On September 21, California filed this brief with the 9th circuit, in Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, 11-55316. The issue is the state law that says circulators for candidate petitions (for district office, such as U.S. House or state legislature) must live in the relevant district. The state concedes that the residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional. But it says the lawsuit should be dismissed because the Secretary of State doesn’t enforce it. The petition form requires circulators to sign a statement at the bottom of the form “under penalty of perjury” that they do live in the district.
To establish that the Secretary of State doesn’t enforce the residency requirement for circulators, the state also asks the Court to take judicial notice of a 1980 ruling from a past Secretary of State, which says that signatures on a petition should count, even if the circulator isn’t a registered voter. But the 1980 ruling also says, “A circulator who completes a false affidavit is subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or, where applicable, violating Elections Code 29780, and suspected violators should be reported by local elections officials to the proper authorities.” Here is the state’s request that the court take judicial notice of the 1980 ruling, which includes a link to that 1980 ruling. It also includes a link to a January 2010 statement by the current Secretary of State that she still adheres to the 1980 ruling.
Standard points — regardless of MORON courts —
1. Each State is a sovereign NATION-State – 1776 DOI, last para. ; 1783 Peace Treaty; 1787 Const. Art. VII — i.e. the first 9 ratifying sovereign Nation-States enacted the 1787 Constitution — dumping the 1777 Articles of Confederation in the process.
2. Electors in each State area — everybody else is a political alien from another universe.
3. Whatever a bureaucrat says means ZERO — the LAW is the LAW.
4. If a bureaucrat has doubts about the constitutionality of some law that he/she enforces, then he/she MUST go to court — i.e. NOT issue some moron press release / opinion / ruling about the legalities involved. Most regimes in the U.S.A. still have some attempt at separation of powers.
What a crock by the state of California. I mean they rationalize that current state officials wont enforce stated laws because they are unconstitutional so there is no need to strike out these unconstitutional laws. Seriously there want us to trust them? Wow how a about we put slavery on the books or Jim Crow laws on the book and let the state officials then say, ” trust us we wont enforce them”. No I don’t trust California Secretary of State Debra Bowen or California Attorney General Kamala Harris because they loathe the petition process and the initiative, referendum and recall process.
These two sorry excuses for elected officials are supposed to uphold the Constitution not work against the people. They should be filing briefs on behalf of the Libertarian Party to recognize the new declaration shouldn’t include a residency requirement. What they are doing is protecting an unconstitutional provision so that one day a future court upholds this provision in some other state and jurisdiction then this antiquated provision can then be reinstated without having to go back to the legislature and governor to have it reinstated.
“No I don’t trust California Secretary of State Debra Bowen or California Attorney General Kamala Harris because they loathe the petition process and the initiative, referendum and recall process.”
Preach it brother, I wouldn’t trust these guys to run a hot dog stand let alone trust them with the power they hold now.