A San Antonio, Texas-based attorney has proposed forming a coalition
of interested parties to address military-voter disenfranchisement in
the wake of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of service members
who did not get to vote Nov. 7.

According to Philip E. Jones, “we are organizing a meeting of all
interested moderate, conservative and veterans organizations March
17-18” in San Antonio, “for the purpose of consolidating our efforts by
forming a coalition of organizations” to address — among other things
— why

some military members did not receive absentee ballots
in time for the 2000 election.

Jones said the new coalition will have the organizational model of the U.S. Congress, in that each individual organization choosing to participate “will be authorized one seat in our Patriot’s Senate,” no matter how large or small the group.

Also, Jones said, “each organization will be authorized seats in the Patriot’s House of Representatives based on their total membership” — a number to be determined at the March meeting.

Though there will be “no executive branch,” Jones said his model would include a “judicial branch … composed of a small legal staff whose purpose will be to determine the legality of proposals” made by the Patriot’s Congress.

Eventually, he explained, those proposals “will be presented to … Congress” as bills “we consider mandatory. … It will be made clear that we plan to act as a massive voting bloc to enforce our will.”

Jones said the coalition “will have only administrative duties,” noting that “policymaking authority will be within the sole realm of the Patriot’s Congress.”

He has proposed that the coalition meet twice a year to determine policy proposals.

“Obviously, we cannot circumvent our political process by overriding the will of our elected officials,” Jones said in a statement on Thursday. “However, we do have a right to vote in a bloc, thereby flexing our unified political might.”

Jones suggested that the coalition’s proposals could be modified if its own legal staff overlooked constitutional or statutory law.

But, he stressed, “our modifications will not be made for political reasons — only for the good of the nation.”

“For too long our elected representatives have promised one thing and done another,” Jones said, “with little accountability. This coalition will attempt to end that practice. It is time to take back our country and put it in the rightful hands of the people.”

Besides tackling the military absentee-ballot issue, Jones proposed other issues that the coalition could consider:

  • Election fraud and remedies
  • Objective news reporting — boycott vs. buying television stations
  • Voting bloc — How to leverage power
  • Petition — The lost art
  • Concurrent receipt for disabled veterans
  • Health care
  • Coalition and organizational issues
  • Veteran employment discrimination

Jones said other issues should be presented to

him before Feb. 15,
2001.

Jones’ law firm, Campbell and Jones,

filed a lawsuit in
mid-November
in the midst of a series of

WorldNetDaily reports
about active-duty military personnel who did not receive their absentee ballots in time to vote on Election Day.

The suit, filed in federal court in the western district of Texas, is aimed at “protecting [military members’] fundamental right to vote,” according to firm spokesman Matthew Finch.

“It is our position that denial of the right to vote constitutes not only a violation of one’s fundamental constitutional rights, but taxation without representation,” Finch said in a statement. “Our clients can be made whole by flying their ballots to them immediately so that their voices may be heard,” action that would form the basis for “injunctive relief.”


The Pentagon has denied culpability
in failing to deliver military absentee ballots to service members on time.


See WorldNetDaily’s

archive of stories on the military ballot issue.


If you would like to share your opinion about this issue visit

WND’s daily poll.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.