Upload
helen-tansey
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
1/23
E-Filed04/23/2013@ 02:57:33 P MHonorable Robert Esdale
Clerk Of The Court
No. 1120465
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
HUGH MCINNISH, et a l .
V.
BETH CHAPMAN, Secretary of State
B r i e f of Appellee Beth Chapman
Luther Strange (STR003)
Attorney General
Andrew L. Brasher (BRA143)
Deputy Solicitor General
James W. Davis {DAV103)
Laura E. Howell (HOW084)
Assistant Attorneys General
STATE OF ALABAMAOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL36130
(334) 242-7300
Attorneys for the Appellee / Defendant
A p r i l 23, 2013
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
2/23
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
This matter concerns a s i n g l e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d q ue s t i on
o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In l i g h t o f her argument t h a t
i n t e r v e n i n g events have rendered a r u l i n g on the q u e s t i o n
moot, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e does not t h i n k t h a t o r a l
argument i s necessary, but welcomes the o p p o r t u n i t y t o
p r e s e n t argument i f t h i s C o u r t d i s a g r e e s .
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
3/23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS i i
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION i v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 2
STANDARD OF REVIEW 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 4
ARGUMENT 5
I . P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s are moot because the
e l e c t i o n has already taken place 5
I I . P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s do no t f a l l under an
" e x c e p t i o n t o mootness." 6
I I I . Even were they not moot, P l a i n t i f f s '
c l a i m s would s t i l l f a i l 9
A. The Court la ck s sub jec t matter
j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c l a i m s
pursuant t o A l a . Code 17-16-44 9
B. The S e c r e t a r y has no l e g a l duty t o
i n v e s t i g a t e or v e r i f y the
c r e d e n t i a l s of c a n d i d a t e s p r i o r t o
p l a c i n g them on th e b a l l o t 10
C. Only Congress has th e a u t h o r i t y t o
judge the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of
P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s after an
e l e c t i o n has been h e l d 13
i i
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
4/23
D. P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m was f i l e d a f t e r
b a l l o t s had been p r i n t e d and sent t o
some v o t e r s , making t h e i r a l t e r a t i o n
i m p o s s i b l e , and th e claims time-
b a r r e d 13
CONCLUSION 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16
i i i
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
5/23
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
T h i s Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s m a t t e r
pursuant t o A l a . Code 12-2-7(1) and Rule 3 o f the Alabama
R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e Procedure,
i v
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
6/23
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc42 So. 3d 65 ( A l a . 2010)
B e l l V. Eagerton,
908 So. 2d 204 ( A l a . 2002)
Chapman v. Gooden,
974 So. 2d 972 (2007)
Cnty. o f Los Angeles v. Davis,
440 U.S. 625 (1979)
Ex P a r t e F o r r e s t e r ,
914 So. 2d 855 ( A l a . 2005)
Ex p a r t e Graham,
702 So. 2d 1215 ( A l a . 1997)
In r e A d o p t i o n o f Walgreen,
710 N.E.2d 1226 (1999)
In r e : Stephen J . ,
932 N.E.2d 87 (111. App. Ct. 2010)
Keyes v. Bowen,
117 C a l . R p t r . 3d 207 ( C a l . App. 2010)
Moore V. O g i l v i e ,
394 U.S. 814 (1969)
Rice V. S i n k f i e l d ,
732 So. 2d 993 ( A l a . 1998)
Robinson v. Bowen,567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. C a l . 2008)
Rogers Found. R e p a i r , I n c . v. P o w e l l ,
748 So. 2d 869 (Ala.1999)
Roper V. Rhodes,
988 So. 2d 471 ( A l a . 2008)
V
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
7/23
Slawson v. A l a . F o r e s t r y Common,
631 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . 1994)
Wood V. Booth,
990 So. 2d 314 ( A l a . 2008)
STATUTES
A l a . Code 17-14-31
A l a . Code 17-14-44
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. Const. Amend. XXII 1
OTHERAUTHORITIES
Alabama E l e c t i o n R e s u lt s , a v a i l a b l e at
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/
r e s u l t s / s t a t e s / a l a b a m a
A t t ' y Gen. Op. 1998-200
v i
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
8/23
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
T h i s l i t i g a t i o n p r e s e n t s a c h a l l e n g e to the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s i n the 2012
e l e c t i o n c y c l e . P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t the S e c r e t a r y of
S t a t e has a duty to i n v e s t i g a t e the c r e d e n t i a l s of each
c a n d i d a t e p r i o r t o p l a c i n g h i s or her name on t he b a l l o t .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , they accuse he r of f a i l i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t Barack Obama. They seek an
i n j u n c t i o n t h a t would have the S e c r e t a r y attempt t o t u r n
back the c l o c k t o l a s t November and remove P r e s i d e n t
Obama's name from Alabama's b a l l o t s .
The Defendant moved t o d i s m i s s on grounds t h a t (1) the
c l a i m s were moot once the e l e c t i o n was over; (2) the
Alabama S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e has no duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e
c a n d i d a t e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and no power t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h
the e l e c t i o n of the P r e s i d e n t of the U n i t e d S t a t e s ; and (3)
the j u r i s d i c t i o n - s t r i p p i n g s t a t u t e p r e v e n t s c o u r t s from
examining the conduct of an e l e c t i o n a f t e r i t has o c c u r r e d .
The Court below g r a n t e d the Defendant's motion t o d i s m i s s ,
and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d .
1
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
9/23
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Does the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e have an a f f i r m a t i v e duty
t o i n v e s t i g a t e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f e l e c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e s ?
2. I s th e q u e s t i o n of whether the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e
has a duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e the s p e c i f i c c r e d e n t i a l s o f
P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s i n the November 2012 e l e c t i o n moot
f o l l o w i n g the a c t u a l occurrence of the e l e c t i o n and
c e r t i f i c a t i o n of i t s r e s u l t s ?
3. Does the j u r i s d i c t i o n - s t r i p p i n g s t a t u t e prevent
Alabama c o u r t s from examining the conduct of an e l e c t i o n
a f t e r i t has occurred?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Barack Obama was f i r s t e l e c t e d P r e s i d e n t i n 2008.
F o l l o w i n g h i s e l e c t i o n , q u e s t i o n s were asked about the
s t a t u s o f h i s American c i t i z e n s h i p , and whether t h a t
a f f e c t e d h i s e l i g i b i l i t y t o h o l d the Presidency.
The P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a complaint i n Montgomery County
C i r c u i t Court on October 11, 2012, l e s s than one month
b e f o r e the e l e c t i o n , r a i s i n g q u e s t i o n s about P r e s i d e n t
Obama's c i t i z e n s h i p . See g e n e r a l l y do c. 1, see a l s o B l .
B r . a t 2. I n i t , he a l l e g e d t h a t the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e
had an a f f i r m a t i v e duty t o v e r i f y the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f
2
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
10/23
e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l a p p e a r i n g on the b a l l o t i n the S t a t e o f
Alabama f o r the November 2012 e l e c t i o n . See doc. 1 a t 4 (f
12). The c o m p l a i n t took p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e w i t h the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Barack Obama, a l l e g i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t
h i s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e was f r a u d u l e n t and t h a t i n obedience
t o her oath of o f f i c e . S e c r e t a r y Chapman was o b l i g a t e d t o
i n v e s t i g a t e t ha t a l l e g a t i o n . See i d . at 3-4 {ff 7-12) .
P l a i n t i f f s now request a w r i t o f mandamus t o compel the
S e c r e t a r y t o o b t a i n a c e r t i f i e d copy of each P r e s i d e n t i a l
c a n d i d a t e ' s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e . I f the former c a n d i d a t e
f a i l s t o p r o v i d e one, h i s name s h o u l d be s t r i c k e n from the
b a l l o t and h i s votes revoked. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o seek t o
impose a requirement t h a t the S e c r e t a r y t o do t h i s f o r
e v e r y f u t u r e e l e c t i o n c y c l e .
STANDARD OF REVIEW
" A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w of a r u l i n g on a q u e s t i o n of law i s
de novo." Ex P a r t e F o r r e s t e r , 914 So. 2d 855, 858 ( A l a .
2005) . See a l s o Rogers Found. R e p a i r , I n c . v. P o w e l l , 748
So. 2d 869 (Ala.1999); Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215
(Ala. 1997) .
3
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
11/23
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The claims P l a i n t i f f s b r i n g a g a i n s t the S e c r e t a r y o f
S t a t e a r e moot. The e l e c t i o n P l a i n t i f f s attempt t o
c h a l l e n g e has a l r e a d y passed, and i t s r e s u l t s have l o n g
s i n c e been c e r t i f i e d . The r e l i e f they seek, the removal o f
P r e s i d e n t Obama's name from th e Alabama b a l l o t , i s
i m p o s s i b l e t o g r a n t .
A l t h o u g h P l a i n t i f f s c i t e t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness,
one o f them i s not r e c o g n i z e d by Alabama c o u r t s . The two
t h a t do a p p l y are i n a p p l i c a b l e he re .
Even were P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s not moot, they would s t i l l
f a i l f o r s i x d i f f e r e n t reasons. The S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e has
no a f f i r m a t i v e d ut y t o v e r i f y the c r e d e n t i a l s o f every
c a n d i d a t e she p l a c e s on t he S t a t e ' s b a l l o t s . Rather, she
has an a f f i r m a t i v e s t a t u t o r y d ut y t o c e r t i f y any c a n d i d a t e s
p r e s e n t e d t o he r by a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . The t a s k o f
ensuring those candidates' e l i g i b i l i t y f o r o f f i c e i s l e f t
t o l e a d e r s h i p w i t h i n th e c a n d i d a t e ' s p o l i t i c a l p a r t y .
Furthermore, Alabama c o u r t s may not examine t he conduct o f
p a s t e l e c t i o n s , and are d i s q u a l i f i e d from h e a r i n g t h e
c l a i m s P l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t . Moreover, the U n i t e d S t a t e s
Congress i s t h e o n l y e n t i t y e n t i t l e d t o conduct an
4
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
12/23
i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of a can di da te f o r
P r e s i d e n t . Even a s i d e from l e g a l shortcomings, P l a i n t i f f s
p r e s e n t e d t h e i r c l a i m s o n l y a f t e r the r e l i e f they sought
was made i m p o s s i b l e f o l l o w i n g t he m a i l i n g o f absentee
b a l l o t s w i t h t h e c o n t e s t e d c a n d i d a t e s ' names on them.
For the se rea son s, the P l a i n t i f f s ' arguments ar e due t o
b e d i s m i s s e d .
ARGUMENT
I. P l a i n t i f f s ' claims are moot because the election
has already taken place.
As the Se cr et ar y noted i n her motion t o d i s m i s s , t h e
oc cur ren ce of the November 2012 e l e c t i o n renders the claims
here moot. P l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f , the removal o f
P r e s i d e n t Obama's name from the Alabama b a l l o t u n t i l p r o o f
o f h i s c i t i z e n s h i p s t a t u s i s p r o v i d e d (namely, a hard copy
o f h i s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e ) , i s im po ss ib le to grant at t h i s
p o i n t .
" [A] a case i s moot when the is su es pr es en te d are no
l o n g e r ' l i v e ' o r th e p a r t i e s l a c k a l e g a l l y c o g n i z a b l e
i n t e r e s t i n the outcome." Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty.
Outreach, I n c. , 42 So. 3d 65, 70-71 ( A l a . 2010) ( qu o ti n g
Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Da v is , 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1 97 9) ).
5
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
13/23
I n B e l l V. Eagerton, t h i s Court hel d th at t h e occurrence o f
an e l e c t i o n and th e p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o a v a i l h i m s e l f o f
a l l a v a i l a b l e o p t i o n s t o s to p i t s happening mooted a case.
S e e g e n e r a l l y 908 So. 2d 204 ( A l a . 2002) . Contrary t o
P l a i n t i f f s ' a s s e r t i o n , t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case c l o s e l y mimic
those i n B e l l : P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t seek an i n j u n c t i o n t o
prevent t h e e l e c t i o n ' s occurrence, n o r d i d they e x p l i c i t l y
c h a l l e n g e i t s r e s u l t s . ^
II. P l a i n t i f f s ' claims do not f a l l under an ''exception
to mootness. "
I n t h e i r b r i e f . P l a i n t i f f s c i t e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t
e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness: (1) q u e s t i o n s o f great p u b l i c
importance, (2) issues capable o f r e p e t i t i o n y e t evading
review, and (3) cases where a p a r t y would s u f f e r a
d e t r i m e n t i n t h e absence o f an i s s u e ' s r e s o l u t i o n . B l . B r.
Moreover, P l a i n t i f f s c o u l d n o t have c h a l l e n g e d t h e r e s u l t s o f
Alabama's e l e c t i o n i n such a way as t o a f f e c t i t s outcome.
Although President Obama won r e - e l e c t i o n based on the t o t a lt a l l y o f e l e c t o r a l votes nationwide, he d i d not c a r r y t h e S t a t e
of Alabama, where a s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s (60.7%)
supported Republican candidate M i t t Romney. See Alabama
E l e c t i o n R e s u l t s , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / e l e c t i o n s . n y t i m e s . c o m /
2 0 1 2 / r e s u l t s / s t a t e s / a l a b a m a ( l a s t accessed A p r i l 12, 2013).
Removing P r e s i d e n t Obama's name from Alabama b a l l o t s would n o t
a l t e r r e s u l t s of the e l e c t i o n on e i t h e r t h e S t a t e o r n a t i o n a l
l e v e l .
6
http://elections.nytimes.com/http://elections.nytimes.com/7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
14/23
at 13. Of th os e th re e, on l y the f i r s t two are re co gn iz ed
i n Alabama co ur ts ,^ and n ei th e r one a pp l ie s here.
The ex ce pt io n to mootness fo r quest ions of great p u b l i c
importance i s i n t e r p r e t e d n a r ro w l y i n Alabama c o u r t s .
" [ A ] n e x c e p t i o n e x i s t s for a 'moot case i n v o l v i n g i s s u e s o f
g r e a t p u b l i c importance, which may rec ur i n the f u t u r e . ' "
Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972, 989 (2007) (emphasis
added). To determine whether t h e e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s , c o u r t s
must e v a l u a t e t h r e e c r i t e r i a : (1) the p u b l i c na tu re o f t he
qu es ti on , (2) the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f an a u t h o r i t a t i v e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r t he purpose o f g u i d i n g p u b l i c o f f i c e r s ,
and (3) th e l i k e l i h o o d that the question w i l l g e n e r a l l y
re cu r . Id . at 989 (q uo ti ng Slawson v. A l a . F o r e s t r y
Comm' n, 631 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . 19 94 )) . Here, the second and
t h i r d f a c t o r s i n t he a n a l y s i s p r e c l u d e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t he
ex ce pt io n. The ext ent of the Se cr et ar y' s du ti es under
these cir cum sta nce s has al re ad y been c l a r i f i e d i n an
o f f i c i a l Opi nio n is su ed by the Sta te At to rn ey Gen era l. See
g e n e r a l l y , A t t ' y Gen. Op. 1998-200. Furthermore, the
^The f i n a l e x c e p t i o n P l a i n t i f f s propose i s not recog niz ed i n
Alabama co ur ts , and i t s onl y support comes from a case-
s p e c i f i c r u l i n g by a low er co ur t i n another s t a t e . See In
r e : Stephen J., 932 N.E.2d 87 (111. App. Ct. 2010)
( a u t h o r i z i n g an exception where one party would s u f f e r a
d e t r i m e n t ) .
7
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
15/23
c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t i s s u e can never r e c u r because P r e s i d e n t
Obama i s t e r m - l i m i t e d and may not ru n f o r the o f f i c e a g a i n .
See U.S. Const. Amend. XXII 1. S i n c e " t h i s ' e x c e p t i o n i s
c o n s t r u e d n a r r o w l y , ' " even though the case a r g u a b l y
i n v o l v e s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c i m p o r t a n c e , the o t h e r two
f a c t o r s weigh a g a i n s t e x c e p t i n g t h i s case from the mootness
d o c t r i n e . Slawson a t 989 ( q u o t i n g In re A d o p t i o n o f
Walgreen, 710 N.E.2d 1226, 1227 (1999)).
A n e x c e p t i o n t o mootness a l s o e x i s t s where an i s s u e i s
c a p a b l e of r e p e t i t i o n , but would c o n t i n u a l l y "evade r e v i e w "
i f t y p i c a l p r o c e d u r a l t i m i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s a p p l i e d . Moore
V. O g i l v i e , 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969). However, t h i s Court
has s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c o g n i z e d the l i m i t s o f Moore's h o l d i n g :
"[The] p l a i n t i f f s ' c h a l l e n g e t o s t a t e e l e c t i o n law was not
moot, even a f t e r the c h a l l e n g e d e l e c t i o n was completed,
because the p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d c h a l l e n g e th e law w i t h r e s p e c t
to f u t u r e e l e c t i o n s . " R i c e v. S i n k f i e l d , 732 So. 2d 993,
994 n . l ( A l a . 1998). A c h a l l e n g e to an e l e c t i o n o n l y
escapes mootness where the i s s u e i s "capable o f
r e p e t i t i o n . " Moore a t 816. The s i t u a t i o n at bar i s i n
f a c t a p a r a d i g m a t i c example of when an e x c e p t i o n does not
a p p l y : P r e s i d e n t Obama (the P l a i n t i f f s ' o b v i o u s t a r g e t ) i s
8
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
16/23
t e r m - l i m i t e d , and b a r r e d from running f o r the P r e s i d e n c y
a g a i n . See U.S. Const, amend. XXII, 1. N e c e s s a r i l y ,
then, the circumstances of the e l e c t i o n t h a t P l a i n t i f f s
c h a l l e n g e here can never be repeated. Th ei r cla ims do not
pose a s i t u a t i o n t h a t i s capable o f r e p e t i t i o n , but evading
review, and consequently, no e x c e p t i o n t o mootness a p p l i e s .
III. Even were they not moot. P l a i n t i f f s ' claims would
s t i l l f a i l .
A s i d e from the being rendered moot by the a c t u a l
occurrence of the November 2012 e l e c t i o n s . P l a i n t i f f s '
c l a i m s here ar e s t i l l due t o be d i s m i s s e d on a number o f
o t h e r grounds.
A. The Court lacks subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n
over the claims pursuant to Ala. Code 17-16
44.
Alabama c o u r t s are g e n e r a l l y b a r r e d from a s c e r t a i n i n g
the " l e g a l i t y , conduct o r r e s u l t s o f any e l e c t i o n except so
f a r as a u t h o r i t y t o do so [ i s ] s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y
enumerated and s e t down by s t a t u t e . " Wood v. Booth, 990
So. 2d 314, 318 ( A l a . 2008) (quoting Ala. Code 17-14-44).
In s p i t e o f P l a i n t i f f s ' attempts t o d i s t i n g u i s h q u e s t i o n i n g
9
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
17/23
th e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f e l e c t o r a l can did ate s from q u e s t i o n i n g
th e conduct of an e l e c t i o n , t h e i r s i s a d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h o u t
a d i f f e r e n c e . To accommodate P l a i n t i f f s , t h i s Court would
be f o r c e d t o l o o k back at the r e s u l t s of l a s t November's
e l e c t i o n i n order to see whether t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were
harmed by the presence of s p e c i f i c ca nd id at es on the
b a l l o t . C o n t r a r y t o t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s t h a t " t h i s l a w s u i t
does not seek to q u e s t i o n the l e g a l i t y of the e l e c t i o n , nor
does i t imp act the 'conduct' of the e l e c t i o n , nor does i t
c o n t e s t the r e s u l t s of an e l e c t i o n , " B l . Br. a t 36, r u l i n g
on P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a t t h i s stage would i n h e r e n t l y
i n v o l v e the e v a l u a t i o n of the e l e c t i o n ' s r e s u l t s . I t would
be i m p o s s i b l e t o i n v a l i d a t e the votes of a candidate who
d i d not produce a b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e to the S e c r e t a r y o f
S t a t e and have the conduct of the e l e c t i o n remain
unchanged, even i f the end r e s u l t remained u n a l t e r e d .
B. The Secretary has no l e g a l duty to investigate
or v e r i f y the cre den tia ls of candidates p r i o r
to placing themon the b al l o t .
The Alabama Code s t a t e s t h a t "the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e
s h a l l c e r t i f y . . . t h e names o f a l l c a n d i d a t e s f o r P r e s i d e n t
and V i c e P r e s i d e n t who ar e no mi na te d by any n a t i o n a l
10
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
18/23
c o n v e n t i o n . " A l a . Code 17-14-31(a) (emphasis added). She
i s r e q u i r e d t o c e r t i f y a l l P r e s i d e n t i a l candidates who have
secured the endorsement of a p o l i t i c a l pa r ty . As a m a t t e r
of Alabama law, the Secretary has no duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e
the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of candidates except i n a ver y s p e c i f i c
set of circums tances: she i s re sp on si bl e fo r r ef us i ng to
c e r t i f y a candidate o n l y when she has knowledge gained from
an o f f i c i a l source w h i l e p e r f o r m i n g her d u ti e s as
pr e sc r i be d by law, that a candidate has not met a
c e r t i f y i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n . See ge ne ra ll y A l a . A t t ' y Gen.
Op. No. 1998-200. An Attorney General Opinion on the
s u b j e c t e l a b o r a t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e Code does not re qu ir e the
Se cr et ar y of Sta te to determine whether each nominee meets
a l l the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r h i s or her p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c e . "
I d . at 3. I t does, however, i n d i c a t e t h a t where the
S e c r e t a r y possesses " o f f i c i a l knowledge" of a c a n d i d a t e ' s
d e f i c i e n c y " a r i s i n g from the performance o f d u t i e s
pr e sc r ib e d by law," the source of that knowledge w i l l be
considered an " o f f i c i a l source." The Opinion c i t e s as an
example a n o t i c e from t h e E t h i c s Committee to the Se cr et ar y
that a c a n d i d a t e has f a i l e d to f i l e a s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d
statement of economic i n t e r e s t s . Id . Although P l a i n t i f f s
11
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
19/23
i d e n t i f y some groups t h a t have i n v e s t i g a t e d P r e s i d e n t
Obama's background on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e s , t h e
c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from those i n v e s t i g a t i o n s are not
" o f f i c i a l , " s i n c e they were n o t a c q u i r e d i n t h e course o f a
government worker's o f f i c i a l d u t i e s . They a r e t h e r e f o r e
i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e o f f i c i a l knowledge ga in ed from
an o f f i c i a l s o u r c e .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , as s t a t e d i n t h e motion t o d i s m i s s , A l a .
Code 17-14-31 (a) i m p l i c i t l y l e a v e s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
v e r i f y i n g a c a n d i d a t e ' s c r e d e n t i a l s to the n o m i n a t i n g
p a r t y . C o u r t s i n o t h e r s t a t e s have tended t o agree t h a t
" [ a ] n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f e l i g i b i l i t y i s b e s t l e f t t o each
p a r t y , which presumably w i l l conduct t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
background check o r r i s k t h a t i t s nominee's e l e c t i o n w i l l
be d e r a i l e d by an o b j e c t i o n i n Congress." Keyes v. Bowen,
117 C a l . R p t r . 3d 207, 209 ( C a l . App. 2010). As concerns
t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e Democratic P a r t y p r o v i d e s m u l t i p l e
o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c h a l l e n g i n g t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f a
p r o p o s e d c a n d i d a t e . P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t take advantage o f
e i t h e r the pr e - or p o s t - p r i m a r y p ro c e d u r es t h a t would have
a l l o w e d them t o c h a l l e n g e t h e P r e s i d e n t i a l n o m i n a t i o n p r i o r
t o t h e o c c u r r e n c e of th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n .
12
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
20/23
C. Only Congress has the authority to judge the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Presidential candidates
after an e l e c t i o n has been held.
Af te r a fed era l el ec ti on has o c c u r r e d , the o n l y e n t i t y
w i t h the power to review the re su lt s i s Congress. Robinson
V. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. C a l . 2008). T h i s i s
p r i m a r i l y because of the po te nt ia l for c o n f u s i o n and
c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s t h at might occur i f each S t a t e was
g i v e n l i c e n s e t o review t he e l e c t i o n ' s outcome:
The p r e s i d e n t i a l nominating p r o c e s s i s not s u b j e c t to
each of the 50 st at es ' e l e c t i o n o f f i c i a l s i n d e p e n d e n t l y
d e c i d i n g whether a p r e s i d e n t i a l nominee i s q u a l i f i e d ,
as this c o u l d lead to chaot ic re s ul t s. Were the c o u r t s
of 50 sta tes at l i b e r t y to issu e in ju nc ti on s
r e s t r i c t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n of d u ly - el e ct e d p r e s i d e n t i a l
e l e c t o r s , t he r e s u l t c o u l d be c o n f l i c t i n g r u l i n g s and
d e l a y e d t r a n s i t i o n of power i n d e r o g a t i o n o f s t a t u t o r y
and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e a d l i n e s .
Keyes, 117 Cal. R p t r . 3d at 209. By p l a c i n g the a u t h o r i t y
to judge the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s i n
the hands of Congress once an e l e c t i o n i s p a s t , the
p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t i n g a d j ud i c at i o ns i m m e d i a t e l y drops
to z e r o .
D. Pla int iff s' claim was f i l e d after ballots had
been printed and sent to some voters, making
13
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
21/23
their alteration impossible, and the claims
time-barred.
F i n a l l y , P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r c l a i m s too l a t e i n the
c o u r t below. By the time they f i l e d t h e i r i n i t i a l
complaint, b a l l o t s had a l r e a d y been p r i n t e d and sent t o
absentee v o t e r s , r e n d e r i n g t h e i r a l t e r a t i o n i m p o s s i b l e .
Whether construed as an untimely contest of th e nominating
process (see Wood v. Booth, 990 So. 2d 314 ( A l a . 2008),
Roper V. Rhodes, 988 So. 2d 471 (Ala. 2008)), or through
the lens of laches (see Roper, 988 So. 2d at 481 (Murdock,
J . , d i s s e n t i n g i n the reasoning but agreeing i n the
r e s u l t ) ) , the P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m was t i m e - b a r r e d from the
moment i t was f i l e d .
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, t h i s Court should a f f i r m the
C i r c u i t Court's r u l i n g , and d i s m i s s P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s .
14
7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
22/23
R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted,
Luther Strange
Attorney General
Andrew L. BrasherDeputy S o l i c i t o r General
Is/ Laura E. Howell
Assistant Attorney General
James W. Davis
Laura E. Howell
Assistant Attorneys General
S t a t e of Alabama
O f f i c e of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l501 Washington Ave.
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7300
I h o w e l K j a g o . s t a t e . a l . u s
A t t o r n e y s f o r S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Beth Chapman
15
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/30/2019 McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13
23/23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby c e r t i f y t h a t on the 23rci day of A p r i l ,
2013, a copy of the above and f o r e g o i n g document has been
f i l e d w i t h the C l e r k of the Court u s i n g the A p p e l l a t e
Courts e - F i l i n g System (ACES) which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n
o f such f i l i n g t o a l l p a r t i e s of r e c o r d , has been e m a i l e d
where noted, and m a i l e d v i a U.S. M a i l where noted.
L. Dean Johnson
4030 B a l m o r a l Dr., S te. B
H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801
Johnson [email protected]
L a r r y Klayman
Klayman Law F i r m
2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave. N.W.
S t e . 800
Washington, D.C. 20006
/ s / Laura E. Howell
OF COUNSEL
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]