Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jordan Memorandum

Jordan Memorandum

Ratings: (0)|Views: 52 |Likes:
Published by Helen Tansey
Jordan original Memorandum filing
Jordan original Memorandum filing

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Helen Tansey on Jan 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
PLAINTIFF’S
 
MOTION
 
FOR
 
ORDER
 
TO
 
SHOWLINDA
 
JORDAN,
 
PLAINTIFF
 
PRO
 
SE
 
CAUSE;AFFIDAVIT
 
OF
 
LINDA
 
JORDAN;
 
MEMORANDUM
 
AND
 
APPENDIX
 
OF
 
LAW1
 
OF
 
10
 
LINDA
 
JORDAN
 
V.
 
SECRETARY
 
OF
 
STATE
 
SAM
 
REED
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
x
Expedite
No
 
hearing
 
set
 
XHearing
 
is
 
set
 
Date:
 
September
 
7,
 
2012
 
9:00
 
AM
 
Judge/Calendar:
 
Lisa
 
Sutton
 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONFOR THURSTON COUNTY
Linda Jordan) No. 12-2-01763-5Plaintiff )
MEMORANDUM AND APPENDIX OF LAW
v. )
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
 Secretary of State Sam Reed )
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
 Defendant )______________________________________________________________________________
1. Courts Affirm That Electors Have A Legitimate Interest In The Integrity Of Elections
The Supreme Court has noted that
“public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process hasindependent significance,
[aside from the State interest to prevent voter fraud]
becauseitencourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”
1
The Supreme Court hasrecognized the right to vote as a
“judicially cognizable interest.”
2
 
1
Crawford,
 
ET
 
AL
 
v.
 
Marion
 
County
 
Et
 
Al,
 
553U.S.
 
2008,p.13
 
2
See,
 
e.g.,
 
Reynolds
 
v.
 
Sims,
 
377
 
U.S.
 
533,
 
544
 
(1964))
 
 
PLAINTIFF’S
 
MOTION
 
FOR
 
ORDER
 
TO
 
SHOWLINDA
 
JORDAN,
 
PLAINTIFF
 
PRO
 
SE
 
CAUSE;AFFIDAVIT
 
OF
 
LINDA
 
JORDAN;
 
MEMORANDUM
 
AND
 
APPENDIX
 
OF
 
LAW2
 
OF
 
10
 
LINDA
 
JORDAN
 
V.
 
SECRETARY
 
OF
 
STATE
 
SAM
 
REED
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
32
 
33
 
34
 
35
 
36
 
The Anderson Court concluded that presidential selection procedures
“implicate a uniquelyimportant national interest”
because
“the President and the Vice-President of the United Statesare the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”
3
 From the Anderson case;
"Nevertheless, as we have recognized,the rights of voters and the rightsof candidates do not lend themselves to neat separation; laws that affect candidates always haveat least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters." 
4
 The Jimmy Carter Commission on the integrity of elections concluded in part that,
"The electoral  system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters."
5
 Confirming the identity and citizenship status of candidates is of equal importance.The Supreme Court has long recognized that,
"as a practical matter, there must be a substantialregulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather thanchaos, is to accompany the democratic process." 
6
 
2. The Court Has Found That Eligibility Requirements Are Legal
In Dumas v. Gagner the Court found that States can restrict candidates by requiring they meeteligibility qualifications.
7
The Court also noted that,
“Statutory provisions relating to conduct of an election, such as requirements for notice, have been held to be directory only…
 But provisions
3
CNCL
 
of 
 
Alternative
 
v.
 
Hooks
 
No.
 
98
5256
 
(Citing
 
Anderson,
 
460
 
U.S.
 
at
 
794)
 
4
Bullock
 
v.
 
Carter,
 
405
 
U.
 
S.
 
134,
 
405
 
U.
 
S.
 
143
 
(1972)
 
5
Ex
 
1
 
Building
 
Confidence
 
in
 
U.S.
 
Elections
 
Report
 
of 
 
the
 
Commission
 
on
 
Federal
 
Election
 
Reform
 
September
 
2005
 
6
Burdick
 
,
 
504
 
U.S.
 
at
 
433
 
(quoting
 
Storer,
 
415
 
U.S.
 
at
 
730).
 
7
“Statutory
 
provisions
 
regarding
 
qualifications
 
of 
 
candidates,
 
such
 
as
 
a
 
residence
 
requirement,
 
directly
 
and
 
substantively
 
affect
 
an
 
election
 
because
 
they
 
place
 
restrictions
 
upon
 
who
 
can
 
be
 
a
 
candidate,
 
and,
 
consequently,
 
are
 
not
 
mere
 
technicalities.”
 
 
PLAINTIFF’S
 
MOTION
 
FOR
 
ORDER
 
TO
 
SHOWLINDA
 
JORDAN,
 
PLAINTIFF
 
PRO
 
SE
 
CAUSE;AFFIDAVIT
 
OF
 
LINDA
 
JORDAN;
 
MEMORANDUM
 
AND
 
APPENDIX
 
OF
 
LAW3
 
OF
 
10
 
LINDA
 
JORDAN
 
V.
 
SECRETARY
 
OF
 
STATE
 
SAM
 
REED
 
37
 
” 
8
(Emphasis added)
38
 
39
 
40
 
41
 
42
 
43
 
44
 
45
 
46
 
47
 
48
 
49
 
50
 
51
 
52
 
53
 
54
 
55
 
which affect the merits are mandatory, and, if not followed would void anelection.
Electors have a vested interest in the eligibility requirements placed on candidates and have anexpectation that the Secretary will enforce eligibility requirements. While the Courts havegenerally interpreted eligibility requirements liberally, so as to ensure more candidates can attaina qualified status versus fewer, they have never extended that liberal view to include thequalification of ineligible candidates. Recently, in New Jersey, the Democrat NationalCommittee, arguing that Candidate Obama does not have to prove he is an eligible candidate,asserted that if Mickey Mouse was nominated as a presidential candidate the Secretary of Statewould have no choice but to place the cartoon character on the ballot. Plaintiff disagrees. InWashington State the Secretary has legal standing to reject candidates who are not eligible on theplain face of it and to reject candidates who do not qualify.
If it is brought to the attention thata candidate is using a forged identity document to prove eligibility, which is a crime, theSecretary has an obligation to keep that candidate off the ballot.
3.“Treating candidates equally is, as a matter of law, an important state interest.”
 Candidate Obama should be held to the same instruction that the Secretary holds Write InCandidates for President and Vice-President to: they have to swear an eligibility oath and if theydon’t swear the oath their declaration will not be accepted. Putting forth Candidate Obama’sname for placement on the General Election Ballot, before a Nomination Certificate and list of 
8
DUMAS
 
v.
 
GAGNER
 
971
 
P.2d
 
17
 
(1999)
 
Supreme
 
Court
 
of 
 
Washington,
 
En
 
Banc.
 
Argued
 
December
 
8,
 
1998
 
9
Ex22012
 
King
 
County
 
Candidate
 
Manuel
 
“The
 
officer
 
with
 
whom
 
declarations
 
are
 
filed
 
shall
 
review
 
each
 
declaration
 
for
 
compliance
 
with
 
this
 
law.”
 
10
Ex3SOS
 
Can
 
you
 
reject
 
a
 
Declaration?
 
11
See,
 
e.g.,
 
Council
 
of 
 
Alternative
 
Political
 
Parties
 
v.
 
Hooks,
 
179f3d.
 
64,
 
78
 
(3d
 
Cir.1999)
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->