Ninth Circuit Hears Presidential Qualifications Ballot Access Case

On February 13, the Ninth Circuit heard Peta Lindsay & Peace & Freedom Party v Debra Bowen, 13-15085. The issue is whether the California Secretary of State had authority to remove Peta Lindsay from the Peace & Freedom Party’s presidential primary ballot in 2012. Lindsay admittedly was 27 years old, and Article II of the U.S. Constitution says presidents must be at least 35.

The hearing was recorded and anyone with internet access can listen, beginning on Friday, February 14. The hearing lasted approximately 15 minutes and was the first case argued when court opened at 9:30 a.m.

Section 6720 of the California Election Code says, “The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the Peace & Freedom Party presidential preference ballot when the Secretary of State has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the presidential nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party or the national party with which the Peace and Freedom Party is affiliated.” One of the three judges asked about the term “shall”. The attorney for the Secretary of State said there are judicial opinions from California state court which say that “shall” does not necessarily mean the public official must carry out the act described.

One judge asked, “What statutes authorize deletion?” and the state’s response was “The Election Code and the Government Code as a whole.” One judge asked, “Suppose the Secretary of State is a birther?” There was discussion of the various lawsuits over whether President Obama and John McCain meet the constitutional qualifications. The three judges on the case are Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, and Mary Murguia.


Ninth Circuit Hears Presidential Qualifications Ballot Access Case — 12 Comments

  1. Unless it has been changed since the appeal was filed, the name of the case is Peta Lindsay, et. al. v. Bowen rather than Peace and Freedom Party v. Bowen.

  2. 20th Amdt, Sec. 3

    If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Have the genius moron judges and lawyers noticed such section ???

  3. Yes, the attorney for the Peace & Freedom Party and Peta Lindsay mentioned the 20th amendment quite a bit. You will be able to hear the recording if you wish starting on Friday, Feb. 14.

  4. I may be incorrect, but I was the Peace and Freedom Party state chair at the time and I was asked if the party would be the plaintiff in the case. I was told from the begining that it was Peace and Freedom Party v Bowen.

  5. Which judge raised the issue of either John McCain III being a Citizen of Panama at the time
    of birth only and/or Barry Obama being born a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar on an Indian
    Ocean Island (Mombasa)?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
    Vice Chairman
    American Independent Party of California

  6. See also regarding birthers and 2008 POTUS eligibility
    Strunk v Paterson NYSUCS Kings Civil Supreme
    status hearing March 28th 2014

  7. This is exactly correct, the 20th amendment ‘, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,’ answers the possibility of an ineligible candidate and it’s solution, The question is, however, who, and when, how, why and what do we do to resolve this failure to qualify? Ok. Who? Simple… the House and Senate. How? By entering an Objection in writing to either your Senate President or the Speaker of the House, depending on the nature of the objection it may require the signature of each of one other House and one Senate member and sometimes may require both a Senator and House member from the same state, this is because of qualifying electoral votes on various objection matters and places. When? This is the bad news, this could have occurred last and specifically on January 6th 2012. Why? This is the chosen date for the Affirmation of Electoral College votes by both Houses. 12th Amendment. Sp, now go to secion 15 of US Code regarding procedures, it says basically that prior to any particular count, beginning of count, state by state count etc. that any objection that is made stops the count until the objection is resolved. Whether it be and issue of the legitimacy of an individual elector from a particular state, an entire states elector negligibility. or the presidents Constitutional Article II eligibility. So, if any member of either house had presented a written objection as to his Constitutional eligibility with cause in the appropriate manner prior to the beginning of the vote to Affirm the Electoral college vote, the vote stops and debate/ investigation/ Supreme Court Opinion etc all comes into play as the issue must be resolved before the vote can ever begin. I suppose the objector could end up a suicide and be replaced by a member who drops the objection. So, as you see this is why it seems too late and why every single member of the House and Senate is a ‘TRAITOR’. No going back.

  8. I have wondered since 2008 if there was a possibility of a whistle blower law suit against the SOS to recover the costs CA taxpayers put out for Obama’s ballot statement which, according to the SOS, is free for qualified and ELIGIBLE presidential and vice presidential candidates. I cannot find the particular section that addresses these ballot statements at this time as the CA SOS has a tendency to make it hard to find this information after so many inquiries about Obama that Bowen had to explain away and ignore. Is there such a possibility of a whistle blower suit of this kind even now?

  9. I’m pretty sure that after an investigation or Congressional Hearing on Obama’s eligibility, if found not eligible,they should be able to charge him with Fraud, and possibly Treason. Depending on what the Senate allows, all of the Bills or Laws passed on his watch could be made null and void. The Senate could also say that only certain laws are protected. Most of his “Executive Orders” would definitely be null and void. I also think since he has held the office of a period of time now our military could treat him as an invader, war criminal, or such and punish him accordingly since he is their Fake/Fraud Commander in Chief.

  10. Im just assuming Richard Winger was the attorney arguing the plaintiffs case. I have to stand on awe of him.

  11. I’m not an attorney. The attorney who argued for the Peace & Freedom Party is Bob Barnes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *