Notice: Before publishing any of this all over the internet, some of these fascist bigots were forewarned that I would be posting everything all over the internet for anyone in the world to use. They didn't believe me or something.
Authority
Preemption of inconsistent state law when necessary to effectuate a required "reasonable modification" is established by the "Supremacy Clause" (Article 6, clause 2 of the US Constitution) and is affirmed by, Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement Sys., No. 11-2215, 35 at 6 - 36 at 2, 37 at 7 - 39 at 9 (2d Cir. 2013).
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964); "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. [...] Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."
Fascist bigots in Government
"Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof." 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(d)
All of those charged with overseeing a fair and free election, typically the Secretary of State, sometimes the Lt. Governor have knowningly and intentionally discriminated (42 U.S.C. § 2000a[d]) against me for my having a disability. Communicating solely in writing, utilizing interstate commerce of either USPS postal mail and/or email. A list of names and positions, likely communications as well of those who perpetrated these crimes is going to be published.
Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494, 507 (4th Cir. 2016); "Voting is a quintessential public activity. In enacting the ADA, Congress explicitly found that “ ‘individuals with disabilities ... have been ... relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals.’ ” Tennessee v. Lane,541 U.S. 509, 516, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7)). Ensuring that disabled individuals are afforded an opportunity to participate in voting that is equal to that afforded others, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130, helps ensure that those individuals are never relegated to a position of political powerlessness."
In violation of federal law, states are seeking to exclude me from the 2024 general election for my being a qualified individual with a disability rather than seeking to include me in the most integrated setting as required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a), (d), 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a), (d).
In violation of federal law, States are discriminating against qualified individuals with a disability by imposing eligibility criteria that screens out or tends to screen out an individual with a disability 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3), (6), (8).
In violation of federal law, States are refusing to make reasonable modifications as required by law 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(iii), (iv)-(vii), (2), (7); 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
Federally protected activities
- interfering with my ability to qualify and campaign as a candidate for elective office in any primary, special, or general election; 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(A); and,
- interfering with my participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States; 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(B); and,
- interfering with my participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(E); and,
- Violating at least one international law, the 1990 Copenhagen Commitment; specifically sections: 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 6, 7.1, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8
States are denying my section 504 / ADA request for reasonable modifications for a medical exception to the collection and submission of signatures without satisfying the requirements to lawfully do so as set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 35.164, specifically,
- states are not demonstrating how my request would result in an undue burden or fundamentally altering anything, states are only purporting it; and,
- as far as I can tell, the decision is not being made by the "...head of the public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion"; and,
-
in contravention of the law and case law, the only alternative some states are trying to make is claiming I can have other people collect the signatures for me.
- "A public entity shall not rely on an adult accompanying an individual with a disability to interpret or facilitate communication..."; 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(c)(2)
- "Although [plaintiffs] were ultimately able to cast their vote with the fortuitous assistance of others, the purpose of the Rehabilitation Act is ‘to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society’.... The right to vote should not be contingent on the happenstance that others are available to help." Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494, 506-7 (4th Cir. 2016)
Federal laws prohibiting of signatures for ballot access
- 52 U.S. Code § 10501(a) via 52 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(4). I would also argue 52 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(1) as the residents presumably have to read where to write their information.
-
52 U.S.C. § 10502(a)(1), (3)-(6)
* durational residency is established by the requirement of registered voters of the state to sign a petition
** A durational-residency requirement is a rule that requires a person to be a resident of a particular state for a specific period before they can exercise a particular right or privilege.
Aside for the State of Washington, Secretary of State Offices are not:
- having an ADA Coordinator / designated employee as mandated by 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a); and,
- publishing grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints as mandated by 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b); and,
Discriminatory treatment for some, favorable treatment for others
States are enacting legislation[1][2][3] to ensure that Joseph Biden is allowed to participate in the 2024 general election yet refuse to accommodate my ADA request for reasonable modifications.
Department of Justice, disability discrimination, violation of due process and equal protection
Despite the Department of Justice's sentiments conveyed for Georgia SB 202, "...under the ADA, voters with disabilities must have an equal opportunity to vote ... this equal opportunity requirement is separate from the requirement that public entities make reasonable modifications" (statement_of_interest-in_re_georgia_sb_202.pdf)
After having reported several ADA violations to the Department of Justice (the designated agency, [28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(6)]) which has purported for every disability discrimination complaint, "Team members from the Civil Rights Division reviewed the information you submitted. Based on our review, we have decided not to take any further action on your complaint. We receive several thousand reports of civil rights violations each year. We unfortunately do not have the resources to take direct action for every report."
The Department of Justice does have the resources to go after a "tech firm" for using "[white]" in a job ad.
And to sue Apple[4][5] over the color of messages on Apple's own products because of "...social stigma, exclusion and blame..."
- Failure by the Department of Justice to request such additional funds as may be necessary to apply the policy set forth in this section throughout the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d–6(d)
- Failure by the Department of Justice to promulgate and denial of the benefits of the Department of Justice, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)
- Failure by the Department of Justice to induce compliance, 28 C.F.R. § 42.108(a)
- Failure by the Department of Justice to investigate alleged violations of this subchapter, 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(A)(i)
- Failure of the Assistant Attorney General to coordinate the compliance activities of Federal agencies with respect to State and local government components, 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(a)
- Failure by the Department of Justice to investigate section 504 complaints, 28 C.F.R. § 35.171(ii)(3)(i)
- Failure by the Department of Justice to notify the public entity of the receipt and acceptance of the complaint, 28 C.F.R. § 35.171(c)(1)
- Failure by the Department of Justice to investigate complaints for which it is responsible under § 35.171, 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(a)
- Failure of the Department of Justice to attempt informal resolution of any matter being investigated under this section, 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(c)
- Seemingly constituting a deprivation of rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- Negligent to prevent, 42 U.S.C. § 1986
- Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, 18 U.S.C. § 595
- Deprivation of rights, 18 U.S.C. § 242
Department of Justice ADA filings
"The ADA is meant to ensure that people with disabilities can fully participate in all aspects of civic life. Under Title II, all state/local governments must follow the ADA regardless of their size."
"The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that provides protections to people with disabilities to ensure that they are treated equally in all aspects of life. Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments (“public entities”) to ensure that people with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to vote. The ADA’s provisions apply to all aspects of voting"
"...when a state law directly conflicts with the ADA, the state law must be interpreted in a way that complies with the ADA" (American-Nurses-Assoc.-v.-ODonnell,-California-Superintendent-of-Schools-United-States-Amicus-Brief.pdf)
"the ADA requires Wisconsin to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." (statement_of_interest-carey_v_wisconsin_election_commission.pdf)
Qualification standards and selection criteria that screen out people based on their disabilities that are not job-related or consistent with business necessity violate the ADA (complaint_-_united_states_v_alabama_department_of_transportation.pdf)
"Under Title II of the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a). This means that the County must give individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from any service provided to others. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). These legal requirements include providing equal access to the County’s website and the public content posted there." (letter_of_findings-upton_county_tx_election_website_accessibility_1.pdf)
"...to avoid discrimination, a public entity must reasonably modify its policies, procedures, or practices when necessary to avoid disability discrimination, unless it can show that the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." (statement_of_interest-in_re_georgia_sb_202.pdf)
Relief sought
Since the United States has effectively turned their back on me whilst committing crimes against me, I seek help from anyone, including any country; i.e., Russia, Iraq, Iran, China, anyone to provide legal representation to hold the United States accountable for the previous and current (aforementioned) crimes the United States has committed against me.
Either:
- inclusion, ability to participate, and enjoyment of activities in the 2024 general election; listed as an unaffiliated (independent) Presidential candidate, not as a write-in; or,
- effectuate the will of Congress[6][7][8] by terminating and refuse all Federal financial assistance, including that for the 2024 election to every state that refuses to accommodate my section 504/ADA request for reasonable modifications in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 12133; pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1(1). #ShutItDown
Other relevant laws:
- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794
Constitutionally
A state's presidential eligibility requirements (e.g., requiring candidates to get X amount of signatures of eligible voters from that state, PER state) are plainly unconstitutional, an illegal and illegitimate government overreach. Violating the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, by the state attempting to defraud or thievingly conniving "the people" of the right to establish qualifications for the Presidency as explicitly conferred to the US Constitution pursuant to Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the US Constitution, as an original intention of forethought by our founding fathers, not an afterthought implemented by Congress amending the US Constitution. Violating my due process and equal protection rights. In accordance with the "Supremacy Clause" (Article 6, clause 2 of the US Constitution), the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, superseding/preempting conflicting state laws, in this case inferior subordinate state laws conflict with all Presidency eligibility requirements as vested in the supreme law of the land; i.e., it is established, "Qualifications for the Presidency," not "Qualifications for the Presidency and inferior subordinate state requirements" Promulgated by Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 601 U.S. (2024), "It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power — silently no less — to disqualify a candidate for federal office," establishes: (1) States lack the power to disqualify a candidate for federal office and, (2) that not including a candidate on the ballot, even for a primary would be disqualifying the candidate. Constituting violations of: 18 U.S.C. § 595, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and of Article 1, section 1 to the US Constitution; "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (invalidating House's decision not to seat a Member accused of misuse of funds) ("[I]n judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.")
Exon v. Tiemann, 279 F. Supp. 609, 613 (D. Neb. 1968) ("There being no such requirement in the Constitution itself, a state cannot require that a Representative live in the District from which he was nominated."); State ex rel. Chavez v. Evans, 446 P.2d 445, 448 (N.M. 1968) ("[The New Mexico statute,] by requiring that each candidate for representative in Congress be a resident of and a qualified elector of the district in which he seeks office, adds additional qualifications to becoming a candidate for that office.... [W]e must hold the provisions of the Federal Constitution prevail and that this statute unconstitutionally adds additional qualifications."); Hellman v. Collier, 141 A.2d 908, 912 (Md. 1958) (same); cf. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (state may not impose term limits on its congressional delegation)
Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an attempt by the state of Missouri to influence Congressional elections in favor of candidates who supported term limits was unconstitutional. The Court held that the powers delegated to the states by the Elections Clause related only to the power over the procedural mechanisms of elections. Because this amendment sought to influence the outcome of elections, it exceeded state powers over national elections.
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), [heavy] burdens on minor parties seeking to be placed on the ballot for presidential electors violates the Equal protection clause
[Arbitrary and capricious] candidate requirements are not in line with founding, quintessential principles of America, historical tradition, or the rights enshrined by the U.S. Constitution; New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 establishes that "historical tradition" is a doctrine or whatever which law can be determined; historical and founding tradition, `...until the late 1800's, all ballots cast in this country were write-in ballots. The system of state-prepared ballots, also known as the Australian ballot system, was introduced in this country in 1888. See L.E. Fredman, The Australian Ballot: The Story of an American Reform ix (1968). Prior to this, voters prepared their own ballots or used preprinted tickets offered by political parties. Since there were no state-imposed restrictions on whose name could appear on a ballot, individuals could always vote for the candidates of their choice.` Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 446 (1992)
Deepening the audit
Section 504/ADA request for reasonable modifications are also applicable to getting ballot measures on the ballot for every level of government.
To demand my presence is to demand my oversight
What most of these fascist bigots may or may not realize is that chances are their states are not ADA compliant. I get it though, these people hate our US military who fought and risked their life for our country. Why else would they ensure that disabled service people cannot freely travel and enjoy the entire country? Sanctimonious...
In 2021 when Winnemucca, NV wanted to defraud the Federal government by artificially lowering their speeding limit, Winnemucca, NV subjected me to not only disability discrimination, I would argue that Winnemucca, NV subjected me to cruel and unusual punishment by not having ADA compliant restrooms.
Having a total of two disabled parking spots, neither of which was a van accessible parking spot. I'm certain that the local folks would have lost their shit had I parked my disabled vehicle on their vehicles and/or the sidewalk, like where am I supposed to park?
I was only ever able to locate one men's restroom, which was on the second floor and after their security check point. I would love to see a person in a wheelchair open that door only to find no grab bars, no ADA seat, and no ADA stall.
A special kind of excrement
California Governors, including Gavin Newsom are a special kind of excrement who have never abided by California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and have annually discriminated against disabled people by violating California CIV § 54.5.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is likewise unfit for office, having a negative bias and prejudice against disabled people by refusing to enforce California CIV § 54.5 when I referred the matter to him, in writing.
Ass. Kevin Kiley and Ass. James Gallagher likewise have not cared about their disabled constituatans when I've brought the violation of law to their attention, in writing.