OBJECTION BOARD MINUTES September 13, 2012 (Not Yet Approved)

On September 13, 2012 the State Objections Board consisting of Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Lieutenant Governor Jeff Colyer, and Attorney General Derek Schmidt met to consider four objections. The Lieutenant Governor participated via teleconference. The other members appeared in person. Attorney General Schmidt nominated Secretary Kobach to chair the meeting and Secretary Kobach was elected. The next order of business was to approve the minutes from the June 19,2012 State Objections Board meeting. The Lt. Governor moved toadop(the minutes, seconded by the Attorney General and they were approved unanimously bythe board. The Attorney General moved to adopt the agenda, seconded bJthe Lt. Governor and approved unanimously by the board. The Secretary of State then introduced the procedural rules. The Attorney General moved to adopt the rules, seconded by the Lt. Governor andapproved unanimously by the board.
In Rc Sawyer:

The first objection considered waslnRe Sawyer; The Objector Craig Gabel was sworn in. Mr. Gabel presented testimony and affidavits .. Following the presentation, the members of the Objection Board asked questions of Mr. Gable. The board next heard fromMr. Sawyer via telephone. Mr. Sawyer was sworn in by the court reporter. Mr. Sawyer presented testimony. Following the presentation, the members of the Objection Board asked questions of Mr. Sawyer: . Following the presentations by the parties, analysis was conducted by the Objections Board. At the request of the Lt. Governor, Secretary Kobach explained that the definition of residence is a place adopted by a person as such person's place of habitation and to which whenever such person is absent such person has an intention of returning. At the request ofthe Attorney General it was explained by Ryan Kriegshauser of the Secretary of State's office that in an objection hearing that implicates constitutional rights such as ballot access, traditionally, the Objections Board has determined that a burden of proof exists on the objector and held the objector to a standard of proof that is clear and convincing evidence. Mr. Kriegshauser further brought attention to a candidate's Declaration of Intent document in the objection packet signed under penalty of petjury by Mr. Sawyer indicating he is a resident at the 1041 address. The Attorney General discussed the presented facts of the hearing and expressed his belief that there was not sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion contrary to Mr. Sawyer's statement, under oath, that he resides at the I 041 address. Secretary Kobach referenced In Re Pauls, a previous objection where the board focused on the intent to return standard.
1

The Lt. Governor moved that the objection be denied based on prior precedent. The motion was seconded by the Attorney General and approved unanimously by the board. The objection was denied and Mr. Sawyer will remain on the ballot in the address where he is registered.
In Re: Baldwin (Reform Party)

This case involved the presidential candidate of the Reform Party to be listed on the Kansas ballot. The objectors were David Collison from a group called the Reform Party USA and Andre Barnett, a presidential candidate from the same group. Mr. Brad Bryant gave the historical backgroundofthecase. On June 8th, 2012, a certificate was filed by the Chairperson of the Reform Party of Kansas naming six presidential electors as well as Chuck Baldwin as candidate for president and Joseph Martin for vicepresident. On August 31, 2012 the Secretary of State's office receiveda Certificate of Nomination from David Collison, Chair of the National Convention of the Reform Party of USA. That certificate named Andre Barnett and Kenneth Cross as candidates foi president and vicepresident. On September 7, 20 I2 the Secretary of State's office issued a decision accepting the nomination of certificate that had been filed by the Reform Pmty of Kansas. The decision was based both on Kansas law and the 2008 decision of the State Objections Board involving the Reform Pmiy. On September 10, 2012David Collison and Andre Barnett filed an objection to the candidacy of Chuck Baldwin. Secretary Kobachread allowed the applicable Statute,K.S.A. 25-804 explaining the procedure for the Secretary of State to certify presidential candidates. Mr. Collison via telephonerequested that the Reform Party's attorney from Dallas Texas, Mr. Sawyer, make remarks ontheReformParty's behalf. Mr. Sawyer did so via telephone. AG Schmidt asked Mr. Sawyer if he was licensed topractice law in Kansas; Mr. Sawyer said that he was notbvt requested to be heard on behalf of the Reform Party. AG Schmidt suggested that if Mr. Sawyer did so not to makecomments in his capacity as an attorney. Mr. Sawyer was sworn in and presented testimony. Following the presentation, the members of the Objection Board asked questions oflvlr. Sawyer.Mr. Collison was swomln.and presented testimony. Following the presentation, the members of the Objection Board asked questions oflvlr. Collison. Secretary Kobach called Ms. Joy Holt, the respondent to the objection, and she was sworn in. Ms. Holt presented testimony. Following the presentation, the members of the Objection Board asked questions of Ms. Holt. She gave the balance of her time to Mr. Blare. John Blare then participated in the hearing via teleconference. He was sworn in and presented testimony. Following the presentation, the members of the Objection Board asked questions of Mr. Blare.
2

The Objections Board then asked questions of all the parties regarding party rules and the internal dispute within the Reform Party. The Board then conducted analysis of the matter. Secretary Kobach commented that in its initial decision his office believed they were bound by the state statute which requires that the elector be selected by the committee of the state, if there was such a committee. There did not appear to be a dispute whether the Reform Party of Kansas exists. A second possibility discussed by the Secretary was that the state party could nominate the electors and a national party could nominate the candidate, but K.S.A. 25-804 refers to "presidential electors for presidential candidates" implying the electors are attached to a candidate, notto an as yet undefined candidate. Secretary Kobach said he thought the law tilted it\ the favor of a state committee because otherwise a potential for deceiving voters existed: Attorney General Schmidt and Lt. Governor Colyer agreed. Attorney General Schmidt moved to deny the objection; Lt. Governor Colyer seconded the motion. The board voted to deny the objection by the Reform Party by a 3-0 vote. In Re Obama: Secretary Kobach explained the nature of the objection, that the objection was timely, and gave Mr. Montgomery five minutes to state his objection. Mr. Montgomeryappeared in person and was swon,1 in. He presented testimony and argument. After the presentation the members of the ObjectionsBoard asked questions. Secretary Kobach noted that the attorney representing Obama for America, Mr. Kip Wainscott, submitted a letter, exhibit pages I 33 and 134. Mr. Wainscott did not appear either in person or bytelephone. The board then analyzed the objection. After questions and debate, Secretary Kobach provided a summary of the objection. He stated there are two issues in the objection, (1) what constitutes a natural born citizen under Article 2 of the Constitution and (2) a factual question concerning the dispute over President Obama's birthplace. The Secretary opined that he disagrees with Mr. Mohtgomery's argument regarding what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Attorney General asked the Secretary of State's staff if the burden in this objection remained on the objector and the evidence standard remained clear and convincing. Ryan Kriegshauser rom the Secretary of State's office theorized that the standard would be the same because it involved ballot access, although not residency. Secretary Kobach then pointed out that similar arguments to this objection have been raised in other states and he had inquired as to what factual information was presented in those other states, specifically Arizona and Mississippi. There was a copy of one certification given to
3

a Court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii. The certification certified that the information contained on the birth certificate posted on the White House website matched the information on file in Hawaii. The Secretary explained that one option for the board to resolve the factual question would be to request a similar cettification from Hawaii. The Attorney General stated he would not object to this course of action but pointed out that the burden remained on the objector. AG Schmidt was not sure that the record presented was sufficient to deny ballot access to President Obama. The Attorney General argued that the Obama campaign had a strong presumption on their side, since President Obama had served as President for the last four years. Secretary Kobach expressed his disappointment with the minimal response from the Obama campaign and declared it his inclination to see ifdocuments provided to other states could be provided to Kansas. He stated that the board could reconvene on Monday and consider any documentation presented. He suggested the board could ask the state of Hawaii and the other two states for the information in certified form. The Attorney General replied that he had no objection to completing the record. Mr. Montgomery responded to this discussion by claiming that the additional documentation was not tequired fod1is objection tobe successful. Secretary Kobach and Mr. Montgomery debated the holdings of the Supreme Coiltt cases cited by Mr. Montgomery in regatds to natural born citizenship. Secretary Kobach moved that the board reconvene on Monday in order to obtain more information. The staff ofthe Secretary of State's offic;e wasordered to contact the relevant officials in the states of Hawaii,Arizona, and Mississippi in an attempt to obtain certified documents to complete the record. The Attorney General seconded the motion. The Lt. Governor asked what would happen on Monday ifthere was no additional information. Secretary Kobach said the decision ori how tomove forward would need to be made on Monday. The board unanimously approved the motion.

In ReBarr:
An historical background of the case was provided by Brad Bryant. Mr. Bryant explained that an objection had been filed by Mr. Casey Peters regarding the Secretary of State's decision to invalidate a certificate that had been filed by a group claiming affiliation with the Americans Elect Party. The Americans Elect Party had been granted official recognition by the Kansas Secretary of State's office on July 6, 2011. However, the party submitted a letter to the Kansas Secretary of State on August 6, 2012 stating that they were no longer going to be active and would not nominate any candidates in the future. On September 5, 2012 a Certificate ofNomination from the group which called themselves the State Association of Americans Elect Ballot Lines was received by the KS Secretary of State's office purporting to nominate Roseanne Barr for president and Cindy Sheehan for vice-president. The Secretary of State's office determined that this Certificate of Nomination was invalid on September 7, 2012 because the nominating entity was no longer valid
4

due to the August 6, letter of dissolution of the group. Casey Peters filed an objection on September 9, 2012. Casey Peters, patiicipating via tele-conference, was called and swom in as a witness. Mr. Peters presented testimony and afterwards the members of the Objections Board asked questions. Mr. Casey denied that STABLE was a party. No one appeared on behalf of Americans Elect, however, a letter with attachments were submitted on behalf of Americans Elect by counsel. After testimony the Objections Board analyzed the matter. Secretary Kobach explained that the Objections Board must act according K.S.A. 25-804 .\vhich states that presidential candidates shall be selected by the state committee of the political party of the candidate. Also, presidential electors or candidates of a political pmiywhich has no state committee may be selected and cetiified to the Secretary of State by a state party convention or by the national committee of the party. Secretary Kobach said tluit he didn't believe theSecretary of State's office has any factual evidence of a state party aft1liated with Mr. Peters. Mr. Kriegshauser stated thatan entity did submit a Certificate of Nomination which the Secretary of State's office denied. That denial was what proJl1pted the objection. Mr. Peters responded that that submission came from metribers of the Americans Elect Party of Kansas. Secretary Kobach then questioned Mr. Peters aboutwhether his group was a party under Kansas law. Mr. Kriegshauser then explained the Kansas termof art for a political party and that Mr. Peter's organization would have to fall into that definitionifitwas to have a candidate on the ballot in Kansas. Mr. Peters said that since the National Amet'icans Elect Party dissolved their status in Kansas that the individual members of the group- who he was representing- held a state convention and nominated Rosanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan. Mr. Kriegshauser explained to the Board that the bylaws submitted by Americans Elect provide a process by which a state committee can be created, and Mr. Peters group had not followed that process. Mr. Kriegshauser pointed to exhibit 205, section 7.1 which specifies the creation process. Furthermore, the Americans Elect national board never approved the creation a Kansas state party. Secretary Kobach explained that the by-laws help provide a linage and therefore legitimacy of who can inherit a state organization. Attomey General Schmidt asked whether, on both the facts and the law, the view of the Secretary of State's office had changed in any regard to the original denial? Mr. Kriegshauser cited several cases which indicated that courts are traditionally reluctant to interfere with the internal operation of and prefer to defer to political parties. The Secretary of State's office did just that, and therefore nothing in this proceeding has changed its position. Attorney General Schmidt agreed that he had also not been persuaded that the Secretary of State's office had made any error in its legal conclusions. AG Schmidt then moved to deny the
5

objection. Lt. Governor Colyer seconded the motion. A vote was conducted and the objection was denied 3-0. The Attorney General moved to adjourn the meeting to a date certain, Lt. Governor Colyer seconded it, and Secretary Kobach reminded the Board that they were adjourning until Monday, September 17, 2012. All agreed. The Objection Board hearing was concluded at 5:07 pm.