Emil Svrcina, et al. v. Scott T. Nago, Chief Election Officer of the State of Hawaii, et al.

Article II of the Constitution provides that "Each State shall appoint [electors for President and Vice President] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). That power is “plenary,” and the statutory provisions enacted by the legislature in the furtherance of that constitutionally-assigned duty may not be ignored by state election officials or changed by state courts. Bush v. GoreC'Bush II”),531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000). Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments may deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property without Due process of law” These questions are therefore presented; Question 1. Did the Hawaii Supreme Court violate rights and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by dismissing with prejudice Complaint SCEC-20-0000721, on the basis of laches? (a) Is this a foreclosure for any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief and enforcement for ongoing constitutional and all other statue violations in elections? Question 2. Was Petitioners Due Process violated when a motion for reconsideration, which was timely, filed 12/17/20, 9 days after motion to dismiss, was denied? Complaint SCEC-20-0000721 had already been marked “CLOSED”,