DOCUMENT 82

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/18/2019 7:23 AM
03-CV-2019-000531.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, *
STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE *
COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA, NANCY *
WORLEY, and RANDY KELLEY, *
* CASE NO.: CV-2019-000531.00
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
SHEILA DEGAN GILBERT, JULIA *
JUAREZ, BRANDY DUNCAN, *
NAPOLEON BRACY JR., HENRY *
BREWSTER JR., ANTHONY DANIELS, *
CHRISTOPHER JOHN ENGLAND, *
WILLIAM KRAUSE, CAROLE D. *
MARKS, JIM SPEARMAN, CURTIS *
TRAVIS, and TAMMY KNIGHT *
FLEMING, individually and as *
representatives of a class composed of all *
members of the State Democratic Executive *
Committee of Alabama (“SDEC”) who *
attended a purported meeting of the SDEC *
on October 5, 2019, and/or who attended *
an unlawful meeting purportedly of the *
SDEC on November 2, 2019, and proceeded *
at that meeting pursuant to bylaws *
purportedly adopted on October 5, 2019, *
*
Defendants. *

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. Plaintiff Alabama Democratic Party (“ADP”) is a domestic, unincorporated

association that does business by agent in Montgomery County, Alabama and the headquarters of

which are located in Montgomery County, Alabama.

2. Plaintiff State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama (“SDEC”) is the

governing body of the ADP.

1
 DOCUMENT 82

3. Plaintiff Nancy Worley and Randy Kelley are respectively the Chair and First

Vice-Chair of the SDEC. Plaintiff Worley is over the age of 19 years and is a resident, citizen of

the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Kelley is over the age of 19 years and is a resident, citizen of the

State of Alabama.

4. Defendants Sheila Degan Gilbert, Julia Juarez, Brandy Duncan, Napoleon Bracy

Jr., Henry Brewster Jr., Anthony Daniels, Christopher John England, William Kraus, Carole D.

Marks, Jim Spearman, Curtis Travis, and Tammy Knight Fleming are over the age of nineteen

years, are resident, citizens of the State of Alabama, and are individual members of the SDEC

who organized, conducted, and/or attended and participated in an unlawful meeting purportedly

of the SDEC on October 5, 2019, at which they purported to adopt Bylaws of the SDEC, and

who organized, conducted, and/or attended and participated in an unlawful meeting purportedly

of the SDECon November 2, 2019, at which they purported to nominate and elect certain at-

large members to the SDEC and purported to elect Defendant England as Chair of the SDEC and

Patricia Todd as First Vice-Chair of the SDEC. Said meeting and elections were held contrary to

the existing and applicable bylaws of the ADP.

5. Defendant Tammy Knight Fleming resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

Moreover, the acts complained of primarily occurred in Montgomery County, Alabama.

6. The named defendants are representative of a class of defendants composed of all

those members of the SDEC who attended a purported meeting of the SDEC in Montgomery

County, Alabama, on October 5, 2019, voted for bylaws purportedly adopted at that purported

meeting, and/or who attended the unlawful meeting purportedly of the SDEC on November 2,

2019, in Montgomery County, Alabama, and proceeded at that purported meeting pursuant to the

2
 DOCUMENT 82

Bylaws purportedly adopted on October 5, 2019, in voting to purportedly elect at-large members

and/or officers of the SDEC.

7. On information and belief, this class is composed of greater than seventy-five (75)

defendants. The prerequisites for a class action under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are

met because: (1) this class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) all

questions of law and fact are common to the class; (3) the defenses of the representative parties

are typical of those of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately

protect the interests of the class.

8. In addition, this action is maintainable as a defendant class action under Rule

23(b)(2) because the representative parties have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally

applicable to the class, making appropriate final injunctive and/or declaratory relief with respect

to the class as a whole. Additionally and in the alternative, this action is maintainable under Rule

23(b)(1) because separate actions against or by individual members of the class would create the

risk of establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the plaintiffs.

9. This suit is brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, §§ 6–6–220 to –

232, Ala. Code (1975), and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including a preliminary

injunction, against the individual Defendants as well as the defendant class. This Court has

jurisdiction under the DJA as well as under Chapter 6 of the Elections Code (i.e., the Fair

Campaign Practices Act), specifically Alabama Code (1975) § 17-5-16, which expressly

contemplates that a court may determine whether an individual is misrepresenting him- or

herself, or any other person or organization with which he or she is affiliated, as acting for or on

behalf of a political party.

3
 DOCUMENT 82

10. On August 11, 2018, Plaintiffs Worley and Kelley were elected to their party

positions. Thereafter, certain members of the SDEC and other Democrats, including named

Defendants Gilbert and Juarez, challenged the election on various procedural grounds to the

Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and also challenged certain provisions of the ADP’s

bylaws. Pursuant to said challenge the DNC directed that the ADP amend its bylaws to make

them consistent with the Charter and Bylaws of the DNC and that the ADP hold new elections

for the positions of Chair and First Vice-Chair. It also directed that a committee of the DNC, the

Rules and Bylaws Committee (“RBC”), confirm the consistency of the amended bylaws with the

DNC’s Charter and Bylaws before the new elections were held.

11. The DNC “directed” these actions in the sense that they required them as a

condition of the continued credentialing of Alabama’s DNC members. In other words, if these

actions were not completed, Plaintiffs Worley and Kelley would no longer be credentialed and

able to participate as members of the DNC. The DNC does not have, nor has it ever claimed to

have, any power to control or direct the activities of the ADP or SDEC at the state level. Among

other things, this means that the DNC has no power to impose bylaws, repeal bylaws, remove

officers, install officers, or hold elections for the SDEC.

12. The leadership of the ADP proposed certain bylaws to the RBC and because of

provisions designed to prevent the dilution of black voting strength on the SDEC, the RBC failed

to approve the proposed bylaws.1 Instead the RBC approved bylaws submitted to it by certain of

the Defendants.

1
The RBC, or certain of its representatives, engaged in an ongoing deception throughout the drafting and approval
process and were improperly motivated by a desire to determine the outcome of the new elections. To accomplish
their improper goal, the RBC representatives acted beyond the scope of their mandate and even proposed and
insisted upon racially discriminatory procedures for the new election. In filing the present complaint, and for the
purpose of pursuing present remedies expeditiously, Plaintiffs are intentionally refraining from making these
allegations and others against the DNC in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs expressly reserve all such claims as they may have
against the DNC, the RBC, and individuals associated with one or both.

4
 DOCUMENT 82

13. Although disagreeing profoundly with what it considered the racially biased

decision of the RBC, the leadership of the ADP redrafted its bylaws to address the RBC’s

criticisms, and Plaintiff Worley called a meeting of the SDEC for October 12, 2019, to consider

the newly drafted bylaws as well as any bylaws or bylaw provisions submitted to her in

accordance with the then-existing ADP bylaws. Worley specifically informed the SDEC that the

bylaws submitted by Defendants would be considered at the October 12, 2019, meeting.

14. After Plaintiff Worley called a meeting of the SDEC for the express purpose of

considering bylaws, Defendants and others purported to call an earlier meeting purportedly of the

SDEC for purpose of considering Defendants’ bylaws amendments, but on an earlier date,

October 5, 2019.

15. Defendants and others involved in organizing and purporting to call the October

5, 2019, meeting acted in bad faith. The provision they relied on in purporting to call the meeting

allows a call by a majority of SDEC members. This provision was clearly designed to, and is

interpreted by the current Chair (Plaintiff Worley) to, allow SDEC members to call a meeting

when the Chair refuses to do so. In this case, the Chair had already called a meeting for the same

purpose. Defendants and those working in concert with them did not contact the Chair to inquire

as to what procedures to follow to call a meeting based on the request of a majority of SDEC

members or to request that the Chair announce the meeting to all SDEC members. They did not

certify, until after the fact, to the Chair that they had gathered a sufficient number of signatures

from SDEC members. On information and belief, Defendants did not distribute an announcement

that a majority of SDEC members had purportedly called a meeting for October 5, 2019, until

October 1, 2019. On information and belief, this announcement/purported call for the October 5

meeting was not distributed to all SDEC members.

5
 DOCUMENT 82

16. On October 5, 2019, defendants conducted what they purported to be a meeting of

the SDEC attended by approximately 78 out of 250 members of the SDEC. At that meeting,

Defendants individually and as members of the defendant class purported to adopt new bylaws

for the SDEC. They also purported to set new elections for November 2, 2019.

17. On October 12, 2019, the SDEC met on the call of the meeting previously made

by Plaintiff Worley. Approximately 173 SDEC members attended the said meeting and adopted

bylaws fully consistent with the Charter and Bylaws of the DNC. The effect of the adoption of

bylaws on October 12, 2019, was to repeal and replace all inconsistent and different bylaws

previously adopted or purportedly previously adopted. The SDEC at said meeting also set new

elections for November 16, 2019 and cancelled the meeting purportedly scheduled by

Defendants for November 2, 2019.

18. Despite the effective repeal on October 12, 2019, of any bylaws they purport to

have adopted on October 5, 2019, and despite that the SDEC on October 12, 2019, set the

election meeting for November 16, 2019, the individual and class Defendants and others went

forward on November 2, 2019, with what they purported to be the election of at-large members

of the SDEC and new elections of the Chair and First Vice-Chair of the SDEC. Defendants used

the procedures for electing at-large members set out in the Bylaws purportedly adopted on

October 5, 2019, and otherwsie conducted the November 2 meeting pursuant to those purported

Bylaws.

19. Plaintiffs contend that the meeting Defendants held on November 2, 2019, in

accordance with the bylaws they purportedly adopted on October 5, 2019, was held contrary to

the existing bylaws of the ADP and was held otherwise illegally and on a date different from the

date set by the SDEC, i.e., November 16, 2019, for the new elections of Chair and First Vice-

6
 DOCUMENT 82

Chair and the election of at-large members of the SDEC. Plaintiffs contend that any officers and

at-large members purportedly elected on November 2, 2019, were and are improperly elected

and may not serve.

20. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants individually and as a class are

misrepresenting themselves as acting for or on behalf of the Alabama Democratic Party and the

SDEC, in violation of Section 17-5-16 of the Alabama Code (1975). Such misrepresentation is

damaging to Plaintiffs, i.e., the legitimate Alabama Democratic Party and SDEC. In addition to

falsely purporting to adopt Bylaws, hold meetings, and elect members of the SDEC, Defendants

and those acting in concert with them have held themselves out as having authority over the

finances of the Party/SDEC and the property of the Party/SDEC, including by purporting to

instruct officials at BB&T Bank as to the disposition of Party/SDEC accounts, and by

contracting with a locksmith to change the locks on, and thus lock Plaintiffs out of, the

Party/SDEC offices in Montgomery. They have purported to act for or on behalf of the SDEC

even though they know that they lack this authority, or alternatively have done so recklessly

despite their knowledge of the disputed and unsettled status of such purported authority.

21. Defendants, however, contend the contrary—i.e., that the Bylaws purportedly

adopted on October 5, 2019, are the present Bylaws, and the only valid Bylaws, of the ADP, and

that the Chair and First Vice-Chair, and the at-large members, they elected on November 2,

2019, are duly elected and entitled to serve, and that the existing Chair and First Vice-Chair must

relinquish their offices.

22. There are actual, justiciable controversies between the parties, and tremendous,

debilitating confusion will be caused by the failure to resolve the controversies with respect to

(1) which Bylaws are presently applicable; (2) whether the purported elections held on

7
 DOCUMENT 82

November 2, 2019, are valid; (3) who are, and who will be after the election meeting on

November 16, the Chair and First Vice-Chair of the SDEC and who will be members of the

SDEC; and (4) whether Defendants are misrepresenting themselves as acting for or on behalf of

the Alabama Democratic Party/SDEC in violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act.

23. Qualifying to run as candidates for various public offices closed on November 8,

2019, and it is necessary that the Chair of the SDEC, in early December, certify to Alabama’s

Secretary of State the names of those individuals who have qualified. A controversy with respect

to whom is the lawful Chair has great potential of disrupting the election process.

24. The public interest requires that declaratory and immediate, preliminary

injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary injunction be granted. In addition, upon final

hearing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief

25. A preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants from misrepresenting themselves

as acting for or on behalf of the Party/SDEC is necessary to avoid irreparable injury to the

Plaintiffs. If the Defendants are not prohibited from so acting, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable

harm as stated above, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Moreover, based on

the facts alleged above, the Plaintiffs have at least a reasonable chance of ultimately prevailing

on the merits. Finally, any hardship imposed on Defendants by the granting of such preliminary

relief would not unreasonably outweigh the benefits to Plaintiffs; to the contrary, Defendants will

also benefit from avoiding confusion and uncertainty pending a declaratory judgment clarifying

the rights of the parties.

26. There is no First Amendment impediment to this Court deciding the relative rights

of the Parties with regard to acting for or on behalf of the Party and the SDEC. Plaintiffs are not

asking that Defendants be enjoined from speaking, meeting, assembling, or petitioning for

8
 DOCUMENT 82

redress of greivances. Plaintiffs are simply asking that, in so doing, Defendants be enjoined from

purporting to act on behalf of the Party or SDEC—because they are not legally entitled to do so.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long maintained a distinction between regulation of actions and

regulation of pure speech, and it has particularly upheld the exercise of government authority to

prohibit individuals from falsely representing themselves as acting in a particular, legally

meaningful capacity (as a lawyer, as a medical doctor, etc.).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court will:

a. Take jurisdiction of this matter;

b. Set a hearing and after such hearing enter a preliminary injunction: providing that

none of the parties shall conduct any meeting or purported meeting of the SDEC prior to a final

hearing and judgment from this Court, with the exception of the November 16, 2019, election

meeting presently scheduled; providing that Defendants shall not purport to act on or behalf of

the Alabama Democratic Party or the SDEC prior to a final hearing and judgment from this

Court; providing that, until such final hearing and judgment, Plaintiff Nancy Worley, as Chair of

the SDEC, shall be, among other things, the proper party to certify to the Secretary of State

pursuant to Title 17 of the Alabama Code those candidates who qualify by November 8, 2019, to

run as Democrats in 2020 Alabama elections; providing that, until such final hearing and

judgment, Plaintiff Nancy Worley, as Chair of the SDEC, shall be, among other things, the

proper party to exercise possession and control of the Party offices in Montgomery; providing

that, until final hearing and judgment, Plaintiff Nancy Worley may, with approval of the Court,

exercise control over Party financial accounts and moneys and authorize expenditures in order to

ensure that the Party remains current on its financial obligations; and granting such other

preliminary relief as may be appropriate;

9
 DOCUMENT 82

c. Permanently enjoin and prohibit Defendants and the defendant class from

improper conduct including without limitation conducting or purporting to conduct meetings of

the SDEC pursuant to the bylaws purportedly adopted on October 5, 2019, and generally from

misrepresenting themselves as acting for or on behalf of the SDEC;

d. Adjudge and declare the rights and responsibilities of the parties;

e. Adjudge and declare the actions of the Defendants and the defendant class as

improper;

f. Adjudge and declare that the operative and only current and valid bylaws of the

SDEC are those adopted on October 12, 2019;

g. Adjudge and declare that the SDEC bylaws purportedly adopted by Defendants

and others on October 5, 2019, are invalid and of no force or effect;

h. Adjudge and declare that the meeting purportedly of the SDEC held by

Defendants on November 2, 2019, was and is invalid and that the actions taken at said meeting

were and are invalid and of no force or effect;

i. Adjudge and declare that in conducting the meeting of November 2, as well as in

subsequent actions including without limitation asserting authority and control over Party

finances and property, Defendants misrepresented themselves as acting for or on behalf of the

Alabama Democratic Party and the SDEC in violation of Ala. Code § 17-5-16;

j. Enter such orders, judgments, and decrees as may be necessary and proper to give

effect to the rights, duties, and liabilities of the parties as determined, adjudged, and declared by

the Court; and

k. Award to Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this day, November 18, 2019,

10
 DOCUMENT 82

/a/Amardo Wesley Pitters_____________

Amardo Wesley Pitters, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Attorney Bar Code: PIT025

OF COUNSEL:

LAW OFFICES OF A. WESLEY PITTERS, P.C.

1145 South Perry Street (36104)
Post Office Box 1973
Montgomery, Alabama 36102-1973
Telephone: (334) 265-3333
Telecopier: (334) 265-3411
Email: awpitters@pitterslawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 18, 2019, a copy of the

foregoing document was served via Alafile/Alacourt’s

electronic filing and first-class U.S. Mail, postage

prepaid, upon the following:

Barry A. Ragsdale, Esq.

Sirote & Permutt, P.C.
2311 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
bragsdale@sirote.com

Richard P. Rouco, Esq.

Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco, LLP
2-20th Street North Suite 930
Birmingham, AL 35203
rrouco@qcwdr.com

/s/Amardo Wesley Pitters

11
DOCUMENT 82

Of Counsel

12