it please the court and attorney robert barnes representing robert brain this a case concerning petition circulators right to circulate petitions in the state of alaska the district court's decision was so broad that no fish and circulator whatever has standing in the state of alaska to challenge that law the district court conclusion was on page ten we conclude that withholding review would not harm mr raymond because the consequences of noncompliance with the residency requirement residents speech in the state of alaska which is paralyzed by the cause for which they engage in that speech not being as being able to access the balance is a sufficient civil injury to give right to remedy in federal court in fact no court has ever suggested that a petition circulators rights can be contingent or dependent upon the cause or campaign they're part of they have their own independent rights to circulate petitions and advance the causes that they didn't really recently petition circulators were the only plan was to circulate petitions for future campaigns that was their only intent one had a particular campaign in mind a state senate campaign in the future but no known candidate no known cause the other one just said in general wanted to be able to circulate petitions on behalf the libertarian party in the state of california no particular it didn't have to be in the middle of an election the effect of the judge's ruling and what the state urges the courts without is that it should be in the middle of an election the problem with that is that it was under pressure on district courts to interfere in the middle of an election it makes it difficult for the causes and candidates because a decision might not be issued in time to have effective remedy for that election if you agree that there has to be some concrete something concrete local campaigns they didn't even know which it was here what mr nader let's start with mr raman the next was that he had a long history of political activity that circulated petitions before he intended to come to alaska to circulate petitions on behalf of referendum initiative in the upcoming the government can see this on page seventeen of their break which was self censorship there's no dispute that this constitutes self censorship and a well founded fear that the state would enforce that second component and go in the ninth circuit found a well founded fear just based on a web site publication here we had a specific letter to me saying they're going to force against any not a resolution starts i don't know says it says there must be more than hypothetical intent to violate the law lopez the case you don't yes your honor but this is a first amendment case in first to many cases have taken a different act on the stand and for two very good credential reasons one is to protect first minute speech but the second is just as important to not force these disputes to happen in the middle of an election for example with no in names that have that count but there has to be an actual controversy absolutely and are are i think pretty clear case about a concrete plan so what's the best you've got to show that your client had a concrete plan oh yes sure he was going to say he's been involved let the political office before he was going to make his name available to circulate petitions in alaska in the upcoming election campaign sees that he ever identify a petition or a cause or anything particular he wanted to weigh in on  it hadn't reached that state this was just a motion to dismiss what the specific about which election the upcoming election which trends that has to go back it was the upcoming election season for reference initiatives which i guess i'd have to concrete plan yes sure but here's the concrete now is i don't know of any concrete plan beyond i think i'm going to make my name available i'm going to circulate petitions unless you're going to say it requires a specific campaign and that before has never been required and then to require specific campaign what happens is you have to file the suit while that campaign is ongoing and it's in the middle of an election campaign so that's in the boat in case all they said was we're going to one of the circulators didn't have even any specific campaigns that said we're going to circulate election the other one so there was a real strong history and track record of a very specific event a very specific intention that seems entirely consistent with this this notion of a concrete plan and your client statement seems to me to be quite quali different the the only thing that he could have done more was simply wait until a particular cause he aligned with and he was going to be part of it but then by that point you're right in the middle of an election campaign and in the bone decision the assisted it at the district court level and he didn't have any specific plans and the libertarian party just wanted to bring in anybody they cooked and those were all people who had no in california had no prior prohibition the secretary of state had written a specific letter saying yes we want to force this jurisdictional failure here so whether mr raymond files a cent mr raymond would need to file another complaint no matter what in this case that would be our position essentially even if you were to file a new complaint it would have to contain some factual predicate which is completely absent from the initial complaint or if a more before more specific final judgment to be entered that would trigger a mystery in the people right then it got point a new a complaint again would have had to be filed that that the factual predicate here is exceedingly different from the case law on first amendment standing exceedingly different from all of the article three jurisprudence that this court has issued specifically mr raymond has had no contact at all with the state of alaska the only contact he has had is a letter from his lawyer on behalf of a totally different individual saying that he intends to circulate about petitions at some unknown point in time a accept his allegations is true and he alleges that he said contact with alaska on several occasions well he doesn't do so with any specificity your honor vets different but you just said he just hasn't had any contact and he alleges i mean we're clearly searching for a concrete plan here i am speaking for myself so i don't want to lose that train of thought but i think you just said he doesn't have any contact with any history with alaska and he alleges that he does well he has no alleged intent to come here  specific time and a careful reading of the complaint i think is expert that sort of record of fifty seven to sixty two i think he's very careful to say he's been active on behalf of political causes alaskan political causes before in the future and to be so in the future he doesn't actually say he's never been here he doesn't actually say he will ever come here he says generally that he intends to be active on behalf of alaska political causes in the past has done so in the past and tends to do so in the future it's not at all clear from the record that he's ever set foot here or ever plans to in that in that vein he doesn't allege that he's ever circulated about tradition here or faces any credible threat of prosecution or civil penalty and these then why wouldn't he face a credible threat he's got a letter from jail for a new me i think we're going to force well i guess your honor that that piece of it is i think it's fair to say in the record reflects that his petition would be discounted on the basis of his non residency but enforcement as it's played out in all the cases is a little bit more than that and i don't know if that's because this factual pattern has never reached the case law or what but  of all the cases talk about civil penalties and criminal penalties and not simply what judge said work identified as a more just futility futile experience travel expenditures that kind of thing that really doesn't absolutely no factual predicate it all the record is devoid of any detail and the first amendment does not salvage this case because a plaintive can't salvage a complainant simply can't  he did here what exactly that is i'm not sure but at a minimum i think he would have had to identify a ballot petition canted it because anything anything specific and there is not a single case i don't believe that's been cited in the us that la that information there's not a single case i don't believe that's been cited that has a situation like this where there is just this sort of completely incoherent plan with no cause attached to it no candidate no measure and he wants the court to strike down six provisions of alaska law with no evidence of him ever having come into contact with those laws in any way so it's your position there's not an actual conflict absolutely your honor and that's where the court's jurisprudence on rightness  here judge said which said in his order that mr raymond is not a plaintiff with standing at this time and i just look to speak to what mr lawrence said about how the only the only way to resolve cases like this quickly is if there is a in an election contest or if there's something sort of untimely or expedient about trying to resolve a standing issue in the middle of an election that's not the state's position that the only way to get these things resolved is in the middle of an election think for example in the invented complaint in the record mr burns alleged that history in middle age that this tax would be no different or maybe it was in the briefing the facts would be no different if mr raymond intended to come up here and circulate petition on twelve b they were still they forever a ballot measure well with all due respect we argue the facts would be very different in that situation we would have an actual person with a plan to come here a time plain a measure he wanted to circulate something more than just we think this law is unconstitutional and we think it would be expedient and convenient if the court would just say that there needs to be something more than that even under the more lenient first amendment rubric and  probably spoke to the lopez case and i think the lopez case is very illustrative of the problem here in lopez there was a student that had been disciplined by his college under a different part of the policy and the court found this court found that mr lopez lacked standing because he was trying to challenge a different portion of the policy under which he was not being disciplined and there the student had this sort of had a real ongoing contact and controversy with the college and the professor he had you know he was engaged in disciplinary proceedings with the college and he was actually involved in the case in some way and there was an actual factual predicate and still the first amendment claim made under that different part of the policy that he was not challenge that he was not made subject to that challenge was rejected because he had not had a concrete plan to violate that part of the policy and so our position is that although the first amendment creates only new standard it does not create an avenue to completely circumvent article three because and i think in whether it was the get me case or the thomas case i can't recall which but the do or the self censorship board standing does not open for every plaintiff and mr raman is a plaintiff on whom if that door opens it's it really is difficult to imagine where the door ever would close s the future becomes a complaint if that actually has standing whether dot com is in the form of whether this court finds a lack of jurisdiction because there was no formal judgment entered and mr raman is invited to file a new complaint or whether this court finds on the merits of the