s largest cities, is directly
contrary to Wisconsin law providing that absentee
ballots may only be “mailed by the elector, or delivered
in person to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or
ballots.” WIS. STAT. § 6.87(4)(b)1 (emphasis added).
196. The fact that other methods of delivering
absentee ballots, such as through unmanned drop
boxes, are not permitted is underscored by WIS. STAT.
§ 6.87(6) which mandates that, “[a]ny ballot not
mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may
not be counted.” Likewise, WIS. STAT. § 6.84(2)
underscores this point, providing that WIS. STAT. §
6.87(6) “shall be construed as mandatory.” The
provision continues—“Ballots cast in contravention of
the procedures specified in those provisions may not
 64
be counted. Ballots counted in contravention of the
procedures specified in those provisions may not be
included in the certified result of any election.” WIS.
STAT. § 6.84(2) (emphasis added).
197. Incredibly, the rejection rate for the
1,963,954 absentee ballots cast in the November 2020
election plummeted to .217%, or 4,270 rejected ballots,
compared to the rejection rate in November 2016
election of 1.35% when there just 819,316 absentee
ballots cast. The rejection rate in 2016 was more than
six times greater than in 2020.
4. The WEC encouraged voters to
illegally declare themselves
“indefinitely confined” thereby
avoiding ballot security
requirements
198. The WEC and local election officials also
took it upon themselves to encourage voters to
unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely
confined”—which under Wisconsin law allows the
voter to avoid security measures like signature
verification and photo ID requirements.
199. Specifically, registering to vote by
absentee ballot requires photo identification, except
for those who register as “indefinitely confined” or
“hospitalized.” WISC. STAT. § 6.86(2)(a), (3)(a).
Registering for indefinite confinement requires
certifying confinement “because of age, physical
illness or infirmity or [because the voter] is disabled
for an indefinite period.” Id. § 6.86(2)(a). Should
indefinite confinement cease, the voter must notify
 65
the county clerk, id., who must remove the voter from
indefinite-confinement status. Id. § 6.86(2)(b).
200. Wisconsin election procedures for voting
absentee based on indefinite confinement enable the
voter to avoid the photo ID requirement and signature
requirement. Id. § 6.86(1)(ag)/(3)(a)(2).
201. On March 25, 2020, in clear violation of
Wisconsin law, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonnell
and Milwaukee County Clerk George Christensen
both issued guidance indicating that all voters should
mark themselves as “indefinitely confined” because of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
202. Believing this to be an attempt to
circumvent Wisconsin’s strict voter ID laws, the
Republican Party of Wisconsin petitioned the
Wisconsin Supreme Court to intervene. On March 31,
2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously
confirmed that the clerks’ “advice was legally
incorrect” and potentially dangerous because “voters
may be misled to exercise their right to vote in ways
that are inconsistent with WISC. STAT. § 6.86(2).”
203. On May 13, 2020, the Administrator of
WEC issued a directive to the Wisconsin clerks
prohibiting removal of voters from the registry for
indefinite-confinement status if the voter is no longer
“indefinitely confined.”
204. The WEC’s directive violated Wisconsin
law. WISC. STAT. § 6.86(2)(a) specifically provides that
“any [indefinitely confined] elector [who] is no longer
indefinitely confined … shall so notify the municipal
clerk.” WISC. STAT. § 6.86(2)(b) further provides that
the municipal clerk “shall remove the name of any
other elector from the list upon request of the elector
 66
or upon receipt of reliable information that an elector
no longer qualifies for the service.”
205. On December 16, 2020, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin officials,
including Governor Evers, unlawfully told Wisconsin
voters to declare themselves “indefinitely confined”—
thereby avoiding signature and photo ID
requirements. See Jefferson v. Dane County, 394 Wis.
2d 602, 951 N.W.2d 556 (Wis. 2020). Given the near
fourfold increase in the use of this classification from
2016 to 2020, tens of thousands of these ballots could
be illegal. The vast majority of the more than 216,000
voters classified as “indefinitely confined” were from
heavily Democrat areas, thereby materially and
illegally, benefited Mr. Biden.
206. The LAB found that according to
statistics kept by the WEC, nearly 220,404 voters said
they were indefinitely confined in the 2020 election,
including 169,901 individuals (77.1 percent) who
indicated for the first time that they were indefinitely
confined. [LAB Report at 50]
207. Moreover, according to WEC’s data,
48,554 of those first time individuals (22.0 percent)
had not previously voted by methods that required
them to have provided photo identification or did not
have photo identifications on file with clerks. [LAB
51]. Thus, at a minimum there was zero verification
that these 48,554 voters were who they said they were
or were even real voters.
 67
5. The LAB found that 45,665 voters
used identification to register that
did not match the records on file
208. According to the LAB Report, in 2020,
957,977 Wisconsinites registered to be a new voter. Of
that figure, 45,665 new voters registered with driver’s
license information that did not match DMV records
or 4.8% of registrants. Of the 45,665 total non-
matches, 63.1 percent were from a name non-match,
meaning the name submitted by the new voter on the
ballot application did not match the name on file at
the DOT. Thus, at a minimum there was zero
verification that these 45,665 voters were who they
said they were or were even real voters.
6. The Office of the Special Counsel’s
findings of illegal votes in its First
Interim Report.
209. In the Summer of 2021, the Wisconsin
State Assembly established a new office, the Office of
the Special Counsel, to investigate the November
2020 election.
210. On November 10, 2021, the Office of the
Special Counsel delivered its First Interim Report to
the Wisconsin State Assembly. First Interim Rept.,
Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel (Nov. 10,
2021) (the “Report”) (Tab 19).
211. The Office of the Special Counsel found
that many of the “safeguards mandated for the
protection of honest absentee ballots” were “abrogated
by WEC” including “the illegal mass self-certification
of individuals as ‘indefinitely confined’ under the
statute, a category which enables a voter to evade
 68
state voter ID requirements, but which is intended to
apply to physically or physiologically immobile
residents confined to their home because of their
condition.” Id. at 18.
212. Another issue identified by the Office of
the Special Counsel are “Democracy in the Park”
events held prior to the election to harvest absentee
ballots in Madison. The Report states “[w]hile this
Office draws no conclusions, we possess evidence that
the events, which occurred on September 26 and
October 3, 2020, involved numerous possible
violations of state law, calling into question the
validity of over 17,000 absentee ballots. Id. at 19.
213. The Report also identified the Racine
County Sheriff’s referral of criminal charges against
the WEC for violations of Wisconsin’s laws designed
to elderly voters from being taken advantage of in
casting votes. The Report states:
This Office has evidence that WEC and
some clerks instructed residential care
employees to act in a manner prohibited by
law, collecting and assisting in completing
ballots for individuals in these group
facilities, including those with dementia.
This led to record-high voting by
individuals who had not voted for
nearly a decade and may have lacked
the cognitive ability to vote.
Id. at 21 (emphasis added).
214. The Office of the Special Counsel also
identified that the WisVote (SVRS) system, the
statewide system that enables clerks to track
absentee ballot requests and includes highly sensitive
 69
personal information, is not secure even though WEC
guidance requires it to be subject to a high level of
security. The Report states that “there is already some
evidence of unauthorized access to this database.” Id.
at 24.
7. Democrat operatives were given
access to “hidden” networks
connecting “sensitive machines” at
the ballot tabulation center in Green
Bay, WI
215. In Wisconsin, Dominion machines that
were not supposed to be connected to the internet
were in fact connected to a “hidden” Wi-Fi network
during voting.19
216. Specifically, Michael Spitzer-
Rubenstein, a Democrat political operative, was given
internet access to a hidden Wi-Fi network at the
Wisconsin election center where votes were being
counted. M.D. Kittle, Democrats’ Operative Got Secret
Internet Connection at Wisconsin Election Center,
Emails Show, DAILY SIGNAL, Mar. 23, 2021.20 Spitzer-
Rubenstein received an email from Trent James,
director of event technology at Green Bay’s Central
Count location, which stated, “One SSID [for a Wi-Fi
network] will be hidden and it’s: 2020vote. There will

19 M. D. Kittle, EMAILS: GREEN BAY’S ‘HIDDEN’

ELECTION NETWORKS, WISCONSIN SPOTLIGHT, Mar. 21, 2021,
https://wisconsinspotlight.com/emails-green-bays-hidden-
election-networks/ (last visited Nov. 23, 2021).
20 https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/23/democrats-
operative-got-secret-internet-connection-at-wisconsin-election-
center-emails-show/ (last visited Nov. 23, 2021).
 70
be no passwords or splash page for this one and it
should only be used for the sensitive machines that
need to be connected to the internet.” Id. Four other
individuals were copied on the email. Id.
COUNT I: ELECTORS CLAUSE
217. Plaintiff State repeats and re-alleges the
allegations above, as if fully set forth herein.
218. The Electors Clause of Article II, Section
1, Clause 2, of the Constitution makes clear that only
the legislatures of the States are permitted to
determine the rules for appointing presidential
electors. The pertinent rules here are the state
election statutes, specifically those relevant to the
presidential election.
219. Non-legislative actors lack authority to
amend or nullify election statutes. Bush II, 531 U.S.
at 104 (quoted supra).
220. Under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821,
833 n.4 (1985), conscious and express executive
policies—even if unwritten—to nullify statutes or to
abdicate statutory responsibilities are reviewable to
the same extent as if the policies had been written or
adopted. Thus, conscious and express actions by State
or local election officials to nullify or ignore
requirements of election statutes violate the Electors
Clause to the same extent as formal modifications by
judicial officers or State executive officers.
221. The foregoing actions constitute non-
legislative changes to State election law by executive-
branch State election officials, or by judicial officials,
in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia,
 71
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona in violation of the
Electors Clause.
222. Electors appointed to the Electoral
College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast
constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.
COUNT II: DUE PROCESS
223. Plaintiff State repeats and re-alleges the
allegations above, as if fully set forth herein.
224. When election practices reach “the point
of patent and fundamental unfairness,” the integrity
of the election itself violates substantive due process.
Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065, 1077 (1st Cir. 1978);
Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 702 (5th Cir.
1981); Florida State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v.
Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1183-84 (11th Cir. 2008);
Roe v. State of Ala. By & Through Evans, 43 F.3d 574,
580-82 (11th Cir. 1995); Roe v. State of Ala., 68 F.3d
404, 407 (11th Cir. 1995); Marks v. Stinson, 19 F. 3d
873, 878 (3rd Cir. 1994).
225. Under this Court’s precedents on proced-
ural due process, not only intentional failure to follow
election law as enacted by a State’s legislature but
also random and unauthorized acts by state election
officials and their designees in local government can
violate the Due Process Clause. Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 537-41 (1981), overruled in part on other
grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31
(1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 (1984).
The difference between intentional acts and random
and unauthorized acts is the degree of pre-deprivation
review.
 72
226. Defendant States acted
unconstitutionally to lower their election standards—
including to allow invalid ballots to be counted and
valid ballots to not be counted—with the express
intent to favor their candidate for President and to
alter the outcome of the 2020 election. In many
instances these actions occurred in areas having a
history of election fraud.
227. The foregoing actions constitute
intentional violations of State election law by State
election officials and their designees in Defendant
States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Arizona in violation of the Due Process Clause.
COUNT III: GUARANTEE CLAUSE
228. Plaintiff State repeats and re-alleges the
allegations above, as if fully set forth herein.
229. The Guarantee Clause provides that
“[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a Republican Form of Government.” U.S.
CONST. art. IV, cl. 1.
230. Although this Court dismissed Texas v.
Pennsylvania, No. 22O155 (U.S.), citing a lack of
standing, Texas v. Pennsylvania, 141 S.Ct. 1230
(2020) (“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another
State conducts its elections.”), the United States has
parens patriae standing to challenge the manner in
which states conduct their elections: “Nor does a State
have standing as the parent of its citizens to invoke
these constitutional provisions against the Federal
Government, the ultimate parens patriae of every
American citizen.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383
 73
U.S. 301, 324 (1966). The failure to pursue the United
States’ meritorious claim violates the Guarantee
Clause.
231. The United States and the Officer
Defendants have been aware of the constitutional
violations and facts at issue in this action and have
not acted either to avoid or to remedy these violations.
232. The foregoing actions violate the
Guarantee Clause.
COUNT IV: TAKE CARE CLAUSE
233. Plaintiff State repeats and re-alleges the
allegations above, as if fully set forth herein.
234. The Take Care Clause provides that
“[the President] shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3, cl. 5.
235. The President, Attorney General, and
Vice President have been aware of the constitutional
violations and facts at issue in this action and have
not acted either to avoid or to remedy these violations.
236. The foregoing actions violate the Take
Care Clause.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff State respectfully
requests that this Court issue the following relief:
1. Declare that Defendant States
administered the November 2020 election in violation
of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Declare that the United States and
Officer Defendants violated the Guarantee Clause
and the Take Care Clause with respect to allowing the
 74
foregoing constitutional violations by the Defendant
States in administering the November 2020 election.
3. Declare that the Defendant States’
certification of the November 2020 election results
and of presidential electors on or about December 14,
2020, violated the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and vacate those
certifications.
4. Declare that the Defendant States’
certification of the November 2020 election results
and of presidential electors on or about December 14,
2020, violated the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and vacate those
certifications.
5. Declare that the United States violated
the Guarantee Clause in allowing the November 2020
election to proceed on the basis of the unconstitutional
results in Defendant States.
6. Declare that the President, Attorney
General, and Vice-President violated the Take Care
Clause by failing to act to remedy the violations of the
Constitution in the November 2020 election.
7. Enjoin the use of vacated certifications in
Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for
the Office of President to appoint presidential electors
to the Electoral College.
8. Declare that the counting of electoral
votes in the Joint Session of Congress on January 6-7,
2021, violated the Electors Clause, the Due Process
Clause, the Guarantee Clause, the Take Care Clause,
and the Twelfth Amendment, and vacate that count.
 75
9. Enjoin the Officer Defendants to convene
special sessions of the House of Representatives and
the Senate to vote for the President and Vice-
President, respectively, pursuant to the Twelfth
Amendment.
10. Alternatively, authorize, pursuant to the
Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to
conduct a special election to appoint presidential
electors.
11. Alternatively, authorize, pursuant to the
Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to
conduct an audit of their election results, supervised
by a Court-appointed special master, in a manner to
be determined separately.
12. Enjoin Defendant States’ use in future
elections of revisions adopted by non-legislative actors
to the election laws enacted by the state legislatures
unless the legislature ratifies any such revisions by
enacting them as state law before the election.
13. Award costs to Plaintiff State.
14. Grant such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
November __, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
[Name/title]