TABLE OF CONTENTS

JURISDICTION CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED STATEMENT OF CASE REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT CONCLUSION

1 2   3 6 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In re DANIEL B. JEFFS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of prohibition and mandamus issue to prevent the undue partisan influence of the two-party system upon qualifications to hold the offices of Representative, Senator, President, Supreme Court Justice, and upon free speech, the equal right to vote, elections and the accountability of the United States government to citizens of the United States.

JURISDICTION

Petitioner respectfully submits that the urgent and extraordinary circumstances of this petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus are such that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. The exceptional circumstances of this petition adversely effects and impacts free speech, the right to vote, elections, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government and the several states, which can and should only be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

CONSTITION OF THE UNITED STATES

Article I Section 2.2 and Section 3.3, Article II Section 1.5, Article IV Section 4, Amendment I, the equal protection clause of AMENDMENT XIV, and any and all applicable provisions of the United States Constitution pertaining to the constitutional guarantees and limitations of government, and the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

STATEMENT OF CASE

The petitioner is a resident of the State of California, a citizen of the United States, 61 years of age, and a nonpartisan, independent registered voter. The petitioner has voted in nearly every election, in which the petitioner was eligible to vote, since 1960.

The United States Constitution makes no provisions for, nor does it recognize political parties in the election or government process of the United States. The vast majority of citizens, however, believe and understand that political parties are, in fact, an integral part of the election and government process, as did the petitioner. The petitioner and over a third of the electorate are either nonpartisan or small party voters. However, the vast majority of citizens believe and understand that elections and government are controlled by the two-party system comprised of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The petitioner asserts that this inextricable understanding has had an adverse effect upon the election and government process that has served to disenfranchise the petitioner as a citizen of the United States. The petitioner further asserts that these adverse conditions abridge the petitioner's free speech and voting rights. The petitioner therefore asserts that direct political party control, power and influence over the election and government processes are injurious to the petitioner, other nonpartisan or small party voters and the republic, and is therefore unconstitutional, based upon the following:

For nearly 150 years the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the United States government have been dominated by what is commonly known as the "two-party system" of political parties consisting of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, neither of which the petitioner is a member. Moreover, the power of the two-party system has become entrenched in the election process and the business of government, so as to adversely affect the operations of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court to the detriment of the petitioner, who is an unaffiliated, nonpartisan independent voter and citizen of the United States. Therefore, the petitioner is, in effect, disenfranchised and unrepresented in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

The Democratic Party dominates the government of my state of California. Reasonable protection of the environment notwithstanding, extreme elements of the Democratic Party, along with Democratic over-regulation and the lack of an energy policy, have caused the extreme energy crisis in California which is already spreading throughout the nation. The crisis is also having an adverse impact on the economy and the well being of all citizens.

Moreover, the adverse effects of the two-party system have added unconstitutional qualifications to being either a member of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party to the offices of President, Senator, members of the House of Representatives and even Justices of the Supreme Court. Indeed, the two-party system is so dominant that no one, including the petitioner, could hope to be elected or appointed to any of those offices without being a member of or associated with one of the two parties.

Specifically, the 2000 presidential election debacle was clear and convincing evidence that the two-party system has adversely affected the protections, rights, privileges and immunities of petitioner and all nonpartisan and small party voters. The 2000 presidential election provided clear and convincing evidence of the firmly implanted two-party, partisan nature of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in state and federal governments.

To further substantiate the clear and convincing evidence, the Court need only look at the state of Florida and to itself, the United States Supreme Court, which decided the election in George W. Bush vs Albert Gore, No. 00-949. The Florida State Legislature and office of governor are dominated by the Republican Party. The Florida State Supreme Court is dominated by the Democratic Party. The United States Supreme Court is dominated by the Republican Party. The Florida Supreme Court made a partisan decision in favor of Democrat Albert Gore. The United States Supreme Court made a partisan decision in favor of Republican George W. Bush, current President of the United States.

Above all, the United States Supreme Court is supposed to be independent and nonpartisan in its application of judicial review and justice. However, even though Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, they are nominated by a partisan president and confirmed by a partisan Senate from the two-party system. And even though many justices have broken from their partisan appointments to be partisan in the other direction, few have been truly nonpartisan. Herein lies the opportunity for the Court to make a nonpartisan decision that will provide relief to the petitioner and benefit all citizens of the United States.

Finally, free speech is the essence of voting and the right to vote equally. The results of the 2000 presidential elections, specifically in the State of Florida, highlighted the disparity in voting methods and procedures between punch card ballots and other methods, more and less advanced, which include candidates' political party designations. Indeed, most voting procedures and methods in the United States are inefficient and archaic, which demonstrates a lack of attention to, and contempt for, voters by government. Because of the uncertainty created by questioned Florida punch card ballots, the petitioner, who has been required to vote on punch cards ballots, cannot be certain that the petitioner's intended votes were accurately recorded in the 2000 elections or ever. The lack of high standards for voting methods and procedures in this era of high technology is inexcusable and constitutionally intolerable. Therefore, the highest equal standards for voting procedures and methods should be mandated throughout the United States, at least for federal elections.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The results of the 2000 presidential election left the nation inextricably divided by the two-party system. Over half the voters, Democrats and nonpartisan voters who voted for Albert Gore felt disenfranchised and angry with the Supreme Court for, as many said that, "a Republican Court selecting George W. Bush as President" rather than being elected. And, though the other half who voted for George W. Bush seemed satisfied by the Court's decision, many were not comfortable with such divisive partisanship, especially among the justices of the Florida State Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. Clearly, it should have never come to those unfortunate circumstances, and would not have if it were not for the rancorous politics inherent in the two-party system.

The government of the United States, including the Supreme Court, is not supposed to be dominated by the two-party system or either party, and therefore should be nonpartisan. Indeed, the Court's own contentious, partisan experience with Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings, with more certain to come, and in the Bush vs Gore case as the result of the 2000 presidential elections, should serve as abundant evidence that elections and government should be nonpartisan, and that national voting procedures and methods should be elevated and standardized.

Certainly, the Court should consider the history of the United States and the Founder's intentions as to the dangers of party factions. James Madison warned against them in Federalist Papers No. 10 and No. 51. President George Washington dwelled upon the dangers of party factions seeking power, party excess, and endangering the liberty of the people in his farewell address. Though nothing in this petition suggests that political parties or freedom of association should not exist, history has shown that the excesses of party factions and bitter power struggles have seriously damaged the petitioner's and the people's sovereignty and faith in elections and government, that the people are generally against the two-party system, and that all elections and government should therefore be nonpartisan.

Combined, the adverse effects of the two-party system's factions, and the inefficiency and inequality of voting systems have seriously damaged the petitioner's constitutional rights, privileges and immunities along with most citizens of the United States.

Finally, it could be said with confidence that the reason that half of the eligible voters in the United States do not vote is because of the adverse effects of the two-party system, and inexcusably cumbersome, archaic and untrustworthy voting systems which undermine the people's trust in politics and government.

The petitioner prays that the Court will also consider pertinent information not contained in this petition, which may be included in the petitioners prior petitions No. 98-8918 and No. 99-9563.

CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
S/Daniel B. Jeffs
Date: _______________________ (February 12, 2001)

USE BROWSER [ BACK BUTTON ] TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE....