SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief

7/30/2019 SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief

1/23

E-Filed04/23/2013@ 02:57:33 P MHonorable Robert Esdale

Clerk Of The Court

No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCINNISH, et a l .

V.

BETH CHAPMAN, Secretary of State

B r i e f of Appellee Beth Chapman

Luther Strange (STR003)

Attorney General

Andrew L. Brasher (BRA143)

Deputy Solicitor General

James W. Davis {DAV103)

Laura E. Howell (HOW084)

Assistant Attorneys General

STATE OF ALABAMAOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

501 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, AL36130

(334) 242-7300

Attorneys for the Appellee / Defendant

A p r i l 23, 2013

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED


2/23

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

This matter concerns a s i n g l e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d q ue s t i on

o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In l i g h t o f her argument t h a t

i n t e r v e n i n g events have rendered a r u l i n g on the q u e s t i o n

moot, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e does not t h i n k t h a t o r a l

argument i s necessary, but welcomes the o p p o r t u n i t y t o

p r e s e n t argument i f t h i s C o u r t d i s a g r e e s .


3/23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS i i

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION i v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 2

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 2

STANDARD OF REVIEW 3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 4

ARGUMENT 5

I . P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s are moot because the

e l e c t i o n has already taken place 5

I I . P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s do no t f a l l under an

" e x c e p t i o n t o mootness." 6

I I I . Even were they not moot, P l a i n t i f f s '

c l a i m s would s t i l l f a i l 9

A. The Court la ck s sub jec t matter

j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c l a i m s

pursuant t o A l a . Code 17-16-44 9

B. The S e c r e t a r y has no l e g a l duty t o

i n v e s t i g a t e or v e r i f y the

c r e d e n t i a l s of c a n d i d a t e s p r i o r t o

p l a c i n g them on th e b a l l o t 10

C. Only Congress has th e a u t h o r i t y t o

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

P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s after an

e l e c t i o n has been h e l d 13

i i


4/23

D. P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m was f i l e d a f t e r

b a l l o t s had been p r i n t e d and sent t o

some v o t e r s , making t h e i r a l t e r a t i o n

i m p o s s i b l e , and th e claims time-

b a r r e d 13

CONCLUSION 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16

i i i


5/23

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

T h i s Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s m a t t e r

pursuant t o A l a . Code 12-2-7(1) and Rule 3 o f the Alabama

R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e Procedure,

i v


6/23

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc42 So. 3d 65 ( A l a . 2010)

B e l l V. Eagerton,

908 So. 2d 204 ( A l a . 2002)

Chapman v. Gooden,

974 So. 2d 972 (2007)

Cnty. o f Los Angeles v. Davis,

440 U.S. 625 (1979)

Ex P a r t e F o r r e s t e r ,

914 So. 2d 855 ( A l a . 2005)

Ex p a r t e Graham,

702 So. 2d 1215 ( A l a . 1997)

In r e A d o p t i o n o f Walgreen,

710 N.E.2d 1226 (1999)

In r e : Stephen J . ,

932 N.E.2d 87 (111. App. Ct. 2010)

Keyes v. Bowen,

117 C a l . R p t r . 3d 207 ( C a l . App. 2010)

Moore V. O g i l v i e ,

394 U.S. 814 (1969)

Rice V. S i n k f i e l d ,

732 So. 2d 993 ( A l a . 1998)

Robinson v. Bowen,567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. C a l . 2008)

Rogers Found. R e p a i r , I n c . v. P o w e l l ,

748 So. 2d 869 (Ala.1999)

Roper V. Rhodes,

988 So. 2d 471 ( A l a . 2008)

V


7/23

Slawson v. A l a . F o r e s t r y Common,

631 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . 1994)

Wood V. Booth,

990 So. 2d 314 ( A l a . 2008)

STATUTES

A l a . Code 17-14-31

A l a . Code 17-14-44

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const. Amend. XXII 1

OTHERAUTHORITIES

Alabama E l e c t i o n R e s u lt s , a v a i l a b l e at

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/

r e s u l t s / s t a t e s / a l a b a m a

A t t ' y Gen. Op. 1998-200

v i
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/


8/23

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

T h i s l i t i g a t i o n p r e s e n t s a c h a l l e n g e to the

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s i n the 2012

e l e c t i o n c y c l e . P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t the S e c r e t a r y of

S t a t e has a duty to i n v e s t i g a t e the c r e d e n t i a l s of each

c a n d i d a t e p r i o r t o p l a c i n g h i s or her name on t he b a l l o t .

S p e c i f i c a l l y , they accuse he r of f a i l i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e the

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t Barack Obama. They seek an

i n j u n c t i o n t h a t would have the S e c r e t a r y attempt t o t u r n

back the c l o c k t o l a s t November and remove P r e s i d e n t

Obama's name from Alabama's b a l l o t s .

The Defendant moved t o d i s m i s s on grounds t h a t (1) the

c l a i m s were moot once the e l e c t i o n was over; (2) the

Alabama S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e has no duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e

c a n d i d a t e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and no power t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h

the e l e c t i o n of the P r e s i d e n t of the U n i t e d S t a t e s ; and (3)

the 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 p r e v e n t s c o u r t s from

examining the conduct of an e l e c t i o n a f t e r i t has o c c u r r e d .

The Court below g r a n t e d the Defendant's motion t o d i s m i s s ,

and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d .

1


9/23

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Does the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e have an a f f i r m a t i v e duty

t o i n v e s t i g a t e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f e l e c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e s ?

2. I s th e q u e s t i o n of whether the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e

has a duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e the s p e c i f i c c r e d e n t i a l s o f

P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s i n the November 2012 e l e c t i o n moot

f o l l o w i n g the a c t u a l occurrence of the e l e c t i o n and

c e r t i f i c a t i o n of i t s r e s u l t s ?

3. Does the 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 prevent

Alabama c o u r t s from examining the conduct of an e l e c t i o n

a f t e r i t has occurred?

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Barack Obama was f i r s t e l e c t e d P r e s i d e n t i n 2008.

F o l l o w i n g h i s e l e c t i o n , q u e s t i o n s were asked about the

s t a t u s o f h i s American c i t i z e n s h i p , and whether t h a t

a f f e c t e d h i s e l i g i b i l i t y t o h o l d the Presidency.

The P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a complaint i n Montgomery County

C i r c u i t Court on October 11, 2012, l e s s than one month

b e f o r e the e l e c t i o n , r a i s i n g q u e s t i o n s about P r e s i d e n t

Obama's c i t i z e n s h i p . See g e n e r a l l y do c. 1, see a l s o B l .

B r . a t 2. I n i t , he a l l e g e d t h a t the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e

had an a f f i r m a t i v e duty t o v e r i f y the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f

2


10/23

e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l a p p e a r i n g on the b a l l o t i n the S t a t e o f

Alabama f o r the November 2012 e l e c t i o n . See doc. 1 a t 4 (f

12). The c o m p l a i n t took p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e w i t h the

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Barack Obama, a l l e g i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t

h i s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e was f r a u d u l e n t and t h a t i n obedience

t o her oath of o f f i c e . S e c r e t a r y Chapman was o b l i g a t e d t o

i n v e s t i g a t e t ha t a l l e g a t i o n . See i d . at 3-4 {ff 7-12) .

P l a i n t i f f s now request a w r i t o f mandamus t o compel the

S e c r e t a r y t o o b t a i n a c e r t i f i e d copy of each P r e s i d e n t i a l

c a n d i d a t e ' s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e . I f the former c a n d i d a t e

f a i l s t o p r o v i d e one, h i s name s h o u l d be s t r i c k e n from the

b a l l o t and h i s votes revoked. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o seek t o

impose a requirement t h a t the S e c r e t a r y t o do t h i s f o r

e v e r y f u t u r e e l e c t i o n c y c l e .

STANDARD OF REVIEW

" A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w of a r u l i n g on a q u e s t i o n of law i s

de novo." Ex P a r t e F o r r e s t e r , 914 So. 2d 855, 858 ( A l a .

2005) . See a l s o Rogers Found. R e p a i r , I n c . v. P o w e l l , 748

So. 2d 869 (Ala.1999); Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215

(Ala. 1997) .

3


11/23

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The claims P l a i n t i f f s b r i n g a g a i n s t the S e c r e t a r y o f

S t a t e a r e moot. The e l e c t i o n P l a i n t i f f s attempt t o

c h a l l e n g e has a l r e a d y passed, and i t s r e s u l t s have l o n g

s i n c e been c e r t i f i e d . The r e l i e f they seek, the removal o f

P r e s i d e n t Obama's name from th e Alabama b a l l o t , i s

i m p o s s i b l e t o g r a n t .

A l t h o u g h P l a i n t i f f s c i t e t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness,

one o f them i s not r e c o g n i z e d by Alabama c o u r t s . The two

t h a t do a p p l y are i n a p p l i c a b l e he re .

Even were P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s not moot, they would s t i l l

f a i l f o r s i x d i f f e r e n t reasons. The S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e has

no a f f i r m a t i v e d ut y t o v e r i f y the c r e d e n t i a l s o f every

c a n d i d a t e she p l a c e s on t he S t a t e ' s b a l l o t s . Rather, she

has an a f f i r m a t i v e s t a t u t o r y d ut y t o c e r t i f y any c a n d i d a t e s

p r e s e n t e d t o he r by a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . The t a s k o f

ensuring those candidates' e l i g i b i l i t y f o r o f f i c e i s l e f t

t o l e a d e r s h i p w i t h i n th e c a n d i d a t e ' s p o l i t i c a l p a r t y .

Furthermore, Alabama c o u r t s may not examine t he conduct o f

p a s t e l e c t i o n s , and are d i s q u a l i f i e d from h e a r i n g t h e

c l a i m s P l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t . Moreover, the U n i t e d S t a t e s

Congress i s t h e o n l y e n t i t y e n t i t l e d t o conduct an

4


12/23

i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of a can di da te f o r

P r e s i d e n t . Even a s i d e from l e g a l shortcomings, P l a i n t i f f s

p r e s e n t e d t h e i r c l a i m s o n l y a f t e r the r e l i e f they sought

was made i m p o s s i b l e f o l l o w i n g t he m a i l i n g o f absentee

b a l l o t s w i t h t h e c o n t e s t e d c a n d i d a t e s ' names on them.

For the se rea son s, the P l a i n t i f f s ' arguments ar e due t o

b e d i s m i s s e d .

ARGUMENT

I. P l a i n t i f f s ' claims are moot because the election

has already taken place.

As the Se cr et ar y noted i n her motion t o d i s m i s s , t h e

oc cur ren ce of the November 2012 e l e c t i o n renders the claims

here moot. P l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f , the removal o f

P r e s i d e n t Obama's name from the Alabama b a l l o t u n t i l p r o o f

o f h i s c i t i z e n s h i p s t a t u s i s p r o v i d e d (namely, a hard copy

o f h i s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e ) , i s im po ss ib le to grant at t h i s

p o i n t .

" [A] a case i s moot when the is su es pr es en te d are no

l o n g e r ' l i v e ' o r th e p a r t i e s l a c k a l e g a l l y c o g n i z a b l e

i n t e r e s t i n the outcome." Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty.

Outreach, I n c. , 42 So. 3d 65, 70-71 ( A l a . 2010) ( qu o ti n g

Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Da v is , 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1 97 9) ).

5


13/23

I n B e l l V. Eagerton, t h i s Court hel d th at t h e occurrence o f

an e l e c t i o n and th e p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o a v a i l h i m s e l f o f

a l l a v a i l a b l e o p t i o n s t o s to p i t s happening mooted a case.

S e e g e n e r a l l y 908 So. 2d 204 ( A l a . 2002) . Contrary t o

P l a i n t i f f s ' a s s e r t i o n , t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case c l o s e l y mimic

those i n B e l l : P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t seek an i n j u n c t i o n t o

prevent t h e e l e c t i o n ' s occurrence, n o r d i d they e x p l i c i t l y

c h a l l e n g e i t s r e s u l t s . ^

II. P l a i n t i f f s ' claims do not f a l l under an ''exception

to mootness. "

I n t h e i r b r i e f . P l a i n t i f f s c i t e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t

e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness: (1) q u e s t i o n s o f great p u b l i c

importance, (2) issues capable o f r e p e t i t i o n y e t evading

review, and (3) cases where a p a r t y would s u f f e r a

d e t r i m e n t i n t h e absence o f an i s s u e ' s r e s o l u t i o n . B l . B r.

Moreover, P l a i n t i f f s c o u l d n o t have c h a l l e n g e d t h e r e s u l t s o f

Alabama's e l e c t i o n i n such a way as t o a f f e c t i t s outcome.

Although President Obama won r e - e l e c t i o n based on the t o t a lt a l l y o f e l e c t o r a l votes nationwide, he d i d not c a r r y t h e S t a t e

of Alabama, where a s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s (60.7%)

supported Republican candidate M i t t Romney. See Alabama

E l e c t i o n R e s u l t s , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / e l e c t i o n s . n y t i m e s . c o m /

2 0 1 2 / r e s u l t s / s t a t e s / a l a b a m a ( l a s t accessed A p r i l 12, 2013).

Removing P r e s i d e n t Obama's name from Alabama b a l l o t s would n o t

a l t e r r e s u l t s of the e l e c t i o n on e i t h e r t h e S t a t e o r n a t i o n a l

l e v e l .

6
http://elections.nytimes.com/http://elections.nytimes.com/


14/23

at 13. Of th os e th re e, on l y the f i r s t two are re co gn iz ed

i n Alabama co ur ts ,^ and n ei th e r one a pp l ie s here.

The ex ce pt io n to mootness fo r quest ions of great p u b l i c

importance i s i n t e r p r e t e d n a r ro w l y i n Alabama c o u r t s .

" [ A ] n e x c e p t i o n e x i s t s for a 'moot case i n v o l v i n g i s s u e s o f

g r e a t p u b l i c importance, which may rec ur i n the f u t u r e . ' "

Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972, 989 (2007) (emphasis

added). To determine whether t h e e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s , c o u r t s

must e v a l u a t e t h r e e c r i t e r i a : (1) the p u b l i c na tu re o f t he

qu es ti on , (2) the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f an a u t h o r i t a t i v e

d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r t he purpose o f g u i d i n g p u b l i c o f f i c e r s ,

and (3) th e l i k e l i h o o d that the question w i l l g e n e r a l l y

re cu r . Id . at 989 (q uo ti ng Slawson v. A l a . F o r e s t r y

Comm' n, 631 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . 19 94 )) . Here, the second and

t h i r d f a c t o r s i n t he a n a l y s i s p r e c l u d e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t he

ex ce pt io n. The ext ent of the Se cr et ar y' s du ti es under

these cir cum sta nce s has al re ad y been c l a r i f i e d i n an

o f f i c i a l Opi nio n is su ed by the Sta te At to rn ey Gen era l. See

g e n e r a l l y , A t t ' y Gen. Op. 1998-200. Furthermore, the

^The f i n a l e x c e p t i o n P l a i n t i f f s propose i s not recog niz ed i n

Alabama co ur ts , and i t s onl y support comes from a case-

s p e c i f i c r u l i n g by a low er co ur t i n another s t a t e . See In

r e : Stephen J., 932 N.E.2d 87 (111. App. Ct. 2010)

( a u t h o r i z i n g an exception where one party would s u f f e r a

d e t r i m e n t ) .

7


15/23

c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t i s s u e can never r e c u r because P r e s i d e n t

Obama i s t e r m - l i m i t e d and may not ru n f o r the o f f i c e a g a i n .

See U.S. Const. Amend. XXII 1. S i n c e " t h i s ' e x c e p t i o n i s

c o n s t r u e d n a r r o w l y , ' " even though the case a r g u a b l y

i n v o l v e s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c i m p o r t a n c e , the o t h e r two

f a c t o r s weigh a g a i n s t e x c e p t i n g t h i s case from the mootness

d o c t r i n e . Slawson a t 989 ( q u o t i n g In re A d o p t i o n o f

Walgreen, 710 N.E.2d 1226, 1227 (1999)).

A n e x c e p t i o n t o mootness a l s o e x i s t s where an i s s u e i s

c a p a b l e of r e p e t i t i o n , but would c o n t i n u a l l y "evade r e v i e w "

i f t y p i c a l p r o c e d u r a l t i m i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s a p p l i e d . Moore

V. O g i l v i e , 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969). However, t h i s Court

has s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c o g n i z e d the l i m i t s o f Moore's h o l d i n g :

"[The] p l a i n t i f f s ' c h a l l e n g e t o s t a t e e l e c t i o n law was not

moot, even a f t e r the c h a l l e n g e d e l e c t i o n was completed,

because the p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d c h a l l e n g e th e law w i t h r e s p e c t

to f u t u r e e l e c t i o n s . " R i c e v. S i n k f i e l d , 732 So. 2d 993,

994 n . l ( A l a . 1998). A c h a l l e n g e to an e l e c t i o n o n l y

escapes mootness where the i s s u e i s "capable o f

r e p e t i t i o n . " Moore a t 816. The s i t u a t i o n at bar i s i n

f a c t a p a r a d i g m a t i c example of when an e x c e p t i o n does not

a p p l y : P r e s i d e n t Obama (the P l a i n t i f f s ' o b v i o u s t a r g e t ) i s

8


16/23

t e r m - l i m i t e d , and b a r r e d from running f o r the P r e s i d e n c y

a g a i n . See U.S. Const, amend. XXII, 1. N e c e s s a r i l y ,

then, the circumstances of the e l e c t i o n t h a t P l a i n t i f f s

c h a l l e n g e here can never be repeated. Th ei r cla ims do not

pose a s i t u a t i o n t h a t i s capable o f r e p e t i t i o n , but evading

review, and consequently, no e x c e p t i o n t o mootness a p p l i e s .

III. Even were they not moot. P l a i n t i f f s ' claims would

s t i l l f a i l .

A s i d e from the being rendered moot by the a c t u a l

occurrence of the November 2012 e l e c t i o n s . P l a i n t i f f s '

c l a i m s here ar e s t i l l due t o be d i s m i s s e d on a number o f

o t h e r grounds.

A. The Court lacks subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n

over the claims pursuant to Ala. Code 17-16

44.

Alabama c o u r t s are g e n e r a l l y b a r r e d from a s c e r t a i n i n g

the " l e g a l i t y , conduct o r r e s u l t s o f any e l e c t i o n except so

f a r as a u t h o r i t y t o do so [ i s ] s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y

enumerated and s e t down by s t a t u t e . " Wood v. Booth, 990

So. 2d 314, 318 ( A l a . 2008) (quoting Ala. Code 17-14-44).

In s p i t e o f P l a i n t i f f s ' attempts t o d i s t i n g u i s h q u e s t i o n i n g

9


17/23

th e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f e l e c t o r a l can did ate s from q u e s t i o n i n g

th e conduct of an e l e c t i o n , t h e i r s i s a d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h o u t

a d i f f e r e n c e . To accommodate P l a i n t i f f s , t h i s Court would

be f o r c e d t o l o o k back at the r e s u l t s of l a s t November's

e l e c t i o n i n order to see whether t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were

harmed by the presence of s p e c i f i c ca nd id at es on the

b a l l o t . C o n t r a r y t o t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s t h a t " t h i s l a w s u i t

does not seek to q u e s t i o n the l e g a l i t y of the e l e c t i o n , nor

does i t imp act the 'conduct' of the e l e c t i o n , nor does i t

c o n t e s t the r e s u l t s of an e l e c t i o n , " B l . Br. a t 36, r u l i n g

on P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a t t h i s stage would i n h e r e n t l y

i n v o l v e the e v a l u a t i o n of the e l e c t i o n ' s r e s u l t s . I t would

be i m p o s s i b l e t o i n v a l i d a t e the votes of a candidate who

d i d not produce a b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e to the S e c r e t a r y o f

S t a t e and have the conduct of the e l e c t i o n remain

unchanged, even i f the end r e s u l t remained u n a l t e r e d .

B. The Secretary has no l e g a l duty to investigate

or v e r i f y the cre den tia ls of candidates p r i o r

to placing themon the b al l o t .

The Alabama Code s t a t e s t h a t "the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e

s h a l l c e r t i f y . . . t h e names o f a l l c a n d i d a t e s f o r P r e s i d e n t

and V i c e P r e s i d e n t who ar e no mi na te d by any n a t i o n a l

10


18/23

c o n v e n t i o n . " A l a . Code 17-14-31(a) (emphasis added). She

i s r e q u i r e d t o c e r t i f y a l l P r e s i d e n t i a l candidates who have

secured the endorsement of a p o l i t i c a l pa r ty . As a m a t t e r

of Alabama law, the Secretary has no duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e

the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of candidates except i n a ver y s p e c i f i c

set of circums tances: she i s re sp on si bl e fo r r ef us i ng to

c e r t i f y a candidate o n l y when she has knowledge gained from

an o f f i c i a l source w h i l e p e r f o r m i n g her d u ti e s as

pr e sc r i be d by law, that 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 . See ge ne ra ll y A l a . A t t ' y Gen.

Op. No. 1998-200. An Attorney General Opinion on the

s u b j e c t e l a b o r a t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e Code does not re qu ir e the

Se cr et ar y of Sta te to determine whether each nominee meets

a l l the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r h i s or her p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c e . "

I d . at 3. I t does, however, i n d i c a t e t h a t where the

S e c r e t a r y possesses " o f f i c i a l knowledge" of a c a n d i d a t e ' s

d e f i c i e n c y " a r i s i n g from the performance o f d u t i e s

pr e sc r ib e d by law," the source of that knowledge w i l l be

considered an " o f f i c i a l source." The Opinion c i t e s as an

example a n o t i c e from t h e E t h i c s Committee to the Se cr et ar y

that a c a n d i d a t e has f a i l e d to f i l e a s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d

statement of economic i n t e r e s t s . Id . Although P l a i n t i f f s

11


19/23

i d e n t i f y some groups t h a t have i n v e s t i g a t e d P r e s i d e n t

Obama's background on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e s , t h e

c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from those i n v e s t i g a t i o n s are not

" o f f i c i a l , " s i n c e they were n o t a c q u i r e d i n t h e course o f a

government worker's o f f i c i a l d u t i e s . They a r e t h e r e f o r e

i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e o f f i c i a l knowledge ga in ed from

an o f f i c i a l s o u r c e .

A d d i t i o n a l l y , as s t a t e d i n t h e motion t o d i s m i s s , A l a .

Code 17-14-31 (a) i m p l i c i t l y l e a v e s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r

v e r i f y i n g a c a n d i d a t e ' s c r e d e n t i a l s to the n o m i n a t i n g

p a r t y . C o u r t s i n o t h e r s t a t e s have tended t o agree t h a t

" [ a ] n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f e l i g i b i l i t y i s b e s t l e f t t o each

p a r t y , which presumably w i l l conduct t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

background check o r r i s k t h a t i t s nominee's e l e c t i o n w i l l

be d e r a i l e d by an o b j e c t i o n i n Congress." Keyes v. Bowen,

117 C a l . R p t r . 3d 207, 209 ( C a l . App. 2010). As concerns

t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e Democratic P a r t y p r o v i d e s m u l t i p l e

o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c h a l l e n g i n g t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f a

p r o p o s e d c a n d i d a t e . P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t take advantage o f

e i t h e r the pr e - or p o s t - p r i m a r y p ro c e d u r es t h a t would have

a l l o w e d them t o c h a l l e n g e t h e P r e s i d e n t i a l n o m i n a t i o n p r i o r

t o t h e o c c u r r e n c e of th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n .

12


20/23

C. Only Congress has the authority to judge the

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Presidential candidates

after an e l e c t i o n has been held.

Af te r a fed era l el ec ti on has o c c u r r e d , the o n l y e n t i t y

w i t h the power to review the re su lt s i s Congress. Robinson

V. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. C a l . 2008). T h i s i s

p r i m a r i l y because of the po te nt ia l for c o n f u s i o n and

c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s t h at might occur i f each S t a t e was

g i v e n l i c e n s e t o review t he e l e c t i o n ' s outcome:

The p r e s i d e n t i a l nominating p r o c e s s i s not s u b j e c t to

each of the 50 st at es ' e l e c t i o n o f f i c i a l s i n d e p e n d e n t l y

d e c i d i n g whether a p r e s i d e n t i a l nominee i s q u a l i f i e d ,

as this c o u l d lead to chaot ic re s ul t s. Were the c o u r t s

of 50 sta tes at l i b e r t y to issu e in ju nc ti on s

r e s t r i c t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n of d u ly - el e ct e d p r e s i d e n t i a l

e l e c t o r s , t he r e s u l t c o u l d be c o n f l i c t i n g r u l i n g s and

d e l a y e d t r a n s i t i o n of power i n d e r o g a t i o n o f s t a t u t o r y

and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e a d l i n e s .

Keyes, 117 Cal. R p t r . 3d at 209. By p l a c i n g the a u t h o r i t y

to judge the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s i n

the hands of Congress once an e l e c t i o n i s p a s t , the

p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t i n g a d j ud i c at i o ns i m m e d i a t e l y drops

to z e r o .

D. Pla int iff s' claim was f i l e d after ballots had

been printed and sent to some voters, making

13


21/23

their alteration impossible, and the claims

time-barred.

F i n a l l y , P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r c l a i m s too l a t e i n the

c o u r t below. By the time they f i l e d t h e i r i n i t i a l

complaint, b a l l o t s had a l r e a d y been p r i n t e d and sent t o

absentee v o t e r s , r e n d e r i n g t h e i r a l t e r a t i o n i m p o s s i b l e .

Whether construed as an untimely contest of th e nominating

process (see Wood v. Booth, 990 So. 2d 314 ( A l a . 2008),

Roper V. Rhodes, 988 So. 2d 471 (Ala. 2008)), or through

the lens of laches (see Roper, 988 So. 2d at 481 (Murdock,

J . , d i s s e n t i n g i n the reasoning but agreeing i n the

r e s u l t ) ) , the P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m was t i m e - b a r r e d from the

moment i t was f i l e d .

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, t h i s Court should a f f i r m the

C i r c u i t Court's r u l i n g , and d i s m i s s P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s .

14


22/23

R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted,

Luther Strange

Attorney General

Andrew L. BrasherDeputy S o l i c i t o r General

Is/ Laura E. Howell

Assistant Attorney General

James W. Davis

Laura E. Howell

Assistant Attorneys General

S t a t e of Alabama

O f f i c e of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l501 Washington Ave.

Montgomery, AL 36130

(334) 242-7300

[email protected]

j [email protected]

I h o w e l K j a g o . s t a t e . a l . u s

A t t o r n e y s f o r S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Beth Chapman

15
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


23/23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby c e r t i f y t h a t on the 23rci day of A p r i l ,

2013, a copy of the above and f o r e g o i n g document has been

f i l e d w i t h the C l e r k of the Court u s i n g the A p p e l l a t e

Courts e - F i l i n g System (ACES) 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 a l l p a r t i e s of r e c o r d , has been e m a i l e d

where noted, and m a i l e d v i a U.S. M a i l where noted.

L. Dean Johnson

4030 B a l m o r a l Dr., S te. B

H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801

Johnson [email protected]

L a r r y Klayman

Klayman Law F i r m

2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave. N.W.

S t e . 800

Washington, D.C. 20006

[email protected]

/ s / Laura E. Howell

OF COUNSEL
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief

Documents

Transcript of SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief