In our last Article II Super PAC update we provided detail regarding the Goode-McInnish case. The suits only Defendant is Alabama’s Secretary of State, Beth Chapman, (R) and their only request is for her to do her job. This is pretty basic stuff, right? Wrong.
Two Motions were filed on October 18, 2012 with the first being Alabama’s Democratic Party Motion to Intervene (MTI). Make special note of Item 5 in the Motion—The Alabama Secretary of State does not object to this motion to intervene. (See link to Motion to Intervene below)
The Alabama Democratic Committee MTI argues their nominee, Mr. Obama, is “eligible, qualified and entitled” to gain access to the taxpayer supported Alabama ballot and that Alabama’s Secretary of State “does not have a duty to independently investigate the qualifications of candidates nominated by the political parties.” Their motion wouldn’t be complete without the usual “pontification on high” that their candidate’s questionable natural born citizenship status is based on “discredited conspiracy theories and outlandish claims of fraudulent and forged birth certificates.”
Attorney General Strange filed the second motion which was a Motion to Dismiss (MTD). Strange offers the following arguments:
- The Secretary of State has no legal duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate;
- In regard to candidates for President, the authority to adjudge qualifications rests with Congress;
- Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary parties; and
- Plaintiffs’ claim is filed too late.
According to Strange the Secretary of State aka the Chief Election Officer for the state of Alabama holds no responsibility whatsoever to ensure any and/or all presidential candidates working to gain access to Alabama’s electorate meet the necessary constitutional qualifications to be on their state ballot. (See link to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss below)
Plaintiffs’ responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on October 24, 2012 by reiterating their Motion for Summary Judgment filed on or about October 15, 2012 “in which Plaintiffs submitted sworn affidavits that set forth evidence demonstrating that Barack H. Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.” These sworn affidavits are from Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona and Lead Investigator Mike Zullo, Maricopa County’s Cold Case Posse unit (see link Response to Motion to Dismiss below).
Plaintiff argues that it is clearly the legal duty of Alabama’s Chief Election Officer to “verify the eligibility of those seeking office” and when eligibility of a candidate comes into question it is their responsibility to verify and remove said party from the ballot if necessary. A recent Opinion by Alabama’s Attorney General cited by the plaintiff states –
“The Secretary of state does not have an obligation to evaluate all of the Qualifications of the nominees of political parties and independent candidates for state offices prior to certifying such nominees and candidates to the probate judges pursuant to sections1 7-7-l and l7-16-40 of the Code of Alabama. If the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law, that a candidate has not met a certifying qualification [such as a candidate's failure to file a public statement of Economic Interest], the Secretary of State should not certify the candidate.”
Clearly the sworn affidavits from Arpaio and Zullo serve as an “official source” placing into doubt at least the certifying qualifications necessary for Mr. Obama to gain access to the Alabama general election ballot. As for the remaining presidential candidates, no such “official source” has presented itself challenging their certifying qualifications.
The Plaintiff’s conclude “It is time — finally — to ensure that the person we are entrusting the highest and most powerful office of our country is eligible to serve for that office. The issue of eligibility has become a political hot potato, in effect a sticky matter for judges and courts around the nation. But the rule of law must eventually govern, without regard to politics, and cannot and should not be sidestepped through legally convenient and politically correct court rulings which ignore the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.”
We couldn’t agree more. A hearing date has not been scheduled as of this posting.
The following are links to all filings to date:
1. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT - http://www.scribd.com/doc/111475918/110079182-Pet-Writ-of-Mandamus-10-11-12
2. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORNADUM IN SUPPORT AND MOTION TO SHORTEN RESPONSE TIME TO 5 DAYS - http://www.scribd.com/doc/110365059/110078117-MSJ-Short-Resp-Time-to-5-Days
3. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - http://www.scribd.com/doc/111476988/Alabama-Motion-to-Dismiss
4. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE - http://www.scribd.com/doc/111477508/Motion-to-Intervene-by-Alabama-DC
5. PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS -http://www.scribd.com/doc/111477926/Response-to-MTD
More Alabama Ballot Challenge News