On April 30, James Hall filed his cert petition in the U.S. Supreme Court. He was an independent candidate for U.S. House in Alabama, and he sued over the requirement that he get a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, in a short time period. He won the case in U.S. District Court, after the election was over. Then the Eleventh Circuit ruled last year that the case had been moot when he won, and the Eleventh Circuit therefore erased the declaratory judgment that he had won.
The case is Hall v Secretary, State of Alabama, 18-1362. Here is the petition.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that constitutional ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged this, but said it doesn’t apply in special elections. There has never been any other court that set forth that procedure, and the Eleventh Circuit did not support its opinion with any precedents. The vote was 2-1.
Hall asks the U.S. Supreme Court to take his case, and establish that special election constitutional ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over. There is a circuit split, because in Schaefer v Townsend, the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ballot access restriction after the election was over, and Schaefer v Townsend involved a special congressional election. When there is a circuit split, the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court will take a case are somewhat higher.
If Alabama chooses to respond, its response is due May 30.
MUST sue for $$$$ damages – to avoid moot machinations.
Pam Karlan’s Stanford Supreme Court litigation clinic is also on the petition, increasing its chances of success.
Must also claim to be a candidate in all future elections for the office involved.
Demo Rep, not necessarily. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Richardson v Ramirez that the plaintiff-candidates in Moore v Ogilvie did not expect to run in future elections. Moore v Ogilvie was the US Supreme Court case in which the court for the first time said constitutional ballot access cases aren’t moot just because the election is over. The plaintiff-candidates in Moore v Ogilvie were unpledged presidential electors who wanted to be on the ballot in November 1968 in Illinois, but their case wasn’t resolved until 1969. The chief issue was the county distribution requirement, which the court invalidated in Moore v Ogilvie, but the other importance of Moore v Ogilvie was that the mootness rule was relaxed. Moore v Ogilvie itself doesn’t say that the plaintiff-candidates did not expect to run again, but Richardson v Ramirez mentioned those Moore plaintiffs and said they didn’t expect to run again.
When the SCOTUS MORONS screw up a case, then later cases get even more screwed up.
See the infamous Fed common law series of ops 1842-1938
ENDED in the Erie RR case in 1938 — 96 years of UNCON stuff in the Fed courts.
SEE the Const Anno Appendix – SCOTUS cases over-ruled – even some election related.
Mootness stuff in general —
THE civil injury involved does NOT go away unless the LAW involved is retroactively repealed.
Much too difficult for 200 plus years of SCOTUS MOOT MORONS to understand.
Seeking money damages is generally impossible in election matters because of the 11th Amendment (which protects states’ treasuries) and immunity for election officials. That is why declaratory and injunctive relief are often the only options, and why the mootness question is so important.
11 AMDT — for violations of STATE law by State/local regimes in the State — ALL human folks have to go to State courts — IF NO Fed question/violation involved.
ALL govt regimes = public FICTIONAL persons — property owners, employers, contractors.
Must compare original 3-2-1 and 11 Amdt.
More MORON SCOTUS ops perverting the 11th Amdt — layers of HACK MORONS in SCOTUS — esp since 1861.
Public officials – bit REAL with fictional titles and powers — to do total/major damage to legal rights, privileges and immunities.
SUE for $$$ damages.
The SCOTUS MORONS will wake up sooner – before Am Rev WAR II happens.
Read that olde 4 July 1776 DOI document — he/they have done such and such.
The ONLY *immunity* in the USA Const is for Congress hacks in debates [ OK to slander and libel whoever ] —
1-6-1 The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; [[[ and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. ]]]
for history reasons
rotted Brit tyrant monarchs purging Brit Parliament folks in 1400s-1500s who were critical of monarch machinations —
part of set up for crisis in 1600s in England – ending with 1689 Revolution in England
— model for later 1775-1784 Am Rev War.