final case on the calendar evan davis versus new york state board of elections at th that he is suffering current count crete injury that affords him standing to prosecute his claims in this case now first the candidate laws require him to alter his pro convention added in order to account for the provisions of the convention was that is challenging second the provisions of the convention of the candidate laws make it less likely that a convention will be called and third by impeding  simply say thing is they are i want to run an affiliated the current rules say that that is not proper i will challenge the rules if there is a convention why isn't that the truth and a completely appealing kind of an argument because judge caliber easy the fact is that the mere existence the mere existence of the candidate laws make it less likely that a convention will be approved because history shows that the conventions have been have been rejected in the past because voters do not have the confidence that the convention will not just be a replica of the legislature and what mr davis mr davis is pro convention advocacy is premised on the point that voters need to be that way why is that i mean you know i don't know i'm not a new yorker but i would think that in connecticut people would say gee that's a good argument well judge calibra see under your scenario what happens if the voters approve the convention in the courts do not strike these provisions of the law and do not change the law so that voters will be able to identify independent on affiliated candidates as such it's a catch twenty two and your client would lose anyway because if that is constitutional then on the merits that is all right so you're just asking us to drive that now  it is awfully awfully conjecture but your honored i think that argument ignores the fact that the mere existence of the candidate laws makes it less likely that a conventional beca but even if you again say that the point is that under your honour's own hypothetical mr davis is being forced to alter his pro convention advocacy by making the statement that iran or just postulate at mean that any rules with respect to a convention or anything like that that somebody does not like can get a challenge at the beginning because what you're saying is that the fact that this makes it difficult for me in this sense that you've given would mean it would ever rule if a rule is that  convention must be held in albany rever been in new york city and i think that people don't vote because they don't like the idea of it being in albany i can challenge that at the moment that  i mean what kinds of rules do you say can be challenged and what kinds you say no unconstitutional rules your honor and the difference here is that these rules are unconstitutional they impose speech and association on candidates by forcing them to affiliate with a nonexistent political body and my goodness in a scenario where if the candidate does a designate a political body with a name and an you know that kind of turns it around doesn't it but your honor this is no different than any other circumstance in which someone challenges ake a provision on the basis of constitution that my ox is being poor and here mr davis ox is being gored in at least two current immediate respects number one as your honor has conceded he needs to alter his advocacy in a way that he would not have to advocate in the absence of these provisions and number two there are pleaded allegations that demonstrate that a convention is less likely to be called under these circumstances for example in the case of my versus grant where sufficient number of signatures because the supreme court said in my are against grant no these this prohibit bishan on their being able to pay petition solicitors makes it less likely that they will succeed so of course as a matter of first amendment law they're entitle to challenge that now they don't have to wait until they felt same principle applies here mr davis should not be required to wait until the convention vote fails when he has a well plead allegation that there is an unconstitutional provision that makes of war likely that the convention will fail and those provisions if he's right should not be there at all if the statute were to provide that only men could serve as convention delegates i have no doubt that the court would say that they're standing now because that makes it less likely that people who vote for a convention or if there were racial or ethnic criteria here the criteria are similarly invidious the criteria say that you can be a convention delegate only if you associate yourself not only that but you falsely associate you mr davis is invoking his first amendment rights and this court has ruled that in the area of political advocacy first amendment rights are at their zenith and in the dorothy case this court has ruled that when first amendment rights are it or at issue standing and ripeness considerations are relaxed and mr davis has made a willow pleaded allegation again and judge total ruled that mr davis has to show by a preponderance of the evidence he has to wild pleated allegations and mr davis has made well pleaded allegations that these provisions impose association impose speech on him and others similarly situated that he does not want to have and with the first amendment at stake your honor that is where the line can be drawn thank you may please the court thought to me for the state board of elections plaintiff lacks standing because the candidate laws don't apply to him until after the twenty seven thousand general election at the very earliest and because the candidate laws do not currently prevent him from saying anything that he wants to say the district court correctly dismissed the action and its judgment should be affirmed plaintiff alleges essentially two injuries here two injuries that were identified by the district court the first is an injury that would arise if the candidate laws are meant to apply to him by requiring him to circulate nominating petitions and appearing on the ballot next to the name of the nominating body responsible for his nomination clearly that injury isn't ripe until after the twenty seven thousand election because mr davis may never even appear on the ballot he may never have to circulate nominating petitions so whatever injury he claims will arise from those circumstances might never come to pass to get around that clear defect he's generated speech argument now he doesn't actually claim that the candidate laws require him to say anything or prevent him from saying anything in his convention advocacy of candidate laws don't regulate his speech in any respect in respect to candidate his convention advocacy instead he claims that voters will miss understand the fact that he has a name next to the name of a nominating body next to his name on the ballot and they will confuse that for a political association a partisan political association those same voters will remember back to pre convention days when mr davis talk told them that he was independent and nonpartizan and that they will think less of him and it is to avoid that reputational harm that he claims he cannot call himself independent and nonpartizan now that circumstance that reputational harm which he seeks to avoid is a figment of his imagination there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that  allegations of the complaint certainly a plaintive does bear responsibility for proving standing and the supreme court has made clear that where the basis for your standing  allegations of self imposed speech was direction that you have to demonstrate the thing that you're responding to is actually a thing that exists in reality here he has to show that the reputational harm that he is going to try to avoid by changing his course the guard less of what standard applies here there is no basis for standing because any injuries that would happen when he is meant to comply with a lot through that he runs saying that he is an  affiliation because it is unconstitutional voters decide to call an election in twenty seven or a convention twenty seventeen plaintiff could challenge the same laws that he challenges here thereafter we've cited cases and this court is certainly well aware of the speed with which the courts in this district can handle but let me leave and get a preliminary injunction you can get before the thing is decided to get the affiliation removed if exactly and for these reasons his claim is best brought if at all after the twenty seven thousand election unless the panel have any further questions we think the district court's judgment should be  need please court nominee west for the city board my arguments are very much the same as the state and so i won't belabor the point nothing in the candidate lines prevents mr davis from campaigning truthfully as an independent candidate indeed on its face the statute allows for independent candidates in the process that he's challenging is named the procedure for independent candidates to stand for election there's simply nothing in the laws that prevents him from doing anything that he wants to do or makes him do anything that he does not want to do and his and his claim of reputational harm is completely speculative and based in nothing other than his subjective belief that voters upon seeing an independent nominating body name next to his name on the ballot well believe that he falsely represented himself as an independent candidate there's simply no basis for that in the record or in common hold a convention or not the primary reason the primary concrete current injury that mr davis is suffering is injury that is occurring today and that is as concrete and current injury as can be whether the convention is approved or not and mr tyranny started by saying the candidate laws do not apply to mr davis until the convention is approved that is fundamentally not true mr davis is engaging in pro convention advocacy now and whether mr davis himself can call himself an independent if a convention is approved or not is irrelevant to that issue mr davis is pro convention advocacy is premised on the notion that voters will be able to identify and elect candidates to serve as convention delegates as such independent and affiliated candidates to serve as a convention delegates as such that is the focus of his pro convention advocacy and the provisions of the candidate was impeded him in making that advocacy in in in projecting that advocacy because the provisions of the candidate laws say to the voters who will decide on a convention in november twenty seven thousand that every candidate you're going to see on the ballot is a candidate who is going to be associated with a political body and if mr davis cannot challenge that now then mr davis is proca invention advocacy now is being impeded the state and city in a effect or being able to rely on a law that this court may conclude is unconstitutional in order to prevent the realization of a situation in which that unconstitutionality would have a second pernicious buy if a convention is approved it's a classic catch twenty two if one accepts as one must because one must accept the well pleaded allegations is true that the inability of voters to have assurance that they will be able to elect independent candidates but that contributed to the rejection of a convention the last time it occurred then one must recognize that in order for a convention vote to succeed voters need the assurance that if it if they vote in favor of a convention they will be able to elect truly an affiliated independent candidates as such and the candidate laws on the books now prevent voters from having that assurance so we're in a vicious cycle where voters are being deprived of the opportunity to fairly decide whether they want to approve a constitutional convention or not because they don't have the assurance that the convention vote the convention delegates vote will be run in an appropriate way and if this court continues to prevent mr davis from prosecuting his claims until the convention vote takes place then we may be in a situation where these laws can never be reviewed