Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
v.
DEBRA BOWEN, individually and officially as the CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, and OBAMA FOR AMERICA CALIFORNIA,
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2012-80001048 CUWMGDS Honorable Michael P. Kenny, Judge
OF
ND
FR
IE
TH EF OG
DOUGLAS
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California J. WOODS Senior Assistant Attorney General Supervising Deputy Attorney General
ANTHONYR. HAKL
TAMAR PACHTER
Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 197335 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244~2550 Telephone: (916) 322~9041 Fax: (916) 324-8835 E-mail: Anthony.Hakl@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Respondent California Secretary ofState Debra Bowen
BO W
.C
OM
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES OR ENTITIES OR PERSONS (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.208)
(Check One)
INITIAL CERTIFICATE
[2]
SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE
There are no interested entities or persons to list in this Certificate per California Rules of Court, rule 8.208(d). Interested entities or persons are listed below:
TH EF OG
Party Non-Party Check One
[ ]
[ ]
-----------------
-----------------
[1 [1 [1 [1
[1
---------------------------------
[1 []
[1 []
ND
The undersigned certifies that the above listed persons or entities (corporations, partnerships, firms or any other association, but not including government entities or their agencies), have either (i) an ownership interest of 10 percent or more in the party if an entity; or (ii) a financial or other interest inthe outcome of the proceeding that the justices should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves, as defined in rule 8.208(e)(2).
Party Represented Attorney for Respondent California Secretary of State Debra Bowen
FR
ANTHONY R. HAKL Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 197335 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 322-9041 Fax: (916) 324-8835 E-mail: Anthon Ha
IE
OF
[1
BO W
.C
OM
D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
.C BO W TH EF OG
1
The Superior Court correctly ruled that the Secretary of State has no legal duty to determine whether a presidential candidate is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as President of the United States The Superior correctly ruled that Elections Code section 6901 is not unconstitutional..
The relief sought in the petition is moot as it relates to the June 5, 2012 Presidential Primary Election
FR
IE
ND
OF
OM
1 1 4 5 5 7 9 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311 Brandt v. Board ofSupervisors (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 598
BO OG
11
EF
California Ass 'n for Health Services at Home v. State Dept. of Health Services (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 696 Eistrat v. Board ofCivil Service Com 'n ofthe City ofLos Angeles (1961) 190 Ca1.App.2d 29 Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Ca1.4th 911 Keyes v. Bowen (2011) 189 Ca1.App.4th 647 Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859
TH
OF
DS
EN
Long v. Hultberg (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 606 MacLeod v. Long (1930) 110 Ca1.App. 334
FR I
.C OM
Page 4 8
.4
5 6 5,6 passim 5 9 6 4
Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. California Energy Com. (2003) 105 Cal.AppAth 1441 Treber v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 128 Wenke v. Hitchcock (1972) 6 Ca1.3d 746 Zelig v. County ofLos Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112
STATUTES
W BO OG
111
EF
Code of Civil Procedure4 1085, subd. (a) 1085 Elections Code 6180 6901 7100 7300 7578
TH
FR I
EN
DS
OF
.C OM
Page
.4
9 6
.4
5 5 9 passim 7 7 7
INTRODUCTION
Obama is ineligible to be a candidate for President of the United States, or to hold that office, "because he is not a natural born citizen" of the United
Election ballot. However, the Superior Court, following this Court's decision in Keyes v. Bowen (2011) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, correctly found that the Secretary of State has no ministerial duty to investigate the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates. Accordingly, the court properly sustained without leave to amend the demurrers by the Secretary of State and President Obama. For the reasons explained below, this Court should affirm the Superior Court's ruling.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellants initiated this action in the court below by filing a petition
Mandate and Restraint ofFundraising at p. 1.)1 Respondent California Secretary of State Debra Bowen filed a demurrer, as did respondents President Barack Obama and Obama for America, Mr. Obama's official
FR
IE
merits." (AA 1:40-65.) After a hearing, the court denied the application.
A copy of the initial petition is included in the Motion to Augment Record on Appeal granted by this Court on June 7,2013.
ND
campaign committee. (Appellants' Appendix ("AA") 1:1-39.) Before the scheduled hearing on those demurrers, appellants filed an
OF
TH
EF OG
1
BO
.C
...........
OM
filed a first amended petition." (AA 1:93-263.) Like the initial petition, the amended petition named seven petitioners: Edward C. Noonan, Pamela
Barnett, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner and
Gary Wilmott. (AA 1:93.) Noonan was a 2012 presidential candidate for the American Independent Party. The other petitioners were California registered voters.
While appellants' allegations were somewhat difficult to decipher, the heart of their claim was that the Secretary of State has a "duty" to "vet"
President Obama and "verify" that he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States before
certifying his name for inclusion on the primary ballot. (AA 1:94-95, 97-98, 103-104, 108 & 111-112.) According to appellants, the Secretary of State failed to fulfill that obligation. Therefore, as to the Secretary of State, appellants sought a peremptory writ of mandate staying the printing of any
on the ballot the name of any candidate who failed to prove their eligibility. (AA 1:114.) As to President Obama, appellants sought a writ barring him
from the primary ballot until he produced certain documents. and in fact
/
IE
FR
ND
proved that he is a "natural born citizen." (Ibid.) For the first time in the action, the first amended petition also prayed for a declaration that
To be precise, only Barnett signed the amended petition. The other petitioners later separately filed "verifications" of the amended petition. Also, as noted in President Obama's brief, the amended petition was not a stand-alone pleading; it was more like a supplemental pleading that added new arguments and information to the original petition. (Brief of Resps. President Barack Obama and Obama for America California at p. 7.)
2
OF
primary ballots and directing that the Secretary of State refrain from placing
TH EF
2
OG BO W .C OM
Because the amended petition remained deficient, the Secretary of State filed another demurrer, as did President Obama. (AA 2:265-327.)
President Obama is eligible to hold or run for the office of President of the United States, or to find that the Secretary of State has a mandatory duty to make that determination." (AA 2:404.) Judge Kenny explained that
Court, and is a matter that is not within the duties ofthe Secretary of State, as held in controlling decisions of the Third District Court of Appeal." (AA 2:404-405.) In this regard, Judge Kenny relied primarily on Keyes v.
Bowen (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 647, 661, where this Court held that the
California Secretary of State was under no "ministerial duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate is constitutionally eligible
Judge Kenny found that the fundraising claim "is based entirely on the allegation that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for the office
FR
IE ND
would be entirely dependent upon a factual determination by the Court or the Secretary of State that he is not eligible." (AA 2:405.) But Judge Kenny reiterated that "the Court may not make that determination, or order
the Secretary of State to make it." (Ibid.) Thus, "[i]n the absence of any such determination, there is no factual basis under the petition for the Court
America (California) from engaging in fund-raising activities in California related to the presidential campaign." (AA 2:405-406.)
of President of the United States. Any relief that could be granted therefore
OF
TH
EF OG
3
BO W .C
After a hearing, Judge Michael P. Kenny ruled that "[t]he amended petition
OM
Judge Kenny also rejected appellants' contention that Elections Code section 6901 is unconstitutional and unenforceable. (AA 2:406.) That contention "is based on the theory that the Secretary of State has a legal
duty, in this instance one that is alleged to be of constitutional origin, to determine the eligibility of candidates for President of the United States before their names may be placed on the ballot." (Ibid.) But, as Judge Kenny had explained, "no such legal duty exists." (Ibid.)
An Order Sustaining Demurrers to the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate was entered on July 5, 2012, together with a judgment of dismissal. (AA 2:398-407,409-411.) Appellants Noonan and Barnett filed separate notices of appeal from the judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the standard of review is de novo. (McCall v. PacifiCare ofCalifornia, Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412,415; Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. California Energy Com. (2003) 105 Cal.AppAth 1441, 1445.) The court exercises its independent judgment
action under any possible legal theory. (McCall, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p.415.)
FR
IE
ND
pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Blankv. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311,318; Zeligv. County ofLos
Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.) The court also considers matters which may be judicially noticed, and gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Blank,
The court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly
OF
TH
EF OG
4
BO
.C OM
ARGUMENT
maintaining that the amended petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for issuance of a writ of mandate under Code of Civil
Procedure section 1085. Second, they continue to argue that Elections Code section 6901 is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it
prevents the Secretary of State from fulfilling her official duties. This
I.
THE SUPERIOR COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS No LEGAL DUTY To DETERMINE WHETHER A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Is A NATURALBORN CITIZEN ELIGIBLE To SERVE As PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
In arguing that the amended petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, appellants continue to erroneously assert that the Secretary of State has an official duty to verify a candidate's eligibility to be President of the United States.
FR
IE
ND
The required duty is a "clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the
part of the respondent." (California Ass 'n for Health Services at Home v.
State Dept. ofHealth Services (2007) 148 Cal.AppAth 696, 704; see Code
Civ. Proc., 1085, subd. (a) ["[a] writ of mandate may be issued by any
3
These arguments are most clearly identified in the brief of appellant Noonan, who is represented by counsel. Liberally construed, the brief filed by appellant Barnett, who is proceeding pro se, advances the same contentions.
29 Cal.4th 911, 916; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 863.)
OF
appellants had to show (1) that the Secretary of State has a duty to act and
TH
EF
5
OG BO
.C OM
court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station ...."].) "A ministerial act is an act that a
emphasis added.) Appellants had the burden of demonstrating that the Secretary of State had a duty to perform the act sought to be compelled.
Although mandamus is the correct remedy for compelling an officer to conduct an election according to law (Wenke v. Hitchcock (1972) 6 Cal.3d 746, 751), Judge Kenny correctly found that appellants could not meet their burden to demonstrate that the Secretary of State has a clear, present ministerial duty to determine whether a presidential candidate is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as President of the United States. (See Brandt v. Board ofSupervisors, (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 598, 600-601 ["the basis for the action must be a clear present duty to perform the act sought to be compelled"].) This is because the Secretary of State has no
FR
IE
ND
Elections Code provisions "do not impose a clear, present, or ministerial duty on the Secretary of State to determine whether the presidential
the petitioners in Keyes were "people who claim President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America and, hence, is
such duty.
OF
TH EF
6
OG
Service Com 'n ofthe City a/Los Angeles (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 29,34.)
BO W
.C
the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his own judgment or
OM
appeal, makes no mention of Keyes, supra, in his opening brief. Appellant Barnett, proceeding pro se, at least acknowledges the case, but simply
characterizes it as "amazingly full of conjecture unsupported by law" and asserts that the controlling case "should be discarded and not considered by this court as it encourages unequal treatment under the law[.]" (Brief of Appellant Barnett at pp. 39 & 47.)
As the only published decision of a California appellate court on the question, Keyes is controlling precedent. In light of Keyes, this Court should affirm Judge Kenny's ruling on the demurrers.
FR
IE ND
duty to vet presidential candidates. In relevant part, section 6901 concerns general elections and directs that the Secretary of State must place on the
Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100, 7300, 7578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary of State its (continued... )
OF
II.
THE SUPERIOR COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 6901 Is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
TH
EF OG
7
BO W .C
But the court went on to conclude that these obligations do not include a
OM
chief elections officer and is responsible for ensuring "that elections are
Accordingly, Judge Kenny properly concluded that there is no basis for the mandamus relief appellants seek. He was correct in sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend. (See Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.AppAth at
to amend]; see also Barnes v. Wong (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 390,395 [issuance of peremptory writ of mandate improper where no ministerial
FR
IE
ND
(... continued) certified list of nominees for electors of President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties to be placed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election.
OF
TH EF OG
8
[T]he truly absurd result would be to require each state's election official to investigate and determine whether the proffered candidate met eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution, giving each the power to override a party's selection of a presidential candidate. The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states' election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee's election will be derailed by an objection in Congress[.]
BO W
.C
OM
III.
Even if there were a basis for the relief that appellants seek, which there is not, the petition is moot as it relates to the June 5, 2012 election
because the Secretary of State already has discharged the statutory duties
Secretary of State to refrain from certifying the name of any candidate who has failed to prove his or her eligibility. (First Am Pet. at p. 22.) Yet, on March 29, 2012, the Secretary of State issued to all County Clerks and
2012 election, as required by law. (See Elec. Code, 6180 ["At least 68 days before a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State shall transmit to each county elections official a certified list containing the name of each candidate who is entitled to be voted for on the ballot at the presidential primary[.]") Accordingly, the relief sought against the Secretary of State is moot. (See Treber v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Ca1.2d 128, 134 ["mandate does not lie when the respondent no longer has the legal authority to discharge the alleged duty because the time for doing so, as specified by statute or ordinance, has expired"]; see also Long v.
FR
IE
this Court in 2011 in Keyes v. Bowen, supra. In light of Keyes, the Superior
ND
OF
TH EF OG
9
Registrars of Voters the official Certified List of Candidates for the June 5,
BO W
which appellants seek to enjoin. The petition prays for a writ directing the
.C
OM
THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE PETITION Is MOOT As IT RELATES To THE JUNE 5, 2012 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION.
Respectfully submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS
TAMAR PACHTER
SA2012107410 11174951.doc
FR I
EN
DS
OF
TH
EF
10
ANTHONY R. HAKL Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent California Secretary ofState Debra Bowen
OG
BO
Supervising
.C OM
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
BOWEN uses a 13 point Times New Roman font and contains 2,756 words. Dated: September 18, 2013
KAMALA D. HARRIS
ANTHONY R. HAKL
FR
IE N
DS
OF
TH
EF
OG
Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent California Secretary ofState Debra Bowen
BO W
.C OM
I declare:
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter; my business address is 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550. On September 18, 2013, I served the attached
by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Sacramento, California, addressed as follows:
SEE ATT ACHED SERVICE LIST
TH E
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 18, 2013, at Sacramento, California.
FR
IE
ND
OF
FO GB OW .C OM
Signature
Case Name: Noonan et al. v, Bowen et al. Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District No.: C071764
SERVICE LIST
Submitted electronically under rule 8.212(c)(2) Office of the Clerk California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH
EF OG
Clerk ofthe Court Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Case No. 34-2012-80001048CUWMGDS
BO
Pamela Barnett 2351 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 170-921 Rocklin, CA 95765 Appellant (Pro-Per)
Nathan Oleson United States Justice Foundation 932 D Street, Suite 3 Ramona, CA 92065 Plaintiffand Appellant Edward Noonan
Fredric D. Woocher Strumwasser & Woocher LLP 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Defendant and Respondent Obama, as President et al., Baraek Hussein, II
.C
OM
Case Name: Noonan et al. v. Bowen et al, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District No.: C071764