ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1/9/2012 3:36 PM CV-2011-002321.

00 CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA ANNE-MARIE ADAMS, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION

HENDERSHOT ALBERT E JR, Plaintiff, V. KENNEDY MARK, CHAIRMAN OF ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Defendant.

) ) ) ) Case No.: ) ) ) ORDER

CV-2011-002321.00

THIS MATTER CAME TO BE HEARD on the Defendants Motion for Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed. After a hearing and due consideration, the Court concludes that the Defendants motion is due to be granted and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The present action seeks, among other relief, a preliminary injunction against Defendant Kennedy in his capacity as Chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party to prevent certification of [President Barack] Obama for 2012 Alabama ballot access pending final hearing based on factual evidentiary findings. (Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 1). The

Plaintiffs motion also seeks [m]odification of rules/regulations for candidate eligibility verification/authentication. (Id. at 4). The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction also seeks an evidentiary hearing at which President Obama would be required to produce his original long form birth certificate and microfiche copy of such original birth certificate, along with the [o]riginal application for President Obamas Social Security number. In his

accompanying affidavit, the Plaintiff asserts that the Presidents birth certificate is a forgery and that President Obama is using a fraudulently obtained Social Security number.

In addition to challenging the Plaintiffs standing, the Defendant has cited this Court to 17-16-44 of the Code of Alabama (1975) provides, in part: No jurisdiction exists in or shall be exercised by any judge or court to entertain any proceeding for ascertaining the legality, conduct, or results of any election, except so far as authority to do so shall be specially and specifically enumerated and set down by statute; and any injunction, process, or order from any judge or court, whereby the results of any election are sought to be inquired into, questioned, or affected, or whereby any certificate of election is sought to be inquired into or questioned, save as may be specially and specifically enumerated and set down by statute, shall be null and void and shall not be enforced by any officer or obeyed by any person. This statute is commonly referred to as the jurisdiction-stripping statute. See Bryan v. Hubbard, 6 So.3d 491, 503 (Ala. 2008). The Alabama Supreme Court has held that 17-16-44 severely restricts a courts jurisdiction to hear actions challenging the conduct or results of elections. Rice v. Chapman, 51 So.3d 281, 284 (Ala. 2010). See also Smith v. Burkhalter, 28 So.3d 730, 735-736 (Ala. 2009) (It is well settled that the legislature, by enacting 17-16-44, has restricted the jurisdiction of the circuit courts in regard to elections.); King v. Campbell, 988 So.2d 969, 977 (Ala. 2007) (The legislature has restricted the jurisdiction of the circuit courts by enacting 17-16-44.); Etheridge v. State ex rel. Olson, 730 So.2d 1179, 1182 (Ala. 1999) (We note again, as we have done on previous occasions, that a court does not have jurisdiction to interfere in an election result unless a statute authorizes it to do so. The Legislature has made this abundantly clear.); Sears v. Carson, 551 So.2d 1054, 1056 (Ala 1989) (This Court has been unequivocal in stating that elections normally do not fall within the scope of judicial review.); Blake v. Chapman, No. CV-2010-2766.00-NGS, 2010 WL 4340018 (Jeff. Co. Cir. Ct., Oct. 29, 2010) (Still, N., Judge). The present action attempts to interfere with and challenge the conduct of the 2012 Democratic Primary election by enjoining Defendant Kennedy and the Alabama Democratic

Party from certifying President Obama as the partys nominee, as well as seeking to modify the rules/regulations for determining candidate eligibility. Pursuant to 17-16-44 and the binding decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the present action because there is not an Alabama statute that specially and specifically grants this Court such jurisdiction. See Rice v. Chapman, 51 So.3d 281, 284-285 (Ala. 2010); Blake v. Chapman, No. CV-2010-2766.00NGS, 2010 WL 4340018 (Jeff. Co. Cir. Ct., Oct. 29, 2010). The Plaintiff has not and cannot cited this Court to an Alabama statute that specially and specifically grants this Court subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the President of the United States is a Natural Born Citizen or is otherwise eligible to hold the office of President. As a consequence, in the absence of a statute specially and specifically granting this Court subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs claims, this action must be dismissed. While there are several other grounds on which this Court could dismiss the present action, the absence of subject matter jurisdiction is obviously sufficient. See Crutcher v. Williams, 12 So.3d 631, 635 (Ala. 2008) (A court is obligated to vigilantly protect against deciding cases over which it has no jurisdiction....). The present action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs taxed as paid. DONE this 9th day of January, 2012. /s/ HELEN SHORES LEE CIRCUIT JUDGE