E-Filed 03/26/2013 @ 03:57:59 P M Honorable Robert Esdale Clerk Of The Court

Case No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCINNISH,

et a l . , Appellan-ts

V.

BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY CV 2012-1053

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

L. Dean Johnson L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.O. 4030 Balmoral Dr., S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177 L a r r y Klayman KLAYMAN LAW FIRM 2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave, NW S u i t e 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Attorneys f o r Appellants

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant t o Rules 28(a)(1) a n d 3 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P,,

ORAL ARGUMENT I S REQUESTED

Appellants argument i n t h i s Circuit Court.

Hugh M c l n n i s h

and V i r g i l

Goode r e q u e s t

oral

case f o l l o w i n g the erroneous r u l i n g o f t h e question of

This case i n v o l v e s t h e important

whether t h e Alabama S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e has a d u t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e a presidential candidate's qualifications, when c r e d i b l e has been

evidence and i n f o r m a t i o n from an o f f i c i a l presented office. The S e c r e t a r y oath o f o f f i c e that i n d i c a t e s t h ecandidate

source

may n o t be q u a l i f i e d f o r

has an a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y t h a t stems from h e r

u n d e r b o t h t h e U.S. a n d A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n s , t o from f r a u d and o t h e r misconduct by w i t h e v i d e n c e from an o f f i c i a l

protect thec i t i z e n s candidates. source,

A f t e r being presented

theSecretary

has r e f u s e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f o r President o f the United States.

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of candidates As a r e s u l t o f h e r i n a c t i o n , for for

a p e r s o n b e l i e v e d t o be u n q u a l i f i e d official

t h a t o f f i c e h a s b e e n e l e c t e d . As t h e c h i e f e l e c t i o n t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, t h e S e c r e t a r y

i s the responsible names f r o m appearing

person with the duty t o prevent on t h e b a l l o t . Ala.

ineligible

Code 17-16-44, t h e J u r i s d i c t i o n - S t r i p p i n g s t a t u t e ,

does not a p p l y t o t h i s case Court to a s c e r t a i n the

s i n c e A p p e l l a n t s are not a s k i n g conduct, or r e s u l t s of an

the

"legality,

e l e c t i o n , " but eligibility

r a t h e r t o a s c e r t a i n the a u t h o r i t y t o

verify

o f c a n d i d a t e s f o r p r e s i d e n t ; T h e r e i s no s t a t u t e her duty. the

which p r o h i b i t s the S e c r e t a r y from performing The fact that this i s s u e was

not r e s o l v e d b e f o r e

e l e c t i o n d o e s n o t moot t h e q u e s t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y i s present review". for this i s s u e t o be "capable of r e p e t i t i o n yet evading

S i n c e e l e c t i o n s h a p p e n e v e r y y e a r , and

presidential occur

e l e c t i o n s occur every i n any election cycle,

f o u r y e a r s , t h e p o t e n t i a l harm c o u l d not j u s t the e l e c t i o n j u s t past. i s erroneous as a m a t t e r The of

d e c i s i o n of the C i r c u i t The

Court

law.

S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e i s r e q u i r e d and

a u t h o r i z e d by l a w t o a c t matters. ordered

to p r o t e c t the c i t i z e n s of t h i s s t a t e i n a l l e l e c t i o n

P l a i n t i f f s b e l i e v e t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e s h o u l d be to v e r i f y the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s election, and f o r a l l the p r e s i d e n t i a l

candidates

i n t h e 2012

t h a t o r a l argument would a i d t h i s case.

Court's d e c i s i o n i n t h i s

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF APPENDICES STATEMENT OF J U R I S D I C T I O N TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF FACTS STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. II. A. B. C. D. E. F. INTRODUCTION

i - i i iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9

ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS .... 10 This case i s n o t moot 11 13 17 18 19

Three e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness Attorney General's Sheriff opinion

Arpaio's a f f i d a v i t Secretary of State's l e t t e r not e x c l u s i v e t o

California

A u t h o r i t y t o adjudge c a n d i d a t e s Congress Court has s u b j e c t matter

20 21 21 22

G. H. I.

jurisdiction parties too late

P l a i n t i f f s have j o i n e d n e c e s s a r y P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m was n o t f i l e d

in

J. K. L. M. N. 0. P.

C a s e s h o u l d be d e c i d e d on i t s m e r i t s C r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d i n Obama b i r t h C o l d case posse Forgery i n b i r t h certificate likely

22 certificate23 23 23 23 26 certificate 27

Dr. Jerome C o r s i a i d e d c o l d case posse Where Obama was b o r n i n d i s p u t e Sheriff forged A r p a i o says p r o b a b l e cause b i r t h

Q.

A l l elements 1. 2. 3. A.

f o r w r i t o f mandamus a r e p r e s e n t right to order t o perform

27 28 29 33

Clear legal

Duty o f respondent

L a c k o f a n o t h e r remedy Properly invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Court

CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.... 35 37 40

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES Attorney Allen General's Opinion No. No. 1998-200 Appendix A Appendix B

V. Bennett

C a l i f o r n i a S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Jordan l e t t e r t o Jack Weinberg ( C h a i r m a n , P e a c e and Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e ) Appendix C Affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio Appendix D

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION T h i s C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1 2 - 2 7(1) w h i c h g r a n t s t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n appeals. T h i s case i s an a p p e a l from t h e C i r c u i t Alabama. t o hear

Court of

Montgomery C o u n t y ,

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Alabama 2004}. Allen Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So. 2 d 337, 342 { A l a ,

V. Bennett,

823 So. 2d 679 (Alabama 2001)

Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 S o , 3 d 65, 70-71 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , q u o t i n g Cnty. Of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979) Bell V. Eagerton, 908 So 2 d 204 ( A l a . 2002) 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Brown v . Board

of Education,

Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, The Commonwealth C o u r t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , No. 598 M. D. 2 0 0 1 , "an u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e - j u d g e 'Memorandum O p i n i o n " ' Cooper Ex Parte Ex parte Golden Hollander V. Aaron, Collins, Integon v. Zwickler, v. McCain, 358 U.S. 1 84 So.3d Corp.,612 (1958). 48, 50 (Ala. 2010).

So.2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) .

394 U.S. 103 (1969) 566 F.Supp.2d 63,68 (D.N.H. 2008) Second

In re: Stephen J., A p p e l l a t e C o u r t o f I l l i n o i s , D i s t r i c t , No. 2-09-0472 Marbury McPherson Moore Puerto v. Madison, v. Blacker, 5 U.S. 137 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892)

v. O g i l v i e , Rico

394 U.S. 814. 483 U.S. 228

v. Branstad,

R i c e V. Chapman, 51 So.3d 281, 284 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 1 1 3 , 166 (1973)

vii

SEC V. Medical (1972)

committee

for Human Rights,

404 U.S.

403

United

States

v. Munsingwear,

Inc.,

340 U.S.

36

1950)

S t a t u t e s And Other L e g i s l a t i v e A u t h o r i t y A l a . Code 6-6-640: Commencement by P e t i t i o n ; amendments; r e l i e f upon i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d Ala. Ala. Code 12-2-7(1): J u r i s d i c t i o n answer t h e r e t o ; generally

and p o w e r s o f c o u r t

Code 1 7 - 1 - 3 : C h i e f E l e c t i o n s O f f i c i a l s

A l a . Code 1 7 - 9 - 3 : P e r s o n s E n t i t l e d t o Have Names P r i n t e d on B a l l o t s ; F a i l u r e of S e c r e t a r y of State t o C e r t i f y Nominations A l a . Code 1 7 - 1 4 - 2 0 , e t s e q : C a n v a s s o f E l e c t i o n R e t u r n s b y State O f f i c i a l s A l a . Code 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 4 : A l a b a m a J u r i s d i c t i o n Appeal A l a . Code 3 2 - 6 - 8 ( b ) : Learner's Licenses i n Election Contests;

Temporary I n s t r u c t i o n and

U.S. C o n s t . A r t I I , 1, c l . 5 Ala. C o n s t , o f 1 9 0 1 , a r t . X V I , 279, c l . 1

Other

Authorities

Ala.

A t t ' y Gen. Op. No. 1998-200 ( A u g u s t 12, 1998)

viii

STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. This case i s before Circuit this case with i s a direct prejudice appeal entered

THE

CASE of Circuit

from a judgment by t h e Montgomery

Court

on a p p e a l

f r o m an

order and

by t h e Montgomery Virgil Goode's

Court denying

Hugh M c l n n i s h ' s Other

petition

f o r a Writ Relief.

o f Mandamus o r Such p e t i t i o n

Appropriate directed Alabama petition State

Extraordinary

is

t o B e t h Chapman, Secretary requested

i n her o f f i c i a l The Prayer

c a p a c i t y as t h e i n the of

of State. that

for Relief

the Court order

the Secretary

t o demand t h a t

a l l candidates States

f o r the O f f i c e of copy of

President their bona

of the United fide birth

to cause a c e r t i f i e d

c e r t i f i c a t e t o be

d e l i v e r e d to the official i n charge a n d t o make being 2012

Secretary of the

directly

from the government i n which

the record

depository

i t i s stored, name 6,

r e c e i p t of such

a prerequisite to their ballot

placed general

on t h e Alabama election. To

f o r t h e November

i s s u e a p r e l i m i n a r y and the placement

permanent Alabama

injunction ballot

preventing their

on t h e 2012

until

eligibility

had been c o n c l u s i v e l y

determined.

The Motion

Court to

below held, was

i n error,

t h a t the

Secretary's

Dismiss -the 2,

granted.

Timeline of February and others

Case 2012: the Mclnnish Office together the with his attorney State, State, State, at

visited Hon.

of

Secretary of

which the speaking

Emily

Thompson,

Deputy S e c r e t a r y of f o r the Secretary of

i n the

a b s e n c e o f and office

represented legitimacy under the

that her of any and

would not thus

i n v e s t i g a t e the her duties

candidate,

violating

U.S. 11,

Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . Mclnnish and Goode f i l e d This case suit in the

October Circuit to the Court

2012:

o f Montgomery County. Reese. and

was

assigned

H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. 12, 2012:

October

Mclnnish

Goode f i l e d

a motion time to

for 5

summary j u d g m e n t a n d days, the as time was 6, 18, of

a motion to the essence

shorten to get

response

a d e c i s i o n before

November October

2 012 2012:

presidential The

election. State filed her opposed. for

Secretary of and

motion

to dismiss, which Mclnnish 31, 2012: Mclnnish was and

Goode f u l l y

October status

Goode f i l e d the essence,

a motion the

conference

s i n c e time

of

election not

was

u p c o m i n g on November

6, 2 0 1 2 a n d t h i s

case

was

resolved. November 10, 2012: this Mclnnish a n d Goode filed a as

Praecipe,

since

lawsuit i s of great

importance,

Obama h a d " w o n " that this case vote

the election should

and law and e q u i t y at least before

require the

be d e c i d e d

electors

on December

17, 2012. filed h e r renewed opposed. the Court.

November

2 0 , 2 0 1 0 : The S e c r e t a r y which Mclnnish

motion t o dismiss, December On t h e same dismissed dismissal 6,

a n d Goode a l s o was h e l d b e f o r e

2012: A h e a r i n g

day, Judge Reese,

i n a one-sentence No

order, f o r the

the case with was given.

prejudice.

explanation

January appeal

17, 2013: A p p e l l a n t s Court.

filed

a timely notice of

to this

STATEMENT OF

THE

ISSUES

The 1. doctrine election 2.

issues f o r appeal Whether under the t h i s case i s ripe

are

as

follows: to the mootness the

exceptions for review,

even though

about which

i t revolves i s past. Secretary of S t a t e has a duty to

Whether the

investigate evidence presented for and

a candidate's

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s when an official may

credible has been

i n f o r m a t i o n from the

source not be

that indicates

candidate

qualified

Office.

STATEMENT OF THE

FACTS

On o r a b o u t A p r i l presidency,

2011,after

2 years

into h i s pressure, Barack

and under media and p o l i t i c a l

Obama p u b l i s h e d purported Hawaii Stanley birth

on t h e i n t e r n e t an e l e c t r o n i c v e r s i o n o f a certificate alleging h i sbirth citizen i n Honolulu,

on August

4, 1 9 6 1 t o A m e r i c a n

mother, father, birth

A n n Dunham, a n d K e n y a n B r i t i s h Sr. This

subject

B a r a c k Obama, certificate.

was t h e s o - c a l l e d " l o n g - f o r m " (C8) form

Verified

Compl. 6.

No p h y s i c a l , p a p e r certificate establish Compl.I the 8.

copy o f t h e a c t u a l long i n order to

birth

has been produced birth

definitively States. Verified that

OBAMA's

within the United there

(C8) I n s t e a d , certificate"

i s credible evidence

"birth

published

o n t h e i n t e r n e t was

altered

or otherwise

fraudulent. together with h i s of

On F e b r u a r y attorney State,

2, 2 0 1 2 , M c l n n i s h , visited

and o t h e r s , time

the Office of the Secretary Thompson, Deputy

at which

t h e Hon. E m i l y speaking

Secretary behalf that

of State,

i n t h e absence o f and on represented to Mclnnish of

of the Secretary

of State,

her office

would not i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e l i g i b i l i t y
5

any

candidate,

thus

violating

her

duties Compl. and

under the 13. (09)

U.S.

and

Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . On the writ October 11, 2012

Verified Mclnnish

Goode f i l e d seeking

suit

in a

Circuit

Court

o f Montgomery County to the Alabama

t o have of

o f mandamus i s s u e d her to

Secretary

State names in

compelling had

demand f r o m a l l c a n d i d a t e s to her for inclusion President of on the

whose

been s u b m i t t e d f o r the birth

the

ballot

Alabama,

O f f i c e of

United

States, shall the

a bone f i d e be

certificate. Secretary who was

Such b i r t h of State

certificate from

delivered to

the

directly of the

government o f f i c i a l depository i n which

i n charge stored.

records

i t was

STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW "Questions Republican 2004) . Party o f law a r e reviewed v. McGinley, de novo." Alabama (Ala.

893 So. 2 d 337, 342

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Because resolution

the l e n g t h o f time matters

required

t o receive a

of election

i n the c o u r t s f a r exceeds t o be h e l d ,

t h e amount o f t i m e results holder,

required

f o r an e l e c t i o n

t o tabulated, i t does

and the swearing

i n o f a new o f f i c e criteria for

not f a l l

under the t r a d i t i o n a l

mootness. more t h a n years. case

We i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c h e r i s h anything andhold e l e c t i o n s matter

our r i g h t

t o vote

a t least

every two and this yet

Resolution of this

must s t i l l

occur

i s n o t moot b e c a u s e review." addition, elections

i t i s "capable

ofrepetition

evading In chief

the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e o f Alabama, officer f o r the state,

as t h e

hasan a f f i r m a t i v e the Alabama

duty under her oath a n d U.S.

ofoffice

t o support both

Constitutions t o have

t o investigate their

the e l i g i b i l i t y o f

t h o s e who w i s h presidential respectfully perform Alabama

names a p p e a r o n t h e A writ o f mandamus m u s t

election be i s s u e d

ballots.

requiring

the Secretary o f State t o o f the State o f under both

her duties

owed t o t h e c i t i z e n s t o her oath

andt o her duties a n d U.S.

of office

the Alabama

Constitutions.

ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION A gnawing indeed question vexes t h e Alabama body p o l i t i c and Obama, t h e

the e n t i r e country:

I s Barack Hussein

man e n s c o n c e d our

i n t h e W h i t e House,

t h e Commander i n C h i e f o f leader o f t h e Free high World, Or

armed f o r c e s , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l qualified

constitutionally is his

t o occupy t h i s

office?

he a " p r e t e n d e r high

t o the throne,"

o n e who h a s a r r i v e d a t i s compelling

p o s i t i o n by fraud that thetruth

and d e c e i t ? There with the latter. that

evidence The

lies

U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s citizen, Although

a President

be a II,

"natural-born" Sec. 1, C l . 5.

U. S. C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e

t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n d o e s n o t i ti scertainly distinct from

define

natural-born

citizen,

a mere " c i t i z e n , " b o r n on A m e r i c a n citizens, The core

and i ti su s u a l l y taken soil of parents both

t o mean a p e r s o n

o f whom a r e a t l e a s t citizens themselves.

not necessarily natural-born question regarding That

Obama i s w h e t h e r h e i s a i s , whether he meets t h e o f President as

natural-born

citizen.

minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by A r t i c l e

f o rthe o f f i c e

I I , S e c . 1, C l . 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n .

In

an e f f o r t

to resolve

this

persistent

question two

Mr.

Obama h a s p r o d u c e d birth the certificates,

and o f f e r e d

to the public

purported

c a l l e d the short-form

c e r t i f i c a t e and

long-form c e r t i f i c a t e .

However d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n o f h a s shown g l a r i n g suspicion that both anomalies a r e computer-

these documents by experts which point generated This important Alabama to the strong

forgeries. suit asks this Court to resolve this critically

question

b y i s s u i n g a w r i t o f mandamus t o t h e of State d i r e c t i n g her to require a l l 2012 e l e c t i o n t o

Secretary

presidential s u b m i t bona

candidates fide birth

i n the recent certificates

to her f o r

verification. The question, fact that the e l e c t i o n i s past infra does n o t o b v i a t e t h e i t moot.

n o r a s we e x p l a i n

does i t r e n d e r

Answers t o D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s The court below g a v e no h i n t o f i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r We, therefore, are left with the

dismissing assumption averments

t h e case. that

he c o n c u r r e d w i t h

some o r a l l o f t h e We will,

i n Chapman's m o t i o n address

to dismiss. i n turn.

accordingly,

these points

10

Chapman f i r s t grounds In V. of

asked

that

our

c a s e be

d i s m i s s e d on

the

mootness. she cited 42 the case of So, v. 3d 65, Barber 70-71 440 U.

support of her motion Cmty. Outreach, Of

Cornerstone

Inc., Los

(Ala.2010), S. 625, In 631

q u o t i n g Cnty. (1979). the case

Angeles

Davis,

Barber,

involved used

the seizure i n an

by

state illegal first

authorities gambling addressed had

of slot

machines

allegedly The Court the

operation

i n Lowndes County.

the q u e s t i o n of mootness, The Court observed t o use

which

defendants in

alleged.

that

t h e o p e r a t o r s had, seized,

a sense, but had had

agreed not

not

further

the machines

agreed

to r e f r a i n and that,

from u s i n g further, not

the machines t h e r e was no

that

not been

seized,

assurance new this

that

the o p e r a t o r s would T h e r e f o r e Barber was

p r o c u r e and n o t moot.

operate Since

machines. was

held

a case o f non-mootness, that

i t does not

support

Chapman's c l a i m

the present case Bell v. Eagerton,

i s moot. 908 So 2d 204 was

Chapman a l s o (Ala. 2002). Bell as

cited

involved

a case

i n which

a person

disqualified County, The

a candidate for circuit judged

judge

i n Lowndes Bell d i d not

c a s e was

t o be m o o t s i n c e
11

take

the proper

legal

actions.

Specifically

he f a i l e d he

to

seek an i n j u n c t i o n to it be a c a n d i d a t e , was h e l d .

to stop the e l e c t i o n and d i d not c o n t e s t d i d not involve and i s not

i n which

wished after

the e l e c t i o n

The s u i t

the legitimacy of

the would-be candidate, case. In the u n l i k e l y case moot, event

relevant to the present

that this

Court

considers the under the

present

i t nevertheless f a l l s

exceptions recognized special and

t o t h e m o o t n e s s d o c t r i n e . The e x c e p t i o n s a r e b y many, i f n o t most s t a t e s , v. Pennsylvania i n p a r t as and i s s t a t e d w i t h Board of Probation

clarity

i n Coady reads

Parole,

which

follows:

T h i s c o u r t w i l l d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s t h a t have o t h e r w i s e b e e n r e n d e r e d moot when one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s a p p l y : (1) t h e c a s e i n v o l v e s questions of great p u b l i c importance; (2) t h e c o n d u c t complained of i s capable of r e p e t i t i o n yet a v o i d i n g r e v i e w ; o r (3) a p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r o v e r s y w i l l s u f f e r some d e t r i m e n t w i t h o u t t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, The C o m m o n w e a l t h C o u r t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , No. 598 M. D. 2 0 0 1 , " a n u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e - j u d g e 'Memorandum Opinion"'

The p r e s e n c e sufficient following

o f any one o f t h e s e

three

factors i s

to defeat examples:

a m o o t n e s s c l a i m , as shown i n t h e

12

E x c e p t i o n 1, Coady v. Pennsylvania

Questions of Board of of

great public Probation No. and 598 but

importance, Parole, D. 2001; review,

Commonwealth C o u r t E x c e p t i o n 2, Moore v. Ogilvie,

Pennsylvania

M,

Capable of 394 U.S.

repetition 814.

evading

E x c e p t i o n 3, Stephen No. J.,

A p a r t y would s u f f e r of

a detriment. Second

In

re:

A p p e l l a t e Court

Illinois,

District,

2-09-0472. The present and 1: case falls under each of moot: involves a question question of and of of the three named

exceptions,

t h e r e f o r e i s not The present case

Exception extreme p u b l i c whether the

importance. are

I t goes t o the t o be

citizenry in their

protected against fraud I t goes t o the very heart

dishonesty our self

elections.

government. The complaint here i s that the l e g i t i m a c y least one any has

E x c e p t i o n 2: of the candidates,

where the

l e g i t i m a c y of at

been determined question Moreover, case such

t o be

i n s e r i o u s doubt, t h a t can, and

i s without will this

a complaint we need

probably than the

recur. present

l o o k no

further

to conclude cases

that i t i s impracticable to adjudicate the time names a r e submitted to the

between

13

Secretary As election trial and

o f S t a t e and t h e e l e c t i o n i n this

i sheld. case, every c o n t e s t o f an length of a year

i s t r u e by analogy would s i m i l a r l y

be mooted by t h e s h e e r Yet elections i s just

and appeals

process. f o r harm Thus

happen every

the p o t e n t i a l cycle.

as p r e s e n t complained

i n t h e next o f i s capable

election of

t h e conduct

repetition, Exception

y e t avoiding review. 3: W i t h o u t suffer will a decision of the court, Mclnnish i n t h a t as that

and

Goode w i l l they

a direct

detriment

citizens their

have been d e p r i v e d o f t h e a s s u r a n c e and t h a t o n l y votes o f counted and recorded.

election

was h o n e s t ,

legitimate himself was

c a n d i d a t e s were

Goode, t h a t he

a presidential

candidate,

s h o u l d be a s s u r e d candidate.

n o t competing w i t h an i n e l i g i b l e The classic to reach and best known c a s e

of application

of these

rules

a decision Justice

on nonmootnes

i s t h a t o f Roe v. f o r t h em a j o r i t y ,

Wade i n w h i c h said i n part:

Blackmun, w r i t i n g

The u s u a l r u l e i n f e d e r a l c a s e s i s t h a t a n a c t u a l c o n t r o v e r s y must e x i s t a t s t a g e s o f a p p e l l a t e o r c e r t i o r a r i review, and not simply a t t h e date the a c t i o n i s i n i t i a t e d . United States v, Munsingwear, Inc., 3 4 0 U.S. 36 1 9 5 0 ) ; Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 1 0 2 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; SEC v. Medical committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 4 0 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .

14

B u t when, a s h e r e , p r e g n a n c y i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t i n the l i t i g a t i o n , t h e n o r m a l 2 6 6 - d a y human g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d i s s o s h o r t t h a t t h e p r e g n a n c y w i l l come t o term before the usual a p p e l l a t e process i s complete. I f t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n makes a c a s e moot, p r e g n a n c y litigation s e l d o m w i l l s u r v i v e much b e y o n d t h e t r i a l s t a g e and a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w w i l l be e f f e c t i v e l y d e n i e d . Our l a w s h o u l d n o t be t h a t r i g i d . Pregnancy often c o m e s m o r e t h a n o n c e t o t h e same woman, a n d i n t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , i f man i s t o s u r v i v e , i t w i l l a l w a y s be w i t h u s . Pregnancy provides a c l a s s i c justification f o r a c o n c l u s i o n o f nonmootness. I t t r u l y c o u l d be " c a p a b l e o f r e p e t i t i o n , y e t e v a d i n g r e v i e w " Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 1 1 3 , 166 (1973). I n Roe Attorney to the pregnant J a n e Roe was suing the District right

o f D a l l a s County, the Texas

Texas c l a i m i n g law outlawing

she had a

an a b o r t i o n ,

abortion not the case case i t would to grant

withstanding.

Roe h a d h e r b a b y l o n g

before

r e a c h e d t h e Supreme C o u r t , be moot. her relief. I t was o b v i o u s l y B u t , as seen

and i n an o r d i n a r y too late above, the

f o r the court

the court case.

applied the

mootness

exceptions

and heard o f Allen

In Alabama, particularly of State

the case

v. Bennett

( A p p e n d i x B) i s Secretary that

instructive,

since that

i t involves the Allen

and an e l e c t i o n of State

i s past.

claimed

Secretary ballot

Jim Bennett judge

erroneously

left

him o f f the general

for circuit

i n t h e November that

2000

election. election

I t was a r g u e d was o v e r .

t h e c a s e was m o o t b e c a u s e t h e disagreed and

B u t t h e Supreme C o u r t
15

said: H o w e v e r because the outcome of t h i s case could Impact future e l e c t i o n s , we h o l d t h a t . . . t h i s c a s e i s n o t m o o t . ( I t a l i c s a d d e d . ) Allen v. Bennett, 823 S o . 2 d 679 ( A l a b a m a 2001) As i s true would by analogy in this case, every contest of the sheer length an of year next a

election trial and and

similarly

be m o o t e d b y

appeals p r o c e s s . Yet

elections

happen e v e r y

the p o t e n t i a l cycle.

f o r harm i s j u s t I t has

as p r e s e n t i n t h e case law

election that

t h u s become t h e

i n Alabama an

election has the

issues passed. reasons under

will

n o t become moot s i m p l y b e c a u s e

election For as

d i s c u s s e d supra, valid

this

case

i s not

moot

i t qualifies

exceptions to the

mootness

doctrine. Next, case in Chapman a r g u e d five We additional shall reasons each that of this these

s h o u l d be

dismissed.

address

turn: 1. The S e c r e t a r y of the S t a t e has a no l e g a l duty to

investigate The in

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of State i s the

candidate. elections for The not official

Secretary of and shall

"chief

the state

provide uniform guidance 17-1-3 ( a ) ) . l a w do

election Secretary

activities" of

(Code o f A l a . under
16

State's duties

Alabama

provide If

an e x c u s e

f o r her inaction, i n the form

as she seems t o a r g u e . of "legal duty" were t h e

absolute compulsion criterion

only in

f o r a person

performing

her duty,

especially be halt.

the case

o f an e l e c t e d

official,

c o r r u p t i o n would grind to a

rampant, The fact

and o u r whole s o c i e t y t h a t s h e h a s "no l e g a l does n o t prevent thing

might w e l l duty"

t o do a a thing

thing when, as h e r e ,

certainly it

her doing

i s the right

t o do. O p i n i o n No. 1998-200. argument, t h e need

Chapman c i t e d {Appendix this to

Attorney General's

A) C o n t r a r y

to the Secretary of State's opinion strongly of at least supports one o f t h e

Attorney General's

determine

the legitimacy

presidential been n o t i f i e d candidate's part:

c a n d i d a t e s when t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e h a s that there i s a serious question of that foroffice. The o p i n i o n s t a t e s i n

eligibility

I f t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e has knowledge g a i n e d from an o f f i c i a l s o u r c e a r i s i n g f r o m t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f d u t i e s p r e s c r i b e d by law t h a t a candidate has not met a c e r t i f y i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n , t h e S e c r e t a r y o f State should not c e r t i f y the candidate. Attorney G e n e r a l ' s O p i n i o n No. 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 , u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f CONCLUSION. The official S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e had gained source knowledge cause from an

t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e
17

to believe

that

B a r a c k Obama h a d n o t m e t a c e r t i f y i n g Sheriff of Maricopa

qualification.

J o s e p h M. A r p a i o , the request

County A r i z o n a , a t conducted a

o f a group o f A r i z o n a investigation into Obama p r e s e n t e d

citizens,

months-long certificate" being

the legitimacy of the "birth of h i s

t o t h e p u b l i c as proof as r e q u i r e d by t h e

a "natural-born" t o serve

citizen

Constitution

as P r e s i d e n t : D) S h e r i f f A r p a i o stated i n part

In an a f f i d a v i t as follows:

(Appendix

7. U p o n c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e , i t i s my b e l i e f t h a t f o r g e r y a n d f r a u d was l i k e l y c o m m i t t e d i n k e y i d e n t i t y d o c u m e n t s i n c l u d i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's long-form b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e , h i s S e l e c t i v e Service R e g i s t r a t i o n c a r d , a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y number. 8. My i n v e s t i g a t o r s a n d I b e l i e v e t h a t P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e i s a c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d d o c u m e n t , was m a n u f a c t u r e d e l e c t r o n i c a l l y , and t h a t i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n a p a p e r f o r m a t , a s c l a i m e d b y t h e W h i t e House. Most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e " r e g i s t r a r ' s stamp" i n t h e computer g e n e r a t e d document r e l e a s e d b y t h e W h i t e House and p o s t e d on t h e W h i t e H o u s e w e b s i t e , may h a v e b e e n i m p o r t e d f r o m a n o t h e r unknown s o u r c e document. The e f f e c t o f t h e stamp n o t b e i n g p l a c e d on t h e document p u r s u a n t t o s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l l a w s m e a n s t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause that the document i s a forgery, and therefore, i t cannot be used as a v e r i f i c a t i o n , legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's b i r t h . ( I t a l i c s added. A f f i d a v i t o f J o s e p h M. A r p a i o , C 1 9 ; a l s o E x h i b i t D) Further, Secretary i ti s not novel t o not only
18

n o r uncommon f o r a investigate the

of State

eligibility

of presidential

candidates, forfailure

but to also t o meet t h e case

remove them f r o m t h e b a l l o t minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s occurred Secretary Eldridge since by his by

of e l i g i b i l i t y . where

One s u c h

i n 1968 i n C a l i f o r n i a , of State Cleaver

California that

F r a n k M. J o r d a n

determined

was i n e l i g i b l e t o s e r v e

as p r e s i d e n t set

he d i d n o t meet t h e minimum age r e q u i r e m e n t and refused

t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 35 y e a r s , name o n t h e C a l i f o r n i a , the Secretary of State

to put issued

ballot.

In a l e t t e r

t o Jack

Weinberg

(Chairman, (Appendix

Peace and Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l Committee) C) he s a i d i n part as f o l l o w s :

( P ) l e a s e be a d v i s e d t h a t t h i s o f f i c e w i l l n o t c e r t i f y E l d r i d g e C l e a v e r as t h e Peace and Freedom c a n d i d a t e f o r p r e s i d e n t o n t h e N o v e m b e r 5, 1 9 6 8 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n ballot. I n f o r m a t i o n i n o u r p o s s e s s i o n i n d i c a t e s ... t h a t M r . C l e a v e r i s 33 a n d n o t 35 y e a r s o l d which is a requirement under our federal c o n s t i t u t i o n for president. ( I t a l i c s added. L e t t e r f r o m F r a n k M. J o r d a n t o Mr. J a c k W e i n b e r g , S e p t e m b e r 18, 1968, A p p e n d i x C.)

Likewise,

i n 2012, one P e t a

Lindsay

was s e l e c t e d b y t h e candidate of State on

Peace and Freedom P a r t y the 2012 C a l i f o r n i a

t o be i t s P r e s i d e n t i a l ballot. Secretary

primary

Debra Bowen, h o w e v e r , place

r e j e c t e d Ms, L i n d s a y , because
19

and refused t o old,

h e r name o n t h e b a l l o t ,

s h e was 27 y e a r s

and 1,

not

eligible

under that age.

the

U.S.

Constitution, for

Article to be

2, at

which 35

requires years of

candidates

President

least

2. In r e g a r d t o c a n d i d a t e s f o r P r e s i d e n t , judge q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r e s t s w i t h Congress. Contrary determine United to this assertion by Chapman, o f f i c e of

the

authority

to

the

authority of

to the

q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r the does not direct a rest

President

States no

exclusively or

with

Congress, of

w h i c h has

statutory

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l means or a Presidentenforcing of

challenging elect . United State States chief

P r e s i d e n t i a l Candidate, i s no bar to a state In

There States has

official the

the

Constitution. an oath

fact, to

Secretary the as

taken

explicitly as

support duty to

United Alabama

Constitution. elections

Again, she well

i t i s her

officer, law as

i s required as the

enforce States and, as

Alabama E l e c t i o n Constitutional discussed a

United to

provisions

pertaining

elections, official to

above,

certainly for a provision i s not of

state

enforce See

Constitutional the

unprecedented. State's for letter President

supra

C a l i f o r n i a Secretary the barring of

announcing the

a candidate failing

from

California b a l l o t for

t o meet

Constitutional

requirements.
20

3.

The C o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n P l a i n t i f f s ' claims. contrary to Chapman's c o n t e n t i o n , jurisdiction. election The was the

over

Again, lack here

Court does

not

subject i s not the the

matter

question

presented or

whether the votes

properly

conducted,

whether Instead,

were p r o p e r l y

c o u n t e d and

reported. the their fraud names was of

question

i s w h e t h e r one

o r more o f to have

Presidential placed on the

candidates ballot.

were q u a l i f i e d I f , as

appears probable, of has State and the

perpetrated Alabama,

upon the Court

Secretary certainly

citizens

this

subject

matter

jurisdiction. 4. Plaintiffs This State law. do is a her have f a i l e d suit merely to join necessary that the parties. of Alabama

asking

Secretary under

duty

under the that

Constitution

and

While

i t i s true a

B a r a c k Obama was the Secretary

specifically of State the needed

m e n t i o n e d as to

candidate

that

investigate, of

P l a i n t i f f s contention duties to

applies to

Secretary

State's

investigate

a l l presidential Chairman in his merit. the

candidates. of the

Nevertheless,

for President sought to

Obama, t h e intervene approve

Alabama case,

Democrat P a r t y but the lower

initial request.

court

d i d not

Therefore,

Chapman's argument
21

i s without

5.

Plaintiffs' Since

c l a i m was

f i l e d too their

late. writ before the 2012 filed that the the as

Plaintiffs

brought

general timely.

p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n took place, However, even i f t h i s untimely valid as Court were f o r the 2012 to

i t was hold

Plaintiffs' contentions 2012 well.

w r i t was are still

election, not only to

they apply to

p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n , but Plaintiffs of have d e a l t

a l l future this

elections in their

with

question

discussion Again, continue issue the

mootness, of

supra. eligibility i n future of candidates will and the

question an be of

t o be

issue

election cycles,

needs to capable

resolved.

O t h e r w i s e more s u i t s i n v o l v i n g avoiding this issue review is will

matters follow

r e p e t i t i o n yet

in future

elections until

resolved.

Additional The case:

important p o i n t s of

the

argument are important to this

following additional points

1. T h i s Case Is merits. As discussed

not

Moot and

S h o u l d Be

D e c i d e d on

its

supra,

this

case meets each of one of which is

the

three

conditions to render

f o r nonmootness, i t nonmoot.

any

sufficient

22

Plaintiffs, suit as move f o r w a r d

therefore, respectfully a n d be d e c i d e d

request

that

this just

on i t s m e r i t s

since,

i n Roe

v. Wade, a c r i t i c a l which i s presented answer

question of statewide here from i s certain this Court. t o r e c u r , and By acting

importance is

i n need o f a c l e a r Court

now t h i s

can prevent

confusion i n future

elections

w h e r e i t may o t h e r w i s e

arise.

2. There Is C r e d i b l e Evidence of Fraud In Candidate Obama's P u r p o r t e d " B i r t h C e r t i f i c a t e . " There birth i s strong technical submitted evidence of fraud i nthe Obama. This of Sheriff

certificate

by Barack

allegation Arpaio cold

i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the a f f i d a v i t s

of Maricopa posse,

County A r i z o n a , and by t h e l e a d e r o f h i s Zullo. asked t o undertake birth an

case

Michael

Sheriff investigation August

A r p a i o was f i r s t into

Obama's l o n g - f o r m

certificate in Maricopa

o f 2011 upon p e t i t i o n

by 250 r e s i d e n t s o f

County. A r p a i o A f f i d a v i t ,

2 (C38)

The in

C o l d Case

P o s s e was c o m m i s s i o n e d b y S h e r i f f o f former law

Arpaio

October,

2 0 1 1 , a n d was c o m p r i s e d investigators 5(C35)

enforcement Affidavit,

and p r a c t i c i n g

attorneys.

Zullo

23

Michael

Zullo

was t h e l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r

f o r the Cold

C a s e P o s s e a n d was c h a r g e d whether as the electronic Obama's b i r t h Zullo

with the task of determining House

document r e l e a s e d by t h e W h i t e certificate was, i n f a c t ,

Barack

authentic.

Affidavit, 6.(C 35) 2 012, the Cold Case Posse informed Sheriff

In February Arpaio that there

was l i k e l y

forgery involved with the

documents. Zullo

7. ( C 3 6 ) concluded that " t h e document p u b l i s h e d on t h e to the on as

White House w e b s i t e , public a legal

i s , a t minimum, m i s l e a d i n g import

a s i t h a s no l e g a l document v e r i f y i n g Obama's b i r t h . " conclusions

and cannot be r e l i e d place and

the date, 1 1 . {C36)

circumstance

of Barack

Zullo's to, input

"were b a s e d upon,

but not limited of forensic as w e l l as,

f r o m numerous e x p e r t s computer generated

i n the areas documents,

typesetting,

document a n a l y s i s a n d Adobe computer programs, review of Hawaii s t a t e law, Hawaii

Department o f H e a l t h numerous

policies

and procedures,

and comparisons w i t h

other b i r t h

r e c o r d s . " 7. ( C 3 6 )

24

In t h e course investigators misleading officials what,

of their

investigation,

"The

a l s o c h r o n i c l e d a s e r i e s o f i n c o n s i s t e n t and Hawaii years government regarding

representations that various h a v e made o v e r the past five

i fany, o r i g i n a l of Health."

birth

records

a r e h e l d by the Hawaii

Department

12 were

(C37). by t h e sworn and author

Zullo's affidavit currently Dr.

conclusions

also supported

o f Jerome

Corsi,

Ph.D., a j o u r n a l i s t Staff Reporter

employed as a S e n i o r

b y WND.com.

Corsi holds

a Ph.D. f r o m H a r v a r d

U n i v e r s i t y and has Dr. C o r s i

extensively utilized

researched

OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t . research

h i sextensive

t o p u b l i s h h i s book The Case T h a t B a r a c k Obama 9.(C41) by

"Where's t h e B i r t h is Not E l i g i b l e Dr. turning book,

Certificate:

t o Be P r e s i d e n t . " C o r s i A f f i d a v i t the Cold Case Posse's

Corsi aided over

investigation to write h i s 6. ( C 4 0 )

a l l the research

he c o n d u c t e d research.

as w e l l as any subsequent

At

Zullo's request, the Cold

Dr. C o r s i f l e w

t o Phoenix,

Arizona

t o meet w i t h

Case

Posse and present

the evidence he

he h a d p r o d u c e d conducted

f o rt h e book

and r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h

subsequently.

7 I d .
25

Dr. private,

Corsi's research,

both t h a t p u b l i s h e d and t h a t t h a t key i d e n t i t y including his

" r e v e a l s a n d shows a l i k e l i h o o d

p a p e r s f o r P r e s i d e n t Obama have b e e n f o r g e d , long-form April birth certificate

r e l e a s e d b y t h e W h i t e House on 8Id.

27, 2 0 1 1 , a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number." Dr. Corsi similarly concluded that "there are

significant he was b o r n ,

issues of fact that are i n dispute

as t o where

H a w a i i a s he c l a i m s , o r o u t s i d e o f t h e U n i t e d 9 (C41)

S t a t e s and i t s t e r r i t o r i e s " H a v i n g been p r e s e n t e d

t h e evidence by i n v e s t i g a t o r concluded that "forgery

Z u l l o and Dr. C o r s i , S h e r i f f A r p a i o and f r a u d was l i k e l y

committed i n key i d e n t i t y birth

documents

i n c l u d i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m

certificate,

h i s S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e Card, and h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number." A r p a i o Affidavit, 7 (C 39) on i n d i c a t i o n s i sa

S h e r i f f Arpaio that

based h i s conclusions

" P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m

birth certificate

c o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d document, was m a n u f a c t u r e d electronically, as c l a i m e d and i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n a paper format,

b y The W h i t e House." 8 I d .

26

In "there and

summary,

Sheriff cause

Arpaio that

unequivocally the

stated

that

i s probable

document i s a

forgery, legal Barack or

therefore of

i t c a n n o t be the date, Id.^

u s e d as or

a verification, of

otherwise,

place

circumstance

Obama's b i r t h . "

With of in

this

strong

evidence

of

fraud an

coming

from the as

Sheriff provided certainly from

Maricopa the

County Arizona,

official

source

Alabama A t t o r n e y to require fide

General's

opinion, of

i t is

reasonable

the

Secretary certificate.

State

t o demand

Obama a b o n a

birth

3. A l l the e l e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r o f mandamus a r e p r e s e n t .

the

issuance of

writ

Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t to t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2} a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d {4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 (Ala. 1995).

Petitioners

address each of

these

elements

in

turn.

A p a r t from the q u e s t i o n o f the l e g i t i m a c y of Obama's b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t but r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n : Obama h i m s e l f acknowledges t h a t h i s f a t h e r i s Barack Obama, S r . , who was b o r n i n what i s today Kenya but a t the time was a p a r t of B r i t i s h E a s t A f r i c a , thus making Obama the e l d e r a B r i t i s h s u b j e c t . T h i s , then, would seem to mean t h a t Obama J r . was not a n a t u r a l - b o r n American, s i n c e he was not born t o two U. S. c i t i z e n p a r e n t s .
27

(1)

clear legal Appellants

right

to

the

order

sought: to the of order the United 2012 taxes

have a c l e a r l e g a l is a citizen

right

sought. M c l n n i s h States. general he He is a

o f Alabama and who voted a l l the

registered voter He pays

i n the

election.

each year

numerous real he is

owes, w h i c h and

typically taxes,

include

income t a x e s , Further, debt.^

estate

taxes,

sales

among o t h e r s . the

burdened w i t h Mclnnish lawful, the He

h i s share of has a manifest

national

interest

i n the

maintenance to

of

constitutional of has

government,

i n that and

i t is vital his the

wellbeing certainly

himself,

h i s progeny, right

property. state's honest

a clear legal

to have duties a

chief

elections officer i n furtherance

perform her

to ensure stable,

elections

of m a i n t a i n i n g

constitutional

government. of V i r g i n i a f o r the and of the United President of

Goode i s a c i t i z e n States. He was

a candidate

O f f i c e of

^ The n a t i o n a l d e b t s t a n d s a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $17.7 trillion. See h t t p : / / w w w . u s d e b t c l o c k . o r g / I n J u l y 2011, t h e C e n s u s B u r e a u r e p o r t e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o be 311.6 million. See http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cbll -215.html/ The a r i t h m e t i c y i e l d s a d e b t o f $53,719 f o r e v e r y man, woman, and c h i l d .
28

the United

S t a t e s f o r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n P a r t y i n t h e 2012 a n d had an i n t e r e s t i n a fair

presidential election, election contest States. Being candidates

f o r the o f f i c e of President of the United t o compete f o r s a i d o f f i c e f o r the o f f i c e qualified he against denies

compelled

who may n o t be e l i g i b l e

Mr. Goode h i s r i g h t t o r u n a g a i n s t o n l y candidates. still

E v e n t h o u g h t h e e l e c t i o n was c o n c l u d e d

s u f f e r e d i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y as a c a n d i d a t e

f o r the

o f f i c e o f P r e s i d e n t s i n c e he was p r e v e n t e d on an e q u a l p l a y i n g f i e l d , personal interest i n having Should

from competing

a n d he a l s o h a s a d i r e c t and the h i s t o r i c a l the votes record ineligible

accurately recorded. candidates case. 2008)

o f any

be i n c l u d e d i n t h e t a l l y

t h a t w o u l d n o t be t h e (D.N.H.

See H o l l a n d e r v. McCain,

566 F.Supp,2d 63,68

(2) An I m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do so.

to perform,

The S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o v e r s e e i n g all e l e c t i o n s (Code o f A l a . 17-1-3 ( a ) ) , and t h e p r i n t i n g

of b a l l o t s ,

i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . Code o f A l a . 1975 17of the Secretary of t h a t she

14-20, e t s e q . The i m p e r a t i v e d u t y

S t a t e o f Alabama stems from t h e o a t h o f o f f i c e took a t t h e time s h e assumed o f f i c e :

29

I, s o l e m n l y s w e a r ( o r a f f i r m , as t h e c a s e may be) t h a t I w i l l s u p p o r t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , and the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , so l o n g as I c o n t i n u e a c i t i z e n t h e r e o f ; and t h a t I w i l l f a i t h f u l l y and h o n e s t l y discharge t h e d u t i e s o f t h e o f f i c e u p o n w h i c h I am a b o u t t o e n t e r , t o t h e b e s t o f my a b i l i t y . So h e l p me God." A l a . C o n s t , o f 1 9 0 1 , a r t . X V I , 2 7 9 , c l . 1. Further, Secretary shall be of Ala. State C o d e 1975 as 17-9-3 i n s t r u c t s "(a) The the

follows:

following persons the they

entitled ballot

t o have t h e i r f o r the

names p r i n t e d on election, they are

appropriate are otherwise

general

provided seek...." listed,

q u a l i f i e d f o r the (Those so by

office

(Emphasis added.) e.g., those

entitled

then

certified

their

respective parties.)

"[P]rovided surplusage included only added

they

are

otherwise the

qualified"

i s not was

mere

a t whim by law for a

L e g i s l a t u r e , but purpose. By

i n the who

substantive

allowing the

those the

are

"otherwise

qualified"

t o a p p e a r on there will be

ballot, those who

statute clearly who

implies that not

seek o f f i c e not

are nor

qualified,

and

such their

persons names on

are the

entitled,

even p e r m i t t e d ,

t o have

ballot.

30

This

p h r a s e makes c l e a r t h a t that names m i g h t be

the

lawmakers to

were Secretary not not be

anticipating of State

submitted

the

which were de the facto,

l e g i t i m a t e prima and by that the such as

f a c i e , but these

legitimate allowed on

should

ballot

state's chief elections

official.

The taken an

U.S. oath

C o n s t i t u t i o n , which to uphold, f o r one the provides

the

Secretary set

of

State of of has is the

has

a specific f o r the the

requirements President clarified, exclusive, number o f persons, m i g h t be (1892). of

t o be

eligible As

Office

United

States.

Supreme C o u r t of the State to

"...the with the

power and exception the

jurisdiction of the

p r o v i s i o n s as of c e r t a i n Federal 146 alter U.S. the

e l e c t o r s and so framed that

ineligibility and

Congressional v.

influence 1, 35

excluded." The

McPherson not

Blacker, way

s t a t e s may

i n any

eligibility

r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by

the C o n s t i t u t i o n .

The three

oath

of of

office

i s the

common r o o t

from which vital the to

the our

branches

government that as

spring.

I t i s so cited

form of Court

government

Justice Marshall the grounds

Supreme

J u s t i c e s ' oath

for establishing

31

judicial fidelity (or

review. to her

Marbury oath

v.

Madison, supra,

5 U.S.

137. she

In swore

of o f f i c e , would

i n which the

a f f i r m e d ) t h a t she of the

"... s u p p o r t . . .

Constitution the

S t a t e o f Alabama...," and 19'?5

i n view 17-9-3,

of

instructions codified of

c o n t a i n e d i n A l a . Code i n law

supra,

under the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , an imperative duty to determine

the

Secretary

S t a t e has

whether the for the

c a n d i d a t e s meet t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l are eligible

requirements on the

P r e s i d e n c y and This

f o r placement case doubt of a

ballot. candidate

i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e i n the whom t h e r e f o r the i s credible sought.

would-be

about

concerning his

qualifications

office

The of "It

S e c r e t a r y of State, must, of course,

acting

on

b e h a l f of the U.S.

State

Alabama, would be

obey the

Constitution. occasions on to the

superfluous to restate has

a l l the

which

t h i s Court

imposed upon s t a t e of the

officials or

a duty

obey the

requirements of such of

Constitution, i t may 349 1

compelled refer (1955), Rico State of

performance to and Brown Cooper v.

duties; Education, 358 U.S.

suffice to U.S. 294

Board v.

Aaron, U.S.

(1958)."

Puerto

V.Branstad, allows an

483

a t 228. person

I f the to run
32

Secretary of Office

ineligible

f o r the

President violation allowed. Yet with

of of

the the

United U.S.

States

i t w o u l d be This

in

direct be

Constitution.

outcome cannot

on

February and

2,

2012, others,

Appellant visited

Mclnnish, the

together the

his attorney of

O f f i c e of the Hon. in

Secretary Thompson, absence of her office

State,

during

which meeting of State, of

Emily the that

Deputy and

Secretary

speaking State,

f o r the

Secretary

represented any and

would not

i n v e s t i g a t e the her duties

l e g i t i m a c y of under the U.S.

candidate,

thus v i o l a t i n g

Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . State duty (3)

It i s clear that

the

Secretary

of

i s u n l a w f u l l y r e f u s i n g to perform her and must t h e r e f o r e be ordered t o do so.

constitutional

Lack of

A n o t h e r A d e q u a t e Remedy s t a t u t e s , A l a . C o d e 1975 enumerated This list of

Alabama's E l e c t i o n Contest 17-9-3 e t . offices seq, govern only be an

elected for those does not

t h a t may

contested.

statute allows as w e l l as statute

challenges elected not to

to a l l Alabama the any judiciary

state officers, i n the state. and of

This

mention

federal office, President further

specifically the United

does

mention the Ala. Code

O f f i c e of 17-16-44

States.

provides:

33

No j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s i n o r s h a l l be e x e r c i s e d any j u d g e o r c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n any p r o c e e d i n g a s c e r t a i n i n g the l e g a l i t y , conduct, or r e s u l t s a n y e l e c t i o n , e x c e p t s o f a r a s a u t h o r i t y t o do s h a l l be s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d s e t down b y s t a t u t e . Thus it does not of 17-9-3 i s t h e provide the only election to the contest

by for of so and

statute, of the 1975

and

for a contest States.

election

President

United

Moreover,

A l a Code to

17-16-44 s p e c i f i c a l l y other e l e c t i o n s . Thus, i s s u e of The who

eliminates jurisdiction these Alabama and of

challenge not other

s t a t u t e s do there i s no

address the

eligibility Secretary

adequate remedy.

State

i s the to

sole the the

government o f f i c i a l name o f ballot. If it the an

is in a position candidate and

interdict i t from

illegitimate

exclude

Secretary was

of

State

failed the

to perform law

this of

duty,

w o u l d mean s h e the U.S. the

violating

highest

this a namely

land,

C o n s t i t u t i o n . I t w o u l d a l s o mean t h a t most serious s o r t would go unattended,

wrong of one

o r more p e r s o n s concerning of and the

a b o u t whom t h e r e their

were l e g i t i m a t e f o r the placed Office on the of

questions President ballot without --

eligibility w o u l d be

United

States

p o s s i b l y even e l e c t e d f o r t h a t eligible to hold i t .

34

office

being

But remedy.

equity In t h i s

demands t h a t

f o r every wrong

t h e r e be

i n s t a n c e the obvious s i m p l e one. what e v e r y permit.

remedy i s an each t o do fide to birth

extraordinarily candidate t o do

I t i s to require teenager

i s required a bona the

get a l e a r n e r ' s certificate, State i s the

I t i s to produce 32-6-8(b) a n d that to

A l a . C o d e 1975 official

Secretary of

t o cause

happen.

(4) P r o p e r l y Invoked J u r i s d i c t i o n of the

Circuit c o u r t s have o r i g i n a l

Court
to hear 6-6-640. cases See

ju r i s d i c t i o n

i n v o l v i n g mandamus p u r s u a n t e.g. Ex parte CollinSr 84

t o A l a . C o d e 1975 3d 48, 50

So.

( A l a . 2010).

4.

A l a . Code 1975
The

17-16-44 Does Not

A l a . Code 1975,

Bar

This Action.

aforementioned

17-16-44 p r o v i d e s :

"No j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s i n o r s h a l l b e e x e r c i s e d by any j u d g e o r c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n any p r o c e e d i n g for a s c e r t a i n i n g the l e g a l i t y , conduct, or r e s u l t s o f a n y e l e c t i o n , e x c e p t s o f a r a s a u t h o r i t y t o do so s h a l l be s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d a n d s e t down b y s t a t u t e . " In the case of Rice v. Chapman, 51 So. 3d 281(2010) the

Alabama Supreme C o u r t

i n v o k e d Code o f A l a . 1975
35

17-16-44,

the s o - c a l l e d concluded In Rice, that

"jurisdiction

stripping

s t a t u t e , " and t o hear the lawsuit.

i t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n sought

the p l a i n t i f f

to prevent

the Republican ineligible The

Party

from

canvassing votes

cast f o r a possibly not timely that qualified.

c a n d i d a t e who h a d a l l e g e d l y Alabama Supreme C o u r t from found

the prevention of a party the 'conduct'" of the

canvassing votes would Primary election, actions. 17-16-44

"impact

Republican prohibited found matter that

one o f t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y reason that the Court

I t was f o r t h i s stripped

the Court

from

having subject

j urisdiction. i t i s only the proceedings conduct, or results that entertain the t h a t 17-

Yet

"legality, 16-44

o f any e l e c t i o n " this lawsuit

prevents.

U n l i k e Rice,

does n o t seek t o

question the

the l e g a l i t y

of the election, n o r does this

n o r does i t impact i tcontest the i s about the i n the election

"conduct"

of the election, Rather

results

o f an e l e c t i o n . o f those

lawsuit

eligibility and the duty

seeking to participate

of the Secretary of State t o determine the of those attempting to participate. Thus, none by

eligibility of

the prohibited

actions

o f 17-16-44 a r e i m p l i c a t e d

36

this

l a w s u i t and

this

l a w s u i t i s not

barred

by

that

statute. Further Constitution office of 17-16-44 does not preempt the U. S. for the

i n i t s d e m a n d s made on of the United

a candidate

President

States.

CONCLUSION It w o u l d be of paradoxical the lies beyond measure the de of i f the facto our real and

grave question a question

l e g i t i m a c y of at the very

President, American f o r want As of

which

heart

Constitutional the simplest of

Government, documents, a teenager an

were l e f t a birth

unresolved

certificate. for a fide

explained license

supra,

applying bona

learner's birth he

must

submit The

original,

certificate. joins any a troop. of

same i s t r u e any

f o r a Boy

Scout before any artful possibly

Could

c l e v e r excuse, computer

words,

sleight an

hand w i t h

software,

provide

honorable his birth

r a t i o n a l e f o r the certificate American has at

Commander-in-Chief view of Alabama

to withhold citizens, This to resolve

from the

and

from the

public? i t s fingertips By the power

honorable Court this

monumental conundrum. for a Writ

granting be

Petitioner's

request

o f Mandamus i t w i l l

37

resolved. simply exist. will

E i t h e r a bone

fide birth

certificate

will

be not t o

produced,

or i t w i l l this

n e c e s s a r i l y be a d m i t t e d important of l e g a l

E i t h e r way,

most

questions ballot stilled. State

have been answered, t h e p u r i t y o f Alabama's and t h e a n x i e t y o f Alabama supra, citizens of

maintained,

As r e c o u n t e d explained means. that

the Deputy S e c r e t a r y was without

her office called

an i n v e s t i g a t i v e requires of no what

The

remedy

f o r here, requires a very

however,

investigation. purportedly thing:

I t merely

the production ordinary,

already

exists,

commonplace no

a birth

certificate.

I t requires

virtually of

expenditure

of time

o r money b y t h e S e c r e t a r y holds that f o r every

State. there i s

A maxim o f e q u i t y a remedy. requested. w o u l d be to Should

wrong

the Court not issue

the w r i t

here o f Alabama, admitting

Petitioners, left without

as w e l l as t h e p e o p l e

a remedy

f o r t h e wrong o f

the b a l l o t doubt. He

t h e name o f o n e w h o s e Nor i s i t a t y p i c a l

legitimacy i s i n candidate that i s in others

serious

question. who

d o e s n o t s e e k t o be a l e g i s l a t o r Branch,

among

c o n s t i t u t e the L e g i s l a t i v e who

nor a judge No, he

among seeks to Branch,

others

c o n s t i t u t e the J u d i c i a l

Branch.

b e t h e s i n g l e p e r s o n who

c o n s t i t u t e s the Executive

38

the

President of the United Uncorrected, this would

States. result, not without some that their

justification, their real

i n t h e i m p r e s s i o n among t h e c i t i z e n s

g o v e r n m e n t was d y s f u n c t i o n a l a n d h a s i g n o r e d concerns. A n d when t h e g o v e r n e d can s u f f e r to grant lose faith We

i n their

governors, this

society

grievously. this writ

u r g e n t l y ask

honorable

Court

ordering the from the candidates which

Secretary for

to obtain birth

certificates States

President of the United

f o r the election

was h e l d i n N o v e m b e r , candidates

2 0 1 2 , a n d d o t h e same f o r a l l elections. within I f such birth order

i n future presidential are not forthcoming the votes

certificates of t h i s

45 d a y s a f t e r

Court,

certified

f o r any c a n d i d a t e not

responding

s h o u l d be

decertified.

l 7 D e a n . i ^ n s o n \ (JOH046} L. DEAN JOHNSON, P r C . 4030 B a l m o r a l D r , , S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177 Fax: (256) 880-5187 Email: J o h n s o n dean(?be 1 1 s o u t h . n e t

39

L a r r y Klayman, Esq. KLAYMAN LAW F I R M 2 0 2 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e . NW, S u i t e 800 W a s h i n g t o n , DC 2 0 0 0 6 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Email: l e k l a y m a n ( 5 g m a i l . com Pro Hac V i c e

CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE

I HEREBY C E R T I F Y t h a t o n t h e 26 d a y o f M a r c h 2 0 1 3 , I e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d the foregoing with the Clerk of the Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a u s i n g t h e ACIS f i l i n g system, which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e following: Hon. L u t h e r S t r a n g e , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a M a r g a r e t L. F l e m i n g J a m e s W. D a v i s L a u r a E. H o w e l l O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y General o f Alabama 501 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Montgomery, Alabama 36130

40

Case No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCINNISH, e t a l . , Appellants

V.

BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY CV 2012-1053

APPENDICES TO BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS

L. Dean Johnson L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.C. 4030 Balmoral Dr., S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177 L a r r y Klayman KLAYMZ^ LAW FIRM 2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave, NW S u i t e 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Attorneys f o r Appellants

LIST OF APPENDICES

Attorney Allen

General's

Opinion

No. No.

1998-200

Appendix A Appendix B

V. Bennett

C a l i f o r n i a S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e Jordan l e t t e r t o Jack Weinberg ( C h a i r m a n , P e a c e a n d Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e ) Appendix 0 Affidavit of S h e r i f f Arpaio Appendix D

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY t h a t on t h e 26 d a y o f M a r c h 2 0 1 3 , I e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d a t r u e and c o r r e c t copy o f t h e Appendices to B r i e f o f t h e A p p e l l a n t s w i t h t h e C l e r k o f t h e Supreme C o u r t of Alabama u s i n g t h e ACIS f i l i n g system, which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : Hon. L u t h e r S t r a n g e , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a M a r g a r e t L. F l e m i n g James W. D a v i s L a u r a E. H o w e l l O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Alabama 501 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Montgomery, A l a b a m a 36130

A G O 1998-200. Alabama Attorney General Opinions 1998. A G O 1998-200. 1998-200 A u g u s t 12, 1 9 9 8 H o n o r a b l e J i m Bennett S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e P.O. Box 5616 Montgomery, A l a b a m a 36103 Secretary of S t a t e - C a n d i d a t e s - Ballots - Political Parties T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s not h a v e a n obligation to e v a l u a t e all of the qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d c a n d i d a t e s to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 17-16-40 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a . If the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from a n official s o u r c e arising from the p e r f o r m a n c e of duties p r e s c r i b e d by law, that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the c a n d i d a t e . T h e law d o e s not prohibit the S e c r e t a r y of State from informing the probate j u d g e s of his or her r e a s o n for non-certification.

D e a r Mr. Bennett; T h i s opinion of the Attorney G e n e r a l is i s s u e d in r e s p o n s e to y o u r request. QUESTION 1 D o e s the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a v e the obligation to e v a l u a t e a n y qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d candidates to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 of the C o d e of Alabama? FACTS AND ANALYSIS S e c t i o n 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a provides: T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h a l l , within 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary election, certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state a

Appendix A 1 of 4

s e p a r a t e list of n o m i n e e s of e a c h party for office a n d for e a c h candidate w h o h a s r e q u e s t e d to be an independent c a n d i d a t e a n d h a s filed a written petition in a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3), e x c e p t n o m i n e e s for c o u n t y offices, to be voted for by the voters of s u c h county. A L A . C O D E 1716- 4 0 (1995). S e c t i o n 17-7-1 provides in pertinent part: (c) T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e must, not later than 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary, certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state, in the c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of the w h o l e state, a n d to the probate j u d g e s of the counties c o m p o s i n g the circuit or district in c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of a circuit or district, upon suitable b l a n k s to be p r e p a r e d by him or her for that p u r p o s e , the fact of nomination or independent c a n d i d a c y of e a c h n o m i n e e or i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e or c a n d i d a t e of a party w h o did not receive more than 2 0 p e r c e n t of the entire vote c a s t in the last g e n e r a l election preceding the primary w h o h a s qualified to a p p e a r o n the g e n e r a l election b a l l o t . . . . A L A . C O D E 17-7-1 (c) (1995). Y o u r question c o n c e r n s w h e t h e r the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s a n obligation to e v a l u a t e a n y qualifications of the n o m i n e e s for political office. T h e C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to determine w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. S o m e of the qualifications, h o w e v e r , are within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s official k n o w l e d g e . B y official k n o w l e d g e I m e a n k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from a n official s o u r c e arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law. F o r e x a m p l e , c a n d i d a t e s are required to file s t a t e m e n t s of e c o n o m i c interest with the E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n . A L A . C O D E 3 6 - 2 5 - 1 5 ( S u p p . 1997). If the E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n provides the S e c r e t a r y of State with formal notice of t h o s e c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e not filed statements of e c o n o m i c interest, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s official k n o w l e d g e that the c a n d i d a t e s h a v e failed to m e e t a certifying d e a d l i n e . O n l y t h o s e c a n d i d a t e s m e e t i n g the filing requirements are entitled to be o n the ballot. A L A . C O D E 36-25-15(c) ( S u p p . 1997). If the S e c r e t a r y of State h a s official k n o w l e d g e that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of State s h o u l d not certify the candidate. Similarly, section 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 p l a c e s a duty o n the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to certify only t h o s e i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e filed a written petition in a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s the duty to e n s u r e that the written petition filed by a n independent c a n d i d a t e is in a c c o r d a n c e with s e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). T h i s Office h a s previously d e t e r m i n e d that the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e is r e s p o n s i b l e for verifying s i g n a t u r e s o n a petition to run a s a n independent c a n d i d a t e . O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e P e r r y A . H a n d , dated April 19, 1 9 9 0 , A . G . N o . 9 0 - 0 0 2 2 3 . S e c t i o n 17- 7-1 (a)(3) a l s o requires e a c h i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e to file a petition with the S e c r e t a r y of State on or before 5: 00 p.m. s i x d a y s after the s e c o n d primary e l e c t i o n . A L A . C O D E 17-7-1 (a)(3) (1995). T h i s Office h a s p r e v i o u s l y c o n c l u d e d statutes setting the time for filing a certificate of nomination are mandatory. O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e E a r l e a n Isaac, dated J u l y 2 9 , 1998, A . G . N o . 9 8 0 0 1 9 4 . W h e t h e r a petition by a n i n d e p e n d e n t candidate fulfills the r e q u i r e m e n t s of section 17-71 (a)(3) is within the official k n o w l e d g e of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e . A l a b a m a law directs the S e c r e t a r y of State to certify only i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s who h a v e properly filed p u r s u a n t to section 17-7-

Appendix A 2 of 4

1(a)(3). M o r e o v e r , c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e b e e n put in nomination by a primary election or by a c a u c u s , convention, m a s s m e e t i n g , or other a s s e m b l y of a political party must m e e t a statutorily e s t a b l i s h e d filing d e a d l i n e . See A L A . C O D E 17-7-1 (a)(1) & (2) (1995). If the c a n d i d a t e is required to file with the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , it is within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s official k n o w l e d g e a s to w h e t h e r the d e a d l i n e w a s met. A s stated a b o v e , if the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s official k n o w l e d g e that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the candidate. CONCLUSION T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s not h a v e a n obligation to evaluate all of the qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d c a n d i d a t e s to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 17-16-40 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a . If the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from an official s o u r c e arising from the p e r f o r m a n c e of duties p r e s c r i b e d by law, that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the c a n d i d a t e . QUESTION 2 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative, is it p e r m i s s i b l e for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to a l s o notify the probate j u d g e s of the disqualification of t h o s e n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state office w h i c h h a v e b e e n determined to be disqualified a n d set out the r e a s o n for disqualification in o r d e r for the probate j u d g e s to be informed of the b a s i s of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s d e c i s i o n in t h o s e i n s t a n c e s ? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION A s stated a b o v e , the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify a c a n d i d a t e w h e n he h a s official k n o w l e d g e that the c a n d i d a t e is not entitled to be o n the ballot. T h e law d o e s not prohibit the S e c r e t a r y of State from informing the probate j u d g e s of his or her r e a s o n for non-certification. QUESTION 3 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative, is the obligation to e v a l u a t e qualifications limited to a ministerial r e v i e w b a s e d u p o n the facts within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s p o s s e s s i o n , or d o e s it a l s o extend to a n obligation to investigate factual allegations c o n c e r n i n g the qualifications of c a n d i d a t e s for state o f f i c e s ? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION A s stated a b o v e , the C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s have an obligation to r e v i e w qualifications b a s e d o n facts within his official k n o w l e d g e . QUESTION 4

Appendix A 3 of 4

If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative a n d the a n s w e r to question #3 provides a factfinding obligation for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e in reviewing the qualifications of c a n d i d a t e s for state offices, is the investigation of factual allegations a judicial obligation of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e requiring d u e p r o c e s s of law or a n e x t e n s i o n of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s ministerial duty? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION A s stated in q u e s t i o n 3, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s no duty to investigate facts not within his official knowledge; therefore, this question n e e d not be a d d r e s s e d . I h o p e this opinion a n s w e r s y o u r q u e s t i o n s . If this Office c a n be of further a s s i s t a n c e , p l e a s e contact B r e n d a F. S m i t h of m y staff. Sincerely, BILL P R Y O R Attorney G e n e r a l By: J A M E S R. S O L O M O N , J R . Chief, O p i n i o n s D i v i s i o n BP/WBM B7.98/M

Appendix A 4 of 4

8 2 3 S o . 2 d 6 7 9 (Ala. 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 9 9 2 2 8 9 , A l l e n v. Bennett P a g e 679 823 So.2d 679 (Ala. Nelson Allen,

V.

2001)

Jim Bennett, as Secretary of State of the State of Alabama. 1992289. Supreme Court of A l a b a m a . December 28, P a g e 680 J o s e p h W . H u d s o n , J a s p e r , for appellant. Bill Pryor, atty. g e n . , a n d C h a r l e s Brinsfield C a m p h e l l a n d William P . Clliford III, asst.attys. g e n . , for A p p e l l e e s S e c r e t a r y of state, J i m Bennett. Algert S . A g r i c o l a , Jr., of W a l l a c e , J o r d a n , Ratliff & Brandt, L . L . C . , M o n t g o m e r y , for a p p e l l e e don Bervill. B R O W N , Justice. N e l s o n A l l e n a p p e a l s from a j u d g m e n t in a n action filed by J i m Bennett, a s S e c r e t a r y of State of the State of A l a b a m a , d e c l a r i n g , a m o n g other things, that A l l e n s h o u l d not b e certified on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e for a district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y . W e affirm. I. O n D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 9 9 , J u d g e W a r r e n Laird, J r . , r e s i g n e d , creating a v a c a n c y in the office of district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, in W a l k e r C o u n t y . Laird h a d b e e n elected to that office in the N o v e m b e r 1996 g e n e r a l election, a n d his term of office w o u l d h a v e expired in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . G o v e r n o r D o n S i e g e l m a n a p p o i n t e d D o n a l d H. Bevill to fill the v a c a n c y c r e a t e d by J u d g e Laird's resignation, a n d Bevill w a s s w o r n in on D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 9 9 . 2001.

Appendix B 1 of 8

O n M a r c h 28, 2 0 0 0 , the Administrative Office of C o u r t s ( " A O C " ) sent a m e m o r a n d u m to the presiding j u d g e s in c o u n t i e s in P a g e 681 w h i c h a judicial officeholder w o u l d be required to run for election. W a l k e r C o u n t y w a s o n e of those counties. T h e m e m o r a n d u m c o n c l u d e d that, pursuant to 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 a n d other pertinent constitutional provisions, J u d g e Bevill's term of office would expire on J a n u a r y 15, 2 0 0 1 , a n d that the office J u d g e Bevill o c c u p i e d s h o u l d be included a m o n g t h o s e offices to be filled in the 2 0 0 0 election. Shortly after the m e m o r a n d u m w a s i s s u e d . N e l s o n A l l e n d e c l a r e d his c a n d i d a c y for the district court j u d g e s h i p , p l a c e no. 1, a n d filed qualifying p a p e r s with the A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c Party. S u b s e q u e n t l y , A l l e n , J u d g e Bevill, a n d a third p e r s o n , J i m W e l l s , qualified to run for the j u d g e s h i p in the D e m o c r a t i c primary, w h i c h w a s s c h e d u l e d for J u n e 6, 2 0 0 0 . After S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e J i m Bennett certified the c a n d i d a t e s , the n a m e s of all three m e n w e r e p l a c e d on the ballot a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the district court j u d g e s h i p , a n d the ballots w e r e printed. In the m e a n t i m e , h o w e v e r . J u d g e Bevill h a d r e q u e s t e d a legal opinion f r o m the attorney g e n e r a l a s to w h e n his term of office expired a n d w h e t h e r the district court j u d g e s h i p , p l a c e no. 1, s h o u l d , in fact, b e p l a c e d on the 2 0 0 0 election ballot.

O n M a y 30, 2 0 0 0 , the attorney g e n e r a l i s s u e d an opinion, stating that, u n d e r the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s . J u d g e Bevill's term of office w o u l d not, a s the A O C h a d o p i n e d , expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 , but instead w o u l d expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 , a n d that, therefore, J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for office in the 2 0 0 0 election. S e e O p . Att'y G e n . , N o . 2 0 0 0 - 1 5 9 (2000). H o w e v e r , the n a m e s of Bevill, A l l e n , a n d W e l l s w e r e on the printed ballots a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the p l a c e n o . 1 district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y w h e n the primary election w a s held o n J u n e 6, 2 0 0 0 . Bevill a n d A l l e n w e r e the top two D e m o c r a t i c vote-getters, with neither receiving m o r e than 5 0 % of the v o t e s . T h e two then met in a run-off e l e c t i o n , held o n J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 ; A l l e n w o n the run-off.'^''^ P u r s u a n t to 17-7-1 (c) a n d 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e B e n n e t t w a s required, by A u g u s t 13, 2 0 0 0 , to certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in A l a b a m a the n a m e s of the c a n d i d a t e s that a r e to a p p e a r on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n . O n J u l y 7, 2 0 0 0 , in v i e w of the conflicting opinions of the A O C a n d the attorney g e n e r a l a s to the p l a c e no. 1 district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y a n d for the a c c u r a c y of the g e n e r a l - e l e c t i o n ballot, S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Bennett filed a declaratory-judgment action in the W a l k e r Circuit Court, a s k i n g that court to construe the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s a n d to d e c l a r e the n a m e s of those c a n d i d a t e s w h o s h o u l d b e certified to a p p e a r on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election. A specific q u e s t i o n put to the court by the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e w a s : W h e n is J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court j u d g e d u e to e x p i r e ? After the circuit a n d district j u d g e s of W a l k e r C o u n t y r e c u s e d t h e m s e l v e s , this C o u r t appointed retired M o n t g o m e r y Circuit J u d g e William

Appendix B 2 of 8

G o r d o n ( J u d g e G o r d o n is liereinafter referred to a s "tlie circuit court") to p r e s i d e o v e r the c a s e . T h e parties stipulated to the facts of the c a s e . O n A u g u s t 9, 2 0 0 0 , the circuit court entered its judgment, d e c l a r i n g (1) that, pursuant to 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 , J u d g e Bevill's initial term lasts until the first P a g e 682 M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y in J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election after he h a s completed o n e y e a r in office; (2) that, accordingly. J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court judge, p l a c e no. 1, in W a l k e r C o u n t y d o e s not expire until J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 ; (3) that J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for the district court j u d g e s h i p in the 2 0 0 0 election c y c l e ; a n d (4) that, for the aforementioned r e a s o n s , the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the n a m e s of a n y c a n d i d a t e s for the office of district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, W a l k e r C o u n t y , o n the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election ballot. II. O n a p p e a l , A l l e n c o n t e n d s that the circuit court's construction of the pertinent constitutional provisions is incorrect a n d that, a s the winner of the primary election, he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y c a n d i d a t e for the district court j u d g e s h i p o n the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 general-election ballot. J u d g e Bevill h a s filed a brief with this C o u r t in w h i c h h e a r g u e s that, b e c a u s e the 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election h a s b e e n held a n d the office of the district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, w a s not o n t h e ballot, A l l e n ' s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s a moot q u e s t i o n a n d that, therefore, the a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e the o u t c o m e of this c a s e c o u l d impact future elections, w e hold that the interpretation of 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 in this c a s e a n d h e n c e this a p p e a l is not moot. S e e Griggs v. Bennett, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 2 n.4 ( A l a . 1998), citing V. Ogilvie, 394 U . S . 8 1 4 , 8 1 6 (1969). III. S e c t i o n 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 o p e r a t e s to fill v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices. S e c t i o n 6.14 p r o v i d e s : " T h e office of a j u d g e s h a l l be v a c a n t if he d i e s , r e s i g n s , retires, or is r e m o v e d . Vacancies judicial office shall be filled by appointment by the governor; however, occurring in any Moore

v a c a n c i e s occurring in a n y

judicial office in J e f f e r s o n county shall be filled a s n o w p r o v i d e d by a m e n d m e n t s 8 3 a n d 110 to the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a n d vacancies [or] St. C l a i r county shall be filled as provided hereafter adopted, or as may be otherwise in S h e l b y , M a d i s o n , W i l c o x , M o n r o e , of 1901 with amendments advertised and enacted now or local C o n e c u h , C l a r k e , W a s h i n g t o n , H e n r y , E t o w a h , Walker, T a l l a p o o s a , P i c k e n s , G r e e n e , T u s c a l o o s a , in the Constitution established by a properly

law. A judge, other t h a n a probate j u d g e , appointed

to fill a vacancy

shall serve an initial term

Appendix B 3 of 8

lasting until the first Monday election

after the second

Tuesday

in January

following

the next

general

held after he has completed

one year in office. At s u c h election s u c h judicial office shall

be filled for a full term of office b e g i n n i n g at the e n d of the a p p o i n t e d term." (Emphasis added.) T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 applies to judicial v a c a n c i e s in s e v e r a l specifically listed counties, including W a l k e r C o u n t y . A l i e n a r g u e s , a s he did in the circuit court, that the l a n g u a g e in the proviso stating that s u c h v a c a n c i e s "shall be filled a s p r o v i d e d in the Constitution of 1901 with a m e n d m e n t s n o w or hereafter a d o p t e d " m e a n s that the term of office of a j u d g e w h o , like J u d g e Bevill, h a s b e e n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a county s p e c i f i c a l l y listed in 6.14 is g o v e r n e d by 158 of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901.^^^ S e c t i o n 158 provides that a j u d g e filling a v a c a n c y shall s e r v e until the next Page 683 g e n e r a l election following the expiration of six months after the v a c a n c y o c c u r r e d . If, a s A l l e n urges, J u d g e Bevill's term of office is g o v e r n e d by 158, Bevill's term w a s d u e to expire o n J a n u a r y 15, 2 0 0 1 , a n d the office s h o u l d h a v e a p p e a r e d on the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l - e l e c t i o n ballot, with A l l e n , a s the w i n n e r of the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary, certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party's candidate. S e c t i o n 158, u p o n w h i c h A l l e n relies, w a s part of what w a s Article VI of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1 9 0 1 . H o w e v e r , A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 r e p e a l e d Article VI a n d c r e a t e d the Unified Judicial System.^"^^ S e e Hornsby v. Sessions, 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 9 ( A l a . 1997). T h u s , A m e n d m e n t v. Siegelman, 386 S o . 2 d N o . 3 2 8 , of w h i c h 6.14 is a part, controls in this state. Id. S e e Hooper

2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980) (noting that 6.14 h a s specifically r e p l a c e d 158). T h e circuit court rejected A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t that 158 g o v e r n s the term of office of a judge a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in o n e of the counties listed in the proviso in 6.14 b e c a u s e , it s a i d , his interpretation violated the principles of constitutional construction. A l l e n ' s interpretation, the court s a i d , "would h a v e the court read b a c k into 6.14 a s e c t i o n of old Article VI w h i c h a m e n d m e n t 3 2 8 r e p e a l e d in its entirety." "In s e a r c h i n g for the proper construction of a constitutional provision, w e m u s t look to the l a n g u a g e of that p r o v i s i o n . " Hornsby, s u p r a , 7 0 3 S o . 2 d at 9 3 9 . N o t h i n g in the l a n g u a g e of 6.14 s u g g e s t s that 158 of what w a s Article VI g o v e r n s the t e r m s of office of j u d g e s a p p o i n t e d to fill v a c a n c i e s in the c o u n t i e s listed in 6.14. T h e plain l a n g u a g e of the p r o v i s o in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 states that judicial v a c a n c i e s in the listed counties "shall be filled a s provided in the Constitution of 1901 with a m e n d m e n t s n o w or hereafter a d o p t e d , or a s m a y be otherwise e s t a b l i s h e d by a properly advertised a n d e n a c t e d local law." W e a g r e e with the circuit court a n d with the attorney g e n e r a l that the Constitution h a s n o w b e e n a m e n d e d by A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 , w h i c h a m e n d m e n t , w e h a v e s t a t e d , r e p e a l e d Article VI, a n d with it 158. U n d e r the g e n e r a l provision of 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 , v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices in A l a b a m a "shall be filled

Appendix B 4 of 8

by appointment by the governor." T h e l a n g u a g e that follows that g e n e r a l provision in 6.14 provides that a v a c a n c y in a judicial office in a n y listed county that h a s not a d o p t e d a n alternate p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s is a l s o filled by appointment of the governor.I-^^ B y a l s o providing that judicial v a c a n c i e s Page 684 m a y be filled a s p r o v i d e d in constitutional a m e n d m e n t s hereafter " a d o p t e d " or " a s m a y be otherwise e s t a b l i s h e d by a properly advertised a n d e n a c t e d local law," 6.14 c o n t e m p l a t e s p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d by future constitutional a m e n d m e n t or by e n a c t m e n t s of the Legislature that could c h a n g e the p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in o n e or more of the listed c o u n t i e s . W e a l s o a g r e e with the circuit court a n d the attorney g e n e r a l that the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14, w h i c h i n c l u d e s the p r o v i s o , g o v e r n s only the manner in w h i c h a judicial v a c a n c y in o n e of the listed c o u n t i e s is filled; it d o e s not a p p l y to the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill s u c h a v a c a n c y . T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 must be read a s only granting the listed counties the authority to e s t a b l i s h a different p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s , not altering w h e n the term of a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y e n d s or w h e n a n election to fill the v a c a n c y must be held.t^J With the e x c e p t i o n of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a n d two other c o u n t i e s specifically c o v e r e d by constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a d o p t e d s u b s e q u e n t to the adoption of 6.14,'-^-' the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 w h i c h provides that a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y "shall s e r v e a n initial term lasting until the first M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y In J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election held after he h a s c o m p l e t e d o n e y e a r in office" g o v e r n s the term of office of p e r s o n s a p p o i n t e d to fill judicial v a c a n c i e s in A l a b a m a . T h e r e is nothing in the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 that c a n be c o n s t r u e d a s excepting from its o p e r a t i o n the c o u n t i e s listed in the proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14. T h i s construction of 6.14 is dictated by its l a n g u a g e ; it a l s o provides for s o m e m e a s u r e of uniformity in judicial a p p o i n t e e s ' t e r m s of office. A l l e n a r g u e s that this C o u r t in Griggs v. Bennett, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 411 (Ala. 1998), "implicitly a c c e p t e d " his interpretation of 6.14 a n d r e c o g n i z e d that 158 of what w a s Article VI of the A l a b a m a Constitution g o v e r n s the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a c o u n t y listed in the proviso. W e d o not a g r e e . A l t h o u g h the appellants in Griggs, the proviso in 6.14, this C o u r t n e v e r r e a c h e d that c l a i m in Griggs, like A l l e n , m a d e the c l a i m that b e c a u s e w e f o u n d that the 158 g o v e r n e d the t e r m s of office of j u d g e s appointed to fill v a c a n c i e s in the c o u n t i e s c o v e r e d by v a c a n t j u d g e s h i p at i s s u e in that c a s e did not o c c u r in a c o u n t y c o v e r e d by the p r o v i s o . T h e question p r e s e n t e d in Griggs w a s w h e n w a s a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a circuit court j u d g e s h i p in the T w e n t i e t h J u d i c i a l Circuit, w h i c h i n c l u d e s both H e n r y C o u n t y (a c o u n t y listed in the proviso in 6.14) a n d H o u s t o n C o u n t y (a county not listed in the proviso), required to s t a n d for election. W e held that a strict construction of the proviso in 6.14 e x c l u d e s the Twentieth J u d i c i a l Circuit from the s c o p e of the proviso's operation,

Appendix B 5 of 8

P a g e 685 b e c a u s e H o u s t o n C o u n t y is not a listed county. " W h e n a court is interpreting a proviso, the application of w h i c h is in doubt, g e n e r a l c a n o n s of construction require that the proviso be strictly c o n s t r u e d . " Griggs, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d at 4 1 3 .

T h u s , Griggs d o e s not s u p p o r t A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g J u d g e Bevill's term of office. Although this Court set out the a p p e l l a n t s ' a r g u m e n t in Griggs, w e took no position in that c a s e on the continued viability of 1 5 8 . Notwithstanding A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t a n d the a r g u m e n t m a d e by the appellants in Griggs, this C o u r t h a s previously r e c o g n i z e d that 6.14 h a s r e p l a c e d 158 a s the g e n e r a l constitutional provision with l a n g u a g e governing the term of office of a p e r s o n appointed to fill a judicial v a c a n c y in A l a b a m a . S e e Hooper v. Siegelman, 3 8 6 S o . 2 d 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980).

A c c o r d i n g l y , w e hold that the circuit court correctly determined that J u d g e Bevill's term of office d o e s not expire until J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . J u d g e Bevill is not required to stand for election until the 2 0 0 2 election. IV. A l i e n a l s o a r g u e s that S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Bennett s h o u l d have b e e n equitably e s t o p p e d from s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , A l l e n s a y s , he relied to his detriment on Bennett's certification of his c a n d i d a c y in the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary a n d run-off a n d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , Bennett u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d bringing the declaratory-judgment action. " T o establish the e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of equitable e s t o p p e l , [a party] must s h o w the following: "(1) That '[t]he p e r s o n a g a i n s t w h o m e s t o p p e l is a s s e r t e d , w h o usually m u s t h a v e k n o w l e d g e of the facts, c o m m u n i c a t e s s o m e t h i n g in a m i s l e a d i n g w a y , either by w o r d s , c o n d u c t , or s i l e n c e , with the intention that the c o m m u n i c a t i o n will be a c t e d o n ; ' "(2) That 'the p e r s o n s e e k i n g to a s s e r t e s t o p p e l , w h o l a c k s k n o w l e d g e of the facts, relies upon [the] c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; ' a n d "(3) That 'the p e r s o n relying w o u l d be h a r m e d materially if the actor is later permitted to a s s e r t a claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct.'" Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 6 8 2 S o . 2 d 6 1 , 6 4 ( A l a . 1996), quoting General Co., 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1243 ( A l a . 1983). Electric

Credit Corp. v. Strickland T h i s Court h a s h e l d :

Div. of Rebel Lumber

" E q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l is to be applied a g a i n s t a g o v e r n m e n t a l entity only with e x t r e m e caution or

Appendix B 6 of 8

under e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . First Nat'l Bank of Montgomery 1983).

v. United States,

176 F . S u p p .

7 6 8 ( M . D . A l a . 1959), afTd, 2 8 5 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1961); Ex parte Fields, 4 3 2 S o . 2 d 1290 ( A l a .

' " U n d e r the settled law, equitable e s t o p p e l . . . must be predicated u p o n the conduct, l a n g u a g e , or the s i l e n c e of the party a g a i n s t w h o m it is s o u g h t to be i n v o k e d . S a i d conduct, l a n g u a g e , or s i l e n c e must a m o u n t to the representation or c o n c e a l m e n t of a material fact or facts. The representation must be as to the facts and not as to the law....' estoppel is not a barto the correction... of a mistake of law.'" Automobile

"'The doctrine of equitable

" ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d [in Headrick Club of Michigan State Highway

Outdoor

Advertising].)

176 F . S u p p . at 7 7 2 , quoting

v. Commissioner, Dep't v. Headrick

3 5 3 U . S . 180, 182, 7 7 S . C t . 7 0 7 , 7 0 9 , 1 L . E d . 2 d 7 4 6 (1957)." Outdoor Adver., Inc., 5 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 4 - 0 5 (Ala. 1992).

S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e B e n n e t t c a n n o t be e s t o p p e d from s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t in this c a s e . T h e S e c r e t a r y of P a g e 686 State h a s no authority to certify n a m e s for p l a c e m e n t on a ballot for a n election that, under the pertinent p r o v i s i o n s of the A l a b a m a Constitution, is not s u p p o s e d to be h e l d . A l l e n a l s o s u g g e s t s that the doctrine of equitable e s t o p p e l s h o u l d be a p p l i e d b e c a u s e , he s a y s . S e c r e t a r y of State B e n n e t t u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d bringing the declaratory-judgment action. H o w e v e r , the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e before the circuit court s h o w e d that the S e c r e t a r y of State a c t e d diligently in s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t a n d that he did not u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y bringing the a c t i o n . F o r the r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , the circuit court's j u d g m e n t is d u e to be, a n d is h e r e b y , affirmed. AFFIRMED. H o u s t o n , S e e , L y o n s , J o h n s t o n e , H a r w o o d , W o o d a l i , a n d Stuart, J J . , c o n c u r .

Notes: C h a r l e s R. S t e p h e n s , Jr., w h o w a s u n o p p o s e d in the R e p u b l i c a n Party primary, w a s the R e p u b l i c a n Party's n o m i n e e for the p l a c e no. 1 district court j u d g e s h i p .

Appendix B 7 of 8

S e c t i o n 158 p r o v i d e s : " V a c a n c i e s in tlie office of a n y of the j u s t i c e s of the s u p r e m e court or j u d g e s w h o hold office by election, or c h a n c e l l o r s of this state, shall be filled by appointment by the governor. T h e a p p o i n t e e s h a l l hold his office until the next g e n e r a l election for a n y state officer held at least s i x m o n t h s after the v a c a n c y o c c u r s , a n d until his s u c c e s s o r is e l e c t e d a n d qualified; the s u c c e s s o r c h o s e n at s u c h election shall hold office for the u n e x p i r e d term a n d until his s u c c e s s o r is e l e c t e d a n d qualified." ^^I T h e p r e a m b l e to A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 states: "Article VI of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a s a m e n d e d , a n d a m e n d m e n t s 3 1 7 a n d 3 2 3 thereof, are h e r e b y r e p e a l e d a n d in lieu thereof the following article s h a l l be adopted[.]" S e c t i o n 6.14 a l s o specifically provides that v a c a n c i e s occurring in judicial offices in J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y shall b e filled a s provided by A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 a n d N o . 110 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 a n d N o . 110 provide a n alternate p r o c e s s a c o m m i s s i o n n o m i n a t e s to the g o v e r n o r three qualified p e r s o n s , o n e of w h o m the g o v e r n o r s h a l l then appoint to fill the v a c a n c y for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in the B i r m i n g h a m Division of the Jefferson Circuit C o u r t . T h u s , 6.14 e x p r e s s l y p r e s e r v e s this p r o c e s s . S i n c e the e n a c t m e n t of 6.14, constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e to M a d i s o n , M o b i l e , a n d T a l l a d e g a counties h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d , providing for judicial v a c a n c i e s occurring in t h o s e c o u n t i e s to be filled by a n o m i n a t i n g - c o m m i s s i o n p r o c e s s similar to the p r o c e s s u s e d in J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y . S e e A m e n d m e n t s N o . 3 3 4 , N o . 6 0 7 , N o . 4 0 8 , a n d N o . 6 1 5 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . A s the attorney g e n e r a l stated in O p . Att'y G e n . , N o . 2 0 0 0 - 1 5 9 (2000), the proviso c o n t a i n e d in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 "allows the n a m e d counties to retain the flexibility to provide, by local law, a n alternate appointment process, s u c h a s a judicial nominating c o m m i s s i o n , for e x a m p l e . "

A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 , N o . 6 0 7 , a n d N o . 4 0 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution specifically provide that p e r s o n s filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in the Jefferson Circuit C o u r t a n d in circuit a n d district courts in M a d i s o n a n d M o b i l e C o u n t i e s shall s e r v e until the next g e n e r a l election following the expiration of six months after the v a c a n c y o c c u r r e d .

Appendix B 8 of 8

FRANK

K , JOHDAN

SCCRITARY o r STATE

O F F I C E or T H E

STATE O F CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO 95814

September X8, 3^68

Ifr. Jack Weinberg 3^0 North Spaulding, Apt. 1 Los Angslesj Califomia 90036 Dear Mr. Weinberg: To confirai our telephone ccmversaticn last V.^ednesdajr, September 11th, please, be advised that this office i J i l l not certify KLdridge Cleaver as the Peace and Freedom candidate for president on -iihe Hovember ^, 1968 general election ballot* InfoiTiiation i n our possession indicates, and confirme^l bjr you, that I-tr, Cleaver i s 33 and not 3^ years old ^.Mch is a requireiaQnt under our federal constitution for president. The vicepresidential- selection (Peggy Terry) and the hO electoral college voters will be certified* Under California law, just tho nariio of the party and i t s candidatos ^pear on the ballot. The Peace and Freedm party name vdll; appear on the ballot and your candidate for vice-president on3y. Sincere'ly, " FEANK JORDAN Secretaiy of State
/

/'

H. P. Sullivan Assistant Seorotaiy of State HPS/pv/m co: Stuart Weinberg h$ Polk Street San franoisco, Califomia

Appendix C 1 of 1

State of Arizona County of Maricopa

) ) ss. )

AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true: 1. I am oyer the age of 18 and am a resident of Arizona. The information contained in this affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge. and, i f called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. I am the duly elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and I have been a law enforcement officer and official, in both state and federal government, for 51 years. 2. In August of last year, a group of citizens from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party organization met with me in my office and presented a petition signed by approximately 250 residents of Maricopa County, asking if I would investigate the controversy surrounding President Barrack Obama's birth certificate authenticity and his eligibility to serve as the President of the United States. 3. This group expressed its concern that, up until that point, no law enforcement agency in the countiy had ever gone on record indicating that they had either looked into this or that they were willing to do so, citing lack of resources and jurisdictional challenges. 4. The Maricopa County Sheriff s Office is in a rather unique position. Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I have the authority to request the aid of the volunteer posse, located in the county, to assist me in the execution of my duties. Having organized a volunteer posse of approximately 3,000 members, I, as the Sheriff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, can authorize an investigation go forward to answer these questions at virtually noexpense to the-tax payer. 5. The Cold Case posse agreed to undertake the investigation requested by the 250 citizens of Maricopa County. This posse consists of former police officers and attorneys who have worked investigating the controversy surrounding Barack Obama. The investigation mainly focused on the electronic document that was II
Appendix D 1 of 2

presented as President Obama's long form birth certificate to the American people and to citizens of Maricopa County by the White House on April 27,2011. 6. The investigation led to a closer examination of the procedures regarding the registration of births at the Hawaii Department of Health and various statements made by Hawaii government officials regarding the Obama birth controversy over the last five years. 7. Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery andfiraudwas likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's longform birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number. 8. M y investigators and I believe that President Obama's.long-form.birth certificate is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. Most importantly, the "registrar's stamp" in the computer generated document released by the White House and posted on the White House website, may have been imported from another unknown source document. The effect of the stamp not being placed on the document pursuant to state and federal laws means that there is probable cause that the document is a forgery, and therefore, it cannot be used as a verification, legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's birth. 9. The Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president is on-going. The on-going nature of the investigation is due to additional information that has come to light sinpe we held the press conference in March, 2012. As soon as that information has been properly verified by the Cold Case Posse, I will release that information to the public. Executed this / p day of June, 201 Maricopa County, Arizona.

Joseph M . Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff

Sworn to and subscribed me this 3S9'iDea before b 1 ^ day of 2012.

LYNDA JEMSEMORBM Notw Piittlo- aittB ofArim MAMOOMOOUNTV

MV v D n i W t M n Kni^^

Appendix D 2 of 2