all right case number fourteen days three two three zero the libertarian party of ohio versus john used in gregory and i forgot to ask how this pronounce facade oshie maybe argument not to exceed fifteen minutes for the plaintiff i should say the libertarian party on ballot access afterwards have a long history and this case to have its own long history on in two thousand and six this court and libertarian party go against blackwell invalidated ohio and effectively gave the libertarian party since two thousand and six the state of ohio has on at least at least two occasions and actually most recently with s b one ninety three a third occasion tried to create a constitutional ballot i confess mechanism all of those efforts have been invalidated the most recent offer s b one ninety three which was part of decision came down january eighth of this year and although we were very grateful with the decision it also left the libertarian party of ohio in something of a bind because the fed nature is required of its hers january in ohio with not commonly pretty and this was the worst one in probably fifty years for that reason the libertarian party of ohio invested pretty much within our bank account and out that that employer statement and over apply brief i include from some of the relevant tough them or me that mr bridges and mr hatchard both provided to the administrative hearing officer and i think that but whatever however you characterize it it is feared that it was called to the attention of a representative of the libertarian party that the form was incomplete board or you know the secretary i'm self it's just not going to be enforced say that if the employer statement or a number of other requirements are not properly completed then the proposition that invalid and i do not believe the the secretary has any discretion in that regard or across the board in favor of the first amendment there is no support at all for the we are along trying to order state to my knowledge have such a law but clearly violates the first amendment hypothetical about ways in which it could be unconstitutionally applied but that's insufficient to carry their burden they tend to rely on brown versus socialist workers party and plaintiff counsel just indicated where the u s supreme court held that minor would be exempt from compelled disclosure if disclosure would object them to harassment or reprisals but two important points need to be made about that case number one it was an adequate challenge it was an attempt to strike down the road or law and all applications as we had here and number two to play could prevented actual evidence about harassment just support their claim they did prevent evidence that they received threatening phone calls hate mail and they were fired because if the hackett on a campaign finance report second to the extent that plaintiffs are attempting to vindicate someone else's first amendment right there's no evidence in the record that anyone that it would rigby to associate with the up you know where they would suffer any sort of stated in the district court and gave credence to mr leno testimony that testimony and i refuted it kate were talking about a disclosure requirement and the court sad and mad again and buckley disclosure requirement or one thirty eight year one that didn't previously up by before the when the very deficient the lynda barry decision didn't change anything once again at the district court noted no court has ever interpreted the disclosure law to get bent independent contractors  issue of retroactive enforcement thank you can't they didn't know till i was disclosure law would be enforced because again they fight ed and romber which are two cases in which it actually was enforced so if the issue is what they're simply saying that they upon the filing of a protest and he testified that simply a resource there to the secretary of state this is just one of the many election law that the secretary responsible for carrying out and he testified that the secretary of state would it received thirty or thirty five hundred thirty two but the proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting in two thousand and twelve it received sixty thousand for the secretary to investigate every single part petition ballot access and plaintiff claim with respect to enforcement seems to come back to their collective enforcement claim which is the next thirty men claim complained that they bought leave to file and were waiting for a decision from the district court explain how the employer box could be used to serve that purpose and the information on it it could be a different benefit circulator or under no that they did it effectively had the ability to to protect attempts to track them down in the case of evidence or op or any evidence to the contrary i have an interest in deterring detecting and preventing fraud and plaintiff simply haven't proven that the disclosure was severely burden anyone first amendment right but that interested outweighed of the members of the libertarian party and their right in the political process where do we could be in libertarian party interest into the that this is that prevent any burden to bear to see a show right well certainly they're severely burned but being removed from the ballot they are burdened by being removed from the ballot but that soci or separate times your honors the district court made specific actual findings in the court's decision to the effect that the disclosure requirement of the statute does not chill or burden political speech the district court even went so far as to find that this disclosure form and did not burden plaintiff's political speech in any meaningful way those were the words that judge watson used these bodies a fact as we all know reviewable only for clear error and we would submit that on this record there is no basis to find clear air or reverse the parts findings this comes as already pointed out the lack of evidence of guilt or burden that plaintiffs submitted what i'd like to do is focus for a moment on the other side of that coin on the evidence in this record of the folks that the fact that this that he does not impose a significant burden on aware of any instance where compliance with this disclosure requirement audit any problem to circulators or their employer's up from from having to fill out the little box on the form is never received any complaints that affect  also had the testimony of dana walsh who was mr dan showed his predecessor as the director of elections for the state of ohio as well as the legislative liaison for this statute when it was adopted by the general assembly his testimony was to the same effect is not aware of any problems it has ever caused as we know from judge watson's decision the district court specifically credited repeatedly the testimony of brandon why now he's a active political consultant in the state of ohio impediment to to collectors of collecting signatures or have resulted in collectors being subjected to any kind of harassment or reprisals or threats or anything of that sort indeed they should why don't testified that in today's political climate but collectors circulators and the persons employing them value disclosure and transparency over anonymity in the case of the circulator because they want their good work  known to others who might employ them in the future and thereby benefit them we also have in this record the testimony of ian james and the four circulators who work for him they all had no problem including in completing the disclosure box when they collected signatures for mr pearl the judge could if you asked about mr hatch's testimony and there was a bit of a disagreement by mr brown as to what he actually needed mr bridges to determine whether you needed to fill up the box and you would be available to come to columbus to fill up the box to be requested mr hatchett answer yes well so you were prepared to do whatever the libertarian party told you to do in terms of filling the box answer well i wanted my signature to come out but and so the answer is yes mr hatchett yeah but mr hatchett plainly expressed his willingness to have completed this bought it was not a problem for him because if he said he wanted his signature to come out that's how he got paid and lastly we have the testimony of robert robert bridges the opi old political officer he admitted he could have completed the box as george washington found it age twenty three of his decision it would have been relatively simple or mr bridges to have caused the box to be completed either by mr hatch or by himself and mr bridges testified he chose not to do so as judge watch and found it was a it was a self they presented showed no burden or chill on their rights or the rights of their circulators based on this record it will be one woman we one sided oh there is been no meaningful burden on the plane as political speech you're talking about you know week challengers first amendment speaker circulators candidate for you don't have time to make have applied challenges and that's all problem here your honor we just are not happy now you're is it relevant to the actual challenge if it is to be applied as applied challenge correct yes your honor so you're arguing that the judge watt and some why in this thing the evidence that was presented and at least two of the judges there found that it was official violation of the first amendment and importantly there your honor there was absolutely no proof introduced in that case that circulator really burdened there was no proof your of burdening or chill you know what evidence exists to support that but that's what we're having trouble with we we have reacted to it but what more is there to show law burdens a fundamental right then the presumption going to the other way and the burden is on the state to justify the irishman and would still argue that the point whether this is a bird we are just another example in just one more point if i know i'm running along here i'm sorry your honor the secretary argued that damn schroeder testified that the entire statement had been enforced in protest terence and he did not testif  bridges and his conversation with oscar hatchet he a selective lee picked some quotes out of the transcript there are other protests which prove the opposite for example bridges testified that he had no conversation with hatchet this is not the record sixty three one page twelve ninety three bridges testified that he did not tell hatchett what to do this is on the same page twenty three hatchet testified you guys are my employer quote unquote that it is time to even will be keeping that in mind as lee attempt to resolve it just given so you want the attorneys to stay on the line and we'll put them in a separate sub conference own earlier while you all are talking when you need to get brandon back so he can either get me back to you and you can let me know whether we need the attorneys or not you'll need to press stars zero so when he puts you in a separate sub conference for you to get him back so he's not listening in to your conversation hit star zero on your phone in come back into your conference ok i right brain and if you could separate us i'll get in a separate sub conference and just let the judges know when they're alone ok thank you