TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
INTRODUCTION 1
ARGUMENT
I. The Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments as
Implemented by 3 U.S.C. 15 Do Not Provide the
Exclusive Process for Challenging the
Qualifications of a Presidential Candidate 1
II. Keyes v. Bowen Incorrectly Held That the
Secretary of State Has No Duty To Verify the
Constitutional Eligibility of Presidential
Candidates 4
III. The Demand for a Writ of Mandate is Not Moot
Since the Injury is Capable of Repetition Yet
Evading Review 6
CONCLUSION 10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) 3,4
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) 3,4
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) 7
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911) 219 U.S. 498 7
Weinstein v. Bradford (1975) 423 U.S. 147 8
STATE CASES
Keyes v. Bowen, 189 Cal.App.a" 647 (2010) 4,6
STATE STATUTES
Code of Civil Procedure 1089.5 9
Elections Code 6041 7,8
Election Code 6901 4,5
Election Code 12172.5 5,6
FEDERAL STATUTES
3 U.S.C. 15 1,2
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 3
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 6
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 6
Twelfth Amendment l,2
Twentieth Amendment.. l,2
ii
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Edward C. Noonan filed his Opening Brief on April
12,2013. AppellantPamela Barnett filed her Opening Brief on July
10,2013. Respondents President Barack Obama and Obama for
America California filed their Respondents' Briefon August 20, 2013.
Respondent Bowen filed her Respondents' Brief on September 18,
2013. This Reply Brief is filed on behalf of Appellant Edward C.
Noonan.
ARGUMENT
I. The Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments as Implemented
by 3 U.S.C. 15 Do Not Provide the Exclusive Process for
Challenging the Qualifications of a Presidential Candidate.
Respondents Obama and Obama for America California contend
that there is an "exclusive process" by which presidential eligibility
may be challenged in "the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments to the
United States Constitution (as implemented by 3 U.S.C. 15)."
Obama's Respondents Brief, p. 21. According to Respondents,
because this process makes no room for either the California Secretary
of State or the California courts, there is no jurisdiction for this Court
(or the court below) to entertain petitioners' lawsuit.
There is no legal support for this contention. Neither the
Twelfth nor Twentieth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide
any specific mechanism to challenge a Presidential candidate's
qualifications. The Twelfth Amendment provides the Electors of the
Electoral College with the procedure by which the votes for President
and Vice President are counted. The Twentieth Amendment specifies
the procedure by which a successor President is chosen when the prior
President has passed away in office. The Twentieth Amendment does
mention a situation when "a President elect shall have failed to
qualify," but the procedures specified in the Amendment only provide
guidance after a determination of ineligibility has been made, giving
no insight as to who would determine whether a candidate is ineligible.
In addition, 3 U.S.C. 15 gives detailed procedures by which a
member of the House of Representatives and a Senator may jointly
challenge the vote of a presidential elector, provided that the elector
has engaged in some impropriety. Nothing in the plain reading of 3
U.S.C. 15 provides a remedy for the eligibility of a President-Elect to
be challenged at the time for counting of electoral votes, and a
challenge raised against a presidential elector is not equivalent to a
2
p
challenge to ascertain the eligibility of a President-Elect. Finally, even
applying a more expansive reading of the two Amendments and the
statute together, they so not purport to be exhaustive, and address only
the authority of presidential electors and members of Congress, not the
authority of state officials.
Indeed, the primary authority over the means by which electors
are selected is vested in the States by Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of
the U.S. Constitution. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1,35
(1892) ("[T]he appointment and mode of appointment of electors
belong exclusively to the States under the Constitution of the United
States."). Pursuant to this authority, the State of Alabama enacted a
law requiring candidates for presidential electors to pledge to vote for
the Presidential nominee chosen at the National Party Convention, and
removing electors who refused to so pledge. See Ray v. Blair, 343
U.S; 214 (1952). The Alabama statute was upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court as a constitutional exercise of the power vested in the
state legislature over the selection of the president. See id. at 224-26,
228-31. By the very same reasoning, it would be constitutional for the
State of California to enact a law requiring its presidential electors to
3
p
vote only for a candidate who meets the eligibility requirements for the
President that are spelled out in the Constitution, including the
requirement of being a natural born citizen. Clearly, it is well
established that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that bars the
California legislature from placing limits on the state's presidential
electors' voting powers. See McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35-36. See also
Blair, 343 U.S. at 221-22.
II. Keyes v. Bowen Incorrectly Held That the Secretary of State
Has No Duty To Verify the Constitutional Eligibility of
Presidential Candidates.
Respondents allege that the issues raised by this appeal have
already been resolved by the case of Keyes v. Bowen, 189 Cal.App.d"
647 (2010). Obamas Respondents Brief, p. 21; Bowen's Respondents
Brief, p. 7. While Respondents correctly point out that the issue of
Elections Code 6901 was raised by the Petitioners in the Keyes v.
Bowen case, Appellant Noonan contests the correctness of that
decision, holding that the Secretary of State has no duty to verify the
eligibility of a national Presidential Candidate.
The Secretary of State has the duty and authority to examine the
qualifications of candidates for every office subject to election in the
4
State of California. Elections Code 12172.5. Pursuant to that duty,
the Secretary of State issues written guidelines for every candidate
seeking to be placed on any ballot in the State of California, and
removes candidates from the ballot who the Secretary of State later
determines lack the qualifications for office. Elections Code 12172.5.
This oversight over elections by the Secretary of State applies not only
to State offices, but to Federal offices as well. Elections Code
12172.5.
Under current California law, the only exception to this duty is
with respect to Presidential candidates selected by national political
parties. However, that exception does not preclude consideration of a
Presidential candidate's eligibility, but merely excuses the Secretary of
State from routinely requiring such a candidate to provide evidence of
his or her eligibility. Since Elections Code 6901 does not require the
Secretary of State to routinely require evidence of eligibility from
candidates selected by national political parties, and since there is no
duty imposed by state law on political parties to determine eligibility,
Appellant Noonan brought this suit to require the Secretary of State to
verify the eligibility of Presidential Candidates. In Keyes v. Bowen,
5
this Court did not determine who had the duty to verify eligibility,
finessing the issue by stating "presumably [the political parties] will
conduct the appropriate background check.... " Keyes v. Bowen, 189
Cal.App.c" at 652. However, the matter of eligibility for the office of
President of the United States is too serious a matter to be left to a
vague "presumption." The California state legislature is duty bound by
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to ensure that
presidential electors are chosen, and that those electors are committed
to voting only for a person who meets the qualifications for the office
of the President as spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. This
responsibility has been vested in the California Secretary of State.
Elections Code 12172.5.
III. The Demand for a Writ of Mandate is Not Moot Since the
Injury is Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review.
Respondent Bowen contends that the substantive issues of this
appeal are moot as to the 2012 California Presidential Primary
Election. Bowen's Respondents Brief, p. 9. Even though the time to
challenge the certification by the Secretary of State of the names for
the 2012 Presidential Primary Election is past, this matter is not moot
6
under the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases which are
"capable of repetition yet evading review." See generally Southern
Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911) 219 U.S. 498; Sosna v. Iowa
(1975) 419 U.S. 393.
The window for consideration and announcement of nationally
recognized candidates by the Secretary of State of California is narrow,
as the Secretary of State has "[b ]etween the 150th day and the 68th day
preceding a presidential primary election" to make this announcement
under Elections Code 6041. To hold this case to be moot as to the
2012 California Primary Election, as respondents contend and,
therefore, not justiciable would leave this petitioner, and any future
plaintiff, subject to a very narrow window in which to attempt to fully
litigate a set of very complex legal issues. The U.S. Supreme Court
applies a two-prong test in determining when to apply this exception to
the mootness doctrine:
(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to
be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and
(2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same
complaining party would be subjected to the same action
again. [Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975).]
7
This case easily satisfies both elements to trigger this exception.
Under the first prong, litigation must be resolved by 68 days prior to
the June Primary Election. See Elections Code 6041. The earliest
date that one could litigate the Secretary of State's certification of
names for the California presidential primary is 150 days prior to the
June Presidential Primary Election. Id. Even this full period is not
generally available, as the Secretary of State is not required to declare
the name of presidential candidates until the 68-day cutoff, thus
potentially limiting the window of time to litigate to only one day
before the names of presidential candidates must be certified for the
ballot. Neither Noonan nor any party could litigate these complex
issues which involve the United States Constitution, the California
Constitution, and the California Elections Code before an election.
The answer period prescribed by statute for a writ allows 30 days to
respond, thus potentially taking up the entire period (or longer) in
which Noonan can avoid a mootness argument (See California Code of
Civil Procedure 1089.5). No party can assume such expedited
review.
8
With respect to the second prong, Noonan has run for the office
of Vice-President and of President several times, including in 2008 and
2012, and may again seek the office of President in future Presidential
Elections. There is no reason to believe that the Secretary of State will
change her view regarding the scope of her duties, requiring Mr.
Noonan, or some other similarity situated candidate for the office of
President of the United States, to again seek redress from this Court
during the same brief window of opportunity to litigate their challenge.
Clearly, this case presents a challenge which is "capable of
repetition yet evading review," meeting the requirements for that
exception to the mootness doctrine. Noonan should be allowed to
continue to litigate these complex legal questions, not only for the
2012 election cycle, but also to resolve these issues for future
presidential elections.
9
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, as well as prior briefs, Noonan
respectfully requests that this Court reverse the lower court's Judgment
ofDismissal after Sustaining Respondents' Demurrers, and remand the
case with instructions to order Respondents to answer the First
Amended Petition or, in the alternative, with instructions for the lower
court to allow Petitioners leave to amend their complaint.
October 7, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
~ 4 L -

NATHANIEL J. OLESON
(SBN 276695)
UNITED STATES mSTICE
FOUNDATION
932 D Street, Suite 3
Ramona, California 92065
Tel: (760) 788-6624
Fax: (760) 788-6414
E-mail: njoleson@gmail.com
Attorneyfor APPELLANTEDWARD C. NOONAN
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CRC 8.204(c)(1)
I hereby certify that this Reply Brief consists of 1877 words per California
Rules of Court Rule 8.204(c)(I). The number of words was confirmed by
reference to counting by the WordPerfect computer program used to typeset this
brief.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge. Executed this 7th day of October, 2013.
~ 4 - -
NATHANIEL J. OLESON
11
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
)
Proof of Service by:
.( US Postal Service
Federal Express
I, Maurice Harrington , declare that I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of
age and my business address is: 354 South Spring St., Suite 610, Los Angeles, California 90013.
On 10107/2013 declarant served the within: Reply Brief of Appellant
upon:
1 Copies FedEx.f USPS
Copies FedEx USPS
To Each on Attached Service List Electronically Served on the
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
per Rule 8.212(c)(2)
Copies FedEx USPS
Copies FedEx USPS
Clerk of the Court
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
Third Appellate District
621 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814-4719
Electronically Submitted to the
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
Third Appellate District, per Rule 8.70
the addressees) designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing the number of
copies indicated above, of same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in a Post
Office Mail Depository, under the exclusive custody and care of the United States Postal Service,
within the State of California, or properly addressed wrapper in an Federal Express Official
Depository, under the exclusive custody and care of Federal Express, within the State of
California
I further declare that this same day the original and copies has/have been hand delivered for
filing OR the original and 4 copies haslhave been filed by .f third party commercial carrier for
next business day delivery to:
I declare under penalty of perjury t the foregoing is true and correct:
Signature:
SERVICE LIST
Pamela Barnett Anthony R. Hakl III, Esq.
2351 Sunset Boulevard OFFICE OF THE STATE
Suite 170-921 ATTORNEY GENERAL
Rocklin, California 95765 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, California 94244-2550
Appellant In Pro Per
Attorney for Respondent,
Debra Bowen
Fredric D. Woocher, Esq. Clerk for the Hon. Michael P. Kenny
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10940 Wilshire Boulevard County of Sacramento
Suite 2000 Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County
Los Angeles, California 90024 Courthouse
720 9th Street
Attorneyfor Respondents, Sacramento, California 95814
Barack Hussein Obama IL as President et al.
Trial Court Judge