Press Release: 10/13/2020

Oral Argument Held on 10/13 for Equal Representation in the House of Representatives

 

New York City: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing of oral argument today for the constitutional lawsuit (CASE # 19-3054) filed by Equal Vote America Corp. (EVA) against Congress demanding equal representation for all Americans in the House of Representatives.

The hearing (via Teleconference) was presided by the Honorable Debra Ann Livingston, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit along with a panel of three additional judges.

During the hearing the Appellant and the Attorney for the Defendants were given five minutes each to present the case.

The Appellant delivered the following facts and arguments to the Panel.

  1. On April 23, 2020 Governor Cuomo said, and according to the Rockefeller Institute, between 2015 and 2018, New York state has paid $116 billion more to the federal government than received in federal spending. That means a financial inequity of about $1500 for every New Yorker per year.
  2. Every American is subject to the same federal tax coeds regardless of state residence.
  3. The root cause for the American Revolution was “Taxation without Representation”.
  4. Therefore, we are convinced our Founding Fathers would have agreed, financially we have the standing in this case.
  5. Such financial inequity and economical injury were resulted from the unequal representation in the House of Representatives under the existing reapportionment laws enacted by Congress.
  6. Ultimately, this is a case of violation of voting right. The value of every New Yorker in elections for the House is worth less than 80% of a person in Wyoming.
    • At this point the Panel asked, “are you saying New York state should have had more seats in the House?
    • The Appellant responded, “yes, your Honor, based on the 2010 Census and the Constitution, New York state should have had at least 7 more seats than the 27 we have at the present.”
  7. By definition violation of voting right has always been widely suffered and shared by a large group of people. In S. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency 1973 and FEC v. Akins, 1998, the Supreme Court found injury in fact even if such harm is widely shared.
  8. Furthermore, in three landmark cases, Baker v. Carr 1962, Reynolds v. Sims 1964, and Wesberry v. Sanders 1964, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that the plaintiff’s Equal Protection of Law was violated, the right to vote is protected by the Constitution, the plaintiff had the standing, and the Court has the power and duty to review such constitutional violations.
  9. Most importantly, the Constitution provides:
  1. Since a person in Wyoming is guaranteed full representation in the House, then every New Yorker, as well as every American in every state, shall be guaranteed the same and equal representation in the House, no more and no less.
  2. Essentially Congress has violated the Great Compromise reached by the founding fathers and violated 95% of Americans’ voting right in elections for the House of Representatives.
  3. Finally, the Appellant quoted George Orwell’s Animal Farm,

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Hence the Appellant respectfully asks for the Court’s judicial review and prove

America is NOT an Animal Farm.

 

The Attorney of the Defendants attempted to argue that the Plaintiff/Appellant has no standing to sue, but was quickly and repeatedly questioned by the Panel who cited the previous Supreme Court decisions including Department of Commerce v. Montana 1992.

The Appellant used the 1-minute rebuttal to answer the Panel’s question:

At this point Chief Judge Livingston adjourned the session.

It is the Appellant’s impression that the Panel appeared to be sympathetic to our case, and we are convinced that we have a very strong case based on:

With no constitutional basis, the 71st Congress enacted the Reapportionment Act 1929 with a cap of 435 seats for the House Representatives. Such cap together with the so-called Equal Proportions method has caused unequal representation.

The Appellant has proposed the Modified Wyoming Rule as follows:

  1. Currently Wyoming has the least population c.a. 600K, which is to be the baseline and the common denominator.
  2. Divide all other 49 states’ population by the common denominator.
  3. For example, NYS’s population of 20 million is divided by Wyoming 600K, the resultant quotient is rounded to 33.3. Therefore, NYS will get 33 members in the House, the first 32 have 1 vote each, the 33rd member would have a vote value of 1.3 representing a larger district.
  4. Another example for Montana, its population 1.07 million is divided by 600K, the resultant quotient is rounded to 1.8. Therefore, Montana will have 1 member in the House, but this sole member has a vote value of 1.8 fully representing its 1.07 million residents.

The Modified Wyoming Rule ensures equal representation for every American in every state with a variance within +/-4%, which represents a near precision demanded by Thomas Jefferson, and a true good-faith effort demanded by the Supreme Court in previous case.

Fellow Americans, this lawsuit fights for equal representation for every American in every state, hence this is NOT a partisan issue.

Citizens from 40 states have joined  this lawsuit by completing the Online Affidavit. Come join us, together, let’s demand Congress to pass a new Reapportionment law that honors our Founding Fathers’ founding agreement and complies with the Constitution by ensuring equal representation for every American in the House of Representatives.

For more information, please visit http://equalvoteamerica.org/

Previous Press Releases:

2019/01/11; 2019/02/18; 2019/03/26; 2019/04/11; 2019/04/26; 2019/09/28

****** The History ******

At the Constitutional Convention 1787, James Madison proposed the Virginia Plan in which the population would elect the members of the lower house, which in turn would elect the members in the upper house. William Patterson countered with the New Jersey Plan, which called for equal representation of each state in a unicameral legislature. The convention almost fell apart until the founding fathers reached the Great Compromise — literally the founding agreement for the Union — to establish a bicameral legislature where the populace was represented in the House of Representatives, and the states were represented at the Senate. Hence, the Constitution provides:

In 1792 Washington, advised by Jefferson, exercised the very first presidential veto over the first apportionment bill precisely because these two founding fathers felt the bill failed to comply with the aforementioned founding agreement.

****** The Current Situation ******

However, the current apportionment laws since 1929 have caused significant unequal representation in the House of Representatives. Based on the 2010 Census Data, for example:

CA, TX, NY and FL have been deprived of at least 13, 9, 7 and 6 house seats, respectively. In fact, residents of 39 states (over 95% of national population) have been under-represented by at least 110 house seats in total. Click MyState to see how many house seats your state has been deprived of. Click here for State-by-State Unequal Representation.

***** Congress Has Violated … ******

Therefore, Congress has collectively dishonored the founding agreement reached by the founding fathers, and violated Article I, § 2 & the 14th Amendment § 2. Furthermore, the significant under-representation in the House of Representatives has violated over 95% of Americans’ constitutional rights with respect to …

It must be also noted that the Founding Agreement reached by our Founding Fathers has two sides, the House and the Senate. If the blatant breach on the Equal Representation in the House is not rectified, then the two-seat for every state at the Senate shall be declared illegitimate and no longer constitutional. Were our Founding Fathers alive today, they would have been outraged, and Washington and Jefferson would certainly have vetoed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 as they did in 1792.

***** Why We Filed This Lawsuit ******

In the fable Animal Farm by George Orwell, “All Animals are Equal, but Some Animals are More Equal than Others.

As proud Americans, we believe America is not such Animal Farm, and all Americans shall be equally represented in the House regardless of state residence according to our Founding Fathers’ Founding Agreement and the Constitution.

Our lawsuit has become a grass-root movement as more and more ordinary citizens from 13 states (AZ, CA, FL, IA, KY, MA, MO, NY, NJ, OR, TN, TX, and VA) have signed up to be co-plaintiffs  in our lawsuit demanding Congress to pass new apportionment laws to ensure Equal Representation for all Americans of all 50 states. Fellow Americans, please …

***** The Remedy Sought ******

The redress that Plaintiff is seeking is simply for the Court to make a declaratory judgment – as the Supreme Court clearly did in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) – such as follows:
The Apportionment Acts of 1911, 1929 and 1941 are unconstitutional with respect to the Great Compromise, Article I, § 1 & 2, Article IV, § 2, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Every American’s rights to equal representation in the House and equal vote in any election shall not be denied, diluted, debased, diminished, demeaned, disadvantaged, or manipulated in any way by any means on any account.

**** FQAs ******

What is the Great Compromise?

According to the Great Compromise, the Constitution Provides:

Do You Know the Original First Amendment?

Do You Know the First Presidential Veto?

What are the existing apportionment laws?

The Triple-Injustice for over 95% of Americans:​