On November 4, Rocky De La Fuente, an independent presidential candidate who is on the ballot in 20 states, filed a lawsuit in California state court against the Secretary of State, who rejected his write-in filing on the grounds that a few of his presidential elector candidates are not registered at the address they listed on their declarations.
Here is the 17-page brief. The brief notes that the California Secretary of State permitted the Republican Party to submit a presidential elector candidate who is barred by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
The exhibits attached to the brief show that the San Diego County Registrar of Voters approved all of De La Fuente’s elector candidates (they all live in San Diego County) weeks before the deadline. The last exhibit, #8, also shows the Republican presidential elector list. De La Fuente’s attorney did not mention the point that the Secretary of State accepted the American Independent Party electors, and nine of them don’t live in California. Nor did De La Fuente’s attorney mention the point that the Secretary of State accepted 108 different presidential elector candidates pledged to Donald Trump, even though California only has 55 electoral votes and there will be no way to know the vote totals for any of the Trump electors, because the ballot does not give Trump voters a chance to indicate whether that voter is voting for the Republican electors or the AIP electors, who are mostly different individuals.
In the opinion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court IN RE
GEORGE H. CORLISS, 11 R.I. 638 (1876) it stated: “was a failure to elect.”
ALL ballot access stuff is now a WAR type activity.
WHATEVER an election law HACK says or does is now highly suspect.
i.e. have to make nonstop videos of ALL meetings with such HACKS — for future court cases.
On Page 11 of the brief, the lawyer argues that California statute (EC 201) only requires an elector candidate to be a registered voter. One of the putative De La Puente elector candidates has a residence address in California (though this address does not appear to exist), but is registered in Pennsylvania.
He would not point out the seven alien elector candidates for the American Independent Party, since one of their elector candidates also has the same status.
The letter from the counsel for the SOS did not mention EC 201, but if it is applicable to offices which have no constitutional qualifications, I would interpret it as requiring a candidate for presidential elector for California to being domiciled in California at the time they are nominated. It is likely unconstitutional to require a person be registered to vote in order to be elected, but it would be constitutional to require being otherwise qualified to vote, including having domicile in California in order to hold public office in California. Presidential elector is a State office, not a federal office.
In California, it is independent and write-in slates that file for candidacy. Could Bernie Sanders prevent the write-in electors pledged to support his presidential election from being official write-in candidates? On what grounds? So does De La Fuente have standing, simply because he or his associates organized the slate?
The notary only confirmed that the individuals were who signed the application of candidacy. They specifically did not confirm the content such as residence address.
In instructions from the Archivist of the United States to SOS and other State officials with responsibilities with respect to presidential elections:
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/officials.html#appointing
“It is not settled as to whether this restriction extends to all Federal officials regardless of their level of authority or the capacity in which they serve, but we advise the States that the restriction could disqualify any person who holds a Federal government job from serving as an elector.”
The advisory committee which Arun Bhumitra is a member is established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which specifically legislates against a committee composed entirely of federal officials or employees.
The charter of the International Trade Advisory Committee on Information and Communications Technologies, Services, and Electronic Commerce specified that the members of the committee represent the interests and views of US entities and organizations (and its subsector), and “they are; therefore, not Special Government Employees.”
While the FACA permits compensation, members of the ITAC-ICTSEC, are not compensated, and are not even paid travel expenses.
The Secretary of Commerce appoints the Designated Federal Officer and Secondary Federal Officer, which under the FACA provide the connection between the government and the advisory committee.
Summary, the purpose of an advisory committee is to get advice from outside the federal government, it is not part of the federal government. This particular advisory committee appears to be entirely private sector. There are others such as those that advise the Elections Assistance Commission that are comprised almost entirely of state and local election officials, legislators, etc. One such advisory panel includes two state Secretary of States.
The ITAC-ICTSEC has met 6 times over the past 12 months, 3 of those by teleconference.
Conclusion; Mr. Arun Bhumitra does not hold an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.
In any event, Alex Padilla, is legally incompetent to make such a determination.
The De La Fuente campaign apparently made a totally goofy offer that his delegate candidates for the primary become his elector candidates.
California statute requires that the SOS notify the elector candidates of the political parties that they have been nominated (they are clearly the nominees of the respective parties and not the nominees of Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein, or La Riva. The only purpose of the address on the nomination by the parties is so that they may be notified.
On the other hand, slates of independent or write-in elector candidates are making their own nomination, regardless whether they received assistance from a presidential candidate.
It is not clear that the SOS was adding a qualification, adjudicating a qualification, or simply determining the sufficiency of an application. It appears that someone in the SOS office went through some unknown process and then posted something. When Rossi started asking questions they kicked it up to the attorney to write a CYA response.
There is an affirmative obligation of the SOS (or county election officials) to inform a candidate of insufficiency in petition signatures, and presumably about any other deficiencies in an application. The SOS failed to do so in this case.
Arun Bhumitra’s nomination had to be approved by the U.S. Senate.
What date did this alleged confirmation of Arun Bhumitra occur on?
Do you agree that Elections Code 201 requires California presidential electors to be domiciled in the State?
Markham Robinson and Mark Seidenberg told me the US Senate confirmed Arun Bhumitra. I don’t know the date, but I trust them.
In 2012 and this year, the California Secretary of State has refused to provide the public with the addresses of candidates for presidential elector, on the grounds that they aren’t really “candidates”. His spokesperson says they are just “ceremonial candidates” and uses this reason to justify withholding the addresses. California law says the addresses of candidates for public office are public information. So, I would say it is the Secretary of State who doesn’t agree that section 201 applies to presidential elector candidates. Also the Secretary of State seemed to confirm his belief when he accepted the 9 out-of-state AIP presidential elector candidates. He doesn’t seem to believe 201 applies. I am looking forward to his brief, to see what he says about that.
Have you, Markham Robinson, or Mark Seidenberg, read the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the charter of ITAC-ICTSEC on which Arun Bhumitra serves, or the Trade Act of 1974?
What about the Request for Nominations for the International Trade Advisory Committees (Federal Register, Vol. 79,; No. 168; Friday, August 29, 2014; Page 51552)?
If you had, you would understand that the purpose of advisory committees is to permit persons outside the federal government, whether in the private sector, both for profit and non-profit, or in state and local government, to provide advice to the federal government; while insulating them from being federal officers or employees.
You through your expert testimony in federal court are more of a government official of trust or profit than Arun Bhumitra.
It is unclear whether you are referring to 2012 when Debra Bowen was SOS, or 2016 when Alex Padilla was SOS.
Under California’s goofy presidential election laws, the SOS may not have a ministerial duty to verify the qualifications of the elector candidates of the political parties.
Why did the De La Fuente write-in candidates file with the San Diego County Voter Registrar? What if not all of the candidates had a residence in San Diego County? Do write-in for presidential elector have to file in their county of residence, and then the SOS determine if there are 55 of them?
In 2012, how were you nominated as a presidential elector candidate, since the Libertarian Party does not have its own section of the Elections Code?
In 2012, why did California’s Certificate of Ascertainment not specify the Vice Presidential candidates to which slates of write-in elector candidates were pledged? Surely they would not interpret EC 8650 as referring to a singular candidate for President and Vice President would they?
CCROV Memorandum #16270 (August 28, 2016) from Steven Reyes, chief counsel SOS Elections Division said:
“As you are aware, the Elections Code contains very specific instructions for ballot layout (Division 13 of the Elections Code, commencing with Section 13000).”
Why weren’t the instructions of EC 13205(b) and 13205(d) placed on all ballots? Are they not “very specific instructions” and are they not in Division 13?
“How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected when more than one political party nominates the same candidate?
The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.”
Would it not be appropriate address this issue prior to the election?
Where in the Elections Code is it specified how any presidential electors are chosen? Is it by tradition only?
Jim Riley,
The late Senator Jeremiah Denton (R-AL) states: “Public
Official” in section [18 U.S.C.] 201(a) has been broadly
Interpreted to include persons holding “a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities.” {see: 130
Cong. Rec. 1295 (1984) }
As to the questions raised by Jim Riley. I have read the
FACA, and the charter on which Arun K. Bhumitra serves
and the Trade Act of 1974.
Has Jim Riley read the “Memorandum Opinion For The
Deputy Counsel To The President (dated: April 29, 1991)
by Douglas R. Cox, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legal Counsul, U. S. Department of Justice
(Vol. 15, [1991], pages 65 – 69)?
My calendar shows August 28, 2016 as a Sunday, which under the CA Governent Code is a legal holiday. My copy of CC/ROV #16270 is dated August 26, 2016. Did
you error in the date it was issued?
Jim Riley
You stated that Alex Padilla is legally incompetant to make such a determination (of a person holding an
“Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”). Why
so you make such a statement?
What about Jim Brulte? He appointed Arun K. Bhumitra. As State Chairman of the CA GOP is he legally competent to make such a determination? The
issue is Brulte submitted Arun K. Bhumitra’s name and address days late to Alex Padilla, viz., October 3, 2016.
Note 4.01 of the Bylaws of May 1, 2016 to the CA GOP.
Jim Riley
CA Elections Code section 6901 states in part that whenever “a political party, in accordance (for the GOP)
with section … 7300 …, submits to the Secretary of State
its certified list of nominees for electors of President and
Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her
nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties to be placed
on the ballot for the ensuing general election”.
However, Jim Brulte, Chairman of the GOP submitted the
list late, viz., late after 4:00 P.M. on October 3, 2016, when the AIP had already established its list of 55 POTUS and VPOTUS electors that morning near 8:00 A.M. for the ticket of Trump/Pence.
By the Bylaws of the GOP of May 1, 2016, the list was do
no later than October 1, 2016, which was the same terms as CA Election Code 7300. Brulte’s filing on October 3, 2016 in addition being late did not comply with CA Election Code on several grounds. In addition
to listing Bhumitra (who holds an office of trust under the
United States) he failed to list address for ten persons that are required to be acting as Presidential Electors.
When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new feedback are added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I get 4 emails with the identical comment. Is there any way you may remove me from that service? Thanks!