The Ball is in Supreme Court as They Consider Nullification of the 2016 Election

SCOTUS to conference on citizens’ petition on Friday, March 17

Press Inquiries:

Or please call:  (720) 608-1119

Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 14, 2017:  This Friday, March 17, the Supreme Court considers in conference a case filed against the U.S. Government involving a Writ of Mandamus (Supreme Court docket #16-907 ) filed by Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, Donna Soodalter-Toman, all of Massachusetts. The Writ and an accompanying motion seeking a Special Master asks the Court to appoint a Special Master to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Court and, if such interference is found, make a ruling that essentially declares the election unconstitutional, based upon the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. The case notes that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies have already declared Russian interference in the election, and argues that based upon the evidence, that both the Executive Branch and members of the Legislative branch have benefitted from this invasion and cannot be trusted to conduct fair and unbiased investigations of the cyber-invasion on their own.

The petitioners, who initially filed the Writ pro se, have now retained Mark Small, Esq., an appellate attorney based in Indiana, who is admitted to practice law at the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the case is set in motion based upon the petitioners earlier complaints, Attorney Small filed the subsequent motion for a Special Master on behalf of the petitioners after it became clear that Republican leaders in the Congress were resisting widespread bipartisan calls for an independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission, to do a fair and full investigation of the Russian invasion.

Petitioners Blumstein, Goodman and Soodalter-Toman are part of a small grassroots group that formed in the aftermath of the 2016 election as news of Russian hacking activity emerged.  The group co-organized by Kirstin Elaine Martin and Dr. Kelly Sennholz, which adopted the name “Revote 2017” in December 2016 as news of their lawsuit spread, filed three separate cases in three states using different members of the group as petitioners. The case filed in Massachusetts is the first one to have made through the Appellate level to make it to the Supreme Court, arriving there after the inauguration.  Although Justice Bryer denied the plaintiffs’ initial demand that the Court enjoin the inauguration of Donald Trump, since it had already occurred at that point, the case itself was not otherwise denied. The group of plaintiffs and supporters, which had been operating on a pro-se basis, recognized the need for an attorney, hired Mr. Small who immediately filed the new motion.  The group then adjusted their strategy in light of the fact that Trump was working hard to tamp down on efforts to investigate his own and his team’s Russian involvements. Ms. Martin explained, “Since the legislative and executive branches are potentially complicit in the Russian intervention or tangled in the web of partisan politics, the only branch of government able to do a fair investigation of the election is the Supreme Court.”

The petitioners, Nancy Goodman, Donna Soodalter-Toman and Diane Blumstein issued a joint statement: “Other countries such as Ukraine and Austria who were impacted by similar nefarious Russian operations in the past asked for and were granted a revote.  America, being the greatest democracy in history, can do likewise. “

Attorney Small asks “Will there be chaos if we declare there have to be new elections?  Just the opposite. If this Constitution functions so that a person who illegally and with the commission of treason, obtained that office, and we have new elections to correct that and do it under the Constitution, that’s not chaos, that’s democracy.”

Co-organizer, Dr. Kelly Sennholz, MD says “Many citizens have concerns about a revote. We want them to know that a revote is legally possible and morally mandated.  We would like the media to help us get the word out to the American people.”

The Revote 2017 group has received support from another social movement group, Strike4Democracy, which has called for a demonstration in support of this action on the Supreme Court steps, 9:oo am on Wednesday, March 15, 2017.  Strike4Democracy also participated in coordinating strikes on February 17 as part of the A Day with No Women nation strike organized by a number of social action groups, as described on their site, “to defend democracy and our constitution in the wake of threats against marginalized communities by the new administration.”

Kirsten Borror, head of research for the Revote 2017 team, insists “It is imperative that citizens realize they have the right to a revote. Americans should not fear this, but should welcome it as a right and responsibility of being a citizen in a democracy.”

For more information on the case, please go to


Background on Revote 2017

Press Inquiries:

Or please call:  (720) 608-1119


Dr. Kelly Sennholz and Ms. Kirstin Elaine Martin first met online after the 2016 Presidential election having found a mutual interest in pursuing the idea of a “revote” of the election, based upon information reported in the article “How Putin’s Election Interference Could Lead to a Revote” by Todd Tucker and Steven J. Mulroy in Roosevelt Forward.

These two women decided to organize a group of like-minded citizens to bring a number of lawsuits against the U.S. Government (including the Senate, the House of Representatives and Joseph Biden, as Speaker) compelling them to enforce their duty to protect the U.S. from invasions “foreign and domestic” and recruited the plaintiffs Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman and Donna Soodalter-Toman, among others, to file lawsuits in Massachusetts, Colorado and California with various motions requesting injunction of the inauguration of Donald J. Trump and seeking to nullify the results of the election, based upon the existence of known interference by the Russians.

Currently, the Boston case remains with a Writ of Mandamus motion before the Supreme Court (Docket #16-907). This case was filed as a pro se case however the plaintiffs have since begun working with several attorneys. The motion for a stay on the inauguration was denied, however the action to get the election declared illegitimate is still pending before the Supreme Court and defendants’ response to the complaint is due to be filed by February 21st, 2017.



Dr. Kelly Sennholz has worked in the medical field for 35 years, most recently in emergency medicine in Colorado. She has also engaged in independent initiatives ranging from entrepreneurial ventures to advocacy efforts that changed how law enforcement approached domestic violence legal interventions, which effort was credited with saving hundreds of lives. Serving variously as Medical Society president, State Emergency Physician Board, Regional EMS director, Hospital Emergency Director and State Child Fatality Task Force member, she worked for decades to improve medical care delivery and patient experience.  Dr. Sennholz has also been active politically, and co-founded a state PAC to help fund women candidates in Oklahoma. She credits Presidential Medal of Freedom and National Women’s Hall of Fame award recipient Chief Wilma Mankiller as a mentor and inspiration for pushing forward despite impossible obstacles.



Kirstin Elaine Martin first met Dr. Sennholz online after the 2016 Presidential election when they recognized they shared a common mission to “do something” about the Russian assault on America’s election integrity. Ms. Martin brings a wealth of international experience, having started her career as a civil servant in the Yamanashi Prefectural Government of Japan. While in Japan, she married a Brazilian national and then moved to Mexico to facilitate the opening of a Japanese auto parts factory in the industrial state of Aguascalientes.  Since then, Ms. Martin has assisted a wide range of clients including corporations, technology start-ups, thought leaders, banks and even cities, with international business development, PR and marketing around the world. She has served as board member, donor or volunteer for philanthropic and community organizations, including CapeAnn Timebanks and the Rocky Neck Art Colony and serves as a regular judge of the Boston Startapalooza competition for entrepreneurs. She has helped entrepreneurs launch and grow businesses and politicians launch and grow political campaigns. Her earliest memories are of her mother toting her to protests against the Vietnam War and reading aloud passages by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman and Henry David Thoreau.



Attorney Mark Small has been selected to represent the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. Mr. Small has been a sole practitioner since 1989, with the majority of his cases being Appellate-level advocacy. He has been admitted to argue cases before the Indianan State and U.S. District Courts since 1989, the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit (1990), 9th Circuit (1990), and D.C. Circuit (2002), the Federal Circuit (2002) and the U.S. Supreme Court since 1998.



In December 2016 when they met, Sennholz, Martin and their growing team of volunteers focused initially on building the legal case, recruiting volunteers to help with the effort. Eventually, they realized they needed to raise funding to help support their out-of-pocket costs and began untangling a range of websites and names that had organically sprung up around their efforts (including revote, newelection, returnthevote, revote 2016 and revote 2017). It was not until early February that they settled on “Revote 2017” built a website at and unified all of their online activities under that name and a newly-design “patriotic sunglasses under water” logo. The group is currently re-organizing as a 501(c) 3 and has a GoFundMe site at:



Jerroll Sanders is not affiliated with Revote 2017.  Ms. Sanders had previously volunteered to help support the plaintiffs’ efforts and, early on, she appeared to offer considerable expertise, including drafting a version of a Writ of Mandamus to be submitted to the Supreme Court. But, she subsequently refused to collaborate or allow the team to use her version of a writ.  Dr. Sennholz, Ms. Martin and the plaintiffs all severed ties with Ms. Sanders and “re-branded” their effort under the name Revote2017, which is the official group name now. Nevertheless, Ms. Sanders continues to separately maintain the website “”



PDF Version of REVOTE2017 PRESS RELEASE OF 03/15/17