Frank Marshall, et ux. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al.

For the first time in the history of the United States, a State violated the foundational principles of the Electoral College by removing bona fide Presidential Elector Candidates by prematurely adjudicating the qualifications of the Pledged Candidate for President, though the Elector Candidates had fulfilled all the statutory requirements to gain ballot access. The United States Appeals Court of the Seventh Circuit, by affirming with lower courts decision, to remove the Elector Candidates not only violated the Elector Candidates’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights but also did so inconsistent with its own previous history of allowing Elector Candidates on the ballot though their Pledged Candidate may not be qualified to hold the Office of President. The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled in favor of Elector Candidates remaining on the ballot even though their Pledged Candidate was the same as Wisconsin's. A “chaotic state-by-state patchwork” now exists with some States allowing/removing Elector Candidates on/from the ballot without/with premature adjudication of their Pledged Candidate. The Question Presented is: Is not States’ premature adjudication of qualifications of Elector Candidates’ Pledged Candidates unconstitutional and violation of the foundational principles of the Electoral College and how presidential elections are to be run?