Revote 2017 is the name taken by a grassroots group of women and men who filed a series of lawsuits against the government to force them to protect the states and American from “foreign invasion” according to the protections of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, also called the “Guarantee Clause.” Given that 17 Intelligence Agencies asserted that the Russians interfered with the U.S. election, the group believes that the known “cyber-invasion” of our election qualifies as an “invasion” under the Guarantee Clause and so the Supreme Court has a basis upon which to declare the 2016 election nullified. The group filed a Writ of Mandamus at the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the group launched their action through district courts in three states on a pro se basis (ie, without the benefit of an attorney), so there were flaws in their proceedings and the Supreme Court recently denied their petition. The fact, however, that their case made it up to the Supreme Court was rather remarkable and many people contributed to the group’s Go Fund Me site at that point, which enabled the group to finally hire an attorney. The attorney, Mark Small, filed a Motion for a Special Master, which was intended to enable the Supreme Court to authorize an independent investigation about the Russian hacking. For unknown reasons, the Supreme Court declined the petition on the same day that the FBI let it be known that they were actively investigating Trump’s connections with Russians.
The following was posted earlier by Mark Small:
MARK SMALL ATTORNEY AT LAW
February 19, 2017
Re: Blumstein, et al. v. Pence, et al. Docket Number: 16-907
I represent Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman, Petitioners in a case they filed before the United States Supreme Court. The relief they seek is a new election of the offices of President, Vice President, United States Senate, and United States House of Representatives decided in November, 2016.
In 1787, the Framers of the Constitution imagined various means by which a tyrant, a foreign power, or mobs could take over our government. The Framers obviously did not cast their votes by electronic means. They could not have foreseen an additional means by which a foreign power could take over our government—hacking of computer programs. The Framers understood the concept of “invasion,” and in Article IV, Section 4, provided the government owes a duty to protect us from foreign invasion. The Constitution addresses the imperfections of human beings. In Federalist Number 51, James Madison described how the separation of powers of the branches of the government is necessary to protect us from despotism.
Today, evidence indicates the dictator of Russia illegally influenced the election of the President and the Vice President, as well as races for seats in the Congress. Neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch can investigate, without conflict, Russia’s cyber invasion as members of those branches benefitted from such an invasion if it occurred. Madison saw the judicial branch as the only branch able to resolve such matters.
On Friday, February 17, we filed a motion in which we ask the Supreme Court to appoint a Special Master, a role created under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to investigate the 2016 elections. If the elections were stolen from the American people, the relief we would seek would include new elections of all Federal offices that were on the ballot in 2016. My clients are the people who were courageous enough to raise this challenge. Others might attempt, through peaceful means as contemplated by the Framers, other avenues to challenge the election results. No one else should be mistaken, however, for Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman as the brave people who challenged the election via this Court action.
Any inquiries may be directed to my office number or e-mail.
/s Mark Small.
While this case is no longer active, the group is endeavoring to figure out if there is another legal approach to force the nullification of the election results.