Whether the Petitioner has standing to challenge the unconstitutional actions of non-legislative officials who altered federal election procedures

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Georgia Legislature has plenary authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of Federal Elections and has clearly set forth the procedures to be followed in verifying the identity of in-person voters as well as mail-in absentee ballot voters as well as the procedures for receiving, opening and processing absentee ballots. The Georgia Secretary of State usurped that power by modifying the Legislature’s clear procedures for verifying the identity of mail-in voters. The Secretary also unilaterally changed the procedures for receiving and opening votes. The effect of the Secretary of State’s unauthorized procedures is to treat the class of voters who vote by mail different from the class of voters who vote in-person, like Petitioner. That procedure dilutes the votes of inperson voters. The Secretarys unconstitutional modifications to the legislative scheme violated Petitioner’s Equal Protection and Due Process rights by infringing on his fundamental right to vote. The Eleventh Circuit has held that Petitioner does not have standing to challenge State action that dilutes and infringes upon his constitutional right to vote. In this regard, the Court of Appeals decision conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court, and as such, calls for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Petitioner, as a registered voter, has standing to challenge the unconstitutional actions of nonlegislative officials, who unilaterally altered the “manner” of federal elections prescribed by the state legislature, resulting in the i dilution, impairment, and discounting of his vote. 2. Whether nonlegislative officials had the authority to rewrite, change or otherwise determine the “times, places and manner” of federal elections, including the senatorial runoff election, in contravention of the established legislative framework, without the approval of the Georgia General Assembly. 3. Whether Respondents’ unauthorized actions in changing the signature verification requirements, time of opening and method of delivering absentee ballots violated Petitioner’s Equal Protection and Due Process rights. ii