Letters to the Editor: Dec. 23, 2020
The Supreme Court recently rejected the Texas lawsuit that asked the Court to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia. In addition, 126 House Republicans, including our own Doug LaMalfa, signed an amicus brief supporting Texas’s attempt to overturn the election. The four mentioned states do not support this lawsuit because they detected no election fraud.
This lawsuit was not an attempt to present new evidence of election fraud or defend the Constitution. It was an unconstitutional attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. The Supreme Court dismissed this meritless lawsuit without a hearing.
Doug LaMalfa chose to support this lawsuit based on lies and no evidence. LaMalfa traded his integrity and honor to support Trump's delusions all the way to the Supreme Court rather than protect our democracy. In doing so he violated his oath of office, which is to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic (U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3).
LaMalfa’s support for trying to overthrow our democracy makes him a traitor to our democracy, freedoms and Constitution. Don't be fooled by whatever pathetic excuses LaMalfa makes.
We, the people of the 1st Congressional District of California, have a critical decision to make. Do we keep LaMalfa as our representative or do we remove him from office for violating his oath of office?
Do you support and defend lies and Doug LaMalfa or truth, democracy and our Constitution.
– Tom Laurent, Yreka
Represent all of us
Doug LaMalfa has shamed us all by signing onto the “bill of complaint” submitted by Texas last week to the United States Supreme Court, in an effort to overturn November’s free and fair election of Joe Biden to the Presidency. LaMalfa swore to protect and defend the Constitution, and he has failed.
Citing Article III of the Constitution, the Court clarified that the law does not recognize any possible way that Texas or its citizens have been harmed by another state’s election procedures, nor have representatives of any other state. They have no standing.
Either LaMalfa knew that the complaint had no merit and was not supported by the Constitution, or he’s even less capable than we thought. Or, he’s part of a much darker purpose, to disenfranchise large portions of the population, an effort that is also unconstitutional (see Constitutional amendments 14, 15, 19 and 24).
Whichever is true, by signing on to this complaint LaMalfa has violated his oath of office. We call on him to stop this hyper-partisan, anti-democratic behavior, and start representing all of us.
– Abigail Van Alyn, Alice Rogers, Robin Richards, Katherine Shelton, Carolyn Miller, Larry Marks, Karen Ziegler, Al Lugo, Christine Balletta, Dolly Verue, Anne Herfindahl, Marc Williams and Roger Davis
When will all this end?
Congressman Doug LaMalfa has come under stinging criticism for supporting President Trump’s refusal to concede to President-elect Joe Biden, who won a clear-cut popular and Electoral College victory. Rather than admit defeat, Trump launched a criticism of the election process and filed scores of failed lawsuits claiming unproven and widely discredited fraud.
All the allegations of a rigged election have been dismissed or denied.
“Your support for Trump’s anti-voter campaign is disruptive to the smooth transition of power that is a hallmark of American democracy“ said District Democratic leadership in a December 15 letter to the congressman. “It may also lead to lack of respect for the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.”
The most prominent legal challenge to the Presidential election was brought before the U. S. Supreme Court by the State of Texas to which LaMalfa added his name in a supporting amicus brief. That brief placed LaMalfa and other signers in support of the effort to overturn the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit became moot on December 10 when the Supreme Court refused to consider it. However, the fact remains that those supporting this action were willing to disregard the voters’ choices – the keystone of democracy.
According to Michigan Attorney General, Dana Nessel, in a December 12 media interview: “These are individuals who, in my opinion, have violated their oaths of office. And have sought to, in order to appease a demagogue, they’ve chosen Donald Trump over democracy and over their constituents.”
When will all this end? LaMalfa has indicated that he will not acknowledge the election results until Inaugural Day, on January 20, 2021.
– Cindy Ellsmore, Chair, CD1 Alliance Action
COVID is raging, Americans are dying, a COVID Relief and Defense Bill pending, the Russians are hacking, and our president’s priority is complaining about unsubstantiated voter fraud through “tweets.” The electoral counts have unofficially been filed and Trump’s presidential term is about over but even as a “lame duck” we have only one president but instead of celebrating the develop of the vaccine it’s obvious that Donald Trump’s priority is Donald Trump and losing. No empathy for the suffering, no concern about our national security, just a laser focus on overturning the election even though the majority of Americans understand that Trump lost and on January 20th, Joe Biden will be sworn in as our new president. As the president continues to obsess over his loss, it has been reported that he held a White House meeting to discuss further options on overturning the election including “martial law”. Republican Virginia State Amanda Chase and convicted felon, soon to be pardoned, former national security adviser, Michael Flynn appear to be pressuring Trump, however there is a has a problem, according to constitutional historians under a 2018 Executive Order the president cannot unilaterally impose martial law, in fact the executive order limits the president’s power to impose sanctions to countries that interfere with U.S. election. Ironically after Trump embraced the idea to impose martial law, as reported by several news sources, but later denied the claim characterizing the action as “fake news.” There is speculation that the president’s reversal was based on his realization that martial law, was not an option.
– John Swanson, Hornbrook