By Paul Gardiner

Thomas Jefferson famously once said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” In America today, Mr. Jefferson might say that what exists is, indeed, dangerous freedom.

This article postulates that in the very near future, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will be asked to rule on the constitutionality and legality of mail-in ballots — not to be confused with absentee ballots — received by Pennsylvania election officials during the recent November 2020 national election. Further, the SCOTUS ruling may adversely affect the legality of some, if not all, mail-in ballots received in several other states including one or more so-called “battleground states.”

If a SCOTUS conservative majority rules in such a manner that causes a change in the winners for president and vice president, there undoubtedly will be much civil unrest and accompanying violence by far-left groups and organizations in numerous cities in different states. For sure, the justices ruling against mail-in balloting, as described herein, will realize what such a ruling probably will cause to happen and, hence, these brave and courageous people will need much support from millions of Americans who earnestly want fair elections and the rule of law to prevail in America.

Regarding the constitutionality and legality of mail-in balloting in presidential national elections, it first needs to be acknowledged that when citizens cast a ballot for president and vice president, their ballot is actually cast for a slate of “electors” who in turn cast their votes to the United States Congress in December for president and vice president. The number of electors in each state is determined by population and congressional representation. Thus, California is allowed 55 electors, or 55 Electoral College votes. Conversely, Georgia is allowed 16 electors, or 16 Electoral College votes. Presently, candidates for president and vice president need at least 270 Electoral College votes to win these offices. In the great majority of cases, votes cast by electors reflect how the majority of citizens voted in their respective states.

In the anticipated case coming before SCOTUS, the central issue is how mail-in balloting was authorized in Pennsylvania for the November 2020 presidential election. It is assumed that the primary argument will be that the authorization was unconstitutional and, hence, the mail-in ballots are not legal ballots and cannot be included in the count for president and vice president.

Article II of the Constitution states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The state legislatures are the only ones allowed per the Constitution to determine and appoint electors. By most, if not all, accounts, the Pennsylvania state legislature never authorized mail-in voting for Electoral College electors. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the entity that authorized mail-in voting.

In response to a Republican petition, Justice Samuel Alito has ordered that all Pennsylvania mail-in ballots received after Election Day be segregated and kept secure. It is not evident yet what use will be made of these mail-in ballots nor how this action might be applied to other states where legislatures did not authorize mail-in balloting.

How this is going to play out is anybody’s guess. But one thing is certain: If a SCOTUS ruling in this matter ultimately causes a change in who won the presidency, there will be much civil unrest and most likely violence. The SCOTUS justices making such a ruling truly need to be buttressed with sentiments of support and gratitude by the millions of Americans who desire fair elections in this great nation!

Paul S. Gardiner is an avid lover of America, fair and honest elections, and the rule of law. He is a retired Army officer and graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Alabama, and the United States Army War College.